Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2007-07-16 18:51**

i suppose one could go either way on this. On one hand, yes, lower accuracy would make for stuningly realistic shootouts, but on the other, i assure you that every little 10 year old playing this mod will be screaming every time they miss =, even when its not due to the gun's accuracy, and begin cursing the coders and start putting up posts here to make the guns more accurate, thus creating a never ending struggle between the two until a compromise is reached

Posted: **2007-07-16 18:51**

Harrelson wrote:This mod is being influenced by people who likes instant killing. THIS IS NOT REALITY.

My honest opinion of 0.6, infantry maps are not fun at all. Maybe Basra is an exception when playing as insurgent because you play like a twat without any plan and just try to have fun

Remove the scopes and tweak accuracy is my suggestion.

Look at videos of grunts in Iraq fighting. They DONT wait to see someone so they can shoot, they use supressing fire and lots of it. Thats why is seems like they are shooting at nothing.

Unfortunately, this mod emphasizes the opposite, wait till you see someone and put your crosshairs on his head, squeeze and hes dead. This happens to you and to them, vice versa the whole round. Kills and deaths are in the hundreds on each side. Oh no!

In vietnam, 500,000 bullets was what a grunt used to kill 1 enemy soldier. In modern day iraq, its around 40,000 bullets used per enemy dead. In PR, 2 bullets is whats needed per enemy dead.

Its too easy to kill in this game. Im not saying nerf the weapons or accuracy but make it less easy to identify and shoot people. Zoom in with you g3 scope and you can tell if its an enemy without even looking at the map.

Lastly, headshots never happen in real battles.
Headshots only occur when snipers shoot someone, but general firefights, Never.

p.s anyone remember .4 in falluja when enemies were in the opposing ridge (at the gates) and we would trade heavy gunfire for several minutes till one side got overwhelmed? that is my best memory of PR

I agree with ya on this. Thanks for posting those number concerning bullets used per kill. I couldn't remember the numbers on that, but it ties into the same thing I was saying earlier about this in post #50. It's accuracy through volume. Not one shot one kill for every one on the map.

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:09**

The reason we shoot so many bullets to kill a single target, is because in real life, bullets go through a paper thin wall. In PR, not so much. That's why no one uses suppressive fire.

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:23**

WNxKenwayy wrote:The reason we shoot so many bullets to kill a single target, is because in real life, bullets go through a paper thin wall. In PR, not so much. That's why no one uses suppressive fire.

That's another point I was gonna bring up, but then I said to myself. Self, forget about it, they won't listen anyway

It reminds my of something my brother used to say. "Don't teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig." hehehe... Those words kinda ring true right now

Later
R

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:28**

Longbow* wrote:Gotta agree . Even in vanilla there is more competition in firefights , random deviation and such ... PR guns are too accurate , every prone shot hits . Thats unrealistic ...

Yeah, gotta agree. Gun designers focus on delivering inaccurate weapons, after all, I'm sure soldiers like the idea of having less accurate weapons to have longer firefights. That's pretty realistic

We really appreciate all the professional advice we get from almost everyone in the forums, but we're inclined to believe our military advisors and others within the team that have actually fired these types of guns irl.

-Ghost

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:32**

but i has watched black hawk down 10 times dosent taht make me n xpert????!?!

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:38**

I've had plenty of hunting rifles zero'd at 300yds. We would take a very very nice rest on some sandbags or bipod etc...even then at 300 yds you are still not PERFECTLY accurate...there is always some deviation. The bullet doesn't just go perfectly to where you put your cross hairs, it produces a pattern that you want to be fairly tight. I think we should have some deviation in PR(not for snipers though) but only a very minimal amount, maybe its already in there...who knows. So maybe anything past 200yds you will start to see a very slight deviation...so your bullets will fit in a 6-3 inch radius of a pattern..maybe less, I don't know what the real life MOA (minute of angle) stats should be for M16, think its about 3 which translates into about 3 inches of possible deviation at about 100 yds? Adding in this realistic deviation would reduce the laser-head shots from assualt rifles at such long ranges and produce a realistic effect.

So at 200 yds the M16 should have a possible deviation of 6 inches. Remeber 200yds is a decent shot.

To understand MOA we say if a gun has an MOA of 1...then at 100yds its 1inch deviation...at 200 2 inches...300 3 inches.

So to summerize deviation is dependant on the gun itself as well as the shooter. PR shooters are perfectly skilled due to weapon sway= hardcoded. I believe we should look into including the real world weapon MOA's at some point as it might make things a little more interesting...especially with all of the scopes out there now.

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:39**

'[R-PUB wrote:bosco']but i has watched black hawk down 10 times dosent taht make me n xpert????!?!

Nope, you are 5 short, and you must eat popcorn out of your helmet while watching it. You must also put a big red X on your screen and each time a bad guys head is under the X you must jump to your feet and scream boom, boom, boom! Hehehe lol

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:50**

VipersGhost wrote:I've had plenty of hunting rifles zero'd at 300yds. We would take a very very nice rest on some sandbags or bipod etc...even then at 300 yds you are still not PERFECTLY accurate...there is always some deviation. The bullet doesn't just go perfectly to where you put your cross hairs, it produces a pattern that you want to be fairly tight. I think we should have some deviation in PR(not for snipers though) but only a very minimal amount, maybe its already in there...who knows. So maybe anything past 200yds you will start to see a very slight deviation...so your bullets will fit in a 6 inch radius..maybe less, I don't know what the RL MOA stats should be for M16. That would reduce the laser-head shots from assualt rifles at such long ranges and produce a realistic effect.

The very best out of the box "Standard Issue" M16A2 is only capable of about 3 to 4 MOA using standard M855 ball ammo. That's with open sights mind you. They were NEVER intended to be marksman rifles. Hell you can buy an Civilian version M16 (I think it's the AR-15, but I'm not sure) that is more accurate. Standard issue rifles are mass produced by the lowest bidder for that government contract. Most any out of the box hunting rifle is WAY more accurate than a standard Issue M16A2.

US troops zero their M16s at 25 meters not 300 meters and then they use that same zero setting to qualify with. Thats why they record their "Dope". So they can pick up any M16 and put there "dope" on it, so now this weapon is zeroed for them.

Posted: **2007-07-16 19:58**

Well said rico, so why is everything in PR zero'd at 300 yds? TBH I think most of the time our hunting rifles are zero'd at 100...it's been a while though and we hunt in denser forest. I hope some of the dev's see this, it's nice to have the scopes by they sure are point-click at times. It'd be nice to have to lob your bullets at people...bring in some actual player skill.

Posted: **2007-07-16 20:10**

Well said Rico (war veteran, not an adviser)(/salute)

'[R-DEV wrote:Ghostrider']but we're inclined to believe our military advisors and others within the team that have actually fired these types of guns irl.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have a gun that is accurate at 10,000 miles. It's not the accuracy of the weapon itself, it's the accuracy of the average soldier under realistic conditions. Running full speed then dropping insta-prone while shooting full auto within a six-inch cone is not realistic unless you're RoboCop.

It's no wonder why hardly anyone uses the support class because suppressing fire is discouraged by hyper-accurate shooting abilities by the average gun/grunt.

At distance, all you have to do is hide behind a rock insta pop-up and fire a hyper accurate shot, then drop down; all within a half second. Rinse repeat until the target is dead. Now cmon, you could have the most accurate gun in the world but doing that is NOT realistic and no military adviser is going to say that it is.

This issue is not just about realism, it's about gameplay too.

Posted: **2007-07-16 20:32**

in this mod it's realism>gameplay

and the devs ca only do so much

Posted: **2007-07-17 01:42**

Oddly enough, ACOGs are standard issue in the Canadian army. Wonder when the US will pick up...
This is the BF2 engine, which has its um... flaws. So yeah don't expect to have to control heart rate or breathing with your sniper rifle. (Well, Maybe the enemies

.)

Posted: **2007-07-17 01:47**

caboose wrote:Oddly enough, ACOGs are standard issue in the Canadian army. Wonder when the US will pick up...
This is the BF2 engine, which has its um... flaws. So yeah don't expect to have to control heart rate or breathing with your sniper rifle. (Well, Maybe the enemies .)

The US has had ACOGs for years now. A scope doesn't make a rifle more accurate. It just allows the shooter to take aim at a smaller target over a greater distance. The idea is to aim small miss small. If you miss at all. Why take aim at the entire upper torso, when I can take aim on a shirt pocket instead. It gives me a greater chance of hitting in the upper torso. If you can't aim worth **** with open sights, then you won't be any better with a scope. You just "think" you will be better.

Posted: **2007-07-17 02:24**

rico11b wrote:The US has had ACOGs for years now. A scope doesn't make a rifle more accurate. It just allows the shooter to take aim at a smaller target over a greater distance. The idea is to aim small miss small. If you miss at all. Why take aim at the entire upper torso, when I can take aim on a shirt pocket instead. It gives me a greater chance of hitting in the upper torso. If you can't aim worth **** with open sights, then you won't be any better with a scope. You just "think" you will be better.

Sorry I meant in use for all infantry, the USMC specifically.

Posted: **2007-07-17 05:07**

I blame the slight zoom on the ironsight. (I'm not talking about the M16 Rifleman version (ACOG).

It's there to represent "concentration" and what not, but I believe that's what gives players that accuracy.

Remove that or decrease it and you'll see how players start to complain because of inaccurate rifles.

Posted: **2007-07-17 05:41**

well, theoretically (ingame), less zoom WILL give you a less accurate rifle because of pixelation. the more zoom you have, the more shirt pockets you can aim at, because they're only crammed into about 200 pixels, not one or two.
theres a vid on youtube, sniper school part 3 or 4 on bf2 about how pixelation affects sniping, and you can completely miss b/c you have to get the aim just right, and the only way to do that is by leaning. like others have said, the game engine can only go so far...

Posted: **2007-07-17 16:55**

Look, the rest of this is just nonsense...we can't adjust the players accuracy within the games limitations. I do believe however that we can add the deviation (MOA) to the in-game weapons to match their RL counter-parts.

Personally I'd like to see the weapons zero'd to 200yds so more player-skill would be required to drop long range targets as they would have to deal with bullet drop issues. You would see good players evolve as deadly marksmen and get rid of some of the point-click killing at longer ranges.

More important is the RL MOA's(deviation) of the guns being present in-game though. I think this would improve the quality of some of the firefights and bring them a big step closer to real life fights. Right now some maps cant get to be a little marksmen-y at times. Just my .02, I love .6 especially once the idiots leave and the new players flourish.

Posted: **2007-07-17 17:20**

rico11b wrote:The very best out of the box "Standard Issue" M16A2 is only capable of about 3 to 4 MOA using standard M855 ball ammo. That's with open sights mind you. They were NEVER intended to be marksman rifles. Hell you can buy an Civilian version M16 (I think it's the AR-15, but I'm not sure) that is more accurate. Standard issue rifles are mass produced by the lowest bidder for that government contract. Most any out of the box hunting rifle is WAY more accurate than a standard Issue M16A2.

US troops zero their M16s at 25 meters not 300 meters and then they use that same zero setting to qualify with. Thats why they record their "Dope". So they can pick up any M16 and put there "dope" on it, so now this weapon is zeroed for them.

Uh, first part, yes

Second part, no.

We zero at 25m, but using a 300m paper simulating target. Its like zeroing at 300m, but without all the walking back and forth to figure out wtf you hit. Actually we zeroed at 250m but that was a squadron policy, army wide it's 'supposed' to be 300m No body keeps track of their dope unless you were a DM like me, because you are never going to have to pick up someone else's weapon in a situation where utmost accuracy is a concern.

Personally, yes, I think the accuracy of the riflemen rifles is a little ridiculous at the moment. Mostly because the BF engine doesn't allow for deviation based on stance/stamina near as we can tell, which blows.

Project Reality Forums

Lower Accuracy