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]

4 minutes ago, emuthreat said:

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.

It could actually take a good while, seeing as we don't have any magnifying scopes, and have only 60% of the eye zoom compared to DayZ mod or ARMA. And also what this implies is that dispersion not over the top. Ha.

 

Found this in old status report:

Status Report: Week of 28 July 2014

Firearm dispersion was also tweaked to bring accuracy of weapons back to sensible levels and there will be more balancing passes done in the future which will address attachments and projectiles as well.


Again this statement goes against the idea that dispersion is somehow excessive. Different people writing the 28 July 2014 and May 8 2018 status reports, but dispersion can't be both "sensible" and "random nonsense" at the same time!

[Solopopo 330]

1 hour ago, emuthreat said:

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...

Honestly, I would not have thought about it at all. I recognized right away that shooting felt a little more "solid" to me. It felt like my bullets went where I intended to put them more often, and I liked it. It doesn't feel like they've taken anything away from the shooting, it feels like they have added to it.

20 hours ago, emuthreat said:

In other words,  DayZ might be considering the removal of certain features to deal with problems of balancing and accessibility in console versions.

However, I have feared this since the day they announced DayZ for console. They aren't porting DayZ to console because they think it will be good on console. All experience with console ports suggests the contrary. They are developing it for console because they ultimately need to profit more from the work they have been doing all these years. Which in my opinion underscores the major problem associated with releasing a game in early access. It is unreasonable to expect people to do work they aren't getting paid for, and I do mean GETTING paid for, not paid for in the past. The world doesn't work that way. The massive amount of work that has been done turning DayZ into a redeemable project did not come free, and anyone who thinks the Alpha profits are sustaining their current work is naive. No one wakes up in the morning and decides to spend their short, precious, life working for money already earned. The decision to overhaul the engine was calculated. They planned out how they were going to pay for this a long time ago. My biggest fear is that the money is in the console version of the game. This terrifies me. If they do in fact compromise the integrity of the PC version for the console version, they will have definitely proven that early access is the most sinister concept to ever assault the industry. 

But it was a necessary evil to port to console because they chose the route they did. The work just would not have gotten done without profit potential. But again, it does bring the whole notion of early access into question. I really wish they would just let go their death grip on the whole early access thing. No one associates early access with good things. It isn't good to be associated with it. Early access does not define DayZ. It is so much more than that.

But for what it's worth, I think DayZ is slowing turning into a masterpiece and I applaud the work that is being done. They haven't done anything to suggest they are making drastic compromises yet in my opinion. I think it is important that DayZ is not just a simulator but also a game. We already have Arma. I'll give the devs the benefit of the doubt for now. I am so happy with the work I've seen so far. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Solopopo

[emuthreat 2837]

34 minutes ago, -Gews- said:

Different people writing the 28 July 2014 and May 8 2018 status reports, but dispersion can't be both "sensible" and "random nonsense" at the same time!

You're preaching to the choir here, but that is quite a large interval of time between those sources.  Regardless, the inherent precision should differ between platforms of the same caliber.  A quick browsing of the relevant discussion boards came back with a figures of about 1 MOA reported for the T/C Contender (Longhorn analog), and 0.5 to 0.75 MOA for the Model 70 in .308.; unsurprisingly, people reported the .270 models to have a precision of as low as .25 MOA. 

Personally I'd be tickled pink if the Longhorn shot like a laser gun, but it would be pretty cheesy from a realism standpoint.  Why not do away parabolic trajectories while they're at it, eh?  Surely raycast trajectories would free up some resources...

26 minutes ago, Solopopo said:

It is unreasonable to expect people to do work they aren't getting paid for, and I do mean GETTING paid for, not paid for in the past.

I wonder just how many of us players with more stick-with-it-tude have bought a second or even third copy of the game in the last year or two.  I've bought four copies altogether myself, between my twin characters and a couple gifts. 
Ahhh, nothing beats logging back in with a different steam account in the same location, and getting a second trip back to the coast within 5 minutes.

But seriously, they've already mentioned that cross platform hive compatibility was technically possible, but not feasible, because PC and XBOX One would have obvious imbalances that could not be reconciled.  So in light of this, why not give PC players what we want?  It just seems janky to remove at this point.

[Solopopo 330]

58 minutes ago, emuthreat said:

But seriously, they've already mentioned that cross platform hive compatibility was technically possible, but not feasible, because PC and XBOX One would have obvious imbalances that could not be reconciled.  So in light of this, why not give PC players what we want?  It just seems janky to remove at this point.

It's possible that the console port had no influence on their decision to remove dispersion. Maybe I'd go so far as to say it's likely. They have been nothing if not deliberate in everything they have done thus far. They redesigned the entire engine so the game could do the things they wanted it to do. I don't really think they would allow the console port to influence any aspect of their game design after so much effort to get it right. But the thought still scares me. I only talk about it as a deterrent, because the possibility exists.

But realism hasn't always worked out for DayZ. I think realism within reason should be the goal. DayZ had overly realistic features in the past, but they have slowly removed them one by one from the alpha. Players used to go unconscious for realistic amounts of time, which is stupid. Players would commonly break their legs and be unable to walk, which is stupid. The day/night cycle was actually on a 24 hour schedule on every server, which is preposterously stupid. 

If you have time, you should check this out. I think it provides interesting perspective on the development of realistic video games. 

This game is a perfect example of what I am speaking about. The devs had to completely redesign the game after realizing they had made it too realistic. It was so realistic that it was impossible to actually appreciate how realistic it was from the players perspective. The devs realized that they had to redesign many features of the game to make it fun and desirable to play. The result is interesting. It is universally accepted that STALKER is a flawed masterpiece. Fans acknowledge its shortcomings as a game, but are also incredibly impressed with its realism, enough to inspire a strong, but not entirely fulfilled, fan-base.  

My point is that this is a real possibility for DayZ right now. The risk of being too realistic exists, but at the same time the game's realism is absolutely critical to its success. There must be a balance between the realism and the game.

Personally, I am a fan of the removal of dispersion, because it makes shooting less random. All competitively viable games have one thing in common; they are consistent. Random elements don't make for good games generally, as far as competition is concerned. If the same player puts his cross-hair in the same spot, with the same gun, under the same conditions, I think that bullet should do the exact same thing every time. That's not to say the shooting shouldn't be dynamic and realistic, but I think there is definitely a limit to how realistic shooting can become before it just stops being fun and starts being stupid. This is what I think the devs were referring to when they said dispersion is nonsense. From a game-play perspective, it sort of is. If every weapon had it's own unique dispersion that was predictable for that weapon, maybe it would be different. But the way they had previously implemented it, it was random. 

Still, I am not totally opposed to the implementation of dispersion. Many people seem to care about it on these forums. I could take it or leave it really. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Solopopo

[-Gews- 7443]

6 minutes ago, Solopopo said:

My point is that this is a real possibility for DayZ right now. The risk of being too realistic exists, but at the same time the games realism is absolutely critical to it's success. There must be a balance between the realism and the game.

Of course.

But it seems strange to remove inherent dispersion, something that just happens automatically, when they are doing things like changing it so you need to take every item into your hands before being able to perform any functions with it. It's not even worth talking about being "too realistic" as inherent dispersion doesn't affect gameplay in such a way.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Solopopo said:

Personally, I am a fan of the removal of dispersion, because it makes shooting less random. All competitively viable games have one thing in common, they are consistent. Random elements don't make for good games generally, as far as competition is concerned. If the same player puts his cross-hair in the same spot, with the same gun, under the same conditions, I think that bullet should do the exact same thing every time. That's not to say the shooting shouldn't be dynamic and realistic, but I think there is definitely a limit to how realistic shooting can become before it just stops being fun and starts being stupid. This is exactly what I think the devs were referring to when they said dispersion is nonsense. From a game-play perspective, it sort of is. 

As I mentioned a few times, even CS:GO, the benchmark competitive game, has weapon dispersion. It's a Source game so it can be easily disabled, but they put it in by default. I don't play a ton of games but still, I can't think of any current-gen or last-gen title that lacks weapon dispersion on all its weapons. And going sillier, you don't see Tracer mains complaining about the dispersion of her blasters. It's just how they work.

If titles like PUBG and Fortnite manage to have weapon dispersion and thousands upon thousands of casual players enjoying them, while DayZ says realistic dispersion ruins gameplay, despite having had realistic dispersion and just about zero complaints about realistic dispersion, either in ARMA or DayZ, since the first day DayZ mod existed... I don't know what to say.

[DannyDog 532]

It "being over the top" could be that there are already many factors affecting accuracy that it will be such a miniscule impact for a lot of work. You would need to work on it like you would for recoil (specific weapon values) but it would have much less of an impact on gameplay. In the end it will probably come down to time and if they said they needed to drop it for more time to work on say vehicles or damage system then ill be completely fine. (Remember they plan to have 1.0 out by this year) It just means they can always implement it again in the future so long as they dont mess up the modularity of how weapon firing works.

[emuthreat 2837]

2 hours ago, Solopopo said:

If the same player puts his cross-hair in the same spot, with the same gun, under the same conditions, I think that bullet should do the exact same thing every time.

I would have to disagree with this.  The reason that the AK74 was made, is that the 7.63x39 round had poor enough ballistics that 400+ meter engagements with 5.56mm were statistically unfavorable by a significant margin.    In response to this, they opted for an intermediate calibre, high velocity platform that could compete with the NATO rounds in common usage.  Compared to an M16, the AK47 made groupings 27% less tight at only 100 meters. At 300 meters, the grouping is on par with the width of a torso.  Beyond 400 meters, when combined with skill of the operator and environmental conditions, it was arguably a waste of ammo and concealment to even attempt to take a shot, regardless of what the opposing forces were using; and if the enemy forces were armed with a more accurate system, it would be extremely foolish to start an engagement at these distances.

Here's a handy little bit of article that illustrates this concept:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Range_and_accuracy

At 200 meters the M16 and AK47 are on par at 100% and 99% of a single-shot hit-probability on Crouching Man (E-Silhouette) Target.  At 300m, the M16 is still at 100%, while the AK falls to 94%; at 400m the score is 96% to 82%; and at 500m it's 87% to 67%.
Realistically, the prospect of engaging someone at 400 meters with an AK47 for a first strike attempt is far less attractive than with an M16, and at 500+ meters it could best be characterized as "why bother."
Interestingly enough, according to the table from wikipedia, the AK has a lethal range 656 meters greater than the M16, due to the much greater weight bullet.  Good luck hitting the target, though.

This might remind you of how it felt using an AKM in DayZ in many cases.  Personally, I hardly ever carried the gun, and never voluntarily engaged anyone at ranges of less than 200m with an intention of actually hitting anything. Some people feel differently, and I know a few who can hit players pretty consistently at ranges of 400 or 500 meters, but not always on the first shot; in these cases they are operating it as more of a SAW than an AR, or sometimes as a battle rifle with a large magazine.


Now let us get down to the bones of what this inherent accuracy by design means for each weapon and its unique character and feel in DayZ.  Would you regard the FNX as being slightly superior in accuracy to the 1911, irrespective of magazine capacity or iron sights; and the 1911 greatly superior to the Derringer?
Imagine if they introduced a couple more variants of the Magnum, with a 3-inch and 8-inch barrel in addition to the standard 6-inch barrel.  Would one expect these to perform identically, and if so, why?  With the new inventory matrix, I could clearly see the benefit to carrying a snub nose to save weight and only take up a 2x2 grid, in comparison to the likely 2x3 grid of the base model; on the other side of the spectrum, some players might choose the 8-inch barreled model with a 2x4 inventory footprint as a semi-primary weapon, or even add a pistol scope and make it take up 3x4 slots.

Without a dispersion value, all of these minor changes in the character of different weapons would be rendered pointless to the player, and ultimately we would lose a significant amount of variety and realism, for which the playerbase likely chooses to play this game in the first place.

 

@DannyDog  I get what you are saying, that when you combine sway with bullet drop and automatic fire, the dispersion is the least significant variable in play.  And this could very well be the case.  But for some of the examples I listed above, it doesn't really make sense.
I'll give one more example to try to prove the point -- Sawn-off rifles.  Assuming that sawing off a rifle would not interfere with the ability to mount a scope, we should expect the shorter one to be inherently less accurate.  Currently they remove the front sights and magically veto our ability to attach any optics, but if this were to change, what is to keep everyone from chopping off 10 inches of their Winchester so it will fit inside a vest, yet maintain the same accuracy due to lack of a dispersion value?

Edited May 23, 2018 by emuthreat
Dannydog

[-Gews- 7443]

1 hour ago, DannyDog said:

It "being over the top" could be that there are already many factors affecting accuracy that it will be such a miniscule impact for a lot of work. You would need to work on it like you would for recoil (specific weapon values) but it would have much less of an impact on gameplay. In the end it will probably come down to time and if they said they needed to drop it for more time to work on say vehicles or damage system then ill be completely fine. 

 

I don't believe it can be much work. If stumped on research they can look at ARMA 3 values, lots of similar weapons, and some identical ones. If by "missing implementation" they mean it's not working at all, I'm sure they can fix it. In the end it is just picking a random number within a specified range.

We could speculate about time constraints and dropped features, but this is not the reason stated in the status report. Also, if I recall correctly, which I might not, they claimed they will support the game for 5 years after release... this leaves plenty of time for patches.

[DannyDog 532]

15 minutes ago, emuthreat said:

 

@DannyDog  I get what you are saying, that when you combine sway with bullet drop and automatic fire, the dispersion is the least significant variable in play.  And this could very well be the case.  But for some of the examples I listed above, it doesn't really make sense.
I'll give one more example to try to prove the point -- Sawn-off rifles.  Assuming that sawing off a rifle would not interfere with the ability to mount a scope, we should expect the shorter one to be inherently less accurate.  Currently they remove the front sights and magically veto our ability to attach any optics, but if this were to change, what is to keep everyone from chopping off 10 inches of their Winchester so it will fit inside a vest, yet maintain the same accuracy due to lack of a dispersion value?

I agree completely and i'd prefer that they keep dispersion. But what i'm thinking is alternative methods that can serve one of dispersion's purposes which is determining what weapon is better (sawn off vs normal). Such as stronger recoil, slower bullet speed, more sway, larger visible muzzle flash etc. Just throwing ideas out there that can help alleviate the outcry that is removing dispersion. Because the current systems they have now can be tuned to the point that it makes dispersion not such a requiring factor for weapon balancing.

5 minutes ago, -Gews- said:

 

I don't believe it can be much work. If stumped on research they can look at ARMA 3 values, lots of similar weapons, and some identical ones. If by "missing implementation" they mean it's not working at all, I'm sure they can fix it. In the end it is just picking a random number within a specified range.

We could speculate about time constraints and dropped features, but this is not the reason stated in the status report. Also, if I recall correctly, which I might not, they claimed they will support the game for 5 years after release... this leaves plenty of time for patches.

I don't believe its much work too. Heck i can probably mod dispersion in a day given all the proper values for weapons. It's as simple as altering the initial bullet's trajectory when firing. I'm just throwing out possible objective reasons as to why they would remove something rather than subjective reasons such as "over the top". Because without an objective reason we still have a chance to change their minds about it. If they end up deciding they will add it back but cant right now because of time restraints then this thread has served its purpose.

[-Gews- 7443]

42 minutes ago, DannyDog said:

I agree completely and i'd prefer that they keep dispersion. But what i'm thinking is alternative methods that can serve one of dispersion's purposes which is determining what weapon is better (sawn off vs normal). Such as stronger recoil, slower bullet speed, more sway, larger visible muzzle flash etc. Just throwing ideas out there that can help alleviate the outcry that is removing dispersion. Because the current systems they have now can be tuned to the point that it makes dispersion not such a requiring factor for weapon balancing.

They can do all this, but still doesn't remove the need for dispersion in the end. And if we are arguing about gameplay or workload, many of these things are more obvious to the player or harder to create, balance or achieve.

44 minutes ago, DannyDog said:

Because without an objective reason we still have a chance to change their minds about it. If they end up deciding they will add it back but cant right now because of time restraints then this thread has served its purpose.

Agreed.

[Sqeezorz 839]

The scopes are still on the "to-do" list. Maybe the dispersion will only be used with scopes. Personally, I hope so, because it is precisely with this addition that the differences in the character values of the weapon will be decisive. (but still, the fear of the slug sniper shotgun remains).

in the end: if they add it then it is available, with or without scope and there are a few values that can be adapted, there are values that BI already knows, so no redesign. And even there, it can be set to "zero" for certain purposes or platforms, or even skipped. (it's a pure internal computation that does not require animation or anything else, so it's relatively easy compared to other features).

[ImageCtrl 719]

19 hours ago, Gobbokirk said:

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.

Imagine we would have a wall of text about that in the Status Report. Instead we discuss if basics stay in the game.

 

[Gobbokirk 546]

Just now, ImageCtrl said:

Imagine we would have a wall of text about that in the Status Report. Instead we discuss if basics stay in the game.

 

They've changed their minds before :)

[Buakaw 274]

12 hours ago, emuthreat said:

Maybe Peter should have just not mentioned it, and we'd be all the happier for it.

Right! Dispersion ist most noticeable on range and most prominent on pistols and smgs, which are not meant for ranged combat anyway. Which is also why I think dispersion might as well stay.

13 hours ago, -Gews- said:

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.

They implement it not for authenticity but rather to balance the weapons and their effective ranges between each other.  You need a gun like the AK which can oneshot to not outclass a sniper rifle, which with 0 dispersion and hitscan, it would.

I think combat in Dayz only ever needed adjustments based on movement : reduction in ADS sway when walking, reduction in sway after sprinting, way faster rising of the weapon and so on. These have been implemented as far as I understand, which is fantastic. So basically, dont touch dispersion.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Buakaw

[Parazight 1599]

13 hours ago, -Gews- said:

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. 

Find a Mosin. Find a Hacksaw. Find a Hunting Scope.

Go the workbench. 

Attach Hunting Scope to Mosin. 

Saw off Mosin with Hacksaw..

Making DayZ great again.

 /swoon

[-Gews- 7443]

Generated some random numbers, put them in a scatter plot, and fit to silhouettes to make a visual of how "realistic" dispersion might look. I used the longest range. Due to the calculations I used the patterns could be quite larger than one might see in-game (ie, "1.5 MOA" rifle in diagram would put 95% of shots in 2.4 MOA circle).


Sniper rifle @ 800 m
(0.75 MOA for 5 shots, 20-shot pattern)
20/20 hits




Hunting rifle @ 800 m
(1.5 MOA for 5 shots, 20-shot pattern)
20/20 hits


 

Mosin 1891/30 @ 800 m
(3.75 MOA for 5 shots, 20-shot pattern)
12/20 hits





And for fun:

Mosin 1891/30 @ 2000 m
(max sighting range)
(3.75 MOA for 5 shots, 20-shot pattern)
6/20 hits



For this last one, the bullet would take about 7 seconds to get there, end up with about as much damage as a .22, and if you were zeroed at 300 m you would have to hold almost 500 feet over the target.
 

On 5/23/2018 at 7:11 AM, Parazight said:

Find a Mosin. Find a Hacksaw. Find a Hunting Scope.

Go the workbench. 

Attach Hunting Scope to Mosin. 

Saw off Mosin with Hacksaw..

Making DayZ great again.

 /swoon

Although it's an extreme chop from 28-3/4" to 10", this could still be surprisingly accurate, as shortening a barrel typically doesn't have a major effect on inherent accuracy, and often the opposite. Blast and flash would be extreme. Velocity could be reduced by up to 25%. But the main problem is that hunting scope. With an eye relief of 9 cm and no stock, you would be risking serious scope eye.

Also watch for this with the upcoming Steyr Scout. If they make it so you can attach the hunting scope to the Steyr (which would be inconsistent with the inability to place it on other railed weapons, but you never know) and the hunting scope placement is far forwards over the barrel ('scout mount', like so) that's incorrect and wouldn't be much use in real life—you would need to use a long eye relief scope for such a forwards placement. The hunting scope, if attached to the Scout, should be mounted over the receiver. 




 

Edited May 25, 2018 by -Gews-

[ImageCtrl 719]

On 21.5.2018 at 11:19 PM, -Gews- said:

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.

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

It was planned also in DayZ SA. It was seen as a key feature.

 "firearms with authentic ballistics and weapon characteristics" - shop - https://store.steampowered.com/app/221100/DayZ/

 

[-Gews- 7443]

12 hours ago, ImageCtrl said:

It was planned also in DayZ SA. It was seen as a key feature.

 "firearms with authentic ballistics and weapon characteristics" - shop - https://store.steampowered.com/app/221100/DayZ/

Aha, nice catch!

[Solopopo 330]

1 hour ago, -Gews- said:

Aha, nice catch!

It sure is. Bravo sir. 

[Parazight 1599]

Quote

 

This week is dedicated to the internal implementation of:

...

Weapon dispersion

...

 

!!

Props to the devs for considering player feedback!!

[sanguine00 168]

14 minutes ago, Parazight said:

!!

Props to the devs for considering player feedback!!

Is this dispersion with raised-gun shooting with crosshair, or with ADS (or both)?

[Sqeezorz 839]

41 minutes ago, sanguine00 said:

Is this dispersion with raised-gun shooting with crosshair, or with ADS (or both)?

I think with scopes, so it make full sense.

[pilgrim* 3514]

On 5/23/2018 at 4:20 AM, Solopopo said:

 No one wakes up in the morning and decides to spend their short, precious, life working for money already earned.

..er.. except the whole USA and everyone else who lives on credit? Isn't that the entire western world and then some?  (but.. sorry .. back to the conversation  I guess) ...

*

GEWS is right, of course.

[one day I'm going to ask him about putting a Skinner peep on a Sako 308 hunter, and the best silhouette  for the front blade] .. hmm?

Edited June 19, 2018 by pilgrim*
~

[Guy Smiley 534]

Honestly?  I agree with their decision.  Using RNG on a weapon is stupid. Now, unless players are able to find a way to bypass all the ailments that cause, sway, recoil, zeroing, actual bullet speed and drop, their reasoning is acceptable.

[-Gews- 7443]

49 minutes ago, Guy Smiley said:

Honestly?  I agree with their decision.  Using RNG on a weapon is stupid. Now, unless players are able to find a way to bypass all the ailments that cause, sway, recoil, zeroing, actual bullet speed and drop, their reasoning is acceptable.

If I recall correctly, you aren't really interested in pursuing the ARMA-style realism. And so I guess the argument 'all real life firearms have a random dispersion' does't hold weight with you, and it comes down to the gameplay alone.

But even on gameplay alone, I would challenge you to find a first or third-person shooting game that has come out since DayZ mod's launch in 2012 that does not add random dispersion, realistic or exaggerated, to one or more firearms. Every successful title, from CS:GO to Overwatch to PUBG to Squad to Fortnite to [insert game here] has some implementation of weapon dispersion.

So it can't be that stupid.

2 hours ago, sanguine00 said:

Is this dispersion with raised-gun shooting with crosshair, or with ADS (or both)?

Good question. Peter Nepesny talked about adding an exaggerated dispersion to the crosshair 'hipfire', while removing (or rather, not re-implementing) the 'authentic' dispersion from ADS.

I would like to think it's the same old ADS-and-crosshair dispersion we've always had, but you never know.

Edited June 20, 2018 by -Gews-