A crosshair is more realistic assuming we have a HUD, plus the fact that's there's nothing realistic about a "long range" laser sight. If it were like Red Orchestra, that would be plain irritating. If it pulled a Resident Evil and did the stupid laser sight thing I'd get tired of looking at it. Crosshairs are just the way to go.
Well, considering Nicolas's response. I think the circles are not so bad, as mentioned melee need to be just as effective as range, if you give the range the upper hand, melee will deplete in the world, of course though the accuracy will depend on weaponry type, snipers, super accurate... where as bolter/smg's in-accurate. Giving a circular reticule with a spread allows the melee time to close in, though im sure there could be other options, if you notice in the video, the range weapons used were an SMG type weapon. So the reticule fits the style of spread being circular, then in melee it's a dot... I really don't see the issue if I'm being politely honest.
But I don't think they can genetically engineer anyone to be able to shoot a astartees bolter gun without any recoil...
Actually, I would argue for the highest power round with an acceptable level of recoil in any firearm. A bigger warrior should have a bigger gun. Definitely do your best to reduce the recoil but not at the cost of power of the round. Training can help control recoil as well but don't expect to eliminate it completely.
I haven't seen the video myself but if it is the "Expanding crosshairs" it might not be TOO bad. Plus it would make more sense for the Orks accuracy to be terrible. Maybe different weapons crosshairs would expand in a much more controllable way. Like a boltgun only expanding a little to a small max on auto compared to a heavy bolter just kind of firing all over the place. Idk, I could live with it personally.
If anything cross-hairs can be dangerous for those who get tunnel vision. It's difficult to be accurate when you're dead.
I'd prefer a system similar to Rainbow 6 type games. Where you spend most of your time moving, climbing, ect in 3rd person, but where you can move to first person mode and actually look down the barrel of your gun and use your optics or iron sights. You have increased situational awareness while moving around in 3rd person, and a realistic loss of situational awareness when looking down your sights. In addition, individual skill level plays much more of a role when moving to a first person view when firing a weapon, and you can deliver much more accurate shot groups in the first person view. The trade off, again, is that you lose some situational awareness of your surroundings when firing, which would help balance the whole "melee versus ranged" equation. If you're not losing any situational awareness when firing your weapon, ie you stay in 3rd person mode, there's more room for ranged classes to become easily overpowered. The question I have to ask is, will there be snipers in game? If so, will they be sniping from a 3rd person view? Imagine how silly and overpowered that would be. If snipers are going to be in game, and IF they're going to have to use a first person view, why only limit it to snipers? Hip fire should be limited to the 3rd person view, and should be appropriately inaccurate past about 5 feet. If you want accurate fire past 5 feet you should have to look down your sights in a first person view. Keep in mind guys and gals, this is going to be a game with a mix of melee and ranged classes. If there isnt any loss at all of situational awareness for ranged classes, ie they can effectively pray and spray in the 3rd person view, those of us that enjoy melee will be at a distinct disadvantage.
Yeah but the thing is that the expanding circle variety of recoil is a very unshootery way to handle recoil. It's randomness and I despise randomness in games. If they want to have recoil work more realistically and have recoil move the gun up and a bit to the side I approve. That can be compensated for with skill. The expanding circle nonsense can't. It's pure RNG.
