Project Reality Forums

Of most weapons? I reckon firefights are over too quickly (even in dug in positions and at range) It would be nice to lower the accuracy of most guns to draw out firefights.
Thoughts?

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 ...

Totally agree. In fact, most weapons should have no zoom either. Only sniper rifles should have a scope with zoom. The way it is now, virtually every gun is a hyper accurate sniper rifle that can heat shot you at 600m without breaking a sweat.

It's been said hundreds of times before, the zoom is to simulate the concetration of aiming.
If they increase the deviation, people are going to start complaining aswell, because it's unrealistic! Everything is unrealistic on hte internet.

Then you have BF2's hardcoded stuff.

Guys in case you're not aware, or have forgotten, the Devs have put quite a bit of time and effort into the weapons in PR ensuring that their in-game accuracy, damage levels and ranges meet RL equivilants.

The assault rifles are all zeroed for 300m- if someone hits you at 600m, it's either a very lucky or very skilled shot.

IRL, the British army (for example), issues a 4x sight to all troops. The G36 has a more-or-less built in 3x sight. It's not unrealistic for all PR's riflemen kits to have a scope on them. You're "lucky" (if you don't like the accuracy) that more kits don't have them on.

Finally, tinkering with something like the sights has a knock-on effect within the game. Tune down the accuracy -> more ammo needed to hit a target -> more ammo needs to be available -> unlimited ammo via the ammo-bags has to be re-added -> unlimited ammo available on a battlefield is *very* unrealistic.

If accurate shooting is problematic to you:

1. Stay in cover more
2. Spend more time observing the area you're in to ensure you know at least the rough location of the enemy
3. Practice shooting so you're accurate as hell
4. Use cover and smoke to ensure you're the first guy to shoot, and make that first shot or two count.

But the thing IRL you have variations based on weather and especially the body of the shooter, depending on how hard hes shitting/heart rate/breathing etc etc
Means IRL firefights seem to be alot more drawn out occurances than ive been finding it in PR where a covered squad can be eliminated a bit too easily

Exactly. An infantryman running up a steep hill at full speed then insta drops to a knee and 1 shots you in the head. Yeeeeah.

I understand the balance between realism and gameplay, but dang is it frustrating to have everyone be such a pixel-accurate marksman because the weapons are so accurate. It is doubltful that the average infantryman would be that accurate under those circumstances.

the only realistic way to simulate what you guys are asking ingame is to add in weapon sway to all weapons, which we would do if it was possible in BF2 which it aint. the guns are as as accruate as they are in real life, it would be more unrealistic to add weapon devation to the weapons to suggest that it was the weapon sway casuing it, when it aint cos the bullets aint even going where the gun is pointing than leaving them as they are now.

If thats the way it is then thats the way it is, but i reckon it would be 10x funner with more drawn out firefights

The weapons are meant to be accurate, especially the SA80! There is nothing wrong with the accuracy. IRL in iraq a british soilder fired 2 shots each at 3 men 200m away and killed them all.

People that have never fired a assault rifle before has got it into there head that they give a huge kick. This is not the case especially with the 5.56 m16 and sa80 rounds. You could fire a 3 round burst stood up and all could land on the target with no elevation.

I totally agree with [R-PUB]Masaq.

UKARMYCADET

DEV's is it possible to make the accuracy "bad" when walkin/jogging and it stays "bad" one or two seconds after you have gone prone or crouched position..? That would be a bit better IMO..

UKARMYCADET wrote:The weapons are meant to be accurate, especially the SA80! There is nothing wrong with the accuracy. IRL in iraq a british soilder fired 2 shots each at 3 men 200m away and killed them all.

People that have never fired a assault rifle before has got it into there head that they give a huge kick. This is not the case especially with the 5.56 m16 and sa80 rounds. You could fire a 3 round burst stood up and all could land on the target with no elevation.

I totally agree with [R-PUB]Masaq.

UKARMYCADET

2 shots, 3 kills? Damn.


Nah Assault Rifles don't have that much "kick" to them, if you compare them to battle rifles, which fire longer cartridges.

2 shots each

Expendable : Two shots EACH at three men. Last time I checked, firing two rounds per object at three objects means you fired six shots total *grin*

Arneboe : There is already that in place. For a demonstration, stand in front of a wall and aim at a specific point - like a window's edge or something. Fire a single shot at it whilst standing still from about 20-30m, you'll hit it.

Now, keep sighting at it (either ironsights or scoped) from the same range, but whilst strafing sideways, fire a second shot. You'll almost certainly miss it.

Now, from a bit further back, run towards it until you're roughly the same distance from it then prone yourself, shooting your third shot as quickly as possible after hitting the dive button. You'll probably miss it.

arneboe wrote:DEV's is it possible to make the accuracy "bad" when walkin/jogging and it stays "bad" one or two seconds after you have gone prone or crouched position..? That would be a bit better IMO..

hard coded AFAIK

Greenie Beanie wrote:But the thing IRL you have variations based on weather and especially the body of the shooter, depending on how hard hes shitting/heart rate/breathing etc etc
Means IRL firefights seem to be alot more drawn out occurances than ive been finding it in PR where a covered squad can be eliminated a bit too easily

lol

TexLax wrote:hard coded AFAIK

lol

It already is bad while you are walking. Try firing a 3 round burst with the m16 at a wall, first standing still, and then walking forward.

Wolfe wrote: I understand the balance between realism and gameplay, but dang is it frustrating to have everyone be such a pixel-accurate marksman because the weapons are so accurate. It is doubltful that the average infantryman would be that accurate under those circumstances.

I bet, you'd complain again, when you'd aim at someones head for a couple of seconds to ensure a steady accurate aim, then the bullet would fly past the guy's nose, because you just had to suggest, that weapons should be more inaccurate...
And skip out the weapon swaying and issues when shooting because of heartbeat, low stamina, tired etc...because it isnt possible to do with BF2 engine :d uh:

Well if not accuracy theres gotta be a way to draw out firefights. See how long they take IRL on docos n that, a dug in bloke can hold out for way longer than in game.

there is nothing wrong with the accuracy because ive used some of the brit weapons and i find them good. they have a high rate of fire than in real life though (personal exp)

what the devs need to increase firefights and reduce insta head shots is to remove the scopes.

at the minute, no matter how careful you are if someone catches a glimpse of you, you are dead in 1 shot

in the game firefights last 10 sec. in real life it lasts 2 hours. it takes more than 1 magazine from your m4 to kill someone. and by the way, this game seems to have dropped "suppressing fire on enemy positions"
try this: request a support kit. if you think bursts to a concentrated enemy position will keep their heads down, you re mistaken. instead you will be rewarded with a head shot from a scoped g3 or us rifleman

which of course renders any person who plays with any other kit without a scope massively disadvantaged