How many infiltrators would like to see the scope bobbing around added to all classes? Should a VS light or TR HA really be as accurate at range with a scope as a sniper? Yes we can hold our breath but really who would be more steady with a scope, a sniper or a regular infantry???? Although i have found other ways to avoid scope movement having played sniper since TF days. Really i just want to hear infantry whine about having to hold their breath when scoped in at range med to close isn't an issue as they are typically full auto not 1-2 shot bursts.
i don't know about scope sway, but i WOULD like to see the a definite effect from them carrying around shorter barreled weapons. that said, even today, guns are more accurate than the humans that fire them
Just get the semi-auto scout rifle, put a 4x scope on it and no scope sway. This doesn't even make sense, but I'm guessing you know that and just felt like complaining.
I think they should add scope/sight sway yes. But if they do that they need to tone down bullet spread. Right now the none sniper guns have no sway on their scope/sights but after the first shot they start to get crazy spread over a distance. You have to put it in single shot mode, and fire/pause for like 8 or 9 shots to reliably kill distant targets. The battle rifles being high damage single shot though are unique in that they don't suffer from this. Which does make them possibly better than Sniper.
I disgagree entirely, there is no point in fitting a 3x or 4x scope if it wobbles all over the place, and why the hell would it if you are completely accurate with iron sights? Besides, all the other classes don't have guns that kill in one or two shots. If anything it should be removed from all weapons. It's a stupid mechanic that they put into way too many games for no real reason. The games that first introduced the idea of scope sway were the early RPG/FPS blends where you had to skill up sniper rifles to get rid of the swaying - you were never actually supposed to shoot with sway.
Why not, surely its realistic. In real life i also mostly poke out the eye of the guy next to me while swinging my sniper XD meh, i think introducing sway to other classes would not be a smart idea tbh. But im not sure if removing it from infiltrator would do any good to. In fact i think its yust fine as it is.
I cannot support less accurate guns. If you're losing to HA/LA/Eng/CM at range with infil you're just not good at the game, sorry. I have no problem with infil.
Scope sway is in no way realistic. Snipers never shoot with an unsupported weapon, what makes taking a shot at extreme range difficult isn't that your rifle moves around uncontrollably, but stuff like wind, humidity, elevation, gravity, Coriolis effect, gyroscopic drift... You wouldn't even make it make it out of basic training if you miss shots because your shoulder is made of pudding.
If you read the rest of the sentence you would have seen it was meant sarcastic, stop reading half sentences and only quoting pieces
For guys talking about realistic/unrealistic, you need to understand the difference between supported/unsupported shooting. Lets look at a common rifle qual for US servicemen. You're usually making shots standing, kneeling, and prone at various ranges, typically 200, 300, and 500 yards. At 500 yards, you're prone, using a sling-supported position. Even with the basic sights on an M16, you're reliably tagging man-sized targets at 500 yards. And making those shots at 500 yards is easier than the standing shots at 200, by a wide margin, because you're shooting with a better position and with support. (I heard the Air Force quals with a nerf gun and a BZO target at 50 yards, but that's another story.) I'm literally a better shooter, by far, than the sniper I play. Not because I'm awesome. I'm merely a competent marksman trained by competent instructors. In fact, if I put any of you through about 2-3 weeks of marksmanship training on Edson Range, and let you practice yourselves for another two weeks thereafter, you'd also be a better shot than the characters you play. It's that way because the characters you all play in military shooters are _awful shots_ who employ bizarre weapons and suffer from bizarre limitations. You'd literally need Parkinsons to have that much "realistic sway" in the prone with a supported position as a marksman in the real world. But in the real world, you're also dealing with wind, much more pronounced elevation differences, unclear target position, and worst of all, the raw adrenaline and chaos of combat, all of which are absent in most shooters. So realism is totally and completely out the window for shooters. Modern military shooters more or less have the same level of overall realism as swords and sorcery-style MMO's. All that should matter is what makes the video game balanced and what players want. And that's really why this duality exists. Think about what snipers and non-snipers want out of gunplay. Non-snipers just want to shoot people. So they point the gun and somehow achieve absurdly accurate fully automatic fire and kill the guy. And they like that. Snipers want to feel like they're skilled shots. So game developers insert this weird artificial layer of difficulty which they need to compensate for. Then snipers feel awesome when they land a shot. And to compensate them for this extra challenge, they get one-shot-kills with a good enough shot. And they like that. That's all it is. Remember, this is a video game.
Timeraider, I wasn't trying to lecture you, only point out the factors that actually influence long range shots.
No. It does not matter whether it is "realistic" or not. It would simply not be fun. Other weapon types are not comparable to dedicated sniper. When you are in close range, 1. Context different: you are under far greater pressure. One mistake and you're as good as dead. Not just miss your target...dead. 2. Other gun mechanics already: to kill, you need sustained or burst fire. The skills here are already completely different from that required for sniping. In turn, there are far more mechanics than in sniping to make it more realistic and more fun, e.g. recoil, cof, rof, strafing, ADS, hip-fire, etc. 3. Situational awareness different: in close and mid range, your situational awareness requirement goes through the roof for both survival and completing objectives. It is most certainly not just about getting a shot off against some moving dots. Making shots even more technical or adding excessive mechanics for just one element can interfere not only with the fun of shooting but also the entire "assault" gameplay. 4. Environment different: in PS2, there can be so much going on in terms of your screen. It is also unclear how much is intentional vs how much is unironed bugs. For example, your gun in ADS can leap around like crazy just by moving over a step or pebble - heck, even just by jumping. Secondly, whenever there is an explosion which could be up to 200m away from you, the whole screen can shake violently completely disrupting aim (even when not in ADS). Given number of explosions that can occur, I find sometimes my screen shakes so much, I cannot shoot anything and have to just move and find a safe place. There are also EMP grenades, concussion grenades, flash grenades, etc. - almost none of which a long-range sniper will ever deal with. So, I do not know what your particular reason is to suggest this, but I think its an awful idea that seems to come out of nowhere (or perhaps has been just hijacked from other games - though none I have ever played).
I honestly think it balances out. We don't have to deal with CoF but have to deal with sway(when not using shift)... They don't have sway but they have CoF bloom. The one thing that I would change is that being hit by a sniper rifle, especially a bolt driver, should do more to throw off your aim.
