BlOps chart, JA2 1.13 style

[psijaka]

Recoil patterns are a bit academic for the semi autos in any case, as there is no way of controlling when the second shot is taken.

[mannon]

I wouldn't say that there is no way to control it. More like it will vary from the full recoil pattern of it's firetime down to completely recentering, depending upon how fast you fire it. That makes the pattern a bit more difficult to predict unless you assume a fire rate, but it actually makes it quite controllable.

Technically you can do the same thing with a full auto weapon as well, you just have to pop fire it at a slower rate than it's full auto ROF.

As for recoil in hipfire... you still get viewkicked even if you aren't in ADS. Yes the hipfire spread is more relevant, but if you're going to be firing a lot of shots in rapid succession the viewkick is nontrivial as well. There's no need to remove data from the chart.

[Ishbane]

Mar 13, 2011 9:20:22 GMT -5 mannon said:

There's no need to remove data from the chart.

Since the column contains patterns for ADS recoil, there actually is.

[mannon]

Aren't all the hipfire viewkick numbers just the same as the ADS ones even though they are separate entries?

[arcanine2009]

Ishbane, just curious.. Where did you get the initial idea (after release day) that Dragunov initially increased centerspeed by +500 w/ ACOG or Infared scope?

[Ishbane]

Mar 14, 2011 17:37:12 GMT -5 arcanine2009 said:

Ishbane, just curious.. Where did you get the initial idea (after release day) that Dragunov initially increased centerspeed by +500 w/ ACOG or Infared scope?

denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=2097&post=33351

[arcanine2009]

1000 hip centerspeed (centerspeed for firing at the hip) makes no sense to me on any sniper rifle, considering how terrible the hipspread of sniper rifles are.

Has anyone actually tested it btw? Could have sworn I tested on the hip also, and didn't notice a difference.

[Contrary]

wouldn't centrespeed be more relevant to their poor fire rate than their hipfire? Centre speed relates to recoil, not spread.

[mannon]

I think his point was that the hipfire cone is already so large it makes the viewkick in hipfire kinda irrelevant... I think...

[arcanine2009]

When did I ever say centerspeed relates to hipspread?

I said that a high centerspeed hipspread bonus on a sniper rifle isn't going to much jack, (regardless of RoF imo) when the hipspread is bad enough on sniper rifles, to counter balance.


Funny thing though, is that in WaW, the wii version had no hip spread on the sniper rifles(as well as no sway). You could no scope someone from one edge of cliffside, all the way to the other.

[arcanine2009]

Can IR see targets through willy pete?

[H8ters2]

yep im pretty sure.

[arcanine2009]

Has anyone tried this themselves?

I did a few months ago against bots in combat training, and I just couldn't see them through the smoke w/ my IR

[Contrary]

Does crouching and lying prone affect the RPK's recoil?

[arcanine2009]

^I think it only helps reduce hipfire spread.

[sphinctahcowboyq]

ishbane, i thought den's chart was awesome...

you, sir, have made it even better!

thanks
SC

[arcanine2009]

I wish enfield w/ acog got no centerspeed decrease. /=That susat scope is sexy.

[psijaka]

^ Enfield still the best full auto to use with an ACOG, with 23% of second shots taking place when the gun has fully recovered from the kick of the 1st round. And I like the scope too; one of the best. Very precise.

I don't get the logic of decreasing centerspeed when you use an optic. A very crude way of dealing with recoil. If you were using (say) a 2x zoom, viewkick should be twice what it would be without the optic, but centerspeed should also be twice. Thus the gun should have a bigger visual kick but recover in exactly the same time. And if you fire from the hip, the gun should respond as if there were no optic.

(I think I have got my logic right here )

[mannon]

Personally I've always disliked the fact that merely putting an ACOG on a rifle gives it worse recoil. Okay so there's a little extra weight on the gun, but that's really not going to do much. Of course, it'd done for balance rather than realism, but I just don't like it. I mean the whole point of using a sight with some level of zoom is for precision, and then you go and make the gun less precise... brava, way to make an attachment worthless. While we're at it why don't we make it so rapidfire also increases ADS time, so that even though you kill faster you aim slower and practical TTK is pretty much unchanged? That could actually be a somewhat interesting trade off in some cases... more interesting than the Zoom+More Recoil... But it still ultimately gimps the attachment.

I dunno... I tend to think every attachment should follow the same philosophy. Either they should all come with an advantage/disadvantage trade off, or they should all be pure advantage. Otherwise the ones that are a trade off are underpowered by comparison.

Of course there's also the whole functional advantage vs aesthetic one. heh Friday I was explaining to my brother why I almost never use a sight on my weapons because I just prefer functional attachments when the iron sights are generally pretty good. He was kinda incredulous and said the RDS does have a function, it helps him aim better. heh Then he used a FAMAS with iron sights a while and did pretty good. ;p

[kirbyderby]

Yeah, irons usually work, but if you spray more, it can be easy to lose track of where you're shooting. RDS halps in that aspect.

I always thought a longer ADS was punishment enough for ACOGs, adding recoil makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe someone can ask whoever made it that way, because I'd really like to know.

[asasa]

Jun 14, 2011 15:31:01 GMT -5 psijaka said:

^ Enfield still the best full auto to use with an ACOG, with 23% of second shots taking place when the gun has fully recovered from the kick of the 1st round. And I like the scope too; one of the best. Very precise.

I don't get the logic of decreasing centerspeed when you use an optic. A very crude way of dealing with recoil. If you were using (say) a 2x zoom, viewkick should be twice what it would be without the optic, but centerspeed should also be twice. Thus the gun should have a bigger visual kick but recover in exactly the same time. And if you fire from the hip, the gun should respond as if there were no optic.

(I think I have got my logic right here )

Doubling both wouldnt result in the same recoil. It would have the same recenter time, but different full auto accuracy. I think.

[Megaqwerty]

Simply increasing magnification, without changing centerspeed, results in amplified visual recoil, but identical actual recoil.

You can see this yourself by using the Einfield Thermal, M60 Grip + Thermal, or M14 Grip + Thermal (man, this chart is handy!) versus the base gun. The M60 in particular makes it very apparent that there is no need for the long range optics to change centerspeed as it has very minimal recoil without the IR scope, but, visually, kicks like a mule with it.

Given this, even if the long range optics didn't change centerspeed, it would still be harder to remain on target while firing full-auto anyway due to greater visual recoil. As kirby said, ACOGs punish you enough by increasing ADS time, rendering you less effective in CQC, and taking up an attachment slot. Even if ACOGs didn't increase recoil, it would be hard to justify it because increased magnification is of very minimal benefit compared to the other attachments available.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the fact that they increase recoil is a holdover from CoD4 where IW really didn't want you longshotting from across the map with full-auto weapons and when they removed sway in MW2, they forgot to update the telescopic sights.

[asasa]

Wa2000 seems to ADS faster with thermal than other weapons. Just my imagination?

[Ishbane]

Jul 8, 2011 21:55:28 GMT -5 asasa said:

Wa2000 seems to ADS faster with thermal than other weapons. Just my imagination?

Yes.

0.4 sec w/ all attachments except ACOG (0.3).

[asasa]

Dang. I was hoping for another discrepancy. Thanks for clarifying.

[dsi1]

Mar 18, 2011 2:40:05 GMT -5 arcanine2009 said:

Can IR see targets through willy pete?

Willy Pete is White Phosphorus, so it doesn't really make sense to be able to see through it with IR. (Though it'd be a neat gameplay mechanic if there was a 'cold' smoke grenade, would certainly give more of a point to IR scopes)

[duckcall00]

Jul 14, 2011 2:49:11 GMT -5 dsi1 said:

Mar 18, 2011 2:40:05 GMT -5 arcanine2009 said:

Can IR see targets through willy pete?

Willy Pete is White Phosphorus, so it doesn't really make sense to be able to see through it with IR. (Though it'd be a neat gameplay mechanic if there was a 'cold' smoke grenade, would certainly give more of a point to IR scopes)

Actually you can see threw Willy Pete with a IR. I did it the other day with a PSG-1.

[duckcall00]

Jul 14, 2011 2:49:11 GMT -5 dsi1 said:

Mar 18, 2011 2:40:05 GMT -5 arcanine2009 said:

Can IR see targets through willy pete?

Willy Pete is White Phosphorus, so it doesn't really make sense to be able to see through it with IR. (Though it'd be a neat gameplay mechanic if there was a 'cold' smoke grenade, would certainly give more of a point to IR scopes)

Actually you can see through Willy Pete with a IR. I did it the other day with a PSG-1.

[Megaqwerty]

Jul 14, 2011 2:49:11 GMT -5 dsi1 said:

Willy Pete is White Phosphorus, so it doesn't really make sense to be able to see through it with IR. (Though it'd be a neat gameplay mechanic if there was a 'cold' smoke grenade, would certainly give more of a point to IR scopes)

...and white phosphorus isn't a smoke grenade. Okay, sure, it can be used to generate a smoke screen, but it's also a pretty a brutal incendiary weapon in real life.

That said, however, you absolutely can see through smoke with IR: this was a really popular strategy in MW2. I think it's less popular now due all the sniper nerfs.

[kirbyderby]

...and because the IR scope is doo-doo.