PR:V No scopes = Fun?

[Kain888]

What about factions that do not have scope available in regular rifleman kits?

I guess they would have binocs.

[ComradeHX]

I guess they would have binocs.

Might work for asymmetrical balance.

Scopes get x4; binoculars get x6 or something higher.

[Deer]

During early versions of PR there was no scopes and it was as fun as it is now with vietnam, but few individuals wanted to give 80% of players sniper rifles, even majority likes no scopes better.

It seems that players are playing more realisticly when they have no scopes. Maybe we should reduce amount of scopes in vanilla ?

[Cossack]

PR:V I like more than vanilla - it just gives me everything I wanted to see in PR = pretty with cover full maps, no long range engagements, silently kill people not even making a single shot because of the concealment. Please please DEV's, we need more maps, more cool stuff and make it look even better

[Oskar]

It seems that players are playing more realisticly when they have no scopes. Maybe we should reduce amount of scopes in vanilla ?

Yes! Yes you should!

[Kain888]

Aren't you guys get a little overhyped when posting things like "scopes destroy teamwork", etc?

In PR:V maps there are surely many factors that don't correspond easily to PR taking place in modern scenarios. Also you have to think about view distance, different kind of maps, kit geoms (in PRV people still have to learn how to distinguish them), not to mention that in PRV people are more afraid of dying because how hard it is to revive successfully in CQC scenario - in jungle where enemy can come out of bush at any given time.

For sure it increases suppression which is great, but I still have no issue taking well placed shots from distance with iron sighted weapons, so it's more effect of vietnam that affects players if you ask me. At least from my observations

[Bringerof_D]

I see. Those who play like you describe in the first paragraph are using their weapon badly. The way small arms are used in PR and PR:V should be largely the same.

exactly, the way you use the weapon scoped or not should be the same. the same basic combat principles apply.

Aren't you guys get a little overhyped when posting things like "scopes destroy teamwork", etc?

In PR:V maps there are surely many factors that don't correspond easily to PR taking place in modern scenarios. Also you have to think about view distance, different kind of maps, kit geoms (in PRV people still have to learn how to distinguish them), not to mention that in PRV people are more afraid of dying because how hard it is to revive successfully in CQC scenario - in jungle where enemy can come out of bush at any given time.

For sure it increases suppression which is great, but I still have no issue taking well placed shots from distance with iron sighted weapons, so it's more effect of vietnam that affects players if you ask me. At least from my observations

as can most people but again it isn't about whether or not you can nail the guy with ease. its about whether taking the time to make 2 perfect shots is more efficient and effective, or taking 5 quicker shots and still dropping the target and quickly move onto another target. sure you've saved a bunch of bullets, but you used like 10 seconds to kill one guy when you could have killed him in 4 and spent the other 6 engaging more targets. those 6 seconds may be valuable to your enemy who's now maneuvering to flank you or to take cover elsewhere

the level of confidence of players coming from normal PR and not accustomed to iron sights has that positive effect. Their uncertainty, or even those who are certain, generally fire at a slightly higher rate. this usually means enemies die faster and tunnel vision sticks around less often. Ideally though these players should act the same way even with scopes.

[Kain888]

the level of confidence of players coming from normal PR and not accustomed to iron sights has that positive effect. Their uncertainty, or even those who are certain, generally fire at a slightly higher rate. this usually means enemies die faster and tunnel vision sticks around less often. Ideally though these players should act the same way even with scopes.

I agree and find this as cause, not lack of scopes itself, that's why I don't feel it that much different from normal PR. I didn't mean I can nail him with well placed shot so I always do that, usually I burst unless having good and comfortable position to shot. But it's very situational. When I see enemy pointing at me or my squad member I just fire at him to suppress to give mate time to find cover. I would love to see more suppression in PR. QQ

[ComradeHX]

During early versions of PR there was no scopes and it was as fun as it is now with vietnam, but few individuals wanted to give 80% of players sniper rifles, even majority likes no scopes better.

It seems that players are playing more realisticly when they have no scopes. Maybe we should reduce amount of scopes in vanilla ?

Something tells me real life counter insurgency with U.S. Army means lots of abuse of scope and insurgents can shoot from much further distance than the pixels in game allows.

Should just give all the ironsight weapons a x2 zoom to simulate concentrating down the sight. For more realistic behaviour, right?

[EpicSandwhich]

Something tells me real life counter insurgency with U.S. Army means lots of abuse of scope and insurgents can shoot from much further distance than the pixels in game allows.

Should just give all the ironsight weapons a x2 zoom to simulate concentrating down the sight. For more realistic behaviour, right?

I'm not sure if i like that idea. Giving the ironsights a zoom would probably just end up with everyone avoiding CQB. I'm quite happy with the insurgents not being able to engage at the same range and blufor being "better", since the kill count of blufor kinda doesn't matter, the skill of the players and the tactics are what matters.

Back on PR:V, i rather enjoy not having scopes. I can still engage from a relatively long range with ironsights and it increases awarenss a bit according to me.

[ComradeHX]

I'm not sure if i like that idea. Giving the ironsights a zoom would probably just end up with everyone avoiding CQB. I'm quite happy with the insurgents not being able to engage at the same range and blufor being "better", since the kill count of blufor kinda doesn't matter, the skill of the players and the tactics are what matters.

Back on PR:V, i rather enjoy not having scopes. I can still engage from a relatively long range with ironsights and it increases awarenss a bit according to me.

In real life, if moving around while looking down the sights all the time(ironsights; used while closing one eye) you will also feel the awkwardness of having 2x zoomed ironsight in the game. That is very correct because you do not hold up the rifle to your face all the time(or you get tired for no good reason) and people should be sighting in a lot less in PR instead of abusing the movespeed bonus of sighting in(with ironsights) while crouching without consequences(no zoom = no lowered situational awareness, not quite realistic because if you are focusing your eyes elsewhere, ironsights will become blurry)...

x2 zoom on normal ironsight is not going to make Blufor's engagement distance advantage any less. It only makes insurgent engagement distance slightly higher(more realistic) and so scopes are not at too much "disadvantage" during CQB. Not everyone can/will play at super high definition...

If killcount of Blufor does not matter; that just means the game is not played the way it is supposed to be(depended on friend on TS on the INS team giving out cache location or on memorization of possible cache location too much).

[Human_001]

Balanced?

I personally don't think PR is about balance. It is about depiction and simulation of Infantry Combat.

Conventional forces are Not given scopes in game to gain advantage over Non Conventional forces. They are given scopes with its paticular zoom because that is THE equipment in real and thus so in PR. If this gives scoped rifle advantage over ironsight rifle, then this simulator suggests this that is the case.

I don't know if rifle with optics gives user a tunnel vision in real life. To me it seems that ability to magnify vision such as scope and binocular gives kind of result that is not quite related to reality due to the fact this is simulation done over pixels and screen.


Now reagarding discussion about removing Binoculars. As I stated above, I feel that the ability to magnify vision gives kind of result that is not quite related to real life due to the fact simulation is done over screen.

I remember (or at least I thought) posting comment about giving Insurgents Binocular back when there wasn't one. Because even though Non Conventional force not having optic on rifle and related disadvantages compared to rifle with optic can be real, straining your eyes trying to figure out pixels on screen by not giving users an ability to magnify screen is not worth it. So I am for giving Binocular to each and every kit.

And I think magnification should be limited on kits that are not issued a high quality Binocular in real life for purpose specific use. Because I think, that ability to produce and equip an optics that is capable of clearly identifying objects at great range is part of real life tactic.

I see posts about how it can force players to stick togather more. But I don't think that's the reason why Military only issue Binoculars to Officers because they think that is good way to make Grunts stay with Officer.

Maybe Soldiers are not issued a Binocular because they don't feel the need to use them, or maybe in real life Binoculars are plenty to go around even if not everyone carries one.

[Psyko]

Something tells me real life counter insurgency with U.S. Army means lots of abuse of scope and insurgents can shoot from much further distance than the pixels in game allows.

Should just give all the ironsight weapons a x2 zoom to simulate concentrating down the sight. For more realistic behaviour, right?

the whole idea is to get rid of zoom, to_zoom time, and most of all...tunnel vision.

[A.Finest]

Theres leak of scopes in PR:V, however I find it a lot more fun than having to scope in and attempt killings on 300m distance. Here you see the enemies all up close, and they most likely will see you too.

All in all, more CQB wont harm

[paradoXel]

I was always keen to scopes, but the few times I got to play with iron sights it was really fun.

[Trooper909]

Dunno still get shot by a guy on the other side of the map who has 50/1 K/D -_-

[IvanSFRJ]

Almost all examples of engagements in Vietnam I can recall from documentaries, videos and personally speaking to Vets were at very short ranges. As well as other conflicts prior to Scopes becoming so widespread. It indeed makes war hell where firefights are much more up close and personal. And I would probably attribute the shorter rounds in PR:V to the higher death rate because of the much greater intensity and the difficulties of reviving in CQC. There wasn't such a need for Bino's. And I believe the game reflects the realism of Vietnam quite well.

Removing binoculars under the idea that only Leaders such as Officers and SL's are "Issued" binoculars to me is a completely invalid point in Conventional Modern warfare - Vanilla PR -
In professional armed forces such as that of the United States, where Soldiers earn a living and have Volunteered to serve would surely equip themselves with the best equipment possible where their superiors cannot, as their life depends on it.
To my knowledge, not all ACOGS are actually standard issue. Many soldiers and CO's personally went out of their way to equip themselves and buddies with these spectacular scopes to increase their effectiveness. To my knowledge the Marine Corps and Army later started to field them to front-line troops.
The same goes to Binoculars, although they are immediately issued without a doubt to higher ranking members, I believe nothing would stop a soldier from buying Binoculars or somehow obtaining them to give him more awareness at longer ranges, I surely would.
Realistically I think there isn't a reason to remove Binoculars from kits.

For the sake of Game-play and balance, someone aught to test this out because I am seeing a lot of "theory-crafting" atm. I personally don't believe removing bino's would make much of a difference, although removing Scopes, or limiting them, would definitely change the rules of the game and benefit the squad that is more careful and effective with their weapon, rather than the one that is reckless and must get up close and personal to use their weapon effectively. As we have seen through PR:Vietnam.
This shift in game-play could cause more Teamwork, Communication and Cohesion between the Fire team, Squad and Team respectively.

Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.
Ivan.

[ComradeHX]

the whole idea is to get rid of zoom, to_zoom time, and most of all...tunnel vision.

The whole idea is that IRL if you focus on target you get tunnel vision regardless of whether you have magnifying optics or not; if you focus your eyes on the target through ironsights, you are not going to be able to concentrate on everything around you.

[IvanSFRJ]

The whole idea is that IRL if you focus on target you get tunnel vision regardless of whether you have magnifying optics or not; if you focus your eyes on the target through ironsights, you are not going to be able to concentrate on everything around you.

I find your claim that tunnel vision is an immediate consequence of focused and accurate fire is a complete fallacy. Part of the responsibility of using a Firearm is overcoming that Tunnel Vision and lack of awareness when using the Firearm, on a basic civilian level, such as during hunting, or target practice, even when you are extremely focused on a target or object.
It goes without saying that Military men train extensively on being Situational Aware even in the heat of combat to avoid being Flanked, Friendly fire etc.

[Psyko]

The whole idea is that IRL if you focus on target you get tunnel vision regardless of whether you have magnifying optics or not; if you focus your eyes on the target through ironsights, you are not going to be able to concentrate on everything around you.

not if you have iron sites you don't. and its worth mentioning that you have a larger cone of vision in real life than you do in PR.

So why do you think PRV engagements seem to be more compelling? is it the to_zoom (scope in) animation speed? Or is it that you cant see far enough? or something totally different?