Weapon accuracies

[DCpAradoX 16]

My stance on video game firearms is pretty straight forward: realism or GTFO. If you absolutely have to simulate an inexperienced shooter or want to make it more skill-based, just have it sway or make it recoil in a way that has to be compensated by the player. Nothing is more infuriating than aiming correctly but still missing your target because the game just decided that, "nope, not this time buddy" and lets your bullet fly in a random direction within your "aiming cone".

 

And just to be clear: damaged weapons and bullets changing directions due to correct physics are of course exceptions.

[SFRGaming 718]

Actually it is exactly a measure of effectiveness.  BEing able to pick up a weapon and shoot a person while surviving yourself is the whole point of the weapon.

 

And 100m isn't point blank.  It is almost the typical engagement range.  100m - 200m is the norm in military small arms engagements if I recall.

 

 

 

 

You can hit a man sized target prone in this too.  And if you are arguing that they should reflect it in sway, then the current system is still fine, since the magpul parts reduce dispersion and you are asking that they reduce sway, which is what you want to see as the effect of sway.

 

Really though, you accuracy realists act as though the character's irongripped retention of centering and complete lack of any parallax issues are both totally normal.  You also ignore plenty of other real issues with shooting, like flinching (a HUGE issue for civilian shooters) and trigger squeeze.

 

If you want to be realism wanks, what about requiring 20 - 50 shots to zero a new optic?  Taking out a wrench to adjust the range?

 

Give me a break.  Some body gets mad because they put the crosshair on their target and the gun still missed.  Welcome to reality internet warriors, it happens on the range and in the field everyday.  But you don't pull up a spreadsheet and vent your nerd rage when it happens in real life.  You shoot again.

You missed the entire point that I was trying to make. We currently have no factor that affects you shot other than increased weapon sway due to running and dispersion. Fully rested, your weapon sway is so little, it's hardly ever noticeable. There's currently no wind, improper breathing, proper weapon sway, flinching, trigger pulling, etc... 

 

And just so you know, me telling you I can hit a man-sized target with an AR-15 @ 300m isn;t me trying to show off. I was giving you an example showing the AR-15 is not inaccurate weapon. Do I miss the target @ 300m? Of course, I would look like a loon if I said I didn't. If you put the AR-15 into a bench-firing mechanism and had it locked to a 300m target, I could almost guarantee the rifle itself would hit 8-9 / 10 shots on the rings, but every shot would hit the paper. Now, put it into a shooter's hands, and you will have to account for other factors such as flinching, breathing, trigger pull, etc..

 

 "If you want to be realism wanks, what about requiring 20 - 50 shots to zero a new optic?  Taking out a wrench to adjust the range?"

Because that would be hyper-realism, something that drives away fanbase since it can take away from core gameplay and entertainment. Weapons having Real Life-reflective values? We NEED that as it can play a huge role in gun fights, but doesn't take away from gameplay like realistic zero'ing would. I'm all about realism, but if I had to go into a secluded area and fire off 20-50 shots just so I could utilize another optic sight, I would gladly never change out my iron sights. Now, would that system be more realistic than simply just slapping a sight oin and you're good to go? Absolutely, but the problem is it may be TOO realistic. It would take up too much time; not everyone has several hours to play this game. 

[sloasdaylight 129]

Actually it is exactly a measure of effectiveness.  BEing able to pick up a weapon and shoot a person while surviving yourself is the whole point of the weapon.

 

And 100m isn't point blank.  It is almost the typical engagement range.  100m - 200m is the norm in military small arms engagements if I recall.

 

 

 

 

You can hit a man sized target prone in this too.  And if you are arguing that they should reflect it in sway, then the current system is still fine, since the magpul parts reduce dispersion and you are asking that they reduce sway, which is what you want to see as the effect of sway.

 

Really though, you accuracy realists act as though the character's irongripped retention of centering and complete lack of any parallax issues are both totally normal.  You also ignore plenty of other real issues with shooting, like flinching (a HUGE issue for civilian shooters) and trigger squeeze.

 

If you want to be realism wanks, what about requiring 20 - 50 shots to zero a new optic?  Taking out a wrench to adjust the range?

 

Give me a break.  Some body gets mad because they put the crosshair on their target and the gun still missed.  Welcome to reality internet warriors, it happens on the range and in the field everyday.  But you don't pull up a spreadsheet and vent your nerd rage when it happens in real life.  You shoot again.

 

Uh, actually people do create spreadsheets for this, and they use the information they find within them to determine whether their weapon is acceptably accurate for the given task. Where do you think we get real-life MoA values from, you think they just pop into some dude's head? And plenty of people (read almost certainly everyone here) do shoot again, however after this game being out for as long as it has, and with as many people finding the M4 to be horrifically inaccurate in it's base state, people start to wonder about it, and so someone digs through the game files to figure out what the deal is, and we see the values listed.

[PhillyT 554]

Maybe for you, but plenty of people on here are throwing absurd rules and expectations with the apparent goal of trying to make this game "real" which is silly and impossible.

 

I wasn't taking your statement as bragging Shadow.  I own an AR15.  It is very accurate.  Both in life and in the game, you can hit a man sized target while prone at 300m or so.

 

But discussions about dispersion etc. ignore the fact that these are place holder values and that dispersion currently mimics the bad shooting habits of real people.  And even with those issues, the M4 is the best gun for under 100m engagements, which is the norm.

[chekovp 89]

Maybe for you, but plenty of people on here are throwing absurd rules and expectations with the apparent goal of trying to make this game "real" which is silly and impossible.

 

I wasn't taking your statement as bragging Shadow.  I own an AR15.  It is very accurate.  Both in life and in the game, you can hit a man sized target while prone at 300m or so.

 

But discussions about dispersion etc. ignore the fact that these are place holder values and that dispersion currently mimics the bad shooting habits of real people.  And even with those issues, the M4 is the best gun for under 100m engagements, which is the norm.

Place holder values that have already been changed? And if these values are supposed to mimic bad shooting habits, then why is the M4 the worst out of all of them?

The only reason that the M4 is the best at anything 150m or less is because it has the fastest fire rate and an awesome double 30 round mag that doesn't actually need to be reloaded between each 30 rounds.

[PhillyT 554]

The only reason the M4 is the current choice for the US infantry is the fast rate of fire and controllability (and inexpensive ammo).

 

As far as bad shooting habits, familiarity with basic rifles might explain the Mosin.  Most of the other guns aren't terrifically accurate or easy to shoot either.  Pistols in particular aren't very good for anything past 30m which is quite accurate.

[-Gews- 7443]

As far as bad shooting habits, familiarity with basic rifles might explain the Mosin.  Most of the other guns aren't terrifically accurate or easy to shoot either.  Pistols in particular aren't very good for anything past 30m which is quite accurate.

Come on.

 

Don't even try to explain the current values, they don't make any sense. If they are placeholders, then there's no need to defend them.

 

The only reason to defend the current values is for gameplay reasons, ignoring any realism. Fair enough, some people don't care if such things are truly "authentic" or not, they aren't gun nuts and only want a good game and not a simulator... but if you try to justify the current values with explanations based on "realism", real-world facts or logic, then in my opinion you either do not know the values, have not given any thought to them, or are just being disingenuous.

 

 

 

 

Does what is shown in the following picture make sense? I would say no, it makes zero sense.

 

 

What is this change in dispersion actually based on? I will guess: it is probably not based on anything at all. Someone could argue the Magpul furniture is more ergonomic but then I would point the sheer difference is absurd and that the lower gun has an optical sight.

 

 

 

Many strange things abound... simply add a bipod or compensator to a Mosin or M4A1 and a survivor can suddenly shoot hundreds of meters with no dispersion at all... survivors are more accurate with AKMs or SKS with iron sights than when using M4A1s with red dots... a beautiful, finely balanced $7000 rifle in pristine condition with excellent sights, barrel and triggers is far less accurate than any ratty old Mosin in the game (and the Blaser double rifles are very accurate).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you like dispersion to simulate inaccuracy? Okay. As long as a dispersion increase is applied to all weapons equally it makes sense. Shooting is too easy. Some people say sway and wind is the way to decrease hit percentages, others say dispersion, many say both... all methods can make sense if done properly. But, sorry, right now it is not done properly, that is, if you care about how these things relate to real life.

[Valadain 270]

I get the idea of simulating inaccuracy (I hate it, but I get what people are trying to say). My question is, why are there only suggestions to simulate a rather fringe inability to shoot straight? Why are people not suggesting realism in areas that impact other areas of game play?

 

The one-sided nature of this makes me wary that this is just a game play style preference. Social skill and strategies should come directly from the player, but coordination and gun knowledge should be filtered through some random generator. I don't care for that sort of bias.

[PhillyT 554]

Come on.

 

Don't even try to explain the current values, they don't make any sense. If they are placeholders, then there's no need to defend them.

 

And similarly, no need to post dozens of ridiculous threads about the dispersion.  But if people are going to be silly and argue about values, while ignoring many factors that could have an impact, then pointing out that the numbers are in there for a variety of reasons, balance being one and place holders being another.

[Valadain 270]

And similarly, no need to post dozens of ridiculous threads about the dispersion.  But if people are going to be silly and argue about values, while ignoring many factors that could have an impact, then pointing out that the numbers are in there for a variety of reasons, balance being one and place holders being another.

 

Balance is for MMOs and if a placeholder were desired, the default Arma values would have been just fine. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a problem that could cause many of us to lose interest in the game. 

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

So KoS is a myth because according to you people no one should be hitting anything because of how "terrible" the weapons are?  Spare me.  Learn to aim your shots.

[-Gews- 7443]

And similarly, no need to post dozens of ridiculous threads about the dispersion.  But if people are going to be silly and argue about values, while ignoring many factors that could have an impact, then pointing out that the numbers are in there for a variety of reasons, balance being one and place holders being another.

Well.

As far as bad shooting habits, familiarity with basic rifles might explain the Mosin.

I don't agree. The M4 performs very well as the sole assault weapon in the game. It is the go to weapon of bandits for a reason.

Well define unreal properties? What gun has unreal properties? And don't say the M4, because it isn't really that far off.

To answer the last question above, here are some examples of "unreal properties"...

-Mosin has zero dispersion with compensator

-M4A1 and Mosin have zero dispersion with bipod

-every M4A1 is much less accurate than every AKM

-every M4A1 is nearly 5x less accurate than every Mosin

-every M4A1 is nearly 2.5x less accurate than every SKS

-put Magpul furniture on and the above statement is reversed

-put a "CQB" stock on and things get much worse

-every Blaser is significantly less accurate than every Mosin

So I see three options here...

1. You think the "unreal properties" listed above are appropriate (current dispersion is good)

2. You think the "unreal properties" above are inappropriate (current dispersion is bad)

3. You think the "unreal properties" above are irrelevant (current dispersion is placeholder and we shouldn't care yet or ever)

But if you are thinking 1 or 3, then I don't see why you tried to explain these "unreal properties" with statements like "familiarity with basic rifles" or why you would ask "what gun has unreal properties?"

[chekovp 89]

Having the AKM and SKS more accurate than the M4 is very inaccurate. Both shoot a larger and heavier round at a lower muzzle velocity than the M4. 

 

And for people saying that the dispersion helps represent an inexperienced shooter, I and many other people have their first shooting experience with an M4 or M16. I shot targets at 300m the first time I shot it, and targets at 500m the second time I shot it. The M4 is a very easy weapon to shoot.

 

 

My assumption is that much of the dispersion is meant to balance the full auto fire.

 

But poor shots and bad players will piss and moan endlessly about how the game works against them.

How does random dispersion work against poor shots and bad players? Its random, meaning no matter what you do, you can't control it. This is put into games to help with balance so bad players as you put it, actually have a chance. Also, the M4 really shouldn't have a full auto option, since most M4s don't have full auto. But even with full auto, the dispersion still affects single fire and single shots fired on full auto.

[hotcakes 348]

Having the AKM and SKS more accurate than the M4 is very inaccurate. Both shoot a larger and heavier round at a lower muzzle velocity than the M4. 

 

And for people saying that the dispersion helps represent an inexperienced shooter, I and many other people have their first shooting experience with an M4 or M16. I shot targets at 300m the first time I shot it, and targets at 500m the second time I shot it. The M4 is a very easy weapon to shoot.

 

 

 

How does random dispersion work against poor shots and bad players? Its random, meaning no matter what you do, you can't control it. This is put into games to help with balance so bad players as you put it, actually have a chance. Also, the M4 really shouldn't have a full auto option, since most M4s don't have full auto. But even with full auto, the dispersion still affects single fire and single shots fired on full auto.

 

Wot? Most M4s were upgraded to remove the burst-fire mode and add in full auto.

[chekovp 89]

Wot? Most M4s were upgraded to remove the burst-fire mode and add in full auto.

So that is why the M16 went from semi-auto and full-auto in the 60's to its now semi-auto and burst?

[Valadain 270]

Wot? Most M4s were upgraded to remove the burst-fire mode and add in full auto.

 

I wouldn't necessarily call that an upgrade, but you are right that the gun in game is full auto. It is the M4A1 variant, not the stock M4 which was burst fire.

[PhillyT 554]

So I see three options here...

1. You think the "unreal properties" listed above are appropriate (current dispersion is good)

2. You think the "unreal properties" above are inappropriate (current dispersion is bad)

3. You think the "unreal properties" above are irrelevant (current dispersion is placeholder and we shouldn't care yet or ever)

But if you are thinking 1 or 3, then I don't see why you tried to explain these "unreal properties" with statements like "familiarity with basic rifles" or why you would ask "what gun has unreal properties?"

 

 

Personally, I think the current values are fine.  Most people do not, so in order to better assist them through the troubled state they are in, I attempted to point out that removing dispersion doesn't equate to real, since the dispersion could be explained as a means of reducing firearm effectiveness in a manner mimicking civilians.

 

I will be perfectly honest here and say that I find those crying about dispersion to be both tiring and weak.  I have killed many people with every gun other than the SKS (despite trying repeatedly - can't get comfortable with it) and the CZ pistol (well the .22's either, but they aren't really guns).

 

Anyone who claps on about the MOA on the M4 is being ridiculous.  None of the dispersion currently in the game is significant enough to impact  a good player in an environment they have established.  Far worse things are at work, latency being the most egregious, that impact the ability of one player to kill another.

[hotcakes 348]

So that is why the M16 went from semi-auto and full-auto in the 60's to its now semi-auto and burst?

 

u wot m8

 

 

I wouldn't necessarily call that an upgrade, but you are right that the gun in game is full auto. It is the M4A1 variant, not the stock M4 which was burst fire.

 

 

That was just part of the changes. The guns were also upgraded in some other way I can't remember.

Edited May 28, 2014 by hotcakes

[Valadain 270]

u wot m8

 

 

 

 

That was just part of the changes. The guns were also upgraded in some other way I can't remember.

 

They altered some of the specs for the better, but the two questionable things they did was make it full auto and change it from a direct impingement system to a piston. Both questionable moves. The full auto is favored by special forces I think, but to my understanding, the general forces like the burst fire. It limits ammo waste.

[chekovp 89]

u wot m8

 

 

 

 

That was just part of the changes. The guns were also upgraded in some other way I can't remember.

The M4's for the US Army will eventually be full auto, have a free floating rail system and the bottoms of the barrels will be thicker. The key word being will. And by will, I mean that it is projected to happen at the end of 2017, so it might never happen. Just like all the replacements for the M4 that we were supposed to get and never did.

As of now, M4s that are full auto are used by some SOCOM units and a very few FORSCOM units. Semi/burst M4s are much more common in the US military.

[gibonez 3633]

I just think the whole "add plastic bits to magically decrease dispersion" mechanic is counterintuitive, unrealistic bullshit.

Pretty much.

[a_ruttle 199]

ACE style ballistics would bring a lot to DayZ, Hitting a man sized target at 800 meters with a Mosin isn't something your average survivor should be able to do easily. Making sniping more difficult/rewarding than a pretty much unmissable shot on some bloke as he stops to loot an ATC tower. It would also encourage the use of suppressive fire more, as DayZ is one of few games in which this works [without having to desaturate your screen or cause increased weapon sway or camera shake like some shooters] given the penalties involved in dying.

 

Not to mention the magic R word, Realism.

Edited May 30, 2014 by a_ruttle

[nexventor 429]

Dispersion is code for lazy programming. /story

[-Gews- 7443]

Personally, I think the current values are fine.

If you think any random value from 0-50 MOA is fine, all the more power to you... me, I'm with those who think a pristine M4A1 should be more accurate than a ruined AKM. There is such a thing as having standards.

[bauertschi 254]

Dispersion is code for lazy programming. /story

mmmmmm no.