Deviation options to consider

[USA-Forever932]

Also, this will mean that if you want to put more fire down on a target, put more guns on it. If you want to put more guns on it, stick together! It also encourages people carrying the marksman kit and keeping it SAFE. It encourages people to hang back and think about their options with their kit before moving about.

EDIT: Obviously the AR kits could be tweaked as well in regards to this. I'm not quite sure how, but the DMR would be a useful answer as well as careful movements.

[lromero]

Project REALITY.


Most assault rifles are accurate up to 300m - that's a single person firing at a single target should hit every shot. Only reason they'd miss is if they aim incorrectly.

RHYS if you're not hitting at 250m there's something wrong with you, especially if you use a scope.

Not holding the rifle steady is easily compensated for if you gently allow the shaking to turn into a D movement and fire at the bottom of the curve.

You know in combat the accuracy of a soldier is drastically different than at a range.

[BloodBane611]

You know in combat the accuracy of a soldier is drastically different than at a range.

You know that? Please, tell me your sources, I'd like to know too!

Seriously, that is a common assumption with absolutely no data to back it up. There are plenty of reasons a soldier can miss a target 300m that are not directly caused by any kind of combat stress - firing on a (somewhat randomly) moving target, firing on a much smaller than man-sized target (assuming their enemy has even the slightest clue about cover), etc. Don't bring your "facts" in here unless you have some real facts to back them up

[Dev1200]

The only way they will change deviation is if they test it and it comes out better the way they beta it. Suggesting different deviation methods won't make them change your mind, since it has a HUGE impact on gameplay and tactics.

[USA-Forever932]

Well, I don't have the knowledge or resources required to properly test this change. So I suggested it to the people who do.

[lromero]

You know that? Please, tell me your sources, I'd like to know too!

Seriously, that is a common assumption with absolutely no data to back it up. There are plenty of reasons a soldier can miss a target 300m that are not directly caused by any kind of combat stress - firing on a (somewhat randomly) moving target, firing on a much smaller than man-sized target (assuming their enemy has even the slightest clue about cover), etc. Don't bring your "facts" in here unless you have some real facts to back them up

There was study done about soldiers in combat and they made a chart about their accuracy in combat compared to a range. Also by "combat" i didn't mean only combat stress.

Edit: I found this but its not what i was talking about its similar to it http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm( i found this article on another website too http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Sh ... Combat.htm)

[communistman]

This is a game, when players realize that their weapons are combat ineffective, they won't have the patience for them, and will use other weapons that CAN kill people, like TOW launchers, sniper rifles, etc.

Honestly, why even take rifles into combat if they are a liability to the squad?

The change being suggested is so minute that most players won't even notice the difference, first of all. Second of all, this would be more representative of combat in reality, in which you (generally) fix (suppress) the enemy with small arms, and destroy them with explosives. Explosives inevitably cause more casualties than firearms in virtually all wars of the last century or so, and there's a reason for that.

what's wrong with the proliferation of CAS calls, Designated Marksmen, calls for armor support and the widespread encouragement of the use of Grenadier and the like? If squads can only take so many of these into the field, then there will be a greater emphasis on keeping these kits alive and with squads to promote saftey.

I agree completely and I can't quite put my finger on why others don't. I don't want to make offensive generalizations but perhaps these are the players that would rather shoot it out head to head against the enemy rather than employ realistic tactics to win the fight. Though I still believe the change will be too slight to affect decisions to such a degree.

Most assault rifles are accurate up to 300m - that's a single person firing at a single target should hit every shot. Only reason they'd miss is if they aim incorrectly.

RHYS if you're not hitting at 250m there's something wrong with you, especially if you use a scope.

Most rifles are accurate beyond that range, mechanically speaking. There's nothing wrong with not hitting moving, appearing/reappearing, often-shape changing targets in often abnormally hot/cold temperature, wearing 60 pounds of gear while your body pumps adrenaline into your system because you're in combat and dealing with chaotic yelling, incoming fire and all sorts of other psychological dilemmas present in a combat situation... I think everyone can agree this is highly different from shooting a highlighted, stationary target on the range. I have assessed this after reading many books and watching many documentaries on the topic, as well as speaking with serviceman who have served, are serving, etc. Surely I've included enough reasons to create an abstracted 20% chance of error on a 200-250m shot.

Other than that I would like distanced firefights to last longer and be about movement and manuvering.

Yes, please! To me, that's what PR is all about--employing tactics and strategy to solve problems. It's distinctly different from almost all the other console/PC shooters, whose mission consists of, "get from this side of the hallway to that side, and kill everything in between". As a non-linear realism-based wargame, PR should have more flanking, retreating, calls for support, and longer firefights are fun too.

Any weapon that isn't very good at range is a liability because it'll force a squad to get a Marksman kit, and there won't be one for each squad, especially as you'll lose them as the game goes on. It'll encourage sitting back with a sniper rifle taking out squads because they can't respond for any ranges greater than 200m.

The way you say it certainly does make it sound like it'll fundamentally break the game, but in reality, the amount of sniper/marksmen kits available to the team isn't going to change, and neither is the way they are meant to be used/will be used. And, once again, this isn't going to make the rifle ineffective at 250m, it's only going to introduce a very slight abstracted chance of operator error, so that very long-distance gunfights aren't so lethal. As it stands, taking on a sniper with a regular rifle is a pretty stupid idea anyway so I'm not sure if this will affect how players handle snipers.

What about suggestion B? Where people with their scopes raised will increase the size of the deviation cone at a lower rate than those who are jogging with their scopes down.

I like it. How come my guy's weapon is deviating so dramatically when I'm aimed in and moving at a crawl? I don't get it. I have to add though, I think this will make gunfights inside houses end quicker, which may or may not be realistic. Perhaps the DEVs should add a feature where getting suppressed modifies your deviation? i.e. you are getting the blur effect from bullets flying nearby, and this causes a hit to your settle time/makes you deviate? This will make suppressive fire more useful and relevant.

The first downside I can think of is that the AR would be incredibly difficult to take down at range. Flanking and shooting at an AR requires both a small maximum deviation and a low settle time. If the deviation is too high, an AR with it's very low deviation will simply hose down all opponents. I have had firefights won against me in which I watched the AR set up at a distance which is disgraceful. It seems at the moment if you're a standard rifleman and an AR sets up further than 200m, you're screwed.

Right, that's sorta how it works with a machine gun. You deploy it, and it should effectively suppress the enemy in front of it. Of course, for balance issues, the machine gun's deviation could probably use a little tweaking, too. If you're a standard riflemen and you see a Machine gunner setting up 200m away (you see him first), it shouldn't be too hard to kill/wound/scare him away, 20% miss abstraction or not. Also, here's another place where it would be nice for suppression effect to affect your deviation, as well as distorting your screen. Firing on the machine gun should screw up his aim.

I really REALLY find it almost useless to maneuver on an enemy if he has 1 inch of his head out. Adding this deviation minimum would be so good for gameplay in my opinion because it would reward maneuvering and smoke tactics. ALSO, I think it would be more realistic... considering you've been jogging and sprinting non-stop for the last 5 minutes at least.

I agree on all counts


NOTE: does suppression effect already affect your deviation???

[USA-Forever932]

I like it. How come my guy's weapon is deviating so dramatically when I'm aimed in and moving at a crawl? I don't get it. I have to add though, I think this will make gunfights inside houses end quicker, which may or may not be realistic. Perhaps the DEVs should add a feature where getting suppressed modifies your deviation? i.e. you are getting the blur effect from bullets flying nearby, and this causes a hit to your settle time/makes you deviate? This will make suppressive fire more useful and relevant.

Right, that's sorta how it works with a machine gun. You deploy it, and it should effectively suppress the enemy in front of it. Of course, for balance issues, the machine gun's deviation could probably use a little tweaking, too. If you're a standard riflemen and you see a Machine gunner setting up 200m away (you see him first), it shouldn't be too hard to kill/wound/scare him away, 20% miss abstraction or not. Also, here's another place where it would be nice for suppression effect to affect your deviation, as well as distorting your screen. Firing on the machine gun should screw up his aim.


I agree on all counts
NOTE: does suppression effect already affect your deviation???

No, it doesn't. I've actually suggested this before and it was shot down because deviation can be gained from rounds landing a certain distance away. I suggested that there is a minimum distance for rounds to be placed for it and it still really didn't go through. Perhaps someone could dig-up that thread and revive it for discussion if this is such a valid topic.

[communistman]

I've actually suggested this before and it was shot down because deviation can be gained from rounds landing a certain distance away.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Deviation can be gained from rounds landing a certain distance away? Do you mean that this affect already exists but it isn't obvious enough?

[USA-Forever932]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Deviation can be gained from rounds landing a certain distance away? Do you mean that this affect already exists but it isn't obvious enough?

Sorry, what I meant that under the assumption that it was already implemented. ROunds meant to suppress someone else a certain distance away that had no effect on your current position (Elevated or otherwise) would reduce your deviation even though you weren't being shot at.

[McCree]

I've been thinking about few different deviation indicators. At the moment we just have to rely on counting (one-mississippi-two-mississippi-three etc). I don't think there should be any magical circles that close nor some stress indicators like the stamina bar. (tbh, i'd take the stamina bar away as well or maybe make it less accurate)

We do have the blurring effect already that usually kicks in when fired upon. Why won't we try to use it to indicate the deviation status?

Maybe the crosshairs could be a bit blurred that you can fire yeah but it would take few seconds to adjust your eyes on it in order to aim properly? This would let you to fire fast if needed to (good for those close combat situations) but you would have to take time to really AIM if shooting a target further away.

Guns should hit where ever they are pointing. Thats why I think we should focus for the aiming instead. Currently I think it's the other way around - guns don't hit where you are pointing at and the aiming is perfect.

Just a thought..

From another similiar thread while ago. I still strongly feel like we should focus more on the aiming point of view instead of guns firing bullets where it's pointed at.

Deviation + bf2 hitboxes = disaster

I've encountered many times the same situation where enemy troop is crossing a road (in muttrah to be precise) and me and my squad is all ready to unleash fury of accurate fire upon it. Unfortunately 4 times of 5 that troop survives its silly attempt to run across the street. All you can see is bullets flying everywhere and the lucky few that might have hit actually just "dusted" off for which we can thank the bf2 hitboxes for.

I don't think anybody nor anything human could survive that.

PR 0.5 still had the best deviation of them all - there were none and it was really enjoyable.

Nowadays (as someone already pointed out) players are forced to do stupid stuff like TOW snipe, HAT snipe or just fool around. I really don't trust my infantry weapon - except for AR.