Rifle accuracy (or lack thereof) in-game

(TheBuilder) #1

Let’s take the Garand as an example for this discussion.

The purpose of the Garand in WWII was to supply the allied soldier with a rifle that shot faster than the k98 and at the same time was extremely accurate. Yes, the k98 is arguably the most accurate sharpshooting rifle in the world, but in order for it to have any real accuracy-related advantage over the Garand in the field, its shooter would had to have been an Olympic-class sharpshooter, but that is beside the point. In Enemy Territory, the Garand is accurate to within 2 feet of its target at about 20 feet. That is RIDICULOUS AS HELL.

My father, who scored Expert in marksmanship while in the Marine Corps, informs me that the human-sized targets at 500 meters were no wider than 20 inches across. He also informed me that the firing line for those 500 meter targets was referred to as the “gravy line” since it was nearly impossible for any competent shooter to miss these targets. He says that NO ONE, not even those who had lower marksmanship scores, had problems hitting any of those targets with a Garand, including himself.

Furthermore, American soldiers were overall considered to be the most accurate shooters of the war. You just couldn’t find many rifle owners in France, Belgium, England, or even Germany for that matter. They had shotguns, sure, but shotguns don’t require their users to hone their marksmanship in order to achieve the desired effect. In the United States, there were rifle owners all over the place. The fact is that the folks with the most shooting experience prior to enlistment were just about all American.

As for Enemy Territory, what irritates me the most is the fact that sub-machineguns are accurate to within a few inches on fully-automatic fire, while the rifles couldn’t hit the broad side of a Concorde hangar at 50 yards. Isn’t anyone else slightly annoyed about this?

Splash Damage ought to take a look at Medal of Honor. Their Garand can be as accurate as any other rifle and still be balanced in gameplay. Why can’t SD accomplish such a thing with their game as well? Hell, give me the weapon tiki and I can do it for them. It’s that simple.

(Sombee) #2

I would prefer to not have any friggin sniper rifles in the game. Maybe then teammates on an offensive team would actually get moving and help with the objective instead of “defending the command center”!

I know, I know… I just started a whole other argument, but have you ever been on a team where everyone rushes? It’s not fun for the defense!

(_placid_) #3

i’ve gotten over 60 kills on fuel dump as axis sniper, the enemy team couldn’t even get the tank across the bridge. i was shooting people in the little health and ammo cabbin through the window from beside the mg tower.

there is nothing wrong with the sniper rifle, the accuracy is just fine, but untill you get to level 3 you’ll have to prone to accuratly shoot people.

your problem is probabley not that you’re not hitting them, but not hitting them enough, you have to shoot people 2-3 times to kill them, even in the head you usually have to shoot off their helmet then kill, you need to be able to zoom in on them, shoot, zoom out find them quick and shoot again.

personally i would SERIOUSLY dislike the covert ops to become the most powerful and most played class because you kill everything with 1 shot and no effort. splash damage’s previous mod known as quake 3 fortress has a big sniper problem, because you can kill people with 1 shoot from across the map and usually the enemy can’t do anything about it before they’re dead.

sniper rifle is fine as it is, plz don’t change it :disgust:

(TheBuilder) #4

Did I say “sniper rifle?” No. I said “RIFLE.” Big difference, Placid.

(NOYB) #5

Are the rifles innacurate? Yes. However, let’s analyze the situation.

If you’re scoped, the rifle hits exactly where you aim. (CovOps)

Engineers, on the other hand, are not given the scope. And I don’t know about you, but I’ll take a smg over a rifle any day firing from the hip. Which is what the vast majority of combat in ET consists of.

Should the accuracy be increased when in the prone position? Certainly. A rifleman in the prone position should be much more accurate. Even crouched he should be able to pick off a target from considerable range. Standing? Well, that’d be pretty difficult without being supported. Running? LOL. You should be lucky if you can hit at all.

The simple answer is this. The rifles needed to be toned down somehow. They already inflict much greater damage. If accuracy was increased it’d be an engineer romp.

(TheBuilder) #6

I also said that the rifles ought to be balanced if their accuracy is increased. Please analyze what I posted more thoroughly before posting something which I have already covered.

(SCDS_reyalP) #7

This is not MOH, there is no tiki (whatever that is, RTCW and ET don’t have it).

Other than that I mostly agree with your post. All the classic RTCW guns give you the chance for your shot hitting or not to be determined by skill. If you crouch and fire a single shot, the bullet goes very nearly where you point it (except the mauser, but you have the scope option with that). With the unscoped ET rifles, hitting over a certain range is simply random. No matter how good you are, no matter what you do, you will only get a headshot at medium range by luck. To me, this seems like a poor choice, because it reduces the rewards of player skill. (not the in game XP, real skill.)

I can see why they didn’t give them rail-like accuracy. As currently set up, they would be way overpowered. However, there are many other options they could have used:

  • recoil, like the pistols. That makes the first shot accurate, and allows a skilled player to compensate for the next shot. If that is too powerfull, they could put in a bit of random variation in the pitch and yaw.
  • make them only accurate while crouching or prone.
  • ‘tactical mode’ where your movement is restricted.
  • reduce damage.

However, i doubt SD is going to change this. In all the RTCW patches, there were VERY few gameplay changes (the most significant one I can remember, is ammo packs giving pistol ammo.) Given that the code is not going to be released, no one else will either. Oh well. It is still a very fun game.

(TheBuilder) #8

Hm, I was not aware that RtCW did not use tikis. Many other Q3-based games do. If you are correct, I suppose that would make some sense, since they would want to prevent cheaters. :smiley: Tikis ARE a big source of cheating in MoHAA, but not quite so much as in MoH Spearhead (still love it).

(NOYB) #9

How would you propose balancing the rifle then?

(TheBuilder) #10

Increase accuracy, lessen bullet damage to a little more than 50 hit points in torso region, increase amount of starting ammo to 150% that of current loadout. Tweak slightly as necessary to achieve better balance. Not hard to do… Wouldn’t even take a few days to accomplish the desired balance.

(NOYB) #11

Not trying to be contrary, but slightly greater than 50 points for a bodyshot while increasing accuracy would still make the garand/k43 too powerful.

As it is, I can beat many a person in a firefight (me with rifle - them with SMG). If the rifle was more accurate - it would be no contest.

(TheBuilder) #12

Oh, I think I understand. I suppose these wouldn’t be appropriate settings if you don’t like Spearhead’s realism… Silly me. In that case, a more RTCW-esque setting would probably be something along the lines of 34% damage per shot in torso region and a 100% original ammo loadout. This will allow the player to kill as many as 8 people with torso shots. Yep, that sounds a lot more Wolfy to me. :wink:

(Englander) #13

The Garand is accurate enough at long range IMO,the only thing what is strange is that it is equally accurate if u use it like an SMG un-scoped in close combat.

The Garand should be like the mauser in RTCW ,very good accuracy in scoped long range shooting but in close quarters un-scoped it shouldnt be able to hit shit.

(HellToupee) #14

um rtcw is about run to being true to life, ture to life didnt have lts givn ammo neers reparing tanks on the fly or covert ops with slient sniper rifles dont think there was such a thing but dose all that matter no, i think the garand is just as accuarte as the k39 so u are u jus sayin only a k39 needs improvin.

(TheBuilder) #15

Once again: This is the non-scoped rifles we’re talking about. Non-scoped rifles were still meant to be long-range weapons. The point of the garand was to be able to “hit shit” at greater distances out of range of fully automatic sub-machineguns. In ET, they do not. That is the topic.

(Englander) #16

You started this topic about the Garand,in ET the Garand as a scope.

(TheBuilder) #17

…Come again? I don’t understand the gramatically challenged, not to be rude or anything. I also don’t know what the heck a K39 is. :uhoh:

(TheBuilder) #18

[quote=“Englander”]

You started this topic about the Garand,in ET the Garand as a scope.[/quote]

Try being an Engineer, Englander. At least in MY version of the game, there isn’t a scope on that rifle… :lol:

(Twist) #19

Builder your just plain rude to anyone who posts on this topic.
Maybe the accuracy problem your having is between the chair and your keyboard.

(Englander) #20

I play Engineer more than any other class but i always use SMG,but yes the Garand for Engineer as no scope.

The Covert-Ops M1 Garand does have a scope though.

I see your point with rifles,obviously they should have a greater accuracy when it comes to long range shooting,but i believe because the Engineer is a class what pushes forward into close combat situations to complete his objectives it would be an advantage that wouldn’d get used much.

It would obviously be more realistic if rifles had a more accurate shot at long range,but we after remember this is a game and not reality.