Partial Sight in - Hip/Shoulder Weapon Modes

[EOD_Security-2252]

I searched around and I don't think anyone has suggested this exact idea before. With the recent advent of scope in times taking much longer (which I support at large), I thought it would be a good idea to have multiple weapon modes, much like with the LMGs. For scoped assault rifles alone, I propose "Hip Fired" and "Shoulder Fired" modes. The "Hip Fired" mode would be exactly like the scoped rifles are now with hip fired for regular and long scope in times on the secondary fire. For the "Shoulder Fired" mode individuals would walk around slower than hip fire, but faster than scoped in, and the soldier's view would be the rifle at shoulder level with the rifle just to the right and a bit below the soldier's eyesight. Then the secondary firing mode would be to scope in and it would still take a while, but it would be a shorter time than the hip to sighted in time.
The point of the shoulder fired mode is so that the soldier is shouldering his firearm and he's ready to engage, but he's not sure he wants that 4x or other scope in value (like in a CQB scenario where scoped in view would make you looking at the details in the wall rather than the room).
Also, I've seen Marine (not soldier) created videos of Marines entering buildings with their M16s at shoulder level, but they were looking along the side of the barrel as they entered the room (sort of the along the little area between the side of the scope and the barrel, so that you can see the about position of where the barrel's headed), not down the sights.

As far as deviation goes, I say have the shoulder fired mode be 2/3 between scoped in and hip fired deviaiton values (Basic Example - scoped value is 3, hip value is 9, so shoulder value would be 6).

So, what does everyone think?

[DeltaFart]

Oh you maen low ready? It would have to take up another spot on the weapons list like deployed undeployed LMG. I don't think anyone wants to waste a spot for this honestly. I like the idea though, Ive seen it implemented only in RnL, but I doubt we want this and remove something from the riflemen as they are now.
Anyway I beleive that's what they have now in BF2 as it is, or supposed to simulate it by the animation views

[Tirak]

Sight in times are being reworked for .85, while I like this idea for weapons with enhanced optics, I believe the on Ironsight or equivalent sight rifles the "Shouldered Position" should not be present, rather that the speed of the "Shouldered Position" should be given in Ironsight zoom mode to represent the rifles predisposition towards mobile and close quarters combat.

[Rudd]

Originally Posted by Tirak

Sight in times are being reworked for .85, while I like this idea for weapons with enhanced optics, I believe the on Ironsight or equivalent sight rifles the "Shouldered Position" should not be present, rather that the speed of the "Shouldered Position" should be given in Ironsight zoom mode to represent the rifles predisposition towards mobile and close quarters combat.

x2 agreed

[Caboosehatesbabies]

I don't understand why people complain so much about the sight in time for the scoped rifles. I have never been killed by an enemy that did not see me first because I had to take a second to sight in my rifle.

It seems players want to be able to instantly return accurate fire at long range when they are ambushed. This is BS!!! You should be running for your life to the nearest cover. When I'm a squad leader I'm always yelling at my guys to not lay down in the middle of a field or street to shoot back.

I know the DEV's are caving under complaints to shorten the sight in time in .85 and I think this is unfortunate and a step backwards. All the animation times for all weapons and the deviation for all weapons but the marksman rifles are as close to balanced as they can be!

EOD Security, it is my understanding that the whole point of having two rifleman classes is that each sacrifices one aspect to be better in another. IE. Rifleman ironsights sacrifices being able to see long range for the quick sight in time with his ironsights while rifleman optics sacrifices sight in speed (necessary for close quarters) for increased sight range and therefore accuracy at a distance.

Adding a "shouldered" or "deployed" mode for standard infantry rifles (and to a lesser extent shortening the sight in times) is just caving to the people who want to be able to kill anything at any time. If you want that, go play a different game. Me, I don't mind letting players who have kits more suited to a task get the kills because I put the team before my wants.

I mean, come on, the whole point of the .8 gameplay changes was to make Project Reality a more team oriented game! Here's a suggestion. If you are a rifleman optics and your squad is entering a situation where close quarters combat has a higher probability of happening then long range (IE Clearing a village, entering a town or city) let your squadmates with iron sights go first! They have the weapons designed for CQC, you have the one for long range.

EDIT: Basically this is summed up in my signature VVVVV

[EOD_Security-2252]

I'm not complaining about the scope-in times. I'm just saying have something realistic incorporated into the game. If I had things my way there would not be a hip fired mode. Anyone who's ever seriously fired an assault does not fire a weapon from their hip, I wouldn't even think of firing a weapon from anywhere but my shoulder. It's just plain stupid to do otherwise.
Also, don't go there with that bold crap. I always am the first one in a squad to volunteer to do something no one else wants to do, and I do try not to go first; however, when your squad consists of a scoped rifleman, a medic, a squad leader and a marksman or grenadier, you kind of have to go first because you happen to be the least important. Now, that's not the best squad, but most of the time when I play that's what happens. Like 1-3 guys will actually be paying attention and working together and then there will be the dumb guy who just wants kills. I don't make it like it is, I just try to make the best of what there is.

Also, I guess I agree about not giving it to the ironsights because they have it pretty well already.

[Scot]

I would like it, except it takes up another weapon slot.

[Smegburt_funkledink]

Originally Posted by TheScot666

I would like it, except it takes up another weapon slot.

Me too.

Originally Posted by Caboosehatesbabies

I don't understand why people complain so much about the sight in time for the scoped rifles. I have never been killed by an enemy that did not see me first because I had to take a second to sight in my rifle.

People have been complaining because it wouldn't take you any longer to put an ACOG to your eye than it would an aim-point IRL. From what I gathered, this extra time for ACOGs etc.. was to represent the time it'd take you to focus and get the target aquired.

You still need to take time to move your mouse and line up your target, this added with an animation that seems like you're pissed just seems unrealistic to some people.

I recall a Dev saying the optic sight-in times will be reduced in 0.85, re-address this issue when that happens.

@EOD_Security-2252: I get what you're saying about it being plain stupid to fire from the hip but meh, the game's limited and weapon slots are precious.

If your idea could be implemented without taking up another slot, we should have animations for walking around without pointing your gun wherever you look etc..

[Sadist_Cain]

I like the idea of having to click scope in twice more, once to bring to hip again to bring to the eye, two quick clicks goes straight to the eye, a further right click will drop the weapon down totally as it is now

[Rudd]

Originally Posted by Sadist_Cain

I like the idea of having to click scope in twice more, once to bring to hip again to bring to the eye, two quick clicks goes straight to the eye, a further right click will drop the weapon down totally as it is now

Is there no way of using the sniper type 2 zoom layers to have hip, ready, scope?

(considering that som1 smarter than me has already asked probably, I guess not)