A serious discussion about weapon deviation in 0.85

[hx.bjoffe]

I think the people have spoken.

Suiting the wide masses? You could have taken alot of populistic measures to ensure results like these, but i didn't think recruitment of the BF2-playerbase ever was a direct goal.

[gazzthompson]

like i said, public beta of option 2?

[CAS_117]

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.

Well I personally don't think deviation would even be an issue if the range of engagements were longer. I basically think that the view distance on a map should be between 50 and 100 percent of the maps long axis. I would be willing to bet that if I engaged a target past 500m, I could have 0 deviation and I couldn't hit a thing... with bullet drop mind you. I just feel that ultimately the whole deviation debate is an unnecessary waste of effort better spent on the broader infantry picture. Let me name a few things that would impact PR much more:

• Scoped Support Weapons
• Increased View Distance (If that means cutting statics sobeyit)
• Spawning With LMG's
• Personal Fighting Positions

[Jigsaw]

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?

No, thats wrong.

Afaik the reason headshots were removed was because of the new geometries.

I personally enjoy 0.85 deviation just like I did 0.8 deviation, both have their pros and cons however the new deviation is that bit more popular that it should be the one that the Devs keep. As always there is room for improvement but thats the reason we are on 0.85...

[gazzthompson]

No, thats wrong.

IIRC it was removed because of the new deviation creating more headshots.

[Dunehunter]

IIRC it was removed because of the new deviation creating more headshots.

²

Same reason I heard

[hall0]

I like the 0.85 deviation like it is now. As coca said the 0.8 deviation was just lame. One of the major problems i had in 0.8 was that i had no feedback which told me when the bullets will hit accurate. And even if i had this feedback i couldn´t be shure that the bullet will actually hit the enemy. So it becomes a gamble which was realy frustrating from time to time.
One problem was also the unrealistic moving we had in 0.85. As some guys allready wrote you didn´t have to run from cover to cover. Just run like a chicken was enough because the enemy couldn´t hit you. And if he did it was just a lucky shot. So the probability calculation was on your side. Now its again more dangerous to cross a open field, because the enemy can kill you again. The problem is just now you dont care about your life because your medic can revive you in nearly every moment because of the missing deadshots. But this is an other story.



@gazzthompson
Agree a Puplic beta with option 2. Would be worth to look at


Btw.
It would be realy great to know why now the deadly headshots were removed. We have now two opinions. The new deviation system and the new geometries (I don´t even know what this new geometries are)

[ERASERLASER]

deviation in .85 is just about perfect, .8 was retarded,the people saying point and click is too easy well in the real world thats what you do point, aim and shoot and if a soldier cant hit a target 200 metres away then hes pretty screwed in a warzone. Hardly anyone every plays the game realisticlly no matter how much you try to force the player to play the way you want them to they'll find a way round and you'll be back here with another thread like this complaining.

[Rudd]

.8 was rediculous indeed, .85 is nice now I like it alot. I do not know how realistic it is, and I'm starting to get the impression that BF2 simply cannot deliver a realisitc deviation system, so we should just go with gameplay.

Cas_117 speaks much wisdom.

[ERASERLASER]

Well I personally don't think deviation would even be an issue if the range of engagements were longer. I basically think that the view distance on a map should be between 50 and 100 percent of the maps long axis. I would be willing to bet that if I engaged a target past 500m, I could have 0 deviation and I couldn't hit a thing... with bullet drop mind you. I just feel that ultimately the whole deviation debate is an unnecessary waste of effort better spent on the broader infantry picture. Let me name a few things that would impact PR much more:

• Scoped Support Weapons
• Increased View Distance (If that means cutting statics sobeyit)
• Spawning With LMG's
• Personal Fighting Positions

Agree with you on everything there especially Increasing the view distance

[xXRich07Xx]

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.

Until the devs do something about this, I will have a piece of tape with a black dot on it in the middle of my screen

[Spec]

Thats cheap as hell o.o

And getting the gun pointed at the target isnt even the problem at all here...

[xXRich07Xx]

Thats cheap as hell o.o

And getting the gun pointed at the target isnt even the problem at all here...

Eh, it may be cheap, but the devs haven't done much to make CQB a non-laughing matter.

[Spec]

No reason for you to get an unfair advantage over the other players...

[xXRich07Xx]

No reason for you to get an unfair advantage over the other players...

It's not unfair if they can do it just as well as I can.

Unfair would be haxxoring.

[hiberNative]

again, deviation is 0.85 is perfect. the 0.8 excuse of "people wanting longer firefights" was silly since you can still have long firefights, just not standing like an idiot staring at the enemy fighting deviation. if you take fire now, you seriously need to get down and relocate. i love it!

[sakils2]

I agree that 0.85 deviation is VERY NIIIIICE. CQB in 0.85 is quite nice, too. Leave it as it is.

[xXRich07Xx]

CQB in 0.85 is quite nice, too. Leave it as it is.

You're joking right?

CQB right now in .85 is spray and pray. It's totally unrealistic and a nightmare.

I would rather play counterstrike source than repeatedly go up against OPFOR in CQB.

[Rudd]

the main problem for me in CQB is that kits with scopes get pwned up pretty bad really

removing the indenciary grenade from scope kits and using teh extra slot for the CQB sight on the scope would be really really awesome...

[Ragni<RangersPL>]

0.85 is nearly perfect, especially for CQB. Major tweaking no longer required IMO.

+1

Deviation is fine... please, leave it.