Project Reality Forums

Why in the world do I need 25 posts to post a simple suggestion?! You brought this upon yourself, I'm not going to spam 25 posts in order to make a simple thread! Nor am I going to spam 15 posts just to reply to a thread in the suggestion forum. I'M trying to HELP here. So my suggestion goes here instead.

Bullet deviation and accuracy simulation
As far as I understand it; it is currently not known how to make weapon sway work properly, so deviation from BF2 is used to simulate difficulty when aiming, right?

Realism argument:
In the real world, you would have fairly good idea of where you're aiming, and where the bullet will go. Maybe the iron sights are slightly off center and whatnot and it is this that determines if you choose to steady your aim further, or take the shot if it's good enough.
Currently, in PR, you have NO indication of your accuracy. All that is known, is that for X seconds you need to not move your aim in order to reach optimum accuracy. You don't really know the impact recoil has on your steadied aim either. Other than it resets it to somewhere around X as well as changing the camera position. This is not realistic, and it works counter intuitively.

Gameplay argument:
The current model forces players to do 2 things. Either, somehow check the game files for the amount of seconds needed for a weapon to reach a certain accuracy. Or, experiment with each weapon and note the average time it takes to get an accurate shot with each weapon. Or (the most popular one, is my guess) play, and try to get an intuitive understanding for each weapon (very time consuming, and leads to incompetent players messing up more than they should, and competent players getting screwed over for not having pointless pre-requisite knowledge about how long it takes to steady a weapon).

For the balancers, the current model is counterproductive aswell. Since players have no real knowledge of how each weapon handles unless they take the time to experiment, exploits and imbalances are not found as quickly as they should, but are kept secret to those few who know, and they gain an unfair advantage for performing a pretty redundant and meaningless experiment. It's not a test of skill, but rather dedication. Is that your desire? If so, fine, but I disagree that it's something worth testing when it also frustrates even more.

Proposed solution:
This will probably not be popular initially, but I think it's a good idea. Implement an accuracy indicator when aiming down the sights. Be it a bar giving you the rough idea, or crosshairs from BF2, or like the ones on the HAT kit. This solves a lot of problems and seems like a way better method of doing things.

Realism:
Sure it's not realistic, but neither is bullets magically going nowhere near the area you're pointing. It's furthermore not realistic to have NO indication what so ever of how accurate the shot will be. The deviation simulates sway, the crosshairs visually represent the sway. A REAL soldier would know how the weapon handles already. There's no point in the player having to train himself by learning this stuff.

Gameplay:
Sure, we might see initial imbalances appear as people learn to place shots with greater accuracy way more accurately. It'll also erase the severeness of a n00b with a sniper kit, or a LAT/RPG, as they will instantly know how to use it. But the previous solution WAS a cop-out. It'll also be EASIER to balance now that imbalances can be found.

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

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

This is why you need 25 posts, search the forums more.

gazzthompson wrote:https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... ifles.html

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

This is why you need 25 posts, search the forums more.

I did search. Most of those threads are either ancient or doesn't provide a pretty cohesive picture of why it should be implemented. I felt that with PR closing on v1.0. This should be reconsidered, or clarified what is actually going to happen.

I made this thread to emphasize the point aswell (that I think it's needed).

EDIT: I've said pretty much everything I have to say. Banning me or not for posting things not exactly where they belong won't matter too much, atleast to me.

EDIT EDIT: I also thought I made it clear in the OP:
I couldn't post in any of those threads without alteast 15 posts.

With your first 2 posts being nothing short of a rant, Your not making a very good first impression. ??:

It doesn't matter how much of a ****** you think I am or not. Everyone in the world could think I was the king of douchetopia. What matters is, am I right or wrong? As long as accuracy indication is even thought about once again, then I've accomplished what I've set out to do. I'm not here to impress anyone. I genuinely think the mod would be better with this change.

EDIT: "You're" use of "your" instead of "you're" doesn't make for a good first impression on me either. But I don't care, because it doesn't matter.

Not a good first impression. The way you present your argument is as important as the argument you make, and the way you're doing it is pretty terrible.

As far as the proposal itself: I personally don't feel it's necessary at all. Having anything visible without your sights up is unacceptable, but having something like the HAT kit's crosshairs while scoped in would be reasonable, and might make the game easier to get into.

Integ3r wrote:Why in the world do I need 25 posts to post a simple suggestion?! You brought this upon yourself, I'm not going to spam 25 posts in order to make a simple thread! Nor am I going to spam 15 posts just to reply to a thread in the suggestion forum. I'M trying to HELP here. So my suggestion goes here instead.

This is done to prevent re-suggestions.

Bullet deviation and accuracy simulation
As far as I understand it; it is currently not known how to make weapon sway work properly, so deviation from BF2 is used to simulate difficulty when aiming, right?

Correct.

Realism argument:
In the real world, you would have fairly good idea of where you're aiming, and where the bullet will go. Maybe the iron sights are slightly off center and whatnot and it is this that determines if you choose to steady your aim further, or take the shot if it's good enough.
Currently, in PR, you have NO indication of your accuracy. All that is known, is that for X seconds you need to not move your aim in order to reach optimum accuracy. You don't really know the impact recoil has on your steadied aim either. Other than it resets it to somewhere around X as well as changing the camera position. This is not realistic, and it works counter intuitively.

In this particular case I believe micro-realism is being sacrificed for overall realism of battles. PR had releases in the past where rifles were dead-on accurate. It was a mess due to other constraints of the engine (ie: size of maps, playing the same maps over and over, etc). As the your thread introduction suggests, you appear to be thinking from your perspective alone. Try to see the big picture.

Gameplay argument:
The current model forces players to do 2 things. Either, somehow check the game files for the amount of seconds needed for a weapon to reach a certain accuracy. Or, experiment with each weapon and note the average time it takes to get an accurate shot with each weapon. Or (the most popular one, is my guess) play, and try to get an intuitive understanding for each weapon (very time consuming, and leads to incompetent players messing up more than they should, and competent players getting screwed over for not having pointless pre-requisite knowledge about how long it takes to steady a weapon).

There is a guide that comes with the game, check page 12. Another reason for the post limit - you would know this if you browsed the forum more. In General Discussion, big red text at the top

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... nuals.html

For the balancers, the current model is counterproductive aswell. Since players have no real knowledge of how each weapon handles unless they take the time to experiment, exploits and imbalances are not found as quickly as they should, but are kept secret to those few who know, and they gain an unfair advantage for performing a pretty redundant and meaningless experiment. It's not a test of skill, but rather dedication. Is that your desire? If so, fine, but I disagree that it's something worth testing when it also frustrates even more.

It's not kept secret, you can ask on the forums and it's mentioned in the guide. It's not that complicated. Wait up to 5 seconds, fire. For everything else, jump into a training server and practice your aim.

Train.

Proposed solution:
This will probably not be popular initially, but I think it's a good idea. Implement an accuracy indicator when aiming down the sights. Be it a bar giving you the rough idea, or crosshairs from BF2, or like the ones on the HAT kit. This solves a lot of problems and seems like a way better method of doing things.

Been there done that. The PR community and the devs prefer no indicators for many reasons you can find by searching the forum.

Realism:
Sure it's not realistic, but neither is bullets magically going nowhere near the area you're pointing. It's furthermore not realistic to have NO indication what so ever of how accurate the shot will be. The deviation simulates sway, the crosshairs visually represent the sway. A REAL soldier would know how the weapon handles already. There's no point in the player having to train himself by learning this stuff.

You're just coming up with reasons now. A real soldier doesn't respawn. A real soldier carries packs on his back with various equipment he may need. A real soldier is trained in modern military tactics and strategy, while PR players are not. Real soldiers don't have 3D icons floating in front of their faces that point them to where the enemy is. Real soldiers, as human beings, naturally fear getting shot and their actions dictate this to some degree.

As I said above, try to see the big picture. Only 20% of this game is shooting the gun. While being able to measure accuracy may feel more realistic from one point of view (your own, ie: the person playing), the rest of the game suffers.

Gameplay:
Sure, we might see initial imbalances appear as people learn to place shots with greater accuracy way more accurately. It'll also erase the severeness of a n00b with a sniper kit, or a LAT/RPG, as they will instantly know how to use it. But the previous solution WAS a cop-out. It'll also be EASIER to balance now that imbalances can be found.

It's not that hard -- I promise. Just keep practicing. There's nothing wrong with the PR vets knowing more than the new guys. It's actually pretty great.

In any case, this isn't the type of game you just dive into and start "pwning" outright. It doesn't work that way. Nearly every asset, weapon, etc needs to be learned and practiced on to be useful.

On a related note, you should know that this mod will always have a steep learning curve. If your frustration comes from the learning curve being steep, just get used to it and play.

As an example, I spent some time away from PR. I used to lead squad all of the time. Since I was gone, a lot of new changes were introduced to the game when it comes to leading squads. The whole squad leader role pretty much changed and it wasn't documented all too well. Instead of asking the devs to change the game, I joined some squads and took some notes on how the good squad leaders do it. I asked them questions.

Part of this game is the community and figuring out how things work. Learning the game is a big part of that -- and this is by far the friendliest game community that I know of when it comes to helping people. Hell I think some guys were doing training days to teach people how to play.

Artnez wrote:This is done to prevent re-suggestions.

In reality, this could have been a bump of one of those other threads. All I did was spare you 15 posts of spam and "hello I am new to these forums please welcome me I am a faggot etc. etc."

Artnez wrote: In this particular case I believe micro-realism is being sacrificed for overall realism of battles. PR had releases in the past where rifles were dead-on accurate. It was a mess due to other constraints of the engine (ie: size of maps, playing the same maps over and over, etc). As the your thread introduction suggests, you appear to be thinking from your perspective alone. Try to see the big picture.

But this has nothing to do with it. I'm not requesting 100% accurate weapons. I'm requesting that there should be a way of knowing your probability to hit without pointlessly having to "train", or memorize the numbers for each weapon. (You mentioned a guide? I've never seen it, so admittedly, maybe I failed to do my homework here. Still this does not "justify" NOT having an indicator, which is just better anyway.)

Artnez wrote: There is a guide that comes with the game, check page 12. Another reason for the post limit - you would know this if you browsed the forum more. In General Discussion, big red text at the top

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... nuals.html

True, I've missed the guide. But checked the manual. The manual doesn't let you know anything particularly useful other than the "5 second rule". I'll take your word for it that weapon stats are in the guide. Granted, this lessens the problem, but indicators are still more practical and better. You kinda have to accept that not everyone will bother to check the guide.

Artnez wrote: It's not kept secret, you can ask on the forums and it's mentioned in the guide. It's not that complicated. Wait up to 5 seconds, fire. For everything else, jump into a training server and practice your aim.

5 seconds is NOT universal. And not enough information.

Artnez wrote: Train.

It's sorta part of the point that having to train for THIS is kinda stupid...

Artnez wrote: Been there done that. The PR community and the devs prefer no indicators for many reasons you can find by searching the forum.

As I said. If it's not from a long time ago, it's vague... It's more about reluctance to change rather than the actual gameplay problems it pose.

Artnez wrote: You're just coming up with reasons now. A real soldier doesn't respawn. A real soldier carries packs on his back with various equipment he may need. A real soldier is trained in modern military tactics and strategy, while PR players are not. Real soldiers don't have 3D icons floating in front of their faces that point them to where the enemy is. Real soldiers, as human beings, naturally fear getting shot and their actions dictate this to some degree.

Well JEEZE, excuse me for trying to present the argument in a format compatible with the philosophy of the mod and trying to abide by the restrictions that philosophy sets! I personally just care about the gameplay, but I'm certain there are many others who'll need justification. You're just taking cheap shots at me now.

Artnez wrote: As I said above, try to see the big picture. Only 20% of this game is shooting the gun. While being able to measure accuracy may feel more realistic from one point of view (your own, ie: the person playing), the rest of the game suffers.

HIGHLY disagree! I can present multiple scenarios to the contrary!
I fail to see how the inherent tactical value of flanking, cover/suppressive fire, and the like is compromised in any way. Again, I'm not asking for 100% accurate guns. Just a way to gague accuracy.

Artnez wrote: It's not that hard -- I promise. Just keep practicing. There's nothing wrong with the PR vets knowing more than the new guys. It's actually pretty great.

For the vets... I have played a great deal, and I do consider myself a decent PR player. For one, you can crouch, zoom in, then stand up without losing accuracy and fire. I wouldn't know that without playing for a while. I'm not just ranting because I can't hit anything, though I might give that impression. The point is, that even if I was, it's still irrelevant to what is a better system.

Artnez wrote: In any case, this isn't the type of game you just dive into and start "pwning" outright. It doesn't work that way. Nearly every asset, weapon, etc needs to be learned and practiced on to be useful.

Well SHOULD it be that way? The heli is, as far as I know, not "hard" to fly because you want to bar players from it or FORCE them to train in order to fly it. It is that way because the heli is not supposed to do pretty insane things and it's about limiting the functionality of the heli. (though that doesn't stop me from upside down flying) It's there for a reason. The fact that it's "hard" and require practice is just collateral.
Not so with the way guns work.

Artnez wrote:On a related note, you should know that this mod will always have a steep learning curve. If your frustration comes from the learning curve being steep, just get used to it and play.

As an example, I spent some time away from PR. I used to lead squad all of the time. Since I was gone, a lot of new changes were introduced to the game when it comes to leading squads. The whole squad leader role pretty much changed and it wasn't documented all too well. Instead of asking the devs to change the game, I joined some squads and took some notes on how the good squad leaders do it. I asked them questions.

Part of this game is the community and figuring out how things work. Learning the game is a big part of that -- and this is by far the friendliest game community that I know of when it comes to helping people. Hell I think some guys were doing training days to teach people how to play.

But you can't deny that it would be nice for everyone to be able to know when they should start shooting. Soldiers know when they have a good shot, why do we have to settle with just guessing?

I'm impressed with this guy's English; it's a lot better than some of the posters who's first language is English.

As for the original post, it goes way over my head, but I get the jist of it. The settle time on the guns is too much long in my opinion.

Rapid12 wrote: The settle time on the guns is too much long in my opinion.

i completely agree. 8 seconds is WAY to long. Once I was on Muttrah and I ran into a street and there was an enemy across the road and we both waited 8 secnds to shoot because we knew we would miss. Thats just stupid to wait that long. I think we should reduce it to 5 sec to iron sights and 6 sec to scopes and sniper to 7. that would be better in my opinion

seriously, what servers do all these people play on that complain about waiting so long ??!?

you guys know 8 seconds is for long range and across the street shooting can be done with little to no waiting ? iceman, if you wait 8 seconds against me for "across the street" shooting ill nail you and half your squad.

Integ3r wrote:In reality, this could have been a bump of one of those other threads. All I did was spare you 15 posts of spam and "hello I am new to these forums please welcome me I am a faggot etc. etc."

...

But this has nothing to do with it. I'm not requesting 100% accurate weapons. I'm requesting that there should be a way of knowing your probability to hit without pointlessly having to "train", or memorize the numbers for each weapon. (You mentioned a guide? I've never seen it, so admittedly, maybe I failed to do my homework here. Still this does not "justify" NOT having an indicator, which is just better anyway.)

Training (ie: learning the game) is not pointless. You may think so, but I do not and it based on the lack of complaints on this issue lately the community doesn't think so either. Learn to use the weapons.

True, I've missed the guide. But checked the manual. The manual doesn't let you know anything particularly useful other than the "5 second rule". I'll take your word for it that weapon stats are in the guide. Granted, this lessens the problem, but indicators are still more practical and better. You kinda have to accept that not everyone will bother to check the guide.

That's the point. If you don't check the guide, you won't know how everything else works (ie: firebases, manning vehicles, how CPs are handled, communication etiquette, what each class does, requesting kits, calling artillery, calling an airstrike, managing your squad, playing as an Insurgent, etc, etc).

Most elements of this game are far more complicated than the 5 second rule for shooting.

5 seconds is NOT universal. And not enough information.

The general rule is:
1. Stop.
2. Aim.
3. Count to 3.
4. Fire.
5. Count to 2.
6. Fire.
7. Repeat from #5.

Get on a training server and practice. It won't take you 3 hours. Pick a target and fire off 5-10 magazines to see what you get. Better yet, jump on with a friend or ask someone in the server to do some firing practice with you (where you shoot and he tries to evade).

It's sorta part of the point that having to train for THIS is kinda stupid...

I disagree. I think it's pretty awesome actually.

As I said. If it's not from a long time ago, it's vague... It's more about reluctance to change rather than the actual gameplay problems it pose.

That's a bad assumption. Don't make things up

Well JEEZE, excuse me for trying to present the argument in a format compatible with the philosophy of the mod and trying to abide by the restrictions that philosophy sets! I personally just care about the gameplay, but I'm certain there are many others who'll need justification. You're just taking cheap shots at me now.

If you care about gameplay, don't use the realism argument for this. We all know it's not realistic. It's there to compensate for limitations of the engine to ensure squad tactics remain a priority.

An indicator is no different than bringing back a crosshair. If you bring up your sights, you now know where the gun is going to shoot. If you have an indicator, it's the same thing as a crosshair showing deviation - thus, it's a crosshair. The only thing people won't be able to do is fire from the hip, which is pretty pointless anyway due to the huge deviation when firing from hip.

HIGHLY disagree! I can present multiple scenarios to the contrary!
I fail to see how the inherent tactical value of flanking, cover/suppressive fire, and the like is compromised in any way. Again, I'm not asking for 100% accurate guns. Just a way to gague accuracy.

Present them.

Having an accuracy indicator will only cheat the learning process. Not having one provides a great psychological effect. If you haven't practiced the game and played for a while, your brain won't instinctively react and go through the "aiming process" (read above, counting, adjusting, counting, etc).

As you play the game more, this will become a habit and you won't even have to think about it. Until then, just practice the game.

It's also presumptuous to assume that all soldiers are capable of judging accuracy during their first few engagements. Maybe the RL soldiers can clarify this, but from what I've hard infantry training drills down the process of shooting the weapon -- not combat effectiveness (which only comes with time and experience).

Again, a lot of us believe the learning curve is a great thing. Just the fact there is a process for aiming the weapon before firing is what makes this game more challenging.

For the vets... I have played a great deal, and I do consider myself a decent PR player. For one, you can crouch, zoom in, then stand up without losing accuracy and fire. I wouldn't know that without playing for a while. I'm not just ranting because I can't hit anything, though I might give that impression. The point is, that even if I was, it's still irrelevant to what is a better system.

Yes, I did make that assumption -- but to be fair it sounded a lot like a new player's rant that we've read here a thousand times

Well SHOULD it be that way? The heli is, as far as I know, not "hard" to fly because you want to bar players from it or FORCE them to train in order to fly it. It is that way because the heli is not supposed to do pretty insane things and it's about limiting the functionality of the heli. (though that doesn't stop me from upside down flying) It's there for a reason. The fact that it's "hard" and require practice is just collateral.
Not so with the way guns work.

Vehicles aren't difficult to operate in PR -- they're actually pretty easy to operate. What makes the learning curve larger is understand how to use them. In most games, you jump in, crash the first time, realize your mistake and you're off.

What makes PR great is that every class, vehicle and asset takes some getting used to. All it takes is jumping into a training server and playing around with it.

I'm about done with this discussion. Not to be rude, but I really think this is no big deal at all. Guns are very easy to use. All you have to do is spend 30 minutes on a training server (where kits are unlimited) and give everything a try.

That's exactly what I did with the grenadier (arguably one of the hardest weapons to use in the game because judging distance takes a lot of practice). I spent about 20 minutes attempting to hit various targets and eventually got the hang of it. I'm still not dead on everytime (as it should be with an undermount grenade launcher), but I'm pretty accurate when I have to be.

Hunt3r wrote:But you can't deny that it would be nice for everyone to be able to know when they should start shooting. Soldiers know when they have a good shot, why do we have to settle with just guessing?

If counting for you is guessing... well... yea.

I think Artnez is in the wrong here. You shouldn't have to "count". It's neither intuitive (gameplay-wise), nor realistic in any way.

Sure, I read the guide, found out how to play, all that. But memorizing numbers in order to effectively fire your weapon is ridiculous.

As opposed to memorizing the correct way to hold your weapon to ensure highest accuracy in real life?

To OP: Mate, rules are rules, just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean you can break them.

As opposed to memorizing the correct way to hold your weapon to ensure highest accuracy in real life?

That's like comparing waiting in line at a fast food restaurant to how you're supposed to eat your burger and fries.

In other words, silly comparison.

Even though I disagree with your suggestion, I'm glad to see someone who writes well and constructively, though rules are rules. But I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to play this game if it had crosshairs, it would be a little immersion breaking and take the game further away from 'reality'. I think something like the weapon sway suggestion posted a while ago would work a bit better. However, I doubt we will see this kind of thing implemented soon, so I guess we'll have to stick with looking at the enemy for a few seconds before shooting.

Duckmeister wrote:That's like comparing waiting in line at a fast food restaurant to how you're supposed to eat your burger and fries.

In other words, silly comparison.

Hardly, the time it takes for you to become accurate in game can easily be explained by your digital avatar entering a proper shooting stance and sighting in.