Page 2 of 2
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 04:19
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.
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 04:30
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.
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 09:14
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
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 09:34
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
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 09:41
by Spaz
viper759 wrote:i have pretty much the same policy, i dont play insurgents
Wait wtf?
Anyway I agree on nr 2.
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 10:47
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.'
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 11:01
by foxxravin
OMG, NO zoom on iron !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 12:51
by gazzthompson
leave as they are, on maps like korengal and tad sae ect i chose iron sight m4 over acog
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 21:00
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.
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-17 21:49
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
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-18 02:08
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
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-18 04:00
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.
Re: Scope vs. Ironsight.....a new approach to balance.
Posted: 2008-10-18 04:05
by Chuc
scoped weapon would give you a head ache
A possible solution..