Possibles sights for both sides in Falklands

[Avenged_Fate]

We all know why The Falklands, as a map, are so loved: CAS. No more, no less.
Yeah, it's pretty cool seeing them fighting around, but down below, it gets pretty hard to engage enemy contacts.

Hear me out here: I know this is PR, but what is the point of being realistic if you can barely see your enemy? PR's engine makes it very hard to engage anything past 100 meters with iron sights, especially in an 8 km map.

This map is particularly "coverless", so you'll just run around for 3/4 of the round, hoping you get close enough to shoot someone and effectively kill them.

So, why not introducing scopes for both sides? I'm not talking about modern scopes, due to the fact The Falklands was during the 80's, but scopes like the Trilux (formerly used in PR by the Russian army), which is basically the inverted version of the modern scope for the SA-80, the only difference being the period in time.

I understand such scope was harshly criticized for being way too big and clunky, but the way I see it, it's either that or running around, hoping to shoot someone once you get close enough.

But this is just my opinion. What are yours?

Avenged_Fate

[Rhino]

The L2A2 SUIT 4x Scope your asking for (the IP29 Trilux is a Russian copy of it) is already in PR:F, in the British Marksman kit and has been for some time: Sight Unit Infantry Trilux (SUIT) - Project Reality Forums


And the reason why not every single kit has a scope in PR:F, is not because the scopes didn't exist, but because they were very rare and only a few soldiers, like the Marksman, where issues with scopes.



















If you look through those refs, very few of the soldiers have scopes. Scopes have only really become common issue for conventional forces from the '00s onwards, the '90s for British troops and some others but before that, scopes were pretty rare. You wouldn't be asking for WW2 rifles to all get scopes now, would you?


As from a gameplay perspective, IMO the gameplay would be worse on the ground with more scopes, as you would find everyone getting picked off far more than they do now and if anything, it becoming less fun on the ground. The iron sights over long range not only being realistic, gives a new twist on how to play the game and it means you need more suppressive fire in order to push up, giving MGs a more vital role in the squad and also changing how you can assault targets.


So from both a realism and gameplay perspective, the Falklands war isn't going to get more scopes

[Ragnarok1775]

Not to be a jerk, but get better at distance shooting. That's fairly realistic, you shoot at a dot on the horizon. I do pretty well with irons on that map. Keeping control of your squad and directing fire from your automatic rifleman and/or machine gunner, using your marksman effectively, and using binoculars to help direct your squad's fires will make a huge difference. It also helps to know where and when to set up a .50 cal to cover certain areas, and again having someone able to help direct his fires. I find that Falklands maps force people to really work as a team and are A LOT of fun. Accept the fact that a lot of times, you're going to miss and it's okay.

Is your draw distance at 100%?

[Avenged_Fate]

As from a gameplay perspective, IMO the gameplay would be worse on the ground with more scopes, as you would find everyone getting picked off far more than they do now and if anything, it becoming less fun on the ground. The iron sights over long range not only being realistic, gives a new twist on how to play the game and it means you need more suppressive fire in order to push up, giving MGs a more vital role in the squad and also changing how you can assault targets.


So from both a realism and gameplay perspective, the Falklands war isn't going to get more scopes

I know, I've been gathering up information and thinking about the subject myself, and came to similar conclusions. It is true that scopes would make it easier to kill, but also easier to die.

It was just a suggestion, but I realize the current method is the most appropriate.

[Ragnarok1775]

I know, I've been gathering up information and thinking about the subject myself, and came to similar conclusions. It is true that scopes would make it easier to kill, but also easier to die.

It was just a suggestion, but I realize the current method is the most appropriate.

I think the key is that people have to realize ironsight maps are not meant to be played the same way as optics maps. But they really do make a man out of you and make you appreciate technology.

[Fuller]

Keep the iron sights!
Especially on Falklands with very little vegitation scopes would break the infantry gameplay.

[Rabbit]

K4on and I both liked the idea of giving ironsights a 1.5x zoom, it allows for a much clearer picture without being op, but many devs didnt like the idea, at least at the time.

I think its the best way to handle it and not require a rework of sights,

[Frontliner]

inb4 somebody makes the "bionic eye" argument

[PatrickLA_CA]

K4on and I both liked the idea of giving ironsights a 1.5x zoom, it allows for a much clearer picture without being op, but many devs didnt like the idea, at least at the time.

I think its the best way to handle it and not require a rework of sights,

I don't see anything wrong with that video. The zoom is big enough to make the image a bit clearer while definitely not big enough to put it on par with scopes.

[carmikaze]

Yes, but that little zoom will suck hard in CQB. If it's toggleable it'd be cool.

[mebel]

K4on and I both liked the idea of giving ironsights a 1.5x zoom, it allows for a much clearer picture without being op, but many devs didnt like the idea, at least at the time.

I think its the best way to handle it and not require a rework of sights,

looks lovely

[VTRaptor]

Personally I dislike the fact of having scope on every gun. Like seriously... Right now usual bluefor inf squad is made of 8 guys with scopes allowing them to fire accurately at the maxium range of actual view distance of most PR maps. Kits like AR and MG are laser sniper rifles, and DMRs is just fancy, useless kit. I love how Bamyan ALT is done - only few have scopes, and map has large VD making me feel like It's actually open space. I know no one wants it the way i do, because it's an old game and the graphics make people see enemies for maximum of 50-100m without magnification, but the way it is right now seem like constant sniper firefight. Optics turned big maps into small ones.

I find scopeless variants more encouraging people to play as a squad and perhaps we could see more scopeless layers?

[Filamu]

Some maps really have issues with scopes. Jabal alt plays surprisingly well with irons as opposed to std.

I too would like more irons only maps. Especially open maps, like Kashan or Khami inf layers.

[Arab]

K4on and I both liked the idea of giving ironsights a 1.5x zoom, it allows for a much clearer picture without being op, but many devs didnt like the idea, at least at the time.

I think its the best way to handle it and not require a rework of sights,

Looks good

[Filamu]

Gives a clearer sight at longer ranges, but takes away parts of the cqb advantage of not having a zoom.
If you could trigger it with C it would be more interesting, but I like that there is a tradeoff when you choose either.

[agus92]

For me, the best implementation I've seen is a progressive small iron-sight zoom triggered by holding shift in aiming mode.I don't remember if that was on Verdun or RO2.

[mebel]

For me, the best implementation I've seen is a progressive small iron-sight zoom triggered by holding shift in aiming mode.I don't remember if that was on Verdun or RO2.

OFP and ARMA too
Don't think same is possible for BF2 engine.

[QuickLoad]

I disagree with adding little zoom and adding optics as GI/SI, it wouldn't be unique and you'd basically have PR on a larger map, when you could have simple, chaotic fighting with MG's suppressing people on a hill as infantry move up hipfiring and sprinting through open ground. Then a few people would have optics, and they would be a significant threat as MG's would be as well. Sound familiar? That's cause it's just like PR:WW2!

It would be no fun if everyone just got picked off and had one long *** firefight mountain top to mountain top where whoever tried attacking wouldn't even have a chance to cross.

[Rhino]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to sum up this topic in a few quick points since it is really going all over the place....

1. Scopes where not at all common during the 1982 Falklands War.
2. The SUIT scope is already in PR:F, in the British Marksman kit where it realistically belongs.
3. The Argentinians didn't even use the SUIT scope proposed in the OP.
4. Adding scopes to all the Falklands kit would only worsen the maps gameplay, not improve it, as later even the OP agreed with in this topic.
5. The 1.5x Iron Sights zoom has really nothing to do with this suggestion and also would add to point 4 if even implemented.
6. The 1.5x Iron Sights zoom would make CQB much worse (the main reason why it was never implemented)
7. The 1.5x Iron Sights zoom would only make sense and I think the only way everyone would be happy with it is if it was done in via a focus mode like many modern FPS have (such as RS2, Insurgency, PUBG etc) where only when you hold shift do you focus in and only for a limited amount of time while you hold your breath (also improving your aim), but afaik that isn't possible on the BF2 engine, at least not via the core code, might be possible with some serious binary hack but that is outside of mine and most other devs skill sets.

So ye I think that settles all the points brought up in this topic now so unless someone thinks they can code in a focus mode as per the final point (and if so, should be talked about in community modding), don't think there is really anything left to talk about here.

Cheers.