Project Reality Forums

Truism wrote:Open beta isn't a realistic option for me. The file sizes are far too large - it costs me nearly 40 dollars every time I update PR.

To date I've spent more on PR than any other game... ^_^

O.o Why does it cost you $40 dollars?

5.56 assault rifle.. 100m range.. Takes 10 seconds to fire 4 shots for a 3in grouping with Irons.

Caboosehatesbabies wrote:O.o Why does it cost you $40 dollars?

I pay $10 a gb for downloads. PR is a very large download...

Truism wrote:I pay $10 a gb for downloads. PR is a very large download...

Change your provider, or change your tarrif to unlimited.

Truism wrote:I pay $10 a gb for downloads. PR is a very large download...

That is BY FAR the WORST internet plan I have ever heard of!
You need a different ISP YESTERDAY!!!

gazzthompson wrote:i seriously don't understand how people complain about the deviation, some one please explain to me, i can be running, see some one and stop wait half a 2nd then land 6/7 shots very quickly, why do people complain about that?

I can explain that to you, you've been lucky up until thus far

You don't think there's a problem?!?!?!
So you explain to me and rest of the PR player base how a player can walk around a corner and be faced with an enemy less than 10 metres away,
both players open up at each other, empty their magazines and there can still be two players standing,
struggling to reload (and thinking wtf)
to finish off the kill?
Please don't tell me you think this is realistic?

[R-CON]Wolfe - for this reason I think any increase in the cone of fire would be a mistake.

Also explain to me how it is not a problem that a player who is not a terrible shot (well at least I wasn't in previous versions of PR)
can spot an enemy (for example 50-100 metres away)
take aim, wait 1-3 seconds, shoot at an enemies body (miss horribly), wait 1-3 seconds, shoot again (miss),
wait 1-3 seconds, shoot again (miss horribly),
only to have the enemy realize from which direction he was being shot at from, turn, immediately fire and take down a player?

If I see an enemy before he see's me, I should be able to take him down, right?

Now please don't think I'm personally attacking you, that's not my intention.
But there is definitely a problem in the current deviation system.
There simply must be, otherwise many long time players/lovers of PR would not be dropping PR in the name of "disgust"
they wouldn't be slagging off the deviation system saying "it's just pure luck if I hit an enemy or not"
they wouldn't be saying "screw this the deviation has F'd the infantry combat"
we wouldn't have approximately 30% of the players that play on our servers who are normally quite calm people, rage quiting.
No no no sir, there is most definitely something wrong.

IMO purely from a players perspective I think the deviation is nearly there.
If the "luck" factor could be removed and just ever so slightly "tone down" the current deviation I think we'd be on a winner.
And now that I've said that, it's bloody hard to judge the 'settle times' with the "random" deviation impeding my judgement.
OK we probably don't want laser guns in PR but I doubt we want guns that can't hit the side of a barn either.
There's at least one good thing that 'bad' deviation has brought to PR though,
it has seemed to encourage squads to stick together more

I'll say one thing, I'm really looking forward to what the guys have come up with for 0.85 though
They're certainly taking their time

But as for your poll Mr Wolfe, I'll say:

[R-CON]Wolfe wrote: Something like:

Per shot: 1.5 seconds
Mouse movement: 1.5 seconds
Foot movement: 2.0 seconds

At the most!

and add this:

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:deviation added from mouse movement should be kept to a minimum. For the sake of target tracking and making minor adjustments to your aim.

I voted 4 seconds, but that is for reaching very good accuracy (for normal rifles at least, longer for snipers, shorter for some carbines, SMG's and pistols)

Waiting 1 or 2 seconds should give me (fighting against someone at medium distance who is not moving) acceptable accuracy for suppressing at least. 2 to 3 seconds for good accuracy and 4 for a very good shot. So around 2 seconds normaly.

For SMG's I'd say waiting longer than 2 seconds shouldnt change much about the accuracy, but the minimum accuracy should of course be lower than for rifles. Same counts for pistols, they could be even faster (but not too fast, they are only backup weapons and should certainly be a worse choice than SMG's of the same caliber concerning accuracy!)

Of course foot movement should have high impact on the accuracy (less for SMG's and pistols since they are light and designed for CQB in which you'd probably be moving).

Mouse movement should have nearly no impact. Unless you turn around of course. Then it should be just like moving. But simply tracking the target should have no real influence on the accuracy.

Ablack77 wrote: You don't think there's a problem?!?!?!
So you explain to me and rest of the PR player base how a player can walk around a corner and be faced with an enemy less than 10 metres away, both players open up at each other, empty their magazines and there can still be two players standing, struggling to reload (and thinking wtf)
to finish off the kill? Please don't tell me you think this is realistic?

Have you ever fired a rifle in real-life? I have, several types actually... and I can tell you for a fact that if you put a 7.62mm weapon on full auto you aint hitting shit at 10 metres after the first few rounds. The SLR was bad enough and that was only semi-auto... especially if you're standing up. You can hit "something over there" but you aint getting headshots. The L85 was different I'll admit. Hence... I voted for 3 seconds... because I always remember when I used to go target shooting and the most important thing was the grouping. It never used to matter how long it took us, the grouping was the main thing. 10 rounds could take 10 minutes or longer sometimes. Then at the end we would do a "watch and shoot" where we were given 10 rounds and had to put them on the target as quickly as possible. It still took about 5/10 or so seconds to get them ALL on the target with some semblance of accuracy.

That's with an L85 by the way on a 50 yard range.

Oh, btw Ablack77 you do know that this will affect everyone... so you're just a likely to die more quickly too.

Oh, btw Ablack77 you do know that this will affect everyone... so you're just a likely to die more quickly too.

That's a good thing, the most experienced marksman should win, and who ever sees the enemy without them seeing him should win. It should not be a game of luck where you empty your magazines to miss an enemy you saw first entirely.

cptste el_74 wrote:
Oh, btw Ablack77 you do know that this will affect everyone... so you're just a likely to die more quickly too.

ops:

Thats the point, its realistic and you can kill......players dont mind getting killed but only when they feel they have a fair chance at using the weapons they have that they feel fire right........


I’ve got to say I’ve not player PR in a few weeks now because of this…….

Well said Ablack77 agree whole heartedly if I see a pair of enemy soldiers below me first and at extreme close range it does not matter if I’m hitting them with every shot but I’m going to waste them as every second or third will nail them……….. not in this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It plays wrong in the game this Deviation as emitted by the developers! Anyone can see that.

I dont know how exactly the deviation works in BF2.

In SWAT4, there were two steps. First, the accuracy would quickly go up to a certain point. Then it would start slowing down and it would take twice as long to get to the minimum accuracy.

That means, when you walk around a corner, it takes like 1 second to be able to hit the target in front of you. However, to be able to hit the target 200 meters away, you'll have to wait another 2 seconds, so it'd be 3 in total. But for close quarters, it is 1, because after 1 second your accuracy is already at a level that allows you to kill someone up to 10 meters away at least. Above that range, it takes a lot longer to get accurate.

I liked this two-step accuracy. I don't know if BF2 could (or even does) work like this though...

2 seconds. i wouldn't mind less but if it's lower than 2 seconds, i wouldn't call it realistic.

1.5 to 2 seconds. Any lower than that is too fast. That coupled with faster than current settle time and I'd say you've got a winning set of figures

I voted 2 seconds.
From my IRL experience you wont be able to maintain a pinpoint accuracy at 200-300 meters if you fire any faster. Especially not while in a combat situation.
Any longer though would in my opinion slow down the gameplay too much, and give the enemy too much time to respond, resulting in the current exchange of suppression effects rather than actually killing anyone.

Airs0ft_S0ldier11 wrote:depends on gun, on type 95 mabye .5 second on a G3 mabye a bit more due to "recoil"

.5 seconds? have you ever fired a real rifle? it takes a good bit longer than that.

cptste el_74 wrote:I voted for 3 seconds... because I always remember when I used to go target shooting and the most important thing was the grouping. It never used to matter how long it took us, the grouping was the main thing.

Ohhh!! I see, because you used to shoot at paper targets your trying to discredit my views as a gamer as not being valid.

cptste el_74 wrote:Then at the end we would do a "watch and shoot" where we were given 10 rounds and had to put them on the target as quickly as possible. It still took about 5/10 or so seconds to get them ALL on the target with some semblance of accuracy.

So, it took you 5-10 seconds to shoot 10 rounds down range and get them ALL on the target with some semblance of accuracy.

So ok, that's one round per second or less yeah?.........
So why did you vote 3 seconds again?

cptste el_74 wrote:Oh, btw Ablack77 you do know that this will affect everyone... so you're just a likely to die more quickly too.

Yes actually I do realise this because contrary to popular belief I was not dropped on my head as a child.

To answer your question cptsteel I have fired a few different types of rifles but this does not make me an expert, hence I said:

Ablack77 wrote:purely from a players perspective

But ok you win, your e-peen is bigger than mine

It depends what type of fire you are laying down on them.

100-200m IRL is completely different to ingame, the distance in game seems much farther.

In real life standard shots would be one every two seconds, for that range, but in game, 100-200m is harder to hit (I'd have said).

But yeah, ingame I'd have said 1 second should give you accurate enough fire, not pin point, but within .5m or so. Definitely enough to supress at 1 shot a second.

I posted this in the .8 weapon accuracy thread, but it has relevance here too. problem with long range accuracy is possibly the liner trajectory and the desire for the game to be not so gamey. I really really want to be accurate within 50ft (both scoped and unscoped), but as it is, there is a problem. See below:

Re: Weapon Deviation/Accuracy
I was looking at the deviation chart presented in the Deviation Journal and noticed that it is LINEAR between 0 and 6 seconds (for each of the standing/crouching/prone positions). I also realize that the last post says the numbers have changed (but doesnt' say to what). I have a question (and I hope it hasn't already been asked): Does the deviation have to vary linearly? Can it move based on a higher power equation (such as a parabolic curve)? Meaning, seconds 1-4 yeild little accuracy improvement, while seconds 5-6 really hone in target. I am assuming that the desire is to lessen the run-n-gun ability of players.

What concerns me most is the close quarters issues. Running up on a guy and totally missing with an un-aimed shot.

Using the numbers in the Dev Journal and assuming it is linear from barrel to the 250m mark, I calculate that the run-n-gun deviation (0 seconds) for a target distance of ~1 meter (approximately 3ft or roughly the length of gun barrel) is 2.5cm (or 5cm diameter) which is awful. Similarly, a target at 30m (100ft) the run-n-gun deviation is ~1m (or 2m diameter) again awful.

Bear in mind, the Dev Journal data is said to be values "sighted-in". How much worse is the 'fire from the hip' deviation? At 3ft IRL I can hold a 2cm diameter pattern, semi-auto, full clip & no aiming. In the game and with the originally proposed deviation change, I'd have to wait 5 sec between shots for same accuracy (again at arms length) and hold one eye closed.

p.s. Love the mod and new maps!

I think that 1 second between shots should be enough to suppress an enemy at 100m-150m, to get a degree of accuracy so that you are very likely to hit them I think it should be 2 seconds. What I think does need to change (but I have a bad feeling it may be hardcoded) is the linear increase in accuracy over time. The first second should yield a bigger increase in accuracy than later on. The only other change I would say is to decrease the max deviation when scoped in so that as soon as you bring the weapon up you can fire within 3 or 4 metres of the enemy.