there is always the question whether the devs strive for uncompromised reality or for some game balance.
I have no huge practical experience with guns apart from few visits to shooting range and some airsoft matches.
but would definitely welcome some additional animations in regards to the legs hit and arms hit so the enemy AI will behave as it is hit but not eliminated. I wrote additional as I noticed already some similar animation.
and oc I would like to see more weapons
maybe @jenrick you can try to send some feedback to the dev(s). they are usually opened to listen to feedback.
Well I’m glad they have toned it down then. It’s a game design element that I think could still use some serious tweaking. Considering Ground Branch has been in development in one form our another for close to a decade (or is it over?), you’d think they’d have figured this one out. The right mouse button to bring up the sights isn’t the issue (that’s a pretty standard FPS convention), it’s the hitting fire and not having my long gun transition to the “ready stance” and firing an unsighted round that is the issue.
Personal opinion it’s bad interface design to have the fire button in an FPS not fire a round depending on which of the three states your weapon stance is in. That strikes me as overly complex mechanic that really could be thought out better. Right now there is very little reason to use the low ready or high port with a long gun, and same with a pistol. You completely loose the advantage of the high ready position compared to the compressed ready or low ready.
They bill their title, " GB puts the “tactical” back in “tactical shooter”—no compromises." As well as " BE IN FULL CONTROL - In the tactical shooter realm, movement and weapon handling are king." They have a core mechanic which I feel doesn’t meet their goal. I’m not sure why you seem to have potentially taken offense to my opinion on that?
@NEVO feedback has been sent, and I mainly am hoping they address the quality-of-life issues.
For the record, I actually rather like GB minus the things I mentioned. Same with RoN, there are some design decisions I’m not crazy about. I do however feel that in the spirit of open discussion (this being a sim’ing/gaming forum after all), I should mention the warts as well.
Things like sway and accuracy are a problem with all shooters for a variety of reasons, but I think a major one is the concept of “realism.”
If you’ve never held nor shot a gun in your life, and you pick one up and try to shoot things beyond point blank range, you’re going to need extraordinary focus, awareness of all the various competing physics, luck, and still likely miss a lot.
If you’re a trained and/or experienced operator with years (or decades) of shooting practice (and perhaps for real) under your belt, this is going to come more naturally. You will gauge things instinctively, especially for guns you’re familiar with.
So…who’s programming these shooters? Coders who at best have some hunting/range experience and at worst never touched one until they got on this project (if even then), or former operators?
In a game like GB or Arma or whatever where you’re supposed to be a professional who’s not just picking up a gun for the first time, you should already have some level of ability.
Making you press G to gasp and hold RMB to bring up sights while moving the mouse continually to compensate for gravity and recoil and target movement with an FOV like looking through straws as you have to watch 360 so you don’t get jumped…
I think it’s often unrealistically hard. It’s not supposed to be one of the dev team standing there in combat, but a soldier or LEA officer or what have you.
Well stated. It’s often surprising to see what a trained individual can accomplish with a firearm, especially to newbies who have just learned the basics and don’t have tens of thousands of rounds through one type of rifle. Most of it is muscle development, frankly. It’s unnatural to hold an assault rifle on a target and deliver accurate fire; it’s not what our bodies were designed to do, and there are a lot of muscles in our forearms, upper body and core that don’t get used in that way by most people. Therefore they’re undeveloped, and it’s impossible to hold on target for any period of time.
I think a lot of video games have successfully simulated realistically the level of skill that the developers might have, and fail to grasp how well an actual ‘operator’ performs the same task.
I was just in an ARMA session the other day and some people, with no shooting experience, were commenting about excessive weapon sway. I’m not a professional or anything, but I’ve been known to exercise my 2A rights. I was asking, have you held an AK with a full mag and scope and trying holding it to shoulder level for 2 mins. Or a M1A 21in barrel rifle with metal receiver with long distance scope, plus bipod and full mag.
Good points. ARMA seems to get it closer to right than most, with sway being weapon dependent and pretty forgiving with reasonable weapons. I don’t have a problem making shots in Arma that match what I would expect in the real world.
Ground Branch, not so much. Maybe if I play it enough I’ll be surprised how good my groups are next range day, LOL!
The main issue I have with ARMA (really any FPS) is a reality versus limitations of simulation issue. I know what my rifle/weapon does in different positions (supported, offhand, etc) and with me in different conditions (calm, winded, gassed, etc). I can correct for it relatively unconsciously and it’s pretty consistent in what my gun does in each situation. Also I know what I can do environmentally to make my life easier (hasty sling, environmental support, change my shooting stance to one more befitting what I’m doing). I’m pretty much SOL on all that in any FPS title, which is just a limitation of simulation. Nothing else out there is going to be able to simulate it so I just deal with it.
Best opinioin I’ve read in this whole thread. Great segue to getting this thread back on track too. Pixel killing wth your mouse should never be compared to reality.
Ground Branch is just a game people, and a hella fun one at that, IMO!
No, and I’m pretty sure the Army… well CIA (ground branch) don’t want you dropping your weapon and using a dead bad guys. lol
New QUESTION… I tried using the NV Sight but it requires a zoomed sight before hand making the whole top rail filled with sights and heavy… am I missing something about simply using a 1x night vision sight?
I just checked out the AN/PVS-22 UNS (universal night sight) website and it says it works with any boresighted daytime scope from 1x to 12x. Pretty cool piece of $12,000 dollar equipment eh?!
I don’t think 1x reflex sights are considered boresighted scopes … I think they’re more like a little pane of glass with the reticle projected onto it like a little mini HUD … so you can’t have your cake and eat it too ha ha!
Closest I’ve gotten to a 1x boresighted scope is the Specter DR (1x/4x) … that thing is pretty cool …
If you only need a 1x, I think the best bet is to just use your NOD with a laser … unscoped of course as @jenrick pointed out way above. I’d still use a reflex sight in front of my NOD though.
The PVS-22 and the rest of their ilk, are basically NOD tubes that sit infront of the objective end of your scope and function as an image intensifier. They are heavy, awkward, and not generally something I would run on a rifle that wasn’t going to be employed in a largely static position. You should be able to put the PVS-22 in front of anything and use it as a NVD (even hand held as monocular).
Real world, the green glow from the image intensifier is going to make the glass on your optic glow to anyone in front of you if you don’t mount it bell to bell where you don’t have any light leaks. Second I’d imagine the eye box (where you can put your eyeball and still see through it) probably isn’t designed for all the weird angles you can still see the dot/reticle in a RDO/HWS. For unconventional shooting positions (ie what you will probably be in during a gunfight) this is where RDO/HWS shine.
For a static overwatch position where I needed the capability of the daytime optic as well, they are decent solutions, as you aren’t stuck carrying two full optics with the associated mounting and zero’ing issues (which these days aren’t that bad).
@Elby I like the elcan on crew served weapons. It’s a heavy sucker (we’ll they used to be, I haven’t handled on in years) compared to the current crop of low powered variable optics (LVPO) that are out now. For something like a 240, they are very solid and will handle the recoil just fine.
Speaking of I just tried out the PVS-22, and it is bugged that it doesn’t show the IR laser or illuminator if your rifle is so equipped.
That’s a bizarre bug. I wonder how they accomplished that? It must not use the same NV engine as the regular goggles.
I’m not sure why they use that wording, as it could sound a little confusing. I think what they mean by ‘boresighted’ is ‘zeroed to the weapon’, meaning that as long as the optic (whether it be a “1x” red dot, holosight, 4x scope, etc) is zeroed, mounting the ‘clip-on’ NV device in front of it won’t change that zero. So you can take it on and off without having to worry about adjustments or losing your zero. In fact, the alignment doesn’t even have to be perfect between the two, as long as it’s close enough to see through. You’ll see older pictures of them mounted in front of everything from ACOGs to Aimpoints, although I bet you don’t see as many of them these days with the availability of thermal weapon sights, smaller NV units, and just IR lasers and PVS-14/15’s on the helmets. They’re kinda an evolution of the original AN/PVS-2 Starlight from the Vietnam era, and from the 80’s/90’s where one man in a squad or platoon might have an NVG, if they were lucky.
You mean the glow from NV actually shows up to other players in-game? That’s awesome, I’d never noticed!
I think the PVS-22 has a gain control to help with glow.
You should really drop a line to the devs about the bugged laser detection.
EDIT:
AGAIN, I have no real world experience with this tech … I was just trying to answer @Magnum50’s question. I REALLY wish you guys would’ve jumped on it at this point.
DOUBLE EDIT:
@jenrick and @WarPig … let’s get those Ground Branch Lone Wolf Challenge times in please! I need some competition!
I’ll be on the road sitting in various hotels the next few days with my laptop, and GB is kinda my hotel game right now, since when I’m home I can fly DCS (in what little spare time I have between wife and kids lol). Will definitely give the GB LW Challenge a run to see how I do tomorrow or next day!
I couldn’t care less what your situation is. I’m on the road all day too. Just wondering what time you guys can pull off based on the nauseating detail of weapons systems that you post.
Understood. I was replying to Elby’s observation about the gain control, didn’t know if it worked or not in game, and whether NV’s glowed. If they do, that’s amazing; so far I think only Arma 3 has had that.
I am like Alice in wonderland every time I run this game. like I discovered that one can mount Micro T1 sight on top of the ACOG 6x sights.
btw regarding the primary weapons. you dont need to drop yours when you picked enemy. so you run with two or even three. thats why wondering why I just cant equip myself this way right from start if I have weight to spare.
Wow, that’s pretty crazy! I gotta try that stuff out when I get home tonight. I like the little scope on top of the big scope idea … seems like it would be a slightly smoother transition than holding your rifle sideways for the tri-mounted scope …
I need some competition!