Sharpshooter - Not so sharp??

[DarkFalz]

Honestly, the M14 irons sights really aren't that bad. The MW3 skin pack does help as well:

Killing Floor: 6 Player HOE KF-Bioticslabs Waves 9,10+Pat - YouTube

I'd say the real challenge is learning the hitboxes on the ZEDs. Some of them are simply atrocious. *Cough* Scrake *Cough* Siren.

 

[Gartley]

Honestly, the M14 irons sights really aren't that bad. The MW3 skin pack does help as well:

I'd say the real challenge is learning the hitboxes on the ZEDs. Some of them are simply atrocious. *Cough* Scrake *Cough* Siren.

Now you see, hit boxes have never been a problem for me. Oh I'm not saying they arn't a problem and I've seen plenty of evidence that they go squif. It's just never effected me as a sharpie.

As for the M14 ironsights it's more of personal preference. The gun takes up so much of the screen and the sight is small. I'd go for the LAR any day of the week.

 

[Deadly-Bagel]

I don't understand why more people don't agree with the topic.

I was starting to think I was missing something ><

Yeah the hitboxes suck, I found aiming at the crown of a scrake was fairly reliable but then the next game it missed every time. Feh.

I get that shooting from the hip is faster etc but seriously... The sort of range I'm talking about here is that the iron sights on any weapon I've tried are larger on-screen than the actual zed I'm aiming at. You can't shoot from the hip like that, not reliably anyway. And try accounting for lag, FAR more difficult without decent sights. Not only do you have to account for variable ping between games, but try to learn exactly where these bullets are going? Doesn't help that the "visible bullets" that you see coming out of the gun have NO relevance to where you're actually shooting.

Looking at the rest of the responses, I'm seeing a lot of how I find Sharpshooters playing in game. Not shooting at any real range, just going for short to medium range headshots. This is a fine tactic, though it usually leaves a potentially dangerous zed wandering around, but perhaps they should rename the class "Cowboy" instead.

 

[Gman_95]

So you complaining about the game itself or lag which has been caused by server or host?and the bullets don't come out of gun.actually they come out of center of screen help alot with head shooting...i keep seeing people complaining why sharpshooter can't head shot from long distances and i don't know when developers said SHARPSHOOTER means you shoot a zombie in the head from 1 mile away!it's sharpshooter not SNIPER for god sake!the goal of perk is to shoot the critical point of zombie(which is it's head)it doesn't say a damn thing about being able to shoot from far distances which you can do with M99 or crossbow but if you are expecting a pistol do what M99 is doing...then you are just out of your mind!if you were suppose to shoot distanced targets then the perk would have add range as you lvl up!

sharpshooter =/= sniper.

sharpshooter = crack shot.

i said exactly what this guy said a page ago but with a lot of explanation (wasted time)

 

[Deadly-Bagel]

Ideally there would be no lag but ideally we'd all have interesting jobs, there would be no overpopulation and people would be empathetic.

Explain to me your thoughts on Commando. Surely a class based on shooting from the hip and having loads of ammo designed to fire in automatic rifles should definitely have holographic sights, a dot sight and a scope. And the accuracy class, one shot one kill, should have useless obscuring iron sights and make everyone shoot from the hip.

Also, explain why the Sharpshooter has sniper rifle and crossbow at all? If they're supposed to just get headshots at medium range by not aiming at all, surely the Crossbow and M99 are out of class? Maybe, as everyone shoots from the hip, they should give the M99 iron sights. Who uses crosshairs anyway? Not the class with a crosshair as the icon, that's for sure.

Perhaps if the game actually had a decent weapon with decent sights, people would use it rather than shooting from the hip.

I don't care if it doesn't zoom, I don't care if it's weak as, I just think a class based on accuracy should have sights to utilise that accuracy, whether hitting slightly above iron sights or just a tube with a dot in the middle, just something I can actually see my target. Is that really such an unreasonable suggestion?

 

[Amber Glass]

the lever action has arguably the best iron sight in the game. i have no idea what you are complaining about, the commando has accurate sights because it needs to be able to accurately clear trash around the big zeds and utilize zed time efficiently, as that is one of its perk bonuses.

the M14 takes a bit to get used to, but the iron sights are fine once you do. the crossbow and M99 are ADS, point and click, and the pistols are plenty accurate enough, just play the game a little more and you will get used to it fine. As for "long range kills on mountainpass" the sharpshooter should be focusing on the big zeds anyway, and if you cant utilize the m14 or LAR on that map, use the damn bow.

 

[Deadly-Bagel]

the lever action has arguably the best iron sight in the game

the commando has accurate sights because it needs to be able to accurately clear trash around the big zeds

the M14 takes a bit to get used to, but the iron sights are fine once you do.

So to summarise, "iron sights are fine what are you complaining about?", followed by "Commando doesn't have iron sights because he needs to shoot accurately" followed by "iron sights are fine" again.

Forgive me if I'm not swayed by this particular argument.

For all the arguments everyone has given against me I'm yet to get a good explanation as to why Commando has, on the whole, better sights than the supposed accuracy class. The idea that it's because the Commando needs to be accurate is laughable.

You can rebut everything else with "deal with it" all you like but unless you can provide a legitimate reason Commando needs to be more accurate than Sharpshooter, I'd ask you at least concede that point. We might then be able to call this a discussion instead of an argument.

EDIT

and the bullets don't come out of gun.actually they come out of center of screen help alot with head shooting...

Whoops, forgot to tell you to take another look. Fire a clip of 9mm at a wall a few metres back and check the spread. You'll have to shoot from the hip or the gun itself will obscure the view (oh look there's the point I've been making this whole time!!) And have you actually used a bullpup lately? When I first started using that gun I figured it was inaccurate based on the visible spread (it really is atrocious), and nearly refused to use it. How wrong that was.

 

[Amber Glass]

yes commando doesnt need to be accurate, body shots are more effective than headshots, zed time shoudn't be extended, and headshots are not the easiest way to do this.

you are effectively complaining that a commando with an FNFAL is outshooting as sharpshooter aiming at TRASH on mountainpass. once again if you have trouble aiming at range, use the crossbow, or the OP99. SHARPSHOOTER =/= SNIPER. The only zed that would be threatening at range is the husk, which is easily dealt with using the LAR, m14, or crossbow. also, pray tell thee how many maps are you playing where you are firing at extreme ranges aside from boring pass, and that atrocity farm? not very many, most maps have you dealing with zeds at short to medium range, and any competent sharpshooter can excel with any of the sharp's weapons at that range, and good sharps will have no trouble using these same weapons at longer ranges.

 

[Deadly-Bagel]

Spoilers are a good idea, save making the page a mile long.

Spoiler!

yes commando doesnt need to be accurate, body shots are more effective than headshots, zed time shoudn't be extended, and headshots are not the easiest way to do this.

Are you implying that the Commando needs decent sights to get headshots? Considering there are no differences in the hitboxes between Commando and Sharpshooter you are therefore also implying that Sharpshooter needs decent sights to get headshots, which is exactly the point you are arguing against. Thus why I said it's laughable.

Amber Glass referred to the LAR specifically. In your reply, you generalize that what Amber Glass said of the LAR (that its sights are very good) can be attributed to every single weapon that has iron sights.

Is that not what his overall point is anyway? That iron sights are more than effective to do the job? Since the Commando doesn't have iron sights to compare to, we can generalise that if he did it could be as effective as the LAR and thus would have no need for scopes, which he then blatantly contradicts.

Spoiler!

I say this because in Amber Glass' quote, he speaks only of the LAR. Yet, in your quote, you are referring to "iron sights" generally. You cannot take a quality that is true of only a certain proportion of a sample and then claim that said quality is true of the entire population of the sample.

See above. One could take a sample to prove that this particular population (ie, iron sights) is capable of this kind of quality. Besides, my point is that iron sights are crap, aren't you actually kind of adding evidence to my side here? This also goes for your other rebuttal on "generalisations".

Spoiler!

Lack of proof isn't proof of absence. It is true that Amber Glass did not specify "iron sights", but "iron sights" are still a sub-type of "sights", which Amber Glass clearly states is something the Commando has. You are provoking an argument due to misinterpreting semantics.

Pardon? You are the one taking an obscure interpretation here. I was the one who specified the type of sights (holographic and dot) for Commando in my previous post, which he then responded to thus continuing with my reference. Don't even get me started on the implications of him referring to the AK47 in his statement, it doesn't go well for his argument.

Spoiler!

Why even say this if you later state you don't want an argument (but a discussion)? What use does this sentence have other than provocation?

People obviously do not understand why I am not agreeing with them, as you said yourself I have apparently reached a point I will not see anyone else's opinion but my own. The snarky nature of this sentence serves to point out that opinions expressed thus far are falling far short of standards I would require to agree, but the actual message implies that I haven't just zealously walled off my ideals from influence. Were I to say this outright I would just be rambling, my posts are long enough as they are without explaining "how I feel" about everything.

Spoiler!

"On the whole", or given the context, any extent, is a matter of opinion. By this I mean that it is your opinion that the Commando has better sights than the "supposed accuracy class", because I, for example, think the Sharpshooter has better iron sights than the Commando.

By this are you saying the Sharpshooter has better iron sights than the Commando's iron sights? Or the Commando's holographic / dot / scope? I could agree with the former, but that's an irrelevant subject. In the latter context, would that imply that given a choice you would play Commando with iron sights equivalent to Sharpshooter's? And that given a choice you would stick with the current iron sights than put one of the Commando's sights (AK47 aside) on the LAR?

Spoiler!

When dealing with opinions, there is a point where someone no longer accepts or considers opinions other than his/her own. I think you have reached this point. You are convinced that the Commando has better sights than the Sharpshooter, and since this is a subjective issue, no argument will ever sway you because there is no way to concretely prove that the Sharpshooter has better sights than the Commando. However, the same is true vice-versa.

I can see you have also reached this point. I will agree that this is a matter of opinion and preference and that your opinion may be that iron sights are 'better' than what the Commando has available, that's your opinion and I won't try to dissuade you (which seems more than you're willing to do for me).

What I will add however is that for us who prefer the Commando's sights to iron sights I am suggesting a holographic sight or crosshair on something with a LAR-equivalent ammo count. I even stated earlier that I would be happy if I could calibrate the iron sights to aim slightly lower so I can see what I'm aiming at.

Spoiler!

the HC/MK23 have very usable sights for close-mid range, which is the point where those weapons excel, and the M99 and Crossbow have very usable sights for mid-long range, which is where those weapons excel.

Absolutely. However the Crossbow and M99 have next to no ammo reserves, good for taking out big targets but again, given another Sharpshooter, one of you is vastly limited in ability. Yeah you could have two 'snipers' but that's just a bad allocation of resources.

Spoiler!

the sharpshooter's weapons' sights are not affected by spread to nearly the same extent that the Commando's are - a sharpshooter takes single, accurate shots with the big guns, thereby removing the effect of spread entirely, and takes single shots at intervals sufficient to negate spread when using pistols. The latter point is supplemented by the fact that the sharp's pistols have low rates of fire to begin with.

The rifle itself is the cause of spread, not the sights. This is irrelevant.

Spoiler!

Conversely, the Commando's weapons' sights are all designed for medium range only. This prevents the Commando from being as effective at very close or very long range. In addition, the Commando does not get to fully benefit from the full rate of fire of his weapons if fired automatically, since the high spread (as well as the actual recoil) prevent the Commando's sights from functioning efficiently.

Iron sights are designed for medium range only, especially when your perk is based on getting headshots. Yes the Sharpshooter has the Crossbow and M99 but the Commando has the FNFAL. All Commando's weapons can also be switched to semi-automatic mode, thus the spread is reduced to next to nothing, provided you time your shots correctly. If you can't shoot long range as a Commando that's your business, but I have no trouble with it.

 

[Althamus]

Once more, another topic that is waaaay longer than it should be.

 

[Gman_95]

Once more, another topic that is waaaay longer than it should be.

totally agreed i thought my explanation would be enough for him but he just kept coming with more pointless question and argue...i feel a high percentage of trolling...seriously dude stop it...

 

[Deadly-Bagel]

Yeah I noticed that but this works fine. [After finishing] Actually, I think I will nest spoilers. All my responses to you are in here.

Spoiler!

1.

Spoiler!

Nothing I said implies that. I wasn't making any new points myself during those three quotes. Rather, I was pointing out why your replies to Amber Glass are illogical. If you disagree, then state which specific words imply what you think I'm implying.

You've completely missed the fact I wasn't quoting you. If you will turn your attention to the quote immediately above that paragraph you are quoting you will see it is in response to someone else.

2.

Spoiler!

No, that isn't his point. The point of my reply was to show that you made generalizations without being able to be absolutely sure that they were correct. Nowhere in his post did Amber Glass state that iron sights are better than other types of sights. The only place he says so is in your paraphrase, which is why I made my post - to say that your paraphrase is incorrect. You're basically putting words in the guy's mouth, whether intentionally or not.

I suggest Sharpshooter be given a scope to be more accurate. He claims Sharpshooter can be accurate without scopes, twice. He then says, in the same post, Commando has scopes so he can be accurate. If you can't see (or won't admit) the contradiction we'll have to agree to disagree.

3.

Spoiler!

You're changing your argument .... in this quote, you are telling me your intent was only prove that iron sights are capable of being unusable. You admit to this when you say "but that isn't my point", which then leaves me with nothing to address because you don't refute what I said about the sample-population regarding the point you *did* actually make.

Clarification: I told you his intent was to say that iron sights are capable of being usable. Seeing as I apparently have to spell this out for you, then saying that Commando needs accurate sights to be accurate is contradictory. (see below for clarification on "accurate sights")

4.

Spoiler!

Second part: actually, those implications will disprove your logic even further. The only implied reference to the AK47 anywhere in Amber Glass' post is when he states "the Commando has accurate sights." You attempted to use this very sentence to show that the Commando has accurate sights because he did not have iron sights (because you assumed that by not specifying "iron sights", it's what Amber Glass meant), even though if you want to interpret this sentence in that way, then every weapon that is implied here needs to be addressed, not just the weapons with non-iron sights.

You... What... I... Right, as you seem incapable of reading back a few posts let me quote my exact words from the post before his:

Surely a class based on shooting from the hip and having loads of ammo designed to fire in automatic rifles should definitely have holographic sights, a dot sight and a scope.

That's sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. He then states why Commando has (as he put it) "accurate sights". If you're trying to tell me he's going off on a tangent and just rambling, fine, he can be a nutjob instead of just contradicting himself. I believe the latter, personally, but that's just my opinion, you can think what you like.

5.

Spoiler!

The point of that section of my reply was to prove that the issue is subjective, and I used my opinion to do so. In your reply, you were addressing the issue as if it was objective - all throughout your posts, you claim vehemently that the Commando has far superior sights, as if it's a fact. If you believe that you were merely expressing an opinion, then you can chalk it up to my misinterpretation. If not, then the purpose of the sentence was to "bring you back down to Earth."

I am yet to hear someone express differently, if they want to then let them, I won't argue, simply then clarify that it is a difference of opinion. I will, however, attempt to clarify (for this post only, just to show how unreadable it can be) when something is in my opinion, in my opinion.

6.

Spoiler!

Okay. I didn't address this point. I didn't address any of the points in your original post with my second post in this thread because I had already done so with my first reply. All I did in my last post was show why your reply to Amber Glass was illogical. I'm not interested in discussing what possible "changes" should be applied to these weapons because I don't think they need any changes. Especially given the reasons you're listing for these changes. That's why it's my opinion.

Allow me to clarify, then, my primary reason. While aiming with iron sights, everything below that point is obscured by the gun (Handcannon especially). When you are aiming at the TOP of a specimen, you find your effective view of them shrinks 95% so you have to watch that 5% much more closely. Having used real rifles with both iron sights and scopes, perhaps this annoys me more than others. My other point regarding range is secondary, and if the first is fulfilled then I will be able to use it for the range anyway.

7.

Spoiler!

This opinion generally stems from inexperience. The crossbow has 36 bolts, which is enough to handle the vast majority of scrakes and husks on a 6-man Hell on Earth game on wave 10. The M99 has 25 shots, which is also enough to do just that (if not even more effectively, because it needs only 1 shot for scrakes).

Regardless, having 2 Sharpshooters is not a bad allocation of resources. Supposing the team also has 1 Demolitions player and 3 other Commandos, the team will be set to win. They could even have only 2 Commandos if they were good, and the other player could literally be AFK for the entire game and the team would still win. Again, I think this stems from inexperience.

Compared to a Hell On Earth vet I'm happy to admit my inexperience in Killing Floor, however on a game of Hard where I generally play to level my perks, in my opinion there's no sense in more than one sniper. They just end up competing for kills and considering the limited ammo, well, it's just a waste in my opinion. Playing on HoE however assumes you have a large amount of experience and level 6 perks. People have to get to that stage first.

8.

Spoiler!

You admit to the Commando's rifles experiencing spread, at which point the sights become objectively less useful. Meaning, the sights become bad. Comparatively, they become worse. And that was the point of my reply: to show that the Commando's sights are worse than the Sharpshooter's (or vice-versa). The fact that the spread is a product of the rifle itself and not the sights is what's irrelevant, because your question of which class has the better sights did not have any exceptions (whether listed or implied) that I could find. You are arguing semantics again.

If this is the case, then shouldn't you have agreed and then added that the Commando could benefit from iron sights? And if you are looking for exceptions in my post to say you could not include the rifle's recoil as part of the scope's performance, that would make you the one arguing semantics while accusing me of it, again. Why argue this point other than for the sake of arguing it? Put in the context, this "refute" has no relevance.

9.

Spoiler!

Or more simply, consider that there is no practical difference between "good" and "useful" in this context. The actual sights you see on your computer screen can be extremely precise (good), but in-game, said sights may not correspond to where the bullets actually go (useful).

And you accuse me of arguing semantics.

10.

Spoiler!

Illogical. If hypothetical class X was designed for getting bodyshots, would that influence the fact that iron sights are designed for medium range?

No, I was just stating this. Too far away and they completely obscure the target you're aiming at, not helpful, too close and you probably need the mobility of shooting from the hip. Granted, iron sights are (in my opinion) better close-range sights than scopes, but that's the point in variation. To be effective (in my opinion) you should specialise in one or have both.

11.

Spoiler!

Huh? Those weapons are nowhere near comparable. Are you implying they are? Please clarify.

In terms of firing range, they are reasonably similar. Like I said, I was shooting at the most extreme range I've ever seen in this game using the FNFAL. It's easier with the M99 but the point stands. While not as powerful as the M99 or Crossbow, it substitutes it with clip size and ammo reserves. Useful in different situations, but all long range. This is the point I was making.

12.

Spoiler!

I didn't make this claim anywhere in my post. I said the Commando's sights were not well-suited for something other than medium range, which you agreed with multiple times. It would then follow that if the Commando's sights are suitable only for medium range, that they are inherently less suitable for short or long range. My claim was that the Commando's sights are less effective at short or long range, which is in accordance with this.

I did not say you had, only stated that IF you could not then it's your business. And I do not recall nor can I find record of agreeing with that they were not well suited for anything other than medium range. As stated above, twice, I have used the FNFAL in the furthest ranges of the game without too much trouble. I may have agreed they are BEST suited for medium range, but distance has not been an issue for single shots or even (slightly less easily) short bursts. Shooting from the hip comes naturally as a Commando (in my opinion) so short range effectiveness of the sights is mostly irrelevant.

I get your point regarding Commando sight effectiveness (while on Commando weapons) vs Sharpshooter sight effectiveness, but on the whole the subject is irrelevant so would ask unless it relates to the original point regarding the sights themselves, or you want to defend against some statement I've made, I would ask you not persist the point further for the sake of staying on topic and keeping post length down. I've written smaller programs than this reply xD

To those who are telling me to drop the subject, I will point out I made the thread to discuss it. If you expect me to go "akay you don't agree, I am obviously wrong and will never mention it again" then you are a moron.

I refuse to change my mind simply based on the fact that someone else believes different, and if you do believe different and don't want to discuss or even argue the point, then wtf are you doing in my thread?

Ironically, telling me to drop it gives me posts to reply to, thus keeping the thread alive. If nobody agreed with it but rather simply stated so and walked out, the thread would die and fade into the archives, yet here we still are. I know Killing Floor can seem like a mindless game but that's no excuse to stop thinking.

(I would not normally indulge myself in insulting people but I find it insulting to be effectively told to get out of my own thread, so deal with it. To forumUser, as you seem keen on taking things out of context to apply or withdraw generalisations, I will clarify that I do not include yourself in these insults, only those who have told me to just drop it, or to agree with them but without presenting any actual reason to.)

 

[Amber Glass]

deadly bagel you are braindead, do you have any idea what context clues are?

ForumUser is correct in that you are arguing semantics

I suggest Sharpshooter be given a scope to be more accurate. He claims Sharpshooter can be accurate without scopes, twice. He then says, in the same post, Commando has scopes so he can be accurate. If you can't see (or won't admit) the contradiction we'll have to agree to disagree.

you disregarded all meaning in my post, besides the word "accurate", you fail to acknowledge exactly what i meant by the need for accuracy, so once again i will attempt to make your one track mind understand:

commando needs accurate sights because he needs to be accurate TO CLEAR TRASH AROUND THE BIG ZEDS AND EXTEND ZED TIME, TRASH ZEDS ARE MUCH MORE PLENTIFUL AND HAVE SMALLER HITBOXES THAN LARGE ZEDS AND HEAD SHOTS ARE IMPORTANT. that is his perk role, sharpshooters are meant to be taking on the big zeds, a reflex sight or acog on the LAR or M14 would not be anymore beneficial than iron sights in this role. if you find these ironsights are not good enough for you, and want absolute pinpoint accuracy, take the xbow or the M99. you argue that the ammo pools are limited for these weapons, so let me reiterate that sharpshooter's role first and foremost is clearing the big zeds, if you are shooting at anything smaller than a husk with the xbow, you are doing something monumentally wrong.

also let me reference one of your first posts again, you are QQing about a commando being better suited to kill TRASH than a sharpshooter on mountain pass. THAT IS THE COMMANDOS JOB, that is why his weapons are more suited for such a role. let me also restate that how many maps besides farm and mountain pass do you find yourself needing to fire at extremely long ranges? Husks are the only specimen that prove a threat at ranfe, scrakes are not a threat until you make them one, FP's can rage from LOS, but if you are packing an xbow or M99 this isn't a problem, nor if you have a demo on your team. Learn to play the sharpshooters role correctly and you wouldn't be complaining about the iron sights being inefficient, they are more than suitable for doing what they are supposed to do. once you actually improve your sharpshooting skills, you will find that the M14 will be able to clear trash at medium to close range as well or even better than a commando.

 

[Gman_95]

Ideally there would be no lag but ideally we'd all have interesting jobs, there would be no overpopulation and people would be empathetic.

server problem and development problem are totally different don't mix em up.

Explain to me your thoughts on Commando. Surely a class based on shooting from the hip and having loads of ammo designed to fire in automatic rifles should definitely have holographic sights, a dot sight and a scope. And the accuracy class, one shot one kill, should have useless obscuring iron sights and make everyone shoot from the hip.

we are not talking about Commando why you bring that up?what does commando have to do with sharpshooter?and again HIP shooting...people can shoot in every way they want they can shoot upside down for all i care it's something totally personal some do better from hip some do better with Iron sight.the whole complain of you is why commando have different sights while sharp shooter have iron sight.

Also, explain why the Sharpshooter has sniper rifle and crossbow at all? If they're supposed to just get headshots at medium range by not aiming at all.
Perhaps if the game actually had a decent weapon with decent sights, people would use it rather than shooting from the hip.

for second time Sharp shooter doesn't say anything about Rage.the range is up with the weapon haven't you seen people using Husk Cannon with Sharp shooter?it's totally a different weapon and it's not a sharp shooting one but i've seen people doing it a lot!again shooting from hip from different rage with different weapons is just SKILL totally depends of Player!a lot of times happen that i can't get a head shot with sniper cuz i'm not skilled enough with it but i've seen a lot of pro people doing it as its a nothing!

I don't care if it doesn't zoom, I don't care if it's weak as, I just think a class based on accuracy should have sights to utilise that accuracy, whether hitting slightly above iron sights or just a tube with a dot in the middle, just something I can actually see my target. Is that really such an unreasonable suggestion?

OK if you don't care about those you said then just buy a red marker and inch your screen and calculate its center and draw a RED dot in there it would be always there and cuz its surface is glass you can see through it!in other cases you can go make red dot over lay or Acog over lay!and glue em on your screen!how can you not see em from behind the Iron sight?as you say there is no sight what so ever on a pistol it's totally air above it!it have the best sight i think less stuff on screen an you can see around you!...it's not the sight that makes some one a sharp shooter it's the guy himself.skill matters 100 times more than the equipment...

 

[Deadly-Bagel]

"Oh my god you all think my opinion is invalid and so therefore I am obviously wrong and will never bring this up again."

Is that what you wanted?

w/e, I can't be bothered with you people anymore. If you're going to admit you think I should just blindly agree with you just so you can take offence, then fine. It's like arguing with religious nuts, I swear.

And don't even start to say I'm the one being stubborn - this is my topic, I created it because I wanted to make a suggestion, if you don't agree with me then fine but don't try to convince me I'm wrong then moan I'm being stubborn. You can only prove someone is stubborn by being stubborn yourself.

Go ahead, misinterpret me all you want. Nowhere did I specify what caused the lag and if I thought there should be none, of course there's lag, it's a given. I was just stating that ideally there wouldn't be any.

I'm not even going to look at the other replies because the obscure interpretations will annoy me, I'll have to respond to clarify, and it's just going to keep going around and around in circles (thus being the "better man" and "letting it go" eh? Your words, not mine).

So in conclusion, my original suggestion stands. If you don't agree with it say so and leave, there are enough people who do agree.

 

[Amber Glass]

pretty sure nobody agreed that sharpshooter should have reflex sights on the rifles

 

[Gman_95]

"Oh my god you all think my opinion is invalid and so therefore I am obviously wrong and will never bring this up again."

Is that what you wanted?

w/e, I can't be bothered with you people anymore. If you're going to admit you think I should just blindly agree with you just so you can take offence, then fine. It's like arguing with religious nuts, I swear.

And don't even start to say I'm the one being stubborn - this is my topic, I created it because I wanted to make a suggestion, if you don't agree with me then fine but don't try to convince me I'm wrong then moan I'm being stubborn. You can only prove someone is stubborn by being stubborn yourself.

Go ahead, misinterpret me all you want. Nowhere did I specify what caused the lag and if I thought there should be none, of course there's lag, it's a given. I was just stating that ideally there wouldn't be any.

I'm not even going to look at the other replies because the obscure interpretations will annoy me, I'll have to respond to clarify, and it's just going to keep going around and around in circles (thus being the "better man" and "letting it go" eh? Your words, not mine).

So in conclusion, my original suggestion stands. If you don't agree with it say so and leave, there are enough people who do agree.

since you have no reasonable and logic things to throw back...okay thou i can say it's nearly less than 20% chance of adding all that sights and stuff on rifles and pistols.(especially pistols cuz all of em can be used double so what would be the point of a sight on double pistols?) yeah you sure can stand on you point but the thing is they would mostly come up with things that are in mind of majority!and not so many people agree with you...

 

[Spicy]

Guys, guys, guys. Guys.

What if, we had alternate versions of the LAR or M14 with some sort of red-dot or holographic sight? I mean, that LAR irons are pretty effing good as they are. I don't really use the M14, because it's "not my bag" but putting the SCAR or M4's sight onto the M14 might be cool. You figure that way, you've got the laser sight for clase-range shooting (headshotting FP's) and then the after-market optic for medium to long-range shooting.

 

[Gman_95]

In what world can one possibly get so mad at something as trivial as this argument?.

man same thing is happening the next topic (New Specimen Idea?)the guy haven't even think of a name for it and has just gave it power to stop bullets within 2 or 5 meter range 360 degree!!i keep saying it unbalances the game for heck load of reasons he says i'm trolling em...funniest parts are here:

Spoiler!

Gman_95 : just imagine a 20 pound M99AMR bullet or M32 grenade stands in mid air...

Leon_Glock : Where did you get that "20 pound M99 AMR bullet" crap?.

you pay 20 ENGLAND POUNDS per bullet!it's not Crap it's FACT...

Leon_Glock : So the price of a cartridge (not bullet!) is directly equivalent to its lethality, not the speed and weight of its bullet? (pounds in that way would have made a lot more sense)

i like it how he tries to show off i'm a gun geek by saying cartridge as if you walk in a gun store saying a box of 9mm cartridges plz...i said ok this guys playing beginner or something that he doesn't know the cost of bullets and the amount of money you get back from killing zombies in SUC or HOE cuz they said :

EpharGy : a score value of 0 means you would gain 0 cash back for killing it, no matter when this zed spawns.

with such a power this zombie have it gives out zero money!they expect people to say YAY GREAT IDEA?and for all the trouble for killing it as it seems he only dies with pipe bomb-Melee-or firebug!!

 

[Benjamin]

Meanwhile in Turkey...

Edit: I should explicitly mention that this was commentary on the pointless arguing that has nothing to do with the thread. Obviously this wasn't apparent to some so I'm stating this explicitly to avoid any further misunderstandings.