A serious discussion about weapon deviation in 0.85

[$kelet0r]

Here we go again talking about deviation. But in the eternal pursuit of perfection there's probably no harm in seeing where PR is with current deviation.

To my mind it's still not right ... where right can mean a hundred different things. A large numbers of people were happy with deviation in 0.8 and now it seems a large number of people are happy with 0.85 deviation. To my mind I cannot reconcile that in my head - the deviation in 0.8 was closer to vanilla BF2 deviation and 0.85 closer to 0.75 pixel shooting.

To me killing and dying is now back to being easy like in 0.75 - point and click, only you count ..1..2 between those two steps and voila you hit every time out to 200m+. Which is why my kdr has rocketed in games when I'm playing properly - I have alot of experience in this game so when I think it's way too easy (again) it means that something probably isn't right (based on the fact that my reflexes ingame are shite not that I'm that good!)

Now Wolfe (wherever he disappeared to) had a big role in 0.8's deviation and Jaymz I assume had a hand in the 0.85 deviation but nothing here should be taken as directed at them. Wolfe's ideas had merit - the implementation was sloppy, fit the gameplay to the game. With pixels and draw distance and mouse aiming and no combat stress, realism applied to guns only would mean laser accurate cannons.

Where 0.8 went wrong was that close quarters combat was a disaster.
Where 0.85 is going wrong is that you achieve enough accuracy that within the actual combat ranges ingame, your avatars are too accurate - death is too common, killing too easy.

A possible solution?
The medium is somewhere in between imo - the reverse of 0.85's changes:
Point 1 make the maximum deviation after moving smaller so that CQB is decisive and suppressive fire on the move possible
Point 2 make the minimum deviation when settled larger (up to multiples of the realistic MOA)

Point 1 - CQB is still the weakest point of PR and when sudden contacts occur, you can see bullets spraying the full height of a soldier at spitting ranges - puffs of smoke on the floor then another in the ceiling. It literally takes spray and pray to a whole new level!

Point 2 - The minimum deviation now feels back to 0.75 levels nearly - the only difference is that medics can now revive any small arms injury which is a whole other problem but not for this thread. Where 0.8 was going in the right direction was that bullets, lots of them, were needed to kill even one enemy at longer ranges. When you had your squad on the same roof all filling a road on Muttrah with lead, there was nothing like it. Where 0.85 differs is that squad communication goes like this: "enemy spotted...45 degrees...nevermind, I got him".

I'm curious for other views - the problem in my mind in 0.8 was that deviation was too big at close range and was heading in the right direction after waiting for the gun to settle for longer range shots. The 0.85 fix made the deviation at short range bigger and at longer range much too small for combat situation. What I want to know is how people who liked/loved the direction 0.8 took feel now that after waiting a few seconds their weapons are very very accurate.

Please discuss. How can deviation be improved?

[GreedoNeverShot]

I don't think there is any improving to be done. You don't die as much if you use stealth cover and have your squad with you. If the enemy has good accuracy... So do you... defeat them. I don't believe deviation needs to change. The DEVs got it right. I don't believe its too accurate or inaccurate.
As for close quarters, the long ranged rifleman, marksman, and sniper take too long to deploy, and aren't suited for close quarters... But its supposed to be like that. If you are going into a close quarters environment, take your time, or choose a suitable kit. It won't be spray in pray, it will be... aim.. pow..... pow... dead. In other words, no randomly sprinting into a city full of enemies and unloading 5 magazines randomly spraying at them. Hop from cover to cover with squadmates with you to support you. When you finally find the enemy line up the shot and take em out.

[Alex6714]

The reason it is so easy to kill, is because people don´t care about being shot.


Put a row of people who don´t care about life in the middle of no where against some guys, both with real weapons and see how they fall.

[Clypp]

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

[Jaymz]

This is a topic I posted on the Dev forums but I see no harm in sharing it with the public,

One of these choices needs to be made for 0.9 regarding the Deviation.


Option 1

Leave both deviation and bullet drop the way it currently is

Pros

• Very popular with the majority of the community.
• Realistic since it reflects the groupings required for Basic US Army Marksmanship.

Cons

• Unrealistic since the linear travel path requires no compensation up to the "zero" mark.
• Too accurate when you consider that the typical PR engagement range rarely goes above 200m.

Option 2

Leave the deviation the way it is, but incorporate Zangoo's "Realistic Ballistics"

Pros

• Would give complete realism in terms of shot groupings and projectile travel paths
• Would mean that players would have to take all ranges into consideration when engaging targets

Cons

• If you apply this to a weapon, that weapon must have a tracer loadout of all or nothing

This would mean the following,

Rifles: Realistically zeroed @ 300m w/tracers every round or no tracers at all.
Automatic Weapons: Realistically zeroed @ 300m w/tracers every round or no tracers at all.
Marksman Rifles: Realistically zeroed @ 600m w/no tracers
Sniper Rifles: Realistically zeroed @ 600m w/no tracers
Mounted Weapons: Realistically zeroed @ XXXm w/tracers every round or no tracers at all.

Option 3

Decrease maximum accuracy slightly to accommodate for common PR engagement ranges

Pros

• Keeps the popular handling we have now.
• Keep realistic tracer loadouts.

Cons

• Unrealistic since the linear travel path requires no compensation up to the "zero" mark.
• Slightly unrealistic shot groupings.

So far option 1 is the most popular among the developers.

[gazzthompson]

maybe a public beta with option 2? cause it sounds good...

rifles - no tracers
SAW's - all tracers

[McBumLuv]

maybe a public beta with option 2? cause it sounds good...

rifles - no tracers
SAW's - all tracers

I agree, wouldn't be that start wars laser like, would it? And if it is, let us get a sense for it ourselves. Option 1 > Option 3, though Option 2 would realistically be above all else were it not for the tracer bug.

[xXRich07Xx]

The only thing I can thing of that would solve the CQB laughability is to have a very rough cross hair.

A sort of 3 inch circle. Because after all. Soldiers can reasonably guestimate where close shots will land without putting their chin to the butt and looking down the sights.

Make it innacurrate though at ranges longer than 5-10m, so it will still be beneficial to use ironsights on enemies that are close, but not that close...

Again, while soldiers do not have the equivalent of a 3 inch circle tattooed on their pupils, soldiers have a pretty good guess of where there fire will land at extremely close ranges.

[xXRich07Xx]

I agree, wouldn't be that start wars laser like, would it? And if it is, let us get a sense for it ourselves. Option 1 > Option 3, though Option 2 would realistically be above all else were it not for the tracer bug.

Just keep the tracers the way they are. Every 3-5 round is a tracer.

[gazzthompson]

Just keep the tracers the way they are. Every 3-5 round is a tracer.

thats the point, to implement option 2 they cant keep tracers the same... its all tracers or no tracers for the weapon systems

and no need for crosshair how ever faint, the rounds come from center of screen which should be very easy for you to guess where that is...

[GeZe]

We voted for option 1 by a large margin. More then 4.5 times the number of people voted for option 1 as the second highest voted option.

[bosco_]

I'm one of the two guys who voted for #3.

[$kelet0r]

Jaymz, am I right in thinking that in 0.85 you can hit a man sized target at 200m after kneeling still just 2 seconds? To my mind that's just too accurate in a combat situation, those sound more like at the firing range times. Gone are the opportunities to take cover that you had in 0.8 when rounds were incoming - because if they are incoming now, they've already hit their target...

The problem is the gameplay suffers - a squad on squad firefight leaves one squad completely dead and the medic revives the other squad. In 0.8 even firefights at range with one squad against lone soldiers were often inconclusive - one side retreated or took cover. That was realistic - volume of fire won the fight rather than resulted in utter carnage. Whereas now if I spot the enemy at most visual ranges, with an assault rifle like in 0.75, i can do the job myself alone. Great if you check your scores every few minutes. Bad if you think (like me) that if you die more than a mere handful of times in a full round, you're playing wrong.

What 0.85 has is a situation where going full auto at knife range will see bullet impacts between the target's feet, above his head, a metre to the left etc. - spammy, unrealistic, awkward. What should ideally happen is a target 3 metres (think the length of a small bedroom) away, even with a G3, every bullet should hit centre mass.

What 0.85 also has is - stop, aim, ...1...2....click and profit for 90% of infantry engagements. What 0.8 got perfect was that if you spotted an enemy, you had to have your whole squad open fire to ensure the target was killed.

My biggest confusion though is that many people vocally loved 0.8's "scaled to the map size" deviation. Now many vocally love 0.85's "wait long enough and you can shoot like you're using a vice" deviation. But the two are as different as chocolate and porridge - it would be completely illogical for the same people to love both in my opinion. 0.85 is brilliant but Wolfe's tinkering with the 0.8 deviation was perhaps for long range combat the route PR should have followed going forward...

[Noobofthenight]

I think 0.85 has finally got the deviation right, I was a big fan of 0.7's 'laser' guns, it made rifles feel deadly.

And I think you'll find, two seconds is easily enough time to line up a rifle and shoot it accurately at 200m, with an L85a2 at least. Though, I cannot say I've done that while coming under fire But I'd hazard a guess that if you are being shot, you are going to be able to return fire much quicker, because your life depends on it.

In 0.8, it was mainly luck for fire fights, or who had a more people... mainly luck to be honest. Remember, PR is still a game, and a game is about contention of skill, not pure luck.

[xXRich07Xx]

thats the point, to implement option 2 they cant keep tracers the same... its all tracers or no tracers for the weapon systems

and no need for crosshair how ever faint, the rounds come from center of screen which should be very easy for you to guess where that is...

Guess you didn't read this.

Point 1 - CQB is still the weakest point of PR and when sudden contacts occur, you can see bullets spraying the full height of a soldier at spitting ranges - puffs of smoke on the floor then another in the ceiling. It literally takes spray and pray to a whole new level!

Also,

What 0.85 has is a situation where going full auto at knife range will see bullet impacts between the target's feet, above his head, a metre to the left etc. - spammy, unrealistic, awkward. What should ideally happen is a target 3 metres (think the length of a small bedroom) away, even with a G3, every bullet should hit centre mass.

[Jaymz]

Jaymz, am I right in thinking that in 0.85 you can hit a man sized target at 200m after kneeling still just 2 seconds?

No, you'd have to take a knee and wait 4-5 seconds for that kind of accuracy.

My biggest confusion though is that many people vocally loved 0.8's "scaled to the map size" deviation. Now many vocally love 0.85's "wait long enough and you can shoot like you're using a vice" deviation.

Even after the full five seconds of settle time in a prone position, rifles still aren't as accurate as they could be IRL.

I do agree though, there are problems with the current deviation system. Exactly how to address those problems is...the problem

[c0ca]

hmm, I am happy with the current deviation

I hit everyone that I want in CQB (burst/auto) and at distance its get a bit more tricky to hit,
whats like it should be

but I dont care if its realistic or not and I never had a real gun in my hands

its a lot a fun in the moment, 0.8 was totally lame...

I see it as a perfect mix between 0.5 and 0.8

[AgentMongoose]

How about the realistic ballistics with 2 different ammo types. In the same way that the saw has deployed mode a rifleman or officer could have tracer round mags.

Just my thought

[Lord.Helmet]

Please let it exactly like it is right now! I'm sorry but 0.8 was a joke. I remember spending a"LOT" of time face to face with an enemy at medium range, both on prone, firing round after round like him and crossing my finger hoping I was gonna "get lucky" before him.

0.85 gives you more reasons to act realistically (sneak, take cover, hide, squad up, suppress) because if you don't, you're dead meat. The ones I see moving carelessly in PR are dead meat like they would be in a real war.

I think that this deviation is perfect because it isn't precise when it shoudn't be (moving, standing, auto) and it is when it should (prone, crouch, imobile, single shot)

Now you have a lot more reasons to try to think about your itinerary and how you're gonna move.

Well done Devs, keep it that way.

[TurnCoat]

0.8 was totally lame...

yep, it's like а Turn-Based Strategy to fire each shot in 0.8. 0.85 is closer to Real-Time one