Weapon Accuracy and KB+M

In FPS games, such as Battlefield and Call of Duty, different weapons have varying levels of accuracy. However, considering the fact that aiming with a keyboard and mouse relies entirely on the skill of the player (i.e. there is no aim assist), how is a player's aim actually affected by the accuracy level of the weapon they are using?

I can understand how a player's aim can be affected when using a controller since controllers use aim assist; the aim assist mechanism can simply alter the way in which it augments the user's aim in order to effect the aim of the weapon used.

Accuracy levels given by games are useless.

Playing FPS would a control pad should be considered a grave act against all that is good.

Using aim assit is optional in most games. Mouse and keyboard take less skill than a controller without aim assist

If you are going to troll, be less obvious.

I love/ hate the fact that when playing on PC, a player you're shooting at will swing around in a split second and kill you. It's crazy how fast and accurate M+KB can be. It's also hilarious.

You point your gun at something, and when you shoot it the recoil jerks your gun around, and makes you reticle larger, so your gun gets more inaccurate, and you try to counter it.

That's how it works on consoles as well albeit a tiny amount in comparison to some PC games.

CS:GO for example.... That game is just insane on how distinct each gun is, and how they react to different shooting styles. Once you get destroyed repeatedly you'll go back to CoD, and Battlefield, and question how you ever came to post this thread.

I don't think he is wrong try using a controller and you will see that they suck terribly at being accurate.

Thats what you get for playing with your thumbs.

Less skill to do what? Play sp?

How about comparing the entire control scheme? All the gaming noobs I've seen learned how to play with controllers much faster.

LOL.

That's not what accuracy means though, accuracy in most games means bullet spread and recoil. A low accuracy rating is saying that if you fired the gun full auto, without moving the mouse/joystick, hardly any of your bullets would hit where your crosshair was aimed. Obviously this can be countered by firing in bursts and keeping the gun steady by moving your aim against the recoil which yes, is slightly easier to do on PC.

This is a good explanation.

Even easier when I can adjust my DPI on the fly.

I could be wrong but I think in BF4 accuracy is how close to where your reticle is that the bullet actually lands. Stability is how good a gun is with recoil and bullet spread.

Its two different variables: weapon accuracy and player accuracy.

the basic nuts and bolts rules of a FPS are to get the reticule over your opponent and get to within an effective distance for your weapon of choice (ideally without your opponent being aware :P). aim assist only covers the first rule.

e.g. you have a sniper rifle which has a very high degree of accuracy but low AOE, 1 shot in a cartridge and a long reload. this weapon is best used from a distance. if you meet the reticule condition then its a hit. if not its a miss. you could try to use it in close combat but the requirement to strictly meet the reticule rule in close quarters, even with a mouse, would be tough. the long reload would also make it very ineffective in close quarters.

now if we consider the shotgun, wide AOE, low accuracy and 8 carts in a clip...the conditions change. the reticule condition is not as strict. you can fire, fail that test and still land a hit (damage could be calculated based on distance of opponent from the reticule...factoring in distance too maybe (so a point blank shot to the face is more lethal than a slightly off target hit 2 meters away)). however low accuracy means that even if you meet the reticule condition, if you are 500 meters away you are going to miss with a shotgun (or if you are very lucky do some very minor damage). its a rule in the game.

so basically weapon accuracy is a measure of bullet accuracy over distance. this is something the player doesnt control.

you can see it by just walking up to a wall, standing a few meters away and shooting without moving the mouse/stick. depending on the weapon there will still be scatter.

I can't believe this had to be explained to TC

The weapons accuracy is a gauge of it's recoil. Sniper rifles and low burst rifles are always more accurate than semi automatic and fully automatic weapons, that still factor in the players ability to aim. This is true regardless of input device.

yeah but remember, tc sucked at bf4 :P

Well apparently he's not too bright either

I play games for fun. I'd prefer to play with aim assist on with a controller. Otherwise you see how it sucks to play on a controller.

It also sucks to move around with a keyboard. It also sucks when the mouse runs out of pad. They both suck as input devices.

I suck at BF4 on PC, but on PS4, I'm pretty good.

Here.

http://imageshack.com/a/img827/8845/opxz.jpg

I find that hard to believe

@uninspiredcup said:

Playing FPS would a control pad should be considered a grave act against all that is good.

Agreed. The time for such primitive controls has come and gone. Nowadays, FPS have vastly superior control methods such as KB & M and Wiimote & Nunchuck. All else is just not good enough.

It shouldn't have needed explaining. Why do you constantly go on and on about the pros and cons of both types of peripherals in your threads (BF4 specifically) if you don't even understand the basics of it?

You spent a whole thread telling us how a controller requires more skill and now you're asking about how accuracy works with a mouse?

Recoil.

Size of crosshair, rate of fire and recoil. Such a strange question. Go play counter strike and refresh your memory. Try a machine gun and a M4A1.

kb and mouse, in addition to being much easier imo, also changes the flow of a lot of games. I really like the setup, but sometimes I feel the controller is more immersive.

@Heirren: what a joke

more effort is not the same as more skill

Analog sticks are far more cumbersome for fine aiming and it's not just about the aim but staying alive against others who have good aim too. PC FPS gaming requires far more skill as a whole because you have to be alert all the damn time or you're dead. Consoles are more laid back and slower paced because people can't laser beam aim at you. Nothing wrong with that if it's your cup of tea.

@lostrib:

how so?

On PC i had over 4 KDR, on PS3 i have 3 and 2. Mouse is easier to aim with high sensitivity... more unrealistic weapon movement, better aim.

@KillzoneSnake: proof?

when everyone is on analog, they all suck

Of course. It is true that it is easier to aim with a mouse. It is not easier to kill though because the other guy has a mouse too. With a controller at least your slow brain has time to process wth is going on. When everyone has a mouse though you need some good reflexes to survive in that short amount of time you're given.

Aimbots or some variations are usually the real culprit.

Using a KB&M isn't better than a controller. It all depends on what youre used to. If a diehard bf4 player on the PC with max rank and huge kill rations got on a ps4 and tried playing they would get their ass handed to them.

When playing a shooter its the player that is skilled, not their method of input to play. Its all what youre used to using.

I like the M of KB+M, but I've grown to dislike WASD as a way to move my character. In the end I actually prefer controllers. When it comes to FPS, specifically campaigns I want to be challenged by combat scenarios and not how well I can aim at the weak spot.

lol no

So you want to have the game skewed against you because you can't aim?

and if a really good console palyer played on PC with a mouse the same would happen. All that proves is that people do badly with what they're not used to, It doesn't prove which is the better peripheral.

Mouse wins over analog sticks because it's 1:! and you don't rely on moving deadzones like a stick does. A stick moves at different speeds depending on how far you push it because it moves a deadzone instead of a 1:1 movement. A mouse moves with how fast your hand does allowing for quicker responses and a 1:1 relationship results in a finer and smoother aim

Analog sticks however ARE better than a keyboard in regards to moving I think, there's not a world of difference like aiming but I like the full 360 movement of a stick over the specific directions WASD limit you to. But then again I do like the extra buttons of a keyboard enabling faster switching of weapons etc.

You get a full 360 degrees of movement with a stick compared to the north, east, south, west of the WASD.

That's what I'm getting at, I like the more fluid movement of a stick over WASD.

Plus it's technically N,NE,E,SE,S etc. on WASD if you hold 1 or 2 buttons but it still feels very janky and not as natural looking as a stick

@clyde46: I can aim just fine, but I want the focus of a FPS to be based on combat scenarios. Even with a controller and assists you still need to tweak your aim to get head shots, which is fine. But in the end I just don't care if I'm spot on (ie KB+M) or close enough (ie controller).

Indeed, however you can offset some of that "janky" motion with the mouse but for first time users its a very disorientating experience.

Hah yeah, shoulda seen me first time I got my PC. I couldn't even walk around properly let alone shoot anyone

But playing something like AC IV really shows it. Free running with my 360 pad feels much nicer than my keyboard. I mean KB is fine and gets the job done but doesn't feel as nice, for FPS games it's alright though as strafing plays a major role

Thats most likely because in 3rd person games, you have a wider FOV that doesn't require the finesse of a mouse. I'm struggling with the words to try and describe it but I know what you mean.

They would only get their asses handed to them because they lack the muscle memory for a controller. The same thing happens if you're going from a controller to KBM. That's all a matter of adapting.

I have a 4.0 + K/D on console BF3/BF4 and PC BF3. I tried using a controller the first time I played BF3 on PC and I can tell you that a controller CANNOT and WILL NOT keep up with a KBM user when it comes to infantry play. You're heavily disadvantaged.

Don't believe me? Well take it from someone who's flown Scout helicopters a shit ton and I can tell you that getting shot out of the cockpit didn't happen much on consoles. The greater accuracy of KBM users had me shitting my pants all the time because I'd get shot out maybe 3x in one game or they'd shoot me out right after I made my way to the action. That or they'd leave me with <20% soldier health as I scrambled to get into cover.

Can a controller compete with KBM when it comes to infantry? **** no.

Can a controller compete with KBM when it comes to vehicles? Mostly yes.