A serious discussion about weapon deviation in 0.85

[Titan]

I'm one of the two guys who voted for #3.

so you are one of the two spokesman of our minority ...

I was one of the few who liked 0.8 deviation ... now in 0.85 its fine too but less team orientated
in 0.85 its ... "mates there is an enemy on *peew* .. ah ok nevermind"

tbh even if its called reality .. the team faktor is much more importent for me

*lame edit -.-*

[hx.bjoffe]

I loved those long range engagement of 0.8, but hated the CQBs.

I'm looking forward with curiosity to 0.9, because my experience is the development team is not afraid of experimenting. Option 1 would let me down hugely, especially after quotes like

I do agree though, there are problems with the current deviation system. Exactly how to address those problems is...the problem

Don't settle with mediocrity.

[Anderson29]

1 thing i keep trying to remind people is that THERE IS NO HIP FIRE IN THE GAME (not yelling...only stressing) only shoulder fire aimed and unaimed. i agree w/ skeletor kinda, fire fights are very quick. but i cant say we in-game use cover as much as we would if in a real combat situation where u could lose your life.

my only gripe is i think we need to speed up the walking while aiming slightly....crouched walking while aiming is faster....and that's not realistic....should be reversed, anyone one else noticed this?

i wouldn't mind seeing .9 using option 2....just to see what its like, and if it sux.....out comes .95 fixed
just my .02

[$kelet0r]

No, you'd have to take a knee and wait 4-5 seconds for that kind of accuracy.

Even after the full five seconds of settle time in a prone position, rifles still aren't as accurate as they could be IRL.

I do agree though, there are problems with the current deviation system. Exactly how to address those problems is...the problem

Death for headshots was removed in 0.85. I would assume as a result of feedback from testing - were testers dying too easily, too often, from accurate fire?

I wonder that instead of halving minimum deviation and increasing maximum deviation as in 0.85, would doing the almost doing the opposite have worked better by instead halving maximum deviation for better CQB dynamics (he who aims centre mass first, wins rather than a test of who is jammier) and keeping 0.8 minimum deviation or tightening it slightly (making firefights longer and require suppressive fire and manouvere tactics rather than now where you shoot to kill each target simply because it is possible).

It's just much much harder to play realistically, when dealing death is so much easier than it should be. Why retreat, regroup or find a better position when you can simply point, wait and pull the trigger and do the work alone.

The great thing about worse accuracy/larger deviation in 0.8 was that you needed your squad all firing on a target. It simulated combat stress and worse marksmanship as a result, compensated for the inability of your avatar to lean, or conceal himself behind cover, or duck instinctively when a round flew overhead, or move at more than a snails pace while prone or the greater visual field of view and acuity of a human being. It made squad combat epic (until there was a close quarters fight that is) because you would not care how inaccurate your M16 was at 300m ingame when your 5 squadmates were all firing rapidly on one enemy soldier - it felt real. Now a gun fight is over in seconds and you are the only one firing (again, like in the old days - remember 0.75).

If I see an enemy first ingame now at a reasonable range, moving or not moving, even partially behind cover, he's as good as dead. And that does not feel real at all. The tactics are there and the gameplay still works but the game is less immersive as an experience and firefights are over in seconds - the time it takes to fire a mere handful of rounds purposefully. I just hope there are others that feel the same because the route that 0.8 was going may now be a missed opportunity...

[crazy11]

How about the realistic ballistics with 2 different ammo types. In the same way that the saw has deployed mode a rifleman or officer could have tracer round mags.

Just my thought

I dont think that this is possible.

[hx.bjoffe]

(making firefights longer and require suppressive fire and manouvere tactics rather than now where you shoot to kill each target simply because it is possible).

It's just much much harder to play realistically, when dealing death is so much easier than it should be. Why retreat, regroup or find a better position when you can simply point, wait and pull the trigger and do the work alone.

The great thing about worse accuracy/larger deviation in 0.8 was that you needed your squad all firing on a target. It simulated combat stress and worse marksmanship as a result, compensated for the inability of your avatar to lean, or conceal himself behind cover, or duck instinctively when a round flew overhead, or move at more than a snails pace while prone or the greater visual field of view and acuity of a human being. It made squad combat epic (until there was a close quarters fight that is) because you would not care how inaccurate your M16 was at 300m ingame when your 5 squadmates were all firing rapidly on one enemy soldier - it felt real. Now a gun fight is over in seconds and you are the only one firing (again, like in the old days - remember 0.75).

Written like a poet, im very glad you made this thread

[McBumLuv]

Yea, you could only have a tracer every shot or none at all, or else they'd move much slower, and therefore also drop much more.

I don't think we ever need any major adjustments, unless we want to explore realistic ballistics. At the moment, it can be easy to hit targets at distances. there is still a certain chance in the affair, and it still requires settling time. It's not a point and click affair, though.

All infantry maps have sufficient cover so that only havin a portion of your body showing is hard to hit, even at only 50 meters. When out in the open, you'll just get cut up though. Not unrealistic in the very least imo.

Now, if more than before, encourages people to stick closely together, because suppression is so much more effective now that you can actually get hit.

[gclark03]

Option 2 because tracers should not be as visible in daytime combat, and they're too large anyway.

The best option is to eliminate tracers for all kits but Officer and Auto Rifleman and leave it to the player to learn the alternate aiming techniques for those kits, or simply do away with tracers.

Crazyasian, I know it's possible to have a separate tracer weapon, but it may not be practical.

[hx.bjoffe]

tracers should not be as visible in daytime combat, and they're too large anyway.

The best option is to eliminate tracers for all kits but Officer and Auto Rifleman and leave it to the player to learn the alternate aiming techniques for those kits, or simply do away with tracers.

There's an own thread for that. And i still haven't decided on it.

[Tirak]

Current .85 deviation is the middle ground between .75 and .8 deviation. You are once again able to hit targets with relative accuracy, but you cannot have the laser accuracy of .75, not that .75s laser accuracy was a bad thing. I've noticed a few players come out of the wood work saying "It's too easy to kill people" and, "The guns are too accurate" but the truth of the matter is we've gotten into some bad habits because of .8. In .8, hitting the broadside of a barn while inside of it was an issue, you had to sit there and wait, and wait, and wait more for good measure, then once you waited, you still couldn't be sure you'd hit your target. Because of this fact, players learned that if they're getting shot at, there is nothing to worry about, simply keep running and you'll make it to cover. Even if they hit you, it's a fluke and won't happen again. .85 deviation doesn't let you do that anymore. So when people start getting shot at, they do the same thing they did in .8 and are getting killed because they haven't adjusted their tactics to fit the new system. Again, due to .8s painfully slow acquisition time, everyone waits longer to take a shot, which of course makes the deviation tighter and allows you to hit more accurately, this makes fire more deadly as its more aimed. These are, in my mind, the two fundamental things which make .85 deviation seem so much better. It's still not as tight as I would like, but players being stupid when under fire, and smart while shooting makes the player more deadly.

[CAS_117]

Look, people see engagements in Iraq or helmet cams, or some war movie where all the main characters survive like Generation Kill and Blackhawk down, and they say:

"Well look at how intense those firefights are, all those bullets and no one getting hit".

Well let's look at an engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan:

In Reality:

1. People in PR can only see 400m on a good day. Things get less accurate the longer away they shoot from. Not to mention that the bullets at these long ranges drops exponentially more.

2. Most engagements in the last decade were against untrained guys with AK-47s (the rifling worn away), and most of them were probably high.

In PR:

1. Most engagements in PR are from less than 100m... yeah.

2. No ballistics.

3. People want "Long" firefights.

4. Oh and everybody has a 4x scope. Awesome.

What's wrong with this picture?

[Jaymz]

If I recall correctly CAS, you pushed for realistic MoA's to be injected directly into PR. We know have minimally realistic accuracy and you're saying it should go back to being less accurate?

I'm probably misinterpreting you though.

[GeZe]

Guys, I think your missing the point.

GeZe;943657']We [the Devs] voted for option 1 by a large margin. More then 4.5 times the number of people voted for option 1 as the second highest voted option.

Option 1 being "Leave both deviation and bullet drop the way it currently is".

edit:

Also, contrast the player drop off we had after .8 was released (We had a jump after it was released, but then it went back down), with the only increasing player population after .85 was released (We had a jump, which was sustained, the numbers are still high). I think the people have spoken.

[Cobhris]

I don't know who you guys are playing against, but I don't see the kind of Rambo stuff you guys are talking about unless it's an ambush. If I ambush an enemy squad, I can kill as many of them as is possible before I'm spotted. Then, unless I'm behind a wall, I will get shot, as I should.

The problem with the deviation is that people in .85 do stupid things like running across open ground with no smoke or covering fire, which exposes them to being gunned down with the new deviation. In .8, people could get away with stuff like that because the bullets tended to hit anything and everything EXCEPT the target. You didn't need to use cover because the enemy would have to get extremely lucky to hit you, let alone kill you. Even in CQB, victory went to whoever had the best luck or could spam out the most bullets in the shortest space of time. In .85, that is replaced by lethal and accurate weapons that will kill what they are aimed at.

[Truism]

Option two has always been my favourite. The use of deviation to simulate inaccuracy is a terrible compromise and should be minimised at all costs.

ARs use no tracers, LMGs use tracers and can be fired deployed but unscoped, mounted weapons use all tracers.

That shit, would be SO cash.

[SocketMan]

I think the first 3 have improved very nicely but it should go much further imo
-more accuracy
-more range
-less deviation
-less CQB between Conventional armies --more long range combat
-more CQB for insurgent/Taleban/Chechen maps
-bring back the head shots
-reduce the revive rate

It's only been a few weeks,still too early for any conclusions.

[xXRich07Xx]

So any suggestions on improving the **** CQB?

[Alex6714]

I still think 0.6 deviation maybe with a tiny delay coupled with 0.85 surpression will have the best results. People will definitely be more scared of fire there and maybe the firefights would be longer in a more realistic way.


Although better yet I am all for more realism with option 2.

[$kelet0r]

So any suggestions on improving the **** CQB?

This is where I am still a bit confused by 0.85

In 0.8 at medium/long range you had to wait and fire and then keep firing until the target went down. You had to work for your kill but I don't remember many complaints about longer range firefights, if you paced your shots and kept firing you would either force the enemy to retreat or kill. Felt right - especially if you had your whole squad firing simultaneously.
In 0.8 a short range unfortunately you had to do the same, which is why everyone complained about waiting, waiting, aiming, waiting, shooting and missing a target 10m away. Hence the problem - the maximum deviation was too big.

In 0.85, at medium/long range, you aim, wait and fire ... and hit every time - it's very easy. Unlike the previous release, where if you were fired at from range, you could take cover and recover or be suppressed, in the current iteration you will get hit with the first aimed shot.
As mentioned earlier, a typical voip conversation is "woah enemies right in front of us...it's ok I got them"
In 0.85 at short range, the maximum deviation was made even larger, and cqb is pretty much the same as it was in 0.8 - awful.

So when CQB was the big problem and long range wasn't or needed fine tuning, the latter was 'fixed' and the former made worse?
So far this is an interesting thread, hopefully it'll stay on topic