Toggleable optics : what's the point of using 1x optics/iron sights ?...

Notice: No community managers or devs even commenting. LMFAO!! They only respond to "safe" threads. LOL

@LetsGoChamp said in Toggleable optics : what's the point of using 1x optics/iron sights ?...:

Notice: No community managers or devs even commenting. LMFAO!! They only respond to "safe" threads. LOL

Well, that would explain why the most upvoted post on this entire forum section (which is one of my posts) has never been commented on by a mod because it's a conversation about damage reflection.

Being able to toggle the scopes would actually make them more viable and worth the increase of supply costs. The 1-2x optics wouldn't be made obsolete by being as useful as they already are for a really low cost.
Personally, I use 3-4x optics and act as a marksman with my rifle as an Observer, and I think this would be a worthwhile change for the better.

@zefs thats a goodish idea if nwi was dead set on adding this.

Hello everyone!

Thanks all for your feedback regarding the toggleable optics. This thread has been passed on to the team. I'll keep you updated if I have more information.

Hello again,

Regarding this topic, we plan to price them and balance them accordingly. We want to generalize capabilities a bit more (give you a chance in both close quarters and longer ranges) but we still will keep each class feeling specialized.

I guess we'll see, then. Thank you for aknowledging the thread.

I very much doubt this will be as much of a problem as people here are making it out to be. A 1x is not that much better than a 2X in CQC and some would prefer the 2x still. The sight pictures of 4x irons are terrible so that will not have too much impact, (assuming there is no zoom toggle used on a particular scope). Hipfire will remain viable as it removes the aiming time from the engagement as well as increasing movement speed to pop around a corner. If the 2x is currently more zoom than 2, they might dial it back., the 2 times magnification should not make you a marksman anyway. 2x is still an additional point that could have been a throw-able tool and as mentioned the flip also takes time. If you really think it is the end of this game that the 2x magnifier is becoming functional, then they could even make the flip make a loud click. Though the loudness may not be realistic, insurgency is not focused on being realistic but presenting it as realistic, with a lot of features being more on the realistic side.

How can you blame players demanding a feature that is visually presented to them? They know it is a 2x that is flip-able but they cannot flip it, thus they ask for it to be a thing. Wouldn't you like to see more classic looking G36? They can if they make the german double optic scope for it, as of right now those exclusive scopes are of no use.

I am looking forward to this feature, wondering how they will implement it. At the least, let the devs try satisfy the majority of the players first, players are your most important content for multiplayer games and they can always fix it if it turns out to be the wrong choice. I think they will be able to do a good job.

EDIT: It is currently one feature. To take it as if they will never commit to their original aim again is an exaggeration too early to make. I'd also like to add that the focus of loadouts should be on the roles they fulfill, not their range capabilities. Yes, some may be tied to range, but the optics alone will not make their weapons capable of their polar opposite. You may worry when tools are added that mimic utility that exclusive roles should fulfill into other roles.

EDIT 2: If this is really such a problem, a way of implementing is adding new optics (more work) that do not come with alternative sight options and have the current ones that do increase cost. This is likely overkill though, and as I said the addition of the switch functon will likely not make that much of a difference. In ins 2014, AP made everyone a marksman. I am not exaggerating when I say a 1x ump with AP was marksman enough for every map (I sort of enjoyed it someway though).

last edited by F0XSQUAD

Compromise position: Make the optics partly translucent and/or allow "look over sights" option so that the giant optic isn't blocking a quarter of the screen? In real life, all the 1x and most of the 2x optics can be used with both eyes open and fade in one's actual field of view, I'd be fine with being stuck at 2x if it didn't make scanning my sectors so artificially difficult.

@jballou Many people asked for a proprer dof when ads, but I don't recall any dev saying anything about it. At this point, I doubt it will ever be considered. They chose to focus on multiple zoom levels for some reason...

@F0XSQUAD Of course a G3 will never turn into an mp7 indoors. Yet, it's pretty rare to find yourself handicaped by the size of your weapon. This is why it's a bad idea. The sights on a 4x scopes may not be ideal for medium range shooting, but they will definitely be more than enough for effectively acquiring targets in CQB. This is the problem. Even if those sights cost a lot of points, why would you pass on them ? You can have long range accuracy, short range accuracy, and even if the sights are bad, I'm pretty sure that with a bit of training you would also become good enough at medium range accuracy.

I'm not even talking about 2x scopes, since that's clearly OP. I can marksman shoot bots using a .5x scope. A 2x scope is more than enough to snipe in most cases. I don't even think they will decrease the zooming capabilities of 2x sights, since it's linked to your maximum FOV. Try using a 2x sight with the minimum FOV setting, you'll see that the zoom is almost non-existant. 2x sights seem to be more that 2x zoom only because you play with a really high FOV.

last edited by Grumf

@Grumf said in Toggleable optics : what's the point of using 1x optics/iron sights ?...:

It's AP ammo shit all over again.

Wht do you mean? AP ammo in Ins2014 is very usefull in my opinion.

Terrible idea in PvP.

@Grumf Just to clarify, anything I say is about PVP, not PVE. Bots are predictable, so anything works on them making points regarding them fairly weak. Zooming is partially linked to your FOV (I play on def FOV btw), but still mostly determined by the zoom variable that is a property of the scope, so they can tweak it, but I must admit I find that unlikely too. Something being overpowered is in relation to the other options, if nearly every optic gets an alternative scope, OP is not much of an concern anymore. Some options in this game are better than the others, but they try to balance that with the point system. It is not meant to be all of the same power level. Sacrificing tools for attachments is usually not the best strategy and is the reason you would pass on them.To answer your title question: because it is cheaper. The argument of training can be made about a lot, as being hypothetically good at something is an initial assumption that makes any argument invalid when it has already been decided that in this case the player was good with X. In this case, even if they'd be good, they'd likely be better with an optic tailored to medium range. Sights that obscure vision are still a hindrance in CQC, think of the FAMAS F1 iron sights as an extreme example.

You know that the difference of the G3 to the MP7 is not only the size. The G3 is heavy, making you slower at aiming and moving around a corner, its fire rate is low so you cannot recover well from an initial miss when you need several hits against armor. I would almost think that you would have been up and arms about laser sights being added to the game if they weren't a legacy feature, because the same arguments can be made on laser sights. You can add them to a high zoom optic and still compete in CQC. The only difference is that dead-zone hipfire is an uncommon feature in games, therefore requiring a bit of practice to be competent with it (both aiming and laser placement). If you think about it, laser sights are better in CQC if you are used to the hip aim. Compared to ADS, you move faster and do not require aim time. I've said this before.

The addition of toggle optics is going to have players play differently by being able to offer some support on different ranges, such as pushing into the objective. However, this effectiveness will still be less than if they were to use their optic for the range it was intended for. In other games that have toggle optics, I have not seen the option being of a real impact to combat, neither being the default option.

The scopes are coming. Only expressing that you are against it is not going to change anything anymore, instead it would be more productive if you were to present potential options for balance along side your concerns. The devs have shown something that could be and as soon as the community sees that, they will think it should be. It is why the demand for 2X toggles came into existence in the first place. We will see how it will influence the game, if it has a bad effect it will surely be fixed in some way.

I know this last bit is not really on the topic I was discussing with you, but the refrain from implementing dof transparency on optics likely has to do with the pic2pic feature of optics (which used to be the only option of zoom).

@Sulfur Exactly. It was so usefull that everyone picked it. It was a no brainer choice, and that's the reason why the devs chose to remove it from Sandstorm. Only to add toggleable scopes... Which will be so usefull everyone will use it if possible.

@F0XSQUAD

The scopes are coming. Only expressing that you are against it is not going to change anything anymore, instead it would be more productive if you were to present potential options for balance along side your concerns.

I said that they musn't fix what's not broken. I have nothing to "present", since the original system was already working. I can only say that adding those sights is a bad move. Kinda like adding frenzy was a bad move considering how PVE gameplay already has checkpoint mode only. Adding a zombie/meme variation of checkpoint mode is a bad move, when no one asked for it, yet litteraly dozens of people wanted hunt/conquer/outpost modes back. The devs seem to listen the players only when they give bad gameplay ideas...

Something being overpowered is in relation to the other options, if nearly every optic gets an alternative scope, OP is not much of an concern anymore. Some options in this game are better than the others, but they try to balance that with the point system.

Well yes, if and only if anyone can equip such a sight for a reasonable price. It would be kind of ridiculous, but at least everyone would be equal. The fact that this is going to cost a lot of points means that people will sacrifice stuff just to have it. Just like they were doing with AP ammo back then.

@Grumf
Just because it isn't broken doesn't mean it cannot be better, games need to improve/expand on their previous installments to keep up with today. Games that may have been great before are not at all guaranteed to be as good right now, because the whole market is expanding on itself. I still consider AP to be more of an issue as it altered the core variables of a shooter game, health/damage. That nearly always causes the option to be op, as it impacts the fundamentals of a shooter. This ability to toggle between two zooms does not. To sacrifice other tools for these scopes will punish players for doing so if it was a bad decision. a toggle to a lower zoom is not going to help anyone cross an open street for example, neither is it going to help you push a door that is camped.

I have the slight feeling that you are not reading what I intend to convey as you ignore the similarity of the laser optic and my other points in which I try to express that this toggle really does not matter that much.

"I said that they musn't fix what's not broken. I have nothing to "present", since the original system was already working. I can only say that adding those sights is a bad move." You repeat yourself only pressing my point that you are not helping the game with this 'X is bad' the thread has evolved to. It currently seems that you dislike the option because it is a new addition, a new option, one that doesn't make anything obsolete. Solely complaining is of no use and being conservative about the game is not going to help/allow it to improve and adapt to the current market. Again, players are the most important content of a multiplayer game. I am not saying that everything should be tailored to the masses, devolving into something generic. I am saying it has to progress a bit and that the 'don't fix what aint broken' is not always the right mindset to support. Allow room for improvement.

P.S. Who knows how much frenzy helped bind all the new free weekend players to the game? It is not as if the addition of the game was isolated and at the cost of other features. It was not too big to implement as it was mostly a mod on an existing mode. The devs got more work on molotovs and might have learned something new from the mode that can help improve the current game. New PVP modes require more work, mostly in the balancing department. I could explain, but I think that is not necessary. I just hope you see it wasn't that bad of a move.

@Grumf well, I feel you, but couldn't agree on 100%.
In my opinion toggable scopes won't be biggest problem of the game, even if it will be bad 😉
And I excited about this toggable scopes, and waiting them so much.
I playing Airsoft with 1x and 4x scopes simultaneously, and waited for long time to have this possibility in the game ☺

@F0XSQUAD said in Toggleable optics : what's the point of using 1x optics/iron sights ?...:

"

The scopes are coming. Only expressing that you are against it is not going to change anything anymore, instead it would be more productive if you were to present potential options for balance along side your concerns. The devs have shown something that could be and as soon as the community sees that, they will think it should be. It is why the demand for 2X toggles came into existence in the first place. We will see how it will influence the game, if it has a bad effect it will surely be fixed in some way.
"

It is not about game balance imho, its about if you want a game with a larger or smaller gap between different classes - Class diversity.

Creating a smaller gap between classes is not easily balanced by adding another feature that keeps the class diversity as large as it was if that is what you mean by balancing it.

If you make dinner and add way too much salt you cant necessarily save it by adding sugar or water, you may simply need to learn that you gotta use less salt if you want to be good at cooking.

I dont mean to come off as salty=) hahaha.. nm.

@Pacalis I would like to maintain a more distinct class diversity, but mostly in the form of exclusive tools. Things like explosives, special throwables (maybe a gas grenade?) , specialized weapon attachments. This thread could be categorized as the last category mentioned, attachments. People here fear that the addition of the toggle optics is going to greatly diminish the class diversity. However, the scopes are already offered across all classes, except for the 7X. It is for that reason that I do not think it will impact the diversity that much, as the options are already present.

I do recognize that classes that use mostly longer range scopes may become wider in options as they may become slightly more effective at pushing an objective, yet I do not see it as a change that has that much impact as the weapons they carry are by themselves not well suited for the shorter range engagements. The inverse hold as well. To be honest I am less concerned about the 2X as I consider that only a slight range difference, I am one of those that prefer the 2X over a 1X at anytime. I do still recommend practicing competent hip aim over conforming to ads pushing from other shooters as it is better. Seems I went back into arguing for balance slightly, so returning to the topic of class diversity, I do not think it has too much of an impact as people here seem to be concerned about. If neccesary, NWI can remove the scopes unsuited for certain classes, I think that may have a better effect on creating a contrast among classes.

We can titrate the salt in the solution if neccesarry. There can be some that prefer the food without salt, but perhaps the majority likes the effect it has on the dish and may therefore come by for dinner more often. Maybe it wasn't NaCl as we thought, but instead another spice... If it turns out to be a hefty amount of salt, then we can have discussions on how to add ingredients that nullify the effects.

@Sulfur said in Toggleable optics : what's the point of using 1x optics/iron sights ?...:

@Grumf said in Toggleable optics : what's the point of using 1x optics/iron sights ?...:

It's AP ammo shit all over again.

Wht do you mean? AP ammo in Ins2014 is very usefull in my opinion.

AP ammo was useful, and it was also probably overpowered as fuck. So was HP, although not to the same extent (arm and leg shots were fatal with HP, regardless of weapon). That being said, Ins2's damage model was brutal to begin with (arm shots are fatal from any weapon loaded with standard ammo already).

@Grumf might be right about the FOV affecting how scopes zoom in, so while a 2x optic is actually a 2x zoom on lower FOVs they technically zoom in much more on higher FOVs. Allowing the 2x to be togglable would mean that there would be virtually no reason not to increase your FOV if you have a 2x magnifier equipped.

Supply point cost? If they make the toggleable optics more expensive, I can see people trading the range versatility for utility or better handling on their gun.

I honestly don't see the issue with giving longer-ranged loadouts the option to play objectives. They shouldn't be as competitive as close-range loadouts given differing weapon/attachment choices. If that's not the case, that is a separate issue that should be addressed accordlingly.

last edited by cyoce