|
PR:BF2 General Discussion General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
2009-11-17, 22:45 | #1 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Norway
|
Reimplement accuracy indication
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. |
2009-11-17, 23:02 | #2 |
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,000
United Kingdom
Location: norfolk
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18...ll-rifles.html
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18...indicator.html This is why you need 25 posts, search the forums more. |
|
|
2009-11-17, 23:54 | #3 | |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Norway
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
Quote:
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. | |
Last edited by Integ3r; 2009-11-18 at 00:06..
|
2009-11-18, 00:20 | #4 |
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 350
United States of America
Location: Minnesota
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
With your first 2 posts being nothing short of a rant, Your not making a very good first impression.
|
Last edited by =Toasted=; 2009-11-18 at 00:31..
|
2009-11-18, 00:37 | #5 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Norway
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
It doesn't matter how much of a douche 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. |
2009-11-18, 00:42 | #6 |
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,548
United States of America
Location: The Snowy Northeast
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
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. |
[R-CON]creepin - "because on the internet 0=1" |
|
2009-11-18, 00:46 | #7 | ||||||||
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 634
United States of America
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10...5-manuals.html Quote:
Train. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. | ||||||||
2009-11-18, 00:54 | #8 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 634
United States of America
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
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. |
2009-11-18, 01:29 | #9 | ||||||||
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Norway
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
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."
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's sorta part of the point that having to train for THIS is kinda stupid... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Not so with the way guns work. | ||||||||
Last edited by Integ3r; 2009-11-18 at 01:40..
|
2009-11-18, 01:52 | #10 | |
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,565
United States of America
|
Re: Reimplement accuracy indication
Quote:
| |
Tags |
accuracy, indication, reimplement |
|
|