the beloved m1 garand and its historical accuracy

[Jurki]

Since a priority of this game is the historical accuracy of the settings, units and ofc the weapons i really want to discuss the m1 garand in regard to that topic. The M1 Garand had quite the narrow iron sight, limiting the overall field of view. While video games gave the garand an extremely unrealistic wide iron sight (for better situational awareness through a bigger field of view) there is another WW2 shooter with the claim to be historical accurate (*coughing* post scriptum *coughing*).
The iron sight is still a bit wider but ofc closer to the original than the variant in hell let loose which allowes the player to have a slightly wider field of view and thus a slightly better situational awareness without being completely inaccurate regarding the historical original. In regard to these two examples HLL unfortunately fails to deliver on their priority of historical accuracy. A good first step in preventing the M1 Garand to dominate the battlefield might be a more narrow iron sight, forcing the player to be more careful and giving the opponent the chance to react.
Another point which could be useful when it comes to balancing the garand is its recoil. In reality the recoil is much stronger, compensated by the high rate of fire. So the garand wasnt a weapon designed for high range combat.
So there are three points that might be important when it comes to balancing the M1 Garand: increasing the recoil + narrowing the iron sight + a stronger bullet drop on range. That could be a useful combination to balance out the m1 garand while still making it a viable and fun to use weapon in HLL (which is after all still a video game and not reality itself).

[Mr. President]

Aperature peep sights dont work the same as they do IRL as they do in game. This is due to the game having one camera "eye" that has everything in focus at once instead two eyes with variable focus and binocular vision. When viewed IRL, peep sights still allow a good deal of field of view. Allowances do need to be made to compensate for the differences between the human eye and a computer game, but how much is up for debate. It could be narrowed a slight amount.

[Andy]

Originally posted by Mr. President:

Aperature peep sights dont work the same as they do IRL as they do in game. This is due to the game having one camera "eye" that has everything in focus at once instead two eyes with variable focus and binocular vision. When viewed IRL, peep sights still allow a good deal of field of view. Allowances do need to be made to compensate for the differences between the human eye and a computer game, but how much is up for debate. It could be narrowed a slight amount.

The original sight HLL used was still wider than real life. And, wasn't complained about.
There was no reason to go to the ridiculously wide version they now have.

[tortuga]

As I said in another post--In FARCRY 3 there is a MS16 rifle that uses the same rear sight as the M1 and I like how it places this sight close to your eye when you shoot and doesn't obstruct all your vision.

That game uses the same engine as HLL so, it could be done here and there has to be a balance between historically correct and keeping it enjoyable to play.

Completely historically correct you want? Then force all players to obey their SL and the commander or face the firing squad!

[JonDonWayne]

Originally posted by tortuga:

As I said in another post--In FARCRY 3 there is a MS16 rifle that uses the same rear sight as the M1 and I like how it places this sight close to your eye when you shoot and doesn't obstruct all your vision.

That game uses the same engine as HLL so, it could be done here and there has to be a balance between historically correct and keeping it enjoyable to play.

Completely historically correct you want? Then force all players to obey their SL and the commander or face the firing squad!

i personally wouldnt mind if players that are too far away from the squad or other squad members would be punished by not earning any points and high respawn time penaltys...if people dont want to play as a team force them to! This solo yolo cod kiddo behaviour with lone wolfs camping all over the map ruins the frontline feeling pretty much...

[Andy]

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Andy:

The original sight HLL used was still wider than real life. And, wasn't complained about.
There was no reason to go to the ridiculously wide version they now have.

The original Garand sight that they used was changed because people were complaining about it

I'm sure they were, at some stage in reality. Anything and everything has been complained about.
Including too small maps, too big maps. Not enough arty, too much arty.
Etc, etc.
But, i've seen it mentioned by at least 2 other people that they havn't seen complaints either. So, the complaints must have been few in number. And, probably significantly lower than those now complaining they've gone too far.

It's an absurd decision by the devs, and when it comes to small arms they do have a bit of history making gaffs.
Just take a look at the Thompson. In the Alpha they used the long range sights. (notch at the top of the rear sight frame) Few complained (again, i saw none. And, was using discord at the time too)
They then changed it to use the aperture sight, and it really wasn't great. Whole was tiny. Yet, rather than just switch it back to how it was. They've taken a hack saw to the rear sight frame.
Utter lunacy. They had a working option and completely changed it anyway. Much the same as the Garand, get something that works perfectly well and spend hours changing it for what people won't like.

[Andy]

Originally posted by huma474:

Originally posted by Andy:

The original sight HLL used was still wider than real life. And, wasn't complained about.
There was no reason to go to the ridiculously wide version they now have.

Take a piece of paper. Make 3 holes in it, 1 that is only 1 mm wide, 1 that is 5mm wide and one that is 10mm wide. take that piece of paper and look at something 30ft, or 10m, away. now compare what your eye was able to perceive vs what you can see in game. the 1mm hole is what the old M1 sight felt like. In the game they cannot completely recreate the same feeling down the sight in real life because this is an artifical game which cannot fully replicate some of the unique properties of the human eye. If someone has a real M1, try aiming at a target with 1 eye closed, then try aiming at the same target with both eyes open. You won't be able to hit the same points on a target the same way because of how you brain tries to help you process information.

Why are you quoting me? You post doesn't seem to match what i'm talking about...
The original HLL Garand sight was wider than real life and worked. I'm not complaining about it needing to be different to real life.
But, you need to feel your looking threw an aperture sight and not looking at the front notch threw a barn door.

[Andy]

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Andy:

I'm sure they were, at some stage in reality. Anything and everything has been complained about.
Including too small maps, too big maps. Not enough arty, too much arty.
Etc, etc.
But, i've seen it mentioned by at least 2 other people that they havn't seen complaints either. So, the complaints must have been few in number. And, probably significantly lower than those now complaining they've gone too far.

It's an absurd decision by the devs, and when it comes to small arms they do have a bit of history making gaffs.
Just take a look at the Thompson. In the Alpha they used the long range sights. (notch at the top of the rear sight frame) Few complained (again, i saw none. And, was using discord at the time too)
They then changed it to use the aperture sight, and it really wasn't great. Whole was tiny. Yet, rather than just switch it back to how it was. They've taken a hack saw to the rear sight frame.
Utter lunacy. They had a working option and completely changed it anyway. Much the same as the Garand, get something that works perfectly well and spend hours changing it for what people won't like.

All I can say is that the old sight was definitely not well liked, hence why they changed it to what it is now. If it were just a small portion of people, I highly doubt they would have done that. The old sight, for myself and many others, made shooting with the Garand near impossible because you couldn't even see your target through the sights, let alone track them and acquire new targets as you were shooting.
I don't really see how changing something like this is such a big deal to those who preferred the old sights, even with "historical accuracy" as a reason.

As, it looks ridiculous.
I managed just fine with the old sight. And, i really can't believe you struggled that much. Targets were clear through the aperture.
peripheral vision wasn't so clear, but just bring the aim down slightly and look just over the sight. Then bring it up the final amount when you saw something to shoot at.
Personally, i think the Thompson shows that the devs have jumped on this nonsense too early. And, havn't fully weighed up the change.

[Andy]

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Andy:

As, it looks ridiculous.
I managed just fine with the old sight. And, i really can't believe you struggled that much. Targets were clear through the aperture.
peripheral vision wasn't so clear, but just bring the aim down slightly and look just over the sight. Then bring it up the final amount when you saw something to shoot at.
Personally, i think the Thompson shows that the devs have jumped on this nonsense too early. And, havn't fully weighed up the change.

And that's great you had no issues using the old sight. Fact of the matter is that a lot of people did, enough to where the developers felt the need to make a change. Whether you like it or not, I highly doubt we're going to see it reverted at this point, given we've had the new sight for nearly a year now.

It's not going to be reverted, i can see that.
They're not going to go back on thier mistake.
The devs have still made an appalling decision going so far with it. Are we really suggesting they couldn't have just eeked it out a little untill a happy medium was found? Instead they had to go with that.
Early access is supposed to be a way of finding your feet and getting to what works. Not knee jerk reactions. They've got (had) time to play around with that.
But, Games like PS are sitting really close to where HLL were, and no one complains about it. And, there were hardly any here. The Garands and the Thomspons just don't look like the weapons they're supposed to be. Especially in ADS.

[tortuga]

It is suprising to me that you are still complaining about something that has changed, because it is obvious there were sufficient negative objections over how it was before.

Since the game came out there have been many changes and the Dev's have always said and made changes based on players suggestions so, I can't see that this issue is any different. And don't know where you get any facts that you can say the Dev's made a change (mistake) contrary to the majority of the players, apart from your own opinion.

I for one was glad to see the change and it would be different had the change made it harder to use, then maybe it would have been an appalling decision but, that isn't the case.

Bottom line? It is their game and you bought into it knowing how EA works, yes? So, we all give our opinions accept the changes, like them or not. So, why not stop kicking the dead dog and complaining because you didn't get your way. With all the great things about HLL this is such a small insignificant done issue.

I would guess that the majority of players have no idea or even care if the weapons look original or authentic. More important that they are easy and enjoyabe to use.

This is a great game and there are a lot of things that aren't to my liking but, after 2600+hrs don't think I will quit yet. Enjoy and see you on the battlefield!

[Andy]

Originally posted by tortuga:

It is suprising to me that you are still complaining about something that has changed, because it is obvious there were sufficient negative objections over how it was before.

The devs have a history of making changes that didn't really involve the community at all if you have a long memory. Even lying about some changes. (see map size)

Since the game came out there have been many changes and the Dev's have always said and made changes based on players suggestions so, I can't see that this issue is any different. And don't know where you get any facts that you can say the Dev's made a change (mistake) contrary to the majority of the players, apart from your own opinion.

A couple of things to note there.
1st, i've not seen any complaints that suggest this would have been needed. So, i havn't seen that 'community feedback' As. i've already mentioned.

2nd.
I've never pretended that anything i've said so far isn't just my opinion.
Trying to argue that i've been presenting facts... Well, it's absurd as i havn't. We're having a difference of opinion.

I for one was glad to see the change and it would be different had the change made it harder to use, then maybe it would have been an appalling decision but, that isn't the case.

I'm glad you like it, but it doesn't change my opinion that it was fine the way it was, it doesn't change my opinion that it's fine in PS and no one's complaining about it there. And, it doesn't change my opinion that in it's current guise. It looks ridiculous.
I hope we can agree to disagree ;-)

Bottom line? It is their game and you bought into it knowing how EA works, yes?

I bought it in 2017. Long before early access. So i had a year or more with the old sight and not seeing any complaints.

So, we all give our opinions accept the changes, like them or not. So, why not stop kicking the dead dog and complaining because you didn't get your way. With all the great things about HLL this is such a small insignificant done issue.

You could have made that very same argument before they changed it. It would have still fit. And those that liked the way it was had no reason to complain then, so a true picture of what the community preference was can't be met untill they change it and people again voice thier opinion on the matter.
A forum is of course the place to 'exchange ideas' People are always going to be met with opinions they disagree with. But, it's rather absurd to suggest they shouldn't voice them for any reason.
As long as opinions are voiced without being rude... Which, i haven't been.

[Jurki]

Originally posted by tortuga:

It is suprising to me that you are still complaining about something that has changed, because it is obvious there were sufficient negative objections over how it was before.

Since the game came out there have been many changes and the Dev's have always said and made changes based on players suggestions so, I can't see that this issue is any different. And don't know where you get any facts that you can say the Dev's made a change (mistake) contrary to the majority of the players, apart from your own opinion.

I for one was glad to see the change and it would be different had the change made it harder to use, then maybe it would have been an appalling decision but, that isn't the case.

Bottom line? It is their game and you bought into it knowing how EA works, yes? So, we all give our opinions accept the changes, like them or not. So, why not stop kicking the dead dog and complaining because you didn't get your way. With all the great things about HLL this is such a small insignificant done issue.

I would guess that the majority of players have no idea or even care if the weapons look original or authentic. More important that they are easy and enjoyabe to use.

This is a great game and there are a lot of things that aren't to my liking but, after 2600+hrs don't think I will quit yet. Enjoy and see you on the battlefield!

I must say that I'm quite irritated by your comment. The devs already announced that the M1 Garand as it is right now is too strong (in my opinion game balancing wise and regarding historical accuracy) and needs to be changed. I think its wise to give them some input in sharing thoughts on that matter. I can only agree on what Andy said when it comes to discuss different opinions, I mean the section here on Steam is literally called "Discussion".

[Skram]

Can anyone explain why they use the post WW2 manufacturer for the M1 in this game?

[Lexy]

Originally posted by Salty Skramz:

Can anyone explain why they use the post WW2 manufacturer for the M1 in this game?

probably becasue they just took some stock photo of an M1 that they modeled it after?
BAM - picture of an M1 - made the asset - DONE

[Skram]

Originally posted by Lexy:

Originally posted by Salty Skramz:

Can anyone explain why they use the post WW2 manufacturer for the M1 in this game?

probably becasue they just took some stock photo of an M1 that they modeled it after?
BAM - picture of an M1 - made the asset - DONE

I mean I can assume why they did it, just find it odd how easy of a mistake it is to fix. Weird using a Korean era garand in WW2

[tortuga]

Didn't say anyone didn't have the right to express their opinions here that is what it is for and that is why it got changed in the first place. And if they are going to make changes again fine that is their option to do so.

But, to keep complaining about an issue that is no longer valid seems pointless. Who cares what it was before or as it is in another game. It is as it is now so why keep bringing up "how it was".

It is just "kicking a dead dog", you can't make it move or change it back to what it was. So, what is the point...???? Just don't see the continued conversation on this "past issue" help as useful comments to make HLL a better game.

That's my thoughts on the matter, I just accept the things as they are and don't keep look behind to what was but, accept what is and make the best of it to adjust to the present situation.