decrease weapons accuaracy -1 reply

Please wait...

Gen'l Knight

Can't ... give peace a chance?

50 XP

10th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,920 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago
BikewerThe only weapons I think of as "over the top" in FH are some of the submachine guns. Especially the Thompson; the .45 ACP was great for closer ranges, but the rainbow trajectory and low velocity made hitting difficult at ranges beyond 100 yards. Iron-sighted "battlefield" rifles should be able to easily engage enemy troops at 3-500 yards.

Thompsons are way over powered. Their range should be a little more than a shotguns - the 100yd limit is good. The way they are now you can run and gun (with this weapon that is ok) plus engage infantry at medium distance (which is not). The MP40 should be able to engage enemies at a medium distance and not run and gun. which is correct now in FH. I know the devs take great pains to get the values correct and in all other aspects of infantry weaponry I have no problems, but the Thompson is not quite right IMHO.




schoolkid

your mother is a beaver

50 XP

3rd June 2004

0 Uploads

1,134 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago

You know, I wish weapons were as accurate (or inaccurate) as in Brothers in Arms, which would mean more WWII-like tactics. However, this won't happen, as people tend to find shoot-to-kill much more exhilarating than shoot-to-suppress-while-your-teammates-flank-and-get-the-kill.




[tR]Mad Mac

Aerospace Engineering FTW!

50 XP

19th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,242 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago
Arisakabut you still know less about where the bullets will fly when using iron sights, than without! you don't know how much extra inaccuracy-penalty the engine is giving you (for whatever reason - sane or silly). while i'm all for iron sights, i want them to be done properly. that means making them work, give you more information, certainly not less (unlike in bf2: you lose a lot of your screen, the tip of the iron sight where you're aiming is as wide as the Jahre Viking is long, and you don't know your penalty). Working iron sights would also mean the end to buying second hand monitors, only to find an ugly dot in the center of the screen; since the actual spot where the bullets would fly would vary as the iron sights moved around (not the entire view direction - we don't want motion induced sickness). Inaccuracy would be portrayed by having the two parts of the sight disalign.

The only guns in BF2 where the bullets do not go where the IS point are the support machine guns (too much spread, needs to be fixed.) and SMGs (at long range). Every other gun more or less fires exactly where you point it, assuming you are not moving and have been still for a second or two. I have no idea what your complaint with them is. Sure, 3d IS (a la CoD, AA) would be much better, but I think the current system is fine. Besides, expecting 100% perfect accuracy on demand is a bad idea. FH is supposed to be realistic, not a CS AWP fest.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago
patillainfantry weapons are all too accuarate, its very simple to aim, while in others aspects realism win, in aiming, its like DoD, still k98's users runing, suddenly stop, half second aiming and VOILA you are death even at long ranges anyway, i was reading some "posible" adds to increase realism when you got shot, instead the 2 current posibilities: getting hit and die or getting hit and still run alive would be cool to make you walk slower, or reduce vision, or even make you have less aim, all moving around you, like in COD that confusion, and only a medic could help you (but dont giving you more health), just make your vision/speed/aim get to normal but thats not the point, my point is that once you center the crosshairs, even the PPSH gets really accuarate, (which doub its posible in real life) so what are you thinking about to get the infantry wars more realistic?

Sounds like someone is getting sniped too much for their liking. Try the suggestions forum next time. And I vote NO!




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago
'[tRMad Mac']Besides, expecting 100% perfect accuracy on demand is a bad idea. FH is supposed to be realistic, not a CS AWP fest.

I'm not saying i want 100% accuracy! but i want the bullet to go exactly where the barrel points! That is - the inaccuracy should be portrayed to the operator, for instance by misaligning the two sights! I even explained that above, how that would reduce cheating by making the dot in the center of the screen useless!




angrygod

Shifty Mcboner

50 XP

27th June 2004

0 Uploads

210 Posts

0 Threads

#26 15 years ago

leave it




Tsunami Bomb

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

19th June 2005

0 Uploads

127 Posts

0 Threads

#27 15 years ago

I suggest the Devs go to a firing range, ask around, I know there will be some WWII weapons there. Im sure they will let you pop a couple off if they know the cause.




Tsunami Bomb

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

19th June 2005

0 Uploads

127 Posts

0 Threads

#28 15 years ago

ArisakaI'm not saying i want 100% accuracy! but i want the bullet to go exactly where the barrel points! That is - the inaccuracy should be portrayed to the operator, for instance by misaligning the two sights! I even explained that above, how that would reduce cheating by making the dot in the center of the screen useless![/QUOTE] Hmm, maybe someone should do their research before they open their mouth? Maybe go fire a weapon first? The bullet doesnt go exactly where your barrel points. Alot of things can happen, wether it is the amount of gun powder in the barrel, the correct size of the bullet. [QUOTE=Arisaka]but you still know less about where the bullets will fly when using iron sights, than without! you don't know how much extra inaccuracy-penalty the engine is giving you (for whatever reason - sane or silly). while i'm all for iron sights, i want them to be done properly. that means making them work, give you more information, certainly not less (unlike in bf2: you lose a lot of your screen, the tip of the iron sight where you're aiming is as wide as the Jahre Viking is long, and you don't know your penalty).

Working iron sights would also mean the end to buying second hand monitors, only to find an ugly dot in the center of the screen; since the actual spot where the bullets would fly would vary as the iron sights moved around (not the entire view direction - we don't want motion induced sickness). Inaccuracy would be portrayed by having the two parts of the sight disalign.

Once again, you amaze me...:wtf:




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#29 15 years ago

of course there's an inherent inaccuracy in the gun and bullet drop, but it's not affected by you running around. The accuracy penalty (beyond the inherent inaccuracy) should be portrayed realistically, that is having the gun move in the view (not the entire view direction), and the sights to be misaligned.

and how do i amaze you? In BF2 you move (while zoomed in), the sights remain aligned, and suddenly the gun shoots way OUTSIDE the inherent inaccuracy circle, without you knowing that the weapon has become inaccurate (or how much). In real life you spend time realigning the sights again, so that you can be sure of where the bullets go.




[tR]Mad Mac

Aerospace Engineering FTW!

50 XP

19th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,242 Posts

0 Threads

#30 15 years ago
Arisaka and how do i amaze you? In BF2 you move (while zoomed in), the sights remain aligned, and suddenly the gun shoots way OUTSIDE the inherent inaccuracy circle, without you knowing that the weapon has become inaccurate (or how much).

I agree, that DOES happen randomly (and often on the LMGs). That shouldnt happen, ever.