Reimplement accuracy indication

[Rapid12]

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.

[theiceman]

Originally Posted by Rapid12

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

[gazzthompson]

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.

[Artnez]

Originally Posted by Integ3r

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.

[Artnez]

Originally Posted by Hunt3r

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.

[Duckmeister]

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.

[Tirak]

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.

[Duckmeister]

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.

[galeknight1]

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.

[Tirak]

Originally Posted by Duckmeister

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.