Project Reality Forums

The soldiers are too heavy(big inertia) for that new shooting system. Wish soldier's weight decrease.

The vietnam m14 has no magazine well, its just wood and no hole. You can see it clearly during reload.

Ninja from the other thread but it belongs in this one i think

zloyrash wrote:Disagree that you can easily move in and make smart shots to stationary enemy. Stationary guy can kill you very fast and you have not be able to even aim your gun to him.
Yeasterday i have situation on muttrah docks containers

Red guy have blocked us(2 guys) in deepening of the containers.
I know he was there and know he stay stationary. I realize that there is no way to check red guy position and stay alive. I have no instrument to look out from our corner. So I cant step out and shoot him - no chance! 98% vs 2%
Than red guy moved to new position and I told my mate to do the "trick" - he run out from the corner and next moment I tried to step out and shoot redguy.
Ok, he killed me, but my mate killed red guy and revive my. Thats because red guy made a mistake - he should stay at 1st position.
I post about it here:
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f255-i ... ost1946064
Main idea - There is no good tactic now to get stationary camper, no able to "lean right\left" to check the rooms. Soldiers weight system not balanced with new shooting system. Decrease soldier moving inertia may help.
Sorry for offtoping.

If i were in this position you and your mate were i would simply drop a smoke or two in the "enemy area" so he has to move or to attack. There are Tactics against defenders, you only have to use them. Of course your "weight tweak" could help but i think that will cause other arcadish problems that we dont wanna have and is not a real solution. Attackers are in a far better position than in 0.85-0.98, and i dont see whats unrealistic with that, if the "defender" is well prepared and already has aim on you. A moving player who has to aim at the defender and does not know exactly where he is, has a disadvantage, thats it. why it should be the other way around??

Thx for post moving.
Yeah, the smoke, I know. Its okay vs many enemies, but using smoke in 1on1 situation just for.. for what?
Smoke helps to change position or to regroup or to run away. But smoke wont help to check enemy position (lean feature)
Today they gave big bonus to guns, but no bonus to soldiers movements.

Try to imagine very weak and slow soldiers with very fast, powerful, smart shooting guns? - no balance, no conquest, no gameplay.
It may be not so popular idea here, but we can easily try it with our great new launcher and updater.

I see 2 different tasks.

One is to spot the enemy, that could clearly improved, there is no leaning move and nothing like that. So if you want to have a small look you have to expose your full body. That is the part of your problem that i understand. I dont know what all will be affect by a change of the soldiers weight, but in my opinion this will lead into a really fast and bouncy movement, but i have no idea how to solve it otherwise.

The other one is the part about fighting an enemy on a defend position. And i think in this part the defender should have an real advantage if you try to fight him in hin line of sight. That is what defending is for and i like it how it is, like i said its much better than before and ive been killed hundred times on defend positions only with an enemy popping up in front of me and spray me to dead. but its risky for the attacker also. If you defend the attacker know your position after the first fail attack, but you dont know when he will attack or from where. No need to change anything here.

The best tactic to fight defenders in buildings is simply smoke, nades and hook. Its quite effective and will force the defenders to change their positions so you can move to a position the defender doesnt know. You also can suppress the defender from a different direction so he has to switch his field of view.

For distance fighting its the best to avoid the defending LMG in the first place and pop out in another direction. You can use smoke too to distract him and split up your Squad so he has to choose an defend direction.

In the end you can solve both issues with the use of tactics, and that is why we play this game or not? Of course it needs more effort to kill an defending LMG in shoots out of a window, than killing a rifleman that is crossing the street, and thats how it should be, thats why you are fighting in a Squad.

I think v0.9 attack\defence balance was better, but I really like new shooting system.

It seems that the 5.45mm chambered weapons (excepting perhaps the Aks-74u) all still have higher recoil than they should, at least compared to their contemporaries. The recent update addressing this issue certainly improved this, but they definitely still feel off. This is especially evident when using these rifles with optics. Why would these rifles have higher recoil than the M16 series weapons? The Ak-74 rifle is marginally heavier, and the round it fires has markedly less energy. I have never fired a weapon chambered in 5.45, so I cannot level any real world experience into this debate, but on paper, something doesn't add up.

On another note, why should the Mosin Nagant do less damage than the SV-98? I suppose one could argue the quality of the ammunition used, or the condition of the bore, but those discrepancies are surely marginal at the ranges the former is used at.

Walmarx wrote:It seems that the 5.45mm chambered weapons (excepting perhaps the Aks-74u) all still have higher recoil than they should, at least compared to their contemporaries. The recent update addressing this issue certainly improved this, but they definitely still feel off. This is especially evident when using these rifles with optics. Why would these rifles have higher recoil than the M16 series weapons? The Ak-74 rifle is marginally heavier, and the round it fires has markedly less energy. I have never fired a weapon chambered in 5.45, so I cannot level any real world experience into this debate, but on paper, something doesn't add up.

I was shooting AK-74 many times in real life, and recoil is better now, however it should be more directed to the back of gunner than upwards.

T.A.Sharps wrote:Some rifles in PR that shoot the same cartridge have different damage to model the difference between **** rifles and good rifles.

The reasoning I've heard for something like an M-14 being less effective than an M24 is the the Sniper system would have better technology and training involved in the shooting of the rifle vs the M-14.

Making the M-14 give less damage is a compromise to keep the M-14 from having some wild *** deviation that would just piss everyone off, keeping it shooting accurately, yet making it less effective than the M24.

Damage difference is to simulate the training to shoot for vital organs.

I would hope the reason the M14 and M24 have different damages is to reflect that one is gas-operated, and the other is manual-action. The former consumes a portion of the cartridge's pressure to cycle the bolt, where as the bolt-action rifle directs as much as possible of the energy in the barrel towards the bullet. This is why Manual-action weapons are still used for sniping purposes, in addition to their inherently greater accuracy.

Again, I would think that a weapon deemed fit for combat by any remotely-organized militant faction would have at least a serviceable bore, (especially soviet surplus weapons with chromed barrels) but then, I do not qualify as a 'military advisor' by any stretch of the imagination. I am no gunsmith either, but it would seem to my layman's mind that if a manual-action weapon's condition is affecting the impulse of its projectiles significantly, then the bore is likely so pitted or worn that it will do very little damage at all.

I don't buy that training level stuff, that is just silly. Anyone trying to hit their target (and who knows how iron-sights work) will aim center-mass, which typically results in hitting a vital organ.

Here's an idea: If the bolt-action rifles need some other mechanic to balance the damage they should be doing, make their sight-in time noticeably slower. The greatly increased distance between the sights of these long weapons does make rapid acquisition more difficult; it seems odd that one can get a sight picture as quickly with an Enfield as with an MP5. This would make them even less suited to any kind of CQB, and the lack of optics would keep their effective envelope exploit-free. If their condition must be represented, make the damage drop-off range closer.

I have never been in a war, or even shot at, and I have no experience in metallurgy or arms maintenance beyond routine cleaning and inspection. Those are the sources of the humility in my previous post. It would seem you took that humility for ignorance. I own and shoot several rifles, including a hex-receiver Mosin Nagant in good condition; most of them are decently accurate, durable rifles, assuming they have been cleaned after firing corrosive ammunition. Everything I mentioned was in relation to PR:BF2 game mechanics' representation of reality, I am not here to argue about plainly obvious matters of internal ballistics. Of course training is critical to an individual's accuracy. I find your condescension that I do not understand this offensive, but I wont waste space with arrogant claims of expertise (although the M110 is used by Designated Marksmen, and the Barretts are anti-materiel rifles which are recoil-operated, manual action, or single shot only, but i'm sure you knew that. apples to oranges).

Training does not, however, have anything to do with the damaging potential of a weapon itself. Herein lies the debate. Is Project Reality a role-playing-game? Are we playing as soldiers with varying stats and skills? The 'training' and 'skill' of the soldiers in game should come from the players controlling them, not from arbitrary penalties tacked onto their weapons. As much as I hate deviation, it is one of the only reasonable tools PR has to communicate aspects of the player's avatar that cannot be seen, as iron-sight sway is impossible.

Yes, sight radius does affect sight-in time, if only in fractions of a second, which count for everything in a close-range firefight. I am speaking specifically about the animation of shouldering the rifle, not about lining up on a target. In reality these are largely the same thing- in PR, the animations separate them. Of course a larger sight-radius offers greater accuracy for the shooter via a smaller front post profile, and as far as tracking a target goes, less forward mass is obviously better. You don't have to compete with a deer to get on target in CQC. Again, I am not talking about shooting accurately, all of these points are peripheral to that topic. This is not a post about deviation.

I love the new numbers, and I am very happy with nearly all the weapons in 1.0. The bolt-guns just seem under-represented. If the lower damage they do is to reflect some magical 'training bonus' blufor is supposed to get, why not make AKMs take 4-5 hits to kill, have the insurgent shotgun fire rock-salt, and just remove the SVD all together, that thing might as well be rocket science.

Damage difference is to simulate the training to shoot for vital organs.

And its stupid.

Player skill should alone make the difference, not abstract ingame conditioning or training.

Bellator wrote:And its stupid.

Player skill should alone make the difference, not abstract ingame conditioning or training.

Kits are used to simulate different level/type of training.

That is why you have driver/pilot kits.

Is that stupid?

So play skill should alone make the difference...let's go back to vbf2 drive anything with any kit?

Remember that there is zero scope-sway on those guns... IRL you would find "scope-sway" quite often even with training.

I can understand a case for affecting a player's performance to reflect his character's skill up to the moment that the player takes a shot. Any invisible mischief that will be applied after that point, should only occur in the form of deviation, relative to settle-time. Damage should not be affected by a player character's training level. If I aim true, and score a hit, my target's condition should reflect that. If this is really the philosophy behind the current system, then Blufor essentially get auto-aim.

I would think the reason Pilot and Crewman kits were introduced was to reinforce that a player should be dedicated to operating his vehicle.

Walmarx wrote:I can understand a case for affecting a player's performance to reflect his character's skill up to the moment that the player takes a shot. Any invisible mischief that will be applied after that point, should only occur in the form of deviation, relative to settle-time. Damage should not be affected by a player character's training level. If I aim true, and score a hit, my target's condition should reflect that. If this is really the philosophy behind the current system, then Blufor essentially get auto-aim.

I would think the reason Pilot and Crewman kits were introduced was to reinforce that a player should be dedicated to operating his vehicle.

BluFor gets scope on just about every kit to represent better accuracy at longer range. While AK-47 generally has worse accuracy/recoil. And AK-74(Coincidentally AK-74m with same stats is also BluFor...) is slow rate of fire and still high-ish recoil(never fixed)...

Problem in PR is that long rifles do not have that much difference in deviation from short lower calibre rifles.

I think all gun and explosion sound should be variation of bang accordingly to its explosion size, and barrel diameter in case of a gun. After playing PR I think it agrees with me on that point but with few exeptions, which I feel is unrealistic. I am no expert on this topic but from what I hear on TV, Internet, and couple of times at shooting ranges, that was my understanding.
I'd like to list below of what I felt as unrealistic sound effect.

Hand grenade:
High pitched chirp as explosion. To me it sounded more like Movie sound effect than real explosion.

Assault rifles in general:
I don't know how to describe it, but to name a few example of what I consider to be Realsitc are Mosin nagant, MP5, INS/MEC 13mm Heavy MG, M9 pistol, and M1911 colt from WWII mod in 0.98.
Unrealistic ones are AK47/74, Browning M2 Heavy MG, Tokarev, Lee enfield, and FAMAS to name a few. They are not so much a bang but some kind of very elaborate combination of sounds.

RPG7:
considering the size of back-blast, Initial bang sound is too quiet.

And as for RPG's accuracy, I like the way it is now. The hit probability people used in previous threads that are discussing about RPG7 accuracy (that are also posted on Wikipedia so check it out) is based on Moving target. Not Still target. I think current accuracy is realistic.


Also, is it realistic for guns like AK47 to be blowing smoke from ejection port? I thought guns like AK47 used gas piston to move the action, and gas ejects from front portion of gas piston tube which has holes to vent the gas, were as for guns like M16 which uses gas directly to move the action has gas venting from ejection port.

Apologies for rough writing.