Why this game drives me crazy...

Yes it does, and that's exactly why weapons have variable ranges at which they are effective and variable uses and skills to operate them. You can't do long-range combat very well with a CQC weapon due to various factors including COF. You can with a long-range weapon, but once again at costs like a larger COF when hipfiring. This means that in one stroke you've suddenly created multiple skills that are absent when you don't have COF. For one, keeping your enemy at the right distance, while your enemy isn't at their right distance, PS2 even had the stroke of genius to use hipfire/ADS COF as deciding factors if a weapon became long or short ranged. And trigger discipline becomes a factor to stay accurate, again depending on the weapon type how much trigger discipline you need.

Compare that to "you only have to aim" skill that no COF games give, and with COF you have a more varied and intricate system of skills to learn and adapt to.

And keep in mind most parts of the game consist out of randomness. It might not be Randomly Generated Numbers, but it's random nonetheless. It's random when and where you'll be attacked. It's random what movement your enemy will make. It's even random what movement you will make during the engagement. It's random what path you take to your objective. It's random what weapons you'll be carrying.
It's all predictable what you'll be carrying. But not with 100% certainty, so it's all random up to a point. But hey, COF is also predictable! COF is in fact more predictable then what your enemy will do or where you'll be attacked! It grows with the same speed each shot, it shrinks at the same speed each time you stop firing, if your COF contains a player for 80% of it's surface area you have and 80% chance to hit! If you COF grew after a few shots your hit chance drops. Your enemies COF has also become larger, so now both of you have to make a decision based on your skill and knowledge of the weapon and what distance you are fighting at: Should I use trigger discipline, or do I predict that the RNG will get enough hits on my enemy if I keep firing?


But ofcourse, if you don't want randomness here's what you'll do:
Put two players with their backs to eachother with a preset weapon that everyone knows beforehand. Let them walk away 10 paces. They then have to turn RIGHT (no lefties to prevent randomness!) and fire at each other. This is the closest to a no-randomness game you can get. And I bet that after only a few fights this is going to get extremely boring. There will undoubtedly form a small dedicated playerbase that will love this type of combat to bits, but again it will be small and prefer to match up against slower less-skilled players who won't turn with their mouse on the same headlevel each time with the same fast movement to turn. OMG there's still randomness in who you'll be fighting! Let's also try and fix that... How about a bot that does the same thing every single time...?
Now yes I am taking this to extreme's, but seriously randomness isn't the enemy. It's in fact the key feature that makes most games enjoyable. You predict what will happen, then deal with what happens, repeat.

Yet this gun play is the very thing that keep me playing when other fps fail to keep my attention for even a faction of the time planetside 2 has.

I get what you're saying, but none of that changes the fact that CoF can be immensely frustrating when your aim is on point yet your bullets hit everything but your target. This is especially true at close ranges like those shown in the OP.

It's understandable (even expected) that the people remaining will be a higher % of those who like the current systems (or some specific subset of them; with the Infantry combat being one of those systems for some people). That's pretty much how a filter works. That still does not change that PS2 is a collection of systems that make general audiences not want to play PS2.

Now there area few ways to address this:
1) get rid of all the offending systems anyway, and make the game more attractive to general audiences.
2) keep all the offending systems, and continue down the current road (which actually is gradually changing those systems to be even more disliked by general audiences... and gradually unplayable by cascading sub-groups of current players).
3) change the game by recognizing the offending systems. And making new Classes/Vehicles that are specially made for those systems. And other Classes/Vehicles that are specifically made for the other types of players.
4) find some common ground where Vehicles/Classes are changed to fit both current player and general audience preferences.

Because this is "SOE", I think they have 2 practical paths: #1 or #2. #2 in the hands of SOE will kill the game, fast (see Star Wars Galaxies). #2 will kill the game slowly (which is par for most games anyway). I don't think SOE has anywhere near the chops to fathom #3 and #4, let alone actually do them. So, for the record, I think you are safe in keeping the gameplay you like... and everyone else can keep the gameplay they like... and everyone else can either not player PS2 or (if they are already players) quit in waves as the ongoing tweaks toward niche tastes causes gameplay to become unfun for them.

1 key step is to figure out what in particular it is that people like you, enjoy about these current system. And what they don't like in other systems. What is it you like about this system of "I shoot first and bullets miss where aimed, they shoot not even at me and hit me lots and I get killed"?

So they don't have the 'balls' to make an entirely different system, that has to interact with the original combat system or have duplicates of the entire game just for a select audience - This means two entire combat systems to balance, and if they have any interaction that itself has to be balanced.

Dear lord.
Not to mention, client-side, server-side issues, mixed with differences in internet connections, hardware and similar...

If the general audience does not like the way the combat works; which is near identical to post games, then they aren't the audience for the game to begin with.

Some of you might get a kick out of this. I got the jump on maldrousa, well known twitch planetside 2 steamer. It didn't matter. In slow motion not a single bullet misses. I'm dead... he's still got a lot of health.

SOE has all the balls in the world. That's definitely one of their many strengths. It's not the balls factor that has limited what they can do. It's their lack of competence in certain other areas. Including in this case, conceptualization and understanding of (1) balancing overarcing systems, and (2) what player demographics other than them like; lack of self-awareness; and lack of self control (in choosing their ego or savored/proud cruelty over something for others). You can sometimes find some of these in their grunts, but no way it makes its way up to leadership/direction level.

SOE is capable of making a customizeable system that supports all that and much more. They are very talented, on many levels.

SOE (often) makes games that at launch are totally playable and enjoyable by the general audience (inlcuding New Players)... then they start changing it... until it is no longer playable and enjoyable by the general audience. They literally dismantle the very good General Audience and New Player game in place around launch, in order to build a different game that suits them as their favored demographic levels up in the game.

Some of the general audience stuff they launch with is unintentional. But it's still there. And while *many* companies take advantage and keep their happy accidents, SOE will remove it over time if it doesn't cater to the type of niche game they want. They literally have something more people like, but they remove it because it's not what *they* like.

And this is the crazy thing: there is NOTHING wrong with making a game that is a niche game made for the handful of people you want to make it for. The problem occurs when you build that game to only be a commercial success if it's a mainstream hit. SOE crafts niche games on non-niche massive budgets.

SOE (in their mature games) is very bad at general audience, new player, bugs, balance, monetization... and fathoming or seeing these bad areas... and caring or figuring out how to actually address fixing them. Career bad. Other companies are not (though other companies their their own bag of problems... just different ones), so it's not just a thing that unbeatable. It's a pattern with SOE. One that if they were more selfaware or selfcontrolled they could spot AND recognize the consequences AND be able to fix or improve.

For someone who literally just insulted them on every single issue you just complimented them on.. and then followed with further insults...

You can not have a perfect system.
You can not ensure client side, all hardware for clients & server are even standard let alone above bare-minimum.
You can not have two entire sets of combat systems interact without severe issues;
Grand example being: One combat system has no head-shots, the other does.
If they interact, one is geared for head-shots, the other is geared for a world without them.
Either way, one will be dominated by the other, due to how it is balanced internally.

In the start of this game, aircraft could slaughter entire convoys in a few shots.
Entire bases in several, due to the power of daltons, lol-pods (which then, really were), and similar problems.
Shelling spawn-rooms with tanks from a mile away was simple, and with massive AOA.
There was no barriers, so tanks could enter from anywhere all the way to the spawn shields...

Games are not launched perfectly from the get go - that is basically a myth.

I watched in slow motion and counted all the bullets. First of all, you did not "get the jump" on him. From your perspective, you started trading bullets at almost the same time. Which in reality means that he started shooting first on his side by a small margin.

You landed what seemed to be 2 leg hits, 3 body hits, and 2 headshots. Assuming you were using the Carv (with a terrible optic choice IMO) and within maximum damage range... In theory you dealt 1258 damage, except he was using the resist shield so it's ~755 damage.

Judging by his remaining health (~400 rather than my estimated 245), it's likely that he killed you on his screen before your last couple shots made it to his client.

I'll leave the TTK calculations to someone who feels like it, but that's my assessment. You were out-DPSed via headshots and clientside stuff.

I should have said 12 bullets left the chamber when my crosshair was on him.

Yes. I know I was outdps. Trying to avoid headshot and just get the bullets on him totally didn't make the difference.

He gave me the privilege of seeing it from his perspective in his stream later. He landed one headshot after the next. Cursor didn't move from my head at all.

Makes no sense. How can he keep that cursor so tight?

I am highly critical of SOE in the things they do consistently bad. But at the same time I regard them very highly in many other areas.

But they *will* kill even a unique and impressive game with the stuff they do consistently bad. Or end up with a niche game on prolonged life-support with a skeleton Dev support crew.

I am in now way shooting for "perfect". I am talking about a very good system relative to where the current bar is.

You can if you have the skills to balance it. Again, at a "very good" level.

Sure...

Incorrect.

There are many ways to balance finesse vs. crude weapons, coexisting in the same game. Generally it involves higher potential power level for the finesse at higher levels of skill (at diminishing marginal rates), and easier to access power levels for the crude weapons at lower levels of skill. This is even a pretty commonly discussed topic in the gaming world.

Not a lot of people flew at launch.

I'm not saying things were perfect at launch. But they were better in terms of general player and new player.

Of course I would want them to remove things hated by most players. Air has been a disaster for most players for the entire life of the game.

That didn't emerge as a major problem until well after launch. And it was really only a major problem with the Prowler. It emerged as a major problem later with Mag and PPA.

Again, of course I would want them to remove things hated by most players.

Is this something other than Prowler AoE or Mag PPA? I can't remember other major-major issues with Tanks.

I don't think PS2 launched "perfectly". But it was much better at launch for General Audience and New Players, than it is now.

Shortly after launch, it got better for General Audience with some notable changes (like the choice of 3 good battles bases per continent to Instant Action into). Then that was removed, and the ongoing series of changes to make it worse/better for General Audience started.

A good chunk of the problems was just Power Creep that was already put into the game (just not yet accessed), but it still wasn't there showing up in game around launch.

I'd probably put the best time for General Audience between shortly after Launch and before Harasser was released. I'd probably put the best time for New Players between Launch (warts and all, at least everyone was new and that helps) and shortly after Launch.

System 1 with head-shots, has a focus on accuracy.
Damage values for this system, are based around this.

System 2, without head-shots, has less focus on accuracy.
Damage values for this system are based around damage done to the body, without any extra-damage spots (like the head).

If system 2 meets a system 1 user, the next 4 possibilities exist:

A) System 1 gets head-shots on System 2, using their improved accuracy being rewarded to destroy target quicker, outpacing system 2 hard-core.

B) System 2's damage model outpaces System 1's entire damage model, without any additional accuracy requirements.
Resulting in System 2 winning the fight without requiring any higher accuracy.

C) System 2's damage model is unable to compete with System's 1 damage output, making them inferior the moment a System 1 opponent has any accuracy (head-shots).

D) System 2 invalidates System 1's accuracy rewarding system (head-shots), stripping the major component of System 1.
Making any System 1 user lose against a System 2 user, unless both share the same damage model.
This of course means, any skill in System 1 is invalidated against any System 2 user whom need not fear any opponent with superior accuracy beyond a point. (No head-shots, no faster TTKs dependent on accuracy)

The two systems do not get along.
Entirely different gameplay, leading to different tactics, that can not work together.

Add in vehicles, which more commonly have AoA, higher velocity, armor etc...
You know, more things people complain about than in infantry, and the problems become worse.

Aka no one can balance independent systems, reliant on entirely different combat systems in the same fight.
If they interact at all, someone is getting screwed regardless of Skill.

So it ends in a duplicate of a game, if not multiples, due to trying to accommodate as many audiences as possible for combat styles.
Do you see any game in production today, that has multiple types of combat systems, in use at the same time, that interact with other? I certainly haven't.

Aircraft were murder at launch to fly.
Aircraft weaponry were incredibly lethal with large AoA, large amounts of damage, and all the lovely perks of a flying machine.
You can kill a tank in moments with an ESF, with rocket pods.
You could kill entire squads in one blast, hence the name "lol-pods"

At launch, until people have played, you wouldn't even notice a massive game-crashing error.
Launch was far from perfect, balance was ******.

Imagine every base without any barriers \ walls around them.
Now imagine HEAT tanks, with a larger AOA that had a larger lethal zone.
You should get the picture - Wasn't just prowlers.

Players will hate everything - As there are thousands of people, and you can't please everyone.
Some people hate shotguns for working at 3 meters, some hate knives not taking 35 melee strikes, some hate sniper rifles actually killing a target, some hate Maxes, some hate C-4, some hate aircraft for anything under the sun...
The list goes on to every single thing, and this is mirrored for every single game in existence.

As people will disagree.

New players, had to deal with liberators shooting once, and knocking out entire spawn room sized zones with Daltons.
Walking out of spawn, was lethal to entire squads or platoons due to one ESF.
Tanks had massive AoA as well with HEAT.
Tanks would be easily smoked by ESFs in seconds, with pods, anti-armor rockets, or even nose-cannons.

They didn't have any of the free certs till level 15.
They didn't have a lot of the more useful tools.
They have the present EXP rates.
They were pretty ****** at the start.
If it went back: They'd be ****** more now, since Pilots got better at mass slaughter, as did everyone.

Dear lord.
Go look up what Launch had, it was problems to heaven & hell.

I concur with this general assessment. Those leg shots probably cost you as much asthe loss of initiative did.

My impression of your actions is that you stopped mostly still, ducked, waited a bit for him to land, then ADS'ed and opened fire. Can you discuss these choices a bit, or is my assessment incorrect?

One of the benefits of the NS(X) series is incredibly accommodating stability. If you can get it down, compensating for their recoil is a breeze.

I can appreciate it might seem crazy. I assure you it's not that complicated if you work it through at a systems level within a well built system. If making that system isn't something intuitive to you (and it's not for lots of people), just work with someone who is good at it to flesh it out. In many cases a good system builder teaming up with a guy who knows the game details, make a great pairing for building systems.

Basically you create:
1) 1 gun group with slower body shot TTK, but that gets progressively faster TTKs when hitting hitting with more % as headshots, and
2) 1 gun group with moderate speed body shot TTK, and gets no or minimal TTK bonus (OR, it gets it until it hits a set cap) for headshots.

Ideally, you figure out what the accuracy performance is for your playerbase (body, head, moving, range, etc.). Then you adjust the damages to provide a Max and Min that are as wide apart as you want them to be. If it's a casual general audience, mixed player action game, you want it not to be too wide. If it's a niche, simulator, segregated-by-skill player, then you might want to make it pretty wide.

You can set what the fastest possible TTK is, and you can set what the slowest possible TTK.

You can tune the gun impact in the same way for CoF and Aim Skill. And/Or any number of other variables.

And that's doing it with a more detailed system. If you want to just make a simple crude system, then just make enemy hitboxes bigger (like those hackers were doing) and put in a cap on how fast total dps can be.

I am NOT saying this would be a system you would enjoy. I am saying this is a system that would mix high and low aim skilled playstyles.

This is the kind of stuff I do very well in adjusting with for results. I suck at lots of thing in life, but this kind of stuff just clicks. To some degree it's genetic. It's why I took accounting, liked econ, listen to Comic Con panels on worldbuilding, etc.

And no, I am not a know-it-all expert. So I typically can't just do it in a vacuum. I need data or gameplay experts to help proof-of-concept stuff.

Also, a lot of it is (1) iteration, and (2) an unclouded understanding (and fixation) on what my goals are. Iteration allows for trial and error, experience, and process improvement. Unclouded understanding/fixation means knowing identifying the goals and not veering off into tangential feature creep.

I don't see this same wall you do.

I don't forsee some perfect balance thing. But I can see a system which identifies the level of impact reward it wants to deliver to specific groups at specific encounters.

PS2 is largely a game of pattern engagements. Lotta same veriables over and over. That stuff can be tuned for. In the same way things like a Pity Timer can be added to things. When I made quests for Vanguard, I implemented a Pity Timer on them. Would you? Would you have thought to? Would you have chosen not to even if you knew it was an option to add?

I would say PS2 (along with many other games) already has multiple types of combat systems. But that I just am not a fan of some of the PS2 current balancing.

Perhaps we are talking about different things. What defines "multiple types of combat systems" for you? I want to get on your page before I try to reply.

How much harder were they to fly then vs. now? When did that change? What exactly changed?

I tried Air early and failed. And a little while later I made a bigger effort and pushed through my failure and learned how to fly.

I remember that. But I also remember I just didn't see that much Air. It was mostly lots and lots and lots of Infantry running all over the place.

Balance wasn't great, but everyone was the same level. And balance between Factions seemed okay (other than things like Starting Infil).

1/2 Prowler AoE zergs were a mess, but that wasn't until a while after launch.

I played mostly VS then, and I only got that from Prowlers. Never had much problem from Vanguards. All the youtube videos I have seen from that AoE era were Prowlers.

A while later, when I was playing all Factions, Mag PPA became a nightmare. But that was considerably later.

I accept that people will have preferences. But lots of times people can accept certain levels of stuff they don't like, as long as it doesn't get past a certain point.

And those certain point times are things like:
1/2 AoE Prowler
Mag PPA
ZOE
etc.

I would include a second category of things that are just toxic the way they function:
Air in general (both trying to use it, and trying to play against it)
HA Shield + Medkit
C4 + Rocklets
etc.

I remember that stuff was lame, but I also remember there were just lots fewer Air in the sky.

This did not happen in those big Prowler zergs that really broke the game until a little while after launch.

But when they did hit, it was terrible. PS2 has had a number of "Seasons of OP" where the Devs allowed a totally broken unit to dominate and ruin gameplay. Usually the forums were on top of these things, but the Devs often took months to react (especially if it was some hot selling toy they just released: Harasser, ZOE, Striker, etc.)

Most people weren't in Tanks around launch. It was a very heavy Infantry game. Even in the vast spaces between bases.

I am not saying the things are mentioning weren't terrible. What I am saying is that even with that bad stuff in the game, it was still a better experience then for general audience and especially for new players.

Everybody was a noob. Nobody was Certed out. You could only buy Weapons and Cosmetics.

Sure, this meant it locked F2P players out of ESF Rocket Pods, but for most players it didn't really impact them.

Those "useful tools" are part of the problems that made the game less general audience. They complicated gameplay, created more imbalance between Factions and players, and they made the game less intuitive to new players.

But it was the same experience for all players.

I spent hours repairing turrets in deserted with Engineer just to earn some Certs. Or I played Medic. And back then, it was a LOT easier to find tons of Infantry to revive: cause there were more players, most were playing Infantry, Infantry ran around all over the map between bases, and (a short while after launch) you could just Instant Action directly into your choice of hot/good fights.

I played heavily starting from launch to the end of last year.

If I were to totally overhaul PS2 for General Audience and New Players (something I would *not* recommend happen to PS2 at this stage in its lifecycle, btw), I would base it off the gameplay experience shortly after launch. Then, as you noted, nerfing all the stupid OP units in place then. Then re-designing Air (easier to use/learn, with lower power level for high skill players) and AA (make all HA have access to a G2A Lockon, etc.). Either yanking out or making common pool a lot of the "useful tools" you like. Limiting Camo in terms of affecting Faction Color visibity. And building out the communication/coordination tools to be pan-Faction and cross-Outfit. And I would also try to build the art assets so that they could be re-done every few years to look current. And I would remove Hossin as a main Map. I'd also add more formal objectives, so every Squad and Vehicle in the game is not complaining while trying to do Mass Infantry Objectives.

The same way you get to Carnegie Hall: Practice, practice, practice!

Progression. There is an immense satisfaction in understanding the system and then slowly getting better and better at it. There is also the knowledge that I am far from mastering the system yet and there are still much more room for improvement that keeps me playing. The moment when I realize I have something figured out and/or I had reached my limit in a game is the moment where I will start to quickly lose interest.

I personally feel that the wide skill gap and lack of help for new players is hurting the game. In a small fight a new player can die over and over again when going up 1v1 against a vet player with very little chance of success. It is not a good game play experience to feel powerless and have no idea what you are doing wrong. For a game with wide skill gap and no player skill level match making to work, a new player must be given something that they can feel powerful with, but will eventually grow out of and a system where they can gradually learn about the game system and improve their skill. I first learnt the game by using the auto shotguns which bypass the majority of the aiming mechanics all together.

I'm assuming the CARV within 10m:
143 damage per shot
11 shots have left the magazine
Your first shot seems to miss but when counting hits it doesn't seem to miss, one of your last shots on the head misses.
5 on the legs
3 on the torso
2 on the head
He uses a resist shield (indicated by no criticals when shooting the head)
you didn't activate your shield that I could see

5*143*0,9*0,6=386.1 damage from the leg shots
3*143*0,6=257,4 damage from torso hits
2*143*2*0,6=343,2 damage from headshots.
Total: 986,7 damage, no kill.

Deathscreen is notoriously behind, and if you had a longer ping your shots might not have registered in time for them to actually deal damage.

The thing I'm wondering (besides that you didn't activate your shield): The Naginata is only accurate when standing still, that's it's whole gimmick. The guy just jumped (multiple times!), immediately starts firing without delay and starts strafing at the same time. He hasn't let his COF settle at any point (we know so because even accounting for the latency we see him jump and immediately start running and opening fire as he lands), so he should be running around with a jumping-COF on the Naginata and screwing himself over by strafing, and yet he's accurate.

You can not have two completely competing systems in place at the same time, when they are the foundation.
"
Basically you create:
1) 1 gun group with slower body shot TTK, but that gets progressively faster TTKs when hitting hitting with more % as headshots, and
2) 1 gun group with moderate speed body shot TTK, and gets no or minimal TTK bonus (OR, it gets it until it hits a set cap) for headshots.
"
Try having those compete.
Then recall, this game is more than single types of weaponry.

PS2 has a set TTK average.
It does not need to re-invent the wheel twice, to have two entire groups of weaponry near identical in class, that have entirely different results due to someone wanting to use multiple combat systems in one game at the same time.

Do not understand what in **** you suggested prior?

Do you understand the difference between different preforming weaponry in one combat system, and different combat systems?

Harder to fly, due to how ****** up PS2's control schemes are, without anyone able to teach.
At launch, there was vehicles, aircraft and infantry.
No one had to cert into vehicles or aircraft to access them - There was no barrier to start using them from the get go.
Let alone that unless you mean in the first 5 minutes, and even then it's well within 5 minutes distance to pull a vehicle.
Aircraft can cross the entire map in 5 minutes.

Launch's balance, enabled all the problems that occurred shortly 'after' launch.
Until any patches are applied, all possible situations, problems, balance and similar are that which are from Launch.
There is no difference until a patch from what is at Launch state, and what is 5 seconds after Launch or 5 years.

The game didn't mystically alter the stats, capabilities or similar after the "launch event", without even a patch.
It is akin to saying if you place a Bomb, and it explodes after you place it, it isn't related to your placement since it didn't happen at the exact moment of placement.
That is your logic.

A pity timer... what in ****.

Tanks were around in Launch.
Aircraft were around in Launch.
Both mauled infantry like **** in seconds.

Aircraft mulched entire tank groups in minutes or seconds.
Did I mention the Daltons & Lol-pods? Those are the from-launch capabilities.
They weren't patched to have those strengths - They had them from the Launch.
Launch provided that ********.


A better experience;
Every single player had cheaper weaponry; Do you mention this? No you don't.

Now what was the Experience:
Everything was more fatal - There was no aux shield.
Tanks had massive AOA.
Aircraft weaponry could melt tanks & entire groups of them.
Daltons could one-shot near damn anything.
Rocket-pods were the ban of everything on the ground, minus Liberators.
New Players did not receive any help with certs at all - No free certs of any kind.
Snipers did not have any visible tracers.

So every new player had aircraft that could kill in micro-seconds, even if they were in vehicles, and do it from sky-limit.
Every new player had to grind for every cert.
Every new player did not even have any attachments at all for the basic weaponry.
Aux Shield did not exist at all.
No Free Certs for leveling up - So it was useless to them.

They had a much harder time playing the game at Launch.
They have it a **** ton easier now; Which means a New player's experience isn't hell-on-earth today, but it was then.

Gameplay after Launch:
Aircraft **** everything.
Spawn Camping is God.
You can not avoid a Tank Shell.
Snipers left no clue that they even fired a single shot; Only dead bodies.
New players were literally screwed against anyone with more time in-game, due to unlocks of any kind.

So how are the rose-tint glasses?
With everything being new, it would be hell.
Anything close to it now, and it would be far worse, as there is a legion of the skilled.

Some people like Hossin.
Format objectives... You mean cap the bloody map?
Formal objectives, do not mean non-infantry in any sense of the definition of "formal"...


No sane person should think Launch's experience was anything but ****ery incarnate.
With any skill at all, those weaponry would just **** everything... and that's just ESFs... Liberators are still hell, and that's with the Dalton not being the ****ery from the Launch days.
Like mother of the damn dark abyss...

The firearms (for lack of a better term) model of PS2 is not bad at all... In RL firearms are not precise (due to many factors: mostly the shooter, ammo barrel type and lenght,...) hence the CoF concept (hip/ads) and they recoil more or less and have a mass distribution (hence recoil amount and recovery times), Iridar has published quite a lot of valuable material about the topic.

What I (personally) find risible is the very low (or zero) initial CoF for automatic weapons like LMGs.. You can counter-snipe with a Gauss Saw and that doesn't make sense, same goes for MBTs guns and rockets it should not be possible to use them against infantry except for splash damage... Instead in the game the rocket launchers have no headshot multiplier because those could be OHK weapons like snioer rifles.

Lag aside., go to the VR and shoot an entire magazine against the cardboard targets below at various distances, with and without bursting, using many many weapons: the experience is an eye opener about the "I shot the guy 20 times he turned and head-shotted me on the spot, he's a cheater!!!" syndrome.

Do you think you will figure out PS2 combat? Why or why not? And if so, when do you figure by?

Agreed.

I think adding a group of Noob Tubes that are inferior to Skill Weapons at the higher levels of skill would be a good thing. Guns that are easier to aim, do good body shot damage, and do minor headshot bonus. And that have reliably good TTK, but slower TTK than higher skilled weapons with tougher aim, when those higher skilled weapons are used properly.