Devs removing weapon dispersion: "we are missing implementation of dispersion ... we are not using it anymore." Without dispersion, weapons can't be 'authentic'—keep it in the game.

[-Gews- 7443]

I was concerned reading the May 8 status report and learning weapons will not have any dispersion, because without dispersion, you can't have a realistic portrayal of weapons!

Lead Designer Peter Nepesny says:

"... after the rewrite of the weapons we are missing implementation of dispersion - random cone-shaped spread defined by angle. Previously it was used as kind of an inaccuracy from the manufacturing process where long barrel weapons were most accurate and short barrel ones were least. We are not using it anymore as I think ‘fighting’ some random nonsense on mid to long ranges is over the top, as players are already challenged enough by mechanics like sway, recoil, zeroing, actual bullet speed and drop - all that combined with character movement, which is enough."

 

I strongly disagree with this.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some weapons are more accurate than others.

 

A rifle is more accurate than a musket. A Winchester 70 is more accurate than an AKM. A CZ527 is more accurate than an SKS. A Colt Python is more accurate than a derringer.

Different weapons have different levels of accuracy. This is fundamental. Accuracy, or the lack of it, is an important characteristic. It should be portrayed in DayZ.

If you don't even have a stat for something as basic as "accuracy" then your game's weapons aren't authentic, period.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispersion is not "over the top".

 

  Dispersion is described in the status report as "random nonsense" and "over the top".

Yet weapon dispersion is (of course) in DayZ mod, ARMA 2 and ARMA 3. I never saw complaints about it there. Not to mention the countless other games with weapon dispersion.

The one time there were complaints about dispersion was in early DayZ alpha, when dispersion was at absurd levels—for example, M4 dispersed bullets over 40 inches at 100 yards... that's since been fixed.

Most people say that long range combat and sniping is something the ARMA series has always done very well. In real life, all firearms have inherent dispersion. So in ARMA, all of them have dispersion as well—usually a realistic amount. And since it's a realistic amount, no one is complaining that ARMA weapons are sending bullets in random directions.

Imagine if someone posted in the ARMA forums, or r/ARMA, and made the suggestion of removing all weapon dispersion. That wouldn't be very popular at all. If someone had come to r/DayZ [or in this case, DayZ forums] back in 2016 and suggested removing weapon dispersion, it would gain nothing but downvotes. Doesn't that say something?

Even games like PUBG, or Counter-Strike have bullet dispersion. So the idea that it's "over the top" for DayZ, I don't understand.

If there are realistic dispersion values, how can that be "over the top"? Does it mean we can't simulate real life accuracy because real life guns are too inaccurate? That sounds ridiculous.

Especially when this game has mechanics like manual transmissions, unique blood types, new round-by-round loading of magazines and apparently an upcoming hitbox for your character's liver, I can't see how a small, realistic inherent dispersion is "over the top".

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removing dispersion reduces the depth, character and value of weapons.

If we find an 80-year-old Mosin, we should expect 80-year-old Mosin accuracy. Meaning it's still good enough to hit a man at several hundred yards, but it's no precision sniper rifle. Maybe many rounds of corrosive ammunition have gone through it over the years. Maybe tolerances weren't so good for a mass-produced Soviet service rifle. With this weapon, you want to aim for center-of-mass at longer ranges to ensure a hit.

Now, on the other hand, if we find a top-grade modern sniper rifle, we should expect to be able to hit most everything we aim at. Even a couple pixels of someone's head at 800 m.

Even if you could fashion a scope mount for the Mosin and use modern optics, the accuracy will still be less. Maybe you take your Mosin, dial in your scope, and aim at a player's heart (assuming we see those new hitboxes). But the target is a half-kilometre away, due to the weapon's inherent inaccuracy, it strikes the player's lung instead, or his abdomen. You hit the target but you don't get the instant kill you were hoping for. Or maybe the target is lucky enough to have body armor, and you are trying for a long range headshot. Instead, the bullet strikes low and hits his hardplate.

And if you had been using a modern sniper rifle, you probably would have struck the heart, or the head.

So the answer when using the old Mosin is: get closer. It's a limitation of using such a weapon.

This kind of thing makes weapons behave and feel that much more authentic. It adds interesting characteristics to each.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DayZ community seems to want authentic weapons.

I don't think the core DayZ community, that which has been actively following the game this whole time, wants no-spread weapons with perfect accuracy. People seem to like more authentic behaviour when it comes to weapons.

For example, in early alpha, the plan was to 'streamline' ammunition. So we had Mosins firing 7.62 NATO (.308), and they planned to give Makarov in 9x19mm Luger, AKs in 5.56 instead of 5.45, things like this. A vocal segment of the community was against this 'streamlined' ammo, so they eventually added .380 ACP and 5.45x39.

When the eye zoom was missing at Gamescom, and it was said "I think we will ditch it, probably", this wasn't very popular, as it is required for realistic vision and engagement ranges. Community gave feedback, and the eye zoom is kept.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hopefully with enough community feedback, weapon dispersion (and by extension weapon authenticity) can be kept as well.

Edited May 21, 2018 by -Gews-

[IMT 3190]

First of all, I'm not an expert when it comes to guns or ballistics. But I had many instances where I had to shoot 10 times to hit an unconscious body or a player with broken legs. Now, if we're talking about the dispersion of the first image where the bullets are spread a few centimeters then yeah, I'm all for that. But in my cases many times the bullets were 2 to 3 meters from my target, that is a bit severe in my opinion.

Again, I don't know much about guns or ballistics but I would suspect that if you shoot at something perfectly still and your gun is perfectly zeroed, you're going to hit the target, even though it's a few centimers off from where you aimed. But seeing a bullet go 2 meters from your target to the left or right is weird.

[-Gews- 7443]

6 minutes ago, IMT said:

But in my cases many times the bullets were 2 to 3 meters from my target, that is a bit severe in my opinion.

That sounds strange. Not the kind of dispersion I'm talking about. For most rifles realistic dispersion would be something 0.5-5 inches / 100 yards. Maybe a ricochet?

For the bullet to go 2 metres away on a 4 MOA weapon (Mosin or SKS-like, not particularly accurate, let's say dispersion=0.00125) the target would need to be something like 2 kilometres away.

We can see (4 m diam/0.00125) = 3200 m.

[IMT 3190]

17 minutes ago, -Gews- said:

That sounds strange. Not the kind of dispersion I'm talking about. For most rifles realistic dispersion would be something 0.5-5 inches / 100 yards. Maybe a ricochet?

For the bullet to go 2 metres away on a 4 MOA weapon (Mosin or SKS-like, not particularly accurate, let's say dispersion=0.00125) the target would need to be something like 2 kilometres away.

We can see (4 m diam/0.00125) = 3200 m.

It might be just me of course, misjudging the distance where the bullet landed. I do remember testing the 7.62x39 with the SKS and PU scope vs the 7.62x54 with the Mosin and PU scope. I notice that at a certain distance with the 7.62x39 (I believe it was 550 m) and you shoot at a building the bullet is either way too high or way too low depending if you zero in at 500 or 600 meters. Then I tried to do the same with the 7.62x54 and it hit spot on. I guess it has to do with the effective range of the 7.62x39 but that's another topic.

But yeah, in my opinion I would like to see as much authenticity as possible but it should be properly implemented of course.

[-Gews- 7443]

5 minutes ago, IMT said:

Then I tried to do the same with the 7.62x54 and it hit spot on. I guess it has to do with the effective range of the 7.62x39 but that's another topic.

It's a problem with the zeroing system. Lower speed + higher airfriction = breaks sooner. It would probably be helped a fair bit if 7.62x39 had more realistic "airFriction" value (closer to -0.0015 than current -0.00195).

[Raptor97 59]

Im totally in your opinion Gews, a game like DayZ has to be more authentic, so the dispersion should be like you said only some inches.

Idk why peter said this, maybe there is too much time consuming?

As you said we are now loading magazines with our hand, everything is very immersive with the 0.63 BETA, so I really don't understand why the devs are taking dispersion out of the game... thats sad!

Pls Peter/Dev team, bring dispersion back! It makes the weapons and gameplay much more authentic, I can tell this from my experiences in DayZ but also mainly in Battlefield 3, it just makes more fun!

I hope the devs will read this topic... 

Cheers, Raptor.

[ImageCtrl 719]

3 hours ago, -Gews- said:

DayZ community seems to want authentic weapons.

I don't think the core DayZ community, that which has been actively following the game this whole time, wants no-spread weapons with perfect accuracy. People seem to like more authentic behaviour when it comes to weapons.

For example, in early alpha, the plan was to 'streamline' ammunition. So we had Mosins firing 7.62 NATO (.308), and they planned to give Makarov in 9x19mm Luger, AKs in 5.56 instead of 5.45, things like this. A vocal segment of the community was against this 'streamlined' ammo, so they eventually added .380 ACP and 5.45x39.

When the eye zoom was missing at Gamescom, and it was said "I think we will ditch it, probably", this wasn't very popular, as it is required for realistic vision and engagement ranges. Community gave feedback, and the eye zoom is kept.

Some call it basics.

Edited May 22, 2018 by ImageCtrl

[Girth Brooks 570]

My only issue is that only in video games do people aim for the head. Anyone trained to kill with a firearm aims for center mass every single time unless there is absolutely no other option. 

I do want dispersion though. 

 

[Solopopo 330]

3 hours ago, -Gews- said:

When the eye zoom was missing at Gamescom, and it was said "I think we will ditch it, probably", this wasn't very popular, as it is required for realistic vision and engagement ranges. Community gave feedback, and the eye zoom is kept.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hopefully with enough community feedback, weapon dispersion (and by extension weapon authenticity) can be kept as well.

If nothing else, one thing has been made clear to me by .63. They do listen. I see it in so many things. 

As for dispersion, if they could implement a realistic dispersion system that didn't make shooting actually more difficult than real life, I would be for it. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Solopopo

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

I absolutely believe we need dispersion for authenticity in firearms.

What's next, aim assist?

[emuthreat 2837]

Bullet dispersion is such a basic concept for firearms simulation that it seems lacking to leave it out, especially after already being a part of the experience for so long.
Sadly, I'm thinking the removal of dispersion, if being considered, would be as a sort of handicap geared towards players using a dual stick control scheme.  In other words,  DayZ might be considering the removal of certain features to deal with problems of balancing and accessibility in console versions.

If this is the case, I hope they reconsider.

[azimov 76]

6 hours ago, emuthreat said:

Sadly, I'm thinking the removal of dispersion, if being considered, would be as a sort of handicap geared towards players using a dual stick control scheme.  In other words,  DayZ might be considering the removal of certain features to deal with problems of balancing and accessibility in console versions.

 

I feel so cheated because of this.

The people from the PC community. We stuck with this game trough all the years because we knew we'd get the hardcore/authentic gunplay in the end, just to end up with compromises to the game to make it "console friendly". An audience that isn't going to play DayZ anyway!

I hope they come to their sense because they're going to alienate their audience. 

[IMT 3190]

23 minutes ago, azimov said:

I feel so cheated because of this.

The people from the PC community. We stuck with this game trough all the years because we knew we'd get the hardcore/authentic gunplay in the end, just to end up with compromises to the game to make it "console friendly". An audience that isn't going to play DayZ anyway!

I hope they come to their sense because they're going to alienate their audience. 

Oh just stop it! I don't hear you complain about the player (interaction) controller which is designed with the idea of consoles in mind. But because this works out for the PC version it's ok? I'm not a fan of consoles but this is just ridiculous. Whine about it if it doesn't work out but it's ok if it does work out.

[azimov 76]

13 minutes ago, IMT said:

Oh just stop it! I don't hear you complain about the player (interaction) controller which is designed with the idea of consoles in mind. But because this works out for the PC version it's ok? I'm not a fan of consoles but this is just ridiculous. Whine about it if it doesn't work out but it's ok if it does work out.

Yes, if it makes the game better and more streamlined of course it's ok. Making the gunplay less complex or authentic to cater to consoles is not. At least to a big chunk of the playerbase who came from ArmA and saw how DayZ excelled in realistic gunplay. 

Don't try to push this into a pcmasterrace vs console narrative it's not about that, I honestly don't care what people play. I have a console myself, it's just clear that this change is happening because of the console release. And I find that unfair to their pc audience.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by azimov

[DannyDog 532]

10 hours ago, ☣BioHaze☣ said:

I absolutely believe we need dispersion for authenticity in firearms.

What's next, aim assist?

This will most likely be an option for consoles lol.

[ImageCtrl 719]

4 minutes ago, DannyDog said:

This will most likely be an option for consoles ...

I have no problem with this. I do not expect that consoles have the same features as the PC version (for example gun gameplay, eye zoom etc.).

[IMT 3190]

Just now, azimov said:

Yes, if it makes the game better and more streamlined of course it's ok. Making the gunplay less complex or authentic to cater to consoles is not. At least to a big chunk of the playerbase who came from ArmA and saw how DayZ excelled in realistic gunplay. 

Don't try to push this into a pcmasterrace vs console narrative, I honestly don't care what people play. I have a console myself, it's just clear that this change is happening because of the console release. And I find that unfair to their pc audience.

 

 

First of all, who said that they were removing dispersion because of consoles? It's something which the community came up with and many stepped on that train and now it's generally believed that that's the reason why they took out dispersion. Give me a reason why it would benefit the console release because I can't think of one. Second, it doesn't make any sense that things which do work out for both PC and consoles are good but the things which only works out better for consoles are automatically bad for the game. It's not me who turned this into "pcmasterrace vs console", it's the people who don't like it because the option is supposedly removed for the console release who started the narrative. Third, it's perfectly possible to have code for a specific platform, I saw it with my own eyes in the scripts, so the console is not the reason why dispersion is getting removed. And finally, they stated many times that the PC version has priority and after the PC version they are going to work fully on the console release.

[ImageCtrl 719]

1 minute ago, IMT said:

First of all, who said that they were removing dispersion because of consoles? It's something which the community came up with...

I agree on this. Focus on the arguments in Status Report.

 

[DannyDog 532]

100% completely agree with this. Even though it's not such an impacting factor to your aim it's still a basic mechanic that many realistic shooters should have. Maybe they think they can manually adjust each weapon's recoil, bullet velocity and sway pattern to "simulate" each weapon's inherently better accuracy over others? 

Edited May 22, 2018 by DannyDog

[Gobbokirk 546]

19 minutes ago, DannyDog said:

I've had a couple of players try to convince me that a lot of their decisions on the game have been influenced by their console push. They made some strong arguments about it (all speculation as there is no word about it from devs) but it made me a bit paranoid that they might be right. In terms of this though i actually don't think the removal of dispersion is a console influenced idea. Anyway moving back on topic I also agree that it shouldn't be removed.

If its happening for consoles or not doesn't really matter though. What matters is the result and why we prefer to have it in or not.
Dragging in gamepads just takes away from the actual issue. Nothing stopping them from making 2 different systems if that's needed anyways.

For that matter +1 to realistic dispersion. I am still in on the "want wind to affect bullets" train, the more complexity the better in my book.
Keyword being realistic though or "authentic" since I see that used more :)

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

What happened to my anti-game?

[blackberrygoo 1416]

No wonder Brian is signing off of the project , he knows shits about to get carebear casual . Pistol Pete’s calling the shots and he’s mad with power . Let’s get good old dayz back shall we ? Stop catering to consoles like you said you wouldn’t , and please just make this game for PC FIRST , you know , like you said you would? 

[Buakaw 274]

It is obvious that the devs are putting gameplay over weapon authenticity with this one, which kind of nullifies most of your arguments. Not to say that I think it is a great decision. They will probably readd it.

 

 

[-Gews- 7443]

2 minutes ago, Buakaw said:

It is obvious that the devs are putting gameplay over weapon authenticity with this one, which kind of nullifies most of your arguments.

I don't think so, most of those arguments pertain to the gameplay in some way. And as mentioned, I can't think of any game, at least in recent generations, without weapon dispersion—even CS:GO. Apart from the wacky days in early standalone, I didn't notice any irritating over-the-topness in the SIX YEARS of slinging dispersing bullets since DayZ mod. And I didn't see people complain about it either, in either ARMA or DayZ. And all this is a pretty strong argument that there's nothing "over the top" about a realistic dispersion, and if it is not over-the-top, their stated reason to remove it doesn't exist, no?

I would like to see some response for elaboration on this idea to remove dispersion, that was for me a bombshell that was casually dropped and not mentioned again. Maybe some dev had a mental picture of bullets flying wildly left and right and all around and thought, we don't need that? I don't know. 

[emuthreat 2837]

Well damn, now I regret speculating on the reason for considering the removal of dispersion.  Maybe when assigning tasks to the people working on the gun mechanics, they got to dispersion and just decided to skip it and see if anyone notices.

It brings an interesting question though.  How long into stress tests or experimental branch would it have taken one of us to notice that there was no dispersion?  Maybe Peter should have just not mentioned it, and we'd be all the happier for it.
That is, until some hapless killjoy decides to test a grouping and ruins the game for us all...