SKS : can't hit over 200m

[finnpalm 312]

There is a reason firearms have become the standard for armed conflicts. They take minimal, if any, training to be able to use.

 

Not really. The reason is you can kill without putting yourself in danger as much. If you get in a knife fight with another person you will get cut, no matter how good you are with a knife, and no matter if you eventually win. With a rifle or a bow you can fire at your enemy from cover, or close to cover and negate their chance to fight back effectively.

 

What you're saying about it being easy to fire a gun is only true if you're standing still on a firing range and firing at a still target that doesn't shoot back. But the moment you have to move and shoot, or react to someone else shooting you, or shoot at a moving target it's a whole different thing.

[Jex 1104]

Let me be clear, with anything other than a fine-tuned hunting rifle and a naturally steady hand, hitting a target more than 200 meters away is VERY difficult. 

 

Hitting a target at 300m with an assault rifle (SA80) using iron sights was easy - what you on about?

[finnpalm 312]

Hitting a target at 300m with an assault rifle (SA80) using iron sights was easy - what you on about?

 

Hitting a still target that doesn't shoot back? Hitting it in a vital area? Or just hitting it at all? Standing, crouching or lying down? Full size target, half-figure or third? Did you run, or do jumping-jacks/push-ups before shooting, or just lying still relaxing before taking the shot?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Strawman

[xRann 126]

Not really. The reason is you can kill without putting yourself in danger as much. If you get in a knife fight with another person you will get cut, no matter how good you are with a knife, and no matter if you eventually win. With a rifle or a bow you can fire at your enemy from cover, or close to cover and negate their chance to fight back effectively.

The physical mechanics and required skill to use a firearm is almost null in comparison to any martial weapon. Use of those weapons requires training and skill, generally for years, and in very large amounts when compared to firearms. It's not even in the same ballpark. I've done martial weapons training, sticks, staffs, knives, swords, and bows and even though I learned quickly and have "natural" skill the fact is firearms require a fraction of training, both physically and mentally.

 

The efficiency of ballistics projectiles at causing mortal wounds while negating armor with the combination of negligible training requirements IS why they became the weapon of choice the world over and martial weapons were replaced with them.

 

What you're saying about it being easy to fire a gun is only true if you're standing still on a firing range and firing at a still target that doesn't shoot back. But the moment you have to move and shoot, or react to someone else shooting you, or shoot at a moving target it's a whole different thing.

Zombies do not shoot back, at least none that I've encountered...Any time I've engaged or been engaged by another player my body reacts without the need of some stupid game mechanic to randomize all my shots. Increased respiration, heart rate, eye focus... you know, affects of adrenaline and the human "fight or flight" reaction...Being on a range has nothing to do with my ability to fire a weapon accurately...

[Mr Jizz 313]

They take minimal, if any, training or loads of practice to be able to use effectively.

 

I think everyone watches so much damn TV that they think its nothing to hit a 5 inch target at 400 meters.  The majority of small arm engagments and casualties in modern warfare occur between 50-150 meters, to a much smaller extent at 150-300 meters. Beyond that is exceptionally rare, despite the prevalence of sniper warfare in modern media.  Snipers typically engage high-value targets, provide visual reconnaissance, or act as counter snipers. These are among the most extensively trained shooters in any outfit, logging hundreds of hours on ranges, and still engage most targets inside 400 meters.

 

Defense and Freedom

 

On Infantry

 

My point is that the effective range [of weapons] presented in this game is realistic enough (esp. for an alpha) to simulate real-world battle situations should one arise.  I contend that most people arguing for more LR accuracy from an SKS, or any other gun, are in fact trying to impose unrealistic elements into the game that suits a PVP arena.  I for one don't want to play this game if people are reliably, consistently hitting other players from 1000m with the Mosin or 500m with the SKS. 

 

 

 

More to the point, I don't believe it's just the "military sim shooter" that he, and many others are after

 

This is ultimately the point of my argument.  

[finnpalm 312]

The physical mechanics and required skill to use a firearm is almost null in comparison to any martial weapon. Use of those weapons requires training and skill, generally for years, and in very large amounts when compared to firearms. It's not even in the same ballpark. I've done martial weapons training, sticks, staffs, knives, swords, and bows and even though I learned quickly and have "natural" skill the fact is firearms require a fraction of training, both physically and mentally.

 

The efficiency of ballistics projectiles at causing mortal wounds while negating armor with the combination of negligible training requirements IS why they became the weapon of choice the world over and martial weapons were replaced with them.

 

Zombies do not shoot back, at least none that I've encountered...Any time I've engaged or been engaged by another player my body reacts without the need of some stupid game mechanic to randomize all my shots. Increased respiration, heart rate, eye focus... you know, affects of adrenaline and the human "fight or flight" reaction...Being on a range has nothing to do with my ability to fire a weapon accurately...

 

I agree that martial weaponry is more difficult to use, against an equal opponent. But like you say "zombies down shoot back", nor do they dodge or wield axes of their own. They just jog straight at you. To slam an axe at a humanoid running straight towards you is easy and doesn't require any martial arts training (I too have practiced martial arts for many years including weapons so I know what you're talking about).

 

The same goes for firearms, however, both types of weapons become increasingly difficult to use under heavy physical exertion. I can tell you how hard it is to hit the torso of a humanoid at ten meters after running, hitting the dirt, run, hit the dirt, run, fight two unarmed people attacking you for 15-20 minutes, run, fight another person attacking you with a weapon at close range, run, stop and hit the target. And that's when the target isn't moving. I was also sick with some flu at the time.

 

Just because a weapon is easy to point and fire doesn't make it easy to use in all circumstances.

[Jex 1104]

Hitting a still target that doesn't shoot back? Hitting it in a vital area? Or just hitting it at all? Standing, crouching or lying down? Full size target, half-figure or third? Did you run, or do jumping-jacks/push-ups before shooting, or just lying still relaxing before taking the shot?

 

Go read what I was replying to and then read the OP and it will give you a condition of the shooters conditions which suggest, prone, no one firing back and still can't hit a target at 200m. What has what you said got anything to do with this?

 

Edit: Kind of Ironic your username is strawman lol

Edited March 11, 2014 by Jexter

[finnpalm 312]

Go read what I was replying to and then read the OP and it will give you a condition of the shooters conditions which suggest, prone, no one firing back and still can't hit a target at 200m. What has what you said got anything to do with this?

 

Edit: Kind of Ironic your username is strawman lol

 

I read what you quoted. Are you saying that you quoted something out of context and now you want me to find the full picture?

 

I replied to what you said about it being easy to hit a target at 300 m with iron sights (which I too have done, both with a 7.62 assault rifle and 5.56). You're talking about a rifle that is about 30 years later than the one described in the OP (ie akin to a "finely tuned hunting rifle") and lying down, not exerting yourself physically (akin to "steady hand"). I'm not sure what argument you were trying to make, because it seems to me you're not saying anything that conflicts with the notion of Mr Jizz. So, what are you on about?

 

Oh, and please enlighten me to how it's ironic that my nick is Strawman in this particular situation.

 

On a sidenote, I was under the impression that the PU-scope is still bugged, or is that just the long range scope?

[xRann 126]

I think everyone watches so much damn TV that they think its nothing to hit a 5 inch target at 400 meters.  The majority of small arm engagments and casualties in modern warfare occur between 50-150 meters, to a much smaller extent at 150-300 meters. Beyond that is exceptionally rare, despite the prevalence of sniper warfare in modern media.  Snipers typically engage high-value targets, provide visual reconnaissance, or act as counter snipers. These are among the most extensively trained shooters in any outfit, logging hundreds of hours on ranges, and still engage most targets inside 400 meters.

 

Defense and Freedom

 

On Infantry

 

My point is that the effective range [of weapons] presented in this game is realistic enough (esp. for an alpha) to simulate real-world battle situations should one arise.  I contend that most people arguing for more LR accuracy from an SKS, or any other gun, are in fact trying to impose unrealistic elements into the game that suits a PVP arena.  I for one don't want to play this game if people are reliably, consistently hitting other players from 1000m with the Mosin or 500m with the SKS. 

 

This is ultimately the point of my argument.  

I don't want extreme ranges. I want realistic within reason. The cone of fire and dispersion of all the firearms right now are utter nonsense. The effects in game are at a level one would expect shooting out at 300m yet they are happening within 50~100m...HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS IS FUCKED?

 

The reduction in range for infantrymen is multifaceted. Environment, objective, roe, secondary casualties...also, you have to consider that we've shifted from conventional open battlefield engagements to unconventional guerrilla warfare.

 

Something like 80-90% of pistol shootings happen within 13 feet in the states, multiple shots are usually fired. That doesn't mean it's applicable to say that the pistols should only be effective out to 20 feet because nobody but a small percentage of people get shot from any further.

 

They take minimal, if any, training to be able to use.

Fixed. We're not talking about the same issue, because apparently you believe I want people to snipe with iron sighted pistols when what I'd like is that the magnum doesn't out perform an sks. Arguments of "people aren't soldiers" "players are untrained" has been thrown around as justification of this ridiculous system and it's complete shit and needs to stop.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

The thing is that if the aim is on the target then it should hit like in real life unless your gun is in a bad shape or you don't wind or distance in account. Unrealistic artificial spread only brings frusturation. They should increase sway and recoil effects rather than spread. If I attach bayonet on the rifle that shouldn't cause huge bullet spread, it should make the aiming maybe bit harder.

[finnpalm 312]

Fixed. We're not talking about the same issue, because apparently you believe I want people to snipe with iron sighted pistols when what I'd like is that the magnum doesn't out perform an sks. Arguments of "people aren't soldiers" "players are untrained" has been thrown around as justification of this ridiculous system and it's complete shit and needs to stop.

 

Was that in reply to me?  :huh:

[xRann 126]

I agree that martial weaponry is more difficult to use, against an equal opponent. But like you say "zombies down shoot back", nor do they dodge or wield axes of their own. They just jog straight at you. To slam an axe at a humanoid running straight towards you is easy and doesn't require any martial arts training (I too have practiced martial arts for many years including weapons so I know what you're talking about).

 

The same goes for firearms, however, both types of weapons become increasingly difficult to use under heavy physical exertion. I can tell you how hard it is to hit the torso of a humanoid at ten meters after running, hitting the dirt, run, hit the dirt, run, fight two unarmed people attacking you for 15-20 minutes, run, fight another person attacking you with a weapon at close range, run, stop and hit the target. And that's when the target isn't moving. I was also sick with some flu at the time.

 

Just because a weapon is easy to point and fire doesn't make it easy to use in all circumstances.

I agree, but the current mechanic is the problem. I expect when kneeling or prone that I can calm down, breath, acquire a target, sight it, and send a round AND NOT have the round fly off like my barrel is curved.

 

Adding more weapon sway and heavier breathing would ultimately be able to simulate more of the physical conditions than the current mechanic. As it is now, proned for ten minutes, hanging out, sipping some water, what's that? Oh, a zombie, cool a target. Steady, calm, dial in on the head, NOPE round went sailing off because fuck you, that's why....it doesn't make any damn sense.

 

It doesn't even matter what range you are unless it's almost point-blank. Even then you're lucky if you hit where you were aiming. LUCK should not dictate ballistics.

 

*edit

 

Was that in reply to me?  :huh:

 

No to Jizz. I corrected his "correction". I just didn't want to post multiple comments in a row.

Edited March 11, 2014 by xRann

[Etherimp 1323]

There's a certain 'necessary' element to the difficulty of hitting targets at range.  In games like COD and BF, there's an assumption that your character is a trained killer.. emphasis on "trained".

 

In this game you're a survivor, no background story, no military affiliation, no reason for being able to hit a target >200m. Let me be clear, with anything other than a fine-tuned hunting rifle and a naturally steady hand, hitting a target more than 200 meters away is VERY difficult.  I think we've all bought into the notion that because we have a steady hand with a mouse we should able to hit anything with a rifle in a game, hence the frustration with the OP

 

I think there will be fine-tuning of exactly how this all gets implemented at final-release, but I propose that 90-95% of the people in this forum couldn't hit a deer at 300 meters IRL with an SKS or M4. Since this game is not a PVP war-simulator, I don't think the developers will lose sleep over this particular dose of realism.

 

 

This is a stupid argument. Stop making it. I know there are a lot of people who make this stupid argument, but it doesn't make it any less stupid.

[finnpalm 312]

This is a stupid argument. Stop making it. I know there are a lot of people who make this stupid argument, but it doesn't make it any less stupid.

 

I'm curious as to why you find it stupid. Care giving a reason for that? I'm not sure I agree with the argument, but I honestly don't see how it's stupid. After all they have stated that the players are supposed to be civilians.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Strawman

[Jex 1104]

 

I read what you quoted. Are you saying that you quoted something out of context and now you want me to find the full picture?

 

I replied to what you said about it being easy to hit a target at 300 m with iron sights (which I too have done, both with a 7.62 assault rifle and 5.56). You're talking about a rifle that is about 30 years later than the one described in the OP (ie akin to a "finely tuned hunting rifle") and lying down, not exerting yourself physically (akin to "steady hand"). I'm not sure what argument you were trying to make, because it seems to me you're not saying anything that conflicts with the notion of Mr Jizz. So, what are you on about?

 

Oh, and please enlighten me to how it's ironic that my nick is Strawman in this particular situation.

 

On a sidenote, I was under the impression that the PU-scope is still bugged, or is that just the long range scope?

 

 

 

 

Let me be clear, with anything other than a fine-tuned hunting rifle and a naturally steady hand, hitting a target more than 200 meters away is VERY difficult. 

 

I was pointing out it's easy to hit a target at 200m because it's easy with an assault rifle at 300m. You then erected your strawman by introducing all these other, irrelevant conditions that we weren't even talking about and I believe the OP had said he was laying down and relaxed and nobody was shooting back - so why did you come out with something nobody else was discussing. Hence the strawman comment.

 

 

 

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

 

I was pointing out it's not that hard to hit a target at 300m (I was no great marksman). His comment seemed to be saying that a 200m shot is incredibly difficult with anything but the most pristine weapon.

[Valadain 270]

I'm curious as to why you find it stupid. Care giving a reason for that? I'm not sure I agree with the argument, but I honestly don't see how it's stupid. After all they have stated that the players are supposed to be civilians.

 

The gun operates how the gun operates, whether in the hands of someone trained or untrained in how to shoot. I won't say "civilians vs. military" because that is a false separation. Plenty of civilians know how to shoot as well or better than an average person in the military.

 

So, anything that suggests a random cone of fire is "realistic" or "authentic" is wrong. Anything that suggests a civilian is less skilled with a firearm than someone in the military is wrong. Period.

 

If the game wants to go that way, fine, but don't call it realism or authenticity. It is a fabricated mechanic to force a particular play style.

 

Edit: When I say "random cone of fire", I am referring to the massively exaggerated effective distance, particularly in relation to other guns.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Valadain

[finnpalm 312]

The gun operates how the gun operates, whether in the hands of someone trained or untrained in how to shoot. I won't say "civilians vs. military" because that is a false separation. Plenty of civilians know how to shoot as well or better than an average person in the military.

 

So, anything that suggests a random cone of fire is "realistic" or "authentic" is wrong. Anything that suggests a civilian is less skilled with a firearm than someone in the military is wrong. Period.

 

If the game wants to go that way, fine, but don't call it realism or authenticity. It is a fabricated mechanic to force a particular play style.

 

Edit: When I say "random cone of fire", I am referring to the massively exaggerated effective distance, particularly in relation to other guns.

 

So how do you propose they emulate lack of skill at shooting a firearm?

 

Or am I reading your post wrong?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Strawman

[Etherimp 1323]

I'm curious as to why you find it stupid. Care giving a reason for that? I'm not sure I agree with the argument, but I honestly don't see how it's stupid. After all they have stated that the players are supposed to be civilians.

 

Firstly, we have to make it clear that you and I, as people who bought this game, are PLAYERS. I am the player, you are the player. Our avatars in game are CHARACTERS.

 

Our CHARACTERS have no back story. We create our own story. Maybe our characters were hunters. Maybe they're former military. Maybe they were trained with weapons. Maybe they weren't. That's not determined by the game. The only thing the game says is "You wake up on a beach, hungry.. there's infected running around, try to survive!"

 

Some players are going to have bad mouse settings, leading to inaccuracy.

Some players are going to have experience in FPS games, leading to better accuracy.

Some players become nervous when being shot at in a video game, leading to shakey aim.

Some players are cool under pressure and do not care about their gear, leading to steadier aim.

 

These are a few of the many factors going into ACTUAL ACCURACY.

 

In reality, guns do not have "dispersion" the way the game has implemented it. They have recoil. They have bullet drop. They have wind which may effect a round at longer ranges. Outside of those, and a few other factors, the accuracy is based on the shooter, NOT the gun. 

So, there are a few logical reasons why imposing arbitrary dispersion values on guns doesn't make sense from a logical/realistic standpoint, but the most compelling argument in my opinion is from a gameplay standpoint, and I'll make that argument now:

If DayZ abided by exact realistic specifications for weapons and left the accuracy 100% up to the PLAYER (not character) aiming the weapon, then shots would land where they were fired after compensating for wind/bullet drop/recoil.

 

In the scenario Mr Jizz is suggesting, there is another random element introduced to the weapon accuracy which is based off some arbitrary factor of "hey these guys are civilians!"... Which is completely relative/subjective and totally irrelevant. A 12 year old white boy from the Suburbs can be taught how to accurately fire an M16. 

 

If you take these scenarios to their extremes, what do you get?

 

With ultra-accuracy, you get a first person shooting experience that is completely dependent upon the skill, accuracy, and reflexes of the player and their hardware.

 

With ultra-dispersion, you get random bullets flying around unreliably and without logic.

 

With ultra-accuracy, you have a game based off of skill.

 

With ultra-dispersion, you have a game based off of luck.

 

With ultra-accuracy you have a game where players save their shots for when they know they can hit, and they use as little ammo as necessary to finish their target.

 

With ultra-dispersion, you have a game where players spray as many bullets as possible to push the odds in their favor.. thus they go for weapons with higher magazines and which are fully automatic.

 

 

See the problems with this? Which game would you rather play?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Etherimp

[Valadain 270]

So how do you propose they emulate lack of skill at shooting a firearm?

 

Truly, I suggest they don't, anymore than I suggest they randomly decide who can run fast and who can't, who has good eye-sight and who has bad eye-sight. Who can box like Mohammed Ali and who can't. Who can swing an axe correctly and who can't....

 

Leave it to the player. There is no need to falsely simulate reality where ability and skill is concerned, that is the player element. What they bring to the table in this game.

 

Now, the limitations of the gun itself, sure. Any environmental things that can be added? Great. Some sway when standing? Absolutely. Wind? Why not, if it can be done.

[Etherimp 1323]

Truly, I suggest they don't, anymore than I suggest they randomly decide who can run fast and who can't, who has good eye-sight and who has bad eye-sight. Who can box like Mohammed Ali and who can't. Who can swing an axe correctly and who can't....

 

Leave it to the player. There is no need to falsely simulate reality where ability and skill is concerned, that is the player element. What they bring to the table in this game.

 

Now, the limitations of the gun itself, sure. Any environmental things that can be added? Great. Some sway when standing? Absolutely. Wind? Why not, if it can be done.

 

 

This, exactly.

[finnpalm 312]

Firstly, we have to make it clear that you and I, as people who bought this game, are PLAYERS. I am the player, you are the player. Our avatars in game are CHARACTERS.

 

Our CHARACTERS have no back story. We create our own story. Maybe our characters were hunters. Maybe they're former military. Maybe they were trained with weapons. Maybe they weren't. That's not determined by the game. The only thing the game says is "You wake up on a beach, hungry.. there's infected running around, try to survive!"

 

Some players are going to have bad mouse settings, leading to inaccuracy.

Some players are going to have experience in FPS games, leading to better accuracy.

Some players become nervous when being shot at in a video game, leading to shakey aim.

Some players are cool under pressure and do not care about their gear, leading to steadier aim.

 

These are a few of the many factors going into ACTUAL ACCURACY.

 

In reality, guns do not have "dispersion" the way the game has implemented it. They have recoil. They have bullet drop. They have wind which may effect a round at longer ranges. Outside of those, and a few other factors, the accuracy is based on the shooter, NOT the gun. 

So, there are a few logical reasons why imposing arbitrary dispersion values on guns doesn't make sense from a logical/realistic standpoint, but the most compelling argument in my opinion is from a gameplay standpoint, and I'll make that argument now:

If DayZ abided by exact realistic specifications for weapons and left the accuracy 100% up to the PLAYER (not character) aiming the weapon, then shots would land where they were fired after compensating for wind/bullet drop/recoil.

 

In the scenario Mr Jizz is suggesting, there is another random element introduced to the weapon accuracy which is based off some arbitrary factor of "hey these guys are civilians!"... Which is completely relative/subjective and totally irrelevant. A 12 year old white boy from the Suburbs can be taught how to accurately fire an M16. 

 

If you take these scenarios to their extremes, what do you get?

 

With ultra-accuracy, you get a first person shooting experience that is completely dependent upon the skill, accuracy, and reflexes of the player and their hardware.

 

With ultra-dispersion, you get random bullets flying around unreliably and without logic.

 

With ultra-accuracy, you have a game based off of skill.

 

With ultra-dispersion, you have a game based off of luck.

 

With ultra-accuracy you have a game where players save their shots for when they know they can hit, and they use as little ammo as necessary to finish their target.

 

With ultra-dispersion, you have a game where players spray as many bullets as possible to push the odds in their favor.. thus they go for weapons with higher magazines and which are fully automatic.

 

 

See the problems with this? Which game would you rather play?

 

I can see how you see a problem with that. But are they going to the extremes in your opinion?

 

I'm somewhat torn as to whether the gunplay should be based on a person's skill with a mouse. That will make this game favor younger people with better reflexes, and people who are used to playing FPS's. Obviously I don't want it to be taken to the extremes, but in my own experience that's not what they're doing now. All the other factors that you mention are also things that I want to be reflected in-game. Wind, bullet drop and so on. Wind can be highly unpredictable as you surely know and the farther you shoot from the more different directions different winds can blow to affect the bullet. There's hardly ever one single direction the wind is blowing.

 

EDIT: Is it not possible that they're trying to emulate wind and such factors with the dispersion? I mean, can you think of a better way of having wind as a factor, where you as a player can calculate how it's blowing?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Strawman

[Etherimp 1323]

I can see how you see a problem with that. But are they going to the extremes in your opinion?

 

I'm somewhat torn as to whether the gunplay should be based on a person's skill with a mouse. That will make this game favor younger people with better reflexes, and people who are used to playing FPS's. Obviously I don't want it to be taken to the extremes, but in my own experience that's not what they're doing now. All the other factors that you mention are also things that I want to be reflected in-game. Wind, bullet drop and so on. Wind can be highly unpredictable as you surely know and the farther you shoot from the more different directions different winds can blow to affect the bullet. There's hardly ever one single direction the wind is blowing.

 

 

I disagree that the game would favor younger people with better reflexes. I'm 34, but I have been playing FPS games for probably 20 years. Any reflexes you lose with age you more than make up for with situational awareness, tactical knowledge, communication, teamwork, confidence in yourself, etc. Aside from that, DayZ isn't exactly a fast paced twitch shooter which requires super fast reflexes. It's more based on positioning/awareness.

 

But yes, I think they've currently gone too far with the dispersion.

[finnpalm 312]

DayZ isn't exactly a fast paced twitch shooter which requires super fast reflexes. It's more based on positioning/awareness.

 

Would you prefer if it was a twitch shooter, or something in between (with a little less dispersion :) )?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Strawman

[Etherimp 1323]

Would you prefer if it was a twitch shooter, or something in between (with a little less dispersion :) )?

 

Nope.. I don't want a twitch shooter. I like the way DayZ plays, but the dispersion just encourages people to do 1 of 2 things

 

1. Snipe with mosin w/ LRS.

2. Spray and pray.

[xRann 126]

I'm somewhat torn as to whether the gunplay should be based on a person's skill with a mouse. That will make this game favor younger people with better reflexes, and people who are used to playing FPS's.

I don't know that age is that big of a factor. Up until recently I ate up all shooters, never the best but always formidable, they just started to bore me over the years. I'm 31 and haven't noticed any nominal, if any, amount of lose to my hand-eye snaps.