Weapon accuracies

[bauertschi 254]

Then surely he must know how shitty the weapons and gunplay is in stand alone due to the dumb accessory gameplay mechanic and the inherent dispersion of the weapons ?

 

First, those numbers can still be changed later on when balancing is worked on. And that is already the biggest problem - the altar of gameplay and balancing, where reality goes through the window so gamers can have their fun. Things like the overpowered attachment things are probably added so ppl can spend more time looking for stuff and do a dance, when they actually find an MP handguard.

 

I could also ask, why a PU can be attached to a Mosin, look at this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mosin_Nagant_series_of_rifles.jpg

Do you see the difference between the Mosin with the PU and the others? When manifactured, the better Mosins were taken away and modified to allow a PU to be mounted. The thing (can't find the englisch word) that is used to reload would not completely open on the standard Mosin, if a PU was mounted. So why do we not have regular Mosins ingame and one out of 10 is a sniper Mosin that allows a PU?

 

I don't know what we will get in the end, but I would hazzard a guess that gameplay and balancing will play a bigger role in figures like dispersion than reality.

Edited May 27, 2014 by bautschi

[bauertschi 254]

I had a very tight grouping @ 100m with iron sights. So tight that it was hard to tell how many bullets hit my targets successfully. That being said, no one is consistently "keyhole-ing" shots with iron sights at that range. I guess it was mostly hyperbole.

 

That I do believe. But getting the same with an ACOG @300m? At that point it's simply not only about aiming any more. Dispersion (however it may be calculated) is reality there. With iron sights it actually starts to really suck. Btw, I can only talk about the G3 with 7.62 Nato ammo here with personal experience, but according to "The Practial Range of Small Arms" the G3 should have less dispersion than an M16 at 300m.

Edited May 27, 2014 by bautschi

[scriptfactory 620]

That I do believe. But getting the same with an ACOG @300m? At that point it's simply not only about aiming any more. Dispersion (however it may be calculated) is reality there. With iron sights it actually starts to really suck. Btw, I can only talk about the G3 with 7.62 Nato ammo here with personal experience, but according to "The Practial Range of Small Arms" the G3 should have less dispersion than an M16 at 300m.

 

I consistently qualified "Expert" for my weapon qualifications (M9, M4/M16A4). I also got my gold "German marksmanship badge". I missed very few shots on ranges. I could not consistently get an extremely tight grouping @ 300m with an ACOG. Very few people can do that. Almost no one. I agree with your assessment, sir.

[bauertschi 254]

I consistently qualified "Expert" for my weapon qualifications (M9, M4/M16A4). I also got my gold "German marksmanship badge". I missed very few shots on ranges. I could not consistently get an extremely tight grouping @ 300m with an ACOG. Very few people can do that. Almost no one. I agree with your assessment, sir.

 

Now I'm blushing, there is no reason to call me sir, sir.

[PhillyT 554]

Get a room you faceless rebels!

 

:lol:

[Dennus (DayZ) 123]

Sorry bud, but I don't play games without familiarizing myself with the game mechanics.

Your logic is sound.

Live long... and prosper!

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Lol, min/maxing in a shooter.  Gimme the numbers so I can findz the bestest lootz

[Valadain 270]

Lol, min/maxing in a shooter.  Gimme the numbers so I can findz the bestest lootz

 

Well, if the numbers aren't going to be even close to real life, even relative to the respective guns, then yes, you don't want to find out that the bolt action .308 you just picked up only fires at 90 degree angles from the shooter, while playing.

 

Balancing is a dirty word. It should be used only in conjunction with the weapons of choice. Heck, I'd even be fine with them just making up guns. But to put in real guns with unreal properties... It pretty well ruins the immersion for anyone who knows anything about guns.

[PhillyT 554]

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

[Pandema 352]

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

 

I'd assume he means the accuracy and the way that putting different stocks/handguards on the M4 seems to affect its dispersion instead of handling.

[PhillyT 554]

Modifying dispersion for handguards and the like is silly, but if they are using dispersion to reflect the poor handling abilities of civilians, the M4 is fine.  It is still the best gun in the game for exchanges less than 150m.

[Valadain 270]

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

 

It is very far off, in absolute terms or relative terms. Partially because the other guns are far off in relative terms.

[PhillyT 554]

It is very far off, in absolute terms or relative terms. Partially because the other guns are far off in relative terms.

 

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.

[Valadain 270]

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.

 

Because it is fully automatic or they have all of the attachments, which brings it closer to in-line. But having fired a both a Mosin and m4 platform (AR), there really is no comparison. The M4 is just flat more accurate. I was skeptical as I do like the Mosin, but after a few debates on here, I decided to take it to the real world to see. No contest, even with a pristine Mosin (as pristine as they get).

[PhillyT 554]

I generally agree, though there are significant differences in long range fire.  The M4 is a fantastic gun and effectively represents the weapon in the game.  The M4 is good for what it is, though the fact that .308 still sees use in the US military as they seek an M4 replacement should show that it isn't the katana that its lover's think.

[Valadain 270]

I generally agree, though there are significant differences in long range fire.  The M4 is a fantastic gun and effectively represents the weapon in the game.  The M4 is good for what it is, though the fact that .308 still sees use in the US military as they seek an M4 replacement should show that it isn't the katana that its lover's think.

 

You are right when talking about other modern 7.62 rifles in use. The Mosin, however, doesn't fall into that category.

[PhillyT 554]

I thought so to, but there are some Mosin that are extremely accurate and have succeeded in extremely long ranged shots.

 

Similarly, leave an M4 laying around the countryside for a few weeks exposed to the elements and see how good its desperation is. 

[gibonez 3633]

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

 

A real life m4 is sub 2 moa 2 inch groups at 100yards.

 

In game it is 40 moa 40 inch groups at 100 yards.

 

That is pretty far off.

 

 

 

I thought so to, but there are some Mosin that are extremely accurate and have succeeded in extremely long ranged shots.

 

Similarly, leave an M4 laying around the countryside for a few weeks exposed to the elements and see how good its desperation is. 

 

 

Yet these guns arent found in the country side they are found inside dry, homes or in military barracks.

 

Even if they were found in the field weapons simply do not degrade to the point where they are less accurate than 17th century muskets.

Edited May 28, 2014 by gibonez

[PhillyT 554]

The M4 is far more accurate than that.  When you can pick up an M4 without a single pristine part and kill a pair of bandits 100m away on a single STANAG mag, there is no need to complain.

[bauertschi 254]

The M4 is far more accurate than that.  When you can pick up an M4 without a single pristine part and kill a pair of bandits 100m away on a single STANAG mag, there is no need to complain.

 

Actually I don't think attachment conditions are relevant currently, only what attachments you have. Some dude on youtube tested the m4 with the same attachments in different conditions and the results were always the same.

Edited May 28, 2014 by bautschi

[SFRGaming 718]

if they are using dispersion to reflect the poor handling abilities of civilians, the M4 is fine.  It is still the best gun in the game for exchanges less than 150m.

That would be a terrible way of executing it. Currently, the survivors hold the iron sights PERFECTLY aligned. Why should the M4A1's dispersion be off? My suggestion is to give the weapons realistic sway (kind of like Arma 3), and then give the weapons their correct RL-reflective values.

 

I have no military training, yet with a stock AR-15, I can hit 300m targets with irons prone. Dispersion should reflect off of weapon condition and the type of barrel, bullet size, etc.. The Magpul parts should affect weapon sway, weight, ergonomics, etc..

Edited May 28, 2014 by Shadow134

[gibonez 3633]

The M4 is far more accurate than that.  When you can pick up an M4 without a single pristine part and kill a pair of bandits 100m away on a single STANAG mag, there is no need to complain.

 

The numbers are in the games files.

 

A stock pristine m4 with the basic mil spec parts is 40 moa.

 

Being able to kill a pair of bandits in what is point blank range of 100m is no measure of how effective the weapon is.

[PhillyT 554]

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.

 

 

 

I have no military training, yet with a stock AR-15, I can hit 300m targets with irons prone. Dispersion should reflect off of weapon condition and the type of barrel, bullet size, etc.. The Magpul parts should affect weapon sway, weight, ergonomics, etc..

 

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.

[taco86 156]

I'm going to run some potential pristine/badly damaged rifle moa numbers by people, to see what they think...  Please add, or correct if you disagree...

 

sks 10/40 moa

m4a1 6/24 moa

akm 12/48 moa

mosin 9130 8/32 moa

b95/97 4/16 moa

10/22 8/32 moa

[rickenbacker 190]

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