Close Combat Accuracy - Page 2

~~Arnoldio~~ · 2009-10-18, 15:16

Best thing to do with this deviation is that the starting deviation should be lower (not very much though) and cone doesn't shirnks linear, but it decelerates. So this would make CQC accuracy good, but you will still have to wait for longer targets.

Somtheing like this (Accuracy -Time graph)

Hunt3r · 2009-10-18, 21:52

Best thing to do in my opinion is to just reduce deviation to the point where they both have the same chance of hitting something.

But on a more serious note, just making the GPMGs have a cone of fire that covers the entire FOV when not raised or deployed would be the proper fix, since firing a GPMG from the hip is an act of desperation.

The 5.56 caliber MGs should stay the same, it's fine if they're far more effective at CQC then rifles.

TheLean · 2009-10-18, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChizNizzle

Best thing to do with this deviation is that the starting deviation should be lower (not very much though) and cone doesn't shirnks linear, but it decelerates. So this would make CQC accuracy good, but you will still have to wait for longer targets.

Somtheing like this (Accuracy -Time graph)

Agreed, deviation should be that you have to wait a short time in CQB, but longer for the fine tuning far away. Sadly, IIRC, a parabolic time-accuracy trajectory as you have described for deviation is impossible in BF2 engine.

Mad-Mike · 2009-10-18, 22:08

Its not always the case, Its who's fingers hits the fire button quicker, ive won a AR plenty of times when not expected him etc

~~Ondskan~~ · 2009-10-18, 23:39

What needs to be done is to make the rifle more effective at close range (all ranges)!

Well last reply for me tonight. Later aligators!

Hunt3r · 2009-10-19, 00:11

What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

McBumLuv · 2009-10-19, 01:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunt3r

What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

I disagree. The mechanics have good and practical intentions, however in the state that they are in are not worth porting into PR imo.

I trully believe, however, that they are on the right track. If proper animations were in place of the clunky code back up sight/single zoom, and CQC with the weapon shouldered can be done without having to do away with the print (though it would be changed), then I'm sure it would be the best.

Infantry mechanics aren't completely fubar with CA, but things like the momentum and single zoom through the optics need to be taken out.

But about CQC, I personally believe that it should be possible to have a lower maximum deviation while walking, since that's what you'll be doing in room-to-room clearing. THAT is a mechanic that can be taken from CA, but not the rest if they aren't animated properly.

Truism · 2009-10-19, 07:55

All shooters in video games are always able to aim for the center of mass.
All bullets that "hit" in video games are effective.

Therefore, a cone of deviation should be tailored so that if a player aims perfectly at the center of mass he will hit and damage the same proportion of the time as a real shooter would at the same range, moving the same way against the same target.

Right?

bosco_ · 2009-10-19, 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunt3r

What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

How about NO.

~~Arnoldio~~ · 2009-10-19, 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChizNizzle

Best thing to do with this deviation is that the starting deviation should be lower (not very much though) and cone doesn't shirnks linear, but it decelerates. So this would make CQC accuracy good, but you will still have to wait for longer targets.

Somtheing like this (Accuracy -Time graph)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLean

Agreed, deviation should be that you have to wait a short time in CQB, but longer for the fine tuning far away. Sadly, IIRC, a parabolic time-accuracy trajectory as you have described for deviation is impossible in BF2 engine.

Well if deviation is based on time, so xxx amount of deviation at time measurement unit, lets say:

t(ime)1 - 5(amount of deviation)
t2 - 4
t3 - 3

etc, then it could be done..it wouldnt be the pefect parabola, but better than linear. In theory, they could do parabolic trajectory, consisting of large amount of points...so every 0.01second there is a different deviation.

t1 - 5
t2 - 3
t3 - 2.5

2009-10-18, 15:16	#11
~~Arnoldio~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,116 Slovenia Location: Cerkno	Re: Close Combat Accuracy Best thing to do with this deviation is that the starting deviation should be lower (not very much though) and cone doesn't shirnks linear, but it decelerates. So this would make CQC accuracy good, but you will still have to wait for longer targets. Somtheing like this (Accuracy -Time graph)

	Last edited by Arnoldio; 2009-10-18 at 15:23..

2009-10-18, 21:52	#12
Hunt3r Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,565 United States of America	Re: Close Combat Accuracy Best thing to do in my opinion is to just reduce deviation to the point where they both have the same chance of hitting something. But on a more serious note, just making the GPMGs have a cone of fire that covers the entire FOV when not raised or deployed would be the proper fix, since firing a GPMG from the hip is an act of desperation. The 5.56 caliber MGs should stay the same, it's fine if they're far more effective at CQC then rifles.

2009-10-18, 22:08	#14
Mad-Mike Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3,128 Afghanistan Location: Sangin	Re: Close Combat Accuracy Its not always the case, Its who's fingers hits the fire button quicker, ive won a AR plenty of times when not expected him etc

2009-10-18, 23:39	#15
~~Ondskan~~ Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 148 Sweden	Re: Close Combat Accuracy What needs to be done is to make the rifle more effective at close range (all ranges)! Well last reply for me tonight. Later aligators!

2009-10-19, 00:11	#16
Hunt3r Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,565 United States of America	Re: Close Combat Accuracy What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics. There, problem solved.

2009-10-19, 07:55	#18
Truism Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,181	Re: Close Combat Accuracy All shooters in video games are always able to aim for the center of mass. All bullets that "hit" in video games are effective. Therefore, a cone of deviation should be tailored so that if a player aims perfectly at the center of mass he will hit and damage the same proportion of the time as a real shooter would at the same range, moving the same way against the same target. Right?
Truism Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,181