Bororm

Yay! Fix the FOV thing too please :} Any ways, this is a good reason not to exploit, people, besides it being wrong, eventually it gets fixed and you've become accustomed to a bug and end up having to readjust in the long run.

It's been my experience that the west is the new coast in terms of pvp skill, or at least the nwaf. People seem to go west and get decked out in mil gear, but not know how to use it, likely because they aren't expecting to. There's exceptions of course, but contrary to my experience in the mod where it was usually organized squads at the nwaf/north, in the SA the more organized groups seem content to camp berezino and what not. It makes for pretty easy pickens =P

I thought I'd mentioned it but I guess not, but it's the reason I suggested a new animation and why I had "hips" in quotations. I was envisioning a new animation where you actually are firing from the hip rather than the shoulder with a bit of an added recoil penalty (nothing tremendous). I guess I never fleshed that out in any of my posts, I went through a few iterations/edits and it got lost along the way I guess =P Any ways, on that topic I think there could be some merit in it. It could better differentiate and add some extra depth to combat if there were a clearer difference between hip firing and not. It would also give the added benefit of being able to tell what your enemy is actually doing.

I kinda botched my test (wasted some ammo by accident), but it's not as bad as I thought it was. Maybe my arma experiences were clouding my judgement too much, SA sway and recoil is different enough to actually make a difference it would seem. At least with the AKM, it has enough recoil that it still feels comparatively hard to control while hip firing. Honestly I think it basically has more recoil than the LMGs in arma 2 and 3. I did seem to shoot tighter groups hip firing, but I didn't have enough ammo to make conclusive results on that. I'm still curious to test the ak101 and m4 as they have less recoil but the ak101 is less of a worry with its 30 round mags. BTW it only took me about 30-40 minutes to run to the nwaf and grab an akm, drum mag, and about 4 or 5 normal mags on a mostly empty server. That was also ignoring a bunch of ak101 mags. Both ammo variants are waaay too common, but that's another topic.

Perhaps a valid question is up to what distance people think hip firing should be effective? Etherimp has pointed out that currently it's around 50m, which for the most part I'd agree with, but do people think it should be further? closer?

The actual recoil is likely the same, the ease in control is the factor I take issue with. It's hard to get across in a video, but it's micromovements when firing from the hip compared to "struggling" with your mouse while aiming down sights. I do think the removal of the crosshair does help curve the "problem" a bit which is what the video was originally about at the time, but it doesn't really eliminate it. It's an issue that becomes more prominent the larger ammo capacity you have as it's a matter of controlling the initial recoil and then keeping your spray on target. LMGs having been the biggest issue in my eyes. 60 and 75 round mags in the SA are approaching those thresholds though which is why I bring the topic up now, as these things are becoming more prevalent.

Thanks for the perspective, I was originally going to make a thread just saying straight up that I thought it should be changed but figured it may just be my own personal preference rather than a real issue. I think there's room for improvement personally but I value yours and cartire's input. I may go farm up an AK and a bunch of ammo tonight to try to make a more relevant video and do some more testing in general.

Here's an old video I made, it's arma 2 and was actually more about third person crosshairs at the time than the mechanics of hip firing, though in retrospect I think the issues are basically linked, since as mentioned it's not terribly difficult to get a feel for your point of aim without the crosshair any ways. This video is more to demonstrate the recoil aspect of it. It's a bit hard to get a "feeling" across from a video though, but in game there's a noticeable difference in ease of control. Now unfortunately at the time I didn't also record firing in first person from the hip, but the problem is more prevalent in third person any ways. You can hopefully see the difference in the ease to control the recoil and also the greater advantage of not having your gun obscuring half your screen or your muzzle flash/smoke obstructing your view. Again, in this case I regrettably didn't record in first person, but it is still a significant difference. If I had an AKM and drum mag currently I'd make a new video to better showcase what I'm talking about. Also, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there isn't a place for hip firing, I'm saying that the benefits of hip firing actually beat out those of aiming down the sights in some situations where I don't think that should be the case. I know a squad mate who even hip fires at range on occasion to great effect.

It's less about the specific scenario, and more about the mechanic. It's easier to control recoil/aim and thus be more accurate while firing bursts/full auto by hip firing than aiming down the sights. My question is whether people think it should be that way or not as it seems slightly counter-intuitive.

You say you know the top floor is clear in that scenario, but there's a few of these buildings where you can't get an angle to see the entire top, especially say, the spot on top behind the stair railing. It's also some times difficult to know if some one is prone in the top room. Aside from that I agree with your strategy. And it's just a matter of moving up slowly to those spots any ways, just as the other ones. The issue is still of course, that it becomes a matter of a whack-a-mole fight if the defender decides to pop the corner and shoot at you at any stage of the attack. If you're on your game, you'll get them first, but they do have the benefit of being able to see you, while you can't see them (specifically in the case of the entryway/halls), so if one of your attackers turns their head for a second or some one is shifting positions the defender still has the advantage. When the shotgun spread was actually working it was very good for these scenarios, as you didn't have to be terribly accurate vs a person with a rifle. Splattering their general direction with pellets when you're both playing peek-a-boo means you don't have to be pin point accurate to get that head shot. I'd also recommend that if you are in a position like this, firing rounds in the general direction of a defender can be beneficial even if you know you won't hit. Some times people will fidget if you throw some shots around them, giving you that moment you need to pop out and actually hit them. It just adds to their stress if nothing else as well.

My issue is I feel there's very little "praying" involved in spraying and praying from the hip in arma/dayz sa. Recoil becomes easier to control, while the gun remains just as accurate (not saying that's a bad thing, there shouldn't be increased magical dispersion).

Yes. I'm just trying to help you figure out the problem, because it's not something I and most other people have experienced. If you're not interested in help (which judging by your attitude you're not), and just made this thread to bitch then that's fine and I'll not waste my time Good luck.

Ugh no more higher capacity mags for assault rifles please, I wish they'd never added anything above 30, it's boring enough with such a spray fest it's turned into. Especially with the awful mechanics where hip firing is better than actually aiming down sights.

I'm not too concerned just yet considering unless you're putting in a ton of practice, throwing it where you want it is going to be lucky at best. Considering the aim of most hackers I run into, I think they'll likely blow themselves up before me.

Right, their reasoning on the shift from south to north to east to west was largely because of balota (a lesser extent the other additional military bases near zeleno). Changing balota, and then reintroducing some of those spawns they removed that were too close qualifies on going back on that decision imo. The community can't agree on anything, but it doesn't mean there weren't people who vocalized that instead of changing spawns they should address the root of the "problem," namely balota. Whether they ignored that, or never noticed who knows but I know I brought it up directly with rocket once on reddit, but in typical rocket fashion he was clueless to what I was even talking about. It was a topic of many threads here and elsewhere. Now they've done just that. It's just one of those "I told you so" type of moments for me, since I did try my best to get it noticed at the time even if it failed.

I've been eating raw fish lately and just popping charcoal tabs. It cures you instantly. So if you got sick eating something ("funny taste in my mouth"), just eat charcoal tabs.

Just a tip, you can inspect the compass in your inventory and see direction, without having to pull it out.

I guess they aren't going back on it if they didn't pay attention to all the people telling them that instead of moving spawns, they should have just changed Balota to begin with. Which is possible since they seem so oblivious to the community on a ton of things.

I'd just point out there's dubrovka spawns that are barely over 5km to the nwaf. I find the whole thing weird since they were so adamant about keeping balota how it was, to the point of making a mess of spawns into what we have now, just to basically go back on it all. I'm happy about it if we do get southern spawns back though. I think they should keep a sorta set amount of spawn points though, and thus remove some of the other ones (rather see them all return to coastal spawns personally but that's not gonna happen). Just don't want a shit load of spawn locations or meeting up with friends is going to be a real pain in the ass and lead to even more suiciding.

It's working but quite unstable. Tents are often being wiped because there are some bugs that potentially cause servers to get stuck. Servers with persistence also take longer to restart, and in my experience restart more often (unintentionally). So basically, yeah, it works but isn't really worth it and personally I've sorta been playing non-persistent servers instead of dealing with the headache till they fix it. When it does function properly, it is very cool though from what I've see, just needs to be worked on some more.

You guys alt looking with your scope by chance?

So create new buildings, but why change the existing ones? I mean I actually do agree with you, and if they changed it I wouldn't care if the reason wasn't for balance (if it was I'd just think it was a shitty reason), but the original post was about it being too difficult so any discussion about changing it due to that "issue" is one of balance.

The point is less the particular scenario, and more that there's a lot of buildings with only a single entrance. I know katana pointed out that these high value military buildings are the biggest culprit, but that's only by nature of their popularity. So where do you draw the line? The castles were never balanced in the mod, and they were even more exploitable. You literally could not aim high enough to counter people standing above the doorway and aiming down. The result is a frustrating situation, but it's also a challenge. We're dealing with other human beings, not robots, and there's always room for creativity in these scenarios or for people to slip. Simply because there's only a single entrance doesn't mean it's an impossibility, as I'm sure everyone here who engages in these scenarios regularly has prevailed against camping guys, or in the opposite scenario, lost to attackers. We also don't have nearly all the tools available to us yet. Grenades potentially solve the issue. Grenade launchers even more so. There's no telling if we won't be able to completely destroy buildings at some point like in the mod/arma. As to the example of the castles, helicopters created the second route in, and while it was still extremely unlikely you'd breach from the roof if a full group was on their game inside it was still another option. Who knows, a riot shield could even be implemented to help breaches. Redesigning a structure simply because fights are hard just doesn't seem like the best option just yet is all I'm saying.

I agree that it's super hard to breach, when the neaf was mainly those 2 buildings it was constant headaches of trying to get people out of them (my group plays to pvp, so we'd rather the challenge than leaving). Grenades would be very helpful, hopefully they become a little more common as time goes on. I don't know that it needs to be redesigned, because as mentioned above, you start trying to balance every building and you're going to end up with a really dull map. The major thing that would need to be fixed is wall glitching of course, but that's not inherent to that building alone, although it's one of the more popular ones.

Right. My mistake for excluding it.