Project Reality Forums

At the moment it almost seems that deviation is the way it is currently because it felt 'right' with the values it currently has. I did some thinking, and being tortured with a College Mathematics course, I got to thinking in linear mathematical terms.

(It's really hard to try to explain this properly in depth, so bare with me here, if you think of a better way to state this please do so in your post. It's also long winded, so be prepared for a wall of text!)

__________________________________________________


Explanation:

Deviation would be structured based on a linear function. Distance and Time would be taken in by the function, and would result in a deviation for that set of values. The goal would be to have a system that would produce an easy to understand system of how much time must be waited out before the player would be accurate.


Let's say a players deviation is maxed out (he's walking about). Now, he sees a target 50 meters away. He stops, sights in, and aims.

How does he know that he is accurate?
Assume that the player is aiming at the absolute center of mass of the target (pixel perfect), and that 'accurate' from now on means that the shot will land within the approximate radius from absolute center of mass to the nearest negative space. (In layman's terms, if you're aiming at the center of the circle, and you fire, the bullet will only land within that circle)

Currently, he usually waits a few seconds and guesses.

Now, lets say that it is changed so that every 50 meters away the target is, it takes 1 second to become accurate at that distance. At 50 meters, it takes one second for the player to be accurate. At 100m, 2 seconds. 300 m, 6 seconds.

Now, the player knows that he can guesstimate the range to the nearest 50 meter mark (rounding up is a good idea).

With this change, he knows that if he stays still and steadies for exactly one second, he can fire and his shot will land directly into the target if aiming at center mass, at 50 meters.

At 300m, the player will now have to wait 6 seconds to be fully accurate, meaning that at longer range accuracy will be determined based on being able to focus on the target long enough to hit (keep them surpressed so that your marksman can aim for 6 seconds straight without being hit, and the next enemy that stands up is going to get a hole in his chest)




Values can be changed to fit the system a bit better, but the idea is to keep a relatively easy-to-understand system of deviation, so giving arbitrary values isn't the best idea. For instance, if we wanted to make the settle time shorter, every 50 meters would take .5 seconds (meaning that 100m = 1 second, 300m = 3 seconds...). Keeping it structured so that a player can estimate 'when' to fire is the aim of the system.

Also, notice that the emphasis is on aiming at center mass. At 50m, one second only accounts for CENTER MASS. You can wait longer to make your shot more accurate, but this means that you are going to be exposed longer, waiting for your deviation to settle more. To get off that first shot, you're going to want to aim at center mass, otherwise you are going to be at a huge disadvantage compared to someone aiming properly.



(Also note that when I say 'center of mass', I am referring to the center of mass on a standing player)
__________________________________________________

Other Concerns or Issues with this system:

Maximum Deviation: Ideally, maximum deviation (including while moving) should be 'accurate' (again, using the center mass explanation) at up to around 10m or more. I don't know how the values are set, so using the system I have detailed may not allow a 'cap' on the maximum amount of deviation possible (the idea is that at 0m you're always accurate, at 50m you're accurate in 1 second... the max deviation cap breaks the function and says that you're accurate up to 10m no matter what, and can only get more accurate).

Jack-In-The-Box: While behind cover, your deviation will settle. If you stand up, you are able to fire quickly with little deviation as compared to someone who has their rifle already pointed at you and has not moved a hair in the last 10 seconds. This is a big issue that would break the system, because of the amplified times for settling at longer ranges (6 second wait time now avoided by crouching then standing and firing immediately, making the marksman who's been waiting for the head to pop up for ages useless).

If possible, implementing a pause from crouch to standing where the weapon is unusable would help reduce this issue since the player would have to be standing for a short time before they can fire, helping to quell the advantage they have from abusing the stance system (standing with that kind of gear is likely going to require using a hand on your knee or something to help push up and keep balance, so it would take a moment before you'd be ready to fire again; currently you'll stand up and be ready to fire as quickly as you can let go of your CTRL button. Creating a time where the weapon cannot be fired will leave a standing player vulnerable to fire, just like peeking out from cover by moving left or right (where movement will reset your deviation, whereas stance changes will not).
__________________________________________________



Comment, Discuss.

I didn't actually read your post, but I liked the headings, so I agree that as long as there is deviation, your idea should be implemented.

T-up!

I understand your suggestion, and in-fact, it does already work like that in PR at this time. The deviation acts in a conical fashion meaning that the further away your target is, the less chance you have of scoring a hit if you have been moving. The longer you wait, the greater the chances of hitting the target.

Very logical and structured system, what else to expect form a mathamatician?

Imagine that was implemented, all the xperienced players would be spot on, but any new players who didn't know the technicalities would no doubt get frustated and leave.

Jigsaw wrote:I understand your suggestion, and in-fact, it does already work like that in PR at this time. The deviation acts in a conical fashion meaning that the further away your target is, the less chance you have of scoring a hit if you have been moving. The longer you wait, the greater the chances of hitting the target.

The deviation system in game is a linear function. However, the difference between the two is primarily that the deviation structure currently is one that we recieve the value of deviation from, whereas my idea is to have the deviation system conform to a set of predetermined values (for every one second, the deviation becomes accurate out to 50m past the previous value). Right now, if you were to do some equations using the deviation coding, you could find the exact timings for a center-of-mass aimed shot hitting on target for a target at 50 meters, but it's probably a very vague and useless number, like 2.64234 seconds or whatever it might be.


The suggestion really just boils down to changing the values of the system to match these predetermined set of values.

The center mass part, however, is a big part of the system. Finding the right radius for the right sized target would take some time, and then fitting the deviation cone to that value may take some time, but it would add an inherit bonus for anyone who aims at center mass and can fit the timings, just as an experienced soldier would know to aim for center mass and knows when they are accurate and steady for the shot.

PLODDITHANLEY wrote:Very logical and structured system, what else to expect form a mathamatician?

Imagine that was implemented, all the xperienced players would be spot on, but any new players who didn't know the technicalities would no doubt get frustated and leave.

I hate doing math, but I know it can be used for good, and I couldn't get the idea out of my head.


I don't think it would push new players away. Just like any game, it's a feel to adapt to just like PR is now. However, with these values being presented to the player (say, in the manual, even) it should become evident of how things work, and a player could roughly guesstimate ranges and wait that long.

A player who's new to PR right now (and came straight from being a pro Vanilla bunnyhopping, dolphin diving, prone spamming somethingorrather) might think that having full auto on and firing on the move without sighting in is a good idea. He already will soon learn that he can't do that, and that standing still and sighting in is best for any long ranged fight, and might still fire fully automatic. Soon, he will learn that firing fully automatic makes his shots land rampantly around the target, and he'll quickly pick up how to fire in single shot and give some breathing time inbetween shots.

With this system, yes he'll have some mastering to do, however the numbers should still be very easy to grasp and will just be another roadblock in the learning curve, but no higher than any of the rest already stated. Infact, a player could entirely ignore these values and just go for it by feel, and they may do a great job.

Those who take the time to get a feel for these numbers and timings (as well as firing at center mass) will gain more experience in reflex-fights where the first one to hit wins (CQB), and have the advantage when they know they only need to wait a specific amount of time for that distance and know that they can do so while simply aiming at the largest part of the player.

Also, we already have this system in game, but like I said, with non-accessible values that don't allow a player to really feel when he's ready, and forces them to 'guess' that they're accurate after a specific amount of time.


Just like any soldier will gain experience and his aim will improve over time, a player's experience will allow his aim to improve over time.

Your idea has some benefits but its not like people will have stopwatches to see when their aim is good. Also, distance is hard to measure so making those calculations on both range and time in your head everytime you see an enemy is probably more difficult than going by gut feeling which is aquired through trial and error, as we do now. Also, its probably better to model the deviation system on what fits the gameplay e.g. balance between cqb and long range other than the most important factor being that deviation is in "easy & clean" numbers (I bet you mathwizards has a word for that )

However, I like your quest for a more transparent deviation system, as it is not always clear when a weapon is settled and settle time differs between weapons. Somebody should make a poll in which all of these deviation indicators suggestions, e.g. visual indicators, breath sound system, easily mathematically calculable system etc, are voted on.

HellDuke wrote:Hate math... Read most of the post to detail and just looked over the rest. That's what basicaly is ingame right now and it's quite good as it is, since deviation is not a real factor. In mathematical terms you can say it's a projection of several forces that have impact on accuracy projected onto one axis and made into a linear function as it is.

So there's no real change needed there...

Like I said, the idea is about changing the values of the deviation to match a linear function that includes easy to understand values (like knowing that at 50 meters it takes 1 second to be able to fire), that incrementally increase in this manner (for every 50 meters, it takes a second longer to be steady; 100m, 2 seconds. 200m, 4 seconds.)

It's just about trying to spread the deviation out enough that it is measurable by a rough timing by the player to know when they can fire effectively.

And again, part of it is that for every second, you become accurate out to another 50m. However, your 'accuracy' is an exact radius from the center of body mass of the other player; this translates to "Go for the Center of Mass" when firing, a realistic military tactic.

TheLean wrote:Your idea has some benefits but its not like people will have stopwatches to see when their aim is good. Also, distance is hard to measure so making those calculations on both range and time in your head everytime you see an enemy is probably more difficult than going by gut feeling which is aquired through trial and error, as we do now. Also, its probably better to model the deviation system on what fits the gameplay e.g. balance between cqb and long range other than the most important factor being that deviation is in "easy & clean" numbers (I bet you mathwizards has a word for that )

I agree; clean and easy numbers aren't the most important things when it comes to fitting the deviation wanted in game. However, the function for which the deviation is determined can be altered to fit a better ideology (like I mentioned in the original post, the values could be changed so that it takes 1 second to become accurate out to 100m, rather than 2 seconds; or even so that it takes 4 seconds rather than 2. And, on top of that, the Minimum and Maximum values for deviation can still remain completely the same or be altered to fit the system such as changing the minimum deviation to the diameter of a center of mass target at 300 meters, so that it takes 6 seconds to be accurate at 300m, but will only be accurate to a body mass shot, encouraging aiming for the center.)

In this way, it's a fairly customizable system that can be changed to fit a different set of ideals in regards to aim.

i am 20 meters away,wait maybe two second.then shot at him three shot at back.he just run away.
and i noticed that happens very often now.

and i dont like it anymore.

I know that somewhere the deviation values have been listed.. perhaps someone has the link, and knowing what the current values are would be enough for us to round up to some whole numbers that will allow people to know when they are accurate.

Well written.

To bad the stance change issue cant be addressed, as the 1.5 patch changed the set value for deviation between stance change but was not written to allow it to be changed by the PR Devs as I understand it.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... uracy.html

flem615 wrote: I think that, to solve (at least half of) the ongoing accuracy/deviation issues, the DEVs should make it so that you can hit anything within 100 meters. this means that, after pulling up your sights, you do not have to wait 3 seconds.

McLuv wrote:Look, deviation isn't a distance related accuracy test. It's more of a varying cone of fire. What makes it less accurate is that as the distance increases, so does the width of the base of the cone.

Simple geometry, right? 2 similar triangles, where one has it's heat increase, also has it's base increase by the same ratio.

In other words, this is how it would look like:



Notice that I've included Min and Max dev, all that means is there is a difference in you cone of fire when you've just moved or fired (your maximum deviation), to after having let the gun settle and waited for maximum accuracy (your minimum deviation).

What you're suggesting to do, is to have the weapon pin-point accurate up to 100 meters, and then have lots of deviation I suppose? Like this:



Well, As far as I'm aware of, that is impossible to do, having two different cone of fires.

He doesn't want to change the cone.
He wants the time of the decreasing deviation to be non linear. At first fast and to the end slower.

llPANCHOll wrote:To bad the stance change issue cant be addressed, as the 1.5 patch changed the set value for deviation between stance change but was not written to allow it to be changed by the PR Devs as I understand it.

I don't know how feasible or applicable it is, but I know that we have/have had the feature where you cannot fire for a short time when going prone. If this could be lengthened and applied to other stance changes, then it would likely be very hard to notice the stance change issues... For instance, make going prone cause the weapon inoperable for 2 seconds. When going to standing position, do the same. This way, going to prone from any stance takes 2 seconds to function at all (because you would have to lower your knees, put a hand on the ground, kick your feet out, lower your upper body from your extended arm, and then move that hand to your weapon again. This takes a decent amount of time, and wouldn't be practical in a CQB environment, so it would make prone very much a long-range 'sniper' position, or ducking for dear life position. As for standing, this will mean that jack in the box will be eliminated because standing takes you 2 seconds until you are ready to use your weapon again (to stand with that much gear it's likely going to take a hand off of your weapon, onto your knee, and then pushing up and bringing your hips forward) which will stop the ability of players to crouch, wait for deviation to settle, and then fire a completely accurate shot in a blink. Now, they will have to wait a full 2 seconds before their weapon is readied, leaving a good gap in which he could easily be shot if his team is not supressing the enemy.

A side effect of the standing weapon-stop is that in CQB you would be screwed if you stood up. However, assuming it works as I think, if you went right back to crouch there shouldn't be a problem there.







Actually, Bubba, it's a linear function (does not curve, and does not change direction)

Example diagram below.


As noted in the picture, the Red cone is the diameter of the deviation cone one second after steadying begins (after the player stops moving, etc). The blue cone is the diameter of the deviation cone 6 seconds after steadying begins.

This continues on until 300m (or beyond) in a linear fashion.

(this is beyond obviously not to scale, of course. The target closest to the 'player' is assumed to be a target at 100m, and the target nearest the top of the diagram is assumed to be a target at 300m.)




Again, the emphasis is not at all on changing the system itself, just the values it will calculate.

I would prefer a simple indicator that said when you were in minimum/maximum deviation:



This is already in existence.

CAS_117 wrote:I would prefer a simple indicator that said when you were in minimum/maximum deviation:



This is already in existence.

One of the issues with this, in my eyes, is that it in no way assists in having a middle ground ("am I accurate enough for this distance?").

In this way, CQB can be quick and dirty (max dev can be relatively tight for short distance, like body-mass accurate at 15 meters) and Long Range can be slow and much more precise (min dev being body-mass accurate at 300m), and an increment based timer can separate the two properly so that CQB doesn't have to be blanketed in with long range, and vice versa.

These increments would allow CQB to function much on it's own and allows this kind of short range engagement to be more reflex based, and long range engagements more based on keeping the enemy suppressed/aiming for a longer period to ensure that you're steady for that kind of shot.

Celestial1 wrote:One of the issues with this, in my eyes, is that it in no way assists in having a middle ground ("am I accurate enough for this distance?").

In this way, CQB can be quick and dirty (max dev can be relatively tight for short distance, like body-mass accurate at 15 meters) and Long Range can be slow and much more precise (min dev being body-mass accurate at 300m), and an increment based timer can separate the two properly so that CQB doesn't have to be blanketed in with long range, and vice versa.

These increments would allow CQB to function much on it's own and allows this kind of short range engagement to be more reflex based, and long range engagements more based on keeping the enemy suppressed/aiming for a longer period to ensure that you're steady for that kind of shot.

Yellow indicates it's ok to shoot for midrange.

Hunt3r wrote:Yellow indicates it's ok to shoot for midrange.

We can assume so. That doesn't however indicate any more detail than that. The indicator is most useful for 'not accurate' and 'accurate', and I doubt you'll be paying much detail to the yellow at any point, since if you're close enough for yellow to be accurate you're probably going to want to shoot a LOT anyway.



This system takes that further. The indicator itself is great, however it does nothing to actually change the deviation and instead says 'okay, go ahead and shoot'.


The system rewards experience as well as proper firing tactic (Fire at center mass: both logic and the system itself back this up as a good tactic; Fire slowly but accurately, to ensure that you get the kill as efficiently as possible) etc.

Also, with high long-range settle times (that don't interfere with CQB fighting) being suppressed would also be a big deal; to pop out and fire would mean to move out of cover and wait an agonizing 6 seconds to be able to fire accurately. Encourages more of the players attempting to pop out, wait as little time as possible to get a semi-accurate shot, fire a few times, and then get back into cover to avoid any incoming fire. Peeking out alone and waiting the 6 seconds for a guaranteed kill will be a hard ordeal, and will require either covering fire from the rest, or a concealed firing position.

If you do that, that means people will try to close with the enemy to win.

That means you don't get long range firefights, and all you get is a bunch of unrealistic rubbish.

Hunt3r wrote:If you do that, that means people will try to close with the enemy to win.

That means you don't get long range firefights, and all you get is a bunch of unrealistic rubbish.

Pointing out Kashan as an example.

Let's say that you're on the Hills east of the bunker compound, 300m away from an infantryman within the bunker walls. You are accurate out to 300m, due to having a bead on him for 6 seconds. He walks away from the wall, and tries to move to cover. Fire, and you'll probably hit if you went for a center of mass shot.

He tries to move closer to you. You shoot after being steady for 6 seconds. He is now dead.


I think that there's a lot of things that need to be changed to have realistic firefights. I don't tend to see many firefights past 100m in game, mainly due to it being a pain in the butt to try to hit that guy before he hits you, no matter how long you've been out there. He's steady in the time it takes for you to shoot one bullet, basically, and you're not likely to hit with that first bullet, so it just becomes a game of tennis between you two until someone gets lucky.

I think that slowing down infantry speed (walk and sprint both) would also make long range firefights more of an ordeal because it would be much, much harder to move from cover to cover to advance, and you would want to rely on covering fire so much more while doing so.



Currently, I find the best way to kill an enemy in game is to sneak around alone on fully automatic in forests, staying prone if they might see me otherwise, just waiting for them to pass, instead of waiting at the other end of a large, flat expanse and attempting to shoot at them once they are entirely out of the forest and exposed. And that thoroughly sucks.

"""I think that slowing down infantry speed (walk and sprint both) would also make long range firefights more of an ordeal because it would be much, much harder to move from cover to cover to advance, and you would want to rely on covering fire so much more while doing so."""

can it make this way:
when i shot near you and you get that blurryeffect,i mean when you are supressed,your staminabar goes half?or completively down?

cause now theres no any kind fear-effect in.
this would try simulate that when you are shotted,you fear,you are suprised.
i played yesterday and i saw enemy camping 20 meters away.
i stopped,aimed in center,wait for few second and shot three shot in middle at him.
he stand up and start running like forrest gump,like a robot,no fear,with bleeding body.
he should die in that place,but if i missed a little and hit him at leg or arm he should not run that fast anywhere.