reducing weapon effectiveness

CPU · Post by **CPU** » 2007-09-05 23:20

I know, a weird request-

Can you remove the scope from all weapons except sniper\ marksman\ SpecOps? The trend towards giving out scopes is making some weapons "godlike" e.g. G3. This could encourage a game of sniping rather than fighting... plus I hate being gunned down from half a map away.

The machine guns e.g. SAW, are too accurate, that is to say they keep their accuracy when used in long bursts and over long distances.

Post by **PRC_Heavy_Z** » 2007-09-05 23:30

This has been discussed before. Why would you remove the scopes if they are used in real life? It seems the motive behind this thread is frustration over the G3... the answer: patience,m16a4 is coming, before then I suggest you spend more time aiming with the m16.

The Machines guns are that way to simulate bipod use since you can't deploy a bipod due to engine limitations

BTW, G3 won't turn the game into a sniper fest... people who randomly run around without cover make it a sniper fest.

Finally: it's not exactly "sniping" if the distance is only 100-150m

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-09-05 23:33

Also I believe there was talk of decreasing the accuracy of standard rifles to reduce the effectiveness of the jack-in-the-box rifleman tactics that are all too common at the moment.

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2007-09-05 23:47

The main problem with the weapons is not the scopes but the way they are instantly effective even if you have just jumped over a wall and dived to the ground, ie. dolphin diving

I noticed on the grenade launcher, its very inaccurate unless you take a small pause before firing. You cant just jump round a corner and expect to fire off an accurate grenade, it goes all over the place and its really easy to tk because of this.

How about we add this to all weapons, none of them should be instantly accurate. This would make surpressive fire actually possible. Mounted guns would be really much more effective instead of just being easy targets for their oppisite - mobile bunny hoppers

Wolfe · Post by **Wolfe** » 2007-09-06 00:10

Scopes aren't going away; they're a realistic part of modern infantry warefare and shouldn't be removed to over-compensate for other issues such as weaponon sway and insta-prone shooting; both of which should be fixed in the next patch. This should make guns less likely to act as sniper rifles.

Also, I think the SAW isn't accurate enough. At present, any soldier going up against a SAW can stop and pixel shoot his head in 1 shot. The SAW should force infantry to hide for cover, not encourage them to get a free, easy kill.

CPU · Post by **CPU** » 2007-09-06 00:10

PRC_Heavy_Z wrote:This has been discussed before. Why would you remove the scopes if they are used in real life? It seems the motive behind this thread is frustration over the G3... the answer: patience,m16a4 is coming, before then I suggest you spend more time aiming with the m16.

The Machines guns are that way to simulate bipod use since you can't deploy a bipod due to engine limitations

BTW, G3 won't turn the game into a sniper fest... people who randomly run around without cover make it a sniper fest.

Finally: it's not exactly "sniping" if the distance is only 100-150m

I know the 16a4 is coming, that is why I posted. And far from being a smuck who can't shoot an m16, I am someone who does very nicely at picking off tiny pixels in the distance. Also I have very little trouble picking the US off (EJOD) as they exit Ruin with the G3, and that is way long than 250m. I am just concerned about the future, nothing to do with being ****.

billdan · Post by **billdan** » 2007-09-06 00:48

Wolfe wrote:Also, I think the SAW isn't accurate enough. At present, any soldier going up against a SAW can stop and pixel shoot his head in 1 shot. The SAW should force infantry to hide for cover, not encourage them to get a free, easy kill.

not the case when ive got the saw

Ecko · Post by **Ecko** » 2007-09-06 00:50

I still want to see weapons only 20 percent accurate until you've stopped moving for 30 seconds.

Post by **PRC_Heavy_Z** » 2007-09-06 00:55

@ CPU: I doubt the scopes will encorage a game of pure sniping. Look at Seven Gates, both sides have scoped weapons and while where are more long range engagements, the game play isn't pure sniping. Therefore I don't really see the need for concern.

Finally, Long distance engagements are realistic in modern combat, therefore if you can effectively kill over long distance and other could kill you over long distance in the game, what's wrong with it?

but yeah, it would be better to have weapon instability thing like the grenade launchers applied to standard assault rifles.

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2007-09-06 01:27

30 seconds is too long, it would only take a short pause to have a great effect.

Who wins when two enemies meet round a corner is usually down to ping times which is milliseconds, add in a 1 second factor of instability to that and you will greatly alter the whole deal.

It would probably be the biggest change/mod to BF2 so far if it was done properly, imo

I do like on insurgency mod - HL2 how the sniper scope never stays still, its constantly moving because he is breathing, etc
Seing something like that would be great, though I do think it should only be totally obvious on 2x sniper zoom ie. really long ranges

billdan · Post by **billdan** » 2007-09-06 01:40

Sabre_tooth_tigger wrote:I do like on insurgency mod - HL2 how the sniper scope never stays still, its constantly moving because he is breathing, etc
Seing something like that would be great, though I do think it should only be totally obvious on 2x sniper zoom ie. really long ranges

i know what u mean, but i believe it was mentioned a long while ago that it wasnt possible.

shake/movement due to breathing, heartbeat, nervous hands are very noticeable IRL without a scope. America's Army and probably ArmA (havent played ArmA) have this depicted accurately.

for bf2, something like 1 sec delay after you stop moving (for regular unsighted-accuracy) and another 1 sec delay after you bring your sights up (for best possible accuracy)

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2007-09-06 01:52

Yep the scope delay would be good also

If its not possible then fair enough but some admin just said otherwise..

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/post477622-5.html

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2007-09-06 02:38

Scope delay would be more frustrating than anything, during game-play you don't really want to wait too long just to get your sights up during a gunfight.

I think the biggest issues as far as infantry combat goes are some of the weapon imbalances (Such as the infamous M16 recoil) to start. Then there's the fact that there isn't a powerful deterrent that could keep players under cover when receiving fire. As it is, if you get shot, it's stop, drop and roll while you deliver those precision shots in between the eyes of your shooter. Another interesting idea was MOA. Not sure how exactly that would work but I'm under the impression the concept would use the cone of fire system.

Prydain · Post by **Prydain** » 2007-09-06 04:14

CPU wrote:I know, a weird request-

Can you remove the scope from all weapons except sniper\ marksman\ SpecOps? The trend towards giving out scopes is making some weapons "godlike" e.g. G3. This could encourage a game of sniping rather than fighting... plus I hate being gunned down from half a map away.

The machine guns e.g. SAW, are too accurate, that is to say they keep their accuracy when used in long bursts and over long distances.

With weapons like the L85A2 and L86 it is only realistic to have the standard issue SUSAT and its less realistic for medics to not have it (why would they penalise themselves?). The British Army, RAF Regiment and Royal Marine Commandos often fit the SUSAT onto their L108A1s and L110A1s so that version of the Minimi may appear.

I just suppose that long range firefights will get harder and force the avearage player who sencelessly wonder away from cover to use the cover and work as a team.

milobr · Post by **milobr** » 2007-09-06 04:27

One thing I really deslike about this game is the zoom that many weapons have. I just hate it. People always argument about focusing enemy but using zoom for it is simply ridiculous. Your eye already focus the enemy. I think if we take out the zoom from all weapons that don't have optics, we would have great long engagements.

I modified 0.6sp weapons to have zoom factor "1" and I must say the gameplay is greately improved. The game is just so much better without that ch34t-z00m-from-d4-h3ll.

Unfortunately people don't like the idea and mods keep saying this is staying. It's sad, but true.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-09-06 05:12

because we all know that in real life you can see an enemy if he is at less than 100 meter

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-09-06 16:36

Ecko wrote:I still want to see weapons only 20 percent accurate until you've stopped moving for 30 seconds.

Maybe not quite that long, but I'd like to see something like Ghost Recon's system where the sights slowly come back to the dead on shooting after the hit area is increased but things like running about, firing or making jerky movements with the mouse.

Post by **Jaymz** » 2007-09-06 19:10

Bob_Marley wrote:Also I believe there was talk of decreasing the accuracy of standard rifles to reduce the effectiveness of the jack-in-the-box rifleman tactics that are all too common at the moment.

KoC is trying to hack in some sort of sway but even if that doesn't work we'll overhaul the deviation system so that your accuracy depends how much time you took to settle as well as several other things. DON'T assume you'll have realistic shooting in future builds of PR but DO assume that we'll make it as realistic as we possibly can within the confines of the BF2 engine.

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2007-09-07 22:37

^^ sounds good, especially the settle time. Is this likely to be in for 0.7?

Post by **Jaymz** » 2007-09-07 22:41

Sabre_tooth_tigger wrote:^^ sounds good, especially the settle time. Is this likely to be in for 0.7?

No idea, still needs more proof of concept work etc.