Put the scopes back the way they were

What happened? The scopes were awesome before. Why did you guys change them? Before the last update scopes took most of the screen so that you had a wide sight picture when using them which was fantastic because that's how scopes are in real life. You look through them, you don't use them with 2 eyes open. Now it's crap. Not like I'm looking through a scope anymore at all. Now it's like using a red dot with both eyes open. I don't want Pubg scopes. Put it back the way it was.. red dots are good though. Just give us a bigger sight picture with scopes so it looks like we are using a scope not a red dot please.

last edited by Hossfxr

@Hossfxr

Frankly, scopes felt op when they don’t clutter the screen at all, I get less incentive to use iron sights. It’s supposed to be balanced right.

Iron sights: Harder to aim but less clutter
Scopes:Improved aim but more clutter
At least that’s how I think it should be and that Ins2 nailed it

Check and make sure you've set your scope settings to "Picture in Picture" instead of normal.

Normal sight settings currently zooms your entire FOV, while PiP does the original dual rendering.

The change was made to make the full FOV zoom default due to how system intensive dual rendering can be, and how it was negatively affecting many players' performance.

last edited by Goat Walrus

I tried both. It's not that. It's more the fact the circle of the scope took up twice as much space on my screen before the last update giving me a wide field of view that looked more like a real scope.

last edited by Hossfxr

@pacalis no, it's
Iron sights: harder to aim but free
1x optics: easier to aim but costs points
scopes: easier to aim at long range, but harder to aim at close range and costs even more points

The whole point of paying supply points for an optic is to reduce clutter and obstruction in your sight picture.

Eh, I think it looks much nicer the way they are now. If anything the old scopes were tougher because you didn’t get much peripheral vision.

@Pacalis well, in reality a red dot sight or scope is less cluttery than iron sights, this is due to the fact that you're using both eyes open and one of them does not even have the sight in front so your brain "blurs out" the scope itself leaving only the dot visible for you. this is impossible to implement in a 2D screen (Onward, the VR game, shows that this works as long as you can render a different image for each eye)

True for red dots, but for scopes such as 2x, 4x, and so on.. you don't use both eyes open. You only use one eye open on a scope, and modern scopes actually give you a decent size field of view. Much more than we get inside of the "circle" part of the scope in this game anyway.

last edited by Hossfxr

I can live with it the way it is.. I just think it would be more enjoyable if they made the scopes more realistic feeling. At the very minimum anything higher than a 2x should be like looking through a scope not like using a red dot with both eyes open. I mean if this game is actually going to be semi realistic which is what I always thought insurgency was all about.

last edited by Hossfxr

@snakelegionnaire
I am talking about the area outside the scope, the area around the scope get cluttered - The peripheral vision like Original Poster is talking about. @Tooth-Decay is spot on. Reality arguments does not matter for me if they are not good game mechanics, but you would get more tunnel vision in reality as well ( less peripheral vision) and like you say, its not possible to implement how it would look in reality on a 2d screen, so it will be some give and takes ey.

I agree that the sight area should give an advantage in the actual scope vision ofc=)

@cyoce this is also true, cost points and different vision - We get quite a few points to distribute, so having mechanics aside from points cost will give players incentive to use different sights imo.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.