Desire for realism, or difficulty?

General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.
Tostitos
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-01-10 00:27

Desire for realism, or difficulty?

Post by Tostitos »

I've been playing with PR for a while now, on and off. Mostly, the Insurgency mode captures my interest. It's unique and I enjoy blowing people up in ambushes.

Anyway, I've read the Armed Assault forums while it was coming out, and now the forums here. There seems to be a notable subculture of users who want difficulty because they associate it with realism. :o

Examples from the AA forums were posters who found that their screen didn't bobble enough, their gun didn't recoil hard enough, it was too accurate, that they didn't have to break it down and manually clean it after each round.. you get the idea. It honestly seemed like people wanted to be playing an untrained recruit instead of a professional soldier.

I've been playing shooters since Wolfenstein 3D, so it's not as if I don't know unrealistic combat from realistic combat.

I also own guns, and make a strong habit of shooting them as much as possible. ;)

Since most of the complaining is about shooting in general, that's what I'm going to address.

First is something I saw on here, mocking people who choose the SF kit becuase it has an optic, as n00bs who want a "laz0r sight." Um. Optics vs iron sights? I'll take optics, tyvm (although a backup set of larue irons is a good idea) and so will most people in a combat zone. They aren't that expensive or rare, you can have a durable and cheap holo or red dot if you want. I know the BF2 engine is limited to fullscreen optics, though, so reflex sights and the like are out. I'm just saying that although you may have a serious stiffy for iron sights, and there has been a major realism fad for irons over the last year or two, having the option to use optics is not unrealistic at all.

(I'm reminded of an aquaintance who was building a very large and expensive house in the early nineties. He had local contractors doing the major structural work, and flew in some old world builders from Europe to do the finishing and interior work. He was very excited about how they would lovingly do all the work with traditional hand tools.

However, when they were on the jobsite, they got a good look at the contractors and their plethora of the-very-latest power tools... and guess what they were fascinated by and wanted to use? That's right.

They ended up doing half the work with stuff that ran on electricity, not sweat, and only the most final finishing with the unpowered tools. He wasn't too happy, but they also finished ahead of schedule.)

Then there are complaints about recoil, or the lack of it. MOAR RECOIL PLS seems to be the order of the day. I have noticed people complaining that the AK47 for insurgents doesn't recoil enough.

What.

I own a Kalashnikov. It doesn't have the happy switch, but please don't try to tell me that's why it doesn't recoil as much as the AK in the game. I can bumpfire from the shoulder which provides just as much recoil - if not more because I have a looser grip on it in order to bumpfire.

Would you be surprised to learn that the PR AK is harder to keep on target in both single fire and full auto? I'm not a marksman. I haven't even put more than a few hundred rounds through the AK, but I'm still capable of using it accurately and keeping a sight picture.

Apparently my avatar within PR is a palsied idiot who doesn't know how to hold a gun or aim it. I don't mind that if that's the premise of the game, but a halfway decent insurgent who has probably shot thousands of times is probably going to be even better than I am.

Now, I'm not going to diss airsoft, but from reading up it seems like half the people making definitive statements on how guns should behave are kids from the UK who got their experience from battery powered pellet guns. (Nothing against airsoft, I have few green gas replicas of my own handguns for practicing force on force drills.)

.223 platform rifles don't really recoil that badly. I don't own any class III hardware, but I learned at the knob creek shoot that I can fire a DIAS AR15 one handed with almost no muzzle rise, after running a few mags through for practice. They aren't hard to handle. Why are people crying for more recoil on the M16 and M4, let alone L85? Not going to even mention the SAW, it's so heavy that all it does is a sustained push, not even a kick, no rise whatsoever.

Do you people want realism, or to be playing as a raw recruit who has never fired a gun before? Because, that's what some of you seem to be demanding. ;-)
Razick
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-12-04 01:46

Post by Razick »

You make a very good point on all of your arguments but one thing I cant stress enough is there is no comparison between marksmanship on the range and marksmanship in combat, NONE. Dont use how well you can shoot on the range as a refference as how the weapons should act for the realism aspect ingame. My M16A2 qual score was 50 (expert badge if you dont know the score system) so I am very capable of accurate fire. But during my tours I have found out that it was rather difficult to place a accurate round quickly. I often had my first couple rounds go nowhere near the intended target. You just dont have the luxury of being in a proper firing position and hold a perfect sight picture because you have a small time that what youre firing at is exposed.

by the way your avatar made me laugh.
Last edited by Razick on 2008-01-10 01:34, edited 1 time in total.
CAS_117
Posts: 1600
Joined: 2007-03-26 18:01

Post by CAS_117 »

Tostitos
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-01-10 00:27

Post by Tostitos »

Obviously you know that you can't really benchrest an AK. I'm not talking about the outdated, outmoded, and overall obsolete square range style of training or shooting. I've done a carbine course with james yeager and it's probably as close as you can get as a civvy without packing up and going to a bad neighborhood and committing DWW. Didn't bring my own AK but got a chance to try others during the course, both iron sighted and optic'd.

Here's some pics (not the same classes I was in but close enough) so you know what I'm talking about:


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/ ... 425-14.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/ ... 425-10.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/ ... 425-13.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/ ... Apri-2.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/ ... pril9-.jpg



Combat in PR isn't exactly unrealisticly easy. I've noticed that unless you're not immersed at all, you get about as clumsy when faced with a really sticky situation (in game) as you do IRL in a properly done (in other words, stressful as all hell) force on force training scenario. I think it's because ultimately, the mouse and keyboard are very imperfect control devices for a three dimensional world, and sometimes that bleeds through. In that case, the AK becomes even more retardly hard to use, but it's a realistic ramping up of challenge, percentage wise. It's just that the base figure is out of line a tad. ;)

Example. You're chilling out by the mosque, not in combat, doing some target practice. Everything I said about the AK in my post still applies. Now what? ;-)




Razick wrote:You make a very good point on all of your arguments but one thing I cant stress enough is there is no comparison between marksmanship on the range and marksmanship in combat, NONE. Dont use how well you can shoot on the range as a refference as how the weapons should act for the realism aspect ingame. My M16A2 qual score was 50 (expert badge if you dont know the score system) so I am very capable of accurate fire. But during my tours I have found out that it was rather difficult to place a accurate round quickly. I often had my first couple rounds go nowhere near the intended target. You just dont have the luxury of being in a proper firing position and hold a perfect sight picture because you have a small time that what youre firing at is exposed.
Tostitos
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-01-10 00:27

Post by Tostitos »

'[R-CON wrote:CAS_117;577447']YouTube - FPS Doug - BOOM HEADSHOT Megamix
What did that have to do with my post? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
=Romagnolo=
Posts: 4765
Joined: 2006-12-29 14:52

Post by =Romagnolo= »

Tostitos wrote:What did that have to do with my post? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
It doesnt matter... BUUM, HEADSHOT !


:mrgreen:



Nice text, nice ideias there, I had no time to see all, just half, because I'm leaving now, latter I'll read everything.
[R-DEV]OkitaMakoto:"Cheers, you're the man, Okita"
[R-DEV]Rhino:"I in fact got kicked from a server for tking."
Hitperson:"well done, treasure it forever."
[R-DEV]Adriaan:"Damned classy Roma, if I may say so."
[R-DEV]Chuc:"Pro man, pro."
(yes, it was about me)
[R-MOD]BloodBane611:"Romagnolo, you definitely deserve a LOL award for that."
CAS_117
Posts: 1600
Joined: 2007-03-26 18:01

Post by CAS_117 »

Tostitos wrote:What did that have to do with my post? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Anyways I would love to see optics on the LMG's. Seriously, a rifle should have pretty much no advantage over a SAW. Like there is something seriously wrong with it if you actually consider taking a rifle over it; they should always be the first thing gone.
Last edited by CAS_117 on 2008-01-10 02:31, edited 1 time in total.
Tostitos
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-01-10 00:27

Post by Tostitos »

[R-CON]CAS_117 wrote:Never you mind. Anyways I would love to see optics on the LMG's. Seriously, a rifle should have pretty much no advantage over a SAW. Like there is something seriously wrong with it if you actually consider taking a rifle over it; they should always be the first thing gone.
Is your experience with rifles / squad automatic weapons limited to airsoft?

:}
CAS_117
Posts: 1600
Joined: 2007-03-26 18:01

Post by CAS_117 »

Tostitos wrote:Is your experience with rifles / squad automatic weapons limited to airsoft?

:}
Well that and I have family in the Regina Rifles. Having fired a C7 (M16A2) and a C9 (M249 SAW), I must say that there is no comparison in effectiveness out to 400+ yards. I watched a demonstration where I saw 100 rounds from a M249 land on a 1 meter square plate at 300 yards. And I agree with you on the strange popularity of iron sights as well. Every C9 has a EOTECH C79 Optical Sight standard issue. I would not want to be on the receiving end of that.
Tostitos
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-01-10 00:27

Post by Tostitos »

SAWs are HEAVY. I wouldn't want to have to hump the pig around. Still, I don't get why aiming one is so.... god..... awful.... slow..... with irons up. Makes no sense but it probably gives the "I want to play as a retard" kids AND the iron sight fetishists a chubby.
Razick
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-12-04 01:46

Post by Razick »

James Yeager? haha Im not even gonna comment on that but they do have pretty good advertising Ill give them that. Theyre exercises remind me of Mojave Viper but with more fireworks and less noise. They also leave out the most important part in them and that is all the dirt popcorn. Nothing like your first crack to realise where the hell you are. We had a couple guys in my unit who said they took some of those courses and that most of it was joke. But you are right its about as close your gonna get so it probably was worth the adrenaline rush I suppose.

And Ill take optics over ironsites anyday. Just takes a little more time when making adjusments though.
OkitaMakoto
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 9368
Joined: 2006-05-25 20:57

Post by OkitaMakoto »

I must say this about the m4 leet spec ops though... its not JSUT cuz it has optics. Hell, I wish my medic kit had those optics, but I wont take SF. The joke/reality is that there are many people here and in vbf2 that want leet spec ops kits with parachutes, nades, c4, slams and ghillie suits so they can sneak behind enemy linzors and blow up a bridge that the enemy can simply bypass with little time lost.

I'd never thought it was solely for the optics... :)

but, I agree, I think many people who want gun jamming and such (Arma forums experience here) are asking too much and as far as recoil, I was an insurgent today and I realized how terribly ineffective firing the ak from anything but the hip was. The recoil was way too high imho that I just started firing from the hip and roleplayed as the crazy scared insurgent... :)

Im sure it'll all get sorted out in time. The deviation change and recoil in combo for .7 was a gamble[dare i say that?]. Two changes to similar things is risky, so it'll hopefully get better.

I agree with most of what yous said though, just had to bring up the spec ops part :)
00SoldierofFortune00
Posts: 2944
Joined: 2006-02-28 01:08

Post by 00SoldierofFortune00 »

Razick wrote:You make a very good point on all of your arguments but one thing I cant stress enough is there is no comparison between marksmanship on the range and marksmanship in combat, NONE. Dont use how well you can shoot on the range as a refference as how the weapons should act for the realism aspect ingame.
BS. Those same skills you learn on the range are what is the basis for and foundation of close range shooting. Correct sight picture and trigger control are still important in close combat as it is on the range. You may not have a looped sling in close combat, but you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk.
"Push the Envelope, Watch It Bend"

Tool ~ Lateralus
*spacecadett*
Posts: 337
Joined: 2006-11-23 16:50

Post by *spacecadett* »

Tostitos, intresting post.

1. The spec op kit (usmc M4) was frowned upon as it was a kit in all releases prior to .7 that was usless and unlimited, as the spec ops kit does not really help out with teamwork as much as a medic, rifleman and light AT for instance, there for the spec op kit was bashed cause of its uslesnes(lack of body armor) and effectiv range ingame.

2. the Saw, some things have to be have to be nerfed/downworked for the sake of gameplay as is the example of the saw ironsight moving slowly ingame, otherwise it would possibly be to overpowerd/overbalanced compared to the other kits ingame!

3.the AK, as the new recoil system is BRAND NEW it may still have some kinks to work out the AK possibly beeing one of them. You have to give the Devs some credit they have made a awsome mod and if the screw up one thing then I atleast say so be it... after all this is only .7 and we still have a few releases left to 1.0, that is why YOUR feedback is most likely appreciated( and a intresting read).

I myself am happy with the new recoil system(altho i havent tried the AK enough yet) to say that i see .7 as a great improvment as it is not ingame skill that counts(pronediving, lining up head shoots and other similar so called gheymy aspects that matter) but teamwork, tactics and out smarting your oponent with your SMs that matter and granted of course a bit of skill involving shooting ect but not as much as before that make the game.
Image
Razick
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-12-04 01:46

Post by Razick »

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:BS. Those same skills you learn on the range are what is the basis for and foundation of close range shooting. Correct sight picture and trigger control are still important in close combat as it is on the range. You may not have a looped sling in close combat, but you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk.
Of course it sets a basis but it doesnt properly train for those quick bad posture shots that you usually are forced to take at close range mind you that they are shooting back. The argument is really on the quick first shot accuracy, weapon recoil and bad posture simulation ingame. I do agree all need a lot of work but people keep using accuracy on the range as reference as to what accuracy in game should be like. My reference is from personal experience so that is my validation for the argument. The steps being taken as to movement and to its effect on accuracy are in the right direction, not perfect but its getting somewhere. Because as of right now your avatar moves more like a machine on steroids than a human being with a combat load. Eventually it will get smoother but till now we have to compensate. Hopefully the next patch will give the weapon recoil a little more natural feel to them.
Artnez[US]
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-10-19 17:43

Post by Artnez[US] »

Although I do think that the recoil could be reduced slightly, if I were to watch a video of infantry combat in Iraq and compare it with PR -- it's the closest to reality it has ever been.

I think the real challenge here is not only making things realistic ballistics/usability wise, but to also make the battles unfold realistically.

Whenever I see footage from Iraq, all soldiers seem to pace themselves when they shoot and recalibrate their aim after every shot (even in heavy combat - unless it's suppression fire). They don't unload shots in "snap snap snap snap" form but instead "snap *minor pause* snap *minor pause* snap snap *minor pause* snap snap"

It's very easy to make guns as accurate and as powerful as they are in real life with this mod because the game engine makes weapons completely moddable in nearly every possible way when it comes to the weapon's characteristics.

On the flipside, there are certain things that just aren't as moddable. Take this example... you're stressed, you're tired, you have a huge pack on your back, you could die at any second, you're a little wobbly from all of this -- try really focusing your aim then. Then there are things to consider like dust and other minor conditions like some **** getting stuck in your boot or not being able to move across the street and having a very bad line of fire.

From what I've seen, many soldiers balance their rifles on something. IE: if they are on a rooftop, they'll set their rifles on the ledge so they can aim easier. That makes sense, but you can't do that in PR because the BF2 engine doesn't allow it.

And unfortunately the majority of changes made to the game are global in all instances so people will exploit that. For example, if you make guns very accurate and have very low recoil, people will abuse this by using them in situations where you would never be able to maintain a consistent accurate rate of fire.

I'll put it this way... what's the point of suppression fire? If soldiers were so amazingly accurate all you would have to do is wait until an enemy pops his head out and then shoot. Suppression fire is there to minimize risk because at medium-long range it's highly likely that someone will miss and the enemy will not. So you unload a ton of rounds onto a location to keep their heads down and hopefully get a lucky kill.

The only assault rifle I have ever fired was an M16 and I learned quickly that a bullet is a tiny freaking thing. It's so tiny that even the slightest stutter of your hand will cause a complete miss at medium-long range.
Artnez[US]
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-10-19 17:43

Post by Artnez[US] »

By the way, I do agree with your argument. I just think it's an incomplete argument.

You're speaking from experience in one very specific facet of the game. There are many other things that need to work well with this to make the game just playable (not even talking about balance).
Tostitos
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-01-10 00:27

Post by Tostitos »

Razick wrote:James Yeager? haha Im not even gonna comment on that but they do have pretty good advertising Ill give them that. Theyre exercises remind me of Mojave Viper but with more fireworks and less noise. They also leave out the most important part in them and that is all the dirt popcorn. Nothing like your first crack to realise where the hell you are. We had a couple guys in my unit who said they took some of those courses and that most of it was joke. But you are right its about as close your gonna get so it probably was worth the adrenaline rush I suppose.

And Ill take optics over ironsites anyday. Just takes a little more time when making adjusments though.
James himself is a pompous coward who hid in a ditch while his guys got fragged. The redeeming quality is that in his desire to make $$$, he has some very competant instructors. I'd liken him to Suarez- jackass with great training available.
Death_dx
Posts: 379
Joined: 2007-11-09 21:37

Post by Death_dx »

*spacecadett* wrote:Tostitos, intresting post.

1. The spec op kit (usmc M4) was frowned upon as it was a kit in all releases prior to .7 that was usless and unlimited, as the spec ops kit does not really help out with teamwork as much as a medic, rifleman and light AT for instance, there for the spec op kit was bashed cause of its uslesnes(lack of body armor) and effectiv range ingame.
Well your pretty much right, but I'd argue it was mostly on US that Specops was chosen due to the horrible "zoomed" ironsights on rifleman. I don't think half the people even realized that the aimpoint on the m4 wasn't a 4x zoom.

As for on topic, the OP has a point about ironsights, I'd much rather have aimpoints instead.
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 General Discussion”