M24- what do you think about it?

1235

Comments

  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015

    I've used the m24 extensively, you wouldn't believe the amount of hours. So when I speak of the m24 and how it does have weaknesses that clearly strips away it's "OP" status people so happily give to it, it's more than an opinion. It's closer to educated facts and what balance really is when it comes to fundamental game mechanics.

    No not really. The aiming down the sight speed gives a silly edge in close combat that shouldn't be there. Like I said, it shouldn't be has ready to fire as say, an M4. But boy you put that 8x-10x scope up all aligned so fast... The cycling is crippling nonetheless.

    That said, everyone having a pistol feels silly. A pistol was something a sniper would rely on for up to 15 meters encounters and now everyone has it and the swap is stupidly fast. The game is quite silly in places like this now.

    Also your enemies close the distance on you easy because the maps are small and urban. Given a open space outdoor map or Bridge and you see those weaknesses going away, as it much harder to close the distance on you and return fire with the same quality you can fire on them with your m24.

    And yes, Pillowpants has a lot of hours with M24, because that macros grants him the sniper slot always, so there's definitely experience there ;)
  • Yato^Yato^ Posts: 103Player

    I've used the m24 extensively, you wouldn't believe the amount of hours. So when I speak of the m24 and how it does have weaknesses that clearly strips away it's "OP" status people so happily give to it, it's more than an opinion. It's closer to educated facts and what balance really is when it comes to fundamental game mechanics.

    No not really. The aiming down the sight speed gives a silly edge in close combat that shouldn't be there. Like I said, it shouldn't be has ready to fire as say, an M4. But boy you put that 8x-10x scope up all aligned so fast... The cycling is crippling nonetheless.

    That said, everyone having a pistol feels silly. A pistol was something a sniper would rely on for up to 15 meters encounters and now everyone has it and the swap is stupidly fast. The game is quite silly in places like this now.

    Also your enemies close the distance on you easy because the maps are small and urban. Given a open space outdoor map or Bridge and you see those weaknesses going away, as it much harder to close the distance on you and return fire with the same quality you can fire on them with your m24.

    The aiming down the sight edge isnt an edge when it takes longer for both sprint pullup and aiming down the sight, not to mention the movement speed when ADS lower. I'm not saying it doesnt work in CQB because it most definetly does. But the reason for it working isnt because of how strong it is, it's because of how bad the opposition is that lets it happen. Nobody is complaining about the shotgun being good in CQB and it is, it's better than the sniper, you can't argue against the numbers.

    With that said, every solution people suggest isn't aimed towards crippling the m24 in CQB, every solution would also cripple it in every possible scenario you're presented with.

    Speaking of the pistol, it used to be something one relied on, but nowadays when you can pick up weapons left and right there's really no need for it be in the game. It has become so incredibly obsolete. Even mentioning bridge as a map that makes the sniper OP isn't solid anywhere, we can all agree on bridge being a pretty horrible map and it will be a lot worse when the smoke grenades are gone and you're left with fog.
  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015
    I mentioned Bridge to just-oppose to open outdoor maps as I mentioned. I was referring to battlefields where there's movement restriction and you can't just rush as you wish, but teamplay by having covering fire to support movement.

    Border, Mountain Ambush, Radio Tower, etc, etc. Are all maps where the enemies can't close the distance easily on you unlike say, Coldfront, Slums, Downtown, etc, where you just run through buildings and you rapidly close the distance on the sniper.

    I wasn't saying to cripple the M24 on CQB if you read my two suggestions. I was aiming at making it more reasonable. Cripple the ADS and Reduce the hip fire Cone (as opposed to say, the M14). Those are requests towards immersion as it's more natural that you have a harder time aligning a 8x scope than a red dot, but you are also very likely to shoot someone when they are 3 meters from you with a rifle even without a sight, which doesn't happen now.

    I also played extensively with the M24 and it's very easy compared to AA2 where you always had a [TOS Violation] of a sway and no breathing system to stop it. The animations were quite slow, but players also moved a little slower back then.

    As a sniper I always picked weapons back then too in AA2. Always good to give a first sniper shot, to tell them you're a guy with a weak CQB weapon, have them close the distance, and then finish them with the weapon you picked.
    The issue is that today every fight that doesn't that doesn't end with the first magazine you see people fast swapping to a pistol and that's it. In AA2 you even had to ready the pistol.
    I remember how kids were mocked back then for asking everyone to have a pistol...
    But as for the animation it's an overall symptom, they are silly fast. Press a button and poop a grenade. No liability from putting down the weapon, taking a grenade and ready it. That's what I dislike about gaming design today, taking out risks.

    Cheers
  • Yato^Yato^ Posts: 103Player
    I mentioned Bridge to just-oppose to open outdoor maps as I mentioned. I was referring to battlefields where there's movement restriction and you can't just rush as you wish, but teamplay by having covering fire to support movement.

    Border, Mountain Ambush, Radio Tower, etc, etc. Are all maps where the enemies can't close the distance easily on you unlike say, Coldfront, Slums, Downtown, etc, where you just run through buildings and you rapidly close the distance on the sniper.

    I wasn't saying to cripple the M24 on CQB if you read my two suggestions. I was aiming at making it more reasonable. Cripple the ADS and Reduce the hip fire Cone (as opposed to say, the M14). Those are requests towards immersion as it's more natural that you have a harder time aligning a 8x scope than a red dot, but you are also very likely to shoot someone when they are 3 meters from you with a rifle even without a sight, which doesn't happen now.

    I also played extensively with the M24 and it's very easy compared to AA2 where you always had a [TOS Violation] of a sway and no breathing system to stop it. The animations were quite slow, but players also moved a little slower back then.

    As a sniper I always picked weapons back then too in AA2. Always good to give a first sniper shot, to tell them you're a guy with a weak CQB weapon, have them close the distance, and then finish them with the weapon you picked.
    The issue is that today every fight that doesn't that doesn't end with the first magazine you see people fast swapping to a pistol and that's it. In AA2 you even had to ready the pistol.
    I remember how kids were mocked back then for asking everyone to have a pistol...
    But as for the animation it's an overall symptom, they are silly fast. Press a button and poop a grenade. No liability from putting down the weapon, taking a grenade and ready it. That's what I dislike about gaming design today, taking out risks.

    Cheers

    Did I just misunderstand your post or are you saying that the m24 should be easier to use in CQB and harder to use at a longer distance? Because that's what it looks like and I can't quite fathom why you'd make such an argument. As it is it excels at long distance when compared to the other weapons, as it should considering it's a sniper. I have no issues with the cone being the way it is because it does cripple the sniper in CQB, as it should. The movement when ADS has already been tuned before. At first people complained about it because it made it harder to push around corners on their favorite map Innerhospital but they then adapted to it by waiting for the other party to push. This was later forgotten when you could just pick up an m4 and clear the corners with that instead.

    I do agree that some animations are really fast but I dont agree that the switch to the pistol is too fast. It's almost within realistic time. In reality there are people who can put down their primary weapon, pull their sidearm and fire 2 shots within 0.5 seconds. Thats a requirement for some special units. Why did I mention this? Simply because it refutes your concealed attempt at pushing the game to a more realistic standard.
    Now this doesn't apply to weapon switching between 2 primaries. I have a hard time to imagine how one would carry two saws and still be efficient. With that said, you could realistically hold your m4 in 1 hand and pull a grenade with the other and chuck it.
  • [ENG]Uni-Sol[ENG]Uni-Sol Posts: 3,193Player
    The problem with tightening the unsighted cone on the M24 (which does make sense when you really think about it) is that people would be even more lethal with it when running and gunning and that's kinda the opposite of what it's intended usage is.

    I believe they (the devs) made the cone so large and random for non-ADS with them very things in mind, and from feedback saying it was crazy, basically to deter it becoming too OP in all gameplay instances. Think about it, if you could run around and have as much chance hitting non-ads as say the M4, with the 1 shot killing power of the M24, it would just become far too over the top and powerful, just look at the people here already moaning about its accuracy and power..

    it's for these very reasons, I vote a solid NO for any sort of unsighted cone tightening on M24, thanks.
    If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.






  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    edited May 2015
    The problem is not the gun. The gun works like it ought to, except that non-ADS accuracy cone would be tighter if a professional was using the gun by feel alone, without the sights.

    The problem is how the game allows us to use the gun. I've already given my opinion on movement and Roles.

    There are reasons that front line assaulters don't all use M24s. What are the reasons they choose M4s instead?

    THAT is where you'll find the answers to the M24 issues....
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 643Player
    The problem with tightening the unsighted cone on the M24 (which does make sense when you really think about it) is that people would be even more lethal with it when running and gunning and that's kinda the opposite of what it's intended usage is.

    I believe they (the devs) made the cone so large and random for non-ADS with them very things in mind, and from feedback saying it was crazy, basically to deter it becoming too OP in all gameplay instances. Think about it, if you could run around and have as much chance hitting non-ads as say the M4, with the 1 shot killing power of the M24, it would just become far too over the top and powerful, just look at the people here already moaning about its accuracy and power..

    it's for these very reasons, I vote a solid NO for any sort of unsighted cone tightening on M24, thanks.

    I do think the cone should shrink as you sight in.



    That should never be a miss, for example.
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    edited May 2015
    The problem with that, HBK, was that people were quick scoping it with macros, and the whole idea of the cone is to acknowledge you're not actually aiming. With the quick scope issue, people were getting scoped accuracy with no scope in the way.

    On a real rifle, there is a transition period where you can't see the target properly, so the accuracy cone should actually get LARGER as you bring the scope up, if you wanted it to be proper. It settles down once you get the right distance to your eye, etc.

    The transition phase from low ready to scoped is a dangerous time to pull the trigger for fear you end up eating your own scope from improperly controlled recoil!!! :open_mouth:

    Not to say it can't be done - I have hit a close, fast moving target IRL with a scoped rifle that started from low ready without really getting properly into the scope. But my level of training was higher than typical infantry (as I understand it...) and...I might have got lucky :p
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    edited May 2015
    YduDfH5.png

    That macro issue you reference was happening with that "old" system where the cone instantly disappeared the instant you started to scope up. With hbk's proposal for a decreasing cone size during the animation, that wouldn't be a concern.

    In a case like hbk's where a player is nearly done and may mistakenly think he's fully scoped, the decreasing cone would better match player expectation.


    As a personal pet peeve on the terminology -- as far as I know, quick-scoping as a gaming term originally referred to console players using scoping to take advantage of controller aim assist, which is where the term got its negative connotations. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing intrinsically bad about "quick scoping" in any game where aim assist isn't a factor. It was that abuse of controller aim assist, not the act of scoping itself or the speed of the scope animation, that was reviled.
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    Well, as a realism stickler, I don't agree the cone should get smaller as the scope comes up.

    My other argument has always been, why have an accuracy cone to simulate not aiming and then suddenly have the scope come up where the crosshair was? It's negates the whole point. Might as well make the crosshair accurate!
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    I see the issue a bit differently. For me, it's that there's an abrupt transition from inaccurate to accurate at the moment the game decides the scope is "up".

    With the inaccurate scope-up location, you're softening that to "inaccurate and imprecise", then transition to "precise but inaccurate", then "precise and accurate" after the player moves the scope. In that sense, i like that there's a smoother transition to control.

    However, that method has a few shortcomings for me. With the game's current sway system, you'd have to move the player's camera given the relative sizes of the accuracy cone and the sway bounds. I'd also say it penalizes scoping up in close quarters since your snap-to-target ability is negated; if you're randomly pointing somewhere in the cone anyway for that fast reaction shot, why bother to scope at all? Most of all, the initial scope point won't really matter much for a majority of M24 shots taken anyway, so why introduce a more complicated system that doesn't reward the player for good crosshair placement? (Aiming in the rough general area of an enemy would be nearly just as good as aiming directly at them when starting the ADS animation.)

    I'd also say a decreasing cone size is somewhat realistic compared to what we have now, but that's with the caveat that in-game hipfire is really "point shooting" and is inaccurate compared to reality. To me, it'd make sense for mid-transition shooting to more closely model real-world point shooting accuracy while the player moves into "accurate" mode.

    To reiterate, though, I think the rifle's fine in its current state and most issues are with how players address a good M24 user on the other team. Buffing ADS transition accuracy would also be a buff on CQB effectiveness (even if just a small one) so... while I like the idea HBK gave for the sake of "How would I expect the game to behave", I'm fine with current state from a balance point of view.
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    Well, technically, if it was to be considered a proper representation, there would be a further settling in phase AFTER the scope was up! And as I said, there's a point in the scope coming up where your eyes and muscles are fighting for precedence and I can't imagine the accuracy cone disappearing without a bump in there where you would be LESS accurate if you pulled the trigger...during the time your scope is blocking your view before you get alignment. Even a two-eyes-open shooter would have a tough time while all of those fine motions were happening.

    Either your head is moving down to the gun, or the gun and your arms are coming up to your eye...

    Another issue is that we have zero trigger time...we click the mouse and it fires. On a sniper rifle you are finalizing your aim as the trigger is slowly moving backwards. That is missing from this equation. On an actual M24 the sudden actions we are suggesting with transitions to scoped while clicking the mouse would result in a pulled shot...just like in golf. heh.

    This somewhat reminds me of the time I was bringing a pistol out of the holster too quickly and not getting a perfect grip with two hands before pulling the trigger. Sure, it's faster, but is it as accurate? Uh.....no. :s

    As to how that relates to the game....meh...I think we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to the M24.

    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • .shhfiftyfive-.shhfiftyfive- Posts: 495Player
    edited May 2015
    keebler, you of all people should know "hipfire" term in this game is ridiculous on its own. you should never have to aim down a scope when an enemy is 10 feet away from you. you should be able to shoot 20 meter targets "from the hip" with very little practice, without aiming down sights, have you always scoped in when running shooting drills irl? cqb + ads zoom optics shouldn't be necessary.
    -
    33:50 of this video listen to this guy perform "hipfire" drills - also he shows at 12:18 the slightest difference between "hip" and ads... in 3rd and 1st person view...


  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015

    Did I just misunderstand your post or are you saying that the m24 should be easier to use in CQB and harder to use at a longer distance? Because that's what it looks like and I can't quite fathom why you'd make such an argument. As it is it excels at long distance when compared to the other weapons, as it should considering it's a sniper. I have no issues with the cone being the way it is because it does cripple the sniper in CQB, as it should. The movement when ADS has already been tuned before. At first people complained about it because it made it harder to push around corners on their favorite map Innerhospital but they then adapted to it by waiting for the other party to push. This was later forgotten when you could just pick up an m4 and clear the corners with that instead.

    I do agree that some animations are really fast but I dont agree that the switch to the pistol is too fast. It's almost within realistic time. In reality there are people who can put down their primary weapon, pull their sidearm and fire 2 shots within 0.5 seconds. Thats a requirement for some special units. Why did I mention this? Simply because it refutes your concealed attempt at pushing the game to a more realistic standard.
    Now this doesn't apply to weapon switching between 2 primaries. I have a hard time to imagine how one would carry two saws and still be efficient. With that said, you could realistically hold your m4 in 1 hand and pull a grenade with the other and chuck it.

    I don't know where you're reading such assumptions.

    Sniper
    I'm not saying to make it harder in long range. I'm saying it was harder back then, but you also had bigger maps. Today you don't, the game is an environment, not just weapons and map diversity sucks a little right now, and given we are talking of a sniper rifle, the long range diversity really sucks then.

    Pistol
    I don't agree with the animation. Lowering your M4, unstrap your M9, readying it should be slower than a reload:
    We're playing as soldiers that have a primary weapon. Pistol is a last resort. And in my opinion it should be reserved for people without an M16/M4/M249. Maybe the battlefields of today are mostly home invasions, but I don't see why this has to become SWAT.
    Weapon picking is also missing some frames of animation readying it. You pick a weapon and you DON'T ready it?...

    Realism
    It's not concealed. I've always be openly in favor of realism and immersion through mechanics. It's funny how AA was a reference and 10 years later with realistic commercial shooters already released, the game goes smaller and arcaidish. I don't understand the whole allergy towards reasonable realistic mechanics. Didn't AA2 did good? It's usually much more problematic when you start of from a non-realistic base, then you want to fudge things that don't need to be fudged. "Tweak the grenade, tweak the cone, tweak the run speed", etc etc, when many would be solved with a realistic map, instead of distorting the rest to follow a bad premise.
    AA was always nice as an environment where you would learn real world lessons through gaming. You would get familiarized with weapon systems, drills, routines of handling a weapon, ways to teamplay and accomplish an objective, etc. And that ambiance is missing a lot in this game, reflected on the weapons, no training and maps.

    Cheers

    PS: You see that scenario in the vid? We have nothing like it. Zero
  • Yato^Yato^ Posts: 103Player
    edited May 2015

    Did I just misunderstand your post or are you saying that the m24 should be easier to use in CQB and harder to use at a longer distance? Because that's what it looks like and I can't quite fathom why you'd make such an argument. As it is it excels at long distance when compared to the other weapons, as it should considering it's a sniper. I have no issues with the cone being the way it is because it does cripple the sniper in CQB, as it should. The movement when ADS has already been tuned before. At first people complained about it because it made it harder to push around corners on their favorite map Innerhospital but they then adapted to it by waiting for the other party to push. This was later forgotten when you could just pick up an m4 and clear the corners with that instead.

    I do agree that some animations are really fast but I dont agree that the switch to the pistol is too fast. It's almost within realistic time. In reality there are people who can put down their primary weapon, pull their sidearm and fire 2 shots within 0.5 seconds. Thats a requirement for some special units. Why did I mention this? Simply because it refutes your concealed attempt at pushing the game to a more realistic standard.
    Now this doesn't apply to weapon switching between 2 primaries. I have a hard time to imagine how one would carry two saws and still be efficient. With that said, you could realistically hold your m4 in 1 hand and pull a grenade with the other and chuck it.

    I don't know where you're reading such assumptions.

    Sniper
    I'm not saying to make it harder in long range. I'm saying it was harder back then, but you also had bigger maps. Today you don't, the game is an environment, not just weapons and map diversity sucks a little right now, and given we are talking of a sniper rifle, the long range diversity really sucks then.

    Realism
    It's not concealed. I've always be openly in favor of realism and immersion through mechanics. It's funny how AA was a reference and 10 years later with realistic commercial shooters already released, the game goes smaller and arcaidish. I don't understand the whole allergy towards reasonable realistic mechanics. Didn't AA did good? It's usually much more problematic when you start of from a non-realistic base, then you want to fudge things that don't need to be fudged. "Tweak the grenade, tweak the cone, tweak the run speed", etc etc, when many would be solved with a realistic map, instead of distorting the rest to follow a bad premise.
    AA was always nice as an environment where you would learn real world lessons through gaming. You would get familiarized with weapon systems, drills, routines of handling a weapon, ways to teamplay and accomplish an objective, etc. And that ambiance is missing a lot in this game, reflected on the weapons, no training and maps.

    Cheers

    PS: You see that scenario in the vid? We have nothing like it. Zero

    Uhm, I agree? The issue isn't the game but the playing field. A few maps have excellent positions for the sniper though, in my eyes there aren't any bad maps to bring the sniper to. It all comes down to how you approach the map with the sniper. The same goes for every weapon really. I've seen people work wonders with the shotgun on coldfront even.

    Edit: You should also keep in mind that realism has no place in videogames past a certain point. Just because something exists or functions differently in the real world is no excuse to implement it into a not-a-real world.

    For example, what if we implented this?

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22202/20141216/exacto-is-darpa-s-self-guided-bullet-that-changes-direction-mid-flight-to-seek-target-beware-bad-guys.htm

    Wouldn't that be super duper fun for everybody? It exists in the real world so why not in AA?
  • [ENG]Uni-Sol[ENG]Uni-Sol Posts: 3,193Player
    edited May 2015
    The problem with tightening the unsighted cone on the M24 (which does make sense when you really think about it) is that people would be even more lethal with it when running and gunning and that's kinda the opposite of what it's intended usage is.

    I believe they (the devs) made the cone so large and random for non-ADS with them very things in mind, and from feedback saying it was crazy, basically to deter it becoming too OP in all gameplay instances. Think about it, if you could run around and have as much chance hitting non-ads as say the M4, with the 1 shot killing power of the M24, it would just become far too over the top and powerful, just look at the people here already moaning about its accuracy and power..

    it's for these very reasons, I vote a solid NO for any sort of unsighted cone tightening on M24, thanks.

    I do think the cone should shrink as you sight in.



    That should never be a miss, for example.

    Question is, Why would you be taking that extra time to scope up indoors CQB with a high powered scope in the first place?

    Yes it looks rediculous to have missed, but the video shows you being punished for playing the sniper role in the game all wrong, regardless of how it feels 'broken' to have missed.. your just suffering the effects of playing the role wrongly, you could just as easily have hit with the random cone.. next time might I suggest you try your pistol in such circumstance, if not.. accept the risk :tongue:
    If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.






  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015
    Uhm, I agree? The issue isn't the game but the playing field. A few maps have excellent positions for the sniper though, in my eyes there aren't any bad maps to bring the sniper to. It all comes down to how you approach the map with the sniper. The same goes for every weapon really. I've seen people work wonders with the shotgun on coldfront even.

    Edit: You should also keep in mind that realism has no place in videogames past a certain point. Just because something exists or functions differently in the real world is no excuse to implement it into a not-a-real world.

    For example, what if we implented this?

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22202/20141216/exacto-is-darpa-s-self-guided-bullet-that-changes-direction-mid-flight-to-seek-target-beware-bad-guys.htm

    Wouldn't that be super duper fun for everybody? It exists in the real world so why not in AA?

    The issue is the design, which influences many decision and not just one. It's that thing you feel when you use an application after a while and even just from the user side you grasp a little what the people that code it were considering while making it. Right how that is hard to figure since there's a lot of placeholder'ing, but I don't like the 1st light/sketch. I know it was some versions ago, but first round I played it was on Downtown and I swear it felt I was playing Combat Arms (which is not a good comparison).


    Realism has no place in videogames? That's like your opinion, man... Which is refuted by many titles and even past AA versions at some degree for their scope and limitations.
    The cartoonish silly argument of an upcoming bullet technology is by no means a standard of realism, please... I'm really tired of people putting forward silly off-topic examples to make their point, by trying to couple what I say with random crap.

    The game to me, right now, It's like you're watching a nice movie and something takes you out of it for being stupid. Things that weren't present before. Like people incapacitated asking teammates to grenade their body because it won't kill them, COD/BF like animations speed completely ignore handling, training mission maps instead of deployments, healing someone that took a bullet to the face, shooting someone afar and having the game telling you who you killed. You know, unreasonable things that were done better before and brake the game experience and legacy.

    And of course there's a threshold for realism, but what sets the pace and where the game ends up doing compromises, again is the design. Which right now it favors "Easy", which rhymes with boring.

    You're justifying what we have by saying that playing with the M24 is very doable... That's not the point here. I know it's doable. I play with the M24 and the shotgun. In AA2 my most played map was Urban, so I know how to bring a sniper alive in such maps maps. What I'm saying is that there aren't maps where it excels at, and I see no reason not to implement some of them. My second most played map in AA2 was Border. Either M24 and M16 were put to good use. It was really fun in AA2 in large maps to try to shoot a guy really far a way with the M16, playing with cover, creeping up on the enemy team up and down hill, etc. Challenge!

    After we have the full spectrum we can address better what in the weapon needs to be changed, and not just model it after a, for now, crippled experience. My suggestions where for reason-ability coupled with balance.

    Cheers

  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    "you should be able to shoot 20 meter targets "from the hip" with very little practice, without aiming down sights"

    Really? How big is the target?!!!

    I've already talked about "point shooting" and it appears we're trying to rebuild the old forum. Yes, shooting without the aid of sights is possible, and quite often NECESSARY when getting a shot away quickly in order to save your life, but we don't have sights merely for the sake of convenience. The MOST ACCURATE shots will be done using the sights and proper shooting techniques.

    I wasn't debating "hip fire" but rather shooting accurately during the "transition phase" from low ready to scoped. You either do one or the other...you don't let a shot go halfway between or you're really using the "Hope and Pray" method. Coincidentally, hitting your target is pure luck during the transition, IMO.
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • IO_i_OIIO_i_OI Posts: 1,107Player
    edited May 2015

    m14 EBR can also have the mk4 scope, it needs 2 hits to kill. isn't that close enough or are you arguing for implenting a weapon that triumphs both the sniper and the m4 because of its optics? Wouldnt that be the very definition of overpowered when something is inherently better in every possible way?

    Then you go on and speak of playing as a team, as I recall, both teams can have a 1 sniper and 2 designatedmarksmen. Thats 3 players or 1/5 of either team with these magical scopes that are so gamebreaking.

    And just to nitpick, acog is NOT the same as mk4. Far from it.


    Edit: To clarify where I'm going with this, to raise the skill ceiling you should give more options in how to apply the weapon efficiently instead of minimizing every weapons utility to fit a very niche role. Raising the skill ceiling also decreases the need for teamwork, yes. But that only applies if the other team is already better than the other on an individual basis. In the end, teamwork is still essential when up against a team of close to equal or caliber.

    Like I said, again!!!! This post what about the M24, not the EBR. I've made no comments on the EBR. You can like the M24 but I don't have too.
    googley avatar aapg


  • frankoffrankof Posts: 1,047Moderator
    edited May 2015
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    "you should be able to shoot 20 meter targets "from the hip" with very little practice, without aiming down sights"

    Really? How big is the target?!!!
    Man size, center target.
    Highly possible after a couple of hours on the range.
    Shoot it pretty much like a shotgun on the clay pigeon range ;)
    (the normal word was a TOS violation :D )
    ss_4_frankof.png
Sign In or Register to comment.