Jump to content
Kendo

British Faction: Optics and Ironsights

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this comes across as nit-picky or nerd-levels of attention to detail.  Its actually painfully obvious stuff for us, much like US equipment is for the yanks among us.

 

It is standard British Army doctrine to have optics on all service rifles.  It's not just a "preference" thing, or based on availability, or "role", but rather a core philosophy of the service.  It was one of the primary design principles around the L85 (and even before that, though optics technology was still maturing).  All rifles have an optic.

 

Will we see this in squad?  Obviously there are a plethora of valid points to make in terms of balance and so on, I understand this.  Problem is, an SA80 without optics is correlated very heavily with "cadets" etc in the army.   Even then most of them have access to the older SUSATs.  It may be rather immersion breaking to use the weapon system and iron sights (for at least those of us who know).  Furthermore, we all get issued a sidearm on deployment.  Same thing there.

 

They have talked about the L129A1 DMR, so the era we are looking at here really falls onto the Elcan Specter scope, or even the placeholder Acogs, not the SUSAT.  Yet the SUSAT has been mentioned in the dev logs along with usage of the L85 with iron sights.  Its all a bit higgledy piggledy you see.

 

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an important question. I would also like to ask the guys here with military experience: why would a soldier not want to use an optic, barring house to house fighting?

 

Because in PR every soldier had the option to use a scope, which isn't the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the new inventory system supposed to change everything. I want a scope on the G3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vegetal said:

That's an important question. I would also like to ask the guys here with military experience: why would a soldier not want to use an optic, barring house to house fighting?

 

Because in PR every soldier had the option to use a scope, which isn't the case here.

 

You'd use your EBS (Emergency Battle Sight) on top of your sight, either SUSAT or ACOG. (However the Infantry do have a ACOG style sight they use, combat support units tend to still use the SUSAT.) You'd never deploy into a combat environment without a sight though, OP is quite right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these questions have been asked constantly, and the answer is always the same:

SQUAD is built around the importance of different roles. The game is made so that every squad member has his own specialties, advantages and disadvantages. If everyone can have scopes, the entire game concept goes down the drain. Gameplay will always come before realism (quote used multiple times by the devs themselves)

 

We might see optics being revised throughout alpha, but I would not count on every squadmember being able to have a scope, just because you're playing the british faction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MVPiet13 said:

these questions have been asked constantly, and the answer is always the same:

SQUAD is built around the importance of different roles. The game is made so that every squad member has his own specialties, advantages and disadvantages. If everyone can have scopes, the entire game concept goes down the drain. Gameplay will always come before realism (quote used multiple times by the devs themselves)

 

We might see optics being revised throughout alpha, but I would not count on every squadmember being able to have a scope, just because you're playing the british faction

I dont see the problem with everybody having scopes (conventional forces). It worked well in PR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Frinz, its just one faction.  It may help make them different than the Americans.  Furthermore, consider the fact that factions like the Insurgents barely have any scopes at all.  Iirc, I think it is only 1 (the marksman)?  

 

Of course gameplay before realism -- I pointed this out myself in the op.  However these are not binary traits, being either fully realistic OR fully fun.  Factions are already asymmetrical, and it enhances gameplay, no doubts about it. So why not?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Frinz said:

I dont see the problem with everybody having scopes (conventional forces). It worked well in PR

Squad uses different shooting mechanics than PR does - with bullet deviation in PR it's much harder to hit several long-range shots in rapid succession, something that happens much more frequently in Squad by comparison. Giving everyone in Squad scopes would shift the balance significantly in favor of the conventional forces.

 

On the other hand, majority of scoped weapons in PR had a backup sight for use in close quarters combat, while there are no backups in Squad at the present, giving unconventional forces some advantage when fighting up close, however diminished by the fact that going into ADS mode is also quicker in Squad than it is in PR.

 

You really can't use the argument that "it worked in PR" in this particular case, nor the realism standpoint - as mentioned many times before, in Squad it's always gameplay>realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's where we get a little hypothetical.  As I understand it, the devs have already stated that they are tying to extend combat time -- reducing the "first shot accuracy" and so on.  The work they are doing to draw out firefights and make weapons not 100% accurate is already underway.  Combine this with the fact that we have already seen weapon zeroing (SO GOOD), then the "obvious benefit" to having a scope really becomes somewhat more debatable.  ADS being quicker in Squad has also been commented on (particularly in reference to the new animations and when going prone so that ADS takes longer).

 

Essentially, it is still very early days in terms of gameplay and balance mechanics and we will have a much better picture of things post v10.  That being said, theres no reason why these systems could not be designed with faction differences like this in mind.  You say that everyone having scopes would be OP?  Well it can easily be made to not be OP.  We'll have to see.

 

All that aside, lets assume they use the SUSAT.  That thing is big and right next to your face... probably takes up a large part of your FoV. Its also on an L85, which is the first Bullpup in the game -- if you are concerned about balance, just make reloads take 1.5x longer than the M4s and AKs.  Boom, there's your realism and balance right there, working hand in hand for decent gameplay all round.

 

Simply stating that "gameplay > realism" introduces a false dichotomy.  These things aren't always competing principles guys... and, where they are in tension with each other, I will obviously admit that gameplay triumphs, as I said in Op, so we really don't need to keep repeating it.

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the approach used so far is a great method.

include realistic loadouts then adjust.

 

easy adjustments for scoped vs ironsights could be any combination of:

slower ADS 

more penalty for firing while moving, simply move the sights around

more suppression effect again just jiggle sights a little

slightly slower run speed or acceleration/deceleration

Audio could be balanced as well, a local insurgent is likely to be able to move more quietly than an invader

 

Squad has far better cover and concealment than PR, it is possible to force short range engagements already.

Clever map design can give advantages to either side in varied spaces. This is already clearly present in the maps we have available.

 

I would be happy to test ironsights against a full squad with optics in varied terrain and urban areas, i think the balance will be closer than expected, particularly where objectives required moving through terrain which provided advantages to both sides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×