Battlefield 3 vs DayZ dispersion

[SaveMeJebus 164]

As im an washed up idiot IRL, i may confirm the spread in DayZ is pretty much in line with my dispersion when im trying to shoot a military rifle on the shooting range.

lmao ... good stuff.   I guess I always just thought the people that were actually left kinda know how to shoot/take care of themselves don't understand why there would be a bunch of inept no shooting people even left at the point the game takes place.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

As im an washed up idiot IRL, i may confirm the spread in DayZ is pretty much in line with my dispersion when im trying to shoot a military rifle on the shooting range.

If you try to clean your rifle with sand and twist your barrel then maybe yes :D

[OrLoK 16188]

Hello there

 

We must not micro analyse the game and compare it to real world stats.

 

What we need to do is to consider whether the weapons "feel" right or not.

 

If on truly has to stand at a 90 degree  angle to hit a target then something is indeed off. On the other hand, missing a few shots when in combat does not mean that the weapons are broken.

 

If you really want to grab the devs attention get some vids and pics in game showing "groupings" or failure to group at different ranges and with different weapons.

 

You're all leet and geared up aren't you? Proof and facts in game are whats needed. Even Arma's ballistics were "off" compared to real life, i still managed to make many decent kills with them.

 

Rdgs

 

LoK

[gibonez 3633]

Why not cut out the middle man and make all the weapons hitscan too?

 

I've never fired a weapon before, and I probably never will, but I get the impression that if I was half-starving in the middle of a zombie apocalypse in clothes that haven't been washed in 3 months I probably wouldn't be able to shoot the balls off a fly.

 

 

Sure you might be right but you do not simulate that by having the weapons fire in an idioticly huge cone of fire.

 

To top this off you also don't simulate this by having a downright stupid I mean stupid attachment system where mounting pieces of plastic or muzzle devices greatly increase the accuracy of your rifle.

 

This is a downright embarrassing mechanic when you take into account the mod and what it popular.

 

Had dayz mod released with the same bullshit game arcade mechanics as stand alone I promise you nobody would be playing stand alone right now.

 

It simply would have not caught on.

 

Dayz mod caught on like wild fire because of the player interaction, importance of life, and the mil sim pvp.

[Weedz 1105]

Are you following me? I can see that you have viewed my profile, and now you're suddenly replying to every post I make in every thread I post in, after we disagree in the "hate 3rd pp" thread? You're seriously creeping me out now. Especially since you accuse me of being the one that's throwing "hissy fits" while you're the calm and collected one. It's not hard to see that you're making that up completely by just reading your posts in the "hate 3rd pp" thread. Or maybe you've gone back and edited them to make it seem otherwise (good thing I have all replies forwarded to my inbox so I can read them there). I wouldn't put that past you considering your all over behavior.

 

 

EDIT: Actually, don't bother replying to me anymore. I've put you on ignore. You're creeping me out, stalking me around the forum and nitpicking about my posts, starting flame wars and whatnot. And you certainly don't have a clue what a strawman argument is.

That's cute considering I was posting in all 2 of the threads I replied to you in before you were. You're keeping a record of every post I make then claim I'm following you ...

 

 

Way to yet again throw a hissy fit and run away because someone explained something to you.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Weedz

[finnpalm 312]

Sure you might be right but you do not simulate that by having the weapons fire in an idioticly huge cone of fire.

How do you propose it should or could be simulated?

On the account of attachments, depending on the particular attachments, they can affect all kinds of characteristics of a weapon, like for example accuracy and recoil handling. But one thing I'd like to see (don't know if this is already in the game) is some sort of adjustment for the weight of the weapon when turning. For example the faster and more you turn with the weapon up and aiming down the sights the harder it is to control it, and you lose accuracy temporarily until you steady your aim again. When lowering the weapon before turning and then raising it again to fire this accuracy loss should be negated. Small movements should also bring with it some accuracy loss, albeit very small. But large sverves should definately affect your ability to aim.

[louist 163]

This is that awkward thread where people seem to want a military shooter and completely disregard that the survivors are just civilians and not professional soldiers.

The problem with your statement is that you assume that survivors are just civilians. We don't know anything about them aside from the title survivor, which doesn't supply us with any useful information. Arguing that they are untrained civilians is as baseless as arguing that they are professional soldiers.

[Weedz 1105]

The problem with your statement is that you assume that survivors are just civilians. We don't know anything about them aside from the title survivor, which doesn't supply us with any useful information. Arguing that they are untrained civilians is as baseless as arguing that they are professional soldiers.

They have also been survivors for 5 years now I'm sure they've learned how to shoot. In DayZ you are playing as you are one of these 5 year survivors who is just waking up after a night of black out drunkenness and can't remember where you left all your shit.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Weedz

[xenology 61]

I play both these games but it's not fair to compare a Arcade FPS with a survival simulator......

[gibonez 3633]

How do you propose it should or could be simulated?

 

 

 

Exactly how a untrained civilian firing a gun would do it.

 

Weapon sway, recoil and sight miss alignment.

 

I would put in ACE's weapon resting mechanic, so pressing shift + space on the hood of a car locks the weapon on top of the hood greatly stablizing the gun this works on any surface such as a window or the floor when prone with a bipod.

 

Then I would increase the sway and shaking when holding a firearm to realistic levels currently in game you hold it almost too steady. Finally after aiming down the sights for too long I would make it so your character struggles to align the sights correctly thus still hitting where the barrel is pointing at but not exactly where the player thinks hes aiming.

 

As far as your comment on attachments.

 

No a bipod will have 0 impact on a weapons accuracy, no a flash hider will not affect accuracy either, neither will plastic magpul parts on a m4.

 

All those things do is affect the handling of a weapon the light mag pull parts could make the weapon come up from the hip position faster, or perhaps reduce run fatigue.

 

The bipod could allow for less sway when prone or on an object.

 

The flash hider could you know do what it does, and reduce smoke and muzzle flash thus hiding the shooter.

Edited March 25, 2014 by gibonez

[Windex 13]

While I'm not saying that the dispersion in DayZ is good, I would like to point out a couple of things.

 

I'm pretty sure "effective range" means the range at which the gun deals substantial damage to the target, and not the D-max. I can lob a bullet really far with a weapon, but at some point the air resistance will have taken away so much of the projectile's force that it will bounce of it's target. Try measuring what distance you can make out a human sized object at.

 

100 m is not as close a range as one would think. Shooting at 100 meters isn't necessarily going to net you 100% hit ratio. There are a lot of factors that matter here. A common rough estimate used in the military (and I might not have the numbers exactly right here but they are along these lines) is that it takes one 30 shot magazine to take out a standing opponent, two magazines to take out a crouching opponent and four magazines to take out a prone opponent. And that's for a trained person shooting.

 

I'm sorry, but this entire post is so ridiculous that I had to register just to reply to this.

 

If you cannot hit an 8.5x11" standard piece of copy paper at 100m 100% of the time with ANY rifle in working order, then there is something seriously wrong with you.      The only reason it will take more than one round to take out a standing opponent at 100m is if they're running, you're shooting on the move, or the first round simply fails to incapacitate them.

 

Taking a full magazine to do anything at 100m is just silly.   The Army rifle qualification course - which is a total piece of cake compared to the Marines' - is 40 rounds, 40 targets between 50m and 300m with timed exposures (pop-ups that you have to ID and engage).  The targets are smaller than human sized.   Shooting "expert" requires 36/40 hits.

 

I can get a new shooter hitting a 6" steel gong at 300m at least half the time in about 15-20 minutes.   It's not hard, even when teaching civilians.

 

For game purposes, if you assume the rifle is zeroed then anything in 5.56mm/5.45mm is simply a matter of lining up the sights and squeezing the trigger on anything 300m and less.   That's part of the entire reason those cartridges were designed like that in the first place.     The condition of the weapon and the fact that you're scrounging ammo may be something that the devs are considering, though, so who knows.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Windex

[finalstraw 193]

The problem with your statement is that you assume that survivors are just civilians. We don't know anything about them aside from the title survivor, which doesn't supply us with any useful information. Arguing that they are untrained civilians is as baseless as arguing that they are professional soldiers.

 

Well Rocket himself did state they are civilians and that one of the main reasons why they didn't just re-use the same animations from Arma was because he didn't want them to look and move like professional soldiers and remade them.

 

I'd find the video but I can't be bothered, I don't honestly care that much because you people will refuse be convinced this is a survival horror and will continue to treat it as another mil shooter.

Edited March 25, 2014 by -lOldBoyl-

[Windex 13]

 you people will refuse be convinced this is a survival horror and will continue to treat it as another mil shooter.

 

Pretty much anyone can pick up a modern rifle, point it at a man sized target within 200m, and hit them.

[Weedz 1105]

I'm sorry, but this entire post is so ridiculous that I had to register just to reply to this.

 

If you cannot hit an 8.5x11" standard piece of copy paper at 100m 100% of the time with ANY rifle in working order, then there is something seriously wrong with you.      The only reason it will take more than one round to take out a standing opponent at 100m is if they're running, you're shooting on the move, or the first round simply fails to incapacitate them.

 

Taking a full magazine to do anything at 100m is just silly.   The Army rifle qualification course - which is a total piece of cake compared to the Marines' - is 40 rounds, 40 targets between 50m and 300m with timed exposures (pop-ups that you have to ID and engage).  The targets are smaller than human sized.   Shooting "expert" requires 36/40 hits.

 

I can get a new shooter hitting a 6" steel gong at 300m at least half the time in about 15-20 minutes.   It's not hard, even when teaching civilians.

 

For game purposes, if you assume the rifle is zeroed then anything in 5.56mm/5.45mm is simply a matter of lining up the sights and squeezing the trigger on anything 300m and less.   That's part of the entire reason those cartridges were designed like that in the first place.     The condition of the weapon and the fact that you're scrounging ammo may be something that the devs are considering, though, so who knows.

Welcome to the forums. Glad to have another person who has actually held a gun before in their lives and knows what they're talking about on here. Be prepared to be told you don't know how guns work by people who are from countries where civilians can't own or even touch guns. It's fun! Don't bother trying to discuss anything with these people or spread your knowledge to them though or they'll just go off on some random stuff that has nothing to do with what you were talking about then insult you and run away.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Weedz

[gibonez 3633]

I don't honestly care that much because you people will refuse be convinced this is a survival horror and will continue to treat it as another mil shooter.

 

You have to remember a games pedigree and where it came from.

 

Dayz Stand alone came from a mil sim.

 

Dayz mod is basically a mil sim with zombies.

 

Why would anyone expect anything other than a Mil sim from stand alone ?

[OrLoK 16188]

Hello there

 

Bohemia generally seem to have tried to distance themselves from the term milsim (although is is in much of their advertising) as that's more applicable to VBS.

 

Arma 2 is now pushed as more of a game.

 

As I mentioned before the ballistics in A1/A2 are far from perfect.

 

Im expecting nothing milsim from the game and Id advise you not to either.

 

It will however make nods towards realism. But it will always have vastly unrealistic elements.

 

Just Like Arma and OFP before it.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[finalstraw 193]

You have to remember a games pedigree and where it came from.

 

Dayz Stand alone came from a mil sim.

 

Dayz mod is basically a mil sim with zombies.

 

Why would anyone expect anything other than a Mil sim from stand alone ?

 

I'm played BI games since OpF and know and respect what BI does. But DayZ is aiming to be a survival horror game with authentic/realism leanings. That doesn't automatically make it a milsim, yet people seem to be treating is as such.

[Martmital 436]

317m head shot with a USAS...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

like a boss!

[finnpalm 312]

Exactly how a untrained civilian firing a gun would do it.

 

Weapon sway, recoil and sight miss alignment.

 

I would put in ACE's weapon resting mechanic, so pressing shift + space on the hood of a car locks the weapon on top of the hood greatly stablizing the gun this works on any surface such as a window or the floor when prone with a bipod.

 

Then I would increase the sway and shaking when holding a firearm to realistic levels currently in game you hold it almost too steady. Finally after aiming down the sights for too long I would make it so your character struggles to align the sights correctly thus still hitting where the barrel is pointing at but not exactly where the player thinks hes aiming.

 

As far as your comment on attachments.

 

No a bipod will have 0 impact on a weapons accuracy, no a flash hider will not affect accuracy either, neither will plastic magpul parts on a m4.

 

All those things do is affect the handling of a weapon the light mag pull parts could make the weapon come up from the hip position faster, or perhaps reduce run fatigue.

 

The bipod could allow for less sway when prone or on an object.

 

The flash hider could you know do what it does, and reduce smoke and muzzle flash thus hiding the shooter.

 

Well, I did say "depending on the particular attachment". You're obviously right. But I'd like to add a couple of thoughts. Plastic attachments that makes a weapon lighter makes it easier to hold a weapon up over an extended length of time. Sure it wouldn't affect accuracy immediately, but the longer you fight the more tired your arms become and instead of giving an over all boost to accuracy, it could make it take longer before your arms tire, perhaps? How does that sound?

 

And I'm pretty sure the bipod only gives a bonus if you're prone and have it deployed, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

All in all, I like your above ideas. Steadying the weapon on a surface (or even the side of an object you're in cover behind) would be awesome.

 

I'm sorry, but this entire post is so ridiculous that I had to register just to reply to this.

 

If you cannot hit an 8.5x11" standard piece of copy paper at 100m 100% of the time with ANY rifle in working order, then there is something seriously wrong with you.      The only reason it will take more than one round to take out a standing opponent at 100m is if they're running, you're shooting on the move, or the first round simply fails to incapacitate them.

 

Taking a full magazine to do anything at 100m is just silly.   The Army rifle qualification course - which is a total piece of cake compared to the Marines' - is 40 rounds, 40 targets between 50m and 300m with timed exposures (pop-ups that you have to ID and engage).  The targets are smaller than human sized.   Shooting "expert" requires 36/40 hits.

 

I can get a new shooter hitting a 6" steel gong at 300m at least half the time in about 15-20 minutes.   It's not hard, even when teaching civilians.

 

For game purposes, if you assume the rifle is zeroed then anything in 5.56mm/5.45mm is simply a matter of lining up the sights and squeezing the trigger on anything 300m and less.   That's part of the entire reason those cartridges were designed like that in the first place.     The condition of the weapon and the fact that you're scrounging ammo may be something that the devs are considering, though, so who knows.

 

No need to be hostile and call my post ridiculous. Especially since you're not really disagreeing with anything I wrote in it.

 

I bolded the part that is relevant to my reply. Of course (I have never argued otherwise) you can consistently hit the size of an A4 at 100 m in a shooting range while being still and taking your time with the shots, but like you point out, a piece of paper isn't running around and shooting back. Now this leads me to a completely different subject that I think should be discussed at some point. The comparisons with shooting at a shooting range at a still target as opposed to engaging an enemy during tactical movement. Which is more relevant in the game? Now, I know some people here will argue that the weapons are inaccurate while completely still as well, but that's not really that big of an issue in my opinion as long as they're equally inaccurate while moving and shooting. Sure, it should be fixed if that is the case and the numbers are way off, but shouldn't have to be that big of a priority, unless you're consistently sniping (being still) at unmoving targets (unaware of you).

Edited March 25, 2014 by Strawman

[Windex 13]

 

No need to be hostile and call my post ridiculous. Especially since you're not really disagreeing with anything I wrote in it.

 

I bolded the part that is relevant to my reply. Of course (I have never argued otherwise) you can consistently hit the size of an A4 at 100 m in a shooting range while being still and taking your time with the shots, but like you point out, a piece of paper isn't running around and shooting back. Now this leads me to a completely different subject that I think should be discussed at some point. The comparisons with shooting at a shooting range at a still target as opposed to engaging an enemy during tactical movement. Which is more relevant in the game? Now, I know some people here will argue that the weapons are inaccurate while completely still as well, but that's not really that big of an issue in my opinion as long as they're equally inaccurate while moving and shooting. Sure, it should be fixed if that is the case and the numbers are way off, but shouldn't have to be that big of a priority, unless you're consistently sniping (being still) at unmoving targets (unaware of you).

 

I called it ridiculous because it is ridiculous, particularly the parts about needing X number of 30 round magazines to take out a human sized target at 100m.

 

A very competent pistol shooter should be able to hit an A4 at 100m most of the time without too much difficulty; doing it with a rifle is a piece of cake under pretty much any conditions.

 

The weapons being inaccurate while still is the main issue - they should fire to where the sights are aimed within the mechanical accuracy of the round and the weapon.   General ballpark - 2 minutes of arc for an M4, ~4 MOA for an SKS, etc.    A minute of arc is very nearly an inch at 100 yards, or about 25mm at 90m.    

 

After that, it's a matter of whatever sight-wobble you have from your level of exertion and shooting position (prone, standing, etc).   The engine already can do that part.   Your limit on practical accuracy is being able to line up the sights despite the wobble and your limited ability to actually see the target.   At moderate ranges the target is going to be half the width of your front sight post.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Windex

[finnpalm 312]

I called it ridiculous because it is ridiculous, particularly the parts about needing X number of 30 round magazines to take out a human sized target at 100m.

 

Yet you didn't disagree with it. I said "in a combat situation". You said "in a combat situation". I agreed that when standing still in a shooting range you can consistently hit an A4 paper at 100 m.

 

A very competent pistol shooter should be able to hit an A4 at 100m most of the time without too much difficulty; doing it with a rifle is a piece of cake under pretty much any conditions.

 

Please outline those conditions where it would be a piece of cake.

 

The weapons being inaccurate while still is the main issue - they should fire to where the sights are aimed within the mechanical accuracy of the round and the weapon.   General ballpark - 2 minutes of arc for an M4, ~4 MOA for an SKS, etc.    A minute of arc is very nearly an inch at 100 yards, or about 25mm at 90m.

 

And I haven't argued that the current dispersion is fine.

 

After that, it's a matter of whatever sight-wobble you have from your level of exertion and shooting position (prone, standing, etc).   The engine already can do that part.   Your limit on practical accuracy is being able to line up the sights despite the wobble and your limited ability to actually see the target.   At moderate ranges the target is going to be half the width of your front sight post.

 

I agree.

 

So what exactly in my post is it that you disagree with and find ridiculous?

[Publik 404]

So what exactly in my post is it that you disagree with and find ridiculous?

 

Now, I know some people here will argue that the weapons are inaccurate while completely still as well, but that's not really that big of an issue in my opinion as long as they're equally inaccurate while moving and shooting. Sure, it should be fixed if that is the case and the numbers are way off, but shouldn't have to be that big of a priority, unless you're consistently sniping (being still) at unmoving targets (unaware of you).

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[finnpalm 312]

 

 

Yeah, I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that not thinking that fixing the dispersion should be that big of a priority is ridiculous?

[Publik 404]

Yeah, I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that not thinking that fixing the dispersion should be that big of a priority is ridiculous?

A gun should shoot like a gun. If I'm prone in a field or sprinting, how my gun behaves shouldn't change. If I'm out of breath or in a bad firing position, penalize my ability to actually line up a shot, not the physical shape of my weapon's barrel. If you're out of breath your gun's barrel doesn't turn into rubber.

 

The question of priority is moot; changing the dispersion is changing one number for each of the weapons in a config file. They could change the dispersion and shit out a hotfix in 20 minutes if they wanted to.

[finnpalm 312]

A gun should shoot like a gun. If I'm prone in a field or sprinting, how my gun behaves shouldn't change. If I'm out of breath or in a bad firing position, penalize my ability to actually line up a shot, not the physical shape of my weapon's barrel. If you're out of breath your gun's barrel doesn't turn into rubber.

 

The question of priority is moot; changing the dispersion is changing one number for each of the weapons in a config file. They could change the dispersion and shit out a hotfix in 20 minutes if they wanted to.

 

Ok, I agree that it should be an easy fix. Why do you reckon they aren't doing it then? Honest question.