|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
5
   |
Posted - 2013.05.19 16:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
One of the complaints that I had with Planetside 2 was that in some ways it just did not feel like a futuristic FPS game. Most of the equipment used just seemed like no better than what we have in the present day military... and sometimes even worse. PS2 just did not have that futuristic feel that I would have expected.
I will give Dust some credit here, as it does feel like the future... except for iron sights. In the future, I do not see a place for iron sights at all. I would think that every weapon would at least have some sort of sighting device that was a tad better... even if it was a simple x2 sight. Perhaps even a red indicator when aiming in on an enemy soldier. But I am sorry... the iron sights in Dust just seem so out of place... just not the right feel for me.
|
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 16:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Thanks for the name calling... great conversational encouragement... or did I use too big of words here for you to understand?
...and what makes you think iron sights will not go away eventually? Seems a bit presumptuous. Oh there I go again with the big words again... sorry. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks for the replies... greatly appreciated.
What strikes me is when I see the battle film footage of Iraq and Afghanistan. It would seem that most have a basic x4(?) scope on their rifles... or at least most do. Even with the power sights that the future may hold, perhaps there could be a backup system that would default to a x2 system when there is no power. I have been in the military too long and on too many government contracts to not believe that the military would insist on some sort of backup here. But then, Dust is only a game.
As I said before, this is more about 'feel', rather than actual practicality. Again, first impressions for new players mean a lot. Coming into a futuristic game and being confronted by iron sights 'may' give the wrong impression.
What I see at the moment is the Dust dropsuit as an Eve spaceship. I have played Eve now for 5 years, and this is what I see here in Dust. Perhaps later, as Dust matures and we can customize our weapons to more detail, things will be better. We will see.
|
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
RydogV wrote:Well I like iron sights in certain close-quarters situations.
What I am finding is that at close range, firing from the hip can be more desirable than using the sights anyway. Accuracy will surely suffer, but at close range, does it really matter that much? I have found that in close combat [in most FPS's I have been in recently] that RPM and how fast one starts shooting makes the big difference. It is not until one gets back away from the bad guys, that sights really make a difference.
The one big advantage of iron sights is the ability to see what is happening around one... where a scope type sight limits one's peripheral vision. So in close combat, where situational awareness is paramount, an iron sight may be the best. One thing I was taught was to fire 1" above the sight, so one does see more of what is going on around them. However, I have yet to see any FPS game model that. Perhaps that is another feature for the future.
|
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Thank you all for the good discussion... again, much appreciated,
Based on the conversation here, I now understand that iron sights are important to some and that they should not be removed from the game. Also, I think it is important that weapons should be more customizable here. Running the same module system that CCP runs on Eve Ships just does not work here, imo. Having to give up a high or low slot to mount a scope may not be the answer, as I see that coming based on the current system. I am not sure how feasible it would be to add another level of customization just for the weapons, but I think it would add to the game. Thus if one wished to use iron sights, they have the ability by just not mounting any sights on the weapon. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jaron Pollard wrote:That's not the point I was making. The point is, they are as good today as they are ever going to get. Iron sights were first illuminated with a spot of bright green paint back in the 60s. Today, we use glow in the dark stuff which was developed in the 70s.
I will have to disagree with you on this one. The fact that just about every U.S. Service Person that goes into a combat zone today is issued night vision equipment goes against your 'cheap' theory. I know... I was a GS-11 that dealt with that stuff. On top of that, being a Vietnam Combat Veteran with over 12 years of service as U.S. Marine Corp Infantry/Special Missions, the amount and cost of the equipment U.S. Service Personal drag around is a lot. Hell, I watched them test and issue weatherproofed computer keyboards that could be strapped to the Service Personnel's chest for data entry. You want to guess the cost of that? This was part of the Future Combat System the U.S. Military is using and developing now.
However, what is real today may or may not reflect in today's FPS's... especially the futuristic ones. But I do find it ironic that one would spend so much ISK on a Dust Dropsuit, its Equipment and Weapons... and then just give out iron sights [grins]. But hey, this is a game and people come here to have fun. So whatever is wanted by the players. So I understand and agree that iron sights are here to stay, as I mentioned in one of my replies above.
I just would like to see a more futuristic touch to the way weapons are used in Dust 514... else, it just ends up being another FPS, imo. That is all I am saying. I also understand Dust is still in the development phase and who knows what it will look like a year from now... or even ten... right? Perhaps discussions like this will help.
|
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jaron Pollard wrote:Well, in the Australian army, you're trained for combat without having to rely on fancy equipment, even though you get it later anyway. Of course, we all know the US spends way too much on military, and the government really only cares about the death of a soldier because it costs them money in the equipment that goes down with them (no disrespect to the servicemen intended), so they aren't really the best example of effective, efficient fighters, just an example of how to beat your enemy with superior firepower and/or technology alone. Everyone being issued night vision equipment does not go against the idea of making warfare as cheap as possible through expendability. It only makes your soldiers more expensive to lose.
When I was in Vietnam in '68-69, I had two R&R's in Sidney. Great city and people. I loved going there. You Aussies also maintained a battalion in Vietnam as well, I believe. I am sure they served with distinction. I would expect nothing less.
I think we can both agree that an army that is better equipped and trained will usually do well against a poorly equipped and trained one... until modern unconventional warfare. Having personally felt the sting of knowing where I once stood as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam is now controlled by the enemy is not a good feeling. But then, Vietnam is a major producer of Kenyan coffee... so that is an unexpected plus.
However, I would hope that a Warrior that is more expensive to lose would be deployed a tad more carefully, so that is a big plus... don't you think?. As for U.S. Service Personnel not being an example of effective and efficient fighters... I just hope you do not have to run up against one of us to find out. I think you will find we are just as deadly with or without the technology. I had qualified as an expert with the M16 using the old iron sights many times over... and one would need to be more than 500 meters away from me not to be in my personal killing zone. I was generally 10/10 at the 460m line on a man size target. When it comes to marksmanship, never question the U.S. Marines. Our history stands for itself. We do not need a computer to put a round between someone's running lights. The German's in WWI did not call us Devil Dogs for nothing. It was because our 1903 Springfields were hitting them at 700-800 yards. Put a little scope on our rifles, and we are really nasty. Technology only adds to our effectiveness... it does not replace it.
So anyway, back to Dust... Sorry for the rant.
|
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:I can't wait till weapon customization comes out and renders this all moot. The ironsight guys can enjoy them all they want, and the rest of us can use sights that actually make sense.
Here, here!!!... well stated [grins].
|
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 21:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
11Up3Down wrote:In 500+ years of the gun, not much has changed about it. We still use a black powder and projectile system and the only great improvement to weapons in those 500 years of barrel rifling. Iron sights or Patridge Sights have been around since the 1800's. So it's pretty safe to assume that while different SCOPES have been invented, Iron Sights will ALWAYS be around, they are a fundamental part of guns and if you are unable to shot 35 meters without a SCOPE then perhaps you should go back to COD.
I am sorry, but you are dead wrong about this. If you knew anything about sniping, you would not had said this. The idea of placing a round down range has changed... with the invention of scopes and night vision devices. The invention of the boat-tail round in the early 1900's improved range and accuracy out to 600 yards because of aerodynamics. Using high powered rounds increased round stability out to 800 yards for the 7.62 rounds. One of the exercises I used for my snipers when I was a U,S. Marine STA Platoon Sergeant was putting out a cigarette at 300m at night using a night vision scope. If you do not have any idea of the difference between hitting at a distance with iron sights verses a scope, then I am wasting my time speaking to you.
When it comes to close combat for real, I have never used iron sights. I have always used the 1" above the sights rule... and it is very effective out to 100m... where firing from the hip is only about 25m. But there is no equivalent to this in Dust. In Dust Close Combat, firing from the hip is generally one's best option if one is not fully prepared for an enemy being dead center in front of them. This is to get a quick shot off to hit the enemy before they hit you. This is why I say RPM and quick reactions is the big thing in FPS games when close in. What I try to do is learn to put my target dead center on my computer screen when I fire... that is usually the point of impact, not the end of the weapon. So I use my Light or Heavy Weapon at range, and my Sidearm when close in. For me, this is an assault weapon for range and a SMG for close in.
As for going back to CoD... sorry... no dice. I am going to stay here and make life miserable for the likes of you. When I kill you, you can proudly say you were just outgunned by a 63 year old man.
|
|
|
| |
|