• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Developer collected match statistics

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#22
screwthis;n2308968 said:
That's a good picture to show what it's supposed to look like, but it's funny that it's made of legos. I will read an M16 training manual I have and see if it says you are supposed to aim with both eyes open or not.
Click to expand...

It's completely individual, so I don't think it will downright tell you to open both eyes or close one, but I don't know.

This is approx what you see through the std. peep sight (always hard to achieve exactly the same result with a camera):
dscf2429%20800x600%20watermark.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#24
I don't feel like arguing about this anymore Nex has brought up some good points (thanks to the images in-game) however I do feel the m16 vs the Ak47 does balance out in terms of overall performance. I don't have his problems with the M16, and a majority of people I know don't have it either, though I can see now how he has problems with it. The AK-47 has a lot more sway and recoil, while the M16 doesn't and I suppose it balances out in favor of the m16 (at least for me, I hate the Ak47 in the game with a passion, second least favorite weapon next to the SKS-45). Otherwise, it's a tradeoff better sights with worse handling or worse sights with better handling, if that was the developers' intention they nailed it, or at close to nailing it. I think sight blurring would be an interesting feature to pursue however the way going about it would be the difficult part. It's also the only way of going about it to make it "realistic".
 
Upvote 0
#25
I can't see things being as they are for any other reason than an effort to create symmetrical weapon balance.

However this game should not be about symmetrical weapon balance, the whole lure about the game for many is that its supposed to be asymmetrical in that regard, with balance being achieved through other mechanics, such as for example tunnels, map design & reinforcement numbers.

However I have to say that if they merely increase AK47 accuracy abit then realistic peep sights wont change the balance.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#26
Unus Offa said:
I never said that the sights were unusable, because no sight is unusable until its pitch black.
Click to expand...
That's overly simplistic, & it leads me to question to what extent you actually want a true emulated sight picture (you seem to be conflating a number of things).

-If there is not enough available light for the aperture size, instead of ghosting away, they close up (& through which you won't see a damned thing), & this can occur in conditions well before pitch black.
Target shooters called this getting "greyed out" in low light conditions, I've had it happen when hunting in open grassland & sparsely tree'd areas well before sunset, with my MAS-1936, Pattern-14 etc.
There was still quite ample light to identify game & navigate the 3 or 4 km's home on foot, but the means of aiming the rifle was rendered useless as the rear aperture was literally like looking into a black abyss. so relating this back to gameplay, properly emulated aperture sights would not have been of any use on maps such as Guadalcanal etc,

-Granted the protective sight ears would diminish a little in size with the ghosting effect, however I can't follow the logic whereby they would magically disappear entirely, (giving peripheral vision, comparable to that of an AK etc) as you seem to suggest?
The detraction that they may obscure/conceal an enemy in ADS view, is just inherent to the physical design of the protective ears/ carry handle.
Not sure this is a valid point on which to criticize tripwire, perhaps you'd be better served raising this with the Armalite/stoner design team, for having so aggrieved some video game kid, from 50 years in the future. I mean, how dare they add prominent protective ears to an aperture sight, on a US service weapon, ....excluding the M1903a3, ....M1 carbine, ....M1917, .....M1a1,... etc etc etc
honestly it's an inane criticism

-what would such statistics tell us about the effectiveness of one type of iron sights over another, with no broader context or controls? i.e all the different weapons have different inherent accuracy potentials, is the weapon primarily shot from the prone, kneeling, standing positions? was the shooter under suppresion effects @ the time? did they just dump several mags on a recon plane? is the shooters play style to suppress, while others close in to kill? is the shooter experiencing mad ping spikes?

Yes it's annoying that the aperture itself doesn't ghost, but given it's been released for nigh on 6 months now, I've been reading your various posts regarding this issue since beta & its totally getting old - perhaps it's time to make your peace with it, & move on?

-food for thought- (drops mic)......
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#27
Unus Offa, Unus Nex is not the only person to complain about iron sights - especially the US ones.
I quote myself from a few months ago:
"The biggest issue I have at the moment is that Vietcong weapons feel too close in power to the USA weapons. The Southern forces are supposed to have an advantage in technology to counteract the challenge of attacking on most maps. However, there are some noticeable instances where Northern weapons simply outperform their US counterparts, and that's a shame.

Specifics: most US iron sights ar horrendous."

Post #19 in this thread gave me an erection. That is a perfect soluttion to the plague afflicting the M14 / M16/ M3 / The Pig [US machine gun].

Look, iron sights are probably the single biggest statistic of any gun. I'd rather have quality iron sights than more damage, or a faster ROF. I just wanna see around me, goddamnit. Not be blinded by an aiming aid.

You ever try hitting a moving target at mid or close range with the M16? It's a chore, whereas using the AK it's a simple task. And by chore I don't just mean annoying or "it takes more skill." I mean in terms of equal skill, the AK player will more often get more kills, defend himself more proficiently, and gun down groups faster.

Having a chunk of metal obscuring your vision is going to be detrimental to survival and offensive capability, regardless of skill level.

"I can't see things being as they are for any other reason than an effort to create symmetrical weapon balance.

However this game should not be about symmetrical weapon balance, the whole lure about the game for many is that its supposed to be asymmetrical in that regard, with balance being achieved through other mechanics, such as for example tunnels, map design & reinforcement numbers."

I couldn't have said it better myself. This is what I was trying to communicate. US are supposed to have better weapons, not equal weapons -- the maps and objectives certainly aren't equal. They favor VC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Unus Offa Unus Nex
Upvote 0
#29
It's a balance issue and a realism issue, and the sights take up significantly more than 2% of the screen?

If it wasn't a balance issue, what's the problem? Why would anyone be adamantly against a quality of life change that aligns more with how looking down a real scope looks like?

But yes, of course if affects balance. The M16 performs roughly equally to the AKM. Regardless if it's 5% behind or 5% ahead, the fact is that the most common class - plus a few special classes - use the M16/47s, making them the most commonly used guns per round, every round.

The AKM and 47s shouldn't be that close in power to the M16, simply due to game balance. It's more than "roughly equal" to defend than attack - the attacks should have a better core gun than the defenders. Yet the CORE GUN of the "technologically superior" USA is roughtly equal to the VC counterpart.

Yet no one is asking a direct buff - they just want to be able to look down an iron sight and actually see clearly what's going on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Unus Offa Unus Nex
Upvote 0
#31
Lemonater47;n2309257 said:
http://www.strawpoll.me/14442593/r

That actually shocks me lol. 3 hours this poll has been active since posting here. 71% M16, 29% AK with 125 votes. I don't think it's gonna change much. Only
place I've posted it is the RS2 Reddit. And here obviously just now.


So yeah. M16 OP. Make sight hole smaller.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? So based on your little reddit poll you now want to make the sight picture even more unrealistic?

I mean I knew you favored the AK and really were against realism from the very beginning, but this just sets in concrete and proves you are fundamentally against realism.

Btw, the two very first comments in your thread:

" The M16 is undeniably better when it's about recoil, precision and usability, but I hate the circle around the sights on every gun I use. L1A1, Grease Gun, M16, hell even MP5 in KF2 just annoy me, I despise those sights.

Soooo, AK for me. Even though the Type 56 sometimes sprays into oblivion with my target standing still and not getting hit."
Click to expand...


"I have no idea how every game company is so bad at iron sights. Hell most red dot type sights are bad.

Destiny 2 has the best 1x magnification sights of any game. "
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arisaka99
Upvote 0
#32
AATTV;n2309172 said:
That's overly simplistic, & it leads me to question to what extent you actually want a true emulated sight picture (you seem to be conflating a number of things).
Click to expand...

When I said no sight is unusable until its pitch black I meant the sight itself, as in no way to look through it, just a slap of metal. I was not talking about lightning conditions.

During low light conditions both peep & leaf/tangent sights become hard to use (unless equipped with luminescent dots). But that's not what I was getting in on at all.

I wrote a reply to the rest of your post, but it's run into a spam filter it seems and will thus arrive later. But basically you've completely missed your mark AATTV as I am all about as realistic a sight picture as possible, and nothing else. No "video game kid" criticism here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#33
AATTV;n2309172 said:
-Granted the protective sight ears would diminish a little in size with the ghosting effect, however I can't follow the logic whereby they would magically disappear entirely, (giving peripheral vision, comparable to that of an AK etc) as you seem to suggest?
The detraction that they may obscure/conceal an enemy in ADS view, is just inherent to the physical design of the protective ears/ carry handle.
Not sure this is a valid point on which to criticize tripwire, perhaps you'd be better served raising this with the Armalite/stoner design team, for having so aggrieved some video game kid, from 50 years in the future. I mean, how dare they add prominent protective ears to an aperture sight, on a US service weapon, ....excluding the M1903a3, ....M1 carbine, ....M1917, .....M1a1,... etc etc etc
honestly it's an inane criticism
Click to expand...

You've completely missed the mark, I don't want TWI/AMG to make the protective ears see through at all, only that they simply diminish them a little via fading at the edges like you will see when aiming with the real weapon. My main problem however is the aperture, it is way to obstructive compared to the real thing and impairs proper leading of a target.

Also please don't try to ridicule or insult me with something as stupid as calling this a "video game kid" criticism, as this is all about making the sight picture come as close to the real thing as possible. I operate firearms with sights such as these quite often, daily back in my service years, so I know what they are supposed to look like. Don't be a douche just for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#34
Unus Offa said:
Are you kidding me? So based on your little reddit poll you now want to make the sight picture even more unrealistic?

I mean I knew you favored the AK and really were against realism from the very beginning, but this just sets in concrete and proves you are fundamentally against realism.
Click to expand...


Well that part was a joke. Which you seemed to have missed entirely.

Point is the sights aren't a balance issue lol. That's what that poll points out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beskar Mando
Upvote 0
#35
Lemonater47;n2309280 said:
Well that part was a joke. Which you seemed to have missed entirely.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Point is the sights aren't a balance issue lol. That's what that poll points out.
Click to expand...

The poll doesn't point that out, it shows the opinion of players, which btw seems very divided. All which is quite normal if you ask a playerbase such a loaded question, as obviously it will commonly be the people who mostly play VC who will claim M16, whilst the players who mostly play US will claim AK. In other words we need hard data to point any balance difference, something only the devs can collect.
 
Upvote 0
#36
Unus Offa said:
Sure.



The poll doesn't point that out, it shows the opinion of players, which btw seems very divided. All which is quite normal if you ask a playerbase such a loaded question, as obviously it will commonly be the people who mostly play VC who will claim M16, whilst the players who mostly play US will claim AK. In other words we need hard data to point any balance difference, something only the devs can collect.
Click to expand...

So are you saying people are wrong?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu