Weapon Accuracy Suggestions. -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Phanatic

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

15th March 2004

0 Uploads

5 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

Greetings. This is probably my first post here, unless I posted so long ago that I don't recall. I've been playing and lurking here for a long time; I usually play on Wolf, where I do fairly well.

First, let me state that I love this mod. I even love most of the changes we've seen with .6, although I do think AT rocket aiming speed needs to be tweaked a bit. I love the sheer grognard factor of it, what with Polish anti-tank rifles, Japanese AT grenades, and the freaking tractors.

Second, let me go into my real-world qualifications for making this post. I'm a gun nut and a hunter. I've hunted for and killed every sort of game you can kill in Pennsylvania, with the exception of black bear, elk, and quail. In addition to hunting rifles of various caliber, I've fired the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, K98 (well, actually a K98 receiver on a Weatherby stock with a huge Drummond barrel, a 2000-yard homebrew rifle), Lee-Enfield .303, Springfield 1903, Mosin-Nagant, and Thompson submachine gun (1917, with the drum magazine and forward grip). I've fired virtually every handgun caliber known to man, from .22 Magnum revolvers all the way up to .454 Casull. No .50AE Desert Eagle yet, though, and I carry a Springfield 1911A1. I'm not military, but I do know guns.

I've seen two major complaints about rifles, and they're each from a somewhat opposing point of view. One is that they take too long to shrink the crosshairs with, and the other is that once they do, you can hit pixel-sized targets from all the way across the map without having to worry about bullet drop or distance or whatever. Personally, I'm *okay* with the aiming speed; I did prefer it in .5, but that might just be because I'm not as uber with them as I used to be, and I do understand and accept the arguments that the aim speed makes a bigger differentiation between the close combat and assault loadouts. If aiming speed was left precisely the way it is, I'd be okay with that, even if I that's not my druthers, so to speak.

But the pixel-accuracy with them is, well, a bit silly, and a bit unrealistic. I *never* pick up a sniper kit, because with a plain old rifle, if I can see my target, even if I can just see a single pixel of it, I can hit it and kill it just as dead as I can with a sniper rifle, without the field-of-view limitation of the scope. It's unrealistic that a guy with iron sights can reach out and touch targets at range with the same effectiveness as a dedicated sniper, and it also renders the sniper superfluous. Since .6 came out, I can count the number of times I've been killed with a scoped rifle on one hand.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I don't want to game to turn into an AWPfest of 50 guys running around with scopes. But I *do* think it's unrealistic to have only the user's point-and-click skills as a limitation on the weapon's accuracy, when it should be the other way around; the weapon should limit the accuracy of the firer, because that's what happens in real life. If you want to hit man-sized targets reliably at 1000 yards, you need a good rifle.

What's a good rifle? Well, shooters tend to measure accuracy in minutes of arc (MOA). To explain: a circle has 360 degrees, and each degree is subdivided into 60 minutes. If I'm firing at a target 100 yards away, that's a circle with a diameter of 100 yards, and it therefore has a circumference of (pi*100), or 314 yards. 314 yards is 11,304 inches. One degree of that circle is 31.4 inches, and a minute of arc is just a hair over half an inch.

1 MOA at a given range is a pretty durned accurate gun; you can find better rifles, but you can also find a lot worse. If I have a gun capable of shooting 1 MOA, that means that all the shots I fire at my target will land within 1/2" of it; it might be a half-inch up, down, left, or right, but it'll be real close to my target, easily close enough to make headshots at 100 yards. Note that this is the *rifle's* accuracy, not mine. I can lock the gun into a vice, use a set trigger, and remove *all* my inputs. other than the initial sighting-in, from the shot, and the *gun* will shoot 1 MOA, but not better. It doesn't matter how long I take to aim, the *rifle* is at its limit of accuracy, due to the tolerances of the parts it is made from, the quality and consistency of the ammunition, and so forth.

But in FH, all rifles will shoot better than this, way better than this, to a completely arbitrary precision, whether they're a semiautomatic like the Garand or a highly-precise and rock-solid Mauser action like the K98. Whether they're an early-war Japanese rifle or a 1944 Japanese rifle, which came off the line when the Japs were cutting every corner they could to put more guns in the field. All because those crosshairs zoom down to a point, eventually.

I think the solution is simple, possibly. I say possibly because I'm an engineer, not a coder, and I have no idea what making these changes involves, or even if it's supported by the engine. But what should be done is to alter not the speed at which the crosshairs shrink, but their *minimum size*. Alter the minimum size based upon the weapon, and you're going to alter the *best possible accuracy* with that weapon.

If the player sees a 90-degree field-of-view, and is playing in a given resolution, you can determine how many pixels correspond to a MOA. You can simply assign arbitrary values for accuracy for each weapon (bolt-action > semiauto, closed-bolt automatic > open-bolt automatic, rifle > SMG > pistol, and so forth), or actually use historic comparisons, and for each weapon, have the crosshairs shrink down to a minimum diameter corresponding to that accuracy.

*Then*, if you want to reliably hit single-pixel targets from 1000 yards away, you go get that sniper kit. Broadly speaking, handguns shouldn't be useful beyond 50 yards or so, SMGs past 200, rifles past 500. You *can* hit targets at greater distances, but in the heat and chaos of a battlefield, that should be more a matter of luck than of skill. I think the system I propose would precisely achieve that goal, with suitable fudge factors added in. You'll achieve differentiation between the sniper kits and rifles, allow differentiation between different *kinds* of rifles, and improve both playability, balance, and realism. Thank you.




Uncle_Sam

Pass me a Lucky Strike...

50 XP

23rd December 2003

0 Uploads

1,120 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

I'm so not reading all of that. I wish we had a word limit.




InsaneJakester

G-UNIT and [11PzG] 4eva WERD!!

50 XP

22nd January 2004

0 Uploads

181 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

HEy you should it's alot of good information. I thought it was a good idea. I just don't know how they would implememnt it




Menzo

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

12th January 2004

0 Uploads

17 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

Great post. It all sounds good to me.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

Good stuff, but awfully verbose. Short form: Rifles too accurate; make less accurate, relative to each weapon against some baseline.




perry07

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

15th February 2004

0 Uploads

6,510 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

i agree with everything in that post. fh needs to consider changing a few things. i think they should make rifles aim like k98 and no4 in reg bf. theyre accurate but they still arent pixel accurate.




McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

3rd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

Wow, good post!

I think the way to fixing this is as simple as making the minimum crosshair (when it's fully closed) a little bit wider (so it doesnt compleatly close).

It can be easily changed for different rifles.




nosispower

GF makes me horny

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

96 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

Very good idea, but I'm worried if taking down the rifle's accuracy will make people flock to the SMGs. As of now, many people are using SMGs even at long range because of the changes from 0.6 and if we weaken the rifles to be more historically accurate, we might see people just taking fully automatic weapons and turn this into vanilla BF.




McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

3rd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

well, it wouldnt be all that much of a change. Just to stop people from killing pixes. they can still kill 5 pixels with a bit of luck.




Phanatic

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

15th March 2004

0 Uploads

5 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago
nosispowerVery good idea, but I'm worried if taking down the rifle's accuracy will make people flock to the SMGs. As of now, many people are using SMGs even at long range because of the changes from 0.6 and if we weaken the rifles to be more historically accurate, we might see people just taking fully automatic weapons and turn this into vanilla BF.



  • 1
  • 2