@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Its a WW2 shooter, of course a CQB bolt action would be more viable in that setting, the whole point i was making is sure you could do it, but its not the best option."
Would you elaborate on the reasons why it is not the best option or what you even mean by best option?
@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Picking up enemy weapons makes no sense 90% of the time as you get stuck with a rifle with a single mag IF you are lucky and they didnt use up half of it before they died."
Yes, it is not optimal to use a sniper in CQB and your options available when doing it anyway will not make you as suited at CQB as the opponent who chose a CQB spezialization. That makes classes more different and is an intentional feature to make classes serve different purposes. Which is a cool feature in a game with different classes, as you can not do all tasks with the same effectiveness.
@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Yes a sniper should stay out of CQB, yes you should switch to pistol. if you need to deal with CQB. Diversity doesnt mean leaving out pieces of kit that could save you, nor is situational awareness going to help you every time, there is plenty of cases where you wouldn't be able to hear someone much less see them."
Diversity is just a range of different things, and I spoke about class specialization in the context. Leaving out gadgets that will make you more lethal in CQB for a sniper role will make that specific class less viable in CQB, thereby reducing your effectiveness in a CQB situation with a sniper - We both agree on that. The cases where you will not hear someone is when enemies are sneaking or bombs/shots go off close by: In that situation you must pay attention to your surroundings by frequently making sure nobody sneaks up on you, don't snipe from places easy to flank without you seeing them coming, frequently check that nearby areas are clear with a pistol equipped before you see your enemy pointing at you from close range -especially when noises masks enemy movement, frequently change position to avoid your position to be compromised etc - In other words a sniper at current state needs a player being skilled in the tactical choices a sniper must understand. A sniper is at current state more vulnerable close range than long range because close range is not their specialization.
@howardhughes said in Offset iron sights:
"Balancing wouldnt be down sized, classes will always be significant, this assertion that you could have a single loadout for every situation just because of canted ironsights or flip up magnifiers is incorrect."
Would you elaborate on why that is incorrect? I disagree for above reasons.
EDIT: I reread my earlier post and used the term diversity in a context that clearly refers to class specialization. Please don't get hang up in semantics if that is what you are doing.
This is what I wrote and it is clear what I mean:
It is intentional by design to create diversity and different classes who must practice different tactics to succeed.
EDIT 2: To be perfectly clear, whether it is flip-to-side magnifier or canted iron sight I am against both implementations as they will both make class specializations less significant.
Also remember in Insurgency2014 many skilled players only used iron sights at all times, only rarely using an optic in rare cases, and in 5v5 maybe only one player one the team.
This is the meta I don't want to change as introducing a choice of having both options (scope+iron sight) at the same time with a press of a key, will lower the choices on the team. This is the same logic as with the removal of AP ammo in Sandstorm, as choosing AP ammo was never a real choice - You had to have it (if you had any clue). If this makes no sense for you as a comparison, I strongly believe you have based your opinion on a somewhat misinformed foundation or lack experience to understand the implications (effects) of introducing different game mechanics. I would gladly explain why if someone does not know why AP ammo was removed.