Boresighting RPATs at 50m

[dotsie]

Why for f*ck sake?? And the sight change on the shrek. Nerfed already, no extended range with practice. I can play Red Vs Blue anywhere on the internet. I come here for the skill required to master interesting units.

[Hinfoos]

why?

did you read the forum whine?

[dotsie]

Ive been busy. What happened.

[Hinfoos]

dont remember exactly..

but something like

the rocket is arching too much, so the rocket flies above the target you aim at.

[hastati]

with the old sight you had to aim low into ground to hit tanks:D at 50m

[dotsie]

Yeah but you could also hit tanks at 350m with skill and practice. Just boring point and click nonsense now. Arcade crap everywhere I look.

[fxmmauser]

For me their are better now, but might be too low think sight at 100m would be alot better.

At least now its easier to calculated their drop.

[DOC]

this forum is for bug reports please

[GOPHUR]

Yeah but you could also hit tanks at 350m with skill and practice. Just boring point and click nonsense now. Arcade crap everywhere I look.

Nothing has changed in the mechanic. You can still do that. Of course the effective range of the weapon is 150m but you can certainly try arty shots. You probably won't have deflection to actually pull off a damaging hit at that range but that's realism for ya.

What isn't realism is that we opened up the front sights. True. We did that for a number of reasons. The primary one is that the sight in game just doesn't really reflect the usage feel you would have in real life. Build a mock up of one of these things and look at it. That's hard to replicate in game. In game you can't really see the target at 150m.

IRL that's not as hindering to your spatial awareness as it is on the screen. This is why most other games use a reticule on screen instead of a scope view for these weapons or they give them laser beam trajectories. I think we found the lesser evil.

Now as to 50m. We did that because sighting them at 100m caused them to arc pretty high "out of the tube". I use quotes because there is no out of the tube. There is no tube. There is a fire point. So at 100m if you aimed right at a target and fired it would arc over the target. Somewhat realistic but not much. Not in comparison to how utterly stupid it looked and felt.

And we have to take look and feel into consideration. There are expectations that players have when they come to the game. We try and innovate in the genre by offering true to life ballistics and damage models. Arguably to varying degrees of success.

We also use sights instead of reticules, to varying degrees of success.

What we try not to do is build things that immediately create a sucky experience just because that's how it was. For instance, our players don't go to boot camp or follow orders or clean toilets, or get trench foot, or have to eat daily to keep from starving or have to dig trenches with a shovel or have to play safe because when you die you you're dead and you don't get to respawn.

The point is that you need to remember we're PLAYING war. And when we play, we'll always make concessions to make it fun. If it isn't fun, no one will play. And in this case the fun lost by reducing the realism of a sight picture is less than the fun gained by picking up a weapon and having it not act in a completely unexpected way.

Reminds me of our original aiming scheme that was "more realistic". Read Lum's rant on the subject if you've forgotten. LOL. Bottom line is there is nothing realistic about using a mouse to shoot a gun but we can give the illusion of realism while adding simulation and that can still make a compelling experience.

Or so we hope.

Edited October 6, 2011 by GOPHUR