This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is Battlefield 3 comparable to STALKER or ARMA in shooting mechanics?

#11ZeraphLordSPosted 9/22/2013 9:18:02 AM
Orestes417 posted...
Don't know why you mention stalker with ARMA with regard to shooting mechanics. One is a simulator and the other is based on virtual dice rolls. As for Battlefield, no it's not a sim. It's not intended to be and would be a vastly worse game if it were.


Stalker only rolls the dice based on difficulty for attacks made from enemies, towards you. All of your bullets hit, all of the time (accounting for bullet spread and your own aim. ADS of course). This rumor has had stupid amounts of proliferation, despite being so easily testable.

Even then, bullet pathing remains implemented with projectiles, and models curved ricochets (accurate or not, I don't know).
---
The best course of action is to just get the information you need, then get out while you're still alive. - destroy everything on GameFAQs
#12Orestes417Posted 9/22/2013 9:23:12 AM
Bullets might hit what they're fired towards, but they most definitely don't fire where aimed 100% of the time
---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#13ThePCElitistPosted 9/22/2013 9:30:56 AM(edited)
Orestes417 posted...
Bullets might hit what they're fired towards, but they most definitely don't fire where aimed 100% of the time


As far as I'm aware BF3 has little to no bullet drop or drift. If you aim somewhere the bullet will usually always hit within a small window of margin. If the target is 400m away just aim accordingly and fire.

In ARMA if you aim at a target that's far away the bullet will often land several yards away from where your crosshairs were aimed at due to bullet drop, wind and elevation. I've had to aim several feet ahead of standing still targets before in ARMA and several inches above their head (in my scope) just to get a confirmed hit.

---
---
#14Orestes417Posted 9/22/2013 9:33:17 AM
We're talking about Stalker at the moment, and why it really shouldn't be mentioned in the same class as ARMA. BF3 implements just enough pseudo realistic physics to keep the action fast and balanced. ARMA is a a sim of the caliber used to train actual soldiers. Completely different animals.
---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#15ZeraphLordSPosted 9/22/2013 9:49:52 AM
Orestes417 posted...
Bullets might hit what they're fired towards, but they most definitely don't fire where aimed 100% of the time


Fair, although firing cones (aka spread) are there to model areas where human input (shake/compensation) would otherwise be present, and also the slight deviation that exists even in real life weaponry. In other games too, this is linked to weapon condition.

I haven't played ARMA, so I can't really say anything about it.

I don't mind firing cones, as with STALKER, as even with the starting pistol, it's easily possible to take out the first camp, and the small military outpost with crouch-stanced shots to the head, one bullet per target.

STALKER is plenty rigid, especially with instant stance switching, and isn't without flaws, but I don't feel particularly put out with it's handling. If you feel that the cone is too exaggerated compared with RL, I can't really say if that's right or not.

BF3 has some things that feel a bit arbitrary (fixed-rate spread decay for instance, which I would expect to be modeled into recoil), but I don't find it tries to be realistic enough for me to care.

I don't put the two together (ARMA and STALKER), but on the point of contention over hit probability, I felt to say something.
---
The best course of action is to just get the information you need, then get out while you're still alive. - destroy everything on GameFAQs