Ironsight vs Optic Balance

[Mongolian_dude]

When i come across a guy at ranges, long, mid AND short, against a player with a x4 optic, i alwasy feel like i got the raw deal.
It seems like ACOG=WIN in every circumstance, however, i dont quite feel like this reflects teh_RL, as such.

Surely, while using a x4, magnified vision and a pointer allows you to put more accurate fire down a futher range range, with more acute accuracy.

However, there comes a time when this is a disadvantage:
This would be the reduction in the field of view from binocular of the scope itself; aswell as the magnification, meaining that you suffer from more 'shake; from movement.
I feel these advantages and disadvantages are fairly well represented for the x4s.


Its the ironsights that cause me grief.
While you have less ability to get rounds more accurately, further at the enemy, there should be advantages that are not represented in game:

Moving with the scope raised and walking should not have near as much effect as it does(I would suspect, im a civi and never shot a round in my life) at the moment in game.
With your iron sights raised, only the movement of the shaking should have baring on your ability to look down the sights; while this could be a problem while anything more than a jog, walking (which we are forced to do by right-clicking/scoping in) would not induce a WHOLE lot more.
You wouldnt be able to get some accurate fire on the enemy at aything past short range(which would allow the iron sights to have a greater advantage at short ranges, over the x4s).

In short, i think it would be a constructive, realistic and balanced move to make iron sights considerably less responsive to movement that those weapons with telescopic optics. Aimpoints are obviously an option, but it has already been over ruled.


...mongol...

[fuzzhead]

moved to suggestions and feedback, this kind of thing can be discussed publicly.

[random pants]

Couldn't agree more. Right now optics are just stupidly better than iron sights. I like the idea of the deviation reduced while walking with your iron-sight-rifle shouldered. Sounds like it's well within the DEV's ability, too.

[maverick551]

Agree. ATM Optics are way to effective against iron sights to a point that I think is unrealistic. Just a few small tweaks as Mongol pointed out I think could help balance the weapons in CQB and mid-range engagements.

[OkitaMakoto]

Couldn't agree more. Right now optics are just stupidly better than iron sights. I like the idea of the deviation reduced while walking with your iron-sight-rifle shouldered. Sounds like it's well within the DEV's ability, too.

Very much agree with both of you, I ALWAYS take ACOG, hands down, no reason to take irons, and there SHOULD be.

and Random Pants, please reduce the height of your sig image to 200 pixels, you are well over it, coming in at a whopping 300 something pixels...

***EDIT*** I quickly changed it for you, with a crappy font. Feel free to change it but keep it at that size or smaller, sigs should be no more than 550 pixels wide, 200 pixels in height.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Mongolian_dude;681247']When i come across a guy at ranges, long, mid AND short, against a player with a x4 optic, i alwasy feel like i got the raw deal.
It seems like ACOG=WIN in every circumstance, however, i dont quite feel like this reflects teh_RL, as such.

Surely, while using a x4, magnified vision and a pointer allows you to put more accurate fire down a futher range range, with more acute accuracy.

However, there comes a time when this is a disadvantage:
This would be the reduction in the field of view from binocular of the scope itself; aswell as the magnification, meaining that you suffer from more 'shake; from movement.
I feel these advantages and disadvantages are fairly well represented for the x4s.


Its the ironsights that cause me grief.
While you have less ability to get rounds more accurately, further at the enemy, there should be advantages that are not represented in game:

Moving with the scope raised and walking should not have near as much effect as it does(I would suspect, im a civi and never shot a round in my life) at the moment in game.
With your iron sights raised, only the movement of the shaking should have baring on your ability to look down the sights; while this could be a problem while anything more than a jog, walking (which we are forced to do by right-clicking/scoping in) would not induce a WHOLE lot more.
You wouldnt be able to get some accurate fire on the enemy at aything past short range(which would allow the iron sights to have a greater advantage at short ranges, over the x4s).

In short, i think it would be a constructive, realistic and balanced move to make iron sights considerably less responsive to movement that those weapons with telescopic optics. Aimpoints are obviously an option, but it has already been over ruled.


...mongol...

Yep, I agree.

The only people who should really have ironsights though are crewman and engineers (they are lone wolves) and those should just be for personal defense since they are tasked with being in the rear and building or tending to their vehicles.

The Rifleman with Ironsights is an ok change, but it doesn't really have that much of an advantage in CQB, just a disadvantage.

Who aims when an enemy comes buzzing around the corner? Who aims when the enemy is right next to you and shooting you? No one, it is all about spray and prey and if you are even remotely good with the weapons, Spray and Prey up close is very easy.

So their is really no incentive to play as Rifleman Ironsights and like I have been saying, it puts the medics at a huge disadvantage.


Anything past 10 feet in this game is all about optics. Anything within 10 feet is just spray and prey. Where does that leave the ironsights? Nowhere. You can't kill someone with the ironsights if you can't make it into range alive.

[Masaq]

Okita is the nice mod. I just remove overlarge sigs and give warning points for sig violation, he actually does the work for you... good grief

----------

One of the ways of doing this would be to make sure the recoil values are the same for irons as they are for optics - so optic users have more wobble when using their sights.

[Mosquill]

How 'bout making equal recoil for both scopes and irons?

[Antonious_Bloc]

How 'bout making equal recoil for both scopes and irons?

Which would also appear as having more of a kick when viewed through the scope, which would even things out nicely.

[OkitaMakoto]

Okita is the nice mod. I just remove overlarge sigs and give warning points for sig violation, he actually does the work for you... good grief

----------

One of the ways of doing this would be to make sure the recoil values are the same for irons as they are for optics - so optic users have more wobble when using their sights.

I normally just tell them to change it in a day or two or I will remove it, but another MOD said I was lazy and that I could do it for them... is that correct? I think Im just contributing to the laziness of the forums when I do this

A lot of these ironsight ideas sound really good. Im down with anything that is plausible and gives a reason[more reason] to use ironsights.

[Tartantyco]

-I would also like to add that the iron sights are way too big. I've looked down the G3 iron sights more than a few times and it's nowhere near as intrusive as in the game. The front post is a lot slimmer.

[Rudd]

How 'bout making equal recoil for both scopes and irons?

AFAIK this was how it was in the 0.7 testing, and people hated it?

-I would also like to add that the iron sights are way too big. I've looked down the G3 iron sights more than a few times and it's nowhere near as intrusive as in the game. The front post is a lot slimmer.

Now changing THIS would make my day.

[Tartantyco]

AFAIK this was how it was in the 0.7 testing, and people hated it?

-Maybe, but people suck.

[DeltaFart]

My two bits
I have shot a gatorade bottle with an M1 Garand(with extra lead weights in them) off hand standing at 100 yds. I am not a weight lifter so it did feel heavy in my hands, but the ironsights on guns are quite accurate.
Now put that into perspective with combat. Around 5-20 yds max. Ironsights should be very good in this respect.
Biggest problem now is engine limitation, because the Marines are trained to use the Acog with both eyes open so they look through the scope just to acquire the chevron in CQB, and people might think OMG ZOOM ITS HARDER, but in those split seconds, the zoom is almost not pertinent. THus the engine limitation is what is making the scope unscopd discussion even possible. IF we could get a setup like in ArmA where its like the CQB wher you just click your sight button and its not zoom, would be like quick acquisition, while holding it is like focusing further and aiming for distance. Until we can crack the engine this will not happen, so we'll have to live with the thing now.
And in truth process wise ironsights aren't as good as those acogs, in the sense that you have to look through 2 holes(well 1 1/2) and line them up. THe acog is just find the center and shoot no lining up.

[random pants]

Very much agree with both of you, I ALWAYS take ACOG, hands down, no reason to take irons, and there SHOULD be.

and Random Pants, please reduce the height of your sig image to 200 pixels, you are well over it, coming in at a whopping 300 something pixels...

***EDIT*** I quickly changed it for you, with a crappy font. Feel free to change it but keep it at that size or smaller, sigs should be no more than 550 pixels wide, 200 pixels in height.

LOOOL I was soo confused when I came back to this thread and saw my sig changed. I was like...the PR forum has a sig poltergeist....btw thanks Okita.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

OkitaMakoto;681361']I normally just tell them to change it in a day or two or I will remove it, but another MOD said I was lazy and that I could do it for them... is that correct? I think Im just contributing to the laziness of the forums when I do this

A lot of these ironsight ideas sound really good. Im down with anything that is plausible and gives a reason[more reason] to use ironsights.

There really is no need to change the ironsights since most people who fight at the front are probably going to have an acog or scope anyway.

Just keep the ironsights for the crewman and engineers since they only need it for personal protection, either change or add something to the ironsight rifleman kit or get rid of it for something else and give medics a scope.

[M.Warren]

Certainly not the first time hearing about this, but it quite obvious that it is still in need of an in depth evaluation.

I agree that there should be some sort of a logical balance between weapons that offer a scope, compared to one that only utilizes iron sights. Obviously scoped weapons are offensive and basically weapons with an iron sight offer basic defense capablity.

However before we start tearing the game apart to create a balance between these optional weapon attachments, let' just keep it simple. A logical and relatively easy method to possibly offer gameplay balance between the weapons is to simply tweak the speed in which it takes to "shoulder" the weapon and alter the speed in which it can be moved or turned while aiming. Here's a small explanation as follows:

(Keep in mind, the idea here is to simulate scoped weapons to have a handling method that is about 1/2 as slow as the Automatic Rifleman kit, but making iron sight weapons an instant aiming method similar to as it is now. Currently scoped weapons act as an instant aiming method with little to no downfall.)

Weapon "shoulder" and aiming movement speed:
A. Slow "Shoulder" and Aiming Movement/Turning Speed (Specialized Weapons) - Automatic Rifleman.

Slow speed specialized weapons will generally be controlled by the fact that they are a stationary form of armament offering a high volume of fire and/or extremely range shooting. But these weapons are at the loss as they are equipped with stationary bipods, offer a higher ammo capacity at the cost of increased weight and/or have specialized optics for long-range shooting.

<Note: Currently sniper rifles don't have a slow zoom. But it would probably be a rather good idea to simulate the bipod effect just as the Automatic Rifleman kits already possess but with an increase in accuracy to compensate for this reduction in mobility.>

B. Medium "Shoulder" and Aiming Movement/Turning Speed (Scoped Weapons) - Designated Marksmen and Rifleman (Scoped)

Medium speed scoped weapons will generally be controlled by the fact that they have enhanced optics capable of engaging long range targets. But these weapons are at the loss as they need to take additional time to aim properly and allow the human eye to focus upon it's target, making it difficult to engage targets at close range. This will require the need to engage enemy units at long to medium range.

<Note: Most modern weapons to this day that utilizes a scope will take a few moments for your eye to focus on your target. Also it will take some effort to properly maintain your focus on the target while the rifle is moving or recoiling from firing. Although a visual representation of "focusing" is not present in Project Reality, it should be assumed that in order to maintain proper focus will require reduced aiming characteristics to simulate this experience.>

C. Fast "Shoulder" and Aiming Movement/Turning Speed (Iron Sight Weapons) - AA Rifleman, AT Rifleman (H-AT and L-AT), Crewman, Engineer, Grenadier, Medic, Pilot, Rifleman (Iron Sights) and Spec Ops.

Fast speed iron sight weapons will generally be controlled by the fact that they have a very simple aiming method. But these weapons are at a loss as they DO NOT have enchanced optics capable of engaging long range targets. This will require the need to engage enemy units at medium to close range.

<Note: Hopefully AA Rifleman will soon be issued a scoped weapon with thier kit just as AT Rifleman already has.>

As you can see as of the recent v0.75 patch there is little incentive to use iron sight weapons. If we can modify scoped weapons so that there is a balance between the slower specialized weapons and the faster iron sight weapons, we may finally find a proper fix for an on going dilemma Project Reality players face.

Maybe with furthur refinement of certain weapon types will produce more distinctive advantages and disadvantages resulting in an increasingly more balanced playing field. Who knows... We may even be able to finally perfect the method to the point that we may be able to have a Medic kit with a scoped weapon. Imagine that, a respawn interface that shows a selectable Medic kit that comes with or without a scope just like the standard Rifleman kit has.

Hey, it could happen.

[Charity Case]

It was probably mentioned during the last muzzle climb discussion, but I'll mention it again: why not reduce the muzzle climb of iron sight weapons when using the sights?

[Mongolian_dude]

I do like the idea of the varying weapon-to-shoulder idea, simulating the act of steadying the scope.

Aswell as this, perhaps at the range which iron sights are zeroed to (200-300?), rounds would not leave the perimiter of the front sight/ring, up till the range it is zeroed at; even while the player is walking forward, provided it is on single shot.




...mongol...

[ohnomelon]

I am really sorry if this has been mentioned or is just unhelpful, but I think a simple and effective way of satisfying everyone would be to make it harder to use scoped weapons. My problem is that both are so static, the front post never wanders, the red dot is completely still, the reticule of a high power scope is always crystal clear.

don't get me wrong, I'd expect steady hands from the marines et autres, but i do think that the scopes are lacking in complexity. the irons are a challenge in comparison.