Scoped Rifles, Ammo and General Mechanics

[Eddie Baker]

u can continue to insult me if u have fun but maybe someday u will understand that insulting ppl only cause they have another opinion is not very productive.

now read carefully what im typing here cause i dont think anybody did understand it.

1.fighting insurgents or terrorists is not called WAR.

2.if u would use your head u would realize that giving every riflemen 270
rounds when millions of them get deployed is economically and logistically impossible for every country on this planet today.

3.lets talk about the USA.a country who cant stop a handful of
third-world-terrorists flying with slow airliners into a major city and destroying the world-trade-center.

thats a hell of a world power isnt it?

u really think that the USA can handle a world war if they cant even handle some terrorists?
so stop talking about US standards.
the US aint a threat.

think twice before u reply some irrelevant bs.

see u in hell

Ooooh . . . so badass . . . but mostly just ***. Enjoy your vacation, Fishboy. When you grow a brain and a sack, ask nicely and we might let you return and try to be a Fishman. Until then, we must assume the fish part of your name comes from your natural odor- that of a LANGUAGE RULES GO FOR DEVs, TOO.

[Waaah_Wah]

^^That was kinda unnessessary

[USMC_Cook]

u can continue to insult me if u have fun but maybe someday u will understand that insulting ppl only cause they have another opinion is not very productive.

now read carefully what im typing here cause i dont think anybody did understand it.

1.fighting insurgents or terrorists is not called WAR.

2.if u would use your head u would realize that giving every riflemen 270
rounds when millions of them get deployed is economically and logistically impossible for every country on this planet today.

3.lets talk about the USA.a country who cant stop a handful of
third-world-terrorists flying with slow airliners into a major city and destroying the world-trade-center.

thats a hell of a world power isnt it?

u really think that the USA can handle a world war if they cant even handle some terrorists?
so stop talking about US standards.
the US aint a threat.

think twice before u reply some irrelevant bs.

see u in hell

C'mon man! What you're saying is that you don't have anything to support your initial argument, so you just decide to throw a few shots at the U.S., instead. That's great Fishman! That's a pretty childish way to act. It's reminiscent of when you're a kid, and somebody makes you look stupid (in reality, you make yourself look stupid and someone just points it out to you), so you just call them a looser instead of rebuking their claim. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about who would win in a fight between Superman and Godzilla. I love the U.S., but I'm not the fourteen year old who is going to say that America is the best country in the world, and anything from America is better than everything that isn't. The U.S. is my favorite country in the world (I'm a little partial), but that doesn't mean it's the best.



The Iraq War is a war! It's called an asymmetric war. Just because there aren't tank divisions rolling across the Eastern front, doesn't make this something other than a war.

Your argument that the whole of the industrialized world is incapable of supplying a few million soldiers with 270rds, in a time of war, is ridiculous. Enough said there.

You say that America's inability to stop 9/11 displays our weakness? There have only been a small number of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in it's over 200 year history, and we have been a pretty big target over the past 40 years. Can you show me a country that has had a 100% success rate of stopping terrorist attacks?

As far as our military might, there are a number of outstanding militaries globally, and I believe that the U.S. military is the most powerful in the world (at this time). I'm not saying that the U.S. trains the hardest, or that we are the most skilled, we just have a vast military might that is technologically advanced. To say that any country in the world could declare war on the U.S., and not have to worry about America's military might just demonstrates your ignorance.

The only valid point you made was that insulting someone doesn't resolve anything. You're right about that, but I'm human. If you were a shoemaker and a stone mason told you exactly how shoes were supposed to be made (but was completely wrong because he didn't have any idea how to make shoes), you would become upset, too. I'm wrong about things all the time, but I usually admit to it when I am. In this particular argument, you're wrong. You should just be a man, and admit it. I know that you're going to become defensive when someone calls you an idiot--I would too. I'm sorry for the personal attacks, but the fact is that you're wrong here.

[nedlands1]

Wait, ned.

Okay, we will remove 3/4 of the clips from all forces. But the magazines stay. Happy?

Nicely played...

[General Fuct]

Ok! Guys this is really getting off topic here! I've heard some great points in amongst all the arguing. This thread isn't about how much ammo is carried (which I personally have no problem with the current version) its about how the ACOG interferes with alot of the game mechanics.

In short, I was playing yesterday in a squad filled with all the kits (great load out) although all the kits with unscoped rifles were feeling alittle useless. The medic (ACOGS head shot everyone) had no one to rez/heal, there was no need for the solider carrying ammo because everyone dies before even 2 mags are used, so he was stuck with an unscoped rifle and had little to no chance to fight back because of the range they engage us at.

The scopes should stay, but they need to be limited! Long firefights are the BEST mechanic this game has (IMO) and they are ruined by scoping! Even the score! Iron-Sights for the win! Skill and Man-dom embodied!

Otherwise the mod is fantastic!

[Katarn]

General, I think the problem is less with the equipment used and more with the tactics. Fights wouldn't be over quickly if people used cover effectively.

[nedlands1]

General, I think the problem is less with the equipment used and more with the tactics. Fights wouldn't be over quickly if people used cover effectively.

Grenades beats cover, cover beats bullets, bullets beat grenades and Mr JDAM beats all?

[General Fuct]

General, I think the problem is less with the equipment used and more with the tactics. Fights wouldn't be over quickly if people used cover effectively.

I understand where you are coming from, but how much choice do you have when 80% of their team have the scopes: -

• You step out, you're shot.
• You run, you're shot.
• Try shoot back with iron sights, you're DEFINITELY shot.
• Get someone to help you (With their iron sights), they're shot.

The only people who would argue against this suggestion are the people who RELY on this mechanic to play! Lets keep this in perspective this IS a game and it still needs balance/fairness/mechanics that make sense despite 'Reality'.

I don't see many medics running around when I play, can anyone tell me why that is?

[nedlands1]

Well, in terms of handling, the M16A4 with iron sights is identical to the M16A4 with ACOG except that the ACOG version has 60% of the iron sight version's recoil when zoomed. I haven't checked the other assault rifles but they will probably have a similar setup in terms of recoil. Personally, less recoil for the ACOG version makes sense as it has more weight up the front counteracting muzzle climb. However, this should not be exclusively for when the ACOG is being looked down. The recoil values should be less when "unscoped" too.

This reduction in recoil should not be for free either. Having more weight on a weapon increases the time it takes to bring to bear on a target. Currently this is not reflected in-game with across the board values of 1 1/3 seconds to steady a gun from running/walking/crawling/strafing. Surely the "tooled-out" versions of weapons should have an increase in time or alternatively the stock versions could have less?

EDIT: looking down some iron sights is quicker than setting up the appropriate sight picture with a scope isn't it? If so then all the more reason to change the steady times in favour of the stock variants.

[VipersGhost]

You know I'm a tried and true scope user except for the Automatic_rifleman class, which has ironsites and kicks ***. I know a lot of guys can be very lethal IRL with ironsites and I'm sure some prefer them at times. I think getting their opinions of the cons-advantages of the Ironsite-Scoped arguement might bring light onto some ways we can make ironsites more useful via realism. I'd assume an ironsite guy could shot quicker and settle on his target a bit faster being that his site picture is so massive and accessible...I don't know though, I'm only speculating but there has to be some thing here.

I DEFINITELY don't think taking the scoped guns out of their current kits is the proper way to go though at all.

[[T]Terranova7]

I understand where you are coming from, but how much choice do you have when 80% of their team have the scopes: -

• You step out, you're shot.
• You run, you're shot.
• Try shoot back with iron sights, you're DEFINITELY shot.
• Get someone to help you (With their iron sights), they're shot.

The only people who would argue against this suggestion are the people who RELY on this mechanic to play! Lets keep this in perspective this IS a game and it still needs balance/fairness/mechanics that make sense despite 'Reality'.

I don't see many medics running around when I play, can anyone tell me why that is?

Personally I don't see the balance issue. The rifleman is supposed to be the jack-of-all-trades kit, the kit of choice. The scope adds the extra range ability to the class, making them effectively marksman, and in a medium to long range engagement the scoped rifle should dominate the iron sight users. To an extent, the current system sees that just right amount of support classes are used, not too many medics, not too many engineers. I don't really understand why people see these classes not being used a lot a problem. In real life there aren't 12 medics assigned to a platoon. In terms of gameplay medics should fall into the support category, and shouldn't be as effective in combat as the more infantry related classes are.

Tactical wise, you really shouldn't attempt to engage a target with iron sights from long distances. Let your own scoped users handle that. If anything if you're using an iron sighted weapon, you should remain in cover, attempt to maneuver and flank the opposition at a range you feel most effective using the iron sights at. Scoped users are practically at a disadvantage in close range combat, as the scope's zoom will work against them more than for them. Makes iron sights pretty useful in CQB scenarios such as fighting in densely urban or heavily vegetated environments.

[VipersGhost]

True Story^^

[Silvarius2000]

IMHO, the scoped rifles feel unwholesomely accurate (Not as headshotty as 0.6 but...) especially when compared to Iron Sights is not just because of the increased zoom but rather the rather straight trajectory the bullet takes. Without the arc of a bullet the scoped rifles are like wobbly laser rifles that take only slight adjustment and therefore being rather accurate. No wind means no side deviation which also adds to its accuracy.

Now those mentioned factors are obviously out of BF2's capability but perhaps we could have some placeholder rules or inhibition to simulate that?