Battlefield 3 vs DayZ dispersion

[SGT. Kalme 106]

Just curious, but how do you rule out the human factor when doing your measurements? I'm assuming you don't put your mouse in a vice, but how do you make sure it doesn't move? Like for example removing the mouse and mapping the fire button to the keyboard? I'm sure some people feel like their mouse isn't moving but with modern day gaming mouses and their resolution and gamers usually playing on fairly high mouse sensivity that factor really needs to be ruled out.

 

Human factor is always in, when you are firing in range, you won't be able to hold your rifle completely still. That is why the measurements are made from shorter distances. 100m for assault rifle shooting from prone and using support is pretty damn accurate. Now doing same test in game would be actually really easy. Somewhy, though, people ignore that and instead jump in saying that these weapons are completely inaccurate while shooting on the run. Or compare the accuracy from shooting on hip? I mean, what...

[xenology 61]

Because it shouldn't make a difference?

If Bf had the real life ballistics and range of weapons that Arma has do you know how terrible! it would be? Those guns are supposed to be balanced not the highest RPM gun with a bi-pod can shoot as far as an M4 and wipe out a whole squad especially with the net-code BF4 has do you know how absoloutley TERRIBLE that'd be please if you think DayZ forumers whine go to the BF forums and look at that crap you guys are saints in terms of it so saying it shouldn't matter is just ruining BF (and imo bf4 is heading to the Bf2 roots but till hasn't grasped the idea) P.S. BF3 and BF has never been realistic.

[finnpalm 312]

Human factor is always in, when you are firing in range, you won't be able to hold your rifle completely still. That is why the measurements are made from shorter distances. 100m for assault rifle shooting from prone and using support is pretty damn accurate. Now doing same test in game would be actually really easy. Somewhy, though, people ignore that and instead jump in saying that these weapons are completely inaccurate while shooting on the run. Or compare the accuracy from shooting on hip? I mean, what...

 

Well, I agree, but I was thinking that if you want to measure the actual spread of the weapons you'd have to eliminate the human factor, just like you'd have to lock a weapon in a vice in real life.

[SGT. Kalme 106]

Well, I agree, but I was thinking that if you want to measure the actual spread of the weapons you'd have to eliminate the human factor, just like you'd have to lock a weapon in a vice in real life.

 

Well, yes. Of course if you want absolute precision. I zero my weapon to 100m at 25m distance measuring target point to hitting point. At that 25m distance, shot from prone on a base, I can basically shoot three shots into same hole (if the sights have been calibrated properly) so I think the vice wouldn't even be necessary at that point. Even more that you can't put one in a use in a game like BF or DayZ. The measuring would be accurate enough though without it.

[Judopunch 523]

0/9 shots hit a zombie at 100m or less just now. Pristine stock M4, no bipod, prone, not tired. Aimed center mass.

Use more mag-pull parts and check your zeroing. even with iron-sights I have never ever experience this, unless you are getting the shooting-the-ground glitch. If you have the QCB buttstock the accuracy of the weapon could behave as you described, but I have a hard time thinking that it would be 0/9 at 100 M even in that situation.. 

[wingman.edu 55]

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.

Game systems that make any type of combat unpredictable and random are a bad idea.

[finnpalm 312]

Game systems that make any type of combat unpredictable and random are a bad idea.

 

Why? I mean what's your opinion on why it's a bad idea?

[wingman.edu 55]

Why? I mean what's your opinion on why it's a bad idea?

This game is clunky enough as is.  Firing a gun should not be like riding a mechanical bull, you should be able to at least consistently create a grouping of bullets at range.  We already have gun sway from running and being winded, which makes sense, but excessive handicaps to guns just doesn't make sense, which is why no other shooter has gone that route.  It would make the game more frustrating and less enjoyable for most people, and thus they would stop playing.  This is not the goal of developers.

 

EDIT:  I am not supporting that guns are currently broken, but I am saying we don't need further handicaps.

Edited March 26, 2014 by wingman.edu

[deebz1234 243]

i think they should stop re inventing the wheel here...they have alhorithms and code for amazing ballistics from arma 2/3

 

why not use it verbatim?

 

isnt the sim supposed to be a sim? no balancing acts should be implemented...

[SGT. Kalme 106]

i think they should stop re inventing the wheel here...they have alhorithms and code for amazing ballistics from arma 2/3

 

why not use it verbatim?

 

isnt the sim supposed to be a sim? no balancing acts should be implemented...

 

I agree with you. It is not about balancing the weapon system by modifying ballistics for each weapon but about which weapons to implement into the game. If keeping it realistic is the purpose then realistic it should be.

[finnpalm 312]

This game is clunky enough as is.  Firing a gun should not be like riding a mechanical bull, you should be able to at least consistently create a grouping of bullets at range.  We already have gun sway from running and being winded, which makes sense, but excessive handicaps to guns just doesn't make sense, which is why no other shooter has gone that route.  It would make the game more frustrating and less enjoyable for most people, and thus they would stop playing.  This is not the goal of developers.

 

EDIT:  I am not supporting that guns are currently broken, but I am saying we don't need further handicaps.

 

Just playing with a thought here. What if their goal is to make the gunplay frustrating?

 

 

i think they should stop re inventing the wheel here...they have alhorithms and code for amazing ballistics from arma 2/3

 

why not use it verbatim?

 

isnt the sim supposed to be a sim? no balancing acts should be implemented...

 

 

I agree with you. It is not about balancing the weapon system by modifying ballistics for each weapon but about which weapons to implement into the game. If keeping it realistic is the purpose then realistic it should be.

 

Apparently, according to other people on the forum, it's neither meant to be a sim, nor realistic.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Strawman

[SGT. Kalme 106]

 

Just playing with a thought here. What if their goal is to make the gunplay frustrating?

 

Apparently, according to other people on the forum, it's neither meant to be a sim, nor realistic.

 

 

According to which people? Can you link it please?

 

From all I have seen and read about, Halls direction was to make it realistic. When did he change his mind?

Edited March 26, 2014 by SGT. Kalme

[finnpalm 312]

According to which people? Can you link it please?

 

From all I have seen and read about, Halls direction was to make it realistic. When did he change his mind?

 

According to other forum members. Not devs.

[SGT. Kalme 106]

According to other forum members. Not devs.

 

Oh I see. I guess I am happy then that devs are responsible for the making of this game. I, personally, would sacrifice any object in this game for realistic mechanics.

[agouti 105]

Use more mag-pull parts and check your zeroing. even with iron-sights I have never ever experience this, unless you are getting the shooting-the-ground glitch. If you have the QCB buttstock the accuracy of the weapon could behave as you described, but I have a hard time thinking that it would be 0/9 at 100 M even in that situation.. 

 

 

It looks like magpul is what rifletech claims to be. They used to have a muzzlebrake which they claimed had the ability to increase accuracy by 600% (jokes upon jokes at gun forums like 10 years ago)! No wonder I'm such a magpul fanboy! Who knew the ar was actually a POS until magpul came along? Magpul for president!

 

(Irl I actually am a magpul fanboy, but this is crazy.)

.

In all honesty it looks me a while to notice the ar's accuracy problems in this game because as soon as I got an ar, I'd just outfit it with magpul parts because I AM a magpul fanboy. My buddies were all wow this gun sucks (the ar), and I was all, eh, mine's okay

 

 

NEVER! Also being high makes me focus better and I become more accurate in real life and in games.

 

I said open your eyes, not stop smoking. I used to be a spotter/driver for my buddy with tanks in project reality. I couldn't see crap, I had to open my eyes. But yes, the only way to remove beer goggles is to stop drinking.

Edited March 26, 2014 by agouti

[rickenbacker 190]

In Battlefield you are a trained supersoldier, in DayZ you are an idiot who washed up on a shore who needs help eating and drinking.

 

That still doesn't mean that your bullets should end up in a HUGE cone, if your sights are lined up properly and don't move while firing. 

[Publik 404]

Use more mag-pull parts and check your zeroing. even with iron-sights I have never ever experience this, unless you are getting the shooting-the-ground glitch. If you have the QCB buttstock the accuracy of the weapon could behave as you described, but I have a hard time thinking that it would be 0/9 at 100 M even in that situation.. 

What does the plastic have to do with how accurate the weapon is? Zeroing was default (100m).

 

Double-checked my recording, if you're hitting the ground it'll make a little poof where the bullet hits in front of you, right?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[rickenbacker 190]

Human factor is always in, when you are firing in range, you won't be able to hold your rifle completely still. That is why the measurements are made from shorter distances. 100m for assault rifle shooting from prone and using support is pretty damn accurate. Now doing same test in game would be actually really easy. Somewhy, though, people ignore that and instead jump in saying that these weapons are completely inaccurate while shooting on the run. Or compare the accuracy from shooting on hip? I mean, what...

 

The thing that really bothers me is that our character in game IS holding the rifle perfectly still when firing, and still gets a spread like a leaky garden hose. It's counterintuitive and just looks wrong. There are better ways to simulate the human factor than to make precision rifles act like a 300 year old musket. 

[Judopunch 523]

What does the plastic have to do with how accurate the weapon is? Zeroing was default (100m).

In DayZ the game mechanics allow for different parts to effect the operation of the weapon, inspired by real life. The QCB for example is treated to be in the retracted position, this allows you to ready the weapon (space bar) In about half the time of the other buttstocks, however, due to the 'shorter buttstock' you will not be able to shoulder the weapon as effectively so the game reduces your accuracy. 

 

Using mag-pull parts the weapon is very very accurate even out to 300m. The stock parts the weapon is accurate to probably around 200.

 

Different pieces basically add or subtract stats from the accuracy, as do your stance and if you have a bipod deployed or not. (i believe if the bipod is deployed and your standing its supposed to make you less accurate).

 

The system is not quite complete I believe (not sure) and is also definitely not intuitive (like most of the game).

[Publik 404]

In DayZ the game mechanics allow for different parts to effect the operation of the weapon, inspired by real life. The QCB for example is treated to be in the retracted position, this allows you to ready the weapon (space bar) In about half the time of the other buttstocks, however, due to the 'shorter buttstock' you will not be able to shoulder the weapon as effectively so the game reduces your accuracy. 

 

Using mag-pull parts the weapon is very very accurate even out to 300m. The stock parts the weapon is accurate to probably around 200.

 

Different pieces basically add or subtract stats from the accuracy, as do your stance and if you have a bipod deployed or not. (i believe if the bipod is deployed and your standing its supposed to make you less accurate).

 

The system is not quite complete I believe (not sure) and is also definitely not intuitive (like most of the game).

Shouldn't the plastic on the barrel or on the stock improve my ability to line up a shot, not the actual behaviour of the weapon itself? If you attach a different plastic foregrip, you're not doing anything to the barrel of the gun. It's the same gun, just has different ergonomics. Nothing but a longer/shorter barrel, the ammo quality, the quality of the base weapon, or maybe the trigger should make any sort of difference in actual accuracy of the weapon. Other parts can remove sway when prone (bipod), reduce weight and sway when moving (foregrip/stock), or improve time to shoulder the weapon (CQB stock). Different sights shouldn't improve accuracy either, just provide different ways of acquiring a target.

 

Edit: Either way, a stock M4 should behave like a stock M4.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[Judopunch 523]

Like I said "GAME" mechanics. 

 

You could also make an argument about how significantly ergonomics effects accuracy. Pointing that barrel in a 1mm different direction could have an impact of changing your landing spot by several centimeters at 300M.

 

But ya. This is a game. Mouse and keyboard to shoot your gun.

[Publik 404]

Like I said "GAME" mechanics. 

 

You could also make an argument about how significantly ergonomics effects accuracy. Pointing that barrel in a 1mm different direction could have an impact of changing your landing spot by several centimeters at 300M.

 

But ya. This is a game. Mouse and keyboard to shoot your gun.

 

“At times I’ve called it an anti-game because when I designed it I felt like I was breaking a lot of the things as a game designer you were told to you need to do. These were things like providing balance, for example, and I wanted to try something different,” he says.

 

While I'm sure the ergonomics improve your ability to get on target, handle recoil, move the weapon around, etc., the ergonomics of the weapon don't affect where the bullet goes, it just affects how I point the gun.

[Judopunch 523]

“At times I’ve called it an anti-game because when I designed it I felt like I was breaking a lot of the things as a game designer you were told to you need to do. These were things like providing balance, for example, and I wanted to try something different,” he says.

 

While I'm sure the ergonomics improve your ability to get on target, handle recoil, move the weapon around, etc., the ergonomics of the weapon don't affect where the bullet goes, it just affects how I point the gun.

And how would you account for that with a gun, in a video game. 

 

 Your context is missing from your quote, here is the next paragraph. “So I wanted to see what happened if I break the balance. What if I put the player in a situation that is essentially hopeless where every part of the world is out to get them and if they make one mistake that mistake could cost them their character’s life?“

Edited March 26, 2014 by Judopunch

[Publik 404]

And how would you account for that with a gun, in a video game. 

Bullet goes out of the barrel with a little dispersion. The gun itself moves around on the screen. Sprint around in DayZ a bit and try and line up a shot. That sway is what should make the difference.

 

Adding a new foregrip or stock might change that sway, or let you shoulder the weapon faster, or let you stab things (bayonet), or make the gun quieter (suppressor), or give you different ways to acquire a target (scopes), or reduce recoil (compensator), or remove the sway when prone (bipod). If they were to add in longer barrels and match triggers then the dispersion can be tweaked.

 

Having random parts affect random stats is gamey and doesn't belong here.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[taco86 156]

And how would you account for that with a gun, in a video game. 

1. Weapon sway

2. Recoil

3. Weight

4. Weapon "Speed", or how fast your weapon transitions from the "down" to "up" positions.  As well as how fast you can put away or take out a weapon...

 

 

These are just some basic examples of ways attachments could effect "handling" within the game w/o using excessive cone of fire mechanics...