Accuracy to big ???

[DanneDA]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

The problem isnt the accuracy it's the hit detection. It got much worse in the 1.2 patch (AT rockets among others). If they would fix the hit detection it would be much better.

[HypnosisFX]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

People just need to stop crying about every F'ning detail of the game. Boohoo the pkm owns me i must go post on TBF2 and cry about it. we had this clan in our server last night called OMEGA, jesus i was playing support and backing my teamates up and i mow down 3 out of 4 of them and in my own server they start trying to vote me out and calling me names. Got to the point were i just kicked them "NOT BANNED" just kicked them off cause they were crying so much and there language was just out of hand.

I too get killed by a pkm but hey, i deal with it, L85A1's rip me to shreds but i deal with it.

ITS ONLY A GAME PEOPLE!!!!

[Paas]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

I checked out every weapon on the game, and almost every single one has accuracy so high that u must lay down to shoot somebody. Also, another dumb thing about the game is, i put half of my clip in his ass, and hes running away like nothing happened. I think that the health and accuracy should be lowered !!! You?

I understand your pain. I don't struggle with it that much, yet I understand your pain.

The way the current system works, the following classes are nearly pointless while standing:

Assault, Support (Although deviation shouldn't be the cause, Recoil should.), Sniper (Shouldn't matter, scope drift should be implemented in game. The drift of the weapon should vary by position).

Spec-Ops and Medic both have access to weapons that are outrageously accurate compared to all Assault Arms. So, yes, some would argue, " Assault has body Armor! Their rifles do more damage!?". That's all fine and dandy. Yet, all of the stopping power in the world isn't going to help you if you're shooting a 12ft pattern at 50m; simply because you're standing.

The solution to this is simply. Modify the deviation of Assault, Spec-Ops, and Medics to reflect their "calling". Assault should have the most Accurate/Stable rifles in the game, short of Sniper. Medic should be currently where Assault is (it's a supporting classification, not an Uber Soilder). Spec-Ops should maintain their accuracy, yet suffer from increased deviation considering they are firing a Carbine. I know the game isn't realitic by any means, by some logically realistic representation should be presented. As it is now, I'm constantly questioning, "How in the hell did a Spec-Ops player with a G3c6 just managed to outgun me at a range of 200m while I'm firing an M16/G3a3/Ak-101/Ak-47?"

...this is all wishfull thinking though. It's ok to dream though. Right!? :cry:

{WP}Paas

[imported_Diarrabies]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

If you ask me, accuracy in BF2 is too high. BF2 is a video game simulating modern combat. The video games you guys are comparing it to are not. I don't know how many of you have shot rifles in real life, but shooting a rifle standing up is very difficult. Extremely difficult if it's firing fully automatic, especially heavy rounds like the NATO 7.62 (used in the G3 and some AK variants). Think about it this way. If recoil from fully automatic fire moves the barrel even 1 inch upwards, how much does that translate in accuracy at a distance? For a 100 yard distance, you'd be shooting several feet over your targets head.

So with BF2 I think the accuracy of most weapons while standing is a bit too high, but to balance fun with realism, it's about right. Accuracy in games like CS and UT is just ridiculous in comparison, because those games aren't supposed to be realistic. If you like fantasy fps's go with them. If you want a little realism, go with BF2.

[Paas]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

If you ask me, accuracy in BF2 is too high. BF2 is a video game simulating modern combat. The video games you guys are comparing it to are not. I don't know how many of you have shot rifles in real life, but shooting a rifle standing up is very difficult.

Not true at all. I don't know what rifles you're firing (Me, personally. Mostly a G3a3) but it's not difficult to "plink" steel targets at ranges of 100-300m while standing. Granted, you're not going to shoot the tightest pattern in the world, but it's not "Very Difficult" as you would lead these folks to belevie; you can maintain a human size (6ft on average) group.

Extremely difficult if it's firing fully automatic, especially heavy rounds like the NATO 7.62 (used in the G3 and some AK variants).

Not true for most AK-Variants. Considering their slower RoF (600rpm, compared to an M4's 750-900rpm). I'll concede firing a G3a3 at range on fully automatic is a chore. Yet, it's not at all impossible or impracticle (unless you're using a narrow peep). The design of the G3a3 lends it's self well to controlled burst of fire.

Think about it this way. If recoil from fully automatic fire moves the barrel even 1 inch upwards, how much does that translate in accuracy at a distance? For a 100 yard distance, you'd be shooting several feet over your targets head.

Not true. At 100 yards if you fire your weapon an inch over your target, your round is going to go an inch over your target. It's not going to miss by leaps and bounds. Sure, at the "Peak" of the firing curve there is potential for your round to be 1 to 2 feet completely of base, yet this is assuming you have ranges of 300-600m and some good optics. Even then though, once you pass the "peak" of your firing curve, your round is going to begin to drop (This is all assuming you're aiming slightly high) so the odds are at extended ranges, you'll probably put one in your enemies chest.

So with BF2 I think the accuracy of most weapons while standing is a bit too high, but to balance fun with realism, it's about right. Accuracy in games like CS and UT is just ridiculous in comparison, because those games aren't supposed to be realistic. If you like fantasy fps's go with them. If you want a little realism, go with BF2.

You're so wrong, yet seem so confident in what you're typing here. I'm almost kinda' wondering if I'm correcting sarcasm (if so, I'm sorry)?

Anyways. BF2 is completely of base. Also, the notion of a weapon's inherent accuracy diminishing overtime is completely nuts (Well, ok, there is barrel wear. Yet, I'm speaking in a general sense). If anything, the weapons in BF2 are complete off base while firing both "Single" and "Automatic" fire. The way it should work is the rounds produce certain groups under 50-200m (or whatever their effective range might be); anything past that is a result of the shot placement in the intial grouping distance. Recoil should determine shot placement after the initial shot (Not random deviation).

For example:

(Table: In terms of BF2, it seems as if 100m in reality is comparable of 25m in game. So, we will work off of that common logic. Only in regards to weapons of course. I will do all of my meter calculations off of "BF2" range; so to speak.)

..an M4 Carbine is capable of tight groupings within 75mm; 2-4inches or so. In contrast, a M16 is capable of the same groupings at 100-150m. Anything past those "effective" distances should be a result of the placement of the round within those effective distances.

If you fire your first shot and it's on point then recoil carries your weapon up and to the right slightly, and you don't allow your weapon to settle (This is where positions come in. Your weapon would settle quicker prone than standing, and crouching would be in the middle of the two), you second shot should be within' a 2 inch grouping at 75m from your new "point of aim". So, truth be told, you could be 6 inches or so over your targets head because you aimed about 4 inches above his head, and your 2inch grouping peaked high. (This if course is assuming you're using the M4, and standing)

I hope I explained this well enough. If confused, just ask and I will try to explain my perception better.

{WP}Paas

[imported_Diarrabies]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

Not true at all. I don't know what rifles you're firing (Me, personally. Mostly a G3a3) but it's not difficult to "plink" steel targets at ranges of 100-300m while standing.

If you could do that on the battlefield and firing fully auto, you deserve a gold medal in the biathalon.

Not true. At 100 yards if you fire your weapon an inch over your target, your round is going to go an inch over your target. It's not going to miss by leaps and bounds.

You're completely misunderstanding.
I said:

If recoil from fully automatic fire moves the barrel even 1 inch upwards, how much does that translate in accuracy at a distance? For a 100 yard distance, you'd be several feet over your targets head.

Meaning: the TIP of the BARREL moves ONE INCH UPWARDS. Therefore, by basic geometry, it's safe to estimate the vertical distance difference between rounds fired before and after this movement to be several feet.

Sure, at the "Peak" of the firing curve there is potential for your round to be 1 to 2 feet completely of base, yet this is assuming you have ranges of 300-600m and some good optics and you're firing a muzzleloader and none of this has anything to do with the situation at hand

Fixed. We're talking about fully automatic fire at <300 yards, quickly aimed, all from a standing position. Bullet drop will be a near negligible factor, as it is in the game.

Anyways. BF2 is completely of base. Also, the notion of a weapon's inherent accuracy diminishing overtime is completely nuts (Well, ok, there is barrel wear. Yet, I'm speaking in a general sense).

I have no idea what you are talking about. If there is something akin to barrel wear in BF2, you're right, that's way off base.

If anything, the weapons in BF2 are complete off base while firing both "Single" and "Automatic" fire. The way it should work is the rounds produce certain groups under 50-200m (or whatever their effective range might be); anything past that is a result of the shot placement in the intial grouping distance. Recoil should determine shot placement after the initial shot (Not random deviation).

I disagree. I think the random deviation in BF2 does a good job of accounting for other factors, like human error and random interference (both of which are extremely prevalent on a battlefield). Firing a rifle on the computer is nowhere near the same as in real life, nor is it supposed to be. What it IS supposed to be is a somewhat realistic, yet fun simulation of how the average joe soldier in an intense shootout might be able to handle himself. I think the battlefield series has always done that well with their random deviation system. But that's just my thoughts.

You're so wrong, yet seem so confident in what you're typing here. I'm almost kinda' wondering if I'm correcting sarcasm (if so, I'm sorry)?

I'm so confident because this is my OPINION. Thus, it is neither right, nor wrong. You're welcome to have your own opinion too, of course, but to save me the trouble of restating much of what I already said, please read more carefully before challenging me to reconsider.

[vbl]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

The problem isnt the accuracy it's the hit detection.

Everyone read this please. Then read it again.

[Robske007a]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

i think it's fine as it is, don't change it,
pls close thread nr 151

[imported_Predator]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

The weapons are too inaccurate and should do more damage. I think you guys should try the bfpro mod before you tell me increasing the accuracy wouldnt make the game more fun.

[imported_Diarrabies]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

The problem isnt the accuracy it's the hit detection.

That is a problem. As a sniper, I find it to be most obnoxious when it kicks in. Once I wasted 3 mags with the l96 without registering a hit. Easy, clean shots too. Nothing chancy.

The thread is more about accuracy of the weapons, as in gameplay. Should they be more accurate?

This isn't about the bugs.

[Donkey]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

Yeah plinking steel targets is a bit different the firing a weapon in live combat while running and ducking for cover...

Plinking steel targets...and in what country or state do you live in to be able to do such a thing with said weapon....I smell some BS

[Tveakk]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

It's not recoil, it's called deviation and there is definitely too much of it.

Yes what he said

[Tveakk]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

People just need to stop crying about every F'ning detail of the game. Boohoo the pkm owns me i must go post on TBF2 and cry about it. we had this clan in our server last night called OMEGA, jesus i was playing support and backing my teamates up and i mow down 3 out of 4 of them and in my own server they start trying to vote me out and calling me names. Got to the point were i just kicked them "NOT BANNED" just kicked them off cause they were crying so much and there language was just out of hand.

I too get killed by a pkm but hey, i deal with it, L85A1's rip me to shreds but i deal with it.

ITS ONLY A GAME PEOPLE!!!!

lol the game is easy, but it also has too many problems, it just gets anoying and boring to play

[JDSENT]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

the deviation is very good , there isn't to much of it, weapons in BF2 are very acurate , the problem is you guys who can't aim , trust me ,
also, never never say you get killed to much because your weapon isn't acurate enough, because everybody has the same weapons .

Why is it I can kill enemy at far distance without no problem at all with the assault/carbines/snipers and you guys can't ? and many people can do this to, it's just some people who can't kill and wan't is very easy .

You are in the wrong game, go play unreal tournament or something

very very good point.... some people just neet to get this idea out od thier head that things come w\o practice

[Paas]

Re: Accuracy to big ???

Yeah plinking steel targets is a bit different the firing a weapon in live combat while running and ducking for cover...

Plinking steel targets...and in what country or state do you live in to be able to do such a thing with said weapon....I smell some BS

Good ol' US of A. United States of America... Texas. I live in Houston, Downtown actually. My mother lives in El Campo, Tx. Which is exactly about 74 miles outside of downtown houston.

My father's cousin (who I call uncle) is a retired Marine. I often shoot with him and his friends. My father, before he passed away, owned a G3a3 that he aquired through some unknown means (I wouldn't vouch for the legality of it all). At the time it was in my fathers possession, it didn't work. Apparently it has been refurbished as of now because it fires like a champion (although, rather loud).

If that's not a detailed enough reason of why I'm able to fire such a rifle, then I don't know what to tell you? If you're still smelling Bull-****, clean out the pasture?

As for Mr.Diarrabies. I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were "strictly" talking about sustained automatic fire. I assumed. I doubt anyone actually plays the game that way, but, in that sense you are right... slightly.

You can still "HIT" a mansized target at 300m on fully automatic fire. Now, out of a 20rd Mag you're probably only going to get 2 rounds on target, if you're looking (also depending on the weapon, a G3a3 doesn't have as much muzzle climb as this game would like you to belevie. It kicks almost perfectly straight back) down the weapon. You obviously won't be able to maintain a proper sight picture, so sighting is out of the question without some type of Optic.

I digress though, if anyone is standing up just "hosing" down the OpFor and wondering why you cannot hit them. That's a completely different problem all together; a problem of logic. As for accuracy of weapons in BF2 for the initial shot, it needs some work; least I think it does.

{WP}Paas

Edit: Forgot this one.

Anyways. BF2 is completely of base. Also, the notion of a weapon's inherent accuracy diminishing overtime is completely nuts (Well, ok, there is barrel wear. Yet, I'm speaking in a general sense)

This wasn't actually directed at anyone. This is just my view of the deviation system. I think it's pointless. Recoil and Weapon Drift can represent everything it's trying to.

BF2 doesn't take it that far though. I was just giving myself a buffer against the more literal people on the forums. If I say, " A weapon's inherent accuracy doesn't diminish over time "... someone is going to pop up and say, " U n00b! What about bearrall wear!?".