Offset iron sights

@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Its a WW2 shooter, of course a CQB bolt action would be more viable in that setting, the whole point i was making is sure you could do it, but its not the best option."

Would you elaborate on the reasons why it is not the best option or what you even mean by best option?

@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Picking up enemy weapons makes no sense 90% of the time as you get stuck with a rifle with a single mag IF you are lucky and they didnt use up half of it before they died."

Yes, it is not optimal to use a sniper in CQB and your options available when doing it anyway will not make you as suited at CQB as the opponent who chose a CQB spezialization. That makes classes more different and is an intentional feature to make classes serve different purposes. Which is a cool feature in a game with different classes, as you can not do all tasks with the same effectiveness.

@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Yes a sniper should stay out of CQB, yes you should switch to pistol. if you need to deal with CQB. Diversity doesnt mean leaving out pieces of kit that could save you, nor is situational awareness going to help you every time, there is plenty of cases where you wouldn't be able to hear someone much less see them."

Diversity is just a range of different things, and I spoke about class specialization in the context. Leaving out gadgets that will make you more lethal in CQB for a sniper role will make that specific class less viable in CQB, thereby reducing your effectiveness in a CQB situation with a sniper - We both agree on that. The cases where you will not hear someone is when enemies are sneaking or bombs/shots go off close by: In that situation you must pay attention to your surroundings by frequently making sure nobody sneaks up on you, don't snipe from places easy to flank without you seeing them coming, frequently check that nearby areas are clear with a pistol equipped before you see your enemy pointing at you from close range -especially when noises masks enemy movement, frequently change position to avoid your position to be compromised etc - In other words a sniper at current state needs a player being skilled in the tactical choices a sniper must understand. A sniper is at current state more vulnerable close range than long range because close range is not their specialization.

@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Balancing wouldnt be down sized, classes will always be significant, this assertion that you could have a single loadout for every situation just because of canted ironsights or flip up magnifiers is incorrect."

Would you elaborate on why that is incorrect? I disagree for above reasons.

EDIT: I reread my earlier post and used the term diversity in a context that clearly refers to class specialization. Please don't get hang up in semantics if that is what you are doing.

This is what I wrote and it is clear what I mean:
It is intentional by design to create diversity and different classes who must practice different tactics to succeed.

EDIT 2: To be perfectly clear, whether it is flip-to-side magnifier or canted iron sight I am against both implementations as they will both make class specializations less significant.

Also remember in Insurgency2014 many skilled players only used iron sights at all times, only rarely using an optic in rare cases, and in 5v5 maybe only one player one the team.
This is the meta I don't want to change as introducing a choice of having both options (scope+iron sight) at the same time with a press of a key, will lower the choices on the team. This is the same logic as with the removal of AP ammo in Sandstorm, as choosing AP ammo was never a real choice - You had to have it (if you had any clue). If this makes no sense for you as a comparison, I strongly believe you have based your opinion on a somewhat misinformed foundation or lack experience to understand the implications (effects) of introducing different game mechanics. I would gladly explain why if someone does not know why AP ammo was removed.

last edited by Pacalis

@grumf said in Offset iron sights:

Eeeh... No... Not really. A 9mm round is far less powerful than a 7.62x51 (or other) round. This has nothing in common. It would be greatly superior. Plus, a secondary weapon only has 4 magazines at best, whereas a primary can have up to 7 and can be fired in full auto. Totally unbalanced.

Yes, but with a secondary you get 3 or 4 mags in addition to your primary mags. Running without a secondary would mean you'd have no backup weapon and no backup ammo if you run your primary out of ammunition. I use my sidearm mostly when my primary mag goes empty in a fight, if one chooses to run without a secondary reloading would be the only option.

Of course having to be as flexible as possible with your primary is also realistic. Most soldiers don't carry sidearms. It's mostly a SOF and police thing.

@grumf said in Offset iron sights:

You want it because you would constantly use it. Everybody would. Why ? Because it would be the most useful attachment in the game. Don't lie to me or even to yourself. You would always chose to have it.

Eh, I run red-dots / holosights most of the time, so no, I don't think I'd use offset irons much at all. I'd much rather have flip-to-side magnifiers anyway.

@MAA_Bunny

Yes, but with a secondary you get 3 or 4 mags in addition to your primary mags. Running without a secondary would mean you'd have no backup weapon and no backup ammo if you run your primary out of ammunition. I use my sidearm mostly when my primary mag goes empty in a fight, if one chooses to run without a secondary reloading would be the only option.

Yeah... Maybe... However, I pretty rarely (in fact, almost never) run out of mags for my primary weapon.
When not talking about running on your last mag, you indeed would have to resort on reloading. But hey... A makarov costs nothing, and a Tariq costs only 1 supply point. So you at least have that just in case. I didn't say nobody would still use secondary weapons, but just that it would make them highly redundant/useless. There might be some cases when your sidearm would save you even with offset iron sights on your primary, but let's be honest... It doesn't happen that often, and those situations are usually pretty easy to anticipate and avoid.

Of course having to be as flexible as possible with your primary is also realistic. Most soldiers don't carry sidearms. It's mostly a SOF and police thing.

I hear that, and I agree. That's why I also like mil-sim games. But Sandstorm is not a mil-sim, and compromises have to exist so gameplay can be fun and balanced. The game itself is not designed to have such equipement. The maps are too narrow and too small for the game to be "realistic" in such a way that would require having offset iron sights.

Eh, I run red-dots / holosights most of the time, so no, I don't think I'd use offset irons much at all. I'd much rather have flip-to-side magnifiers anyway.

Yeah, I was actually talking to HowardHughes in that one. Sorry, it's my fault for not making it clear.
But it still applies to you and everybody, though. Flip-to-side or offset iron sights... Every single player would use them, just as AP rounds in Ins2. It's just too much of an advantage to pass on. Can you imagine the sheer and pure destruction a PKM would cause with that kind of attachment ? Or any weapon, really... Just as effective at short range as at long range... The combination of CQB and sniping capabilities in one single weapon is just OP in that game.

Again, it's not a mil-sim. If we had 3km² maps with many bushes and artificial sniper nests to play on, I would totally agree with that. It's however not the case. It would break the game.

last edited by Grumf

For people arguing it would be unbalanced: just make the scope with alternate ironsights more expensive.

@cyoce

Wouldn't work. The problem isn't the price in supply points. The problem is that even if really expensive, it would just be too great not to use it. Sandstorm's vanilla unmodified weapons are already beasts and generally easy to control.

Can you imagine a vanilla M14/PKM/G3/Shotty with such an attachment ? Oh boy, would it rip and tear through everybody even from across the map...

Plus, it would encourage lone wolfing, which is quite sad.

last edited by Grumf

@cyoce , @Grumf

Yes, I wrote what I would do if this feature was in the game in some other post, here it is:

"Just saying with a system where you can flip away the long range scope, the new meta might be many more players using long range scope to both rule the open field and cqb, cqb bolt-action iron sight is one thing, semi-automatic a different story. I would probably put all points towards a mk 14 EBR high magnification scope, no armor, no extra ammo, no whatever to get that loadout and rush flanks + obj being happy with that in all situations - A lot of others might as well and the classes then be less significant, if that happens."

Lonely wolfes and less class dependency definitely.

EDIT: At least with offensive playstyle oriented players like me. If you have a guy like sevrawr187 on the other hand (that infamous youtuber^^ I like him btw, good but a little rude for my taste), which is even worse than me in exploiting in game features to the max - The game might be significantly changed.

last edited by Pacalis

@pacalis Classes aren't necessary for teamwork. Insurgency's classes barely affect gameplay (they just slightly change your gun selection). Sandstorm is even worse about this because there's no class limit on the best gun in the game, the G3A3. I honestly don't see the problem with letting players put more points into making their gun more versatile at the cost of utility. Sure, having canted iron sights might make your M14 more useful in close range, but the armor, grenades, and/or pistol you had to give up would also increase your close range effectiveness.

last edited by cyoce

@cyoce

Classes stimulates teamwork by letting players supplement each other, but I agree that it is possible to have a good team even without any class differences. I don't see it as a big problem, like I have said in another post, if many people want it and it makes the game more fun for them - it could be added. I just want the game to keep away from being too generic, so I wrote the reasons why I think its not a good choice. I also agree Insurgency had a small gap in classes, and it seems Sandstorm is even less class dependant, Making a game being fun for the highest amount of people often leads to mediocracy. That is just how it is.

Edit: For your last statement:
"Sure, having canted iron sights might make your M14 more useful in close range, but the armor, grenades, and/or pistol you had to give up would also increase your close range effectiveness."

it was answered above by grumf and me in other words.

@grumf said in Offset iron sights:

Wouldn't work. The problem isn't the price in supply points. The problem is that even if really expensive, it would just be too great not to use it. Sandstorm's vanilla unmodified weapons are already beasts and generally easy to control.
Can you imagine a vanilla M14/PKM/G3/Shotty with such an attachment ? Oh boy, would it rip and tear through everybody even from across the map...
Plus, it would encourage lone wolfing, which is quite sad.

last edited by Pacalis

Realistically, all offset iron sights on the market that I'm aware of (no expert on these) are designed for rail mounting. This means to mount them you'd need a rifle with rails along all or most of the top. In-game right now, that will limit their ability to be attached to the AR-15 family of rifles, the SCAR, and I guess the G-36. I can't think of any other rifles in the game that'd have the rail space to mount them.

I'd also say holding a rifle canted at an angle like that isn't the most efficient way to use it, and as a result recoil would be more difficult to manage.

@pacalis @grumpf People already do it all the time with iron sights/1x optics. Think of it this way: they're paying a lot of points for the option to use a scope for extreme range. If they hadn't taken the attachment, they could still shred people at most ranges, and they would have gotten a 1x optic instead of iron sights. Canted iron sights increase versatility, but they don't make you better at any one thing (in fact, canted iron sights would be worse than a holo/red dot/kobra when you're not using the scope). They're gaining weapon versatility at the cost of other attachments or tactical options.

As an alternative, twin sights one magnified, one a red dot (unmagnified), with a quick switch key.

@cyoce
I have already said my thoughts on most opinions that you are repeating and respect that people see it differently. I also understand the mechanics clearly, I see no reason to repeat things in the same thread - Read the whole thread. The thing you say about 1x scope instead of iron sights though is not how I play, but I agree that canted iron would be worse than cobra - but still OP for above reasons.

I always use iron sights instead of 1x because the 1x while giving a tiny improvement in ease of aim, blocks too much of the screen. Cobra is good, but OP and was therefore excluded in comp ins2, (don't know if in current version of ins2). So I will try stay away from cobra to be ready for comp tweaks later on where cobra might be excluded anyway.

last edited by Pacalis

I think offset irons/reflex are not SO needed in this game. However we should have the ability to use those irons on top of 4x scope, and mount/unmount magnifiers, because those scopes already come with this ability irl, and game restricts it.

To add my two cents to the mix, I think class/role/kit specialization (which seems to be the main argument against) arguably doesn't encourage or discourage team play specifically. The fact is, 3 players are still going to be at a disadvantage against 4. More eyes, more field of vision, more sectors to cover, more firepower to bring to bear against the enemy is a concrete advantage before you bring skill into the mix.

And we need to remember that in Insurgency we are talking about true snipers (out their lone wolfing it with a spotter setting up and taking shots from over a thousand meters away), we are talking designated marksman which are part of the fireteam. While they have are able to more effectively engage at longer ranges, they also can help lay down fire at close ranges with their team. I think more flexible kits are preferred, and the fact that canted and top mounted backup sights are realistic and used is all the better. Arguably, I think this would lead to greater balance and team play and less of the rambo type scenario because good players can often lone wolf it (usual with a rifle) and exploit the vulnerabilities of other classes more effectively than others. If you know that every enemy can engage you effectively at most ranges, I'd think you'd be more likely to stick with your squad and utilize strength in numbers. Ultimately, the advantage cuts both ways. And squads and maps are small enough and gameplay is so fast a fluid, flexibility in kit seems to just be a no-brainer to me. Having a dedicated sniper sitting back in the back is often just a waste of a man for part of the match. Team play I feel would be encouraged even more if everyone can best participate at all times as the situation demands. Flexibility of kit I think helps with this. And backup sights is a small part of this.

I can say that I've been playing Ground Branch heavily, and I really like the ability to have a backup sight for shorter range engagements. It doesn't stifle teamwork at all. And, it also doesn't overpower any particular weapon. If you are using an SMG, rifle, LMG, or DMR, you still have the strengths and weaknesses in handling, stopping, power, and rate of fire regardless of how you set up your sights.