PR guns are too hard to hit anything with

[Celestial1]

How is it more exploitative than using a stop-watch in PR or turning all of your settings down to low? Are you implying that if such a system was in place that you and everyone else would put a dot in the center of your screen?

1) Stop-watch does not modify anything to allow you to shoot more accurately before settle time is finished. It does much of jack-all.
2) Settings down to low is an irreversible problem of the engine, but at the same time this only significantly affects shadowed areas. There aren't many places in PR where this makes a difference; you'd need to have something like a shed attached to a house, or similar, where they'd be shaded regularly, and therefore very hard to see, whereas low graphics would remove the shade entirely making him stand out just as if he were anywhere else. PR doesn't have a lot of problems with this.
3) Exploiting the system is something to consider, just like anything else; the majority of that quote is dealing with how it has problems fitting into PR, and exploitations of a system is always a factor to consider.

I fail to see how such an animation would not work in PR. Take a look at this video:
[video]
The whole point of my suggestion is that settle time for deviation is extremely low, making CQC easier. IMO, CQC in PR is broken and filled with WTF moments of disbelief and frustration. The portrayed weapon sway is also fairly minor, making longer range combat very possible, but not a laser beam war.

As I said, the animation either has to be consistent, or it can be gradual.
Consistent:
Sights only sway within a predefined circle. Consider this as deviation being constant, always. If the circle is too big, long range becomes difficult. If the circle is small, long range becomes easy. Finding a good balance is a bit difficult, but the thing is this means that no matter what the player does, they will ALWAYS be that accurate. They could prone dive, and spin 360, and headshot you.

Gradual:
Fits nice and cozy into PR's system. It would work exactly like deviation currently does, translated into a pure visual form. Problem is, though, that it will run this "settle animation" every single time you scope in, it won't adjust for any of the other parts of deviation like movement while scoped. So, you get a 5 second sway animation even if you've been "perfectly accurate" within the ideals of PR, and you don't have any added sway if you were to, say, walk around scoped, or bunnyhop, or whatever.

I simply find your assertations hard to believe as my experiences are contrary. Of course, if my opinions are contrary to yours or celestial's, they must be wrong because I'm just a noob? I'm rather obviously frustrated with the system, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here...

No one called you a noob, no one's implying you're a noob. Just like you find our assertions to be hard to believe, due to experience to the contrary, we find yours hard to believe for the exact same reason.

However, your statement that the "minimal change in deviation" effect is not present is genuinely false. The way you stated it, it seemed to imply that you were saying Jaymz's work didn't do anything (I know you don't intend this, but your wording gave off an air of disrespect).

On the topic of settle times themselves I still find 5 seconds to be un-necessarily long. Games like ArmA and DH/RO have much less weapon sway and are more accurate. PR is trying to compensate for something that the bf2 engine just can't handle. A cone of random fire is a horrible way to represent the effects of wind and weapon sway on a bullets travel. It is important to recognize the limitations of the game engine, that PR is still a game, and that combat in PR will never actually be realistic.

Are you considering the fact, though, that you only need to wait the full 5 seconds to be accurate to 300m?
If you're fighting under 300m, it takes gradually less time to be accurate; as an example, at 50m, it may only take a second.
'Accurate' here simply means that your shot will land close enough to piss him off. Rinse and repeat the firing cycle until your enemy is dead.

The DEVs have been compensating for things the BF2 engine can't handle for a long time now. What's new?

I'd rather have this system than many others, and I think it's a much better approach than many others, though I'm not saying it's perfect. I still think it has some kinks to work out (including, but not limited to, the duration of the settle time).

[Duke]

Are you considering the fact, though, that you only need to wait the full 5 seconds to be accurate to 300m?
If you're fighting under 300m, it takes gradually less time to be accurate; as an example, at 50m, it may only take a second.

This.

For most engagements in PR, i almost never wait the full time of 5-6s as its just unnecessary for anything under 300m. Just think of it like an invisible version of the HAT reticule. It honestly sounds to me like many of the dissenting posts have barely played this version, as many of the 'problems' that you're citing ('muskets', not killing easy targets, stand-offs etc) simply dont exist anymore unless you're doing something wrong.

I imagine many of you complaining here have little experience handling rifles, less of shooting them at ranges of 300m or more, and even less of doing this under fire after running for miles carrying tonnes of gear. Under these conditions i seriously doubt you'd be popping off highly accurate shots out to 300m in any less than 5-6s, considering that 300m is quite a long way (targets at the back).

I cannot claim military experience, but i can claim shooting experience. Frankly, a 5-6 wait to be laser accurate to 300m (and you must remember it is pretty much laser accurate) is not a particularly long time (not to mention the simply enormous 1.5s wait between those laser shots ). Sure, someone here will be an experienced shooter and say they can do it in less than that time period, but exhausted, whilst carrying a heavy weight in the middle of a firefight? Hmm.

We have military advisors for a reason fellas.

[bad_nade]

There is another animation variable which can be used to completely throw people off so they don't know where the center of their screen is, it's called the camerabone and makes the camera itself move relative to the gameworld, and not just the sight picture relative to the camera. I tried to do a PoC of it two years ago but ****ing suck at animating, too hard to produce anything workable at all. More recently recoil animations were updated to include some violent movement of the camerabone, and I fail to see how the same thing couldn't be applied to some subtle sway to give a tool to reduce deviation with while retaining mechanisms to reduce player accuracy.

This is something I'd like to see, at least in a form of a demo video if not else.

I'm also strong supporter of the deviation system. I'm not a professional soldier, but I've got my share of range time with AK-47 type of gun and I know how hard it's to hit even a stationary target after running couple of kilometers in the rain, clock ticking and officers shouting commands. Deviation represents so many different aspects of the environment and human physics & mind that removing it would make game play way too arcade'ish.

[Rudd]

If guns were more accurate you might see some actual tactics. Right now I can sprint across a street 100m in front of a full squad and not get hit once.

not if they are covering the street you wont...you might get accross but you are gonna be bleeding. If you got accross without getting it, you caught them napping.

[Mongolian_dude]

In essence deviation is a gamey system the DEVs have introduced because they can't think of anything better to enforce the style of gameplay they want (low skill threshold, long and "epic" firefights, dubious interpretation of "teamwork").

Basically the DEVs are on the record as saying they don't want the guy with better reflexes to win because of it, they want firefights to go for a long time with lots of cool suppression effects and stuff because it's more cinematic and "epic", and finally from my own interpretation of their design choices, they want the only reliable way to hit something past 200m to be to use a squad weapon to do it, or get a squad to do it (massed muskets lol).

It's been a path fraught with terrible decisions. This is the first version that hasn't had an absolutely gamebreaking trend arise from deviation. 0.7, .75, 0.8 and 0.85 all had completely unrealistic and laughable in game tactics that arose from the DEV Muskets; these tactics were also lame and ruined the game.

tl;dr deviation sucks and will always suck



Edit:


There is another animation variable which can be used to completely throw people off so they don't know where the center of their screen is, it's called the camerabone and makes the camera itself move relative to the gameworld, and not just the sight picture relative to the camera. I tried to do a PoC of it two years ago but ****ing suck at animating, too hard to produce anything workable at all. More recently recoil animations were updated to include some violent movement of the camerabone, and I fail to see how the same thing couldn't be applied to some subtle sway to give a tool to reduce deviation with while retaining mechanisms to reduce player accuracy.

Also lower settle time and smaller max deviation would both help CQB, as would a new engine with hitreg that doesn't blow chunks.

Unfortunately, it seems you have very poor informants on the matter, as is clearly evident in your post. Whoever told you that the DEVs implementation of the Deviation system has been solely in the pursuit of cinematic and "epic" visuals should talk to frank.


Yes, it would appear the DEVs have decided to take some emphasis away from the individual, reflex-based skill that was paramount in vBF2 and spread it to other areas. Im not sure if you have noticed, but this game portrays various military forces, where individuality isn't really the top priority.
The "skill' involved is no longer simply in the wrist, but now in the mind. The values now mean that players benefit greatly by sticking in communicating and organised units with support; whereas lone soldiers face the penalty of lacking all of the above. You know, allot like real life. Superior organisation, tactics and strategy will yield far greater results than the better shooters. A good strat would account for the fact that the enemy are superior shooters.



Im no military advisor, but I am (and im sure some people will agree) under the impression that 'fire fights' dont last as long as a can of premium cola. In vBF2, firefights rarely existed in that there was rarely enough collusion between players to conclude when any particular engagement began, peaked, lulled and ended.
However, in real life, people seem to hold their lives and causes in higher regard than in the average online shooter. With that said, moving around and staying alive/effective is rather difficult to achieve when people are actively trying to kill you; thus making it in the very best of your interests to act calculatedly, carefully and slowly.


Strategy is no longer a means to shoot, but shooting a means to fulfil a strategy. I think it best in your own interest to take into account that suppression is a real factor whenever the will-to-live and firearms coincide. Players wont act realistically because they elude the fear of death by, well, playing video games. So, to have conflict better represented suppression was added.
Dont have the illusion that the mod is in pursuit of total realism though. There are some things in war that are A) not possible to implement and B) not good for gameplay, so compromises are made.


Also suggesting that Project Reality should move to a new engine is absurd. Simply because this is actually already happening, with Project Reality 2 currently in development.



...Mongol...

[Silly_Savage]

I personally wouldn't mind deviation values similar to those dating back to v0.75, but am perfectly content with what we have now. Shooting in PR is almost like an art form; practice makes perfect, and, coupled with the right tactics, should provide desirable results.

[a0jer]

Duke;1372696']...snip...

300m is not the problem, 0-100m is when deviation and recoil deviation get unpredictable/bizarre/frustrating.

As others have already said: it could be fixed by less max deviation.

[Truism]

Mongolian_dude;1372715']Unfortunately, it seems you have very poor informants on the matter, as is clearly evident in your post. Whoever told you that the DEVs implementation of the Deviation system has been solely in the pursuit of cinematic and "epic" visuals should talk to frank.

These were the comment made following the 0.8 release when deviation reached dizzying heights. Multiple members of the DEV community posted saying how they were pleased to have achieved longer, more cinematic and more "epic" firefights. If I'm not mistaken within a few weeks these counterproductive, luck based enagements where enemies would sit, pacing shots at the other's center of mass in turns, hoping for a lucky bullet to hit were replaced by AT Sniping.

While deviation has achieved other things, the most basic of these has been frustration in a large part of the user base because it's not a good system. It's unintuitive, provides no feedback, accentuates massive flaws in the game engine and is quite prone to influence from lag.

Yes, it would appear the DEVs have decided to take some emphasis away from the individual, reflex-based skill that was paramount in vBF2 and spread it to other areas. Im not sure if you have noticed, but this game portrays various military forces, where individuality isn't really the top priority.

To look at this another way, it would appear the DEVs renegged on one of the most basic initial intentions of PRMM which was to get rid of the excessive and unrealistic inaccuracy in vBF2, to make long range marksmanship viable again and to make weapons handle more like they do when wielded by trained professionals.

The "skill' involved is no longer simply in the wrist, but now in the mind. The values now mean that players benefit greatly by sticking in communicating and organised units with support; whereas lone soldiers face the penalty of lacking all of the above. You know, allot like real life. Superior organisation, tactics and strategy will yield far greater results than the better shooters. A good strat would account for the fact that the enemy are superior shooters.

I'm also not sure if you're aware, but the most basic consideration in the formation of tactics is capabilities provided by friendly forces, all of which are derived from the capabilities of the smallest bricks; fireteams and ultimately individuals. When you degrade the capabilities of individuals below their real life counterparts, you are making tactics less realistic too, and that's something you ignore. Essentially, by making individuals less capable you don't make tactics more important, you make a very specific set of tactics more important, by making the capabilities different to real life capabilities you are ensuring those tactics you encourage are not realistic ones.

Case in point, arcs of fire and fire control. Generally you assume a rifleman can cover keyholes and open ground in his arcs and effectively destroy enemies that enter it without suppressing him first. In PR this is not the case, so all round defences don't work because you need so much more redundancy in your arcs than you need in real life. PR is rife with examples like this. In modern combat, the majority of infantry kills happen between 30 and 80 meters, in PR the vast majority happen below 25 because that's where the inaccuracy starts not to matter because you can just go full auto and trash them with lead. Ironically this is where the deviation system is probably the most unrealistic; those who attempt to use reasonable tactics at this range invariably fail because the rules just don't support sensible play.

Im no military advisor, but I am (and im sure some people will agree) under the impression that 'fire fights' dont last as long as a can of premium cola. In vBF2, firefights rarely existed in that there was rarely enough collusion between players to conclude when any particular engagement began, peaked, lulled and ended.
However, in real life, people seem to hold their lives and causes in higher regard than in the average online shooter. With that said, moving around and staying alive/effective is rather difficult to achieve when people are actively trying to kill you; thus making it in the very best of your interests to act calculatedly, carefully and slowly.

This is reasonable in theory; punish moving and people will move less, think more and on the whole play a more considered game. In practice you are not punishing moving, you are punishing firing and moving. Teams assume they will be able to move out of contact over vastly unrealistic distances in PR because force densities are so low. In practice reducing the accuracy of mobile strategies encourages a highly attrition based metagame reliant on very close range encounters achieved through the multitude of arcs that aren't properly covered and avenues of approach that aren't covered.

The real problem here is that the game still doesn't make people value their lives enough, and compensating by making bolder realistic tactics weaker doesn't properly compensate for it. That's outside the scope of this argument though.

Strategy is no longer a means to shoot, but shooting a means to fulfil a strategy. I think it best in your own interest to take into account that suppression is a real factor whenever the will-to-live and firearms coincide. Players wont act realistically because they elude the fear of death by, well, playing video games. So, to have conflict better represented suppression was added.

I don't resent suppression at all. I think it's the best addition to the game since limiting kits. What I do resent is the idea that inaccuracy has to exist for suppression to be effective. People don't suppress when they can kill. No one suppresses in real life because they aren't accurate enough to neutralise or destroy, they do it because the enemy is well protected, they suppress in order to deny advancement and freedom of tactical movement, to cover friendly callsigns, but they don't do it because their weapon is an automatic musket the way DEVs have designed Rifles in PR.

I also resent the ongoing friction you try to create between individual action and the formation of tactics (which is what you mean as opposed to strategy). Simply put the two are sides of the same coin, both exist to fulfill each other. Having said this, at the sizes of forces PR emulates tactics are largely positioning and posturing your forces so they can do their job (kill the enemy). I might know a thing or two about this because it's well inside my area of expertise.

Dont have the illusion that the mod is in pursuit of total realism though. There are some things in war that are A) not possible to implement and B) not good for gameplay, so compromises are made.


Also suggesting that Project Reality should move to a new engine is absurd. Simply because this is actually already happening, with Project Reality 2 currently in development.



...Mongol...

When you say some realistic things aren't good for gameplay, you give away the reason this argument is happening. What the DEVs perceive as good gameplay is very different from what I perceive as good gameplay, or indeed what DICE did when they made BF2. The fact is that PR is being shaped away from realism in any identifiable form and towards this fuzzy "teamwork" based ideal where people all stick together in unrealistic, but satisfying ways, achieving unrealistic missions with unrealistic assets and using lots of voice comms.

The fact is that the bar has been set way too low. PR is in many ways a much less gritty and harsh environment than it used to be. When you look at the comments made about PR in the newsticker above you see what this mod used to pride itself on and what its biggest drawcard was before the game got pretty and started attracting those disenchanted with vBF2 en masse.


And I know PR2 is in development. Even if I hadn't lurked on these forums for an obscenely long time before creating an account, the account still massively predates PR2's announcement.

[Donatello]

Just think of it like an invisible version of the HAT reticule.

Plz add this reticle or something similiar to game and half part of displeased players will be happy.
IRL we all know when we are ready to make laser shot or just spray-and-pray.
You can use that "weapon sway" from FH2 as indicator of deviation value. It slows down while deviation is decreasing.
Pretty elegant solution.

[Mongolian_dude]

These were the comment made following the 0.8 release...

...the account still massively predates PR2's announcement.

Surprisingly, thats one of the most inspiring replies I've had in a while.
You do pose some good arguments, especially in regards to attrition-based gameplay, which becomes more visible as players learn the maps' vantage points. I can't say I agree totally, still.

However, I stick to the theory of 'compromise'. There is no remedy for the disparity between virtual gaming and the real world. For example, relatively unrealistic objectives may be a result of not being able to create large enough combat environments, let alone a realistic human populous.
Of course there is still some way to go, but I feel that the DEVs have done very well with BF2 and PR.


...mongol...

[Truism]

Mongolian_dude;1372989']Surprisingly, thats one of the most inspiring replies I've had in a while.
You do pose some good arguments, especially in regards to attrition-based gameplay, which becomes more visible as players learn the maps' vantage points. I can't say I agree totally, still.

However, I stick to the theory of 'compromise'. There is no remedy for the disparity between virtual gaming and the real world. For example, relatively unrealistic objectives may be a result of not being able to create large enough combat environments, let alone a realistic human populous.
Of course there is still some way to go, but I feel that the DEVs have done very well with BF2 and PR.


...mongol...

No one questions that. If they do they're being ungrateful and insensitive. Loyalty and admiration should never come before honesty and constructive criticism though.

[PuffNStuff]

I still stand behind my statement earlier that you should rely on tactics and getting a superior firing position before relying solely on your weapon.

PRO TIP!: See an enemy? Try to predict their movement, and get in a position where they would be all dead before they could react. Forcing the enemy to complain about deviation because they couldn't settle it enough to return fire accuratly. That is the tactic. Surprise them, destroy them.

Can't deal with it? vBF2 is the game for you!

[Hfett]

Imo what would make the game much better even with the deviation would be: 1 hit = wounded

I remember playing the first versions of PR where 1 or 2 hits would take down any soldier.
Now sometimes we need to even score 3 shots.

1 hit = instant wounded would be awesome IMO even with the deviation.

Cause sometimes you fire and hit a nilla noob once, he bunny twice and score a luck hit (due deviation being random for him because of the jumps).

1 hit on the upper part of the body = wounded
2 hits if it were on the leg/arms = wounded
1 hit on the leg/arms = critical bleed.

That would fix the issues of you fire and hit a guy on open ground near cover and while waiting for the 1.5 seconds he bunny for cover.

[gazzthompson]

Can't deal with it? vBF2 is the game for you!

So far people have been giving perfectly good and reasonable constructive criticism. If you cant do the same, id suggest you dont have the maturity for this game and vbf2 seems like the game for you.

I defiantly think there should be a public beta of some of the current alternatives. The two i can think of right now are Increased power across the board but with current deviation, and all tracers with small deviation but ballistics.

[doop-de-doo]

The vBF2 engine is the cause of most our woes. PR2 will come and take us into the sky to be wi...

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the standard FPS cross-hair system. I know that if I point a gun at something and pull the trigger, the bullet is going to go THERE. The only things that should get in the way (in pc games) is bullet drop and the distance where bullet deviation takes over. There is no deviation at point blank. If there is recoil, it should move the gun and sights, not widen some cross-hair floating in the air. Trying to simulate air movement, humidity, and what have you by using random trajectories straight from the barrel is ridiculous and not real at all. The BF2 engine does pretty much that. PR does a good job of simulating recoil and such but is limited by the engine itself.

The settle times we use are weird. I take long enough to get the gun pointed at the guy hiding up there in his hidey-hole and then need to wait for the settle time to let me see if I'll actually hit him. If I miss, I'm not even sure if the correction I use won't get thrown off by random deviation. I've sat and watched a guy for a full 8 secs or more to have him see me and kill me with two shots where my perfectly aimed shot misses. I wish we could actually point, shoot, and correct on the fly. Moving a mouse around the pad is already settle time enough, and all that should be left is correcting deviation.

[Celestial1]

I think that there are many subtle changes that need to be made, not one large one.

Subjectively, my approach would involve testing out a few, specific properties of the current system.
1) The way that deviation is calculated over time. If you consider "accurate" to be the ability to land a shot aimed for the center mass on a standing target, and structure the settle times so that every variable amount of time, you become accurate to a variable amount of distance (eg. Every 1 second = accurate to 50m further). Utilizing this, you can create a very specific set of values that can be altered much more easily based on this sort of formulae and are much easier to understand for the player.
2) Maximum deviation/Least accurate value. This value should be set under the idea that this is what the player is relying on when fighting in any building. Making this accurate for this sort of close quarters, so that while moving, the player is accurate enough to fire on the move while his squad-mates file in behind him doing the same.
3) Maximum deviation/Most accurate value. This value should be set under the idea that the player should be at least semi-accurate (roughly, shots to center mass land within mass area*2) out to 300m, to foster an infantry force's ability to cover larger areas. This would help to encourage long range fighting, where deviation shines and tactics become more important.
4) Overall settle time. Considering that we have set the parameters up so that the performance of the gun, when used at the extremes, should behave properly, the in-between can vary greatly depending on preference. A setting like the current 5 seconds may be fine, because it allows for suppression on unsuspecting targets (if you catch them by surprise, and they sprint to cover, you have 5 seconds to set up for suppression), etc. A setting like 3 seconds may not make a significant difference overall. Prefer longer opposed to shorter; easier to cope with if it's not perfectly appropriate.
5) Recoil settle. Considering that this should become most noticeable at the longest ranges, should be based on the optimum setting for minimum deviation (1.5 seconds of recoil deviation doesn't do anything if you're at 0 seconds of settle and accurate for CQB).
6) Ballistics. I'm not sure of their impact, and I would love to see some testing done here.

Considering this, my end result is something like below:
Every 1 seconds, you become accurate to 50 meters further.
You are accurate to 50m by default, and can be accurate out to 300m max.
Max settle time is 5 seconds.

This means that the deviation system retains a lot of the ideals of superior tactics, but overall becomes more accurate and is easier for players to grasp, making infantry more lethal to other infantry, and it really coming down to who's got the upper-hand tactically, rather than whose bullet lands first.

This is what I would begin testing towards, and seeing how this changed the dynamic of the game-play through how infantry's abilities have been altered. If the results are positive/negative, I would selectively enhance/revert changes and see their impact, until I feel that I have hit a plateau.

[Everything posted is my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to state why, I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with my ideals.]

[drs79]

I was playing PR today a i relised that the guns are **** and you cant hit bad guys at all i wait 4sec between each shot and aim and the chest and no rounds hit them they go left,right,up or down. Its not that i a bad player i've play PR for 3 years and it only been this bad in 0.9 please fix the prob in 0.91 its unbearable.



Trigger

You do have the option to use either single shot and 3 shot burst on some weapons, and single shot and full auto on others. Are you sure you are not just using full auto all the time?

[karambaitos]

Imo what would make the game much better even with the deviation would be: 1 hit = wounded

I remember playing the first versions of PR where 1 or 2 hits would take down any soldier.
Now sometimes we need to even score 3 shots.

1 hit = instant wounded would be awesome IMO even with the deviation.

Cause sometimes you fire and hit a nilla noob once, he bunny twice and score a luck hit (due deviation being random for him because of the jumps).

1 hit on the upper part of the body = wounded
2 hits if it were on the leg/arms = wounded
1 hit on the leg/arms = critical bleed.

That would fix the issues of you fire and hit a guy on open ground near cover and while waiting for the 1.5 seconds he bunny for cover.

You dont realise that 1 to 2 hits do bring a person down, but a lot of the time the game doesnt register the hit due to several factors:
1. BF uses ballistics which current computers have trouble calculating and they mess up quite often.
2.You have the internet factor where everyone has different ping for example if you hit someone with 200ping and you have 20 the bullets wont register well.
3. Every one has a different PC which calculates with different speeds, accuracy so on and so on.
4. the BF2 engine is stupid and one big problem it has is that headshots tend to not register as much as bodyshots and the difference is huge, there have been so many times when I've been hit in the head by a sniper or rifle which has hit me multiple times in the head and only dust comes off.

2) Maximum deviation/Least accurate value. This value should be set under the idea that this is what the player is relying on when fighting in any building. Making this accurate for this sort of close quarters, so that while moving, the player is accurate enough to fire on the move while his squad-mates file in behind him doing the same.

The least accurate value, I think should only apply when zoomed which would simulate CQB better and not create the "OMG how did that guy just kill me!" moments that we see in generic shooters. While running it should be huge and go down slower when the person has stopped moving i.e. there should be different maximum deviations when moving in zoomed mode and when not zoomed in (this only applies to iron sights/red dot scopes), though I'm not sure if its even possible in the BF2 engine.
Adding more to celestials suggestion, There should probably be a .5 second delay when going prone as you are diving on your adonem and the weapon isn't pointing straight toward the enemy.

[ChiefRyza]

I don't know about you guys, but when 0.9 came out I never understood how people could still complain about the deviation when I can easily fire my weapon in quick succession and take down targets 50-100 meters away. The alternative (where you point your weapon and click) would add nothing - I'd rather not have a point and click shooter for PR thanks, its counter-productive and certainly not how combat would be like. The no-deviation might have worked back in the days where most of the maps were small enough you could run across them in a minute, but until we get an engine or a workaround that can actively affect gun accuracy in different ways deviation is the only way to balance combat over ranges so one trigger happy COD player can't dominate the battlefield.

When I get back on Monday I think I'm going to record a video to show how easy it is to kill with weapons in PR compared to the extraordinary encounters the critics seem to be encountering. The only problems I have with the deviation system by the way are the CQB encounters being a wee bit sluggish, but maybe if we get these backup sights, there might be quite a change in how that plays out.

[Psyrus]

When I get back on Monday I think I'm going to record a video to show how easy it is to kill with weapons in PR compared to the extraordinary encounters the critics seem to be encountering.

Can I hold you to that Ryza? Have another campaign trailer on our hands

Personally I'd love a vid of say all your encounters in 1 round. Kinda like a frag video but with less glamorization and showing the fails alongside the wins. But then again, I'm selfish