Accuracy comparison: DayZ vs ARMA 2

[wgaf 251]

It would be sort of plausible if it was only tied to the condition of the attachments. 

 

ruined or badly damage stocks could be very wobbly, not allow for a cheek weld, be stuck in a bad adjustment, etc. 

 

I can see if they added a bonus for really fancy stocks like the highly adjustable magpul ones, but the magpul stock in the game is functionally equivalent to the old fashioned telescopic stock as far as performance goes. 

 

the current "add a different piece and get a magic boost" is pretty corny. 

 

All it really does is force everyone to put magpul stuff on his rifle. 

[-Gews- 7443]

Wind should be in the game, I thought it was already in, or, it was represented in the generator.

Some one said heavier bullets are not more accurate? If 2 bullets, one slighty faster and one far heavier are flying, which one would be more accuracye? Accounting for WIND of course, the heavier round would be better.

Cannons, a good example. Bigger the shell, the better.

 

It's not in the game, nor in the ARMA series. Only for environmental effects such as trees blowing.

 

Accuracy depends on a lot of things, however given the same shape, the heavier bullet will have a superior ballistic coefficient and heavier bullets are often better for long range shooting, to try to maximize the ballistic coefficient.

[gibonez 3633]

It's not in the game, nor in the ARMA series. Only for environmental effects such as trees blowing.

 

Accuracy depends on a lot of things, however given the same shape, the heavier bullet will have a superior ballistic coefficient and heavier bullets are often better for long range shooting, to try to maximize the ballistic coefficient.

 

Yea as far as I know only the ACE mod has wind affecting bullet trajectory.

 

It does a fine job too.

[libertine 351]

You have no idea what you're talking about. First of all they weren't "designed" to take out hordes of AIs. That's how accurate a rifle IRL is when properly used. And if you've played anything more than just DayZ you would've known what you see is what you get. Hit boxes are exactly the same size as the model visually. This has been the case since OFP and that hasn't changed. The mod was based on a mil"sim" and that's what made it better and differientated it from mobs of arcade shooters but now people want DayZ to be that arcade shooter? What's next? Shotgun that are innacurate past 5 meters? Weapons were fine in the mod but someone decided to fuck them over for whatever reason. This will kill the game, especially if rocket claims he wants authentic weapons. There's nothing authentic about artificially innacurrate weapons.

No way in hell sniper rifles were that easy to hit with in real life, no way in hell. I was down right disgusted when i picked up and used the ArmA snipers for the first time after having not used them for 90% of my play time. I don't just "play", i use. I own a semi-auto M4 and own and have owned and shot other guns. In SOME ways guns can be easier to use than in games, in others less. Snipers, less.

 

Accuracy is one thing but sorry, but last thing this game needs is the ability to simply put your cursor over someone who just walked all the way up to the NWAF click your mouse button once to completely end that journey. As far as "play" goes, i've been playing shooters since the first Unreal Tournament and Rainbow Six, the snipers in those games and games since were accurate, but more difficult to kill with requiring more shots. The first real one shot kill snipers in multiplayer games i played appeared when BF:Bad Company 2 came out. It absolutely changed the way BF games played and not for the better in my opinion.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Thane

[gibonez 3633]

No way in hell sniper rifles were that easy to hit with in real life, no way in hell. I was down right disgusted when i picked up and used the ArmA snipers for the first time after having not used them for 90% of my play time. I don't just "play", i use. I own a semi-auto M4 and own and have owned and shot other guns. In SOME ways guns can be easier to use than in games, in others less. Snipers, less.

 

Accuracy is one thing but sorry, but last thing this game needs is the ability to simply put your cursor over someone who just walked all the way up to the NWAF click your mouse button once to completely end that journey. As far as "play" goes, i've been playing shooters since the first Unreal Tournament and Rainbow Six, the snipers in those games and games since were accurate, but more difficult to kill with requiring more shots. The first real one shot kill snipers in multiplayer games i played appeared when BF:Bad Company 2 came out. It absolutely changed the way BF games played and not for the better in my opinion.

 

I coulnd't not agree more.

 

A player in Day z should do everything a real shooter in real life would do when it comes to a long range shot.

 

1. Get distance by using his second focal plane reticle and using the ranging reticle mil dot or any number of others reticles. ( or if he is smart look at a hand drawn ranging sheet that you sketched before hand)

2. Look at a Data sheet that you hand wrote for the particular rifle you are using like in this picture and then adjust the elevation on your optic to the right moa.

 

3. Deploy the rifle and bipod that attaches to the ground or object.

4. Check for wind either by hand using the ACe method or using a wind meter.Then adjust windage.

5. Aim and take the shot, this shot will like in most cases not hit you can then use your mil dot reticle to adjust using mils how far off the shot was and your 2nd shot should hit once you adjust.

[X_Busa 12]

No way in hell sniper rifles were that easy to hit with in real life, no way in hell. I was down right disgusted when i picked up and used the ArmA snipers for the first time after having not used them for 90% of my play time. I don't just "play", i use. I own a semi-auto M4 and own and have owned and shot other guns. In SOME ways guns can be easier to use than in games, in others less. Snipers, less.

 

Accuracy is one thing but sorry, but last thing this game needs is the ability to simply put your cursor over someone who just walked all the way up to the NWAF click your mouse button once to completely end that journey. As far as "play" goes, i've been playing shooters since the first Unreal Tournament and Rainbow Six, the snipers in those games and games since were accurate, but more difficult to kill with requiring more shots. The first real one shot kill snipers in multiplayer games i played appeared when BF:Bad Company 2 came out. It absolutely changed the way BF games played and not for the better in my opinion.

 

Totally agreed. I like this game because is different than other easy mode arcade games (COD, BTF4, etc).

[gibonez 3633]

Totally agreed. I like this game because is different than other easy mode arcade games (COD, BTF4, etc).

 

Yet sniping still requires more skill in BF4 than in vanilla dayz or arma.

[X_Busa 12]

Yet sniping still requires more skill in BF4 than in vanilla dayz or arma.

 

I am not sure, in Dayz SA there is a lot of spread.

[gibonez 3633]

I am not sure, in Dayz SA there is a lot of spread.

 

Spread does not mean it requires more skill ;/

 

That counts as luck.

[colinm9991 196]

ArmA 2's ACE wind and elevation system should be implemented to be honest, add that extra bit of entertainment for a sniper/spotter fire-team :P

[gibonez 3633]

ArmA 2's ACE wind and elevation system should be implemented to be honest, add that extra bit of entertainment for a sniper/spotter fire-team :P

 

I would almost say it is absolutely needed and without it Dayz resorts to being an arcade game.

[colinm9991 196]

I would almost say it is absolutely needed and without it Dayz resorts to being an arcade game.

 

There would be a major increase in forum posts complaining about it because it's not as easy as every game these days to shoot (I was talking about it to a few last night, games have seriously been 'dumbed' down now compared to 10 or even 20 years ago) but at least we would root out the skilled players that way and could hold together a group of decent servers with tactical and enjoyable players.

 

Gone are the days in ArmA 2 ACE where you can become a sniper or spotter and have a good conversation with your partner via teamspeak and ACRE whilst enjoying yourself; now all groups require you to attend 3-4 days a week and call the highest ranking member (16 years old most likely) 'Sargent' or 'Lieutenant' and calling anything else gets you abused by a bunch of estrogen filled kids.

 

I say we suggest it for DayZ Standalone, it would fix the accuracy issue by implementing realistic numbers and ballistics.

I know it is Alpha, but I'm not too sure whether I like where the gun-style is going in regards to accuracy and how easy it is to use certain weapons.

[scaramoosh 162]

I haven't got a problem with the other guns, the M4 however is too inaccurate, that gun in real life is meant to hit targets at 500m. 

 

Obviously though if you've been running and tired, I get why you miss with it, however even in perfect conditions in this game the bullets spread like mad.

[fig0451 85]

Yet sniping still requires more skill in BF4 than in vanilla dayz or arma.

 

Only because bullets move about as fast as paintballs in BF4.

[madcatii 0]

I like the system as it is now. Snipers are acurate enough to shoot static target on reasonable distance, and M4 is not just about point and click. You have to think how to move properly with it, how to close distance on your target, and it makes you think if and how you want to fight groups of people.

I don't like the idea of more swaying of the croshair some people are suggesting. For me it's just annoying as hell, and weird. Its not a problem to point at something - try that with a laser pointer. I guess inexperienced shooter would have much more trouble with staying on target while pulling the trigger, especialy with handguns.

I prefer being able to point at my target quickly and miss certain percentage of shots when not in favourable position over spending time chasing crosshair on my screen. Especialy when different weapon accesories dictate different usage of weapon.

[klassent 28]

There are certain concessions to be made between realism and playability; it's the same discussion that EVERY "simulation" based game has struggled with since... virtually forever. It's just as futile to incorporate unrealistic features, as it is to introduce features that favor realism but murder playability in the process. Bit of a double-edged sword, really, and after reading through the discussion here, both camps have valid points. On one hand, the weapon attachments really don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but at the same time, there aren't enough extraneous factors to make long-range shots challenging if weapons were as genuinely accurate as their RL counterparts.

 

 

Ballistics:

My personal take has always been in favor of vector-based ballistics-- which, before the OHNOES-NOT-AN-ARCADE-SHOOTER group jumps down my throat, allow me to explain some of the differences that complete the 'ideal' scenario. Also, I realize in advance how absolutely time-consuming it would be to change one of the core mechanics like firearms handling, but this is more for the sake of argument than the sake of implementation. First and foremost, weapons should be significantly more accurate than what they are now. Weapon dispersion is one of the things that I've never cared for, because as it stands, you can take plenty of time to line up a shot-- I relate this to an ambush scenario. I have a good idea what direction my target will be coming from, I know the approximate range they're going to come into view, and I have a pretty solid concept of how far I'll need to lead them at that range. Now, unless there's some other factor that makes that firearm unique (Bent barrel, bad rifling, etc.) then the round exits the barrel straight. Again, to save myself from the pundits, I have a reasonable definition of straight-- 2 to 3 MoA, something that still allows for minimal dispersion, but at realistic levels given a stable shooting platform. Not necessarily dead-set-center-straight every shot, but certainly nothing like the 2-foot spread that's currently present in DayZ SA. That's purely related to the ballistics model, but like I said before, it's a balancing act: If the ballistics model favors 'easier' gunplay, the handling mechanics have to add another layer of complexity to help compensate playability.

 

 

Handling:

In this ideal set of adjustments, native weapon handling should pose the true challenge, not a roll of the dice to see which angle your musket ball is going to veer off in. This would also give weapon attachments more meaning, as opposed to finding the set of gear that gives you the least dispersion. Where the handling model is concerned, I'm drawing on a well of both my own rifle experience (Not extensive, to be fair) and successful handling models from other games. One of my personal difficulties when shooting out of anything besides a prone position is muscle twitch. This presents another double-edged sword, because you don't actually 'feel' it in games and sims, whereas when it happens on the range I'm at least cognizant of it. Not that I can immediately correct for it, because I just ain't that good, but at least I have the neurological wiring in place that keeps me from pulling the trigger. The biggest hurdle in implementing this in-game is that for stable shots, the vector of the gun is linked to the vector of your viewpoint. When the gun shifts (in the case of muscle twitch, drift, etc) it moves not only the gun, but also your POV. In my opinion, it makes it TOO easy to correct for those slight adjustments, because all I have to do is move my mouse back to the desired facing. I can be sure the optics will still be linked to my vision, and as long as I'm pointing at the target, the barrel will be too.

 

Now, if you've been following along up to this point, my next suggestion should be pretty obvious: unlink 'em. While I'm still looking dead ahead at my target, but not in a prone/supported position, model weapon drift that I have to be aware of: let the barrel swing left a little bit, and an observant shooter will see that the front post is no longer in alignment with the rear peep and need some adjustment. Two options from this point, you can make it an automatic adjustment, where the character will slowly bring the rifle back into proper alignment, or add another look modifier much like ALT moves your view independent of heading, some other button could be used to manipulate your gun independent of viewpoint. If you really wanted to up the challenge, the latter would be a pretty demanding firearms handling system-- so much that it could easily turn people off from the game. So I figure the ideal scenario is automated, where once your rifle is out of alignment to the target, you're going to sacrifice a few milliseconds of firing window while you wait for it to recenter.

 

 

Attachments:

The good news? Here's where weapon attachments can be reintegrated in a way that makes sense: A lighter handguard, bipod, or perhaps future inclusions like vertical grips can help either reduce the frequency of weapon drift, or accelerate the realignment of the weapon. Recoil can similarly be handled, where as you fire, you're going to get a rapidly degrading sight picture as the muzzle climbs. Behold, compensators are meaningful again! Could theoretically add a lot of value to holographic optics as well down the road, because while I've never used one, it seems like it would be much easier to judge shot alignment when the optics of the weapon help to reflect that. Conversely, I would expect that drift to be much more difficult to notice when using one-dimensional optics like the ACOG or Long-Range Scope, making the improved ballistics still a bit of a challenge when taking longer-ranged shots.

 

Anyways, have at it. Pros, cons, feasibility, you know the drill. I'll again remind you I know of just how demanding this would be on development, and ALPHER is pretty well the only reason I'd even suggest something like this for consideration; it's still pretty early in the development cycle, so drastic changes like this are at least *possible* if not unlikely. I'll quit, though, before this post becomes something more transcendent-- and I don't even know what the hell 'wall-of-text' evolves into after the fact, but I don't want to find out either!

[libertine 351]

I coulnd't not agree more.

 

A player in Day z should do everything a real shooter in real life would do when it comes to a long range shot.

 

1. Get distance by using his second focal plane reticle and using the ranging reticle mil dot or any number of others reticles. ( or if he is smart look at a hand drawn ranging sheet that you sketched before hand)

2. Look at a Data sheet that you hand wrote for the particular rifle you are using like in this picture and then adjust the elevation on your optic to the right moa.

 

3. Deploy the rifle and bipod that attaches to the ground or object.

4. Check for wind either by hand using the ACe method or using a wind meter.Then adjust windage.

5. Aim and take the shot, this shot will like in most cases not hit you can then use your mil dot reticle to adjust using mils how far off the shot was and your 2nd shot should hit once you adjust.

I like that idea. Maybe they could make it so you could find a pamphlet as a loot item that was a how-to guide for a hunting rifle that explained how to use a scope's adjustments for new players. It could maybe even optionally take you to another place for target practice, alone with the rifle and some makeshift targets in the distance, of course warning you that your avatar would remain in the world unprotected if you proceeded. Thats a stretch though for the team i imagine.

[gibonez 3633]

I like that idea. Maybe they could make it so you could find a pamphlet as a loot item that was a how-to guide for a hunting rifle that explained how to use a scope's adjustments for new players. It could maybe even optionally take you to another place for target practice, alone with the rifle and some makeshift targets in the distance, of course warning you that your avatar would remain in the world unprotected if you proceeded. Thats a stretch though for the team i imagine.

 

See thats where the beauty of such a system would happen. Each gun would have vastly different moa adjustments for different ranges so it would be up to the community to set up their own range tables for each weapon.

 

The player could then print those out or make their own.

[-Gews- 7443]

My personal take has always been in favor of vector-based ballistics-- which, before the OHNOES-NOT-AN-ARCADE-SHOOTER group jumps down my throat, allow me to explain some of the differences that complete the 'ideal' scenario.

What do you mean by "vector-based"? I don't follow, as one could say the current system is "vector-based".

In fact I can't see how there could be any form of ballistics without vectors.

[Chiapet 3]

Anyone here actually Fired a AR 15 or M4 at range? LOL an M4 is much less accurate at range then even a AR15. a good shot no wind at 500 meters isnt easy at all. since they dont have wind modeled, id say the values look just fine. everyone wants to be a awesome sniper and ping things at 800+ meters, and it just isnt gonna happen, nor should it. snipers have awesome match quality barrels and match ammo, both of which make a huge difference at long ranges. the Mosin is an old gun, amnd 7.62 ammo isnt as accurate usually( especially the cheap russian ammo) as 5.56. so i dunno, Id say keep it as is, but just my worthless opinion.

[-Gews- 7443]

Anyone here actually Fired a AR 15 or M4 at range? [snip] id say the values look just fine.

M4s should not be printing 20+ inch groups at 50 yards.

[Space Milk 195]

Anyone here actually Fired a AR 15 or M4 at range? LOL an M4 is much less accurate at range then even a AR15. a good shot no wind at 500 meters isnt easy at all. since they dont have wind modeled, id say the values look just fine. everyone wants to be a awesome sniper and ping things at 800+ meters, and it just isnt gonna happen, nor should it. snipers have awesome match quality barrels and match ammo, both of which make a huge difference at long ranges. the Mosin is an old gun, amnd 7.62 ammo isnt as accurate usually( especially the cheap russian ammo) as 5.56. so i dunno, Id say keep it as is, but just my worthless opinion.

 

I agree, which is why I was originally against this in the first place.

 

But the game simulates you as being the perfect shot, like a super soldier, so it is null.

Oh and no wind.

[klassent 28]

What do you mean by "vector-based"? I don't follow, as one could say the current system is "vector-based".

In fact I can't see how there could be any form of ballistics without vectors.

 

Perhaps the term has fallen out of favor, not sure; many moons ago it was used to refer to any system that based the direction of bullet travel on the vector of the barrel. I.E. In Red Orchestra / RO2, as you pan the camera, your rifle moves faster than your POV. While you could still hip-fire weapons, if you were panning hard left, your bullets would actually be fired nearly out-of-view because it was based completely off the weaponmodel with dispersion of none to minimal. It also used to rule out hitscan ballistics, but luckily we've all but eliminated those in most modern engines. Core distinction I was making in this case is that most vector ballistics models rely solely on the model, and minimize or eliminate the CoF.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

I don't want to shoot down the OP but, are we sure that the values in files are used as is and match what actually happen ingame?

 

Could it be possible that they increased weapon inaccuracy to reduce the certainty if firefights? making them dangerous and unpredictable? Basically tone down the importance of individual "mouse" skills?

Edited January 10, 2014 by Lady Kyrah

[Chiapet 3]

M4s should not be printing 20+ inch groups at 50 yards.

all my first shots at 50 yards connect on zombies, it doesnt have that much single shot spread.

 

you guys can google it if you want. buuut.

 

the M4 has a MOA of around 4 at 100 yards.

 

that is under perfect conditions, on a bench rest, with each shot zeroed in.

 

that equates to 20 inch groupings at 500 meters, on a bench rest, with each shot zeroed in.

 

now take a AR15 or if you can pull it off, and M4 to the range and see how steady you shoot standing.

 

what you will find, is that standing, unsupported, you will have cross hair movement equal to about what you get in game trying to aim after a long sprint...

 

now read that again. THAT is how tough it is to aim, you are basically trying to steady for a split second as your crosshair comes across the target. this, at 500 meters will EASILY equate to what the OP posted, and it would be CORRECT.

 

The Mosin, has, AT BEST a unused russian one, and MOA of 4-5 at 100 meters.

 

IT IS WORSE ACCURACY WISE THEN AN M4

 

In game you get it BETTER then the M4 LOL.

 

I havent tested it in game( because i just started playing, but how many people know that the iron sights of an M4 should be hard set at 300 meters? just curious.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Chiapet