Project Reality Forums

So one thing I've noticed is that I tend to die frequently to undeployed-MGs in close combat. I've determined that this has mostly to do with the fact the MGs spray so many bullets, that despite the inaccuracy of any single bullet, it still manages to often times be more effective than a regular rifleman with iron sights. The problem with rifleman is that there is too much deviation for the amount of rounds that are fired. Up close, that deviation can mean that most of bullet for auto or semi-auto hit in the arms or legs instead of the chest allowing the MG to win the battle while preparing the next burst. This problem is compounded further by floor diving tactics when the enemy is 5-10 feet away.

Now, I do understand in real life MGs are incredibly accurate due to rate of fire, which is fine. However, MGs in real life or no where near as mobile and easy to move as an M4 or AK. If this were the case you would expect them to be used as a close-quarters weapon of choice.

Anyways, my opinion is that something needs to be done to make them a less effective weapon up close. I see that this game is trying to both be as realistic as possible while retaining strong gameplay. Mgs unfortunately seem to have all the strengths of a Marksman kit with very few (if any) disadvantages. The effectiveness of riflemen up close should be increased.

sounds to me like another complaint about PRs deviation. the fact is the DEVs will never get it perfect because of the limitations of the BF2 engine.

A SAW fires the same bullet that the standard assault rifle does. So a burst from a SAW wouldn't be totally uncontrollable in close combat. So really the volume of fire should be the only variable in the equation, and a SAW wins that. All my opinion of course.

[R-MOD]Thermis wrote:A SAW fires the same bullet that the standard assault rifle does. So a burst from a SAW wouldn't be totally uncontrollable in close combat. So really the volume of fire should be the only variable in the equation, and a SAW wins that. All my opinion of course.

No, the other variables in the equation are the length of the gun, the weight of the gun (if you've ever tried to actually hold a machine gun at the shoulder, steady, and sighted and walking, you'd know it's next to impossible) and perhaps most importantly the ergonomics of the gun (the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC). This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

Not yet that is. The deviation and recoil model at the moment is quite general and was developed to get a good benchmark for working later on a weapon by weapon basis.

Truism wrote:(the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC).

M249 PARA

The M249 PARA is designed specifically for airborne, armored infantry and close quarters combat (CQC) operations with a shorter barrel and collapsible buttstock to reduce the weapon’s overall length by more than 10" from the M249 SAW standard model.

Note that in PR, we don't have the standard model.

Truism wrote:This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

The primary reason is length, which we can't model in BF2 because there is no collision detection between hand held weapons and the environment.

As Chuc said though, we will be improving on this as much as we can.

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;1162185']


The primary reason is length, which we can't model in BF2 because there is no collision detection between hand held weapons and the environment.

I heard, correct me if i'm wrong, that you can actually add collision meshes to weapons but it is just basically useless because you then cant do much in buildings because you cant lower/raise your weapon?

just out of curiosity

Make weapons more accurate and you get people to fear them more and take more cover and youre done.
but no, everything has to be done with verry wide cones where as youre standing right on someone bodie and shoot youre rifle you still miss..

Just add a visual weapon sway, wich yes dont work realisticly due to the bf2 engine but it will make you guess more before firing, thus probally missing some too, just like fh2, anyone tried shooting in fh2 with a sniper rifle while standing? you miss some and you hit some its nice and balanced.

'[R-DEV wrote:Chuc;1162178']Not yet that is. The deviation and recoil model at the moment is quite general and was developed to get a good benchmark for working later on a weapon by weapon basis.

Sweating.

Truism wrote:No, the other variables in the equation are the length of the gun, the weight of the gun (if you've ever tried to actually hold a machine gun at the shoulder, steady, and sighted and walking, you'd know it's next to impossible) and perhaps most importantly the ergonomics of the gun (the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC). This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

I have fired most of the weapons systems in PR with a few exceptions.
I'm talking about squad automatic weapons. IE a weapon that fires a smaller caliber round and is lighter than a general purpose machine gun. The para varient of the M249 isn't that much more difficult to wield in a FISH situation than an M16 is, and with the close proximity you don't need to look down your sites you can pretty much point shoot.
Now I do understand that a GPMG like a PKM or M240 would be absolutely horrible in close up situations. I have fired a M240 standing and unsupported, and that wasn't fun, so I can only imagine what a PKM would be like.

Best thing to do with this deviation is that the starting deviation should be lower (not very much though) and cone doesn't shirnks linear, but it decelerates. So this would make CQC accuracy good, but you will still have to wait for longer targets.

Somtheing like this (Accuracy -Time graph)

Best thing to do in my opinion is to just reduce deviation to the point where they both have the same chance of hitting something.

But on a more serious note, just making the GPMGs have a cone of fire that covers the entire FOV when not raised or deployed would be the proper fix, since firing a GPMG from the hip is an act of desperation.

The 5.56 caliber MGs should stay the same, it's fine if they're far more effective at CQC then rifles.

ChizNizzle wrote:Best thing to do with this deviation is that the starting deviation should be lower (not very much though) and cone doesn't shirnks linear, but it decelerates. So this would make CQC accuracy good, but you will still have to wait for longer targets.

Somtheing like this (Accuracy -Time graph)

Agreed, deviation should be that you have to wait a short time in CQB, but longer for the fine tuning far away. Sadly, IIRC, a parabolic time-accuracy trajectory as you have described for deviation is impossible in BF2 engine.

Its not always the case, Its who's fingers hits the fire button quicker, ive won a AR plenty of times when not expected him etc

What needs to be done is to make the rifle more effective at close range (all ranges)!

Well last reply for me tonight. Later aligators!

What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

Hunt3r wrote:What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

I disagree. The mechanics have good and practical intentions, however in the state that they are in are not worth porting into PR imo.

I trully believe, however, that they are on the right track. If proper animations were in place of the clunky code back up sight/single zoom, and CQC with the weapon shouldered can be done without having to do away with the print (though it would be changed), then I'm sure it would be the best.

Infantry mechanics aren't completely fubar with CA, but things like the momentum and single zoom through the optics need to be taken out.


But about CQC, I personally believe that it should be possible to have a lower maximum deviation while walking, since that's what you'll be doing in room-to-room clearing. THAT is a mechanic that can be taken from CA, but not the rest if they aren't animated properly.

All shooters in video games are always able to aim for the center of mass.
All bullets that "hit" in video games are effective.


Therefore, a cone of deviation should be tailored so that if a player aims perfectly at the center of mass he will hit and damage the same proportion of the time as a real shooter would at the same range, moving the same way against the same target.

Right?

Hunt3r wrote:What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

How about NO.

ChizNizzle wrote:Best thing to do with this deviation is that the starting deviation should be lower (not very much though) and cone doesn't shirnks linear, but it decelerates. So this would make CQC accuracy good, but you will still have to wait for longer targets.

Somtheing like this (Accuracy -Time graph)

TheLean wrote:Agreed, deviation should be that you have to wait a short time in CQB, but longer for the fine tuning far away. Sadly, IIRC, a parabolic time-accuracy trajectory as you have described for deviation is impossible in BF2 engine.

Well if deviation is based on time, so xxx amount of deviation at time measurement unit, lets say:

t(ime)1 - 5(amount of deviation)
t2 - 4
t3 - 3

etc, then it could be done..it wouldnt be the pefect parabola, but better than linear. In theory, they could do parabolic trajectory, consisting of large amount of points...so every 0.01second there is a different deviation.

t1 - 5
t2 - 3
t3 - 2.5