Jump to content
beppe_goodoldrebel

Aiming Deadzone

Do you want aiming deadzone in Squad?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want aiming deadzone in Squad?

    • SIR! YES, SIR!
      31
    • OH GAWD NO!
      19


Recommended Posts

There was a massive feature in the old Infiltration mod (good ol' Unreal Tournament) that I haven't seen in any other game unfortunately.
 
Look at this video at 8:00
 

 

When you aim the player have not a fixed view on the sights, but the gun move "freely" in a "box" ( I hope to be understanded ) .
This feature gives a lot of sense of "weight" of the gun and when shooting the recoil force the player to spend more time to "re-aim" again like the real deal.

 

I don't know if it could be done but it would be nice to see it again in Squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how this would improve Squad in any way. I'm all up for an increased weapon sway though, it feels pretty weak right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of shooting if you can't keep the rifle in the middle to hit the target. Now you see why they stop using this script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of shooting if you can't keep the rifle in the middle to hit the target. Now you see why they stop using this script.

 

when you move the gun you are always aiming where the sights are aligned , not in the center of the screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally love how RO2 does it. You only get the dead-zone when not aiming down sights so it impedes you "hip" firing but ADS is back to normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A LOT of people dislike this, including myself. Red Orchestra has a slight interpretation of this, but not nearly as much, they do it well. I like to be aimed at the same place every time, and I feel like this would largely deter people from playing due to crap mechanics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a massive feature in the old Infiltration mod (good ol' Unreal Tournament) that I haven't seen in any other game unfortunately.

 

Look at this video at 8:00

 

 

When you aim the player have not a fixed view on the sights, but the gun move "freely" in a "box" ( I hope to be understanded ) .

This feature gives a lot of sense of "weight" of the gun and when shooting the recoil force the player to spend more time to "re-aim" again like the real deal.

 

I don't know if it could be done but it would be nice to see it again in Squad.

 

What your talking about is called aiming dead zone and I think it would be awesome to include in game. In my opinion, Red Orchestra does it extremely well by making your rifle move around when not zoomed in but it will center once you've aimed down your sights and heavily reducing the dead zone. If the devs don't want to implement it because some people don't like it, I highly suggest they do it the way that ArmA did it, where it's disabled by default but you can change it in the menu with a slider that will allow you to choose your own dead zone. 

 

I can't see how this would improve Squad in any way. I'm all up for an increased weapon sway though, it feels pretty weak right now.

 

I see you've never tried walking around aiming down a weapon's sights in real life. As it currently stands it's extremely exaggerated when compared to real life. In reality there's a slight bounce that happens quickly if you're moving with haste, but if you're walking like you are in game when aiming down your sights, you'll barely notice any movement.

 

What is that BEAUTIFUL SAIGON GAME? (vietnam whore here) 

 

Tripwire? Is that the new RISING STORM? HOLY BALLS. 

 

Squad is going to have to do some serious shit ;) <3.

 

It's Rising Storm 2. 

 

Yeah that is Rising Storm 2. Here is another taste for you.

 

http://media.tripwirecdn.com/021816/type56.webm

 

Honestly I'm really disappointed with a few things about the game (the fact that they're adding bullet deviation is one of them). However, in these two WebMs I REALLY hate how they fucked up the iron sights. the M16A1's rear iron is way too large (even the night/CQ setting is about half that size), and in reality most people use the day time/long range diopter. As for the Type 56, the sight hood is way too thick and the rear sight's notch is way too wide, making aiming a bit easier than it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bullet deviation? );

 

Basically people complained that in RO2 and RS that wherever your iron sights were pointed was where your bullets hit (you know, kinda like a normal gun). Apparently, armchair generals thought that this wasn't realistic enough because how dare guns have rifling when they could just be inaccurate smoothbore pieces of shit. The people over at TWI (not really known for caring about historical accuracy, nor being particularly fond of working) decided that the armchair commandos are right and that guns would be better off with a cone of deviation because they needed to do something that would make CoD look realistic. Because of this, in the next game, where you're aiming will not always be where your bullets hit. This will lower engagement ranges, cause full auto to be more viable, and destroy whatever is left of the realism in Tripwire games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically people complained that in RO2 and RS that wherever your iron sights were pointed was where your bullets hit (you know, kinda like a normal gun). Apparently, armchair generals thought that this wasn't realistic enough because how dare guns have rifling when they could just be inaccurate smoothbore pieces of shit. The people over at TWI (not really known for caring about historical accuracy, nor being particularly fond of working) decided that the armchair commandos are right and that guns would be better off with a cone of deviation because they needed to do something that would make CoD look realistic. Because of this, in the next game, where you're aiming will not always be where your bullets hit. This will lower engagement ranges, cause full auto to be more viable, and destroy whatever is left of the realism in Tripwire games. 

Damn, Well I guess RS2 is just going to be a spam fest with 12 year old Rambos running around with the M60 spraying anything that moves for one lucky hit, I'm guessing they're still going to keep the RO2 damage model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, Well I guess RS2 is just going to be a spam fest with 12 year old Rambos running around with the M60 spraying anything that moves for one lucky hit, I'm guessing they're still going to keep the RO2 damage model?

 

I would imagine so. I'm hopeful that they will incorporate a few things from the IOM mod since Dibbler is now part of AMG, but I wouldn't expect the gameplay to change much. It'll still be one mob rushing the other mob on linear maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically people complained that in RO2 and RS that wherever your iron sights were pointed was where your bullets hit (you know, kinda like a normal gun). Apparently, armchair generals thought that this wasn't realistic enough because how dare guns have rifling when they could just be inaccurate smoothbore pieces of shit. The people over at TWI (not really known for caring about historical accuracy, nor being particularly fond of working) decided that the armchair commandos are right and that guns would be better off with a cone of deviation because they needed to do something that would make CoD look realistic. Because of this, in the next game, where you're aiming will not always be where your bullets hit. This will lower engagement ranges, cause full auto to be more viable, and destroy whatever is left of the realism in Tripwire games. 

 

Just to be clear, we are not talking about implementation of a ballistics system? More of a random chance cone? I personally prefer ballistics in a game and I was under the impression that RO2 and RS already had it present? i.e. Bullet drop and bullet pathing making it necessary lead the target and adjust sights for range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an Insurgency mod that had an ADS deadzone, which made firefights much longer and more intense. It also had the added effect of forcing marksman to steady their weapon before they fired unlike the vanilla game where you could stand up and fire a 7x zoom FAL with no problem.

 

Since this game takes place in a much bigger variety of ranges, I think adding a small deadzone when aiming down your sights would do a great deal to slow the game down without turning everyone without optics into headshot bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love aiming deadzone, hell I'd be all for an Arma style system: It's optional and scale able to the clients wants.

 

What would be beautiful is how RO2 or Insurgency does it. Unless they find a way to make the aiming smoother through some animation magic, it currently feels way too stiff and a bit like a Korean Counter Strike clone tbh, and thats with the sensitivity incredibly low, but that's just my opinion.

 

If it were up to me, there would be a capped aimspeed that was global as to limit people from being able to snap turn (Try doing so IRL with a 8-9lb rifle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, we are not talking about implementation of a ballistics system? More of a random chance cone? I personally prefer ballistics in a game and I was under the impression that RO2 and RS already had it present? i.e. Bullet drop and bullet pathing making it necessary lead the target and adjust sights for range.

 

Basic ballistics were in and presumably still are. I don't remember seeing any reference to random deviation in posts from the devs regarding RS2, but I could have missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically people complained that in RO2 and RS that wherever your iron sights were pointed was where your bullets hit (you know, kinda like a normal gun). Apparently, armchair generals thought that this wasn't realistic enough because how dare guns have rifling when they could just be inaccurate smoothbore pieces of shit. The people over at TWI (not really known for caring about historical accuracy, nor being particularly fond of working) decided that the armchair commandos are right and that guns would be better off with a cone of deviation because they needed to do something that would make CoD look realistic. Because of this, in the next game, where you're aiming will not always be where your bullets hit. This will lower engagement ranges, cause full auto to be more viable, and destroy whatever is left of the realism in Tripwire games. 

 

Wait, wait, do you mean a cone that is considerably larger than it is in real life?  That is, in real life, a rifle isn't perfectly accurate.  You will have some deviation.  I forget exactly what the number was that I came up with, but I was curious what kind of deviation you'd get from an M-16 or something else contemporary, and the numbers I could find for a current M-16A4 were around 4 MOA (if I recall). 

 

Bottom line, I found one might expect a good 20cm or so deviation out around 600 meters.  That's not huge, necessarily, but it's definitely noticeable.  Granted, that was also based on a single arc value, when more realistically you'd probably get differing scatter when looking at lateral spread and vertical spread, so your resulting cone would have a more ellipsoidal cross-section than a circular one. 

 

What sort of inaccuracy are we looking at for Rising Storm 2?  Is it tiny like it would be in real life, or is it something that you could notice inside of 100m? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically people complained that in RO2 and RS that wherever your iron sights were pointed was where your bullets hit (you know, kinda like a normal gun). Apparently, armchair generals thought that this wasn't realistic enough because how dare guns have rifling when they could just be inaccurate smoothbore pieces of shit. The people over at TWI (not really known for caring about historical accuracy, nor being particularly fond of working) decided that the armchair commandos are right and that guns would be better off with a cone of deviation because they needed to do something that would make CoD look realistic. Because of this, in the next game, where you're aiming will not always be where your bullets hit. This will lower engagement ranges, cause full auto to be more viable, and destroy whatever is left of the realism in Tripwire games. 

 

this was already ridiculous in RO2 where the MP40 was something crazy like 18 MOA according to someone who messed with the data files.

 

bullet deviation was already in the game code. I'm not sure what they will add.

 

Afaik the same dude found that the base mosin was too accurate for a standard issue one too... v0v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, Well I guess RS2 is just going to be a spam fest with 12 year old Rambos running around with the M60 spraying anything that moves for one lucky hit, I'm guessing they're still going to keep the RO2 damage model?

 

I'm not holding my breath considering how horrible TWI has been in the past with developments, but I'll definitely give it a try. If you look at the Type 56.webm, it looks like the guy dies in one or two shots so it definitely still uses a realistic mechanic for death.

 

Just to be clear, we are not talking about implementation of a ballistics system? More of a random chance cone? I personally prefer ballistics in a game and I was under the impression that RO2 and RS already had it present? i.e. Bullet drop and bullet pathing making it necessary lead the target and adjust sights for range.

 

Yes, we're talking about a cone of fire layered on top of the ballistics system. RO2 and RS had it present, but it wasn't really noticeable on anything other than the submachine guns. 

 

Wait, wait, do you mean a cone that is considerably larger than it is in real life?  That is, in real life, a rifle isn't perfectly accurate.  You will have some deviation.  I forget exactly what the number was that I came up with, but I was curious what kind of deviation you'd get from an M-16 or something else contemporary, and the numbers I could find for a current M-16A4 were around 4 MOA (if I recall). 

 

Bottom line, I found one might expect a good 20cm or so deviation out around 600 meters.  That's not huge, necessarily, but it's definitely noticeable.  Granted, that was also based on a single arc value, when more realistically you'd probably get differing scatter when looking at lateral spread and vertical spread, so your resulting cone would have a more ellipsoidal cross-section than a circular one. 

 

What sort of inaccuracy are we looking at for Rising Storm 2?  Is it tiny like it would be in real life, or is it something that you could notice inside of 100m? 

 

I believe the cones are supposed to be fairly wide but I'd have to do more research on it. I'm just going off what I've been told by some of my buddies who are in close cahoots with the original Rising Storm devs (which TWI also messed up.)The M16A4's acceptable accuracy is around 3MOA, I believe, but I could be wrong. That being said, M16A1s had a different barrel twist and were using lighter ammunition which was optimized for 1:12, which means that in theory should be a bit more accurate from cold bore shots. 

 

Once again, I'm going to have to do some more independent research to find out what the exact accuracy cones are, and I hope they're realistic, but I'm not holding my breath. 

 

this was already ridiculous in RO2 where the MP40 was something crazy like 18 MOA according to someone who messed with the data files.

 

bullet deviation was already in the game code. I'm not sure what they will add.

 

Afaik the same dude found that the base mosin was too accurate for a standard issue one too... v0v

 

Yeah I know it was pretty bad for some of the SMGs, but the rifles were pretty damn good (even if overly accurate for some weapons, as you pointed out.) When specifically talking about the Mosin, by the way, they seemed to make everything used by the Soviets on the higher quality end of the scale. There wasn't exactly much quality control during the Stalingrad period, so they seem to just make everything as high quality as possible, which I really don't agree with. This can be seen with how easily the T-34 absolutely obliterates the PzIV. 

 

 

 

Either way people, I think we should get back on topic with the idea of aiming deadzones. Maybe there could be a poll set up? I'd certainly love to see aiming dead zones in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×