Lower Accuracy

[Spartan452]

Maybe we should start a poll, to see if the general public would like to see a change in weapon accuracy.

[blud]

I hate this idea! Why would anyone have more fun with lower accuracy? To me, fun is hitting what I aim at. If your gun doesn't hit at what you aim at, then the skill is removed from the game. Wouldn't you be frustrated as hell if your shots didn't hit where you were aiming at??

[solodude23]

Originally Posted by [T]BludShoT

I hate this idea! Why would anyone have more fun with lower accuracy? To me, fun is hitting what I aim at. If your gun doesn't hit at what you aim at, then the skill is removed from the game. Wouldn't you be frustrated as hell if your shots didn't hit where you were aiming at??

Not overall lower accuracy - but IF it was somehow possible to add deviation depending on stance, movement, and stamina more.

I always remember in Fh1 the deviation after movement. On all weapons, you would have to wait a second for your gun to become accurate again after this movement. This wait time was smaller for smaller weapons, but very long for HMG's and especially AT weapons. It was alot more noticeable too with the crosshairs.

[Rico11b]

Originally Posted by WNxKenwayy

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.

True, true, but it's still a 25m zero. Which will get you close at 300m. But it's still not a fine tuned zero for 300m. It's good enough to qualify with for sure. Not good enough to get consistent head shots at 300+m time after time, after time. Which happens in PR quite often. A little too often regardless of stance or body position as you noted earlier. I wonder if there is anything the Devs can really do about this, or are we stuck with it cause of game engine limitations? Time will tell I guess.

[VipersGhost]

bludshot...you are missing the point. In real life, if I shoot an M16 at a target, using a scope, at 300 meteres...its not going to go EXACTLY there...even if they gun is mounted in a machine with no sway, wind or anything. This is due to the gun itself, sure on the battlefield wind etc comes into play but that is outside the scope of BF2.

Each gun in real life has a MOA(minute of angle) rating...this says that the bullet will deviate how ever many minutes (geometry minutes...no 60sec minutes) from its trajectory. So if a gun has 1 MOA, at 100 yds that is roughly equal to 1 inch of deviation. So if I fired my gun 10 times at a target 100yds out with a 1MOA gun...then all 10 bullets would be within a 1 inch radius....at 200 yds....a 2inch pattern (radius) approx. This is how it is IRL. Guns are not lazers, this is a reality mod and no one is looking for the rediculous deviation of BF2. So an M16 has an MOA around 4, I'm told. I'm sure an AK's is worse. So at 200 yards your bullets when fired would shoot in a 8 inch pattern (radius).

I think this would be good for PR...right now the guns are lazer accurate, but thats not how it really is.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Shit is funny when people complain that they get killed too quickly, when it is their own actions that get them killed. I find it interesting that people will have more deaths than kills by a good margin and I am able to keep my deaths to a minimum without a medic to revive me. Fools who run out in the open and get killed, took a risk and it didn't pay off. Impatience is most peoples problem, you would be surprised how you can get behind cover and stay down for literally 30 seconds (which ingame is a long time) and the person shooting at you will lose interest and look elsewhere. Allowing you to re-engage or break contact completely INSTEAD OF PUSHING A BAD POSITION.

Drawn out firefights is not what I call a good time, I want to put people down with the least amount of shots possible and preferably without being shot at myself. Making things random again is stupid. Don't give me the crap about everyone being a crackshot because that is not the case, there are more horrible shots than good shots, mainly because people rush the shot and miss. If I am able to shoot well I should not be handicapped by random deviation because you cannot.

And because you have seen drawn out firefights on youtube or on tv and think it should be that way in PR, you are missing some serious key things that make it like that IRL. In these documentaries, how many times do you actually see the targets being fired at? rarely and if you did see them that means a man with a rifle saw them too and would have nailed them quickly. What is actually the case is, the targets are behind cover or consealed in a building or something and the shooters just know they are "in that building, or near that window" and unload into that area and suppress it until the target is dead or stops firing back. That cannot be simulated in BF2 where building are simple and most combat takes place out in the open. How long do you think an insurgent would last out in the open against a Marine with a x4 acog? Not long at all, you know US troops are trained to fire accurately and make shots count instead of using overwhelming amounts of bullets on a target you can see.

Given the limitations of BF2 PR has done an excellent job with the small arms, which are more realistic than any other version of BF2. It is your own skill that is your weakness, not the inherent accuracy of the rifles.

[Rico11b]

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

Not long at all, you know US troops are trained to fire accurately and make shots count instead of using overwhelming amounts of bullets on a target you can see.

It is your own skill that is your weakness, not the inherent accuracy of the rifles.

What are you talking about? Hell yes US troops WILL use an overwhelming amount of bullets on a target they can or cannot see. First of all suppressive fire works IRL. I guess you didn't read the earlier post about how Infantry achieves "accuracy thru volume". Meaning its part of their mission to flood an area with bullets. It's the DM and the Snipers that try to fire accurately and make each shot count. Infantry wins it battles thru "Fire and Maneuver". One fire part fires and suppresses while the other part Maneuvers to flank and destroy. Using lots of bullets just comes with the job. Some guys refer to it as "peace thru superior firepower".

Maybe you have been watching to many WW1 movies where every soldier had a bolt-action rifle instead of a modern day assault rifle.


I'm just kidding with ya on that last part

And where is this "skill" you speak of? It's point and click man, point and click.

[VipersGhost]

SIN I hear your point and TBH I have no problems maintaining a decent 3-1 or 2-1 KDR. I to hate to see everyone running into the open blazing away, I haven't really played the final .6 release but a couple of times....I greatly miss the 607 days of great combat. But enough said about that, in the end you are asking for something unrealistic. The guns aren't lazer accurate IRL like they are now, I'm mearly pointing out that the guns should have their REAL LIFE values present. If there is one thing Project REALITY should aim for (IMO) its to model the guns realistically. No one is jumping to extremes and saying your gun will miss at 50-100 meters....or have stupid deviation like CS or vBF2. I tend to always play like a marksmen even if I have a standard gun...so the hypre-accurate rifles have really boosted my KDR over .5 etc...the game has gotten alot easier for me...so I'm definitely not bitching

Personally, I think that it should be realistic, I dont care that I can aim perfectly or duck and shoot stuff....we have to accept that(hardcoded)....but the guns RL deviation should at least be present if possible in future releases.

[SiN|ScarFace]

There is no reason to make the RIFLE less accurate as IRL they are more accurate than the person using it. If you put an AR in a vice and fired it at the same spot you will have a tight group at 300m and even farther. Weapon sway is the problem as it can't be added but making the rifle less accurate is not a good solution.

And as far as spray and pray IRL no doubt it is used but that does not mean they do not train you to shoot well aimed shots and how often is burst fire used and why are you not issued an automatic rifle?

[VipersGhost]

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

If you put an AR in a vice and fired it at the same spot you will have a tight group at 300m and even farther.

This is what I mean. The MOA is measured with a benched rifle, basically its put in a gun-vise and you shoot it and measure it. So at 300 yrds your bullets don't go exactly where you point them. There is deviation related to each gun absent of the shooter. So if you have an M16 standard...the MOA will be like 4 ( shoots about a 12 inch radius of a pattern at 300 yards WHILE IN A GUN VISE)...but a good gun smith could probably put a longer barrel and all other kinds of stuff into it, better bolt etc....and get that thing down to probably 1.5. This is the deviation I'm referring to, its real...its not dependant on the shooter\stance\sway\wind...its based on the design and quality of the gun.

Do a little research on the MOA of a standard M16 and the process associated with it. Now this deviation is substantially less on a sniper rifle, even at 100 yrds. Its because the gun is better made and designed for accurate shooting. This is why a lot of sniper rifles are bolt action...hell why not make them all semi?? Because bolt action allows for a more accurate shooting design with a tighter MOA no matter what the range is.

Deviation, MOA or whatever you want to call it is present IRL no matter how well you gun is sited in or benched. This is something every shooter has to deal with, hunter or soldier, and should be represented. I love the small arms in PR except for the recoil model(sticky), lack of parabolic ballistics (the beginning as the end is modeled) and maybe this....other than that, they are exceptionally great and thats the only reason I'm bringing this information up is because it will better the guns.