Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
Outlawz7
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 17261
Joined: 2007-02-17 14:59

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Outlawz7 »

Reduce scope texture size...
Since real life "resolution" and view distances are much greater
Right now if you bring up the scope, it will cover 2/3 of your screen. If you take your 1024x768 resolution as your entire 170-180 degrees of FOV in real life, then all soldiers must be carrying huge astronomic telescopes on their rifles in PR.

It would also reduce scope's effectiveness in CQC since the scope size and zoom act as an uber reflex sight at the moment.
Image
Chuc
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 7016
Joined: 2007-02-11 03:14

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Chuc »

That.. I got something to say about.

Scope reticles aren't textured, but modelled, hence to reduce the size of the reticle, or to increase the black area surrounding the reticle would require reimporting all scoped weapons that are over the size threshold.
Image
Personal Folio - http://www.studioash.net
Head Hunter
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-10-10 00:37

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Head Hunter »

I like the OP's ideas, a little bit of zoom would help alot and a bit less deviation from moving would help in those firefights where you are moving through alleys with your weapon sighted and need to put your target down quick when you see him.


I like it :razz:
naykon
Posts: 113
Joined: 2007-12-18 12:14

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by naykon »

a very slight increase in zoom for ironsights wouldn't go a miss, whenever i've used ironsights in real life i can certainly see targets further than in PR.

And i'm of the opinion that increasing hipfire accuracy would be fairer than decreasing scope in times. Otherwise we just go back to .7 where engagements last 2secs at long range
Spaz
Posts: 3957
Joined: 2006-06-01 15:57

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Spaz »

viper759 wrote:i have pretty much the same policy, i dont play insurgents
Wait wtf?


Anyway I agree on nr 2.
Image
hx.bjoffe
Posts: 1062
Joined: 2007-02-26 15:05

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by hx.bjoffe »

hiberNative wrote:i like the ideas, but i'd prefer realistic implementation of recoil above this.
Isn't the unscoped issued less recoil than scoped, to balance?
In this case your suggestion would only unbalance (to use OPs terms) it further.

I say nay to zoom, but like the 'less deviation for WASD movement.'
foxxravin
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-06-25 16:37

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by foxxravin »

OMG, NO zoom on iron !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gazzthompson
Posts: 8012
Joined: 2007-01-12 19:05

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by gazzthompson »

leave as they are, on maps like korengal and tad sae ect i chose iron sight m4 over acog
martov
Posts: 238
Joined: 2008-10-07 19:18

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by martov »

in real life you dont have any "magical" zoom when you align the ironsights.

but you have an advantage at CQB because you can be with the gun on your cheek at all times.

as we cant do that in PR, we make the iron sights align sligtly faster, it is perfect like it is.

BUT, when you have a gun in CQB with ironsights you can shoot while moving fairly well (not while strafing).

I vote to reduce the WASD deviation.
Razick
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-12-04 01:46

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Razick »

random pants wrote:
Think about it this way. If you're sighted in, and side-stepping/strafing with a 4x or greater magnification scope, your reticule will be bouncing all over the place. You will need to stop..settle your scope, then take your precision shots (which is currently what the deviation system represents)


An ironsighted weapon, on the other hand, has a very clean sight picture, and it should be much easier to strafe and shoot while being accurate since you are just using the front post over your rear aperture to aim.
This statement should be backwards
Conman51
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2008-05-03 00:27

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Conman51 »

Dr2B Rudd wrote:1 NO, 2 yes.
agree

the no zoom is actually a advantage in CQB..the iron sight weopons should be better at CQB and not modified for long range battles
Last edited by Conman51 on 2008-10-18 08:08, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."
-Mark Twain



Image
Bringerof_D
Posts: 2142
Joined: 2007-11-16 04:43

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Bringerof_D »

Razick wrote:This statement should be backwards
it should be niether, the rifle will bob ths same scoped or iron, the only difference would be that the scoped weapon would give you a head ache. The ironsighted weapon would be just as inacurate, but you can still see your target even with the movement, where as a zoomed weaon giving less FOV your target will bob in and out of sight. but either way the bullet isnt going to hit yourtarget unless its aligned.
Chuc
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 7016
Joined: 2007-02-11 03:14

Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.

Post by Chuc »

scoped weapon would give you a head ache
A possible solution..
Image
Personal Folio - http://www.studioash.net
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”