Buzzing Topics on the realitymod forums

[Celestial1]

I like the 'instant kill' effect, and headshots, and believe they should be re-implemented as Jeepo suggests. Though I believe these are linked with other serious issues:

My experience was that the player had a choice at a faceoff and mili-seconds were critical: either aim 3 shots to the chest, or go for the headshot.

It took a certain skill to aim the headshot to beat the 'more probable' hit the larger mass but in more time needed body shot. This was why you saw people trying to get the third (body) shot in before the other alot. It still required nerve to hit three times because if you missed, the chances you were done for. Still people plumbed for the body shots that took time as it was more likely to hit target - and as it was even more nerves of steel and skill required to pause, aim and shoot the head under that stress.

It worked.

Well, you still have the ability to perform a headshot; it just doesn't guarantee a full KILL, now.

If you're one on one with an enemy combatant, and you manage to shoot the head, they will still go down.

The issue is whether that should cause critical wounding, or a full on KILL, where they cannot be revived.

I used to be proud of my (self-perceived but hopefully perceived by others) status of being a dangerous opponent, skilled at such combat described. Now I can't even hit someone ~50metres away in the head, after I have been staring down my - telescopic- sights for 4-5 seconds and they not knowing I'm there, let alone a running target or some guy facing me off at a longer/shorter distance not moving, standing, crouching, prone, or jumping for cover.

Something is amiss... And I believe these issues are absolutely essential in (re) addressing and overcoming as these are the heart beat of the game and should be prioritised as an almost 1st law principle on every development, to create the flesh back into the game. It seems the old problems never went away, they were just deviated from, and because these were never addressed though hard to do, it has eroded something of the game to its core.

I would love to see weapons more accurate... but nature has taken its course in terms of PR...

Previously, we had Laser M4s that had very, very little deviation.
This lead to complaints since there wasn't much of a chance to live at all if you were being aimed at by a player that knew how to shoot.
Then, we got higher deviation. It was okay, but it still just didn't hit the right mark, and for some seemed to still be too accurate.
And, as of .8, we got really high deviation, with longer scope in times. This I think was a step in the right direction... but much too far.
For .85, we lost some of the scope in times so that it took a small time to scope in and get ready to shoot, but we didn't have to wait 3 full seconds before we could do anything. Currently, scope in times I personally think have hit a very good mark and should stay as they are, or only very slightly sped up.

The next step is to really get down to a reasonable deviation... and finding that can be hard... Right now, it is very hard to hit a person, especially in a one on one fight (very bad). However, this encourages putting more fire on the target to suppress or kill (very good).

It's really trying to find that balance, and I think we're slowly finding it... the current deviation definitely needs a reduce, but it also needs to be sure that we're not getting amazingly accurate weapons that will hit our target even from 1000m away (accounting for drop).

I really think that a BIG part of this is implementing realistic ballistics; tracers are great, yeah, but I just don't thing they're a big enough gameplay factor to be NEEDED. With ballistics, a minor deviation value can be set but the player would need to account for ballistics to actually score a hit, especially at longer ranges.


(FYI, realistic ballistics causes tracers to fall significantly short of the other bullets, that is why it is an issue, for those of you who do not know.)

[Taip3n]

I agree with you Celestial1 about the aspects to look at and your remarks on what you would look into. I would err on the side of caution about complaints from public to 'make it easier' as there are 'better shots'. Skill is removed to help dumb down. I think honesty to the guns and game is more important. I wouldn't have given two hoots about an M4 player, I'd have taken them down

It seems a developers problem when moving a game forward to listen to the 'public' about what needs to be done as it is usually a dumbed down version (speaking from looking at other games aswell which is more so why I'd err on caution). Those that are vocal are usually the ones that don't like it, and those that like it don't even know about the issue as it doesn't bother them.

In any case, the pendulum seems back and forth on the aiming issue. Perhaps a better way is to beta test weapons with a group more often, instead of extened periods to see how close it is becoming or other issues raised - with as said, honesty to the weapon and 'harmony with the weapon', as much as the core principles of the game - such as skill.

Of course, I'd like kills back and so this includes the headshot as being the prime way (the mother of all kill shots).

[Celestial1]

I would err on the side of caution about complaints from public to 'make it easier' as there are 'better shots'. Skill is removed to help dumb down. I think honesty to the guns and game is more important.

It seems a developers problem when moving a game forward to listen to the 'public' about what needs to be done as it is usually a dumbed down version (speaking from looking at other games aswell which is more so why I'd err on caution). Those that are vocal are usually the ones that don't like it, and those that like it don't even know about the issue as it doesn't bother them.

Exactly. Which is unfortunate, but I think that for the playerbase we have in PR, it's a not a horrible step for the Devs, especially since they want their product to appeal to the players.

But again this is why I would love to see the ballistics; they're currently in Combined Arms, and from what I can tell (as I haven't had a computer that can play PR in the last 3 weeks and didn't get to test it about before leaving home) firefights seem last a decent amount of time at 300m because there's more things involved than just 'aim, shoot, and hope it lands closer than last time'... it requires a bit more practice, it seems, but after you get a hang of it, it becomes a bit more proper and you can use that skill. Which in turn means that you are more deadly with your rifle, without it just being point and click, so it kind of really enforces players keeping their heads down if they are being shot at.

This kind of helps to both make players more deadly if they know what they are doing, but still reinforce getting more fire on the target to ensure that someone hits the mark, and in this case I would be ALL for returning instant-death-headshots.

I would love to really experience it ingame, but the only way I can experience it (at least, currently) is by this video: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4mS30BSjvA[/media] starting at 1:40 is where the infantry firefights begin.

[Taip3n]

I can only say I agree with you and think you're on the button as to what would be baseline required as the prime directive of the core, starting from ballistics and moving up the ladder through weapony handling and on to depth

[BigGaayAl]

Here is my solution, well at least two good options I see.

1) Give the pilots ritaline so they can keep their attention span trained on sitting on the runway without uselessly flying around.

2) Get rid of the jets once and for all, so we don't have to play certain maps just for the pilots. I mean it's like they are in a game of their own.
-You can't see them because any normal pilot will fly too high.
-You can't hit them with AA because they fly out of range - which is absurdly unrealistic.
-They can kill anything else on the map whilst being untouchable to anything but the other jets.
-The maps are too small for planes.
-Helicopters fit the maps better, always, and they are vulnerable to ground to air weapons.

3) Stay on the runway and instead of getting yr own spotter, actually support infantry. Instead of doing the CAS squad bodycount.

I thought it would be clear to most about now that the jets don't do anything for the game. Sure it was fun the first time I played Kashan. But it does nothing for gameplay. The only ones that care imo are the people that fly them.

[Celestial1]

2) Get rid of the jets once and for all, so we don't have to play certain maps just for the pilots. I mean it's like they are in a game of their own.
-You can't see them because any normal pilot will fly too high.
-You can't hit them with AA because they fly out of range - which is absurdly unrealistic.
-They can kill anything else on the map whilst being untouchable to anything but the other jets.
-The maps are too small for planes.
-Helicopters fit the maps better, always, and they are vulnerable to ground to air weapons.

I think a large part of this is simply due to the fact that we don't have realistic abilities and settings for Anti-Air in game.

While I'm not entirely against getting rid of jets, a few of those issues can be fixed by changing ingame AA to be more realistic. I've been trying to gather some info on how AA actually works irl and how to best implement them ingame.


So far, I have a baseline of things that should be implemented (AA should be able to lock and fire from around 1500m, at least), but things like Radar and all the fancy stuff is racking my brain to try to come with a solution that will work in game, reflect it's real life function, and not be under or overpowered for gameplay.

The thread where I am trying to get this kind of information is here, starting at page 6 (The thread itself is about removing Anti-Air locking on entirely, which I think is just a load of BS so that he can fly around without having to worry about AA, but I am trying to see how implementing no-HUD MANPADS, and modified HUD for AAVs/Deployed AA, along with increasing range among other things to give AA a one-up against the jets, while keeping it realistic and still fun).

[BigGaayAl]

The 1500m range that you propose would be very helpful. Afaik, no jet can engage something without entering AA range if it is present near the target, unless he stays under the radar (IRL).

[Celestial1]

The 1500m range that you propose would be very helpful. Afaik, no jet can engage something without entering AA range if it is present near the target, unless he stays under the radar (IRL).

According to someone in the thread about the Lock-On, a MANPADS missile launcher has an approximate range of 3700m. I'm not sure how accurate that is, or whether I'm recalling it right from the thread (he may have been referring to a deployed AA, rather than a MANPADS, but I am sure he said 3700m)... But since 3700m is almost the entire Kashan map, you know, I find that a little sketchy to have in game.

My idea is to give them that kind of 1500m or even larger range, perhaps make lock on quicker, but make it so targets that are not locked on to show no lock-box (IE, if you're looking in the sky you won't find any green boxes floating around, ever. But when you point at an aircraft with a HUD-enabled AA platform, you would hear a locking tone, and then when locked you would hear the solid or a rapid tone to indicate it, and the green indicator would appear over the aircraft you have locked).

This would, hopefully, make it so that the AA has a much larger influence radius, but isn't able to simply spot those green boxes floating around the sky... scanning the sky could cause you to scan over an aircraft and then the locking tone would sound, so that you can kind of guess it out as where to follow the signature and when the lock is full, then you could fire.

One of the better things about this kind of system means that while you don't have a magic HUD that tells you where they all are, if you see an A10 come down for an attack run and you lock onto him at the beginning of his run, you could remain locked on even after he has made it up into the clouds for a short bit, which means that there is a larger window of opportunity to fire the missile at the rear of the plane, which means a better chance for the missile to hit.





However, because of radar vs infared guided missiles, I'm trying to figure out whether putting in a 'radar' and 'infared' mode would be plausible, or which one to use over the other, etc... Also, since radars give of signatures that allow for SEAD strikes (anti-radiation missiles that follow the radar's source), I would like to see if there's any kind of way to implement that in game (of course, without it being overpowering).

However, I'm going on the intellectual compatibility of a 2 year old on the subject since I don't really understand the technical terms, so I'm just overall a little confused.



EDIT: a suggestion to give sunglasses to BluFor. a little funny, but at the same time would be a little realistic and would give a little boost in the aesthetic departments when looking at a BluFor squad, masking up some of those silly looking vBF2 faces.

[PaintScratcher]

EDIT: a suggestion to give sunglasses to BluFor. a little funny, but at the same time would be a little realistic and would give a little boost in the aesthetic departments when looking at a BluFor squad, masking up some of those silly looking vBF2 faces.

I'm all for this, so long as they don't look to 'Hollywood'. Not so sure about the screen being darkened, it would just annoy people.

[Wicks]

Headshots killing instantly is great and all that but I understand why they are not in the game at present, the topic has been discussed at length previously.

Basically standard infantry are not trained to shoot at the head at normal engagement range, they are trained to aim centre mass, that is fact. In addition the crappy way the BF2 engine does terrain means that even though you appear to be behind cover, the use of cover is generally something we all agree should be encouraged, you are often sticking your head out as the BF2 camera is centred in a players chest. Who hasn't been headshot when you know you are actually behind the hill.

I was a big fan of insta kill shots back in the day and would rack up a fair number of one shot kills per round. I was therefore initially frustrated by their removal. However now they have limited the medic kit I actually like things the way they are, for the improved gameplay it brings. You can have longer firefights, medics become invaluable, battles are for me at least more satisfying. Seriously I was a big fan of the 0.756 weapon deviation system, as that combined with the insta kill headshots meant you could wipe out a squad easily on your own. Now whilst that's nice for the old ego it didn't exactly breed a tactical enviroment or a need to play realistically. To be blunt if the enemy were poor shots I didn't do much sometimes, didn't out manoeuvre them, just waited and shot them all in the head at 300+, one by one. That's not bragging, that's how the game went sometimes, happened to me too.

So to sum up I quite like the life/death mechanic as it is. However things that do need tweaking.

LMG's - getting slightly bored of the players running round in 2 man lmg squads like rambo just hosing people down at twenty feet or using it as an auto sniper at 700m. For cqb it is unbalanced as the current movement penalties hinder single or burst fire and reward the player who can put most rounds in to a massive area. The absolute epitome of spray and pray. CQB in BF2 is crap to be honest, its clunky, full of prone diving full auto etc. It takes great discipline to try and do it with realism and tactics in mind. Someone with an M4 should not lose out in a combined space, lets say moving on a staircase to the same player with an LMG. It would simply be a quick draw situation, first to to the ready position, shoulder or hip. That would be the M4. I am unsure how they can deal with this via the engine/deviation but it needs looking at.

The LMG's need realistic barrel overheats coded in and significant deviation on long bursts. I am not interested in how acurate a deployed mg is in RL, there's no comparison, all the weapons are far more accurate in real life, Deviation is coded in to account for many other factors that can't be included due to the engine. How can a heavy duty fifty cal barrel overheat so quickly in game when the saw just goes on and on, nonsense. Yes the saw fires 5.56 but the barrel is smaller, less durable in comparsion so barrel overheat times etc should be relative. It would also encourage greater fire discipline in it's use.

The auto sniper things needs toning down too. I have used all the LMG's now and to be honest I actually feel like I'm cheating the balance is so out of whack. I sit behind a wall scoped in on a target I have glimpsed at, mental picture of where he is, count to 8 and pop up like some heavily armed jack in the box and brrrrrrrrrr, lazer bullets at 400m straight in the guy's face, he barely gets a round off. I've done that for a whole round before and to be honest it got old. Requires little or no skill, merely a knowledge of the weaknesses of the engine and an idea of how to exploit them. You can tell how overpowered the LMG is in relative terms to the other weapons and within the limits of the game by the types of players that fight over getting one round after round, usually to go charging off on their own amassing easy kills.

G3 is broken and they need to address it, myself and many others find using the weapon a huge disadvantge now. Recoil has been massively exagerrated, which coupled with the slight unwieldyness of the weapon and mag size has led many to consider it a handicap.

Movement penalties need to be tweaked, if possible, to encourage slow movement in the crouched position that rewards aimed, rapid single shot, double and triple taps. This may encourage players to approach areas tactically rather than sprinting in. Should also reduce the 'who can prone first' vanilla crap. If a player believes he can move in to the line of fire, engage and move through it, all the while putting down effective, accurate fire he will be less likely to prone in the open in a 'sh#t or bust' type ploy, where it's the first to hit the deck and count to 3 seconds before firing.

In addition I believe this would lead to more fire and move tactics if your aim doesn't degrade totally when you move slowly. It is possible to do this now and I actually practice it, would be nice if it was a little more accurate.

One last thing I have noticed, the random misses that occur, despite allowing the devation to settle completely with no wasd movement, quite often the first round is either lazer accurate or just skews off somewhere, then the second round is accurate despite being fired relatively qucikly after the first. It's like a quirk of the code. I have sat, stock still, scoped on a targets head at relatively close range and fired, and watched stunned as the round misses, completely randomly. Never have figured out why that happens!

[Axis_Sniper]

Oh Wickens, you are just like a big panda bear that found its way into Castro's liquor cabinet.


What I think they should do with the LMG, and this is just my li'l opnion now, is get rid of the zoom/scope. Make it so the guy wit hthe LMG actually needs to work as a team instead of just being told to sit on top of a hill and go nuts. It would hopefully make someone, most likely the SL, spot for him.

Not only would this improve the actual fun of a firefight, instead of "DEAR GOD THAT GUY HAS A SAW. OH CRAP OH CRAP OH CRAP!" While running around in circles screaming like a school girl who had a bug fly past her.

[BoogyLoH]

I have sat, stock still, scoped on a targets head at relatively close range and fired, and watched stunned as the round misses, completely randomly. Never have figured out why that happens!

Done it too many times too and I know of countless others. The round doesn't even seem to hit the guy.. just completely misses.

As for taking away the scope of the LMG... it'd be just like it was before the patch..and I know a lot of people that want it that way. I can remember a few times where I'd identify targets for the old LMG just to see them get wiped out... there was nothing wrong with it, just the players that tried to use it.

[Celestial1]

/Revive!

Highen overheat threshold (sic)

Discussion on increasing the overheat threshold on heavy weapons (.50 cals, autocannons)

(Couple of ideas in the thread, including directly increasing the amount of rounds before overheat, and a new one being that the weapon can continue being fired, but would require more time to reload due to overheating.)

Drones have missiles

Suggestion on allowing the UAVs to fire Hellfire missiles while in flight as a commander asset. While the original highlight of DEV dbzao stated that they couldn't make it work as it is, I posted my idea of making it a type of 'area attack' in the thread (here).

Knives. Do we really need them?

Discussion on whether knives are necessary for gameplay, or whether they could be replaced with something different.

(Some posts in the thread are beginning to mention removal/restriction of incendiary grenades in some kits, but not all, so that they are still accessible but allow for more slots for other kits)

Add Apache to Operation Archer

Suggestion on adding an Apache to the map.

However it has been mentioned that the Canadians are taking over the map, and since the Canadians do not have an attack helicopter in service, that it is unlikely. However, cross-faction support is always a possibility. Many are claiming that since the map is very open that the apache would dominate, since it can very easily spot the taliban and be mostly impervious to technicals or AA, due to one reason or another.

[Taip3n]

^ Agrees with Boogy and Wickens. This has to be surely a top priority as it is fundamental to the game.

Some interesting suggestions Celestial. i'd say the over-heat does need adjusting, I think elsewhere it was said the heavy metal in the weapon would make it less prone to overheat than the LMG. So with the pwnzors LMG atm it seems the wrong way round and should be looked into. Not a huge fix in comparison to the first but a secondary fundamental at the very least.

Limiting the incendary sounds good. Adds complication and kit layout. Like the idea.

Those other suggestions are crazy and only sounds like pooning. Area attack like mortars would sound more likely, and perhaps they could up the amount, if they sort out the Comander position, as they have wavered in that direction too.

LOL at the Apache in Archer, basically sums up the suggestion. And agree with the comment made it would be imbalanced and can see the joysticks being played with right now of those desiring this with grins on their face (oh the pain!).

Hmm.. knives.. I love em A stay in for me. It is a basic shooter after all, and the gaming element needs to stay in. I still remember a great knife fight in a room in Sunset City: one ran out of a clip, the other I can't remember, but there is still the old gamesmanship where the one that had the advantage saw the guy pull out the knife and so standing opposite pulled his. Now I am rubbish at knife fighting and so eventually lost but it was huge. Both laughed over chat and had great fun. That is what the knife brings: gamesmanship, and so should stay as this game is all about this aswell as firefights over 200 metres. Also, a knife is a last resort when the whole world has gone very very bad, surely no soldier would be without one.

Pity it all seems back-to-front at the moment with bad aiming as Boogy and Wickens said, silly overheats and insane LMGs.

They should fix aiming. Get fundamentals right! This fundamental is also based on Gaming, have the right philosophy of what pace the game should have, like gamesmanship. Then go onto fundamentals after the philosophy like aiming and Commander, then sort out silliness like the LMG. Tinkering with little things and aspects like graphics or factions seems to me to have lead away from a holistic philosophical aproach to the game; the eyes have been taken off the ball.

Removing knives and putting Apache's in Archer seems condusive to the current problem and completely the wrong way round. The knives stay in. It is time to get back to the real deal and start over with what really counts being prime in people's minds: the philosophy of what makes the game and then stand by it by looking at aspects like aiming. The rest will come.

But at the moment this eriosion is right infront of us, tinkering some graphic, tinkering some LMG or .50 is far away from the basic philosophy. When was the last time you played Commander, for example? Or how many times have you missed a clean shot as Wicks and Boogy say? Heck I can't even stand 10 meteres away and pop a guy in a head - I have to run up to them and spray to make sure... Blah.

[Celestial1]

Area attack like mortars would sound more likely, and perhaps they could up the amount, if they sort out the Comander position, as they have wavered in that direction too.

Well, the reason I believe it would make a nice area attack is because it would be a little more dynamic, and the commander can really control and make a difference on the battlefield-directly. Giving players something to 'do' in the command post that makes them feel a little more involved in the game at times could be another step in giving the commanding position a bit more use.

Also, giving the map makers a wider selection of what 'makes sense' on their map is never a bad thing.

LOL at the Apache in Archer, basically sums up the suggestion. And agree with the comment made it would be imbalanced and can see the joysticks being played with right now of those desiring this with grins on their face (oh the pain!).

I agree. 2km maps don't really need much more than transport helicopters and light-attack choppers like the Hydra Huey... Especially with the advent of the CDF taking over Archer in their rightful place, it becomes even LESS feasible (as the CDF doesn't even have an attack chopper in service).

Hmm.. knives.. I love em A stay in for me. It is a basic shooter after all, and the gaming element needs to stay in. I still remember a great knife fight in a room in Sunset City: one ran out of a clip, the other I can't remember, but there is still the old gamesmanship where the one that had the advantage saw the guy pull out the knife and so standing opposite pulled his. Now I am rubbish at knife fighting and so eventually lost but it was huge. Both laughed over chat and had great fun. That is what the knife brings: gamesmanship, and so should stay as this game is all about this aswell as firefights over 200 metres. Also, a knife is a last resort when the whole world has gone very very bad, surely no soldier would be without one.

I don't know, I've never been to fond of knife fights. To me, it's a relic of FPS gaming that just needs to go away.

That's not to say that I am completely against melee fights in FPS, but not as they currently are. Preferably, a system would be implemented for an 'all-round' melee device, which would be context-sensitive in that if using the melee from behind, you would perhaps pull out your knife and go for the neck, or if coming from the front would attempt to use blunt force to knock down the opponent (by either rifle-bashing or using a takedown).

Issues with this are that if coming from the front, it would need to have a 'struggle' between the two opponents. This would keep both of the opponents engaged in the test of strength, while teammates can shoot the opponent, or the opponent's teammates could do the same to you. This way, it's less of a want to engage in melee because you will be vulnerable, but would still act as a 'last resort' function even if both are out of ammo.

Since this cannot be effectively put in game in any real manner, it seems that the knife is kind of 'taking up a space' that can be ultimately both fufilled and exceeded by teamwork (you wouldn't need the knife if you had 5 friends storming the building with you, right)?


Anyway, that's my view of it. I love the concept of melee, but not it's implementation.

They should fix aiming. Get fundamentals right!

Agreed. In particular suppression needs to be more of a threat than a gameplay device; the bullet near you should be enough to make you want to get to cover, and the suppression effect should just give a tiny reminder that you need to do so, not attempt force you to.

As well as reimplementing some of the sounds of the bullets cracking, to really get a feel for when you're being shot at versus being shot 'near'.

This way, being in cover will be an extreme need for any firefight, suppression will function the way it does IRL, rather than just making the marksman take a second longer before trying to line up the shot.

Luckily the prone-dive issue will be fixed come BF2 1.5 patch, but the minimum deviation really needs to be brought down on all rifles, and personally I would much rather see ballistics modeled ingame than tracers anyday.