Jump to content
TwistedSunshine

Ridiculous accuracy.

Recommended Posts

I thought v10 might change the accuracy of guns but we are still cyborgs that have 100% perfect sight alignment at all times allowing us to make headshots at 500+ meters with ironsights. It's hard to even begin to explain what's wrong with the current system in game to be honest. And yeah sure you can try to use the argument of "this isn't trying to be as realistic as possible but fun". But surely it would be more fun to have small arms acting less like laser beams and more skillful to use? I mean why in the world would you need a DMR when you can stick a scope on a pistol and put a round through someones head at 300 meters every single time.

Let me try to break down some things missing and in need of change in my opinion to make the gameplay better and more diverse.

Focal plane - You can have just one so choose wisely, do you focus on your rear sight? Do you focus on your front sight? Do you focus on your target? Whichever one you choose the others will become blurry. What I've been thought is that you should choose the front sight as that is something you can control and you should make sure there is equal light on either side of it to ensure you have decent alignment to make an accurate shot.

Sight misalignment - No one can hold a gun in perfect alignment at all times, and if they try to tell you otherwise can they show us their medals that they won in the olympics? I bet not. Holding a gun aimed at a target you tend to sway around a little and your alignment can be iffy at times with a tightness of control before a shot is made. 

 

The barrels accuracy - Completely removing user error the gun in question can only do so much. Don't quote me on this but from what I've heard an m4a1 is a 3inch MOA gun as well as an ak74n. If you want the accurate numbers go out and check it and report back. Now that accuracy is by no means bad but when you start getting out there even if you do everything perfectly and align that barrel right on your target you may miss. And let's not forget this game isn't simulating the multitude of variables a real bullet has to undergo before it reaches your target in real life. You could simulate this with even slightly less accurate groupings. 

 

Try to keep it clean and constructive with your replies.  

 

Edited by TwistedSunshine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just got done unloading a full ak mag at a dude 10 meters away and wiffed him so i donno...lol maybe i just suck? but the wep sway seems fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ♠DEG♠ said:

i just got done unloading a full ak mag at a dude 10 meters away and wiffed him so i donno...lol maybe i just suck? but the wep sway seems fine to me.

That's recoil, It's pretty intense. Lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for realistic weapon handling, but I think you're exaggerating. I can barely see targets at 500 metres,  let alone hit them with ironsights... Christ, even with a scope it'd be a struggle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clear advantage of having a NASA computer with a 4K monitor resolution. Then you see bigger heads in the distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With USA weapons yes its easier to hit somone form afar then with AK-s 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bahrein said:

With USA weapons yes its easier to hit somone form afar then with AK-s 

At the moment, I prefer the AKs over the M4s. I do not know why but it feels a bit better.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DerGepard said:

At the moment, I prefer the AKs over the M4s. I do not know why but it feels a bit better.... :D

I do to especially the AKM amd some times G3 but sometimes M-4 feels a bit superior 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fatalsushi said:

Has any other game done sight misalignment well? Just wondering.

As far as I can remember, Gearbox's game Road to hill 30 from the "Brother in arms" games serie, based on UE2 engine, had sight misalignment (I may be wrong). Or was it Take Two's Vietcong ?

 

54 minutes ago, DerGepard said:

At the moment, I prefer the AKs over the M4s. I do not know why but it feels a bit better.... :D

 

52 minutes ago, Bahrein said:

I do to especially the AKM amd some times G3 but sometimes M-4 feels a bit superior 

 

AK forever. Accurate and powerful, very good feeling with it, many HS at med-long range ; my fav with G3.

 

*******

 

To answer to OP :

Focal plane : to complicated imho ;

Sight misalignment + barrel accuracy => good ideas, but isn't barrel accuracy implemented yet ?

 

 

 

Edited by Nightstalker21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Focal plane - simply doesn't belong in a video game, we're bound by pixels already. Making it worse is the opposite of a good design choice.

 

2. Sights misalignment - I would like to see sights misalignment, but let me explain how. I'd like the game to be about positioning, anticipation and pacing (said 100x). We already have sway that is tied to stamina so I'd tie front post misalignment to movement itself. It would be a non-random modern approach to how Project Reality handled deviation, making you consider your movement more carefully and giving you a harder choice whether to shoot or not. Your front post would simply go around in circles, as you stop they'd be getting smaller and smaller. There wouldn't be enough of it to really matter in <20m engagements, you could see it and counter it by shooting to the side making it much harder to hit and it would force you to wait a bit for settled sights.

 

3. Barrels accuracy - please no, randomness is lazy game design, have well thought out mechanics that prevent you from being overly precise, but not some RNG bullshit where you shoot at the same spot 3x and miss 2x but get a headshot the 3rd time. Nothing but frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sight misalignment should not be in game at all, except as was mentioned during movement. Adding anything else to the game would be stupid because unlike IRL, you would not have any practical way of controlling this in a game. IRL you have sight picture issues but these are resolved by the shooter. Trying to mimic this is a game would be completely over-complicated and be a NET negative effect to realism. 

 

The closest thing you can do to this and be reasonable is what PR did. PR had invisible cross hairs that closed very slowly depending on your stance. IMO this did a good job of simulating the time it takes to establish a good sight picture. Different sights in PR had different times, so a CCO was basically instant while irons took some time. The effect of this mechanic was to prevent the unrealistically rapid time people in video games can go from a low ready to perfect sight picture, which is imo the biggest issue. 

 

However be warned: when PR implemented this feature about half the community had a hissy fit like you would not believe, since many people did not like the fact that they could not be instantly accurate as soon as the irons or optic came up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DaiaBu said:

I'm all for realistic weapon handling, but I think you're exaggerating. I can barely see targets at 500 metres,  let alone hit them with ironsights... Christ, even with a scope it'd be a struggle. 

Not true, go check the miss/hit ratio of the us army in recent conflicts. The results are staggering in terms of misses and rightly so because shooting is not easy at longer ranges. 

Share this post


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

Has any other game done sight misalignment well? Just wondering.

Maybe escape from tarkov? I can't think of anything else to be honest. I say maybe because I usually use red dot sights and optics that remove a lot of the sight misalignment, hey I bet most people aren't aware you can also misalign a magnified scope. 

Share this post


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

1. Focal plane - simply doesn't belong in a video game, we're bound by pixels already. Making it worse is the opposite of a good design choice.

 

2. Sights misalignment - I would like to see sights misalignment, but let me explain how. I'd like the game to be about positioning, anticipation and pacing (said 100x). We already have sway that is tied to stamina so I'd tie front post misalignment to movement itself. It would be a non-random modern approach to how Project Reality handled deviation, making you consider your movement more carefully and giving you a harder choice whether to shoot or not. Your front post would simply go around in circles, as you stop they'd be getting smaller and smaller. There wouldn't be enough of it to really matter in <20m engagements, you could see it and counter it by shooting to the side making it much harder to hit and it would force you to wait a bit for settled sights.

 

3. Barrels accuracy - please no, randomness is lazy game design, have well thought out mechanics that prevent you from being overly precise, but not some RNG bullshit where you shoot at the same spot 3x and miss 2x but get a headshot the 3rd time. Nothing but frustration.

I agree with most of what you are saying however you must understand that the inaccuracy of the gun itself must be implemented to put a purpose into using more accurate firearms. For example the m110 is far superior to the m4 in terms of accuracy and knock down power yet they would perform nearly identical in game if they also used the same optics. Now I might have heard they have tried to implement correct inaccuracy of the guns in game but I can tell you immediately these guns are overperforming and I don't think it can be explained by one single mechanic. I will make a video very shortly showing what I'm talking about to everyone. 

1 hour ago, Hvolute said:

Sight misalignment should not be in game at all, except as was mentioned during movement. Adding anything else to the game would be stupid because unlike IRL, you would not have any practical way of controlling this in a game. IRL you have sight picture issues but these are resolved by the shooter. Trying to mimic this is a game would be completely over-complicated and be a NET negative effect to realism. 

Holding shift would result in sight alignment becoming much tighter but not to perfection to make a shot, with every subsequent shot needing you to hold down shift again to steady your aim. The result would be slower and and more forced precise shooting. But when I say precise I'm not saying as precise as it is right now, for that to happen you would need to be benchrest shooting and be a very accurate shot. Please try to refrain from immediately disagreeing for the sake of a dispute and try give that idea a chance to sink in as in my opinion it's very practical and would greatly improve longer range engagements. 

Edited by TwistedSunshine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TwistedSunshine said:

Not true, go check the miss/hit ratio of the us army in recent conflicts. The results are staggering in terms of misses and rightly so because shooting is not easy at longer ranges. 

Is the study you do refer a total estimated numbers or estimated figures where the supporting (blind) fire is removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lolnope. At least at 1980*1280, I can't reliably hit at 300m without optics even at shooting range. Ingame, kills past 200m are maybe 5% of casualties on most maps.

The accuracy ingame is actually much lower than IRL, Marines are supposed to hit targets at 500m for basic rifle quals.

 

PS. As for AKM vs M4, AKM has 30% more recoil and 30% less ROF, it's basically twice worse even point blank. At long range, M4 is 3x-4x better because lower damage falloff and better sights.
AK74s and M4s are basically equal now, because basic M4 no longer has fullauto

Edited by tatzhit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too feel that shooting should be a bit harder than it currently is, but I can't say I like any of the options presented above. Maybe once/if we get weapon resting the devs will make shooting while the weapon is not placed on an object harder, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwistedSunshine said:

 

 Please try to refrain from immediately disagreeing for the sake of a dispute and try give that idea a chance to sink in as in my opinion it's very practical and would greatly improve longer range engagements. 

That might be the most narcissistic thing I have have seen posted on a forum. You must be pretty special if you assume that the only reason a person would disagree with you is "the sake of dispute" because "your idea is very practical"

 

Your entire idea is bogus. Small arms in real life are very very accurate. Due to the current vision issues in game long range fire is already castrated enough as it is and does not need addition hindrances put in place. The only reasonable addition would be a delay before perfect accuracy from the moment the sight comes up. 

 

The content of your posts makes me deeply suspicious of whether you have ever fired a weapon extensively or even done basic book research. Your concept of barrel accuracy is wrong. Your use of statistics regarding his is wrong. Your concept of recoil is wrong. Just about everything you have typed here regarding fire arms is either incorrect or exaggerated etc. 

 

It is relatively easy to hit a target out to 300m if you have a properly zeroed weapon. There is nothing laser like about the accuracy of the weapons in squad. IF ANYTHING, engagements at long range are currently too difficult due to the vision issues in game and the fact that several weapons have improperly modeled sights or are not properly battle sighted in. (the current M68 and ACOG zero ranged are ridiculous)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like the way it is now.  But I mainly use the SAW on the bipod with scope :)

I have to say that shooting an M4 at range is easier IRL than in game.

Edited by Kayos

Share this post


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

That might be the most narcissistic thing I have have seen posted on a forum. You must be pretty special if you assume that the only reason a person would disagree with you is "the sake of dispute" because "your idea is very practical"

 

Your entire idea is bogus. Small arms in real life are very very accurate. Due to the current vision issues in game long range fire is already castrated enough as it is and does not need addition hindrances put in place. The only reasonable addition would be a delay before perfect accuracy from the moment the sight comes up. 

 

The content of your posts makes me deeply suspicious of whether you have ever fired a weapon extensively or even done basic book research. Your concept of barrel accuracy is wrong. Your use of statistics regarding his is wrong. Your concept of recoil is wrong. Just about everything you have typed here regarding fire arms is either incorrect or exaggerated etc. 

 

It is relatively easy to hit a target out to 300m if you have a properly zeroed weapon. There is nothing laser like about the accuracy of the weapons in squad. IF ANYTHING, engagements at long range are currently too difficult due to the vision issues in game and the fact that several weapons have improperly modeled sights or are not properly battle sighted in. (the current M68 and ACOG zero ranged are ridiculous)

Your response is a perfect example why I said what I did. You unfortunately proved my point. Go ahead and take offense to that as well as I'm sure you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a great video of the practical accuracy attainable out of an ar-15. Keep in mind this is shooting off a benchrest with a highly experienced shooter behind the gun and high visibility targets. Shooting from a benchrest is by far the most accurate way to shoot a firearm and is superior to bipods. In contrast to squad this could be done much easier and from a standing position. I will post a video shortly of me just doing that and I'm very rusty with the controls. 

 

Edited by TwistedSunshine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another video to further prove my point. And keep in mind I've only being playing this game for a couple hours in the last 6 months due to waiting for v10. I'm as rusty as rusty can be and I VERY rarely use the sniper rifle yet 1000m offhand shooting is a piece of cake. 

 

 

Edited by TwistedSunshine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TwistedSunshine said:

Not true, go check the miss/hit ratio of the us army in recent conflicts. The results are staggering in terms of misses and rightly so because shooting is not easy at longer ranges. 

 

Forgive me, but it seems like you might have quoted the wrong post, or at least, misunderstood the point I was making, as your response doesn't seem to make sense in the context of what I said. 

 

I wasn't disputing how hard is is to shoot in real life, I was disputing your claim that it's not equally as hard in Squad. You say it's easy to shoot targets at 500+ metres with ironsights - I say that's an exaggeration. Unless I am even worse at the game then I thought, then I would say that it is very hard to hit targets at that distance in this game. I find shooting at anything over 100 metres very difficult with ironsights. 

 

My point was simply that I like having realistic weapon handling, but I think you were exaggerating how easy it as to shoot targets in Squad. Citing real life hit/miss ratios to tell me I'm wrong in that assertion doesn't seem to make much sense. 

Edited by DaiaBu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×