Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
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.
|
Sgt Kirk
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
604
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 16:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iron/default Sites will never go away you twack. You need a default aiming object in place always. We will get different sites and other **** like that soon, it just hasn't come in yet. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 16:49:00 -
[3] - 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. |
Cody Sietz
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 16:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Just wait till we are able to attach new sights to our weapons and customize the hell out of it.
I prefer iron sights, just because of personal preference. Though, I do agree that the acog site should look a little more futuristic.
My squad mates mentioned it to me, and ever since I can't help but not like it. |
Gunhilda Zetter
DUST University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 16:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm inclined to argue that irons sights will never go away because you need a failsafe option in case your battery/powerplant dies, but since most modern DSLR cameras don't have a backup because the if the battery dies the camera dies, I'm therefore inclined to agree.
More likely is that in the future no weapons will ever miss, or battles will be conducted at extreme ranges (a la Forever War), but that wouldn't be much fun. |
Boxoffire
Lost-Legion Orion Empire
62
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
I would say weapons will always have iron sights. What if somewhere to happen that they would stop working. I mean CCP did say later electronic warfare will come to Dust, what if some of the features disabled some of players equipment including the special sights.
Costume able parts will be coming in the future, most likely the far future, but just about every weapon will have a call futuristic sight. For now, I would probably say the SMG has the most futristic sight, and one of my favorites in the game. |
Boxoffire
Lost-Legion Orion Empire
62
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cody Sietz wrote:Though, I do agree that the acog site should look a little more futuristic. Hmm I haven't seen the a of since when all the ARs had them. Wonder how they look now. From your description I sort of picture it being exactly like the ones from CoD |
RydogV
Shadow Company HQ
178
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
Well I like iron sights in certain close-quarters situations. I actually think it is kind of funny the SMG has the flip-up halo thing since it is not even necessary with the limited range it has but whatever.
Iron sights should not disappear entirely and not the "no battery" reason lol. Current gen ACOG sights do not use batteries, they use simple magnification and light to highlight the reticle. They have a place in infantry combat. However, I hope we do start to see more sight options soon. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:12:00 -
[9] - 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 -
[10] - 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.
|
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1579
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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.
The problem is that many shooter players can't work with the camera scopes we had before, especially when they changed them to no longer show your weapon in the view.
Honestly, I'd love to see camera sights come back, but ironsights are never going away. Some people still insist on playing with them, and they'd throw a collective fit if they were removed.
All we need is the Replication and E3 style sights that have the front of the gun visible at the bottom of the frame, so that these other guys aren't complaining of "disconnect" and "not feeling immersed". |
RydogV
Shadow Company HQ
178
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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.
Most Army infantry carry M4 with M68 Red Dot sight (no magnification)...usually a few AGOGs (4 or 3.5x) mixed into each Squad. I think the Marines all have AGOGs.
Both are generally ignored in CQC engagement as "Gunfighter" training teaches point shooting at close quarters. Unfortunately FPS game mechanics are limited to hip fire, which isn't even realistic LOL, and ADS (aim down sights). There is no way to really incorporate instinctive point shooting into gameplay...at least, no one has thought of a way to do it yet. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1579
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
RydogV wrote:Nordac Striker wrote: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.
Most Army infantry carry M4 with M68 Red Dot sight (no magnification)...usually a few AGOGs (4 or 3.5x) mixed into each Squad. I think the Marines all have AGOGs. Both are generally ignored in CQC engagement as "Gunfighter" training teaches point shooting at close quarters. Unfortunately FPS game mechanics are limited to hip fire, which isn't even realistic LOL, and ADS (aim down sights). There is no way to really incorporate instinctive point shooting into gameplay...at least, no one has thought of a way to do it yet. The closest you can probably get is using the Move Sharpshooter. I'm not sure there'd be any way to implement that with sticks or a mouse. |
Delirium Inferno
Edoras Corporation
310
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:34:00 -
[14] - Quote
Iron sights are timeless. I mean even today we could put an optic on every gun if we wanted to, but we don't. Iron sights still have their own unique advantages and aren't going away anytime soon, even in 20,000 years.
I actually prefer iron sights on my guns anyways. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic ROFL BROS
1408
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
What we need is V.A.T.S., Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System |
Matakage
WildCard Ninja Clan
79
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:Iron/default Sites will never go away you twack. You need a default aiming object in place always. We will get different sites and other **** like that soon, it just hasn't come in yet. I agree with him that you might be a bit intellectually challenged, considering you answered the question as if he proposed removing sights (that's right, SIGHTS) altogether. And there's that word that keeps coming up all the time... soon.
Cody Sietz wrote:Just wait till we are able to attach new sights to our weapons and customize the hell out of it. I have always thought this is completely unnecessary. Just give us some normal ACOGs or red-dot sights and call it a day. Why would we want CCP to create like 6 new models for each gun and a whole new customization menu when there are so many other important things to add in this game? Just put some decent sights on there instead of ironsights.
Gunhilda Zetter wrote:I'm inclined to argue that irons sights will never go away because you need a failsafe option in case your battery/powerplant dies, but since most modern DSLR cameras don't have a backup because the if the battery dies the camera dies, I'm therefore inclined to agree. We're in cybernetic suits with their own internal power source. You seriously think the technology to keep a dot sight powered doesn't exist..?
Boxoffire wrote:I would say weapons will always have iron sights. What if somewhere to happen that they would stop working. I mean CCP did say later electronic warfare will come to Dust, what if some of the features disabled some of players equipment including the special sights. This sort of risk vs. reward mechanic is exactly what would make electronic warfare effective and fun. Let's say you have the choice between a gun with ironsights and a gun with a powered red-dot sight (RDS). The RDS is more useful for target acquisition, but if you get hit with an EMP, you can't see the dot anymore. If you chose the ironsights, this wouldn't have happened. The RDS is a risk you took that may or may not pay off in every situation. Choices are good. Risk vs. reward is awesome. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
4411
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
EMP sucks as do computer hacks.
Some of the best Special Forces in New Eden before the clones arrived had a large selection of Minmatar weaponry available. |
slypie11
Planetary Response Organisation
290
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:What we need is V.A.T.S., Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System No. Just no. |
Nirwanda Vaughns
Molon Labe. League of Infamy
45
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
if the ARs were minmatar iron sights are about right, since they're gallentean i feel a little let down even more so that all the AR models have a scope on them these days |
slypie11
Planetary Response Organisation
290
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:EMP sucks as do computer hacks.
Some of the best Special Forces in New Eden before the clones arrived had a large selection of Minmatar weaponry available. Oh yeah, in Templar one all of the black eagle team's weaponry got disabled by the emp. Damn that must suck tremendously. |
|
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic ROFL BROS
1408
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
slypie11 wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:What we need is V.A.T.S., Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System No. Just no. - x - = + |
Cody Sietz
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Boxoffire wrote:Cody Sietz wrote:Though, I do agree that the acog site should look a little more futuristic. Hmm I haven't seen the a of since when all the ARs had them. Wonder how they look now. From your description I sort of picture it being exactly like the ones from CoD Yeah, its pretty basic. I guess sometimes the oldies are the goodies.
At least they could put a range in indicator built into the scope so we can tell how far a target is.
That way we could relay enemies positions to squad mates a little more accurately. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
4411
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:52:00 -
[23] - Quote
We also been in space for 400 years. we're not that 'future-istic' |
Byozuma Kegawa
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
What gets me about weapon sights isn't so much the weapons but the drop suits. Only a Minmatar suits have reasonable placed 'eyes' but even then it's not on the side where the weapon is held. The other suits have the 'eyes' in odd places, like on the cheeks (and forehead) with the Amarr and all over the cheeks with the Gallente. The Caldari don't even have them on the face! So where are we holding the sights against?
Honestly, if we can hack a secure network from 1m away with our onboard computers, why can't we sight down built-in weapon cameras? You know, when we press the aim button, instead of the weapon rising to our face our vision switches to an over-the-barrel view allowing us to see from the weapon's perspective. Imagine looking around a corner with just our weapon. And frankly, this isn't a new thing, the US military (and no doubt other countries) have been developing battlefield systems that do just that for the past few years.
Come on, the much distant future is being showed up by a bunch of military engineers in an aluminium shed! With a box of scraps! |
Cody Sietz
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 17:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:We also been in space for 400 years. we're not that 'future-istic' Come on, we can hurl hot bolts of plasma at super speed and make super clone soldiers but we can't figure out a future scope.
Come onnnnnnnnn.
...please don't ban me. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:09:00 -
[26] - 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. |
crazy space 1
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
1202
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
How about iron sights with a pop up hologram display?
Not as good as a scope, same as now but , it'll LOOK more fancy and maybe help a bit with aiming just by having more thing s pointing at the middle of the screen I guess.
I really don't think a scope is necessary for any non-zoom sort of aiming. But we can have non zoomed, fancy looking iron sights. More tron **** as we say at my work haha. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
76
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:15:00 -
[28] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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.
Iron sights are a cheap and effective way of providing simple sighting for infantry. By today's standards, the basic design hasn't changed for a hundred years, except these days, we have the ability to illuminate them for low-light conditions. That's the only advance we've made. These are weapons that are designed to be cheap and disposable. Anything other than iron sights on the front line of a battlefield is just an expensive loss waiting to happen. Of course, eventually, you'll be able to customise these weapons a little as well, so you'll be able to choose what you're willing to lose each time you die, and how much it's going to cost.
FYI, a soldier that can learn to aim with iron sights alone will become a better marksman faster than if he or she starts with scoping equipment. |
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries
1281
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:16:00 -
[29] - Quote
A lot of people are saying, "just wait...it's coming", but how long do we have to wait?? What kind of shooter releases a game without the ability to attach sights??
What bugs me out is that they place one on the scrambler rifle but can not put one on a regular gun? Why is it all or nothing? Why is it camera sights or no sights? I've seen trailers with sights on the ARs...where are they? The game is released for QQ'ing out loud |
crazy space 1
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
1202
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jaron Pollard wrote:Nordac Striker wrote: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. Iron sights are a cheap and effective way of providing simple sighting for infantry. By today's standards, the basic design hasn't changed for a hundred years, except these days, we have the ability to illuminate them for low-light conditions. That's the only advance we've made. These are weapons that are designed to be cheap and disposable. Anything other than iron sights on the front line of a battlefield is just an expensive loss waiting to happen. Of course, eventually, you'll be able to customise these weapons a little as well, so you'll be able to choose what you're willing to lose each time you die, and how much it's going to cost. FYI, a soldier that can learn to aim with iron sights alone will become a better marksman faster than if he or she starts with scoping equipment.
SEE, the iron sights should do that. More future stuff! I agree 100% with op but not on how to get there. You hit it on the spot though, the design hasn't changed but we've made advances. So, art team go! |
|
SleezyBigSlim
DUST University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:19:00 -
[31] - Quote
Because putting a scope on an Ar would be too easy duh! |
DeadlyAztec11
One-Armed Bandits Unclaimed.
300
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:23:00 -
[32] - Quote
Well, we might as well get rid of all Minmatar weapons. They all use modern technology (I.E gun powder). We can't go overly futuristic or the game gets too boring, not to mention easy. |
crazy space 1
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
1202
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Well, we might as well get rid of all Minmatar weapons. They all use modern technology (I.E gun powder). We can't go overly futuristic or the game gets too boring, not to mention easy. Funny thing, the minmatar SMG and I assume AR has an awesome sight. And it's not a scope. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:37:00 -
[34] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:Jaron Pollard wrote:Nordac Striker wrote: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. Iron sights are a cheap and effective way of providing simple sighting for infantry. By today's standards, the basic design hasn't changed for a hundred years, except these days, we have the ability to illuminate them for low-light conditions. That's the only advance we've made. These are weapons that are designed to be cheap and disposable. Anything other than iron sights on the front line of a battlefield is just an expensive loss waiting to happen. Of course, eventually, you'll be able to customise these weapons a little as well, so you'll be able to choose what you're willing to lose each time you die, and how much it's going to cost. FYI, a soldier that can learn to aim with iron sights alone will become a better marksman faster than if he or she starts with scoping equipment. SEE, the iron sights should do that. More future stuff! I agree 100% with op but not on how to get there. You hit it on the spot though, the design hasn't changed but we've made advances. So, art team go!
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. |
Skyhound Solbrave
Rough Riders..
90
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
I feel like the AR could do with the cool flip-up sight the minmatar smg has. Howeve, I believe it has more to do with racial design philosophy than function. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:49:00 -
[36] - Quote
Skyhound Solbrave wrote:I feel like the AR could do with the cool flip-up sight the minmatar smg has. Howeve, I believe it has more to do with racial design philosophy than function.
Those kinds of sights are handy for SMGs and generally used on them as a directional aid. They are not accurate though, neither are they intended to be. Iron sights are redundant because the barrel is too short, and the SMG is technically a "bullet hose" spray-and-pray or short range suppression weapon. It's good for snipers who get dropped and need to make a break for it. Use it to make your enemy take cover, then run like hell and relocate. The RDS (red dot sight) is better for quick reference sighting than actual aiming. The iron sights on a rifle, when used well, can be very helpful. Honestly, on an assault rifle, I prefer them because you don't get the tunnel vision you do from a scope so you still have a good field of view even when aiming down sights. |
Karl Koekwaus
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:53:00 -
[37] - Quote
every kind of sights is redundant, because suits like the caldari don't even seem to have eyes to begin with. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:56:00 -
[38] - Quote
Karl Koekwaus wrote:every kind of sights is redundant, because suits like the caldari don't even seem to have eyes to begin with.
Your trolling is redundant. |
DeadlyAztec11
One-Armed Bandits Unclaimed.
300
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Well, we might as well get rid of all Minmatar weapons. They all use modern technology (I.E gun powder). We can't go overly futuristic or the game gets too boring, not to mention easy. Funny thing, the minmatar SMG and I assume AR has an awesome sight. And it's not a scope. True and the locus grenade is analog primed (like a watch). At the end of the day, it is a balancing feature. Some weapons have worse sights, to make it harder to aim, while some weapons like the SMG have good sights even though, it does not help them much. Just a balancing feature. |
Dust HaHakoke
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:13:00 -
[40] - Quote
if you want advanced tech in new eden the jove are the way to go not that you can play as one... ever but out of the empires they are the most advanced. When the other empires were living in caves the jove were space fairing |
|
hooc order
Deep Space Republic Gentlemen's Agreement
89
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:15:00 -
[41] - Quote
But but but...that would turn dust into a CoD clone...WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
/sarc
I like all the old demo videos people have been posting over the last 2 days....and how in everyone of them ARs have red dot sights. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:20:00 -
[42] - 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.
|
Preacher Death 2
IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback
25
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
Iron sights make a lot of sense in a world of the super high tech. Keep it simple with iron sights and tritium sights to reduce failure in combat. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1581
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:21:00 -
[44] - Quote
hooc order wrote:But but but...that would turn dust into a CoD clone...WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
/sarc
I like all the old demo videos people have been posting over the last 2 days....and how in everyone of them ARs have red dot sights. As long as they never use that crappy weapon design. Looked like a cheap ripoff of the XM8. |
Karl Koekwaus
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:25:00 -
[45] - Quote
Jaron Pollard wrote:Karl Koekwaus wrote:every kind of sights is redundant, because suits like the caldari don't even seem to have eyes to begin with. Your trolling is redundant.
If stating the obvious is Trolling, I might be Jet Li
|
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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.
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. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:07:00 -
[47] - 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.
|
hooc order
Deep Space Republic Gentlemen's Agreement
90
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:09:00 -
[48] - Quote
Preacher Death 2 wrote:Iron sights make a lot of sense in a world of the super high tech. Keep it simple with iron sights and tritium sights to reduce failure in combat.
You missed the obvious point.
ARs use Iron sights when plenty of other weapons have better sights.
Even the internal logic of saying "this is the far future, who knows how weapons will evolve" does not work.
Why can't i take the AGOG sights off my TAC and put it on my regular AR again?
Why can't i put the scrambler sights on my AR again?
Why can't i take off the sights of my sniper rifle and use it as a high powered mid range weapon again? |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1582
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:14:00 -
[49] - Quote
hooc order wrote:Preacher Death 2 wrote:Iron sights make a lot of sense in a world of the super high tech. Keep it simple with iron sights and tritium sights to reduce failure in combat. You missed the obvious point. ARs use Iron sights when plenty of other weapons have better sights. Even the internal logic of saying "this is the far future, who knows how weapons will evolve" does not work. Why can't i take the AGOG sights off my TAC and put it on my regular AR again? Why can't i put the scrambler sights on my AR again? Why can't i take off the sights of my sniper rifle and use it as a high powered mid range weapon again? 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. |
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:22:00 -
[50] - 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].
|
|
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:22:00 -
[51] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote:T
...and what makes you think iron sights will not go away eventually? Seems a bit presumptuous.
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.
|
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:34:00 -
[52] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: 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 Germans 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.
Well said. As an Army and Navy vet, having been deployed to both Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraqi Freedom I can tell you boys and girls that US Troops are not trained in using weapon scopes in basic training, we are and were trained to use Iron Sights on we had to do our semi-annual (Army) weapon qualifications with Iron Sights. I dare say that a properly trained Army or Marine soldier with a properly sighted in weapon will consistently outperform a scope user within visual range.
Iron Sights allow for better CQB than scopes do, even red dots. A soldier moving with his weapon in the ready position can aim and fire more accurately than a scope user. The brain has a tendency to want to position the cross hair or red dot, while with an Iron Sight, what the brain sees the brain gets, there is no visual tomfoolery going on for the brain to compensate for. That being said, there is a place for scopes in weapon uses, but scopes can never replace iron sights for quick action aim and fire.
|
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
79
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:43:00 -
[53] - Quote
11Up3Down wrote:Nordac Striker wrote: 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 Germans 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.
Well said. As an Army and Navy vet, having been deployed to both Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraqi Freedom I can tell you boys and girls that US Troops are not trained in using weapon scopes in basic training, we are and were trained to use Iron Sights on we had to do our semi-annual (Army) weapon qualifications with Iron Sights. I dare say that a properly trained Army or Marine soldier with a properly sighted in weapon will consistently outperform a scope user within visual range. Iron Sights allow for better CQB than scopes do, even red dots. A soldier moving with his weapon in the ready position can aim and fire more accurately than a scope user. The brain has a tendency to want to position the cross hair or red dot, while with an Iron Sight, what the brain sees the brain gets, there is no visual tomfoolery going on for the brain to compensate for. That being said, there is a place for scopes in weapon uses, but scopes can never replace iron sights for quick action aim and fire.
And as I stated earlier as well, iron sights don't limit your field of view quite as much as a scope does.
|
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
302
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:51:00 -
[54] - Quote
Speaking of "futuristic" what's with the wire running up to the scope on the sniper rifle... the thing looks almost home made. |
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
Jaron Pollard wrote:11Up3Down wrote:Nordac Striker wrote: 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 Germans 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.
Well said. As an Army and Navy vet, having been deployed to both Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraqi Freedom I can tell you boys and girls that US Troops are not trained in using weapon scopes in basic training, we are and were trained to use Iron Sights on we had to do our semi-annual (Army) weapon qualifications with Iron Sights. I dare say that a properly trained Army or Marine soldier with a properly sighted in weapon will consistently outperform a scope user within visual range. Iron Sights allow for better CQB than scopes do, even red dots. A soldier moving with his weapon in the ready position can aim and fire more accurately than a scope user. The brain has a tendency to want to position the cross hair or red dot, while with an Iron Sight, what the brain sees the brain gets, there is no visual tomfoolery going on for the brain to compensate for. That being said, there is a place for scopes in weapon uses, but scopes can never replace iron sights for quick action aim and fire. And as I stated earlier as well, iron sights don't limit your field of view quite as much as a scope does.
Nope, in fact with Iron Sights (IRL) you can aim and shot with both eyes open. With a scope the brain gets conflicting visual information when both eyes are open. In game only the gun rail is seen with iron sights, with scopes the entire middle of the screen is blocked from view with the exception of the forced tunnel vision. |
Setaceous Prime
Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:55:00 -
[56] - Quote
If we're talking about rifle scopes from the future, why aren't they built into our eyes? We're purpose built war clones after all. On a more serious note, why has my SR not got this: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/
|
Nordac Striker
Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 21:03:00 -
[57] - 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.
|
Sgt Kirk
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
609
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 21:28:00 -
[58] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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. whoops, typo, sights, not site.
heheh great way to sound pretentious, twack, didn't mean to hurt your feelings. To answer the second part it's because of what was already mentioned before, you will always need a default aiming device.
No matter how far off in the future you are standard handheld infantry weapons will always need a failsafe option for manual aiming. That statement is not presumptuous in anyway.
Also to the person that took the phrase "default sights" as in all sights, these sights probably aren't made of iron anymore. I don't know what material they are comprised of so I went with "Iron/Default sights". |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
4420
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:05:00 -
[59] - Quote
The original plasma rifle had a camera scope but it was had far too much.... dissociation. to be useful at all. I mean ADS hip-firing is weird as well, most of the soldiers complained they rather shoulder holster it and look down the rail to ensure accuracy, they trust themselves more than the camera. |
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 01:58:00 -
[60] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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.
A 63 year old senile man. At what point did I mention snipers or anything like that? The debate is about Iron Sights, not sniper rifles and scopes...oh and there more types of scopes than sniper scopes now old timer. CQB is not for zoom scopes to begin with whether a2x, 3.5x or 4x, this is about your OP about Iron Sights, so why are you talking about sniper rifles? As far as my comment about no major advances in gun technology, it still stands. Boat Tail would have been useless without barrel rifling and every weapon since the invention of the Iron Sight has had one. Go read your OP again. |
|
Aighun
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
846
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 02:15:00 -
[61] - Quote
We used to have camera sights.
But players asked for iron sights because of this being a game, and not the future, and an FPS game at that. And they say that iron sights are just an FPS thing. You sort of have to do it.
But hey, in some old science fiction movies the guys flying the spaceships used to use a slide rule to figure out some spacship stuff.
Make of that what you will. |
Geth Massredux
Defensores Doctrina
350
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 02:19:00 -
[62] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:Iron/default Sites will never go away you twack. You need a default aiming object in place always. We will get different sites and other **** like that soon, it just hasn't come in yet.
typo: sites -> sights. Well you couldve just edit the sites to sight instead of putting typo- Cmon KIRK.... . Damn..
This is a friendly wasup kirk long time...
- Geth |
Avinash Decker
BetaMax. CRONOS.
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 02:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
There are some games that have implants in soldiers that gave them a zoom ability , so the guns didn't have any iron sights on them because they became obsolete. I don't know if aiming down sights is even possible with full body armor like in these sci fi games , because I heard aiming down sights with masks on was hard as hell. |
DeadlyAztec11
One-Armed Bandits Unclaimed.
306
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:16:00 -
[64] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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. FCS was terminated as of 2009. |
mongahu
Bragian Order Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:25:00 -
[65] - Quote
We had acogs on all guns a year ago and some fuckmook thought it was a good ideacto remove them. This was stupid. All future guns should at the very least be as good in range accuracy and technology asxwhat we shoot terrorists with now incrustation 21st century... there is no excuses unless they are planing on making gun customization a thing which I have not heard anything to this effect nor would I guess they are going this route. Too much complexity IMO. Bottom line future guns should not have iron sites that's stupid. |
Gemini Reynolds
Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:44:00 -
[66] - Quote
Once, in the early, dark days of Beta, one could watch the attacking MCC stride slowly and steadily across the fields of war. Those were glorious days, when soldiers fought and danced the twirling dance of death. And upon the weapons of these soldiers were cameras, tiny eyes capable of showing distant foes to he that chose to look upon them. These were, of course, the dark days for there was trouble upon the horizon.
The infamous Launchers of Swarm killed all who stood in their path, save they that wielded them. The heavies were nigh unto godlike tanks wherein many lesser an opponent was required to fell them. Working together with thy blue brethren was to be considered a rarity nigh unto heretical. Whence one might find the comforting speech of a fellow soldier, one might instead find waves of warbling noise that in these young and untested times might one day come to be known as the blight called "the steps of dub".
These problems brought unrest to those early cloned brethren, but none, seemingly so, as the gun-mounted eye. "It is an unnatural abomination!" cried they. "Surely no true soldier would be thusly satisfied that they were incapable of seeing the weapon they so chose to wield!" And the cries grew louder and louder in an incessant cacophony.
The din would grow so loud that the very gods themselves took heed. "Piteous clones," spake they, "Your cries have been heard thus. Your lack of satisfaction with your granted gun-eye is noted in the annals of the Land of Ice. Mighty High Shang shall thusly descend to thy aid."
And so it was, that from thence forward, the Codex was thusly writ that all soldier, no matter the race, creed, nor faith, should fight as a Minmatar would, with sights of Iron.
The lesson, children, is thus: Be cautious for which thy seeketh the intervention of the gods, for they are not kind, nor are they merciful. They will give thee thy wish but as has been spake of in the scrolls before. Take care for what thou wish, thy may acquire it. |
Martin0 Brancaleone
Maphia Clan Corporation CRONOS.
291
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:46:00 -
[67] - Quote
People cried for iron sights. CCP answered.
|
Gemini Reynolds
Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 10:48:00 -
[68] - Quote
Martin0 Brancaleone wrote:People cried for iron sights. CCP answered.
I just said that. |
Succendo
Goonfeet
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 10:57:00 -
[69] - Quote
Iron sights are handsome as the devil. They are like a tuxedo for your gun. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1596
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:25:00 -
[70] - Quote
mongahu wrote:We had acogs on all guns a year ago and some fuckmook thought it was a good ideacto remove them. This was stupid. All future guns should at the very least be as good in range accuracy and technology asxwhat we shoot terrorists with now incrustation 21st century... there is no excuses unless they are planing on making gun customization a thing which I have not heard anything to this effect nor would I guess they are going this route. Too much complexity IMO. Bottom line future guns should not have iron sites that's stupid. They weren't ACOG sights, they were cameras linked to our helmets. The issue was that the camera sights were eventually improved in their appearance and fuctionality, but as part of that the visible end of the gun was removed from the picture. Then you started having people talking about "breaking immersion" and making long threads about red-dot or ironsights. |
|
Panther Alpha
WarRavens
243
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote: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.
But you don't understand.... AR needs to have Iron Sights, because other hows they will be to OP.... [ Sarcasm ].. and one more.. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1596
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:35:00 -
[72] - Quote
Panther Alpha wrote:Nordac Striker wrote: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.
But you don't understand.... AR needs to have Iron Sights, because other hows they will be to OP.... [ Sarcasm ].. and one more.. Funny thing is as soon as they were implemented, everyone started saying they were given ironsights to nerf them because CCP hates "slayers". |
Panther Alpha
WarRavens
244
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:45:00 -
[73] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Panther Alpha wrote:Nordac Striker wrote: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.
But you don't understand.... AR needs to have Iron Sights, because other hows they will be to OP.... [ Sarcasm ].. and one more.. Funny thing is as soon as they were implemented, everyone started saying they were given ironsights to nerf them because CCP hates "slayers".
In the other hand, i rather have the iron sights, than the green annoying scopes that the TAC and Burst have... The "nerfing" culture in this game, is just ridiculous...soon we going to have scopes that goes on and off every time you shoot... how much you want to bet ? |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Unclaimed.
528
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:55:00 -
[74] - Quote
Cody Sietz wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:We also been in space for 400 years. we're not that 'future-istic' Come on, we can hurl hot bolts of plasma at super speed and make super clone soldiers but we can't figure out a future scope. Come onnnnnnnnn. ...please don't ban me. lol dude.
This is exactly what CCP implemented at the beginning and it worked great and really contributed to the immersion factor.
But they changed it due to all the wailing from the fps 'elites'.
So don't worry about getting banned - you're just asking for what CCP gave us originally. |
Sgt Kirk
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
612
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:29:00 -
[75] - Quote
Geth Massredux wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:Iron/default Sites will never go away you twack. You need a default aiming object in place always. We will get different sites and other **** like that soon, it just hasn't come in yet.
typo: sites -> sights. Well you couldve just edit the sites to sight instead of putting typo- Cmon KIRK.... . Damn.. This is a friendly wasup kirk long time... - Geth lol hey Geth, long time no see. I'm graduate now hahah! Finally! I've been partying hard since then.
We should get together for a lovely stroll through manus peak sometime. |
Coleman Gray
GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention
281
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:59:00 -
[76] - Quote
according to fitting screens your suit is directly connected with your weapon, why would you put the scope on the gun when your suits HUD can have it. |
semperfi1999
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
454
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:26:00 -
[77] - Quote
Its true iron sights make no sense in this game. If you argue....its a backup incase the battery dies...well your suit is running the freakin gun. If the sight doesnt work because it doesnt have enough juice then your suit is also powerless and thus you are dead. Iron sights should have never been introduced as it was a dumb idea. |
Daedric Lothar
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
379
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:33:00 -
[78] - Quote
I think the idea that we even carry guns is fairly old fashion. The modern war is dominated by surgical strikes and elite special forces.
Umm.. Why wouldn't future combat just be massive collections of Drone soldiers. Why have 1 gun, when you could have a fleet of drones with little lasers to melt people's faces and get into tiny places and be almost invisible to any kind of detection?
So... if we are gonna have a gun... having an Iron Sight on it isn't a big deal since none of it is realistic anyways. |
Succendo
Goonfeet
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 20:08:00 -
[79] - Quote
Iron sights will always be A Thing, as they afford peripheral vision not afforded by the use of scopes.
Also they look cool. |
PonyClause Rex
TRAMADOL KNIGHTS
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 20:20:00 -
[80] - Quote
I support the function of having the option to put a scope on your weapon ....or not, there everyone is happy end of discussion |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |