It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
F4LL0UT: It's also infuriating when someone accuses a game that you love with false claims and that person has trouble liking that game due to his or her misconceptions. :P I'm just trying to clarify things and I've also tested things a lot and know that the AI does miss more often than it hits and wrong observations can be explained in a number of ways.
avatar
Jonesy89: I just got finished getting my ass handed to me in a firefight that I absolutely should have won. The Obakon is a fairly good rifle at long range, or at least it was in SoC; now, it seems like even when aiming down the sights through a scope, each shot has an equal chance of veering off to the edge of the scope's FOV or hitting in a nonvital area that was nowhere near where I was aiming, despite me being prone and firing off single shots. The enemy, armed with the same weapon, stood in an upright position and leisurely fired on full auto from the hip while strafing and missed me twice, maybe three times, while the vast majority of his bullets had no trouble finding my face.

Distressed that my weapon had decided to have a much larger spray than the AI's, I spotted a pile of pipes behind the enemy encampment. I began rubbing my hands together in glee as I plotted to flank the enemy while a band of friendlies kept them distracted, blowing them away from the safety of cover with slugs and darts fired from the long barreled double shotty I keep on me for just such an occasion; after all, it has an almost perfect accurracy rating, which should make it easy to nail enemies at a few paces.

I got into position, delighted that the enemy hadn't spotted me, and I leveled the barrel right at the top of a dude's torso. The shot veered up and over his head to the right. I fired again, and this time the shot went just past his left ear. I kept firing like that for five minutes, and failed to hit a target that by all rights should have been dead six minutes ago. I tried a scavenged Vintorez, and was bewildered to see that this one had a comparable accuracy rating, yet the crosshair tightened up far more. Not that it mattered much, since I had yet another repeat of the shenanigans with shots at near point blank range coming nowhere near close.

At first I thought that the issue might be that my weapons had degraded, but then I remembered that degradation only affected the chance of the weapon to jam; at least, that's what it did in SoC, and I find it hard to believe that GSC would have turned around and have it start impacting accuracy in CS. Either way, I am far beyond the start of CS, and I am still experiencing a measurable imbalance between the AI and player accuracy to a degree that I never saw in SoC.
We were (or at least I was) talking about SoC, not CS. I can't speak for CS, since I haven't played it nearly as much as the other two.

I know that in SoC, even with the enemy hit probability modifiers turned off, I hit them about the same number of times they hit me, if we are using the same weapon.
avatar
UniversalWolf: 1) SoC is a FPS, not a RPG, at all, in any way whatsoever.

2) If you've ever done any real-world shooting, it's quite apparent that all the guns in SoC are unrealistically inaccurate.

3) The AI doesn't have some magically increased accuracy over the player, but it does have faster reflexes and tendency to expend lots and lots of ammo in the player's direction. Once you get a rifle with a scope, you can kill them from far enough away that they'll miss most of the time even though they keep shooting at you.

4) SoC is a FPS, not a RPG, at all, in any way whatsoever.
I'm not sure I agree with #2. Don't forget that a target shooting situation is much different than an actual combat situation, and your accuracy is significantly reduced under duress. Lacking a good way to simulate all the details of weapon handling that you could screw up under stress (such as proper trigger pull, which can actually have a huge effect on accuracy), it would make sense to simply make the weapons less accurate than they would be in target practice.
avatar
jefequeso: Don't forget that a target shooting situation is much different than an actual combat situation, and your accuracy is significantly reduced under duress.
I don't think that washes as a rationalization, because the human factor is built into the fact that you have to aim the weapon yourself, and you already get more sloppy as the tension of the game increases. If there's an added abstraction in the inaccuracy of the weapons, it's redundant. Besides, if you try sniping you really notice the problem. You can do that from a distance while taking your time, but the groupings you shoot are still pathetic. That's not realistic at all. To demonstrate it even better, you can try shooting at a stationary target. You're not even in combat at that point, and the accuracy still stinks.

Don't get me wrong; true realism wouldn't work in SoC. The areas simply aren't big enough. But the guns in SoC are very unrealistically inaccurate across the board. You just have to learn to deal with it (or change it with a mod, I suppose).

I've read that difficulty settings below Master make a percentage of bullets simply disappear (though they're still visible), both for you and the AI. If that's the case, I would definitely recommend playing on Master. It's probably easier, as a matter of fact, since your own hits won't be negated for no reason.
Post edited February 14, 2014 by UniversalWolf
avatar
UniversalWolf: 1) SoC is a FPS, not a RPG, at all, in any way whatsoever.
I have to disagree. In my book RPGs aren't defined by what is usually called "RPG elements", e.g. character development via farming XP and boosting attributes and randomly generated loot. In fact I consider SoC more of an RPG than most games that are called that, plus the equipment and artifacts introduce a sense of progression similar to RPGs. As for the other things - a living game world that you are largely free to explore, different supported play styles, many optional tasks etc., all of that gives the game overall the structure and game experience you normally find in sandbox RPGs.

avatar
UniversalWolf: 2) If you've ever done any real-world shooting, it's quite apparent that all the guns in SoC are unrealistically inaccurate.
Well, yes and no. I think the artificial inaccuracy does a decent job simulating actual accuracy in combat situations. I mean, sure, the effective range of the guns is nowhere near realistic values, then again the distances in the game themselves are rather abstract and small so it just makes sense that the effective ranges are reduced, plus the spread makes up for the lack of weapon sway. Accuracy just goes down remarkably when you're constantly on the move, have little rest and even frequently make sprints between and during combat situations - your hands would be shaking like crazy taking the stress and exhaustion into account that you'd expect from the life of a stalker. It's IMO perfectly legitimate that they omitted weapon sway but introduced artificially high spread. Stalker isn't a simulator but all in all the combat feels rather authentic for what is seemingly just an abstract shooter.
avatar
UniversalWolf: I don't think that washes as a rationalization, because the human factor is built into the fact that you have to aim the weapon yourself, and you already get more sloppy as the tension of the game increases. If there's an added abstraction in the inaccuracy of the weapons, it's redundant.
Well, that only covers the psychological factor and not all of it. Sitting in front of a computer and playing an action game does not have the same effect as being in an actual combat situation where your life is threatened - that's also the reason why games like Battlefield simulate suppression via artificial means (and no, not saying that Battlefield is a highly realistic game - it's still a legitimate method to enforce a real psychological occurrence via abstract means in a video game, even one that goes for a rather realistic experience). And well, as I said, there is no weapon sway in the game which would be extreme taking the exhaustion into account that you'd expect from a Stalker. You can't say that it's redundant to simulate that via artificial means.
Post edited February 14, 2014 by F4LL0UT
avatar
jefequeso: I'm not sure I agree with #2. Don't forget that a target shooting situation is much different than an actual combat situation, and your accuracy is significantly reduced under duress. Lacking a good way to simulate all the details of weapon handling that you could screw up under stress (such as proper trigger pull, which can actually have a huge effect on accuracy), it would make sense to simply make the weapons less accurate than they would be in target practice.
Dang, I had actually skipped your post when replying to UniversalWolf. It's funny, we basically thought the same thing. We didn't convince the guy but still: *brofist*
avatar
UniversalWolf: I've read that difficulty settings below Master make a percentage of bullets simply disappear (though they're still visible), both for you and the AI. If that's the case, I would definitely recommend playing on Master. It's probably easier, as a matter of fact, since your own hits won't be negated for no reason.
I thought this myself once, it appears to be a common misconception. Looking on the Zone Reclamation Project website under 'What You Know That Ain't So" it states :

the difficulty setting does NOT determine how often YOUR shots hit the target. It roughly determines how often the NPC shots hit you, maximum if the NPC is within hit_probability_max_dist (in gamedata\config\weapons\weapons.ltx), which defaults to a mere 10 meters. It drops off from there. Set it to a higher value (like 100 or 1000) for a tougher game at any difficulty level.
Link: http://www.metacognix.com/stlkrsoc/WhatYouKnowThatAintSo.html
avatar
jefequeso: Don't forget that a target shooting situation is much different than an actual combat situation, and your accuracy is significantly reduced under duress.
avatar
UniversalWolf: I don't think that washes as a rationalization, because the human factor is built into the fact that you have to aim the weapon yourself, and you already get more sloppy as the tension of the game increases. If there's an added abstraction in the inaccuracy of the weapons, it's redundant. Besides, if you try sniping you really notice the problem. You can do that from a distance while taking your time, but the groupings you shoot are still pathetic. That's not realistic at all. To demonstrate it even better, you can try shooting at a stationary target. You're not even in combat at that point, and the accuracy still stinks.

Don't get me wrong; true realism wouldn't work in SoC. The areas simply aren't big enough. But the guns in SoC are very unrealistically inaccurate across the board. You just have to learn to deal with it (or change it with a mod, I suppose).

I've read that difficulty settings below Master make a percentage of bullets simply disappear (though they're still visible), both for you and the AI. If that's the case, I would definitely recommend playing on Master. It's probably easier, as a matter of fact, since your own hits won't be negated for no reason.
I believe that's actually a myth. On lower difficulties, that is true for the AI (and even true on masters, unless you modify two variables, which I strongly recommend). But your shots always hit. At least according to this guy, who I believe knows what he's talking about: http://www.metacognix.com/stlkrsoc/WhatYouKnowThatAintSo.html

And no, the player being under duress doesn't necessarily translate into realistic "under stress" weapon accuracy, because there's a lot more happening physically when you fire a gun in real life than when you click the left mouse button. Again, something as simple as the way you pull the trigger can actually have a big effect on your accuracy. My argument is that the inaccuracy of STALKER firearms is realistic in the sense that that's a realistic representation of what your accuracy would be in a similar real life situation. The exaggerated inaccuracy makes up for the greater ease of using a mouse rather than a real heavy weapon that you have to physically hold up, and which reacts to every little movement.
avatar
jefequeso: I'm not sure I agree with #2. Don't forget that a target shooting situation is much different than an actual combat situation, and your accuracy is significantly reduced under duress. Lacking a good way to simulate all the details of weapon handling that you could screw up under stress (such as proper trigger pull, which can actually have a huge effect on accuracy), it would make sense to simply make the weapons less accurate than they would be in target practice.
avatar
F4LL0UT: Dang, I had actually skipped your post when replying to UniversalWolf. It's funny, we basically thought the same thing. We didn't convince the guy but still: *brofist*
:)
Post edited February 14, 2014 by jefequeso
avatar
jefequeso: And no, the player being under duress doesn't necessarily translate into realistic "under stress" weapon accuracy, because there's a lot more happening physically when you fire a gun in real life than when you click the left mouse button.
That may be, but the player's own limited reflexes and mistakes that they tend to make when confronted with character death are significant; trying to impose total realistic inaccuracy via stats on top of that is an overkill, unless the inaccuracy were to scale with things like movement and positioning. As it stands, going prone and staying still does help narrow the window of where a bullet will go, but the way it still leads to missed easy shots is inexcusable at times; I get limiting effective weapon range due to not wanting the player to be able to nail guys in the head from a mile away with a pistol or shotgun, but when I take my sweet time to line up my first shot from an assault rifle against an unaware enemy, there is no reason in the world that I shouldn't be able to nail him in the head with a single bullet.
avatar
Jonesy89: ...the player's own limited reflexes and mistakes that they tend to make when confronted with character death are significant; trying to impose total realistic inaccuracy via stats on top of that is an overkill...
Yes, exactly. The OP's complaint about the game is valid in this regard.

Real world firearms with rifled barrels don't spread bullets in a cone (well, technically they do, but it's a cone small enough to be practically insignificant in most cases). If you fix them in place mechanically, you can shoot them over and over again and the bullet travels almost exactly the same trajectory. That trajectory may or may not line up with the sights on the gun, but it doesn't vary much.

As Jonesy89 says, it makes much more sense when it's tied to movement and stance and things like that.

BTW, thanks to everyone who corrected my misconception about Master difficulty. I started over on Master and it is in fact much more difficult than Stalker, but I'm still glad I did it because I'm enjoying it more. On Master, if a bandit with a shotgun shoots you at close range, you will feel it!
Post edited February 16, 2014 by UniversalWolf
avatar
Jonesy89: ...the player's own limited reflexes and mistakes that they tend to make when confronted with character death are significant; trying to impose total realistic inaccuracy via stats on top of that is an overkill...
avatar
UniversalWolf: Yes, exactly. The OP's complaint about the game is valid in this regard.

Real world firearms with rifled barrels don't spread bullets in a cone (well, technically they do, but it's a cone small enough to be practically insignificant in most cases). If you fix them in place mechanically, you can shoot them over and over again and the bullet travels almost exactly the same trajectory. That trajectory may or may not line up with the sights on the gun, but it doesn't vary much.

As Jonesy89 says, it makes much more sense when it's tied to movement and stance and things like that.
The hell of it is that movement and positioning already do affect how accurate you are, so the stats are at least partially redundant. Then again, trying for realism was already somewhat defeated by the way the game portrays shotguns as having a wide spread, which seems to be [url=http://www.cracked.com/article_19781_6-stupid-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies_p2.html]inaccurate. At the end of the day, I managed to get used to the way guns worked in SoC, even if it was more work than should have been required. As for Clear Sky, after that last firefight I decided to take a look at the SA LP, and was amazed at just how many glitch-bullets I managed to dodge that are apparently not fixed by the Complete Mod.
Post edited February 16, 2014 by Jonesy89
avatar
jefequeso: And no, the player being under duress doesn't necessarily translate into realistic "under stress" weapon accuracy, because there's a lot more happening physically when you fire a gun in real life than when you click the left mouse button.
avatar
Jonesy89: That may be, but the player's own limited reflexes and mistakes that they tend to make when confronted with character death are significant; trying to impose total realistic inaccuracy via stats on top of that is an overkill, unless the inaccuracy were to scale with things like movement and positioning. As it stands, going prone and staying still does help narrow the window of where a bullet will go, but the way it still leads to missed easy shots is inexcusable at times; I get limiting effective weapon range due to not wanting the player to be able to nail guys in the head from a mile away with a pistol or shotgun, but when I take my sweet time to line up my first shot from an assault rifle against an unaware enemy, there is no reason in the world that I shouldn't be able to nail him in the head with a single bullet.
I simply don't agree that it's overkill, considering how easy it is to execute actions in a videogame when compared to executing the same actions in real life. Sure, players under stress tend to make more mistakes than players not under stress, but the ease of using a mouse to aim and the practice FPS gamers have aiming accurately very quickly while under fire make this fairly inconsequential when we're talking about trying to portray realistic firefight inaccuracy.

But you are right about positioning. When you're "prone" (not technically prone, but whatever), you haven't been seen, and you take the time to line up your shot with a rifle, your shots should really be more accurate than they are. You are also right about the shotgun spread, which is pretty ridiculous.
The problem is, if you can do everything right and still miss two feet to the left, how do you ever learn to get better at the game?

I used the ZRP to reduce the scatter effect dramatically, and the game is better for it.
avatar
UniversalWolf: The problem is, if you can do everything right and still miss two feet to the left, how do you ever learn to get better at the game?

I used the ZRP to reduce the scatter effect dramatically, and the game is better for it.
Because it's not a game of precise aim, it's a game of positioning and risk/reward assessment. So you learn to get better by moving more effectively in combat and understanding when it's a good idea to play it safe and when it's a good idea to take a chance in favor of a better position. Your strategy shouldn't revolve around getting surprise headshots on enemies from far away. That's just not what Shadow of Chernobyl is about.

But hey, if you have more fun with modified accuracy, more power to you.
In my opinion at least, gunplay has always been a little weird in SoC. Honestly it's never been something I've fully got my head around, much like the concept of the zone, I find you just have to 'figure out' what works and what doesn't. The gunplay is fun, at least to me, but equally it's nonsense.

This seems to be at the root of most discussions;

the difficulty setting does NOT determine how often YOUR shots hit the target. It roughly determines how often the NPC shots hit you
http://www.metacognix.com/stlkrsoc/WhatYouKnowThatAintSo.html

I'd have to say I'm incredibly dubious of the quote above, particularly as the author others no real evidence and even states; "No, that's not scientific, but it is my experience -- the same kind of "proof" as the ones who claim otherwise." Maybe some people feel the need to defend the game against accusations of such a dumb mechanic. But I'd say that you have to make your own mind up when it comes to SoC, and if you enjoy it, who cares? I'm nearly done with another play through and I'm having a lot of flashbacks from my old experiences;

- Many instances of bullets travelling through enemies with seemingly no effect. But it's hard to know exactly what's going on in the game engine. It could be the bullet still registered damage, after all enemies in SoC can tank quite a bit and realistically a bullet can go straight through a target. For all I know it could be that there is disparity between what the engine registers and what is visually represented - in which case all empirical evidence is useless.

- Headshots are awesome, but as enigmatic as ever, the hitbox doesn't seem to extend into the face? Then again I have no idea what the damage multiplier is.

- Enemies seem to be briefly immune to damage when they go into an "ouch that hurt" animation. Again who knows? It could be that the animation has to finish before the enemy actually falls down dead. I have my own habits to deal with it and I've never been bothered enough to collect evidence to confirm or deny.

- The SVU is a laughably irredeemable p.o.s. AN94 shots will occasionally go hilariously wide, the vss vintorez is the ultimate troll canon and makes me feel like a god.

In closing I will say that none of the above really detracted from the fun. And for the record, the best Stalker gun play for me has come courtesy of Pripyat Complete and Misery. But each to his own, if you are having fun, that's all that matters.
Post edited February 20, 2014 by rice_pudding
avatar
UniversalWolf: The problem is, if you can do everything right and still miss two feet to the left, how do you ever learn to get better at the game?

I used the ZRP to reduce the scatter effect dramatically, and the game is better for it.
avatar
jefequeso: Because it's not a game of precise aim, it's a game of positioning and risk/reward assessment. So you learn to get better by moving more effectively in combat and understanding when it's a good idea to play it safe and when it's a good idea to take a chance in favor of a better position. Your strategy shouldn't revolve around getting surprise headshots on enemies from far away. That's just not what Shadow of Chernobyl is about.

But hey, if you have more fun with modified accuracy, more power to you.
No, it's bad design. But it's easy to change (or not) with the ZRP, so everyone can be happy.