Crouch to standing shot accuracy

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by Lord Jesus

It's the same in real life, if I have you zeroed in on my sights. And I lower myself behind cover while keeping my aiming stance. When I shift my body upwards out of cover, my aim has not changed.

You aren't getting it. Adding a bit of deviation wouldn't render this tactic useless. It would just require the shooter to expose himself for a second first, in which time a person would realistically be lining up their sights.

Unless you're a robot, I have a hard time believing that you can shift your body upwards and put the rifle in EXACTLY the same spot it was before, INSTANTLY. Even a small movement of the barrel tip could put your shot off by tens of meters at distance. Yet, in PR we have a system that allows you to do it with absolutely no movement, and no deviation punishment.

It's unrealistically accurate.

[Lord Jesus]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

You aren't getting it. Adding a bit of deviation wouldn't render this tactic useless. It would just require the shooter to expose himself for a second first, in which time a person would realistically be lining up their sights.

Unless you're a robot, I have a hard time believing that you can shift your body upwards and put the rifle in EXACTLY the same spot it was before, INSTANTLY. Even a small movement of the barrel tip could put your shot off by tens of meters at distance. Yet, in PR we have a system that allows you to do it with absolutely no movement, and no deviation punishment.

It's unrealistically accurate.

I told you because PR has no peek system, the peek system I am referring to is what raven shield called fluid stance.

Raven Shield - Fluid Stance

In real life, when engaging targets, you don't pop your body out fast and fire a few rounds, a trained professional takes their time when going out of cover, because your correct, a slight deviation of movement would alter the impact of where the bullet lands. Why should PR reward the guy who is camping, I already know where this guy is camping. I fixated my sights on him, now I deserve to take him out. All my enemy has done is sat in the same position believing he is invulnerable to getting shot. His ignorance should not beat my multiple efforts.

[[R-DEV]​Tim270]

Originally Posted by Lord Jesus

It's the same in real life, if I have you zeroed in on my sights. And I lower myself behind cover while keeping my aiming stance. When I shift my body upwards out of cover, my aim has not changed. Like I said, because PR has no peek system. This mirrors the same tactic used in the field. I have friends who served in combat operations. And if they have no option but to go around that corner and engage the enemy who is aware of their position, they use the same tactic. The firing stance is never the same position you use when in combat. That's a training method that only applies to the firing range. In real war, you are forced into uncomfortable positions sometimes due to battlefield conditions.

Errrr.... no. Are you seriously saying that if you scoped up on a guy 200m with a m249, crouched back completely behind cover, still looking down your optic the whole time you would then be able to pop straight back up and nail that guy with your first burst? Its not realistic at all. Imo its like trying to defend dolphin diving on the basis that you will be more accurate as you are lying on the ground.

[Lord Jesus]

Originally Posted by Tim270

Errrr.... no. Are you seriously saying that if you scoped up on a guy 200m with a m249, crouched back completely behind cover, still looking down your optic the whole time you would then be able to pop straight back up and nail that guy with your first burst? Its not realistic at all. Imo its like trying to defend dolphin diving on the basis that you will be more accurate as you are lying on the ground.

BF2 doesn't have any fluid stance. In real life I could take out that SAW, because I would raise my stance slowly but precisely to take him out. I would not stand up openly like the game is programmed, because keeping your rifle and body as close to the ground will keep you more stable when you fire your rifle.

The BF2 engine is limited, this is the reason why bipods in PR are the way they are. In real life I could use any cover as a field expedient bipod to deploy my rifle by a simple resting of my barrel on it.





Honestly because this is a video game, there are limitations on how you can conduct combat. However in real life, if you know where your enemy is, you still have a chance to take out the enemy if you conduct your own firing stance in a professional level.

[[R-DEV]​Tim270]

^ That is not a counter-argument, if anything its a argument for adding a crouch-stand deviation penalty....

[Click]

First off this picture is a bit dodgey in ways I am not going to say but second they have a stand to crouch deviation so there a difference but most people that I have played with don't use this tactic.

[Lord Jesus]

Originally Posted by Tim270

^ That is not a counter-argument, if anything its a argument for adding a crouch-stand deviation penalty....

How so? Your not very informative in making your statements. My argument is that the standing/crouching zero deviation is the only method we have on taking out campers who think they should never die due to their ignorance of tactics.

[Lord Jesus]

Originally Posted by Click

First off this picture is a bit dodgey in ways I am not going to say but second they have a stand to crouch deviation so there a difference but most people that I have played with don't use this tactic.

The 2nd picture is clearly a humorous one that these french soldiers were displaying.

This is a real method of deploying yourself in the same manner as using a bipod. Many operatives from Delta Force use this method. The logic is that the soldier who takes cover over the soldier who lays in the open with no cover will always lose. It doesn't matter if you go prone and fixate on a enemy. Those who use cover professional will always have that advantage of hiding from enemy fire.

[[R-DEV]​Tim270]

Originally Posted by Lord Jesus

How so? Your not very informative in making your statements. My argument is that the standing/crouching zero deviation is the only method we have on taking out campers who think they should never die due to their ignorance of tactics.

It is inherently unrealistic and borderline exploitative imo. You're statement just makes very little sense. Leaving in what is pretty much a loophole in the deviation mechanic for the sake of 'being able to kill campers' is just silly. Should PR reverse the 1.5 changes to proning deviation because 'it takes out campers'?

[Lord Jesus]

Originally Posted by Tim270

It is inherently unrealistic and borderline exploitative imo. You're statement just makes very little sense. Leaving in what is pretty much a loophole in the deviation mechanic for the sake of 'being able to kill campers' is just silly. Should PR reverse the 1.5 changes to proning deviation because 'it takes out campers'?

There is no fluid movement to stand up slowly and take out the target. The difference between standing up slow and fast is not a big deal. Besides if you have your target in your sights and he is able to get a fix on you as well, get into cover, then out of cover and kill you. It's because you have bad aim, and you should of killed your target before your bad accuracy and repeated shots got your location compromised.