some feedback on xt

[shaftz0r]

and if you miss your first shot, youre dead vs a mediocre SMG user

O_o… no. unless of course you’re really bad and standing in the open not moving, than yes. obviously you’ll likely lose at close range.

[k1ruaa]

O_o… no. unless of course you’re really bad and standing in the open not moving, than yes. obviously you’ll likely lose at close range.

I agree, snipes are really good at mid/long range if you’re behind some kind of cover.

[titan]

Except that fun is subjective, and in the absence of a universal definition of what is and what isn’t fun games can only “make sense” within the environment and structure they’re designed around. What’s more, SD have explicitly stated this (as regards movement certainly but I expect they mean everything else as well). What’s more, more, this game is F2P, and selling scopes is almost certainly part and parcel of its monetisation strategy, and you can’t sell scopes for guns that don’t scope.

Lets take CS:
it has no ironsights
alot of people find it fun
according to you fun is subjective
therefor the only way to find real ‘true’ fun is for a game to ““make sense” within the environment and structure they’re designed around”
cs is a realistic tactical shooter so to ‘make sense’ it should probably have ironsights right?

herpty derp

[shaftz0r]

[QUOTE=titan;493648]
cs is a realistic tactical shooter so to ‘make sense’ it should probably have ironsights right?

herpty derp[/QUOTE]

no because the entire skill curve in that game is controlling recoil, which would be rendered completely pointless with IS. herpderp

[titan]

yeee buttttt its like not realistic atall i think a team of trained counter terrorist swat professionals would be looking down the sights not hipfiring. I mean its fun but fun is totaly subjective and all we can really look for is realism to find enjoyment

you could not have missed my point more than you did

[FireWorks]

no because the entire skill curve in that game is controlling recoil, which would be rendered completely pointless with IS. herpderp

You just ripped a quote out of context and destroyed its original meaning with the sarcastic twist…

[shaftz0r]

[QUOTE=titan;493652]
you could not have missed my point more than you did[/QUOTE]

its the other way around, you missed the point where we’re basically laughing at your attempt at slipper slope arguments to justify your own feelings

[titan]

hah please point me to where this happened cause your right it went way over my head, all i see is people chatting absolute **** about games having to be realistic to be fun

[Kendle]

CS is an old game, made before game engines were capable of smooth 1st and 3rd person IS animations. If it had never existed and someone invented it today, then yes it’d have IS, because it “fits”, but it wasn’t, and Valve sensibly recognises that CS gameplay is set in stone and have only ever tweaked it around the edges.

I know some would like SD to do that with XT, seing it as the spiritual successor to ET (forgetting that SD themselves felt ET:QW was actually ET2), but XT isn’t ET2 and the sooner some people accept that the happier they, and the rest of us, will be.

edit: titan, don’t include me in the list of people who think games have to be realistic to be fun, my point(s) are that

a. fun is subjective, which put simply means what you find fun someone else doesn’t, and what someone else finds fun you might not.

b. realism isn’t the driving force here, intuitive is a better word, which simply means the mechanics of a game can either make sense (as in it’s sensible to assume putting a gun to your shoulder will enable you to aim better) or it can not make sense, in which case setting the game in a real world location and using guns that really exist, and featuring a large dose of “realism” in the game’s fundamental design was not the right framework for the game.

[FireWorks]

its the other way around, you missed the point where we’re basically laughing at your attempt at slipper slope arguments to justify your own feelings

Please read the post above your last.

Youre derailing the thread btw.

[INF3RN0]

CS has iron sights on two rifles. They are meant for long range. That’s all they are really good for in xT so I don’t see it as a problem.

[warbie]

[QUOTE=Kendle;493665]CS is an old game, made before game engines were capable of smooth 1st and 3rd person IS animations. If it had never existed and someone invented it today, then yes it’d have IS, because it “fits”, but it wasn’t, and Valve sensibly recognises that CS gameplay is set in stone and have only ever tweaked it around the edges.

I know some would like SD to do that with XT, seing it as the spiritual successor to ET (forgetting that SD themselves felt ET:QW was actually ET2), but XT isn’t ET2 and the sooner some people accept that the happier they, and the rest of us, will be.[/QUOTE]

Well seeing as we’re all arguing the toss … so it’s ok with Quake, because it’a all aliens and railguns, but if I want a bit of ballistic shooting with a nod at realism, things suddenly change? If we change TF2 from being all cell shaded to semi realistic, IS should be added? Surely the important thing is deciding on the desired gameplay and finding the best mechanics that suit? And this is the point. There’s no denying the iron sights slow down fps. Other than when they’re tacked on, seemingly purely for the sake of it and used only in the most situational long distance encounters (making them pretty pointless), I can’t think of a single fps which isn’t slower and more spammy due to the inclusion of ironsights. CoD, BF, even Titanfall, which is pretty quick, descend into treacle speeds as soon as people start shooting at each other. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is why iron sights are so prevalent is today’s shooters - they dumb them down. Lower the skill ceiling, mass appeal, target everyone rather than a few. They’re also especially suited to console fps as joypads simply aren’t capable of fast, precise aiming. Luckily, with ironsights, they don’t need to be. And as most PC fps are also multiplatform, we get lumbered with iron sights too. But Extraction is a fast, arcady, PC only shooter and only reason to include iron sights that I can think of is to fleece people out of a few quid by selling them different types of iron sight.

[INF3RN0]

Question… who is ironsighting out of long range situations? Next question… who is benefiting from ironsighting out of long range situations? So are you saying you’d rather have people hipfiring at long ranges at full speed instead of how it works now? I really don’t understand the argument because it sounds like scapegoat bickering. Ironsighting is not ruining this game nor is it slowing it down. If anything I’d just prefer better sight options.

[k1ruaa]

Question… who is ironsighting out of long range situations? Next question… who is benefiting from ironsighting out of long range situations? So are you saying you’d rather have people hipfiring at long ranges at full speed instead of how it works now? I really don’t understand the argument because it sounds like scapegoat bickering. Ironsighting is not ruining this game nor is it slowing it down. If anything I’d just prefer better sight options.

To reply your question, I rarely use iron sight. almost never. The problem does not come from the fact that Iron sight are better are close/mid range (which is not the case) the problem is that to make them usefull at mid/long range they added a lot of spread which makes hip firing really unpleasant at EVERY range.

[INF3RN0]

To reply your question, I rarely use iron sight. almost never. The problem does not come from the fact that Iron sight are better are close/mid range (which is not the case) the problem is that to make them usefull at mid/long range they added a lot of spread which makes hip firing really unpleasant at EVERY range.

I only find hip-fire unpleasant at long range so… maybe mid-range could be a little better, but I had no problem getting mid-range multi-kills with hipfired headshots in the draft today. I believe that they are implementing a better shot distribution system to the weapons soon though, which might make it better.

Also the problem isn’t that spread is too high, it is that it gets too high after you shoot for a long time. It starts out super accurate and then gets less so over time. That can make sense on some weapons, but maybe the min spread can be increased and the max spread decreased instead. Still separate issue from iron-sights and the purpose they serve.

[k1ruaa]

I only find hip-fire unpleasant at long range so… maybe mid-range could be a little better, but I had no problem getting mid-range multi-kills with hipfired headshots in the draft today. I believe that they are implementing a better shot distribution system to the weapons soon though, which might make it better.

Well I am really hoping it’ll be the case, otherwise I’ll not play this game when it comes out.

[shaftz0r]

Question… who is ironsighting out of long range situations? Next question… who is benefiting from ironsighting out of long range situations? So are you saying you’d rather have people hipfiring at long ranges at full speed instead of how it works now? I really don’t understand the argument because it sounds like scapegoat bickering. Ironsighting is not ruining this game nor is it slowing it down. If anything I’d just prefer better sight options.

basically this. leave it to INF to come in and type what is in my head before the troll in my fingers takes over.

[Mustang]

I don’t use ironsights because:

A) On the mobility-to-accuracy-curve I prefer the position of hipfire rather than ironsight for close and medium range encounters, this is personal preference as others drop to ironsights at lot sooner, but sacrifice mobility.

B) I can’t see a damn thing with the weapon model blocking my entire view, and for the time it takes to transition from hipfire to ironsight they’ve already moved from my crosshair and are impossible to find again, and now I’m already dead anyway.

I think A is fine and for each person to choose their range or not, but B is where the problem lies. I’m hoping that when we get weapon sights this will become a non-issue. But until then I’ll continue to pretend that ironsights don’t exist, and I’m actually extremely thankful that the game is very playable this way.

[titan]

So looks like we can all agree that at the very least we need some new less blocky ironsights?
sweet!

[ailmanki]

Ironsight vs Hipfire…
What I don’t like is that Ironsight is superior to hipfire in practically all situations. It also promotes camping.
Even on very low distance - if you can aim properly, you just give only headshots while using IS.
There should be some penalty for moving the aim around quickly. While hipfire should not have that.
Point being is, Ironsight should be superior on distance, while hipfire being superior in close combat. Which in my opinion it is not.

Take Rhino, if you meet him - you can decide to use IS or not. In almost all cases IS will be superior because you can be sure to hit him more in the face.

Some players might say nono, IS is only good at distance - well that is how it should be; but its not, if it is for you - then your aim is just not good enough.