Shooting in Inf too easy?

[The_Fur]

Don't know about the rest of you, but shooting in inf IMO is way too easy right now.
Lately i have been using the m9 a lot and i find it generally too easy to pull of accurate shots at ranges up too 100m, this goes for about every weapon.

So I'd like to ask for a increase of weapons bobbing, it's just too easy to pull of accurate shots without actually aiming.

[Elite_Soldier]

I don't really know about that. While I firmly agree that the scope bob needs to be adjusted (I don't even bother holding my breath for sniping) I think the iron sights aiming method right now is just right.

I do agree on your point thta the M9 is to accurate, though. I think the ballistics for pistols should be a little more "fine-tuned".

[RogueLeader]

Inf needs to take into account how accurate a weapon is and also add hand waivering.

[Lord_Bunker]

as it is your like a rock. i think for gameplay especially it should take stamina into acount. if you've been running for awhile you shouldn't beable to shoot near as accurately.

[Benny"PRIMO"Blanco]

remember that we are elitte comandos here, I often pick off people with an m16 while
eating a sandwich, even better: my robar snipe and bong pull combo is an awesome
trick.

[Sniper187]

Well, I had an idea about aiming that I shared with a few people before, but they thought it was to the point that it would make the game less fun. I guess I'll just post it here for all to see, though.

When you bring your weapon up to aiming position, I think the sights shouldn't be lined up perfectly, and you'd hold your aiming key down and use the mouse to get them as accurate as you need. Then, you let go of the aim key and the sights stay like you have them. When you tap the aim key again, it brings the weapon back down to your hip. As long as you continue walking/crawling/proning, you wouldn't lose your sight alignment, but if you ran the sights would be slightly off again once you try to aim. This would give the slow, cautious players an easier time, and the rambo wannabe's would have a harder time.

[DredDamo]

When you bring your weapon up to aiming position, I think the sights shouldn't be lined up perfectly, and you'd hold your aiming key down and use the mouse to get them as accurate as you need.
How is this different from what we usually have when putting a weapon in aiming position? It's a rare occurrence that the weapon doesn't momentarily stray from center in the hip position, so it's usually off-center, it's just that centering is so instinctive thanks to Inf's wondrous iron sights gameplay :) that you don't notice it.

I always thought the weapons in INF were too accurate, but everyone seems to think that an elite soldier can hit where he wants to every time at any distance...I only fired a rifle once and a pistol couple of times, but it sure as hell seems harder to me :) I dunno, maybe I got mega shaky hands or something...

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of extra waver/bob put in. People with a high enough resolution can line up the sights with an M9 perfectly, everytime.

[L]-Damodred

[poaw]

I thought they were already implementing a system that simulated the inherent differences in accuracy of different weapons and ammunition.

[The_Fur]

Not just that, but it's simply way too easy to hit targets at range, you can easilly hose down a target at say 150-200m on full auto or rapid burst with about 80-90 pct accuracy. The "breath-control" function is only nescessary at extreme ranges like 300+m, and even then i hardly use it. IMO the wavering should be more and faster so it would actually have some use.

I also like snipers idea, that would make run and gun a lot harder and general fighting as well. I'd like to add that the sights should go off slowly as time passes.

[LCJr.]

100meters is childs play with a rifle. Christ, even I can drill pop cans all day at that range with a .22LR carbine.
The US Army used to use a half-man target at 300m and the US Marines use the half-man at 500m. I would hope special forces are trying for a higher degree of accuracy than that.

"I only fired a rifle once and a pistol couple of times"

Practice, practice, practice... Go back and put a couple hundred rounds through each one and see what you think. Better yet try to fire at least a 100rds a week for 4 years then see how you do.

The pistols in INF do seem to be way to steady though. 25meters is a realistic range and anything past that is pushing it for the average shooter. Currently the pistols are as steady as a rifle with a stock, definately not right.

[The_Fur]

I'd think a .22 has a little less recoil then a .223 Remington or a 7.62 short.

[Draco-1]

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohPLEASE don't let INF become another CS. Don't nerf the accuracy. The guns are fine. If accuracy has to be diminshed, please be only to better reflect the RL gun.

Plenty of people miss me with their shots. And I hit them with plenty of my shots. It seems fine to me. If I practice my aim so I can hit more often, I should be rewarded for my effort. That's what i hated about CS. The guns are so inaccurate that no matter how much you practice, you're still limited by the artificial inaccuracies of the weapons. I stopped playing when I realized that no amount of practice would help me further and that it was all a roll of the dice. I'll go play cards for that.

If you're going to induce more waver (via stamina), that's fine as long as it can be counteracted some way (going prone, etc.) I don't like the aiming idea however. I can bring a gun to my shoulder and line the sights up very quickly. Imposing an arbitrary amount if 'aiming time' to this would be an annoyance.

I'm all for not being able to run as well while aiming a rifle or other heavy gun. Additionally, I think crouching and going prone should effect aim, specifically for a sniper. Standing, I don't think you're going to keep a RC50 on-target for more than a few moments.

Just PLEASE, don't make this another CS. I embraced INF because I knew the guns would have proper accuracies and that the INF team wouldn't screw with the guns to make it more acceptable to the general populace.

[Beagle_One]

I have fired real guns, so I can say this. What made shooting so difficult to me was not so much of the aiming aspect but more of squeezing the trigger. When you squeeze the trigger of a handgun, you must move your finger(naturally), and that is different from just holding up a gun. My aim wobbles more when I'm squeezing the trigger, so I can't always shoot where I am supposedly aiming at. I think that's the main problem of shooting M9 in INF. It's just too darn easy since there's no stress in your muscle:)

[LCJr.]

"I'd think a .22 has a little less recoil then a .223 Remington or a 7.62 short"

I've fired all 3 Fur, have you? A .22LR is no-ones choice for long range shooting, for example my favorite .22LR ammo(T22) had a drop of approx. 11inches at 100yds. You learn where to aim with practice. Anyway on semi auto the bullet is on its way before the recoil really affects you, only on auto would recoil really be an issue and you wouldn't use auto at any kind of a significant range anyway. Besides the higher the velocity of a cartridge the less you have to worry about bullet drop. Get out and actually fire a weapon for yourself before start pretending to be an expert.

[Snake13]

I don't think we need more head bob, it would be excessive, i think if it bobed horizontally as well as verticly it would make it harder because you don't have to just wait for for the bob to pass over the target you'd have to adjust

[Elite_Soldier]

How come going prone doesnt effect your accuracy? I think it should drastically heighten it; especially with a bipod, for when the M249 gets released (yeehaw! :D)

I don't know about the rest of you, but at extreme ranges (ie across the brdige from the other side of the map in Kosovo) I find it pretty damn hard to hit my targets with any weapon without a scope. Guess thats what they are there for though. I don't know the exact range of that...

You guys can hit targets 500M away? Thats for me at least pretty damn impressive. I have enogh trouble firing three round bursts with the M16 and hitting the 100M target in practice consistenly. I can't even SEE targets out at 500M. Are you guys exaggerating?

I am reasonably a sure I read in some army manual that with an M16 you SHOULD NOT make an attempt to shoot ant things beyond 300M. Chances are you will just screw the shot and alert everyone to your presence.

[Patgod]

the first time i ever fired a 12gauge shotgun was "pidgon" shooting i think its called:


me: "pull"

guy who knows more then me: "aim a little higher"

me: *BOOM*

same guy: "nice shot"

:) not sure how far those things tend to go out, but i nailed the thing on my first try.

funny part is the recoil slid me back a few inches in the mud. that guy owes me a soda....

[LordKhaine]

Why dont you guys wait till after 2.6 before you suggest more. I get the feeling a lot of the suggestions are already being worked on, so lets just wait a little to see whats what shall we? :)

[The_Fur]

LCR, got issues there? Ofcourse i need to be an expert to see the difference between a tiny .22LR and a .223 Remington or the 7.62x39, i mean you couldn't just look at the cartridge size and tell that there is more then likely a difference in recoil now could you *snicker*.

[MorphineAlien]

Holy crap.....I have enough trouble staying alive without making the weapons harder to aim.
And I've heard it all now, how can a 22LR even be brought into conversation here? it's barely a bullet compared to the 223 used in an M16 other than bore diameter.....and u guys are comparing trajectory and distance.....u better learn a little more about weapons and ammo before you try to compare 22LR against the ammo that is used in any military assault rifle.......

[LCJr.]

"And I've heard it all now, how can a 22LR even be brought into conversation here? it's barely a bullet compared to the 223 used in an M16 other than bore diameter"

Exactly, but you can still consistently hit smaller than human targets at a 100m+ with it. With a larger caliber and higher velocity bullet it only gets easier to hit targets at range. Also the larger the bullet the less it is affected by crosswinds. I brought up the .22LR as an example thats its more than possible to consistently hit a target at 100m with even a weak cartridge.

"Ofcourse i need to be an expert to see the difference between a tiny .22LR and a .223 Remington or the 7.62x39, i mean you couldn't just look at the cartridge size and tell that there is more then likely a difference in recoil now could you *snicker*."

As usual the point fails to penetrate your thick skull. *snicker*

By the time the recoil affects you the bullet is already well on its way. You learn where to aim to practice and IMHO recoil is a non-issue unless it is severe enough that the weapon intimidates you and develop a "flinch".

So far Beagle One has brought up the factor that affects your accuracy more than anything and thats how you pull the trigger. Squeeze don't jerk, easier said than done.

[Snakeye]

hmm, now why do you complain about the good old .22LR? It is no cartridge for military use, but it sure has its advantages(precision, low recoil, low noise, cheap etc..).
Besides you can kill someone with a .22LR as good as with most other round, you just have to be very, very careful about shot placement(hell, some US boy even killed his little sister with his BB gun - he accidently shot her in the heart; bad luck, I suppose..)

About recoil, yep, you are not supposed to compare a .223 to a .22LR in recoil terms. But apart from that I experienced, that recoil depends mainly on the weapon/bullet-combination. I've shot various rifles and pistols, mainly made for hunting purposes or military bolt-action rifles.

The .22LR in a rifle has no felt recoil at all(though I shot match rifles and these are usually heavy).
The .22LR in a pistol(Ruger DontKnowWhich) has about as much recoil as the rifle - I didn't shoot too bad with this, though I'm a really lousy pistol shooter..

If it goes too larger caliber rifles, my brother has some very light rifles, chambered for the 5.6x50R Magnum which have a rather large recoil for the caliber, much more than a SIG550 in 5.56x45.
Also 7.62 can be very conrollable, my father has a Steyr in .30-06 and I have a L42A1 in .308 which have a rather low recoil, especially compared to my Enfield No.5 in .303, which kicks like a mule.

Regarding my (very limited) experience I think INF is quite near real life. The AKMSU kicks very hard(barely controllable in longer bursts) while the SIG551 and the M16A2 are controllable, the first even in a 20rd burst, with a little bit of training.
Pistols could be a little more unprecise, but regarding my lack of training with pistols, and my lack of talent to shoot some(I achieved to miss all but one shots on an about 1.5x1.5m target at 50m range with a 7.63 Luger of the Swiss army, though I hit better with a .22 match pistol..) I think it's just me - epsecially when I read articles about professionals..
Since we are all pros in INF, I suppose everything is alright - though some kind of RPG-like ability system could make it more personal(maybe you could be talented with rifles but a bad shot with pitols etc, just like R6 and RS have it) though this would only be good for single player, since such ability systems usually tend to be abused online - so we better leave it like it is.

Snakeye :D

[DredDamo]

In that case, I take it back. I just wanted to know if people can really be this accurate with guns, and apparently the answer is yes. Then I have no problem with it ;)

Oh, and I can't go back to the shooting range just now, I'm in the UK :P

Damodred

[The_Fur]

LCR, I was talking about follow up shots, If you tell me recoil doesn't matter with that maybe you should get your thick skull checked, ass.

[vincenzo_og]

why should anythin be done to reduce accuracy?
If u are good enough fur to kill stuff at that range with a M9 then well done... im not,... not because im crap or anythin but because i aint practiced...i dont have that ability to pull of pinpoint shots instinctivley yet.

The only addition to the aiming method should be anythin that emulates body movement but not scewing bullets.

If u can pull up ur gun, shoot and hit then thats real good.
its just like RL when u pull up ur gun, shoot and hit.
Takes practice but u have got it down.

[TheSniper]

The only thing that needs to be changed is IMO the scopes. In real life you dont have a sharp picture of your target all the time when paning around with the rifle.

There needs to be some bluring in the sights whyll moving the rifle, like it is in real life. And this would take away the running snipers too.:p

[LCJr.]

Fur if I may quote myself.

"...only on auto would recoil really be an issue and you wouldn't use auto at any kind of a significant range anyway."

The game already models recoil quite well and most people are learning how to deal with it just like in real life. For example aiming at the targets cajones before firing a burst. IRL you get used to recoil and fall into sort of rhythm were you're realign your site picture as you bring the rifle back down.

Anyway Fur your original post was about accuracy and didn't mention anything about recoil or automatic fire.
If your going to continue with the childish insults and attempts to start a flame war maybe you should go back to CS.

[Elite_Soldier]

If the team really does agree that it is too easy to take shots (I really think its quite hard, but than again I have a slow machine), the could simply modify the rbeathing abit to make it so you bob left and right as well as up and down. This wouldn't affect iron sights weapons that much, but it would drastically change the way scoped weapons are fired. Anyone who has ever played Deus Ex knows how hard it is to snipe when you have no skill points in rifles. As in real life...

Stamina should have an effect on the amount of bobbing as well. I think this is already planned (?) in the next version.

[WizBiz]

I hate playing moderator, but shouldn't this post be moved into "New Version Suggestions"?

[RogueLeader]

Here is what we need to fix up aiming:

1) Hand waivering should be added. Nothing too great, just enough to make it harder to use the sights at a distance.

2) The weapon should be held close to you. if you look at some weapons, like the M16, it looks like it is being held about a meter away from you. You should be much close to the iron sights.

3) Make aiming slower, so once you bring the gun to you take a half a second to align the iron sights.

4) Add the inherent inaccuracy of the weapons. The bullet doesn't always go where you point, as it says in the FAQ. Some weapons arn't as precise as others.

[DarkBls]

->WizBiz

Damn, Wizbiz you're right ;)

*MOVED*

[Nukeproof]

Ok I see the thread is already pulling into a different direction but I want to put stress on more elementary thoughts:

I agree with the point that aiming & shooting is a lot easier in INF as in RL.
As I see it, there are basically two concepts to incorporate shooting in a game:

1. Representing the player by a well trained soldier with all his abilities.

2. Leaving every special ability to the training/talent of the human player, with the need to simulate all important aspects.

Right now Inf is compromising between these two. (leaving things like recoil and dealing with iron sights to the player but aligning the weapons for him) This seems ok to me, as it is impossible to simulate your RL weapon abilities (which would suck for me anyway 'cos of nonexistence :D) inside a computergame:

Eg.: Put a war-veterane who has never used a computer, against a 12 year old Shooter enthusiast in Inf... not hard to guess what the result would be...

Whereas Michael Schumacher will kick major butt in any good F1 sim of all 'wannabe racers'.

This is why all attempts to make Inf a 'real simulation' will fail...

I don't complain either that any 140kg fat-ass player gets the same stamina as me, although I usually do lot of sports.

Training weaponhandling in INF does already pay out much more than any 'shooter' I know. Raising difficulty in one or another aspect might imrove overall gaming-experience, but trying to make it as hard as in RL doesn't fit for me. I would quit playing Inf, if I had to train as much as an elite soldier needs to do in RL. (Hardcorefreaks: Don't tell me that makes me the wrong guy to play Inf in your opinion , I already know... :o)

I also welcome a scope-running penalty/prohibition but some suggestions are obviously trying to make INF a 'sniper only' game which would suck IMO.

Hard to imagine what manually weapon-alining would play like, but if it would make things extremly difficult... I wouldn't like it.

Btw: It's already difficult to convince my mates to play Inf on next Lan-party (because of high training necessity) leaving out those former gaming-freaks who think playing any computergame in our age is pure waste of time... ;)

[SoSilencer]

I think the current accuracy is good but only for the prone position. I've played quite a bit and haven't noticed any inherent accuracy boost from being crouched or prone, or rather any accuracy loss from being standing or moving. I say whatever the current accuracy model is should be kept and used as the prone version (with minor adjustments to make each weapon more realistic).

From there, we reduce the accuracy depending on your current position. If you are crouching and stopped your accuracy would be nearly as good as prone. If you are standing and stopped it would be almost as good as crouching. If your walking your aim would be almost as good as standing. Running and moving while crouched would make it pretty difficult to aim. Moving while prone would continue to be impossible but pressing fire would override movement and you'd stop and shoot (rather than keep moving and not shoot). Jumping, well, has anyone tried shooting while jumping? If it's even allowed your aim should suffer immensly ;)

[Luminuis]

Originally posted by Elite_Soldier
How come going prone doesnt effect your accuracy? I think it should drastically heighten it; especially with a bipod, for when the M249 gets released (yeehaw! :D)

I don't know about the rest of you, but at extreme ranges (ie across the brdige from the other side of the map in Kosovo) I find it pretty damn hard to hit my targets with any weapon without a scope. Guess thats what they are there for though. I don't know the exact range of that...

You guys can hit targets 500M away? Thats for me at least pretty damn impressive. I have enogh trouble firing three round bursts with the M16 and hitting the 100M target in practice consistenly. I can't even SEE targets out at 500M. Are you guys exaggerating?

I am reasonably a sure I read in some army manual that with an M16 you SHOULD NOT make an attempt to shoot ant things beyond 300M. Chances are you will just screw the shot and alert everyone to your presence.


The average human can see another human standing on a trully flat surface on a perfectly clear day up to TWO miles away, If you can't see out to 500 meters I suggest going to your local Lensecrafters and having a professional check up for those eyes.

[Spleen]

I dont know how many of you hunt... But I can tell you that shooting a deer thats only walking at about 200 yards is hard... Most people let it come to a stop first. This is good hunters.. Im not talking bad shots here. Now, Imagine a deer running about as fast as a human can run and try to hit it at 200 yards.. ITS HARD. I dont care how elite of a commando you are. You are not going to hit that deer running on the first shot every time. I seem to hit the man running in Inf at 200 yards on the first shot every time. Its 10 times easier than shooting a deer thats standing still.. Maybe its just too hard to compare shooting a deer in real life thats standing still to shooting a person running in a vid game.. I dont know.. seems to easy to me.

However, since its just as easy for the other guy to shoot me, it isnt really a big deal to me.

[Elite_Soldier]

Actually, my vision is above average, 20/13 last time I checked (one month ago). I can easily see something that far away with no difficulty.

However, shooting at something like that is an entirely another matter. What are the maximum effective ranges for submachine guns? Think about it.

Furthermore, submachine guns are designed to fire in a slight cone shape at farther ranges. Your chances of hitting pinpoint headshots at far distances are next to nil (let alone actually hitting ANYTHING beyond 500 M with an MP5 would be impressive).

The reason I can't see that far is because my Graphics card is aging (RAVE 128). I have to run in 16bit at 640X480. Very painful to the eyes, almost like tunnel vision. Plus, All I can see at greater distances are mere pixels... an example would be Extreme Prejudice. Without a scope, I can't seem to hit anything ever.

It could also amount to that I am an incredibly bad shot :)

PS: This is edited, I scrap the idea that submachine guns were designed tof ire in cones. They certainly weren't, but at extremely far ranges, the bullets can't help straying slightly off course, due to many reasons you are already familiar with.