Peeking/Leaning

[MrMeow]

Yeah, I've heard somewhere that for every 250 bullets shot in Afganistan, only 1 hit, the others were supressive fire.

Really? I thought it was something on the order of 1 in 2000.

Yeah, it was something like that. I can'r remember if it was 1 every 250 or 1 every 2500 shots that are a hit.

This thread is getting derailed...
Anyway I think accuracy and recoil should be equivalent to moving and firing with the SMG for all weapons.

[killerpenguin]

Anyway I think accuracy and recoil should be equivalent to moving and firing with the SMG for all weapons.

I think that sounds good actually. The only problem is that SMG doesn't actually have all that much recoil per shot. Leaning should have moving smg accuracy but moving rifle recoil.

[170]

I like this idea, but I don't think the player ought to have the ability to fire while leaning. It should be a safe way to view the battlefield; it should not become the main form of shooting. Supressive fire, while not aimed to kill, is still delivered with the rifle stock to the shoulder, not at the hip. I think that a "peeking" mechanism would be great, but when a player is shooting, they should have to bear the brunt of their enemies fire. Another reason why the "peek-fire" should not be implemented is that it would discourage cover-building. With the ability to transform any bump in a hillside into a fortification almost impossible to hit someone hiding behind, there is little point in building defensive and offensive cover positions.

[ChaosTLW]

I like this idea, but I don't think the player ought to have the ability to fire while leaning. It should be a safe way to view the battlefield; it should not become the main form of shooting. Supressive fire, while not aimed to kill, is still delivered with the rifle stock to the shoulder, not at the hip. I think that a "peeking" mechanism would be great, but when a player is shooting, they should have to bear the brunt of their enemies fire. Another reason why the "peek-fire" should not be implemented is that it would discourage cover-building. With the ability to transform any bump in a hillside into a fortification almost impossible to hit someone hiding behind, there is little point in building defensive and offensive cover positions.

Well, you would be innacurate as duck, so you would still have to create even if some rustic cover. Also, you are not impossible to hit. Hell, 3 bullets from a SMG and the block is down, and so will you, with the SMG's rate of fire. To hit anything beyond 15 blocks you would need to have Lady Luck as your girlfriend.

[lehma18]

Yeah, I've heard somewhere that for every 250 bullets shot in Afganistan, only 1 hit, the others were supressive fire.

Really? I thought it was something on the order of 1 in 2000.

Yeah, it was something like that. I can'r remember if it was 1 every 250 or 1 every 2500 shots that are a hit.

Derailing this thread a bit more; It'd be no suprise if it was even more than that. Read somewhere they're rolling with air support 90% of the time.

Now back to the topic: This is already suggested, and it'd require a cover system for it to work properly. It COULD work without a cover system, but it'd feel jerky. Imagine yourself positioning yourself so you can peek, but the wall constantly gets in your line of sight, or you overshot it and expose your whole head.

[MrMeow]

Yeah, I think we'd have to have a wall-hugging system for this.

[skully172]

just like this rigth http://www.ace-spades.com/forums/viewto ... 34&t=10700 , if yes, YES!

[nxs44]

+1 i like this