CQB buttstock?

[hiniberus 122]

Hey guys,

 

Quick question, what's the point of the M4 CQB buttstock? Or better yet, why is it programmed so that the parts affect where the bullet goes? If you have a crappy buttstock wouldn't that affect the aim, rather than the bullet direction? I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to guns but I do have some understanding of them. 

 

I understand that there have been numerous topics on how do part quality affect the bullet, though I'm curious as to why the CQB buttstock was even implemented to a point. 

 

Also before anyone asks or jumps to a conclusion, this isn't a "Ugh the m4 has such terrible accuracy plz fix" I just don't bother with it (unless I find pristine MP parts first) and use the other guns 'till then so it's not one of those topics. I'm just curious why they'd implement an attachment in the game that has more drawbacks than benefits, at least so it seems to me. 

[kichilron 8550]

 If you have a crappy buttstock wouldn't that affect the aim, rather than the bullet direction?

 

 

Isn't that ultimately the same thing?

[hiniberus 122]

Isn't that ultimately the same thing?

 

 

Well, I should have worded it better I suppose. What I mean is if you aim straight but the bullet goes 5 inches to the left, I'd have reason to believe that it's more of an issue with the internals of the gun it's self, rather than something like the buttstock I'd guess.

[preacherlr 614]

Well, I should have worded it better I suppose. What I mean is if you aim straight but the bullet goes 5 inches to the left, I'd have reason to believe that it's more of an issue with the internals of the gun it's self, rather than something like the buttstock I'd guess.

Realistically, Yeah. Harder to get that point across in a video game though.

[hiniberus 122]

Realistically, Yeah. Harder to get that point across in a video game though.

 

Granted and given the development stage it's at, it's okay as a 'temporary' thing. I just hope on other modular guns that they don't implement the same though :x I'd rather have it being somewhat harder to aim with (down the sights) rather than have the gun almost purely straight but the bullets go at angles they probably shouldn't (at least not without messing up the barrel :B ) as that would personally, make a lot more sense to me. What I'd guess is like

 

CQB : More shake down the sights but shorter gun length, swifter movement, more recoil per shot

OE: 50/50, less shake than CQB and less recoil but not as swift. Less recoil per shot

MP: Least shake/sway while aiming down the sights, least recoil per shot but slowest movement/possible gun length increase? 

 

I don't know but this plan would sound a lot better than the shot going 5"+ to the side of where you actually aimed. That sounds more like a problem within the barrel/gas system rather than external parts.

[The_Monk 320]

Will apparently effect how quickly you can turn while holding it compared to other stocks. There are stats for it somewhere, shows it giving +1 dexterity.

[hiniberus 122]

Will apparently effect how quickly you can turn while holding it compared to other stocks. There are stats for it somewhere, shows it giving +1 dexterity.

 

Yeah I remember reading up on that. While it's a unique property to the attachment, it's just silly how much it reduces the accuracy in turn though. That's why I'm talking more about the weapon sway rather than the bullet placement in contrast to the aim.

[The_Monk 320]

Yeah I remember reading up on that. While it's a unique property to the attachment, it's just silly how much it reduces the accuracy in turn though. That's why I'm talking more about the weapon sway rather than the bullet placement in contrast to the aim.

 

This is why I roll the M4 down a hill the moment I find any other gun. Even with all the pretty bits bolted to it, it is about as deadly as yelling profanity at your opponent at mid to long range.

[enforcer1975 1111]

I understand that there have been numerous topics on how do part quality affect the bullet, though I'm curious as to why the CQB buttstock was even implemented to a point. 

 

 

Isn't that ultimately the same thing?

 

Actually yes...but would a buttstock really increase accuracy to that extent? This game seems to be going the CoD way attachment wise...I don't even understand what a CQB stock is supposed to be, it can't be shorter than the original stock, it may be more comfortabe to use but fighting isn't comfortable unless you sit in an armchair in front of a monitor playing a videogame. A CQB buttstock won't influence the accuracy of short and long distance shots in any way like a lose or rattling one would but you could still tighten up the screws on those, a broken bent stocktube won't let the gun cycle.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Enforcer

[kichilron 8550]

I don't even understand what a CQB stock is supposed to be, it can't be shorter than the original stock

 

 

CQB stocks are supposed to be significantly shorter, meaning you can actually turn around in a hallway.

Edited April 7, 2014 by kichilron

[Jex 1104]

This is why I roll the M4 down a hill the moment I find any other gun. Even with all the pretty bits bolted to it, it is about as deadly as yelling profanity at your opponent at mid to long range.

 

I found with a bipod, at 300m it hit exactly where I put the 2 bullets I fired. Hardly a rigorous test I know. The SKS at about 200m mayeb less I couldn't hit a zed with 20 shots and I've yet to try the mosin. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by Jexter

[hiniberus 122]

This is why I roll the M4 down a hill the moment I find any other gun. Even with all the pretty bits bolted to it, it is about as deadly as yelling profanity at your opponent at mid to long range.

 

Eh, as I've said before. If I find a pristine MP set + ACOG I'd take it up over the SKS but 'till then, I'll keep me my trusty gun.

 

Actually yes...but would a buttstock really increase accuracy to that extent? This game seems to be going the CoD way attachment wise...I don't even understand what a CQB stock is supposed to be, it can't be shorter than the original stock, it may be more comfortabe to use but fighting isn't comfortable unless you sit in an armchair in front of a monitor playing a videogame. A CQB buttstock won't influence the accuracy of short and long distance shots in any way like a lose or rattling one would but you could still tighten up the screws on those, a broken bent stocktube won't let the gun cycle.

 

I don't think the game is going COD in terms of attachments. Albeit, two RDS' is a bit silly but it's still nice, long as they don't add more parts for the M4, I'm good. Back to the main topic, Kichilron answered that as quoted below. Though a ruined buttstock wouldn't be usable but the stocktube it's self is part of the gun, no? If so, then it's more of the gun's quality that would matter, rather than the stock it's self. 

 

CQB stocks are supposed to be significantly shorter, meaning you can actually turn around in a hallway.

 

 

I found with a bipod, at 300m it hit exactly where I put the 2 bullets I fired. Hardly a rigorous test I know. The SKS at about 200m mayeb less I couldn't hit a zed with 20 shots and I've yet to try the mosin. 

The SKS is intended for short/mid range combat of 25-150~200 meters range with PU scope attached. The Bipod obviously gave the M4 a far higher accuracy rating (esp on semi-auto mode) So it's quite the test for the SKS at that range to be fair. 

[randomspawn 215]

Eh, as I've said before. If I find a pristine MP set + ACOG I'd take it up over the SKS but 'till then, I'll keep me my trusty gun.

 

Just curious why you care about 'pristine'? All the data we have says that the parts condition has ZERO effect on it's accuracy. A badly damaged LRS is the same as a pristine one. On a PU scope, the only bad thing about the badly damaged is the cracked lens, but that doesn't change the accuracy. Same for MP parts, no change. I guess it might have an impact later in the game, but for now, it's business as usual no matter the condition.

[Knifeguy 17]

Just curious why you care about 'pristine'? All the data we have says that the parts condition has ZERO effect on it's accuracy. A badly damaged LRS is the same as a pristine one. On a PU scope, the only bad thing about the badly damaged is the cracked lens, but that doesn't change the accuracy. Same for MP parts, no change. I guess it might have an impact later in the game, but for now, it's business as usual no matter the condition.

A badly damaged ACOG scope is like looking through a pair of glasses that was thrown down on concrete, jumped up and down on, and then dragged around by a car for 500 miles.  The only scope that doesn't get affected by status is the Long range scope.

[The_Monk 320]

I can get a clean kill prone with mosin + bipod at 800+ metres.

 

SKS kneeling, body shot fairly easily at 3-400m

 

M4 kneeling, pristine magpul everything, pristine acog. ~200m can't hit anywhere near where I am aiming unless prone with bipod.

 

I have better luck with a blaze or a sporter than an M4.

[Katana67 2907]

Yeah, having weapon furniture dictate accuracy is a bad idea. Never mind that noticeable "random spread" is a bad idea to begin with.

 

Needs to be removed, or at least tweaked. I have no issue with certain stocks allowing the player to shoulder his/her weapon faster, or having certain stocks decrease ambient sway (perhaps a PRS stock whilst kneeling/prone). But having them artificially dictate down-range dispersion doesn't make much sense to me.

 

With the addition of wind, and the already-present gravity, we've already got enough factors to compensate for when shooting. Adding an arbitrary and uncounterable "spread" to weapons is what ruined BF's shooting mechanic for me.

[taco86 156]

What I find amusing is that the Troy CQB stock that is in game is actually by far the heaviest of the current 3.  The stock m4 one is in the 200g range, magpul CTR around 250, and the Troy "Battle Axe" CQB "light weight" is over 450g...  Oh yeah, Troy Battle Axe is also a POS and is only mildly more durable than the stock m4, and quite a bit less durable than the magpul CTR...

 

So why is the heaviest of the stocks somehow the most wieldy?

Edited April 7, 2014 by taco86

[hiniberus 122]

Just curious why you care about 'pristine'? All the data we have says that the parts condition has ZERO effect on it's accuracy. A badly damaged LRS is the same as a pristine one. On a PU scope, the only bad thing about the badly damaged is the cracked lens, but that doesn't change the accuracy. Same for MP parts, no change. I guess it might have an impact later in the game, but for now, it's business as usual no matter the condition.

 

 

I am pretty sure that I read that part quality factors in the accuracy somewhere before...it was a bit ago so I could be having fuzzy memory. 

 

With regards to the LRS, they just don't have the damaged texture out for it yet. Probably just a sign of sympathy as to how darn rare it is. A badly damaged PU scope is like shoving your retinas in an elephant's ass. You may see something but it sure is shit (da-dun-tsh)

 

Yeah, having weapon furniture dictate accuracy is a bad idea. Never mind that noticeable "random spread" is a bad idea to begin with.

 

Needs to be removed, or at least tweaked. I have no issue with certain stocks allowing the player to shoulder his/her weapon faster, or having certain stocks decrease ambient sway (perhaps a PRS stock whilst kneeling/prone). But having them artificially dictate down-range dispersion doesn't make much sense to me.

 

With the addition of wind, and the already-present gravity, we've already got enough factors to compensate for when shooting. Adding an arbitrary and uncounterable "spread" to weapons is what ruined BF's shooting mechanic for me.

 

^Pretty much this 100% take my can

[Judopunch 523]

CQB allows you to shoulder the weapon to aim much faster than the other two buttstocks. The idea is that the buttstock is in the collapsed position. In the collapsed position it would be difficult to shoulder if it were even possible, because the weapon is now shorter it takes less movement to accidentally knock your aim off. An extreme example is why pistols are much less accurate than rifles, it takes much less movement to completely change the direction the muzzle is pointing. 

[TheWalrusNet 6]

The increased dispersion of the CQB buttstock might actually help in a Close-Quarters fight, probably removes the need to aim at all. Though don't quote me on this, if im using an M4 i never pick up the CQB stocks so I wouldn't know

[darth_vaizard 42]

Isn't that ultimately the same thing?

It's frustrating when you aim the sight properly and still miss.  I think what he meant is that the gun itself should have more sway with crappy parts so it's more inaccurate in THAT sense.

[Windex 13]

 If you have a crappy buttstock wouldn't that affect the aim, rather than the bullet direction? I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to guns but I do have some understanding of them. 

 

 

You can just take the buttstock off entirely and still shoot just fine.   This whole thing about weapons attachments on the M4 affecting accuracy is idiotic.   The only thing that would really make any difference is adding a free-float handguard, and even that would be minor in game terms.

 

Most military M4/M16's clatter and wobble because the upper half doesn't fit firmly on the lower half, and you can still hit man sized targets at 500m with irons.   Changing the stock means nothing.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Windex

[hiniberus 122]

It's frustrating when you aim the sight properly and still miss.  I think what he meant is that the gun itself should have more sway with crappy parts so it's more inaccurate in THAT sense.

 

^Pretty much this