Jump to content
Kendo

Weapon Accuracy and good shooting technique

Recommended Posts

^what Skul said.
 

Quote

3) "Too difficult to code" / "too many variables" -- ok, forget 9/10 of the above, all you really need is (the) d. (Sight alignment and the sight picture must be correct).  That alone would create something very equivalent to an authentic and balanced behaviour of rifles.  It leaves room for skill and patience with marksmanship, while penalising trigger spammers or quickscopers or people that think that they can effectively 1 shot an enemy instantly by popping in and out of cover.

How do you imagine this could be implemented, on the practical level? So I need to aim at my enemy using my mouse, but how then to align the sights/picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are making this waaaay more complicated than it needs to be. 

 

Eradicate all predjudices about this system being complicated, because it's not.  It's *exactly* what happens now, but jut isn't self correcting.  No need to have manual aim of the two different sights.... 

 

As I said above (the one Lugnut replied to): simply have it as either A) auto correcting after a second or two (instead of instantly like now); or B) tie the correction to the shift button so it doubles up as hold breath and then correct sight alignment.

 

no need for joysticks xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could imagine that being implemented pretty easily. Theoretically.

Any movement you did with your mouse, you'd be leading with your rear sight/the front sight would be slower to catch up, while the speed of movement would be inversely proportional to the difference in speed of the rear sight in relation to the delay of the front sight.
So, for example, if you moved your mouse to the left.
VdbHgmH.png

,then you could either wait or move your mouse much less back to the right to align your sights again.
Important thing is, that there'd need to be a switch: Say for example there are 3 levels of alignement. Aligned, partially aligned and misaligned. 1,0 and -1

The closer to 1 the sights are, the larger the tolerance for mousemovement in order to aproach 0 is.
The closer to -1 the sights are, the smaller the tolerance for mousemovent in order to aproach 1 is.

In other words, it's easier to realign your sights than it is to misalign them, it's also easier to misalign them than it is to keep them partially aligned.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Peerun said:

I could imagine that being implemented pretty easily. Theoretically.

Any movement you did with your mouse, you'd be leading with your rear sight/the front sight would be slower to catch up, while the speed of movement would be inversely proportional to the difference in speed of the rear sight in relation to the delay of the front sight.
So, for example, if you moved your mouse to the left.
VdbHgmH.png

,then you could either wait or move your mouse much less back to the right to align your sights again.
Important thing is, that there'd need to be a switch: Say for example there are 3 levels of alignement. Aligned, partially aligned and misaligned. 1,0 and -1

The closer to 1 the sights are, the larger the tolerance for mousemovement in order to aproach 0 is.
The closer to -1 the sights are, the smaller the tolerance for mousemovent in order to aproach 1 is.

In other words, it's easier to realign your sights than it is to misalign them, it's also easier to misalign them than it is to keep them partially aligned.



 

I have to correct you there. 

You are leading with the muzzle. So the frontsight is leading and also correcting. Its because the backsight is tied to your shoulder. 

 

+1 for me for slower auto-correct. 

 

Maybe something to think about too if you talk about realistic behaviour.

Right now, if you have a targetdummy 200 meters away ingame, you can land a headshot 10/10 in very fast successive shots. You wouldnt be able to do that in reallife, not without a high aim time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Elirah said:

I have to correct you there. 

You are leading with the muzzle. So the frontsight is leading and also correcting. Its because the backsight is tied to your shoulder.

I feel like that'd only encourage players to wilfuly misalign their sights in cqb so they can get their shot in faster. I mean, that'd be a fun mechanic, but I am not sure whether it wouldn't be more to the detriment - creating a large skill gap.
After all, these suggestions are mostly to make medium to long range engagements more difficult, not close quarters.
But I think that's going too much into it now, we probably won't see anything like that in vanilla Squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peerun said:

But I think that's going too much into it now, we probably won't see anything like that in vanilla Squad.

It is literally already in the game.  Go ahead: spin around like a lunatic and you'll see.  Its simply a matter of scale and timing -- tweaking variables that are already coded.

 

It is vanilla squad, except what I propose simply extends timers, applies it after a shot and when first aiming -- it takes a system designed to look nice and makes it do something.

 

Chaps: looking at the above replies.  What do you see?  As I said, there are three sides to this debate.

 

1) Spread advocates: people like Jarryhead and L0cation: " At long ranges, wind and other environmental factors affects the precision of any projectile. So just having a very small random deviation is a way of simulating that, without making it complex. " / "Looks like you really put alot of effort on it man , i personally think that having a random spread core like in PR but a lot smaller is absolutely OK"

 

2) Sway advocates:

3 hours ago, Ancient ifrit said:

Increase sway and etc... No need for more than that.

 

That will help iron sights on close combat and difficult long shots


or 3) people that recognise that what I'm suggesting is just as easy (if not easier) to code as well as being a far more elegant solution.

 

Where on earth are people getting the idea that this is somehow a pipedream? It is so, so straight forward.  It seems like people want to "give up" before they even begin to wonder what a better solution would be.

 

Lets not forget: the realistic spread and realistic accuracy of the weapons in squad are highly praised!  It is a breath of fresh air from so many other "lazily" styled games out there.  No, I don't want to put up with horrendous sway or laughable spread.  All I suggest that is done is to balance it out by filling in the missing piece of the puzzle.

 

A piece which, by the way, is already included in the box.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kendo said:

It is literally already in the game.  Go ahead: spin around like a lunatic and you'll see.  Its simply a matter of scale and timing -- tweaking variables that are already coded.


Thats not even what I was replying to. Thats not even anything. I didnt. Theres much here for you to understand. I feel like I might be obliged to be confused by this, aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its confusing then I must not have explained it very well then, sorry.  I cant really think of a better way of putting it.  Either that or I misunderstood Elirah's point above.  

 

Anyway, it wasn't so much directed at you as the people who were suggesting that we "shouldn't bother" and just settle for the same old shooting mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some more visuals to help picture the way this would feel:

 

1) An enemy appears round a corner at 25m (close-going-on-medium range).

 

KIRZz5S.jpg

 

Standing still, I quickly raise the rifle to my shoulder to engage.  As you can see, you are easily able to dispatch them quickly.  My true POA here is somewhere on the middle-right of the target as I look at it.

 

2) I spot an enemy at 100m

 

OQAow5z.jpg

 

I try and do the same as above, and quickly raise the rifle to my shoulder and release a round.  As you can see, the fall of shot will be to the left of the target.  I miss the snapshot.

 

3) The same enemy is moving to cover quickly (consider centremost target now).

 

iKbwxli.jpg

 

 

I decide to adjust for my previous error in the fall of shot, pulling ahead of the target slightly to correct for an imperfect sight alignment. As you can see, I can still accurately land a shot on target this way.  I have not missed because of random deviation, which IMPORTANTLY means that I can follow up on the target more accurately with my next round.  I hit centre-mass of the middle target, around the abdomen.

 

4) I see an enemy at roughly 400m. I shoulder the rifle and realise I have an incorrect sight alignment.

 

XBt5kQ5.jpg

 

I decide to take my time, stay still and focus on my breathing and hold of the weapon for about 2 seconds. As you can see, my sight picture takes a natural path onto a now perfect hold of the weapon.  I am now much more confident in the probability of a first time hit.

 

Clarifications

 

"So say again how, exactly, you would carry out the process of no. 4": As you can see, this is not a complicated simulation of having to adjust your alignment manually, or somehow aim two parts of the rifle at once.  It is simply a case of "I'm not aligning the weapon properly" -> *process* -> "weapon is now perfectly aligned".

 

This "process" can either be:

 

1) Separate button map (I suppose... You can see that this would not be spammed for accuracy because of the path the correction takes is not a direct one, and that would be irritating to do -- akin to giving yourself weapon sway for no reason.  Spamming it would also interfere with your ability to carry out quick adjustments by eye, as in no. 3)

 

2) Combining the button map for "focus(/zoom)" right now to be: "focus in, then immediately after fully focused (approx. 1 second) adjust onto perfect alignment".  This would likely feel best.

 

3) It could even be automatic, with no button presses required.  Simply holding a weapon steady and on target could, after about 2 seconds, begin the adjustment.  I don't like this so much because it is then out of your control, but it's a possibility.

 

You can also see how this would feel as a system that would occur every time you shoulder the rifle, or after a firing a few rounds.  I think it is really simple and in-pace with the rest of the game as a tactical shooter.  It's also far simpler than some more mil-sim gameplay features like global wind variables, or trying to model barrel heat for "cold-bore" shots or anything like that.  Its just down to you and your skill: no BS balancing features.

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U guys seriously need to find a new hobby... there's absolutely nothing wrong with the iron sights in Squad when a cruster like myself can get 30+ kills over the course of a hour long game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

U guys seriously need to find a new hobby... there's absolutely nothing wrong with the iron sights in Squad when a cruster like myself can get 30+ kills over the course of a hour long game.

 

Unhelpful.  Also I don't even see your point -- an ability to get lots of kills has barely anything to do with what I'm talking about, and, to the extent that it does, I suppose it would only prove my point?

 

You don't have to agree, that's fine. You've said as much and I respect your opinion.  Leave the topic to those that do care, then.

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kendo said:

 

Unhelpful.  Also I don't even see your point -- an ability to get lots of kills has barely anything to do with what I'm talking about, and, to the extent that it does, I suppose it would only prove my point?

 

You don't have to agree, that's fine. You've said as much and I respect your opinion.  Leave the topic to those that do care, then.

"Unhelpful" is writing several multiple paragraph essays of vague adjective laden pontifications complete with illustrations about a non existent problem qualified by the fact that an old guy can get decent kills and a young clan guy named Scarface can get 70+ kills. 

 

First off, in your writings you're missing your thesis statement and then secondly you don't finish with a solution/conclusion.

 

So yeah, if you were really into all the high level logic specific to the whole dynamic of the FPS model and all of it's inherent processes related to target acquisition you'd instead be reprogramming the blueprint inside the SDK. Instead you're expecting someone else to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol with these big sophisticated words. Keep it simple and dumb proof for people like me to understand it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're any good at this game you don't even need to use the sights. The best way to get better and be as good as me is right here!

 

Spoiler

is joke don't kill

 

arrow.png

Edited by NotBrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

an old guy can get decent kills


What are you even on about? He's saying make it, not take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like some of these ideas, the one problem that I think would appear with some form of implementing this is the aiming system for FPS games in general. Weapon sway and sight alignment are both dependent on multiple parts of your body working together whereas in game, aiming is fully controlled by mouse movements, meaning all the parts that have to work together irl would be locked together moving exactly in unison.

 

Now the devs could certainly implement some kind of "handicap" to make this more realistic, but a good shooter will have much more muscle coordination than a bad one, and since there wouldn't be any player deviation of this, it would ultimately put all players at the same skill level anyway. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more realistic weapon handling and aiming myself, but there isn't really a way to implement skill into aiming. 

 

Then again, I suppose if they just made aiming "harder" so to speak, that would suffice, im just not sure how they'd go about it while keeping the immersion factor. Hopefully some of those awesome devs can figure out how to do that though because I do thinking would improve the game if done correctly.

Edited by jellyswim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jellyswim said:

Weapon sway and sight alignment are both dependent on multiple parts of your body working together whereas in game, aiming is fully controlled by mouse movements


- legs
- upper body
- mouse movement
- stance
- after shot
- what are you standing on
- supression
- weapon
- stamina
- leaning

There's plenty of factors to choose from, to make players try and coordinate them to get the best shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 1:25 PM, Zylfrax791 said:

U guys seriously need to find a new hobby... there's absolutely nothing wrong with the iron sights in Squad when a cruster like myself can get 30+ kills over the course of a hour long game.

Why? What's wrong with talking about the shooting mechanics on the official forum of the game?

It's not like we're going to die from the overdose if we seriously will not find a new hobby for ourselves, right?

 

On 10/30/2017 at 4:12 PM, Zylfrax791 said:

"Unhelpful" is writing several multiple paragraph essays of vague adjective laden pontifications complete with illustrations about a non existent problem qualified by the fact that an old guy can get decent kills and a young clan guy named Scarface can get 70+ kills.

He proposes a better alternative. And it isn't about kills. I can do 100+(Anyone more? No?) with 0 deaths, but it doesn't matter at all.

 

On 10/30/2017 at 4:12 PM, Zylfrax791 said:

First off, in your writings you're missing your thesis statement and then secondly you don't finish with a solution/conclusion.

He proposed a complete solution in his posts actually.

 

On 10/30/2017 at 4:12 PM, Zylfrax791 said:

So yeah, if you were really into all the high level logic specific to the whole dynamic of the FPS model and all of it's inherent processes related to target acquisition you'd instead be reprogramming the blueprint inside the SDK. Instead you're expecting someone else to do it.

He is talking about high level logic. If he was reprogramming blueprint inside the SDK, it would be lower level, not high level. If he was writing C++ code, it would become even lower level programming than working on the blueprints.

 

To make a good high level logic you don't have to be a programmer. The guys which invented chess originally weren't programmers because there were no computers back then. Programmers implemented chess and logic, so we can play it on computers, but programmers haven't invented chess.

 

Same here, a person who invent shooting mechanics doesn't have to be a programmer to invent a better shooting mechanics than we already have. And that's exactly how it works for programmers, they often ask help from professionals of their own spheres, to know how things work, so programmers can implement these things programmatically, nice examples would be flying simulators and race simulators.

 

Professionals who tell programmers how planes and cars should behave very often are not programmers themselves. They work with classical mechanics, not with low-level code.

Edited by Skul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CptDirty said:

lol with these big sophisticated words. Keep it simple and dumb proof for people like me to understand it! 

It isn't meant for you, it is meant for developers of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People getting 50+ kills that easy is exactly the problem we are talking about isnt it?

We are talking about a way to make killing harder, so its not that easy to get that many kills.

The argument to get that many kills is therefore absolute invalid, it even supports the suggestions Peerun is making.

 

Making shooting harder, like Peerun (Edit: I actually meant Kendo) is suggesting. Profit from longer firefights, more strategic and tactical play. Is all im saying.

Edited by Elirah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elirah said:

it even supports the suggestions Peerun is making.

 

Making shooting harder, like Peerun is suggesting. 

 

*ahem*

 

Its actually my thread, but, whatever.  Peerun is cool too. :P

 

15 hours ago, jellyswim said:

 

Now the devs could certainly implement some kind of "handicap" to make this more realistic, but a good shooter will have much more muscle coordination than a bad one, and since there wouldn't be any player deviation of this, it would ultimately put all players at the same skill level anyway. 

 

 

Yeah Jellyswim, I totally see what you're saying here.  Its a valid point -- most shooters train really hard to be able to have a natural and instinctive hold of the weapon that yields decent accuracy off the bat, whereas most videos you see of untrained rebels etc you can tell they just spam the weapon over their head.

 

My response to that would be that even well trained soldiers, when bullets start flying and they are "breathing out their hoop" would struggle to maintain this high standard.  Training helps, for sure, but I think in a combat situation its believable that most people to not perform as they would on the ranges.

 

Firefights are almost always messy, adrenaline fuelled scraps rather than Devgru-style John Wick scenes.  I think the "skill" element is fairly displayed in this kind of system I propose, not as "who has better default control over the weapon" but rather "who is able to manage a common level of weapon mis-behaviour best".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Elirah said:

People getting 50+ kills that easy is exactly the problem we are talking about isnt it?

People who are getting 50+ kills now should start getting 70+ kills with a proper shooting mechanics system. Why? Because good player will adapt to a more complicated and harder system, while bad players will not adapt and fail even more.

At the moment shooting is easy enough for bad players to spam and randomly kill you when you're sprinting, jumping and prone spamming.

 

Game shouldn't randomly promote random spasms of fingers of players who don't understand what they're doing. Game should promote good speed and accuracy of aim, not just RMB, aim, spam LMB, get a random kill over there.

I believe that Squad is already doing an amazing job at this: most of players do 1-5 kills per round and then you see some no-lifer with 67/3 kdr in infantry or on vehicle. And it should stay that way, because games are sports and sport should be skill-based.

 

7 hours ago, Elirah said:

We are talking about a way to make killing harder, so its not that easy to get that many kills.

No, it will work the other way around if implemented properly. Good players will adapt to a harder skill-based shooting mechanics and will continue to drop just as many kills as they were and more. But the thing is that all average and bad players will adapt to a harder more complicated system worse than good players and as a result they will miss more. And as a result of this, good players will be able to dodge more bullets, die less and as a result of this - kill even more. That's why good players will start making 70 kills instead of 50 and not less than 50.

 

If you want to reduce skill gap between good players and bad players, you need to git gut. It works like that in pretty much all IRL sport and should work like that in all games: good players should be able to do things 10 or 100 times faster and better than bad players, and they should just stomp everyone around if they play on that godlike level.

Look at games like football or badminton. Or chess. In any of these games godlike team will win 1000-0 against any average or bad team of players, because these games are skill-based.

 

7 hours ago, Elirah said:

The argument to get that many kills is therefore absolute invalid, it even supports the suggestions Peerun is making.

What's wrong with making that many kills? The fact that you feel uncomfortable about other player making it and not you?

Have you ever played paintball? Have you ever flanked scrubs in paintball 16v16 and killed whole enemy team just because they were in a bad position? No? I didn't think so. Well, I did.

 

Players are supposed to destroy the whole enemy team by themselves if that team allows them to. And that's exactly what we have now in Squad. 1 infantry guy can make 100+ kills in infantry by himself and suppress whole enemy team if that team allows him to. 1 Stryker or 1 BTR can cover half of the map and destroy whole enemy team if that team allows that BTR/Stryker to do so.

There is nothing wrong about it. This game punishes bad players in a very severe way and it should stay that way. If people play bad, they deserve to get rekt as hard as explained above and even harder.

 

You don't see 70/0 on clan wars when 2 top teams play against each other, right? That's because they don't play bad Squad, they play Ok-ish Squad. That's when you know that things aren't overpowered, aren't off balance and fine.

 

7 hours ago, Elirah said:

Making shooting harder, like Peerun (Edit: I actually meant Kendo) is suggesting. Profit from longer firefights, more strategic and tactical play. Is all im saying.

No. What you actually saying is that it will allow bad players to randomly sit more on hills without doing anything and without getting massacred by some nerd with 1000 hours, which actually understands the game.

 

Have you ever played table tennis against some professional player? If you have and you aren't professional yourself, you should have lost 16-0 all the time. It doesn't matter how many sets you would play. You could play 1000 sets and it would be 1000-0. Because it will take you years to get on that godlike professional level, when you will be able to compete with that professional tennis players.

 

Reducing skill gap between players is bad and lame. Video games should be skill based, not lamer-based.

 

Squad is already more strategic and tactical game than almost everyone in this community can imagine. And most people are delusional about what this game actually is. This game isn't Arma or whatever mil-sim they think it is.

This game is Battlefield-2 Two. Enhanced, expanded, with a lot of fixes. People say that Squad very different to Project Reality. I personally see lots and lots of similarities with Battlefield 2, but with better mechanics(very skill-based game, randoms can't take vehicles, can't spam revives, better shooting mechanics, etc.).

What you see most of people do on pubs aren't strategic or tactical, it is just bad, lame and stupid. Changing shooting mechanics will not change this fact. They will continue to do these stupid lame mistakes over and over and over again. And you want to punish bad players less, so they can continue to do these stupid mistakes? Hell no!

Edited by Skul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @Skul

 

I get what you're saying mate, and I follow your logic.  I'll explain why I think its a bit more nuanced than that in a sec. 

 

For now, lets try and keep things civil here lads.  I welcome opinions, suggestions and theories, that's cool.  Its why I made this thread.  I'm over here in an armchair with a glass of whisky and a pipe if people want to put down their pitchforks and come join me :)

 

As for your point Skul: Yes, it will increase the skillgap.  And, yes, this is good.  I'm not suggesting some kind of simulator level of complexity for the sole purpose of obfuscating the dynamics for new players, but you're correct in that veterans will have a naturally better handle on things, and they will do relatively better.

 

The reason its a little more interesting than that is that not every firefight is a 1v1 type situation.  As you say, you can run across roads, or try and take cover behind a wall etc.  If aiming becomes harder for everyone, then these situations, while relatively easier for the veteran, are still by definition harder for those same players than now.  This will often lead to those veteran players missing shots on those people ducking behind cover etc that they probably wouldn't miss now.  

 

To be clear, in 1v1 situations at long range, you are absolutely correct.  But, for many other situations, like close quarters, the expected effect on gameplay of this mechanic would be limited.  I daresay beneficial, even, to those "noobs" that think they can run across a guarded street that, as things are now, would have them get torn to shreds.  Perhaps they make it across if aiming well takes longer for everyone?

 

What you have to remember is that there is a difference between number of kills and relative number of kills.  Take this graph, where bad players are in red, and good players in green.

 

F4rZHop.jpg

 

This is just pulled out my ass, but you can see "bad players" may suffer a 50% kill difference, and good players only 20%.  Furthermore, if we just assume my numbers are representative for the sake of argument, then good players go from being roughly 5 times better to about 8 times better.  Be that as it may, the total number of kills could still decrease.  That's roughly what the intention behind this is, anyway.  Realistically, who the hell knows what the effect will really be?  Its just to try and make the time to kill a little higher at range.  That's all.

 

So, in a way, you're both totally right.  Sorry for using a graph.  I'm a nerd.

Edited by Kendo
Yes, that is MS paint. Sue me

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

×