The 'war on snipers'

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

Ahahaha nope,

 

the longer it takes to get to a specific level the more risk/reward ist in the balance.

Also I will enjoy sending some to respawn knowing he spent hours to acquire his gear instead of duping it.

 

 

What "level"? There is no experience points in DayZ.

 

What were you laughing at? You didn't even reference the points I made.

 

I think the appropriate response to my post if it does not apply to you is, "I wouldn't care how long it took me to gear up, I would still want to play a murdering sniper because I would enjoy the effort of finding my gear as well and do not require instant gratification to enjoy something."

 

Instead, you made yourself sound like a griefer.

 

Good luck with that!

[Evil Minion 943]

Can we maybe not forget that this new, very much overdone weapon sway does not only affect all you wannabe snipers? Pick up an AK, aim down the sights and then tell me that's realistic/authentic.

DayZ sway being authentic is actually depending on the weapons: For handguns its probably just about right or even a little to weak. For an AK without any attachments there should be way more sway than we have right now. But for a typical rifle with buttstock its a little too much let alone a rifle with bipod in use. Reason: Attachments do not affect sway - what they should - but dispersion instead - what they shouldn't. And all guns have the same amount of sway right now.

 

In the end sway might be a little more than you would get in real life (you should not underestimate the level of sway you do get in real life though) to make up for other aspects you cannot simulate ingame - because players can adjust to it but they can't adjust to their character randomly tilting the weapon for example.

 

Sway might also start at a lower level but increase over time as your arms tire from holding up the weapon. This increase should happen at different rates: moderate (standing), slow (crouching), very slow (prone) and not at all (bipod in prone position). The amount of sway should depend on the weapon weight so submachine guns and hunting rifles would have less sway than assault or automatic sniper rifles which in turn would have less sway than anti-materiel rifles and machine guns. Buttstocks should significantly decrease sway which means handguns - despite being relatively lightweight - should have quite some sway. Handguards might also reduce sway but to a lesser extend. This also opens up some tradeoff options where one attachment is better at reducing sway/fatigue while another is better at reducing recoil/muzzle rise and a third one offers better dexterity/mobility. So for example using a drum magazine would greatly increase your sway and fatigue (can be negated by using a bipod) but offer more firepower in return.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Evil Minion

[flimsypremise 94]

"Civilian" does not have to mean "has no idea how to fire a gun". In fact gun some enthusiasts might be better a shooting things than many soldiers. Hunters in particular are practically snipers that shoot other animals instead of their own kind. Now I don't want to explain away improbable gun skills by saying "each survivor was an expert hunter that spent his spare time practising at the shotting range" but for the sake of gameplay its probably better not to apply things like "faulty stance", "bad grip" etc. to your character. Rather shift the skill to the player by adding things like sway, wind, bullet drop, bullet speed, fatigue for holding and so on.

 

Now back to dispersion: This table has some values that may or may not be the correct ingame dispersion numbers. Now I don't know exactly which unit is used but radian seems reasonable. If its indeed radian - most rifles got too much:

• 0.006 rad correspond with ~75m effective range (seems reasonable for handguns)
• 0.003 rad correspond with ~150m effective range (also reasonable for the weapons in question)
• 0.002 rad correspond with ~220m effective range (Longhorn)
• 0.0015 rad correspond with ~300m effective range (the right amount for the AKM - but not enough for the other weapons)
• 0.001 rad correspond with ~440m effective range (which means the Mosin is about half as accurate as it should be)

So while everyone is crying about sway the true issue is actually the current dispersion (given the values are correct and actually radians).

 

 

The Moisin is not a particularly accurate rifle.

[sloasdaylight 129]

The Moisin is not a particularly accurate rifle.

This. Everyone is acting like the Mosin is the Russian equivalent of the M24, L96, or Cheytac; it's not. It was a mass produced battle rifle designed to be used at medium range over 100 years ago. The weapons in game are (very) old military surplus weapons that may or may not have been kept up well in the interim. To expect them all to hit targets accurately at 800m just because the scope can be zero'd at that distance doesn't make sense.

 

And before anyone makes the comment that the iron sights can be zero'd to XYZ distance; yes, they can. That doesn't mean the gun can reliably hit anything at that distance, or that the soldiers would ever shoot at something that far away. This is a picture of a competitive shooter's target shooting at a 1000m target (img src:http://www.accurateshooter.com/competition/1000-yard-benchrest-guide/):

Notice the 5.3" grouping, and this is with a match grade rifle and ammo firing from a bench rest. You're not going to be hitting anything even remotely like this with an old ass military surplus rifle.

[gibonez 3633]

This. Everyone is acting like the Mosin is the Russian equivalent of the M24, L96, or Cheytac; it's not. It was a mass produced battle rifle designed to be used at medium range over 100 years ago.

 

But but enemy at the gates.

[Evil Minion 943]

More like data from bench shooters - because I only talked dispersion up there (the error to expect when shooting perfectly at perfect conditions). M24 would be similar to or even better than the value given for the SVD.

 

But maybe using values of "Sniper Mosins" is a little optimistic (even though the model is one) - what is the accuracy to expect from an average Mosin today?

[sloasdaylight 129]

But but enemy at the gates.

Oy, don't even get me started on that movie.

 

HERP DERP WE'RE THE BEST SNIPERS GERMANY AND RUSSIA HAVE TO OFFER AND I'M GONNA KILL YOU STANDING OUT IN THE OPEN IN A FUCKING OTHERWISE DESERTED TRAIN YARD THAT WAS THE SOURCE OF CONSTANT FIGHTING BETWEEN GERMANY AND RUSSIA BECAUSE YOU KILLED MY FRIEND WHO SACRIFICED HIMSELF FOR ME SO I COULD LOVE SOME LOVE INTEREST THAT GOT SHOE HORNED INTO THE STORY SO RACHEL WEISZ COULD HAVE A PART IN THIS MOVIE BECAUSE IT'S HOLLYWOOD HERP DERP AND THERE'S ALWAYS GOT TO BE A LOVE INTEREST IN IT HERP DERP!

 

That fucking movie...

[Trizzo 632]

This. Everyone To expect them all to hit targets accurately at 800m just because the scope can be zero'd at that distance doesn't make sense.

Oh man...nobody has even talked about the quality of optic as a factor in this long discussion! Choice of glass is far more important in achieving consistent accuracy. A cruddy fixed power 3.5 simply doesn't cut the mustard for consistency and shots without reference. Changing

But but enemy at the gates.

The reverence for a push feed, two locking lug clumper, that had to have its bolt turned turned after production to avoid silhouetting a shooter and improve basic ergonomics. Not to mention the gravel trigger, sticky action... common sense is entirely lost when talking about 'sniping'. So many crazy claims and assertions have had to go unaddressed...there are just so many Edited September 10, 2014 by Trizzo

[Bororm 1156]

Just had a sniper fight against about 3 other guys from 400-600m (started at 400m, then I moved back to 600m).  Hit each of them multiple times, none of them died, for the most part they stayed in the fight too.  Server ended up restarting.

 

Just sorta frustrating to have to hit people 3+ times, when it's so easy to get into cover.  I even broke a couple of their legs but they were able to just crawl away.  It may be too easy to make splints imo, perhaps that limping animation should finally be implemented, so if you have used a splint you're forced to limp for a bit before it's fully healed.

 

It's sorta a rough deal, I don't want to drop people super easy or anything, there's just some sort of gap that needs to be filled between taking 2-3 shots.  2 almost seems too few, but 3 is too many.  I think it comes down to there needing to be a better status effect or something, they should really feel those first 1-2 shots and even if they don't die it should knock them out of the fight, not have people just running off and bandaging and being ok.

 

 

This isn't restricted to sniping, damage in general is too inconsistent.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Bororm

[agouti 105]

If you hit someone in the upper chest, spine, brainstem, or certain parts of the neck, they should die. Also the upper leg. You have the aorta, the carotid, the jugular, the hepatic portal, the femoral in your legs, the heart, and your lungs can deflate. Killing people with a rifle should be much much easier. The majority of shots with a full power rifle cartridge should be lethal. A gut shot can take hours to bleed out depending on if the bullet fragmented properly, hit bone, etc.

 

 

Check this out.

 

[NOLA (DayZ) 17]

Easy way to fix sniping:

 

reduce sway/dispersion

add wind

[hellcat420 212]

But but enemy at the gates.

ya because movies are always 100% true and accurate. next people will be claiming that abraham lincoln vampire hunter was based on a true story.

[gibonez 3633]

Easy way to fix sniping:

 

reduce sway/dispersion

add wind

 

Wind alone wont solve anything.

 

 

It needs at the very least the removal of 100m elevation adjustments replaced with angular elevation adjustments + transonic bullet dispersion simulation.

[NOLA (DayZ) 17]

Wind alone wont solve anything.

 

 

It needs at the very least the removal of 100m elevation adjustments replaced with angular elevation adjustments + transonic bullet dispersion simulation.

 

I agree on simulating the transonic region, but pretty much that and wind would double how difficult sniping currently is, while also making it much more skill based than just adding in ridiculous sway.

 

As for changing the zeroing system, I think it's current implementation is fine.

[gibonez 3633]

I agree on simulating the transonic region, but pretty much that and wind would double how difficult sniping currently is, while also making it much more skill based than just adding in ridiculous sway.

 

As for changing the zeroing system, I think it's current implementation is fine.

 

Simulating the transonic dispersion would not really make it difficult to snipe it would just more realistically limit the guns in the game to their real life effective ranges.

 

I suppose they could simulate this by somehow having the bullets dispersion increase dramatically once the round goes transonic if the particular round is known to be really unstable when going transonic.

 

Some rounds are built to be very stable once they go transonic and thus their dispersion is not really a factor when they slow down.

 

As for the elevation system  my main problem with the current implementation is that the player is stuck to whatever predetermined variables the devs have decided on for a particular weapon and caliber.

 

 

With angular elevation adjustments not only would the player have more control and be able to dial in precise adjustments, the differences between rifle calibers would be very apparent.

I would also imagine the devs workload would be far easier with such a system as they would not have to manually adjust the distances for each weapon and instead the scopes max elevation adjustment would do all the work.

 

The biggest and most important bonus of such as system however would be the raised skill cap that would be required. no longer would a 12 year old pick up a scoped weapon and be able to hit people at 1000m with ease. It would make sniping hard , challenging but above all fun.

[q.S Sachiel 470]

wouldn't angular system just allow you to better 'zero' your weapon, and involve a small amount of trig?  I'd figure this would possibly make it harder as if you're at a strange integer like 767, you adjust your angle value to whatever and then you've got a small fraction 'left over' based on the restriction of the angle anyway (unless they allow minutes/seconds, which is cumbersome and i'm not sure if rifles even incorporate this).  That said, at intermediate to 'long' ranges this remainder should be inconsequential unless the target is really small ie: concealed/obscured or providing low profile. 

 

Just set to 800, aim [800-(~770)]=30=3/10 fractions of the bar below target (or relevant distance optic to magnification setting) and fire. Angular dialling would reduce the error in estimation of distance (on scope) as you could set estimated range to centre of scope and not guess the fraction optic distance, but would keep the mathematical remainder (3m in empirical estimation here) and may even expand the error on certain angles that don't marry well to the range.  Though I think I get what you're saying, as it would require the player to have a better understanding of their weapon's ballistic trajectory when incorporating angle (as a larger angle should be required for a greater drop).

Current system seems intuitive enough.

 

TBH i'm fine with the 100m increments too.  Gradations or distance allow you to empirically estimate your drop and what not, and personally I find it easier to just dial in and adjust angle manually (with mouse). 

But then, i'm the guy who can make trick shots in pool but can't shoot a straight ball, can use rifles that have severe drop over range in FPS but can't shoot the HPS flat shooters...

Each their own i suppose.

 

Could you elaborate on how the angular system you propose may assist devs?  I would have thought the 'slap in a 100' increment would be easier for the most part and then the balance figures could be arbitrarily assigned to the rifle/weapon without even thinking about use with optics. :S

Edited September 11, 2014 by q.S Sachiel

[Rauchsauger 94]

What "level"? There is no experience points in DayZ.

 

What were you laughing at? You didn't even reference the points I made.

 

I think the appropriate response to my post if it does not apply to you is, "I wouldn't care how long it took me to gear up, I would still want to play a murdering sniper because I would enjoy the effort of finding my gear as well and do not require instant gratification to enjoy something."

 

Instead, you made yourself sound like a griefer.

 

Good luck with that!

 

That exactly the point - the word level can be used to state a certain point in time/achievement it must not necessarily mean leveling like in MMORPG games.

The more I loot and plunder the more I have to lose. Killing another player to get his stuff gets more and more exciting up to the point when you have nothing more gain so its better to die and start over.

The longer it takes to achieve said state the more fun is to be had until it is better to start over.

 

Also it is way more gratifying to kill someone that you know had his char alive for a long time and was protective of it - because you best them.

If that is griefing to you - yes I am a griefer then...

 

On topic:

If they ever make sniping more difficult by any means that require training to master it - everybody will be my target (and not only mine) until I feel like I have mastered the new mechanics.

(So in a way that makes the game bad for other players because they are just live targets while snipers adjust)

[Bororm 1156]

Fresh spawns make the best target practice, for sure.

[TyrDaishi 36]

Before the actual shooting gets harder to manage it would be only fair in my opinion to give a sniper better means to hide then. In a fixed map with fixed terrain and hundreds of people who memorized the map it is very difficult for a sniper after some time to stay hidden. So adding better features to hide should be a given. That includes: not being able to see charactermodels in the distance so easy because no grass gets rendered. LRWs with functioning silencers. Maybe the function to cut down gras with a sickle. Scopes that have proper distance measuring like mildots. maybe ghilliesuits. Proper camo for the rifles. This should include switching the gras for the current terrain. Mods for ArmA III are existing that adress problems like that already, so it can be done. After those changes the long range shooting can be adjusted to be as hard as can be.

[q.S Sachiel 470]

yeah Arma3 has the helpful 'mechanic' of players 'sinking into the terrain' over longer distances.  The most you see is their head and feet and it really obscures them at distance.

[Rauchsauger 94]

yeah Arma3 has the helpful 'mechanic' of players 'sinking into the terrain' over longer distances.  The most you see is their head and feet and it really obscures them at distance.

 

That is aside from making a hidden player more translucent (depending on distance / terrain) the best solution.

A player in the long grass prone that cannot see himself should be invisible for everyone that is not looking from top.

[TyrDaishi 36]

That is aside from making a hidden player more translucent (depending on distance / terrain) the best solution.

A player in the long grass prone that cannot see himself should be invisible for everyone that is not looking from top.

 

Exactly. And what sachiel said is also dead wrong. It is true that arma III deals with grass in that way that you sink more into the terrain, it also is true that making players more translucent is another way to hide players better at distances. The mod I referred to however created a simple overlay using the actual cover the player has and combined the actual "picture" of the gras with the "picture of the player" and combined both to a certain, adjustable percentage. It's not perfect but a pretty damn solid way to better hide characters in the distance without losing the feature to take the amount and nature of the cover into account. As far as I could see it it works pretty well.

 

In dayz however, if you wearing the proper camo and can't be seen when another player is up close to you, he can easily discover you from a distance because your colours suddenly appear to be extremly bright green/ near neon yellow. which is annoying.

Edited September 16, 2014 by TyrDaishi

[q.S Sachiel 470]

That is aside from making a hidden player more translucent (depending on distance / terrain) the best solution.

A player in the long grass prone that cannot see himself should be invisible for everyone that is not looking from top.

Yeah, preaching to the choir here from the sounds of it, but proning in grass disadvantages you immensely and not the guy across the hill (even more given the depth of field catching on surfaces thing).

Translucency would be better i guess, because it rewards clothes that blend, whereas having the majoritiy of a body clip under the ground really only exposes your head, weapon and boots, which blend pretty well for the most part anyway (and more specifically, a person in fluorescent blue trackies is just as concealed as a guy in full ttsko).

[gibonez 3633]

wouldn't angular system just allow you to better 'zero' your weapon, and involve a small amount of trig?  I'd figure this would possibly make it harder as if you're at a strange integer like 767, you adjust your angle value to whatever and then you've got a small fraction 'left over' based on the restriction of the angle anyway (unless they allow minutes/seconds, which is cumbersome and i'm not sure if rifles even incorporate this).  That said, at intermediate to 'long' ranges this remainder should be inconsequential unless the target is really small ie: concealed/obscured or providing low profile. 

 

Just set to 800, aim [800-(~770)]=30=3/10 fractions of the bar below target (or relevant distance optic to magnification setting) and fire. Angular dialling would reduce the error in estimation of distance (on scope) as you could set estimated range to centre of scope and not guess the fraction optic distance, but would keep the mathematical remainder (3m in empirical estimation here) and may even expand the error on certain angles that don't marry well to the range.  Though I think I get what you're saying, as it would require the player to have a better understanding of their weapon's ballistic trajectory when incorporating angle (as a larger angle should be required for a greater drop).

Current system seems intuitive enough.

 

TBH i'm fine with the 100m increments too.  Gradations or distance allow you to empirically estimate your drop and what not, and personally I find it easier to just dial in and adjust angle manually (with mouse). 

But then, i'm the guy who can make trick shots in pool but can't shoot a straight ball, can use rifles that have severe drop over range in FPS but can't shoot the HPS flat shooters...

Each their own i suppose.

 

Could you elaborate on how the angular system you propose may assist devs?  I would have thought the 'slap in a 100' increment would be easier for the most part and then the balance figures could be arbitrarily assigned to the rifle/weapon without even thinking about use with optics. :S

 

When I say an angular form of elevation adjustment for scopes I only mean it if the scope supports it in real life.

 

Let me explain.

 

You take a Pu scope for example currently in game it only allows for elevation adjustment with a mosin nagant for up to 300m.

 

In real life it allows for adjustments for up to 1300m when you set it at 13. This is of course supposed to match up for 7.62x54r out of a mosin nagant so the elevation adjustments should absolutely not be correct for the sks.

 

Scopes that have 100m increments for elevation adjustment is quite common in some of the Russian optics because they were specifically made for certain weapon systems and they already have a round trajectory , muzzle velocity and weapon system there for reference. Another such example of this would be the SVDs scope that allows for elevation adjustment for up to 1000m on an SVD thus it would not match up or be accurate for an akm.

 

However with all modern western scopes the rifles cannot be matched to a specific weapon system, or caliber and are built to function on a wide array of barrel lengths and calibers.

 

For this reason most long range optics come with a universal form of elevation adjustment in the form of minutes of angle or Mil radians.

 

These clicks just correspond to a predetermined angle that the scope is adjusting for.

M-rad and MOA are the two forms of elevation adjustment they both are angular forms of measurement one is simply metric and one is imperial

 

 

 

 

So take a .308 for instance it would take roughly 12 mils of elevation adjustment or 42 moa to reach 1000 yards.

 

 

Hopefully this makes sense. Now let me explain how this would help the game by making the devs job easier and by allowing for more optics to be added to the game without fine tuning each one.

 

In real life a large variety of scopes are sold you can buy a cheap scope for 300 dollars or an expensive scope for over 4k dollars.

 

What separates them is often times glass quality and maximum elevation adjustment.

 

What this means is that often times a 3k dollar scopes internals will allow for the elevation adjustment of much higher values than a cheapo 300 dollar scope meant for hunting.

 

So say something like a nightforce beast is added a 4k dollar long range scope it allows for 120 moa adjustment or roughly 34 mils of elevation travel.

 

Those 120 minutes of elevation could mean 1200+ yards for a .308 or 500m for a .22lr.

 

The devs would not have to custom tune the trajectories for each and every rifle they can just allow the scope to adjust to an angle like scopes do in real life then have the players have a piece of paper next to them in real life with the trajectories and angles that correspond to the range they wish to hit.

 

 

So say the person above me needs to hit something at 500 yards away for his particular rifle he needs to adjust 7.2 minutes on his turret.

 

The benefits of such a system is less work on the devs, a more in depth and complex long range shooting mechanic and most importantly more possible precision for the player.

 

If the player is skilled enough and needs to make a shot that is exactly 733 m away with a very steep angle then if that player can do some simple math he should be able to nail that hit every time.

 

Such a system would require that players learn to shoot at long range something that is badly needed seeing how insanely easy it is to shoot at long range in vanilla arma and dayz.

[Jex 1104]

Wind alone wont solve anything.

 

 

It needs at the very least the removal of 100m elevation adjustments replaced with angular elevation adjustments + transonic bullet dispersion simulation.

and dynamic wind speeds