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

#11 15 years ago
nosispowerVery good idea, but I'm worried if taking down the rifle's accuracy will make people flock to the SMGs.

I figured SMGs would have a wider minimum crosshair than rifles, and you could vary this from SMG to SMG just like you could vary it from rifle to rifle. The MP-40, ferinstance, fired from an open bolt, and is thus inherently less accurate than a design that fires from a closed bolt (Although, heh, I'm not sure if any of those are even in FH. Just an example, really). SMGs would be adjusted to be able to kill targets at a hundred yards, with luck, but you'd really just be wasting ammo and inviting retribution. Thanks for all the comments, folks.




Phanatic

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

15th March 2004

0 Uploads

5 Posts

0 Threads

#12 15 years ago

Durnit, math error. If the target's 100 yards away, that's the circle radius, not the diameter, so 1 MOA is roughly equal to one inch at 100 yards, not half an inch. Still, well, you get the idea.




CooL™

Your mommy thinks I'm cute. =D

50 XP

13th March 2004

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#13 15 years ago
PhanaticGreetings. 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.

:agreed




InsaneJakester

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

50 XP

22nd January 2004

0 Uploads

181 Posts

0 Threads

#14 15 years ago

bump because this is a good thread




Schpetzka

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

177 Posts

0 Threads

#15 15 years ago

Excellent post! Nothing I can really add at all besides that.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#16 15 years ago

I agree. Excellent post. and possible to implement fairly easily (if clumsily), I suspect. The minimum crosshair size could be tweaked for each gun accordingly. Since we know that you can code reduced damage at longer ranges for certain ammo types, you could solve the pistol/SMG issue. Both could still be accurate and powerful, just not at long range. Let's work with some arbitrary and random numbers here.

1.) Best accuracy is 1 pixel. This is basically if you have a laser rifle. You hit dead center every time, no deviation whatsoever. Point and click. End of story.

2.) When your crosshairs are not zoomed in completely (IE: to 1 pixel), you can vary within the crosshair area. We'll base the zoom factor on the crosshair's distance from the centerpoint. Since all crosshairs are equal in terms of distance (IE: it represents a circular range, not an oval or something where the top and bottom crosshairs were further from center than the left and right), all you need is the radius, basically. So, if, for example, your crosshairs only zoom in to 5 pixels at best, within that "random zone" you can hit anywhere. This is how the crosshairs work normally. Run around with a BAR firing on full auto while jumping up and down and its anyone's guess where, within that HUGE random zone, your rounds will hit.

3.) Using historical figures and in-game balance concerns, make the weapons RELATIVELY accurate to their historical rates. Set your baseline to, say, 100 yards and measure accordingly. So if the Colt was accurate to 15 MOA at 100 yards, you'd want the Garand to be accurate to 3 MOA, and the K98 to be accurate to 2 MOA or whatever. Again, these are random numbers. RANDOM. I don't want to hear someone saying "Dude! That's TOTALLY inaccurate!! The K98 was accurate to .043234 MOA at a range of 100 yards, but only when using Krups ammunition!!" I don't care. I'm MAKING NUMBERS UP FOR THE POINT OF ILLUSTRATION here. :)

5.) Now, what I think is neat is that range is already dealt with, once you pick your baseline (at least, I THINK it is). What you actually SEE inside the "Random zone" is what you can hit. So if an enemy's body is filling your random zone, you've got a dead enemy (assuming they don't shoot you first). If they're 80% within the random zone, there's a 20% chance you'll miss 'em. And so on. At longer distances, the actual graphical representation of your target grows smaller, so you're less accurate. Now what I'm NOT sure about is how the game handles this behind the scenes. IE: is it possible that a target is FILLING your "random zone" but you can still miss it somehow (aside from, say, server lag). This is a question for hit detection wizards, but assuming you can actually be guaranteed to hit within the zone (IE: target fills the zone) you've got a workable situation.

6.) Note: don't get hung up on the percentage to hit. If your target is filling your random zone 80%, and you fire off (steadily, so as not to screw up the aim) a full magazine and miss every time, that is not beyond the realm of the possible. The 80% chance to hit is for each INDIVIDUAL shot. So just because you missed with two rounds out of a ten round clip does not mean you're guaranteed to hit with the next eight rounds. Each time you pull that trigger, you roll the dice again.

Anyway, hope that all made sense.




stifler

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

137 Posts

0 Threads

#17 15 years ago
MenzoGreat post. It all sounds good to me.

sounds kind o good to me !




  • 1
  • 2