Accuracy while standing + semi auto sniper rifles

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-17 20:57

Is it just me, or does the accuracy seem painfully bad while standing? I do realize that it's easier to aim your shots while prone, but that doesn't meen you couldn't be pretty damn accurate on two feet. We shouldn't have to jump to the ground whenever we wish to hit a target at any range longer than 20m. Of course this doesn't meen you'de be accurate while moving and maybe the time it took to aim for that accurate shot should be slightly longer, but other than that you should be able to get at least one decent shot off.

The way I see it, the real advantage to being prone is being a small target, while standing you make yourself into a much larger target, so the primary reason people hit the deck is to avoid fire, not to be more accurate. This doesn't have to be true off course with the LMG's.

The second thing I wanted to mention were semi auto sniper rilfes. Now, I've never shot a sniper rifle myself, but I didn't think you'de be able to see into the scope after the first shot. One of the things I do know is you're never supposed to keep your eye too close to the scope, let alone on the scope, because you could end up with a black eye. So, if you're supposed to not be on it, how can you still see through it after you fire a round? If i'm wrong(I know, me wrong?

) then please feel free to correct me on this.

What should be done instead is you would lose your sight of the scope, but instead of having to way until after you work the bolt as you would with a bolt action rifle, you could simply aim again making successive shots quicker then they would be with a bolt action rifle.

R.Johnson_USMC · Post by **R.Johnson_USMC** » 2006-02-17 22:26

Well... For your prone argument, the accuracy would be less but you can still hit what your aiming for if your good. The reason prone is better is because you have stability, but one thing that makes me mad is that a guy can hit the ground and have instant AWESOME accuracy, there should be a animation that is created when getting to the ground, like you drop to your knees then hit your belly or like when you drop to the ground you put your hand down then steady yourself and your rifle.

ANd on your second point, I agree with you. I think it should quickly flash back and forth from scoped to unscoped and back to scoped. So it hinders the polesmokers from shooting really fast and just spraying bullets.

Post by **Wraith** » 2006-02-17 22:34

You don't put your eye "On" the scope like you would view through some binos. A good shooter can fire much faster and more accurately than in game.

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2006-02-17 22:39

Going to the prone position WAS supposed to be slower in this new patch. If there is any difference, I sure as hell don't feel it. Same "hit the ground while spraying" tactic wins face-to-face encounters, as always.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-17 22:39

I know you don't put your eye on the scope, that's why I said it would be impossible to look through the scope right after you fire the rifle.

I realize prone is more accurate because of stability, but that stability wouldn't make it the only option in a mid-range firefight(or even long ranged, though at that point you would feel the difference). Maybe the first shot should be accurate, but each succesive shot should be less accurate, or even better, recoil would have a much more profound effect on those who stand making succesive shots impossible to make without reaiming.

I have noticed the prone difference and getting up difference. It is quite fast, but it still makes a difference, far better than instant.

R.Johnson_USMC · Post by **R.Johnson_USMC** » 2006-02-17 22:40

I wonder if PRMM is gonna add a animation.

Gran · Post by **Gran** » 2006-02-17 23:27

I think the accuracy while standing should be improved for ONE reason. The only times I shoot while standing is when I am looking over terrain or a peice of cover. So in theory, I would be resting the weapon on this object I'm behind and acheiveing stability. I know that the game cannot tell the differance but shooting while standing out in the open is a fools errand anyway. Let them be accurate, if they abuse it they will be cut down where they stand, literally.

Post by **Fullforce** » 2006-02-18 00:10

Skullening.Chris wrote:Going to the prone position WAS supposed to be slower in this new patch. If there is any difference, I sure as hell don't feel it. Same "hit the ground while spraying" tactic wins face-to-face encounters, as always.

Yeah, nothing more than I hate that. I round the corner, see a guy, aim, and he dives to the floor as I fire. Now, I don't know if i've killed him or not (can't see through the sights, you see) and by the time i've looked down he's put 20 shots into me.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-02-18 00:23

If recoil can be set between firing stances, I am absolutely for accurate shooting from all stances, but pronounced recoil if you are not crouched or prone. This also ties into firing without ironsights; the CoF "bloom" should go out of control firing with an automatic weapon from the hip especially, and all other firing from the hip already too inaccurate to be effective.

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2006-02-18 00:31

Yeah, even standing perfectly still, single-shot, using sights will ALWAYS lose to someone "proning" (more like just magically appearing flat on the ground with a single in-between animation) and spraying in their general direction.

Not saying you should stand up perfectly still in the battlezone but even in cases where you come up behind someone and "know" you're going to kill them before they can react, but no, they spin around, slam to the ground and kill you instantly.

Oh, and sometimes they do that cute "rolling" animation like they're some kinda ninja despite wearing 50lb of equipment and holding a rifle...

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2006-02-18 01:03

You do know why there is a "cone of fire" right? Cause there's no perfect accuracy. Ever. Even the best compition shooter almost never hits the same place twice. And that's in perfect conditions. Not imagine that you are getting shot at, Ducking around cover and TRYING to take perfect aim. That's what the bullet deviation is all about. The only class that should have near no devation is the sniper class. And that's only if he's been prone for a while. Determining what "a while" will be is the key point here.

That's my 2 cents.

DEFkon · Post by **DEFkon** » 2006-02-18 02:45

problem is that BF2 consideres "zoomed" to be a stance all to it's own as far as i can tell. For example this is from the m16 in PRMM -

ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModStand 1.25
ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModCrouch 1.0
ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModZoom 0.6
ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModLie 0.6

- now even if the numbers are greek to you, notice that there are seperate values for the deviation (lower number = better accuracy) for standing, crouching, prone, and zoom, and that as far as i can tell BF2 doesn't use any formula to mix the values. As a result the zoomed or Ironsight view is actually considered an enitrely seperate stance. Basically your as acurate standing useing sights, as you are laying down useing sights.. doesn't effect the deviation. This is why there is no easy fix for the sniper problem. The engine doesn't take into account if the sniper is laying down or standing.. as long as he's using his scope, he'll get the zoom deviation value.

In other words fixing the sniper (and other) weapons isn't as easy as plugging in some new values, you really need to write up a different system altogether which is a massive undertaking. its like the difference between tweeking your cars engine with some aftermarket parts.. and actually designing a new engine block in Autocad, and then manufacturing it... and installing it and making it work.

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2006-02-18 03:10

Wow, thats crazy how they oversimplified it with no combinations of stance + zoom/unzoomed. Very lame...

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-02-18 03:21

well... what do you expect from EA? Taking things straight on or cutting corners?

I also agree with noetheinner, cone of fire is fire for regular soldiers, but needs to be taken away from the sniper. well his pistol should still have it.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-02-18 03:29

DEFkon wrote:problem is that BF2 consideres "zoomed" to be a stance all to it's own as far as i can tell. For example this is from the m16 in PRMM -

ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModStand 1.25
ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModCrouch 1.0
ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModZoom 0.6
ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModLie 0.6

- now even if the numbers are greek to you, notice that there are seperate values for the deviation (lower number = better accuracy) for standing, crouching, prone, and zoom, and that as far as i can tell BF2 doesn't use any formula to mix the values. As a result the zoomed or Ironsight view is actually considered an enitrely seperate stance. Basically your as acurate standing useing sights, as you are laying down useing sights.. doesn't effect the deviation. This is why there is no easy fix for the sniper problem. The engine doesn't take into account if the sniper is laying down or standing.. as long as he's using his scope, he'll get the zoom deviation value.

In other words fixing the sniper (and other) weapons isn't as easy as plugging in some new values, you really need to write up a different system altogether which is a massive undertaking. its like the difference between tweeking your cars engine with some aftermarket parts.. and actually designing a new engine block in Autocad, and then manufacturing it... and installing it and making it work.

I'd argue to the contrary, Lie adds the .6 multiplier and Zoom adds the .6 multipler for about .2-3 deviation, not one or the other. This could be tested, however, by setting Standing to 100 deviation and zoom to .1 devation, and seeing if we shoot at 1 dev or .1 dev. Tricky but worth the effort.

Zantetsuken · Post by **Zantetsuken** » 2006-02-18 04:48

Personally, I've shot (in real life) an AR-15 with a short to mid range scope on it, and a setup like that would be **** compared to something like a PSG-1 or SR-25 (I hope to God you guys include one of the two). Anyway, with an AR like that, it really doesnt kick the weapon out of the way enough to make you have to take your eye off of the scope.

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2006-02-18 05:37

NikovK wrote:I'd argue to the contrary, Lie adds the .6 multiplier and Zoom adds the .6 multipler for about .2-3 deviation, not one or the other. This could be tested, however, by setting Standing to 100 deviation and zoom to .1 devation, and seeing if we shoot at 1 dev or .1 dev. Tricky but worth the effort.

Definitly worth it to find out if the multiply.

Could you do it with the Machine guns without adjusting stuff? You could see if you're still deadly with the SAW standing zoomed as prone zoomed. It should be WAY different if it's a multplier.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-18 06:13

dunno if this has been mentioned before, but is it possible to include a camera sway for the prone process?

i mean, when a person go prone, depending on how fast they do so, they should have their view swayed as they go to prone. At the very least the vision should shake quite a bit and if he actually "hit the deck" hard his vision should blur for half a sec or so from the impact (a person lugging a SRAW hitting the deck? i'd imagine he'd throw up his lunch if he does it hard)

i'll leave the accuracy to real experience open to debate, but gameplay wise.. the prone system would be less of an inbalance to the troops if the person cannot maintain his view and sight during the process of going prone. How much of the effect should be added is something that playtesters gonna have to check i'd guess, but i'd reckon with a bit of a sway at least, it will make it harder for them to keep their sight on the target and thus if both combatant see each other, at close range then the person standing uprightl would be able to fire more accurately in a sense than the one going prone for at least a second or so.

DEFkon · Post by **DEFkon** » 2006-02-18 07:25

NikovK wrote:I'd argue to the contrary, Lie adds the .6 multiplier and Zoom adds the .6 multipler for about .2-3 deviation, not one or the other. This could be tested, however, by setting Standing to 100 deviation and zoom to .1 devation, and seeing if we shoot at 1 dev or .1 dev. Tricky but worth the effort.

Thankfully your correct. I did a play test setting the standing deviation to an awsome factor of 1000, and leaving the zoomed to it's 0.6. The test needed only to be able to prove the exsistance of some mixing of the values or not. Standing while firing unzoomed as expected provided shots so wide that i literally couldn't hit the broad side of a building, Zooming while standing didn't improve things much better. If it had simply been using the zoom as a set value i should've had near perfect aim while zoomed, and **** while not.

This gives us at least a little hope that sniper rifles could see some level of balance introduced... in addition to those other values for deviation there others that account for turning amoung other things. what would be nice... is if someone could make a deviation reference to the player collision detection... that you could make an aim improving multiplayer when your in collision with something (wall, ect ect.) because a simple tactic in real life to improve your aim is to simply lean against something or even rest the gun itself on something (branches, hood of a car, whatever) heck a common tactic for US sniper teams is for the spotter to stand in front of the sniper and let him use his shoulder as a rest for the front of the rifle when they can't use the bi-pod.

well off to catch some much needed Z's and then maybe i'll fool around with tweeking the m24 some more.

angus · Post by **angus** » 2006-02-18 14:39

Can anyone tell if the setTurnDev in the Deviation comp works in bf2? If so I would like to see it be added to the mod.

From BF42 MDT site:

Code: Select all

  
   SetTurnDev Property 

Usage:
   ObjectTemplate.SetTurnDev number number number number 

Argument values:
argument 1:    range is 0 to 1.5; most commonly 0  
argument 2:    range is 0 to 0.2; most commonly 0.2  
argument 3:    range is 0 to 0.2; most commonly 0.2  
argument 4:    range is 0 to 0.175; most commonly 0, 0.175  


Description: How much deviance to be added to a weapon due to turning: 

 x - maximum deviation possible
 y - how much to add for each frame tilting up and down 
 z - how much to add for each frame turning left and right 
 w - how much to reduce per server-frame (30 fps)

Basic layman's translation: You lose accuracy when you move the crosshairs and when you stop that accuracy in gained back.

Then we could have all the weapons more accurate. Quick snap shots would have the extra deviation added to them. But In the instance that you have time to "settle in" for the shot you would have the maximum accuracy for the stance you are in. Would also make sniping more difficult on moving targets. No more following the crosshairs on the target. You would have to set the sights ahead in the targets path, wait for accuracy to settle, and fire when the lead is right.

This line is in all of the weapon files now but is set to 0 0 0 0.