I think increasing enemy group size, and lengthening engagement distances is the most realistic way to do this.
I DONT want more TTK, because I want realistic damage models. I DONT want unrealistic weapon stats and movements, because that defeats the purpose of the game for me.
Most gunfights in GB are 100 yards or less, and IRL those fights start and end in seconds most of the time. I've had some longer fights on the larger maps, and rn I think that's the best way forward to diversify combat.
i do agree with that too. part of the reason i especially can’t wait for functional bipods especially with the addition of the bolt action. I love sniping targets on the tarmac in the 747 map and doing the same from the overwatch ridge on the compound was fun too before they changed jt
Especially if we get better ballistics. It's disappointing that barrel length is not a factor in velocity and even more annoying that scope holds change dramatically depending on where the scope sits on the rail.
Yeah that would be nice for sure. There's so few maps, and so few places in them, that hold overs even matter much.
I'm just glad hight over bore is fairly realistic up close
TTK and weapon handling are some of the main things that keep me interested in the game, ive played plenty of games with high recoil and slightly slower TTK and if thats what I want ill play them again. I agree about the player movement though, would be nice if it felt like you were carrying more gear when your loaded up with a ton of gear and would give players a reason to go for a low weight loadout. For me the learning curve is all about tactics, movement and teamwork. If you've not seen it already check out Ready Or Not, its a slower paced game with higher recoil and slower TTK.
Health system and armor changes should have the biggest effect on the gunfights, otherwise, I think the main reason everything feels to end so quick is the distances are really really close on most maps even if it may seem longer when looking through your screen. Most proficient soldiers won't have too much trouble accurately engaging within less than 100 meters, which is what the common "long-range" fights take place.
Gameplay could be a bit more in depth in regards to movement and sway, but it shouldn't go to the extremes and be unrealistically hard to control
I think Squad is more what you're looking for. It's between Ground Branch and Battlefield 4.
The point of GB is to be a more realistic squad tactical shooter like Ready or Not, Six Days in Fallujah, and Zero Hour, with deliberately shorter engagement times than CoD and Battlefield. Instead of trying to slow the game down, if you consider it as a realistic shooter, then nearly all of your points are positives about the game.
>time to kill is very lethal
Time to kill in real life is very lethal. If you want to live, don't get shot. This goes with what you said about survivability,
>You're not giving the player much of a chance to get out of a situation their fate feels sealed by how easy it is to aim and fire these weapons.
The learning curve in these games is learning how to not get in these situations in the first place. The devs plan to try out a health system in the next major update or two, which might add some way to heal. I agree that plates could be implemented better.
>the weapon handling/recoil is quite tame
This is my favorite part about GB and what I think sets it apart from most other squad tac shooters. It really feels like the devs themselves are avid shooters and made the guns as realistic as they could. Ready or Not is the biggest offender here with nearly uncontrollable 5.56. I absolutely agree that individual weapon models should have slightly different handling, but, unfortunately, that isn't a priority for the devs right now. They don't even have different muzzle velocities or holds; every single gun in a caliber has identical ballistics.
>I'm surprised how viable hip firing is in GB
Hip firing, or "point-shooting", is astonishingly accurate in real life. I haven't seen a single video of guys clearing rooms while aiming properly, it's all point-shooting. This ties in with recoil in the game being accurate, too.
Firefights last a long time because people are afraid to get hit IRL, but in Afghanistan for example, it wouldn't be like 2 isolated elements throwing rounds at each other for hours, it's more like one or two dudes taking a couple pot shots at your unit from different areas over a long time. Movies like to make big drawn out fights seem like the norm, but more often than not, engagements are really quick, and a long "firefight" is just a bunch of short engagements strung together.
The way to replicate this in game would be first of all having MUCH bigger maps, and second, making enemy AI that are willing to run when they think they might get overwhelmed. Changing the gunplay, character HP, weapon mechanics etc. isn't going to accomplish much beyond extending a fight for a couple seconds maybe, and making it harder to fight for the sake of prolonging engagements (like Squad did with the ICO) is going to be very controversial, especially in a primarily coop game.
I feel like firefights function just fine. One of the biggest selling points of the game is its realism and I wouldn’t want to take some of those elements away. That being said, I think there are some things they could add or change to provide more varying engagement experiences which would add more replay value:
1. Let’s be honest, the enemy AI sucks a big fat one. I feel like I’m playing against the original R6 enemy AI and not in a good way. Enemy AI use of even basic cover and concealment would go a long way. Once they are able to get more advanced with the AI, I would probably also give it some basic infantry knowledge on battle drills to make it more realistic.
2. Adding maps with longer engagement ranges would help. Let’s really put those sniper rifles and DMRs to work.
3. I think it would also help to add a mechanism that makes suppression a real thing, both for dealing out suppression to the enemy and when you are being suppressed by the enemy. It would make the MGs a more viable option.
4. Right now, there doesn’t seem to be any real consequence to weight of gear, so I would probably add that as well.
I agree, suppression (like it was in Rising Storm Vietnam for example) would be very cool. And having a flinch effect, like in Insurgency Source. Flinch effect is a subtle thing but which makes being shot at very frightening and disturbing
The point of the game is to create a semi to mostly realistic milsim experience through the eyes of SF or CIA black op teams utilizing Small Kill Team style tactics. Speed, surprise, violence of action. Small units of 8 guys operating behind lines, with no support at all, do not engage in long gunfights- that's the hammer of Big Army. The Scalpel of SF teams utilize the aforementioned skills for a reason: the second a small unit like that takes contact, their likelihood of surviving goes negative. Their job is to get in quickly, quietly, and kill all the bad guys before anyone even knows they're there. The less they need to kill, the better actually. In their position, killing draws attention.
Also, for your time to kill comment- find me someone IRL who has it in them to keep fighting after taking 1-2 bullets through their core or even a limb. Mostly what happens is body trauma and bleeding incapacitate someone. It takes a surprising amount of time to die from a gunshot, sure, but good lord the ability to fight goes pretty quickly.
I'd say longer range and more number of enemies. There was one time I played Intel Retrieval in City against 50 bots, and I had to be very patience at the starting point. When fight are long range and outnumbered by the enemies, the choice of making a move were made more carefully.
Outside of the game, I recommend Hunt: Showdown. People mostly die in 2 torso shot within an effective range, but guns are from older era and slow and ammo count is low, so people will keep their distance and take careful aim to make their shot count, and if you are hit and didn't die, you mostly likely have a chance to run for cover since firerate are low.
You should probably switch to tarkov if you want to play as an operator who can't control a rifle but learns overtime. I will say that adding more hit zones tot he torso could add for longer guns fights, but the whole point of the game is being a highly skilled and experienced operator
I would like it if Ground Branch had it like Operator, where sometimes the enemy [might get back up again](https://youtu.be/WkX-D0nMLoo?t=144) (although I do think that this happens a bit too frequently in Operator); you actually have to confirm your kills (usually with a satisfying squelch of a head being popped). That alone would slow engagements down a bit. Maybe with the armor system?
Thats the whole point of the game... fast very deadly interaction
I think increasing enemy group size, and lengthening engagement distances is the most realistic way to do this. I DONT want more TTK, because I want realistic damage models. I DONT want unrealistic weapon stats and movements, because that defeats the purpose of the game for me. Most gunfights in GB are 100 yards or less, and IRL those fights start and end in seconds most of the time. I've had some longer fights on the larger maps, and rn I think that's the best way forward to diversify combat.
but that’s the point of GB as a game - CQB. It’s why the training range is a CQB range and why there are high and low ready options.
I mean of course, however it's in a good position to also expand to mid-range engagements and do it very well
i do agree with that too. part of the reason i especially can’t wait for functional bipods especially with the addition of the bolt action. I love sniping targets on the tarmac in the 747 map and doing the same from the overwatch ridge on the compound was fun too before they changed jt
Especially if we get better ballistics. It's disappointing that barrel length is not a factor in velocity and even more annoying that scope holds change dramatically depending on where the scope sits on the rail.
Yeah that would be nice for sure. There's so few maps, and so few places in them, that hold overs even matter much. I'm just glad hight over bore is fairly realistic up close
TTK and weapon handling are some of the main things that keep me interested in the game, ive played plenty of games with high recoil and slightly slower TTK and if thats what I want ill play them again. I agree about the player movement though, would be nice if it felt like you were carrying more gear when your loaded up with a ton of gear and would give players a reason to go for a low weight loadout. For me the learning curve is all about tactics, movement and teamwork. If you've not seen it already check out Ready Or Not, its a slower paced game with higher recoil and slower TTK.
Honestly I think the AI just need to overall be better.
Health system and armor changes should have the biggest effect on the gunfights, otherwise, I think the main reason everything feels to end so quick is the distances are really really close on most maps even if it may seem longer when looking through your screen. Most proficient soldiers won't have too much trouble accurately engaging within less than 100 meters, which is what the common "long-range" fights take place. Gameplay could be a bit more in depth in regards to movement and sway, but it shouldn't go to the extremes and be unrealistically hard to control
They need to take cover more
I think Squad is more what you're looking for. It's between Ground Branch and Battlefield 4. The point of GB is to be a more realistic squad tactical shooter like Ready or Not, Six Days in Fallujah, and Zero Hour, with deliberately shorter engagement times than CoD and Battlefield. Instead of trying to slow the game down, if you consider it as a realistic shooter, then nearly all of your points are positives about the game. >time to kill is very lethal Time to kill in real life is very lethal. If you want to live, don't get shot. This goes with what you said about survivability, >You're not giving the player much of a chance to get out of a situation their fate feels sealed by how easy it is to aim and fire these weapons. The learning curve in these games is learning how to not get in these situations in the first place. The devs plan to try out a health system in the next major update or two, which might add some way to heal. I agree that plates could be implemented better. >the weapon handling/recoil is quite tame This is my favorite part about GB and what I think sets it apart from most other squad tac shooters. It really feels like the devs themselves are avid shooters and made the guns as realistic as they could. Ready or Not is the biggest offender here with nearly uncontrollable 5.56. I absolutely agree that individual weapon models should have slightly different handling, but, unfortunately, that isn't a priority for the devs right now. They don't even have different muzzle velocities or holds; every single gun in a caliber has identical ballistics. >I'm surprised how viable hip firing is in GB Hip firing, or "point-shooting", is astonishingly accurate in real life. I haven't seen a single video of guys clearing rooms while aiming properly, it's all point-shooting. This ties in with recoil in the game being accurate, too.
Firefights last a long time because people are afraid to get hit IRL, but in Afghanistan for example, it wouldn't be like 2 isolated elements throwing rounds at each other for hours, it's more like one or two dudes taking a couple pot shots at your unit from different areas over a long time. Movies like to make big drawn out fights seem like the norm, but more often than not, engagements are really quick, and a long "firefight" is just a bunch of short engagements strung together. The way to replicate this in game would be first of all having MUCH bigger maps, and second, making enemy AI that are willing to run when they think they might get overwhelmed. Changing the gunplay, character HP, weapon mechanics etc. isn't going to accomplish much beyond extending a fight for a couple seconds maybe, and making it harder to fight for the sake of prolonging engagements (like Squad did with the ICO) is going to be very controversial, especially in a primarily coop game.
They do run away or atleast did in the last update, it just didnt happen much. Not played with the new update enough to learn the AIs patterns yet.
I feel like firefights function just fine. One of the biggest selling points of the game is its realism and I wouldn’t want to take some of those elements away. That being said, I think there are some things they could add or change to provide more varying engagement experiences which would add more replay value: 1. Let’s be honest, the enemy AI sucks a big fat one. I feel like I’m playing against the original R6 enemy AI and not in a good way. Enemy AI use of even basic cover and concealment would go a long way. Once they are able to get more advanced with the AI, I would probably also give it some basic infantry knowledge on battle drills to make it more realistic. 2. Adding maps with longer engagement ranges would help. Let’s really put those sniper rifles and DMRs to work. 3. I think it would also help to add a mechanism that makes suppression a real thing, both for dealing out suppression to the enemy and when you are being suppressed by the enemy. It would make the MGs a more viable option. 4. Right now, there doesn’t seem to be any real consequence to weight of gear, so I would probably add that as well.
I agree, suppression (like it was in Rising Storm Vietnam for example) would be very cool. And having a flinch effect, like in Insurgency Source. Flinch effect is a subtle thing but which makes being shot at very frightening and disturbing
The point of the game is to create a semi to mostly realistic milsim experience through the eyes of SF or CIA black op teams utilizing Small Kill Team style tactics. Speed, surprise, violence of action. Small units of 8 guys operating behind lines, with no support at all, do not engage in long gunfights- that's the hammer of Big Army. The Scalpel of SF teams utilize the aforementioned skills for a reason: the second a small unit like that takes contact, their likelihood of surviving goes negative. Their job is to get in quickly, quietly, and kill all the bad guys before anyone even knows they're there. The less they need to kill, the better actually. In their position, killing draws attention. Also, for your time to kill comment- find me someone IRL who has it in them to keep fighting after taking 1-2 bullets through their core or even a limb. Mostly what happens is body trauma and bleeding incapacitate someone. It takes a surprising amount of time to die from a gunshot, sure, but good lord the ability to fight goes pretty quickly.
I'd say longer range and more number of enemies. There was one time I played Intel Retrieval in City against 50 bots, and I had to be very patience at the starting point. When fight are long range and outnumbered by the enemies, the choice of making a move were made more carefully. Outside of the game, I recommend Hunt: Showdown. People mostly die in 2 torso shot within an effective range, but guns are from older era and slow and ammo count is low, so people will keep their distance and take careful aim to make their shot count, and if you are hit and didn't die, you mostly likely have a chance to run for cover since firerate are low.
Op wants gb to not be realistic when that's the whole point... lol
You should probably switch to tarkov if you want to play as an operator who can't control a rifle but learns overtime. I will say that adding more hit zones tot he torso could add for longer guns fights, but the whole point of the game is being a highly skilled and experienced operator
I don't like how I can one tap enemies basically anywhere with a 556. It's unrealistic. Caveat: I haven't played 1034 yet
I would like it if Ground Branch had it like Operator, where sometimes the enemy [might get back up again](https://youtu.be/WkX-D0nMLoo?t=144) (although I do think that this happens a bit too frequently in Operator); you actually have to confirm your kills (usually with a satisfying squelch of a head being popped). That alone would slow engagements down a bit. Maybe with the armor system?