Solo4114Oh, Exel, interesting suggestions. I offered a few like that where you'd have the crosshairs locked to indicate the inherent accuracy of the weapon, but you'd have to deal with barrel sway, climb, and recoil when running and/or firing. Rifles could thus be inherently more accurate, and the player's own skill in determining when the shot is lined up would come more into play, rather than just pressing the fire key and figuring that somewhere within that spread, you'll hit what you want.
This is pretty much how it's done in the UT2k4 Red Orchestra mod, and it sure kicks ass! :) Imo the best system would be where there are no crosshairs and the weapon always shoots where it points, but it would also shake and move when you do. That way hitting or not hitting anything would be purely about true aiming skills. Too bad it aint possible at least with the BF engine...
majicSolo4114 : Although technically I am one of the people who feel there should be limitations to the classes and/or SMG's themselves, I also think that your poll is not really "representative" for anyone except yourself. It's misleading and biased . It's like saying : Ok guys, I really dont like how many people are becoming addicted to drugs lately! It's really excessive, and I think this shouldnt happen. It's all the fault of the government! So many drug addicts! Then you make a poll : "Do you think the number of drug addicts is increasing?" 1) Yeah, I dislike it a lot and want to go back to when there was no drug addiction, in the 1950's! 2) I dont have a problem with drug addicts, it's fine and I'll live with them! Your poll is identical in setup - it's not a CHOICE, it's both YOUR opinion people can "chose" from - both the same though, despite giving the suggestion of "Free will" . Where is the option "No I dont think the mod is becoming too spray and pray oriented at all" ? You just give people the option to chose between " It's becoming spray and pray oriented and I like it" or "....I dislike it". All this again despite my opinion that it MIGHT indeed become too spray and pray oriented - put polls are there to see if people agree with your statement or not - and in your way of setting up a poll, people NEVER can disagree ! They can only express if they agree AND have problems with it, or agree AND are fine with it. Bah!
Well, then my attitude is "Fine. Then don't vote if you don't like the poll." Or people can start their own poll. Regardless, of the people who were polled and responded, it's still 75% indicating that they see the current state of things as a problem, or at least enough of a problem that they voted in a way that reflects some kind of dissatisfaction. If you want to start a new poll, by all means, go ahead and do so. From what I see of the poll, at least 80 people who play this mod don't like what's going on in it. I'm not sure what percentage that is of overall players, or of the folks who post on the boards here even, but if you look at the folks who DO think there's a problem, it's not like we're talking about n00bs who can't adjust to the mod's differences from Vanilla.
Actually, my general sense is that the folks who are dissatisfied feel that the mod is becoming to close to Vanilla itself, at least in terms of infantry gameplay. At any rate, at this point, I think the point's been made. We can bicker about whether the polls are representative or not, and what they're representative of, but to me it seems pretty clear that there is a significant portion of this community that doesn't like what's going on in infantry combat these days.
There've been numerous posts offering alternative systems and new threads have been started which discuss other more global issues (IE: the "real feel" vs. "real facts" thread). I think this is something that needs to be discussed further, and it'd be nice to hear what ideas the devs are coming up with for how to address issues of weapon performance and weapon availability especially as they relate to historical accuracy and realism.
I still think the easiest way is to create class kits that have the random percentage for historically accurate equipment for frontline troops in a particular battle or during a general timeframe of the war (IE: how many guys would've had faust30s in 1943 in Russia -- that sort of thing). This way, servers could modify map loadouts the way they have with the Japanese maps. If they want to do the "historical distribution" thing, they've got a means to do so. If they don't, they don't have to and can use the default, unrestricted settings. We've already got the underlying code in place with the random PPSh spawns and random SMG/pistol spawns for tankers. This would require additional research, and some additional coding, but I think it would make EVERYONE happy in the end.
Tell you what: make another poll, but this time with sentences that wouldn't pass as biased and lets see what the people vote.
I think the result will be, again, very clear: FH has too many Smgs as of now.
New poll is up. Vote as you see fit or make your own damn poll. :)
Solo4114Incidentally, I have to ask, you seem like someone who's pro realism, yes? If that's the case, where do you draw the line? It seems like you draw the line in terms of performance issues of the equipment in this game alone and don't take into account things like distribution, production values, or scale of the maps. Is that a fair assessment?[/QUOTE] Yes. that's a fair assessment. I wouldn't want to play a game were i have a 50% chance of getting either ammo or a rifle while playing Russians. And when i do need to spawn as SMG to save our main spawn from attacking infantry, i don't want to be concerned with some noob that took our only SmG on a trip to the forrest and the enemy killed him and picked up his kit (it's already problematic enough on Omaha Beach when the noob with the sniper rifle gets killed in a bunker and the germans pick up that kit, leaving allies with no sniper at all). It is far more unrealistic not having the right weapon to defend the main base (where all the supplies, etc should be kept), rather then having a few extra (according to "historical distribution") SMGs going into battle. [quote=Exel]Imo the best system would be where there are no crosshairs and the weapon always shoots where it points, but it would also shake and move when you do. That way hitting or not hitting anything would be purely about true aiming skills. Too bad it aint possible at least with the BF engine...
Yes it is! Well, almost. Look at the Piat. When standing, the crosshairs (although narrowed down) sway to side to side. This same code could be used for rifles. Remove the crosshair expansion, but add the sway-n-swing which is greater while standing (simulating hands shacking, etc) and almost non-existant while prone (simulating good support for the rifle) I agree that this whole "crosshair expansion" is unrealistic and needs to be changed. The weapon's accuracy (which is ingame determined by the crosshair spread) did not change when the soldier began running. The soldier's aim changed, not the accuracy of the weapon. The weapon fires in the direction it is pointing (not in random direction as it is done with current system of expanding crosshairs). To simulate the soldier's difficulty in aiming while running/standing the weapon should sway-n-swing, like the Piat does. I think i created a poll about this long time ago, but i don't think it got a lot of attention
Well, that at least I'd support. I advocated for that a little while ago. Only problem is I think this would make SMGs even more prevalent on the battlefield. You'd REALLY have to pay close attention to map design and range issues between the weapons or else just forget about people using rifles.
Oh, and Hydraslav, ideally, you wouldn't be the only guy on defense at that base where you needed to respawn as an SMGer. You might even have some stationary placed MGs at the position to cover a particular approach. You'd also not be worrying about all of the enemy team packing SMGs. In the end, they'd be in roughly the same position as you -- they'd have rifles mostly. At that point, it'd be more of a question of who can shoot straight quicker rather than who can hold down the fire key and aim in someone's general direction. But it wouldn't be like 40% of the other team would have SMGs and you'd be the only poor bastard out there trying to hold off this enemy horde with a rifle. If most folks are using rifles, the playing field (equipment-wise) is leveled.
My answer for the main question is no people just bitch to much.
I think people are starting to realize why the rifle isn't used today. Instead of complaining to the devs to change the weapons mabye you shold consider changing tactics. I've seen guys carrying around rifles getting plenty of kills. A well entrenched rilfeman (meaning not lying belly first full exposed on the ground in the middle of an open field) should be able to get plenty of kills in. Perhaps new tactics should be adopted. Like proper use of cover. When the only thing exposed is your head, an smg has a pretty hard time hitting at long range. Or mabye ambushing. After all, an smg can't kill you when they don't know you're even there.
All well and good except for the fact that your nametag will show up even if you're behind a wall, so the ambush thing doesn't work perfectly.
And actually, today, we use ASSAULT RIFLES as the primary longarm in combat, NOT SMGs. Assault rifles are an entirely different kettle of fish, by the way. SMGs are for close range combat only, and should excel at that. But for long range combat, no way. That's the problem. Right now they're being used like assault rifles. Plus, with no class restrictions, once the fighting goes into close quarters, EVERYONE will take an SMG. I mean, why would you do otherwise?
Think about it. It's like saying "pick your tank." Well, if everyone could pick their tank, why would anyone ever choose anything but a Tiger or a Firefly or a Jackson? Why would anyone pick a Panzer IVH or a Sherman, or even a T34 or BT7? A big reason is for balance, another is because they weren't historically available to EVERYONE. But we don't treat firearms that way. You can spawn as whatever you like in whatever quantity you like. No restrictions whatsoever, and no incentive whatsoever to take a rifle.
It's not a matter of learning new tactics. There's only so much you can in certain situations. Now, when those situations are "up close and personal", then yeah, you should be screwed. But why should everyone and his mother have access to an SMG? Platoons weren't equipped that way during the war. The average American army platoon was made up of about thirty guys, mostly with rifles. Maybe your officers and NCOs would've had SMGs, and you'd have had about three guys with BARs, but the rest would've been rifles unless they were a specialist unit like rangers or paratroopers or something. Every U.S. soldier did not have access to a Thompson or an M3 greasegun or even a BAR. Try playing a round of Foy, though, and see what most people take, especially when they reach the town itself.
If you're playing as the Germans you're even worse off. At least the Americans get a semi-auto rifle, which means their rate of fire is decent enough that they can fight in close with it. As a German, once one of the town flags is captured, you spawn as an officer or a demolitions guy (basically an SMG user) or you plan on trying to snipe. Mostly, though, you grab your rapid fire weapon and go kill people.
Look at Foy back in 0.61 (or it may have been 0.5) when the Germans could spaw with MG42s. Why would ANYONE pick any weapon other than this? And that's exactly what they did. They all spawned with MG42s. And it sucked.
I didn't make it!
The way assault rifles are used in modern combat is very similar to the way rifles were used in ww2. take cover, aim and fire. the only thing that is different is that you don´t have to reload manually. the reason assault rifles are used more now is that you HAVE the possibility to use full auto in close defense. but in one of 100 cases an assault rifle is used in single fire mode. especially the good old 7,62 Nato rifles like the G3. using the 5,56 "toys" has changed the case a bit. on medium ranges burst fire might be useful due to the much lesser recoil.