CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post your feedback on the current Project Reality release (including SinglePlayer).
RedAlertSF
Posts: 877
Joined: 2008-10-07 14:21

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by RedAlertSF »

hugekebab wrote:It would be nice to have something that visualises deviation, a little like what they have for the anti tank weapon, I think this would clear up much of the confusion and frustration.
No, but there should be a server side option for this, so anyone could start a local server and see how deviation works. But on public servers, no, never.
Nebsif
Posts: 1512
Joined: 2009-08-22 07:57

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Nebsif »

About teh vid gazz posted and stuff.. The M4 feels kinda "overpowered", it has a crazy low spread on full auto.
ANDROMEDA
Posts: 113
Joined: 2010-01-25 12:17

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by ANDROMEDA »

Pariel wrote: A) As I've said above, use cover. Also, don't get prone unless you have to. These things do make a difference. If you'd like, feel free to shoot me a PM and I will play Gaza Beach with you to show you how I win CQB engagements.

B) Optical and iron sight weapons have the same deviation.
We are talking about different things. I am talking about the general scheme of CQB in PR, when the opponents are at a distance of 2 - 10 meters, no covers and they are forced to join the battle immediately.

Gaza Beach - is a special case.
M16A1 and M4A1 in the next version probably suffer the same fate like AKSU in version 0.85, which has a supersettings and was fixed in 0.86 in side of increase the deviation options. These rifles are too unbalanced and have excessive military options.
Garack
Posts: 624
Joined: 2006-05-04 07:20

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Garack »

Thanks for all the opinions and answers.
-.-Maverick-.-
Posts: 361
Joined: 2009-06-07 17:14

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by -.-Maverick-.- »

Garack wrote:10 secs NO one hit...
WOW :shock: you know... my clan is giving out free trainings for anyone who needs them... lol
no, but joke aside I ussually just take a knee wait for two secs and plant a nice headshot.
Image
Image
archerfenris
Posts: 122
Joined: 2009-11-12 21:06

Re: Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by archerfenris »

killonsight95 wrote:i think the problem is that you don't realise that in reallife you you saw soemone with a gun and he was 10 - 50 meters away from you would panic!(at the disco) and not be able to shoot straight thats common sence unless your a cool *** who doesn't care about dying
Don't forget about moral inhibitions too. "Am I really about to kill this poor guy?" Then again this adds in an element way too complicated to try. A veteran soldier knows hesitation means death, so he wouldn't have this 'panic' or moral inhibition. He'd just fire. A guy tasting battle for the first time may fire off his first few rounds in the dirt out of excitment. It all depends. It's just not something you can replicate. I think the deviation is good and have never had the exchange you guys speak of. I only miss 1, twice, or max 3 times before hitting a target that isn't shooting at me. When exchanging fire and you get that blurred vision that's when it becomes difficult. I think deviation is fine.

-Edited for language. Please watch your language when posting on the forums-
Last edited by OkitaMakoto on 2010-02-15 19:30, edited 2 times in total.
"Pacifism is the virtue of the naive"
Skodz
Posts: 791
Joined: 2007-05-26 06:31

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Skodz »

I never have problems to hit ennemies at close or long range...

Close range, use automatic or burst firing mode...

Long range, stabilise and use single firing mode...
Seamus2010
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-07-18 07:04

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Seamus2010 »

IMO close quarter battle Aka under 50 meters shouldn't even exist in this game. They feel very arcade-ish and COD-ish. It's just about reflexes and luck. This is supposed to be a realistic game. Realistic CONVENTIONAL infantry engagements are done ideally at around 300 meters with semi auto fire. I don't mind deviation but after those 5 seconds I wanna snipe a guy from 300 meters away with my m16. Right now, people would pop put of covers and run around with no consequences, if they get shot at they'd just run back. People should be scared to move. I think this game needs to promote longer range infantry combat instead of automatic fire. This IMO will increase teamwork, make the game slower and make the hated close quarter panic spams disappear
Last edited by Seamus2010 on 2010-07-18 07:26, edited 1 time in total.
maarit
Posts: 1145
Joined: 2008-02-04 17:21

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by maarit »

moved....
Excavus
Posts: 539
Joined: 2009-04-10 19:21

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Excavus »

Seamus2010 wrote:IMO close quarter battle Aka under 50 meters shouldn't even exist in this game. They feel very arcade-ish and COD-ish. It's just about reflexes and luck. This is supposed to be a realistic game. Realistic CONVENTIONAL infantry engagements are done ideally at around 300 meters with semi auto fire. I don't mind deviation but after those 5 seconds I wanna snipe a guy from 300 meters away with my m16. Right now, people would pop put of covers and run around with no consequences, if they get shot at they'd just run back. People should be scared to move. I think this game needs to promote longer range infantry combat instead of automatic fire. This IMO will increase teamwork, make the game slower and make the hated close quarter panic spams disappear
Haha. Good luck preventing yourself from running into an enemy indoors.
obZen
Posts: 156
Joined: 2008-09-22 21:25

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by obZen »

-.-Maverick-.- wrote:WOW :shock: you know... my clan is giving out free trainings for anyone who needs them... lol
no, but joke aside I ussually just take a knee wait for two secs and plant a nice headshot.
2 sec is kinda overkill and...stupid for someone less than 50m away.


Also we should have a visual cue like the anti-tank, the deviation system in itself is unrealistic, even though it makes the overall gun mechancis more realistic.

Since we do not have weapon sway we should have those brackets like the HAT does.
BadGuy
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-08-22 06:22

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by BadGuy »

Well firefights can still be funny like shooting a guy running across the street while the other guy on the other side shoots making a crossfire return both got that guy running and he did a head to ground moment (First thing that hits the ground is the head while doing a half flip with feet as the highest point). The shots that we fired were crouch from standing, kind of like "You absolutely must hit target" option these days for long range street battles.

As the developers clearly stated in the current patch that standing to prone will not rapidly decrease the grouping but increase it then decrease in a few painful seconds. That means the little enemy guy that suddenly dives down and then hits you or *Dead* will not be that "Sneaky" anymore.
Celestial1
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007-08-07 19:14

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Celestial1 »

obZen wrote:2 sec is kinda overkill and...stupid for someone less than 50m away.
You don't need to wait 2 seconds to be accurate enough to kill someone <50m away. You just have to shoot more; Stop, take a knee, sight in, and fire away (and if he's farther than ~40m, you can afford to wait one second between shots). The more bullets you put near him, the more of a chance one will hit. Repeat until he falls.

Waiting 2 seconds makes you over-accurate, so you'll have a better chance to hit on the first shot, but if you miss you're back to the 0.5 second mark, where your deviation is nearly back to default. If you've got the jump on him, that's when you wait 2 seconds. Otherwise, start shooting immediately. If he waits the 2 seconds and you don't, he should be dead by the time he'd be firing his first shot.
L4gi
Posts: 2101
Joined: 2008-09-19 21:41

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by L4gi »

I usually just empty a full mag with either burst or full auto if someone is within 70 meters of me.
Wakain
Posts: 1159
Joined: 2009-11-23 21:58

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Wakain »

firefights never are "funny"

btw it's amazing what one can do with singleshot in quick succesion from the hip in cqb
SchildVogel
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010-07-01 16:40

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by SchildVogel »

Seems to me like the problem is the sights. When you have ironsights or aimpoint CQB is bearable. But if you have a scope with any type of zoom it takes even longer get it up to your eye and then wait for deviation. It sounds like when you aren't looking through sights the deviation is set to "hip firing"? I'd think that it'd make more sense to have a sort of... aimed shoulder firing, but not looking through the scope.
karambaitos
Posts: 3788
Joined: 2008-08-02 14:14

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by karambaitos »

SchildVogel wrote: I'd think that it'd make more sense to have a sort of... aimed shoulder firing, but not looking through the scope.
anything but this like in .85 where the LMGs had this sort of thing once you got them up to your shoulder they became unstoppable death machines in CQB
also scopes are NOT MEANT FOR CQB if you know your going to engage in CQB combat take ironsights.
There is only one unforgivable lie That is the lie that says, This is the end, you are the conqueror, you have achieved it and now all that remains is to build walls higher and shelter behind them. Now, the lie says, the world is safe.? The Great Khan.

40k is deep like that.
obZen
Posts: 156
Joined: 2008-09-22 21:25

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by obZen »

LMG's are unstoppable killing machines. The whole section practically supports them.
Trooper909
Posts: 2529
Joined: 2009-02-26 03:02

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Trooper909 »

Garack wrote:have lots of firefights with a guy 10-50 metres from me..We realize each other while running.

Then prone and shoot each other in short burst, single fire.


So you prone dived couldnt hit anything than call it unrealistic?

/thread
Cobhris
Posts: 576
Joined: 2008-06-11 07:14

Re: CQB Firefights arent realistic and funny

Post by Cobhris »

Seamus2010 wrote:IMO close quarter battle Aka under 50 meters shouldn't even exist in this game. They feel very arcade-ish and COD-ish. It's just about reflexes and luck. This is supposed to be a realistic game. Realistic CONVENTIONAL infantry engagements are done ideally at around 300 meters with semi auto fire. I don't mind deviation but after those 5 seconds I wanna snipe a guy from 300 meters away with my m16. Right now, people would pop put of covers and run around with no consequences, if they get shot at they'd just run back. People should be scared to move. I think this game needs to promote longer range infantry combat instead of automatic fire. This IMO will increase teamwork, make the game slower and make the hated close quarter panic spams disappear
Outdoor engagments in PR do take place at 200-300 meters. But when you're running into an apartment building full of enemies, there is no way to avoid CQB. And don't say "just stay outside" because the enemies in the apartment must be killed in order to take the flag. Fighting them is mandatory.
Image

The Soviets may have only gotten as far as East Germany, but they took the rest of the continent without firing a single shot.

NObama 2012!
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Feedback”