Lower Accuracy

[Wolfe]

Well said Rico (war veteran, not an adviser)(/salute)

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ghostrider

but we're inclined to believe our military advisors and others within the team that have actually fired these types of guns irl.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have a gun that is accurate at 10,000 miles. It's not the accuracy of the weapon itself, it's the accuracy of the average soldier under realistic conditions. Running full speed then dropping insta-prone while shooting full auto within a six-inch cone is not realistic unless you're RoboCop.

It's no wonder why hardly anyone uses the support class because suppressing fire is discouraged by hyper-accurate shooting abilities by the average gun/grunt.

At distance, all you have to do is hide behind a rock insta pop-up and fire a hyper accurate shot, then drop down; all within a half second. Rinse repeat until the target is dead. Now cmon, you could have the most accurate gun in the world but doing that is NOT realistic and no military adviser is going to say that it is.

This issue is not just about realism, it's about gameplay too.

[TexLax]

in this mod it's realism>gameplay

and the devs ca only do so much

[CAS_117]

Oddly enough, ACOGs are standard issue in the Canadian army. Wonder when the US will pick up...
This is the BF2 engine, which has its um... flaws. So yeah don't expect to have to control heart rate or breathing with your sniper rifle. (Well, Maybe the enemies .)

[Rico11b]

Originally Posted by caboose

Oddly enough, ACOGs are standard issue in the Canadian army. Wonder when the US will pick up...
This is the BF2 engine, which has its um... flaws. So yeah don't expect to have to control heart rate or breathing with your sniper rifle. (Well, Maybe the enemies .)

The US has had ACOGs for years now. A scope doesn't make a rifle more accurate. It just allows the shooter to take aim at a smaller target over a greater distance. The idea is to aim small miss small. If you miss at all. Why take aim at the entire upper torso, when I can take aim on a shirt pocket instead. It gives me a greater chance of hitting in the upper torso. If you can't aim worth crap with open sights, then you won't be any better with a scope. You just "think" you will be better.

[CAS_117]

Originally Posted by rico11b

The US has had ACOGs for years now. A scope doesn't make a rifle more accurate. It just allows the shooter to take aim at a smaller target over a greater distance. The idea is to aim small miss small. If you miss at all. Why take aim at the entire upper torso, when I can take aim on a shirt pocket instead. It gives me a greater chance of hitting in the upper torso. If you can't aim worth crap with open sights, then you won't be any better with a scope. You just "think" you will be better.

Sorry I meant in use for all infantry, the USMC specifically.

[solodude23]

Originally Posted by {GD}Ghost

I am not disagreeing with you, but this is not something they can currently do anything about. However, making everything less accurate is not the solution to the problem.

Couldn't you have just said that instead of posting against me with as well as making a post with an elitist attitude saying that we should not lower the standards to accommodate the "less skilled" and its not for the Special Olympics? You just targeted all that approved including this realistic feature and called them "less skilled".

You kept mentioned you have to play with a realistic mindset. Thats my point. In a realistic mindset, a soldier wont be able to get an instant headshot on me after running and diving 200m away. I am using 200m as an example, but it has happened both further away and closer than that.

[El_Vikingo]

I blame the slight zoom on the ironsight. (I'm not talking about the M16 Rifleman version (ACOG).

It's there to represent "concentration" and what not, but I believe that's what gives players that accuracy.

Remove that or decrease it and you'll see how players start to complain because of inaccurate rifles.

[pasfreak]

well, theoretically (ingame), less zoom WILL give you a less accurate rifle because of pixelation. the more zoom you have, the more shirt pockets you can aim at, because they're only crammed into about 200 pixels, not one or two.
theres a vid on youtube, sniper school part 3 or 4 on bf2 about how pixelation affects sniping, and you can completely miss b/c you have to get the aim just right, and the only way to do that is by leaning. like others have said, the game engine can only go so far...

[VipersGhost]

Look, the rest of this is just nonsense...we can't adjust the players accuracy within the games limitations. I do believe however that we can add the deviation (MOA) to the in-game weapons to match their RL counter-parts.

Personally I'd like to see the weapons zero'd to 200yds so more player-skill would be required to drop long range targets as they would have to deal with bullet drop issues. You would see good players evolve as deadly marksmen and get rid of some of the point-click killing at longer ranges.

More important is the RL MOA's(deviation) of the guns being present in-game though. I think this would improve the quality of some of the firefights and bring them a big step closer to real life fights. Right now some maps cant get to be a little marksmen-y at times. Just my .02, I love .6 especially once the idiots leave and the new players flourish.

[WNxKenwayy]

Originally Posted by rico11b

The very best out of the box "Standard Issue" M16A2 is only capable of about 3 to 4 MOA using standard M855 ball ammo. That's with open sights mind you. They were NEVER intended to be marksman rifles. Hell you can buy an Civilian version M16 (I think it's the AR-15, but I'm not sure) that is more accurate. Standard issue rifles are mass produced by the lowest bidder for that government contract. Most any out of the box hunting rifle is WAY more accurate than a standard Issue M16A2.

US troops zero their M16s at 25 meters not 300 meters and then they use that same zero setting to qualify with. Thats why they record their "Dope". So they can pick up any M16 and put there "dope" on it, so now this weapon is zeroed for them.

Uh, first part, yes

Second part, no.

We zero at 25m, but using a 300m paper simulating target. Its like zeroing at 300m, but without all the walking back and forth to figure out wtf you hit. Actually we zeroed at 250m but that was a squadron policy, army wide it's 'supposed' to be 300m No body keeps track of their dope unless you were a DM like me, because you are never going to have to pick up someone else's weapon in a situation where utmost accuracy is a concern.

Personally, yes, I think the accuracy of the riflemen rifles is a little ridiculous at the moment. Mostly because the BF engine doesn't allow for deviation based on stance/stamina near as we can tell, which blows.