Should FH2 have crosshairs? -1 reply

Please wait...

Nuggetman

My Face is on Fire?

50 XP

21st January 2005

0 Uploads

341 Posts

0 Threads

#21 14 years ago

You could always change the view point so that the middle of the screen is more obvious in BF2 than in 42, and then get rid of the crosshairs. That way people can still shoot from the hip, if they're so inclined.




schoolkid

your mother is a beaver

50 XP

3rd June 2004

0 Uploads

1,134 Posts

0 Threads

#22 14 years ago

Here is my opinion, and why I support this opinion. Crosshairs are "realistic" because they simulate the hand-eye coordination that you don't have ingame. HOWEVER: If there are true 3d ironsights(if it's possible in BFV and easily done by mods like PoE, it will be in BF2), I would fully support removing crosshairs. Why? It works like a charm in Brothers in Arms, and makes for much better gameplay. In Forgotten Hope, no matter how far it is away from Vanilla, you still see the same vanilla gameplay. When under fire, players jump up and bunny hop side to side toward their target and shoot them to death. In Brothers in Arms, when under fire, players take cover, either lay suppressing fire on the enemy or have teammates do so, and flank (or have teammates do so) the enemy to eliminate them. A la real WWII tactics. Another example of no-crosshairs-in-WWII-game is Red Orchestra. Works great. And it works great in other theatres - BFV and PoE worked great with 3d ironsights and no crosshairs. Getting rid of crosshairs would bring FH2 one step closer to real WWII combat, instead of infantry bunnyhopping all over. Because if you're being shot at, you duck. Quickly. I don't see how anyone can refute this. Some might say people would slap a dot in the middle of the screen, but that won't work because the crosshairs would be all over the place and they would have to wait for them to close anyway. Crosshairs only make gameplay unrealistic - most shooting is done through aiming. Well, most shooting that hits the target, anyway. The only time you would shoot from the hip would be in point-blank ranges or close quarters - cases in which you don't need crosshairs. It would be similar to the tank system - no crosshairs. You have to go into tanksight view in order to aim 100% accurately.

I bet you are not thinking in the real consequences of your sugestions

Let's hear them.




azndethman

..............

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

285 Posts

0 Threads

#23 14 years ago

ironsights all the way.




[tR]Mad Mac

Aerospace Engineering FTW!

50 XP

19th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,242 Posts

0 Threads

#24 14 years ago

Schoolkid's hit it right on the money. More people means more need for ironsights, IMO. I cant think of any disadvantages to keeping the crosshairs, either.

------------ Edit: If you do decide to keep the crosshairs, it might be a good idea to make them essentially meaningless (just a guide to keep the shooter orientated). Using the crosshairs would only be good for close combat/suppressive fire; nothing more. If you want to hit something, you should actually have to aim the gun (use the ironsights). The new 2.4 Americas Army system is a good demonstration of what I am getting at.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#25 14 years ago
(tR)Mad MacUsing the crosshairs would only be good for close combat/suppressive fire; nothing more. If you want to hit something, you should actually have to aim the gun (use the ironsights).

Ok, I see the points of the pro-ironsights people. Is it possible to have both, like in COD? Crosshairs (never perfectly accurate) in running around mode, and iron sights when you want that accuracy (activated by 2nd fire) The never 100% accurate crosshairs will keep the rambos down, but allow the rest of us to have some idea where we're shooting, and the ironsights keep the realism fanatics happy, and makes sure there'll be strong teamplay and supporting fire. What do you think about this?




Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#26 14 years ago

I don't like that, but weapons should be inaccuracy if not iron sight, because you could mark your monitor, or just remember the center.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#27 14 years ago
Rikupsoniweapons should be inaccuracy if not iron sight

Yeah, so long as it's not the shoot-my-own-foot inaccuracy of RO.




SilenT AssassiN

A South African Bohemian

50 XP

9th October 2003

0 Uploads

1,951 Posts

0 Threads

#28 14 years ago

Lobo if you want hand eye coordination (realistically) use a dot like 1918 but RO works great with Iron sights and has a much more realistic feel, something fh is losing. FH is losing its realistic feel and moving to a DC style gameplay.




-Sisu- Hatebreeder

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

25th July 2004

0 Uploads

32 Posts

0 Threads

#29 14 years ago

Iron sights would rock, I have been playing True Combat for ET lately, it has ironsights and scopes only, a nice touch of immersion :)




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#30 14 years ago

FH removed crosshairs for vehicles and added optics, what's the difference? If you're not aiming with the ironsight no way you could be accurate except in cqb.