Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

What's up guys, 
First off just let me state that this game is great. At the time of posting I have about 180 hours in. This IMO is one of the best mil-sim type games I have played. The amount of "Realism" They have in the game makes it a good experience and an enjoyable way to pass the time.

However, with all games, I find some improvements would benefit the game. Below are some of the improvements I believe the game can benefit from. Let me know if you guys agree or what your opinion is on them.
 

- All factions weapons should have access to sights. It makes it a bit unbalanced and isn't very enjoyable to be forced to have no sights. If an individual wants to have no sight they should be allowed to choose that. However, forcing some classes or weapons to not have sights on certain factions seems quite foolish to me. If that individual is equipped enough to have a 203 launcher attached to their rifle, then they probably have a sight. 
It actually does not sound bad to have the ability to choose whatever sight for your weapon if it is typically used for that weapon. For example, A AR Kit could utilize Iron Sights, M68 Red dot, EO Tech, or an ACOG. I'm not sure if everyone agrees, but that doesn't sound bad. If not that, at least allow a sight OR iron sights if not the choice of the type of sight.
 

- a "Party" option for friends added to the game so they can be brought into servers with you, and the ability to add a friend and/or send an invite to a player in a server who is not in the party prior. This enables people to make "Friends" in game and bring them along, sidestepping the whole searching for them on steam process.
 

- Fire team leaders should be allowed to set emplacements like the squad leader. If not straight-up allowed themselves then at least be able to request permission to set emplacements from the Squad leader (Just like the vehicle mechanic) 
 

- Fire team leads should also be allowed to set Enemy /  Fire mission markers
 

- No 1-man locked squads. This should be changed to at least a 4 man requirement. This way that squad can at least run a 2 man armor(Vehicle) team. Anything below that doesn't make sense.
 

- An option to make the mini-map smaller. If not universally at least for when you are driving. Not everyone has a reliable TC (Truck Commander).
 

- Advertisement. As I've stated, this game is great IMO and one of the best if not the best mil-sim type shooter. However, the player base isn't very large. at the time of this review there is only a 5,823 peak player base. Not terrible, but not great. My concern with this is overtime the game will take the natural course of losing players and dwindle down to even smaller numbers. I'm not sure how exactly the game could or should be advertised, I just think that it should be. I think they should utilize advertising on social media platforms, and more specials on Steam. The specials could range from more free-to-play days with front page advertising of such on steam so people can see it, to more frequent discounted days. I understand it's easy for me to state that when I am not the one fronting the money to do such, but I believe this player base can grow even more and I don't want the game to lose any of the player base it has over time simply due to it not growing because people do not know of its existence


Let me know how you guys feel about some of these points!

Edited by DommTheDon
Remove "Fireteam" markers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all these points. These tweaks would make the game a lot more fun. Giving fire team leads more options is nice for those of us who use them. a driver mini map would be helpful, and adding more sights to balance teams a little would make the experience better. I have done just fine without a party option, but I think it would be nice to have if we could use it while not unbalancing teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most soldiers in most armies don't have sights, and almost no soldiers in any army choose their own sights based on preference.

 

Sight balance is swayed excessively towards optics right now because none of the downsides of optics are in game. No parallax, no eye relief, no adjusting point of aim for close targets etc. All of the optics also have reduced zoom which makes them easier to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vewt said:

Most soldiers in most armies don't have sights, and almost no soldiers in any army choose their own sights based on preference.

 

Sight balance is swayed excessively towards optics right now because none of the downsides of optics are in game. No parallax, no eye relief, no adjusting point of aim for close targets etc. All of the optics also have reduced zoom which makes them easier to use.

I'm American.  Sights for my unit were pretty standard actually. Most people had red dots while lead postions had acogs. Every unit was different,  but in mine no one cared if you swapped out what they gave you for your own in MOST circumstances. I know of a guy that swapped out pretty much everything but his lower reciever and no one ever said anything to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Thr34t said:

I'm American.  Sights for my unit were pretty standard actually. Most people had red dots while lead postions had acogs. Every unit was different,  but in mine no one cared if you swapped out what they gave you for your own in MOST circumstances. I know of a guy that swapped out pretty much everything but his lower reciever and no one ever said anything to him. 

America, New Zealand and Australia have pretty much universal sights. Canada and Britain have a lot but fewer. Once you get past there, sights start to become less and less common.

 

Tolerance for soldier modification and configuration management of small arms is cultural. Afaik most US Army units don't permit it, and the US is by far the most permissive regular Army in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 12:40 AM, Vewt said:

Most soldiers in most armies don't have sights, and almost no soldiers in any army choose their own sights based on preference.

 

Sight balance is swayed excessively towards optics right now because none of the downsides of optics are in game. No parallax, no eye relief, no adjusting point of aim for close targets etc. All of the optics also have reduced zoom which makes them easier to use.

I'm with you on the sight balance, but can someone with more experience with acogs etc confirm this. In my experience optics make it especially difficult to keep sight picture while moving, which is not the case in squad atm. You can slice corners with ads acogs effectively and that just doesn't leave any chances to militia or insurgents even in close quarters where optics should not give an advantage. I would love to see optics requiring people to lose some edge in close quarters. Also it's too fast to 180 scope up and return fire even when you get hit once. Anyone with more experience with optics confirm this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DeeBee said:

 

The reticle of telescopic sights should be improved, when you move smoothly while aiming it barely appreciates, they become transparent the movement and this makes you have to force your eyes a lot and it seems that this does not matter. OWI do something !!

Some examples

wRE8z1s.jpgjIWJyOG.jpg

if it points to the water forget, run away fast

eh3ESKN.jpg

Edited by xxptamo7xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I cannot speak for the acog. but i used the eclan specterDR 1-4x on my service rifle the hk416n. Having the scope on 4x was a pain in the ass if you where moving around and neede to be quick on target. Its in my point of view unusable in CQ situations( reason to why backup sights was put on scopes). I think that they should add in a system like in PR that punishes aim based on stamina and rate of fire( takes longer time for scope to steady) also they should fix the zoom part so when you look through a 4x zoom it shakes more

Edited by zarenx

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

×