Crouch to standing shot accuracy

[badmojo420]

It's the same in real life, if I have you zeroed in on my sights. And I lower myself behind cover while keeping my aiming stance. When I shift my body upwards out of cover, my aim has not changed.

You aren't getting it. Adding a bit of deviation wouldn't render this tactic useless. It would just require the shooter to expose himself for a second first, in which time a person would realistically be lining up their sights.

Unless you're a robot, I have a hard time believing that you can shift your body upwards and put the rifle in EXACTLY the same spot it was before, INSTANTLY. Even a small movement of the barrel tip could put your shot off by tens of meters at distance. Yet, in PR we have a system that allows you to do it with absolutely no movement, and no deviation punishment.

It's unrealistically accurate.

[Lord Jesus]

You aren't getting it. Adding a bit of deviation wouldn't render this tactic useless. It would just require the shooter to expose himself for a second first, in which time a person would realistically be lining up their sights.

Unless you're a robot, I have a hard time believing that you can shift your body upwards and put the rifle in EXACTLY the same spot it was before, INSTANTLY. Even a small movement of the barrel tip could put your shot off by tens of meters at distance. Yet, in PR we have a system that allows you to do it with absolutely no movement, and no deviation punishment.

It's unrealistically accurate.

I told you because PR has no peek system, the peek system I am referring to is what raven shield called fluid stance.

Raven Shield - Fluid Stance

In real life, when engaging targets, you don't pop your body out fast and fire a few rounds, a trained professional takes their time when going out of cover, because your correct, a slight deviation of movement would alter the impact of where the bullet lands. Why should PR reward the guy who is camping, I already know where this guy is camping. I fixated my sights on him, now I deserve to take him out. All my enemy has done is sat in the same position believing he is invulnerable to getting shot. His ignorance should not beat my multiple efforts.

[Tim270]

It's the same in real life, if I have you zeroed in on my sights. And I lower myself behind cover while keeping my aiming stance. When I shift my body upwards out of cover, my aim has not changed. Like I said, because PR has no peek system. This mirrors the same tactic used in the field. I have friends who served in combat operations. And if they have no option but to go around that corner and engage the enemy who is aware of their position, they use the same tactic. The firing stance is never the same position you use when in combat. That's a training method that only applies to the firing range. In real war, you are forced into uncomfortable positions sometimes due to battlefield conditions.

Errrr.... no. Are you seriously saying that if you scoped up on a guy 200m with a m249, crouched back completely behind cover, still looking down your optic the whole time you would then be able to pop straight back up and nail that guy with your first burst? Its not realistic at all. Imo its like trying to defend dolphin diving on the basis that you will be more accurate as you are lying on the ground.

[Lord Jesus]

Errrr.... no. Are you seriously saying that if you scoped up on a guy 200m with a m249, crouched back completely behind cover, still looking down your optic the whole time you would then be able to pop straight back up and nail that guy with your first burst? Its not realistic at all. Imo its like trying to defend dolphin diving on the basis that you will be more accurate as you are lying on the ground.

BF2 doesn't have any fluid stance. In real life I could take out that SAW, because I would raise my stance slowly but precisely to take him out. I would not stand up openly like the game is programmed, because keeping your rifle and body as close to the ground will keep you more stable when you fire your rifle.

The BF2 engine is limited, this is the reason why bipods in PR are the way they are. In real life I could use any cover as a field expedient bipod to deploy my rifle by a simple resting of my barrel on it.





Honestly because this is a video game, there are limitations on how you can conduct combat. However in real life, if you know where your enemy is, you still have a chance to take out the enemy if you conduct your own firing stance in a professional level.

[Tim270]

^ That is not a counter-argument, if anything its a argument for adding a crouch-stand deviation penalty....

[Click]

First off this picture is a bit dodgey in ways I am not going to say but second they have a stand to crouch deviation so there a difference but most people that I have played with don't use this tactic.

[Lord Jesus]

^ That is not a counter-argument, if anything its a argument for adding a crouch-stand deviation penalty....

How so? Your not very informative in making your statements. My argument is that the standing/crouching zero deviation is the only method we have on taking out campers who think they should never die due to their ignorance of tactics.

[Lord Jesus]

First off this picture is a bit dodgey in ways I am not going to say but second they have a stand to crouch deviation so there a difference but most people that I have played with don't use this tactic.

The 2nd picture is clearly a humorous one that these french soldiers were displaying.

This is a real method of deploying yourself in the same manner as using a bipod. Many operatives from Delta Force use this method. The logic is that the soldier who takes cover over the soldier who lays in the open with no cover will always lose. It doesn't matter if you go prone and fixate on a enemy. Those who use cover professional will always have that advantage of hiding from enemy fire.

[Tim270]

How so? Your not very informative in making your statements. My argument is that the standing/crouching zero deviation is the only method we have on taking out campers who think they should never die due to their ignorance of tactics.

It is inherently unrealistic and borderline exploitative imo. You're statement just makes very little sense. Leaving in what is pretty much a loophole in the deviation mechanic for the sake of 'being able to kill campers' is just silly. Should PR reverse the 1.5 changes to proning deviation because 'it takes out campers'?

[Lord Jesus]

It is inherently unrealistic and borderline exploitative imo. You're statement just makes very little sense. Leaving in what is pretty much a loophole in the deviation mechanic for the sake of 'being able to kill campers' is just silly. Should PR reverse the 1.5 changes to proning deviation because 'it takes out campers'?

There is no fluid movement to stand up slowly and take out the target. The difference between standing up slow and fast is not a big deal. Besides if you have your target in your sights and he is able to get a fix on you as well, get into cover, then out of cover and kill you. It's because you have bad aim, and you should of killed your target before your bad accuracy and repeated shots got your location compromised.

[Tim270]

I think you are talking about something completely different to the thread....

[Smiddey723]

taking out campers who think they should never die due to their ignorance of tactics.

This is a realism game, there is no such thing as camping in realism games

1) what does this have anything to with the thread
2) they are british snipers not french

My opinion on this tactic is that it is a balanced tactic to use and think its a legitimate tactic to use as you can only ever use it in limited places. i think the tactic is also balanced for both the people in the exchange of fire. for the person who is bobbing up and down, they have a hard time hitting you because they have very little time to correct their shot from the previous one and if they stay up for a little longer they get killed by the other.

if you come up against one of these "bobbers" and think they have an unfair advantage, flank them

jobz a gudun

[Lord Jesus]

This is a realism game, there is no such thing as camping in realism games



1) what does this have anything to with the thread
2) they are british snipers not french

My opinion on this tactic is that it is a balanced tactic to use and think its a legitimate tactic to use as you can only ever use it in limited places. i think the tactic is also balanced for both the people in the exchange of fire. for the person who is bobbing up and down, they have a hard time hitting you because they have very little time to correct their shot from the previous one and if they stay up for a little longer they get killed by the other.

if you come up against one of these "bobbers" and think they have an unfair advantage, flank them

jobz a gudun

Then give us a 4th stance so we can look over cover when we are below the eye level of the wall. Because in real life, all I can peek over things and kill people who lay down without cover. Because if this is reality, in reality you can look over objects and kill campers in real life. I see them first always in real life, but because this is a video game. We can't spot campers without exposing our bodies. Therefore a fast peek and duck down can allow the quick shooters to be able to get their kills. In real life. some shooters can fire perfect reflex. Just because the majority of shooters can't. We shouldn't ban those guys from getting kills from their gift. WAR IS NOT EQUAL. We are not assuming all soldiers take this set limited time before they can hit a target. I can outshoot people in the range all the time, I am not gonna be demoted to their skill level!

[BenHamish]

I like the idea of popping up/crouching more slowly.

And Jesus, if you are leaning your weapon on a wall and have it trained on an enemy and then he ducks behind a wall, do you not have the advantage?

If he pops up with this exploit and intends to kill you, he is reacting. Seeing as reaction is slower than action, shouldn't you be able to get off the first, most accurate shot?

To be fair, I see your point, and currently the game is fair in my opinion. That said I can't stand the people who 'tap' the crouch button 5 times a second.

Usually I rely on their inaccuracy/impatience, and bad timing to shoot them when they pop up. Most people can;t resist popping up and trying to kill you if you are covering them. 7 times out of 10 I will be able to time my shot so it kills them.

It's hardcoded that deviation cannot be added when popping up, so people will have to learn to live with it. The option of slowing down crouching/standing is an interesting one though, and subject for discussion

[ytman]

If you slow down standing it would help save this from being a total exploit and would be the best inbetween from Jesus' and mostly everyone else position.

No peak means no danger, even peaking slightly exposes yourself to fire, without peak means that what Jesus calls a 'peak like feature' is more or less 'uber peak' where the peaker has the advantage of timing (only he knows when he will pop up) and accuracy (the aggressor might be out in the open in the middle of an attack). The 'surpressor' has only one advantage, making the guy keep his head down, which also counteracts his goal of killing the opponent as each 'surpressing shot' is both rarely effective and decreases his ammo count.

This popping up turns a situation where the roles of attacker and defender, and the inherent benifits given to any attacking force, are reversed due to a completely unrealistic reason. The defender, in a situation that should be to his detriment (ducking due to fire and attack), is now granted immunity to the attack and then given the ability to return fire accurately at any time of his discresion. In a situation where the defender realistically loses all advantages but cover he gains so much more.

This popping option has really deterred charge based assaults which, despite all the love of the community to flanking, is still an important part of the assault. Without the charge how can you efficiently exploit a flank?

[badmojo420]

Comparing this to the prone diving deviation. Some might argue that with prone deviation, people will never be able to go prone and return fire effectively. Which is just not true. They can do so if they remember to simulate getting settled. Of course, if you insist on playing PR like other video games, and move your mouse and mash those keys as fast as possible, you'll miss horribly.

I will always trade having to show more personal restraint in conducting myself in PR, if it means I will see less exploiting of game engine bugs. This is the basis for my support of crouch to stand deviation.

[Lord Jesus]

I like the idea of popping up/crouching more slowly.

And Jesus, if you are leaning your weapon on a wall and have it trained on an enemy and then he ducks behind a wall, do you not have the advantage?

If he pops up with this exploit and intends to kill you, he is reacting. Seeing as reaction is slower than action, shouldn't you be able to get off the first, most accurate shot?

To be fair, I see your point, and currently the game is fair in my opinion. That said I can't stand the people who 'tap' the crouch button 5 times a second.

Usually I rely on their inaccuracy/impatience, and bad timing to shoot them when they pop up. Most people can;t resist popping up and trying to kill you if you are covering them. 7 times out of 10 I will be able to time my shot so it kills them.

It's hardcoded that deviation cannot be added when popping up, so people will have to learn to live with it. The option of slowing down crouching/standing is an interesting one though, and subject for discussion

If two forces identify each others location. The one who uses cover effectively will win over the other shooter who doesn't use any cover. Obviously the way the current system is now is not realistic, because you can't actually duck down and stand up that fast with a perfect firing stance. But in real life, it is possible to stand up slowly with a perfect trained stance that would have zero deviation. However if we add deviation to this current system. There would be far too much advantage to those who just sit and camp all day. I'm sorry but I am one of those players who runs towards the direction of the enemy and takes out a entire squad by myself because I know when to use cover and fire. I don't camp and if they change the system, I will be forced to play like others and it's very boring. I agree that implanting a fast duck, and slow stand would probably fix this issue.

[badmojo420]

If two forces identify each others location. The one who uses cover effectively will win over the other shooter who doesn't use any cover.

So if I sit there and aim at where you're going to expose yourself, you're saying you can peak out and kill me before I can pull the trigger and kill you? (Speaking in real life here)

Obviously the way the current system is now is not realistic, because you can't actually duck down and stand up that fast with a perfect firing stance.

I'm glad you understand that very important point in this discussion.

But in real life, it is possible to stand up slowly with a perfect trained stance that would have zero deviation. However if we add deviation to this current system. There would be far too much advantage to those who just sit and camp all day. I'm sorry but I am one of those players who runs towards the direction of the enemy and takes out a entire squad by myself because I know when to use cover and fire. I don't camp and if they change the system, I will be forced to play like others and it's very boring. I agree that implanting a fast duck, and slow stand would probably fix this issue.

I'm not going to say how you play PR is wrong. But it's not how I think the game should be played.

I'll just say that you seem to play the game like you're in the special forces, when you should be acting like you're standard front line infantry. Less running and gunning, more digging in and holding your ground, or advancing as a team. And camping isn't a bad thing in PR, don't be hating on it.

[BenHamish]

If two forces identify each others location. The one who uses cover effectively will win over the other shooter who doesn't use any cover. Obviously the way the current system is now is not realistic, because you can't actually duck down and stand up that fast with a perfect firing stance. But in real life, it is possible to stand up slowly with a perfect trained stance that would have zero deviation.

I do very much see your point here, i.e. it would be silly to add deviation for standing because IRL you CAN actually pop up after getting your gear ready and settling down for the shot from behind cover.

As mentioned though I swear deviation when standing [from crouch] is hardcoded, so no point discussing it guys.

However if we add deviation to this current system. There would be far too much advantage to those who just sit and camp all day.

Agreed. (That said though, if somebody has me pinned down behind cover the last thing I do is pop up and try and kill them, I relocate).

I'm sorry but I am one of those players who runs towards the direction of the enemy and takes out a entire squad by myself because I know when to use cover and fire. I don't camp and if they change the system, I will be forced to play like others and it's very boring. I agree that implanting a fast duck, and slow stand would probably fix this issue.

If you know how to use cover and fire, you're actually taking advantage of the same thing that the 'campers' are encouraged to do (use the game's supression facility to encourage the enemy to stop firing back).

I can't stand campers either (although tactically it makes a lot of sense sometimes), but it strikes me that a good mid-ground would be slowing down the crouch to standing time would be a good answer for everyone.


I'd be interested to hear a dev comment on this, or one of the MA's, just to see if this is pointless conversation or whether it's worth discussing. Or if we're all talking bs.

[Lord Jesus]

Thou SHALL RECEIVE TRAINING BEFORE MY RETURN.

PRAISE TO GOD, Hezbollah, Abdullah

Edit: User infracted for "flame baiting". Such behavior isn't accepted on these forums.