Scope glare/glint or what else it is called

«1
JAVA_NL
26 postsMember, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
I sometimes get killed, lol, by snipers, like i do to them. The game has Scope glare or what ever it is called. But it shows up like a bright star if you use 6x and less bright if you use 3x scope magnification. So far so good. But why does is maintain in bad weather and when you are not in the sun? Ok that would be the DICE answer to show where snipers are besides muzzle flash reduction methods which never work. But my questions are. 

1. does the M3 Infrared give scope glare? it should not due to the lag of glass
2. why does this M3 scope give you terrible sighting and never an advantage over regular scopes. ( i thought it would benefit from smoke usage)
3. why are some snipers long away not visible although they kill you with ease, so must be 6x scope because iron sights wont give the magnification
4. do ironsights give glare or is it THE sniper tool and wont give away your position ( because then i would replace my Samsung 4K with an 8K model and new glasses en sit closer to the tv set with iron sights

Or are there cheaters with no scope glare and still kill you from far away and behind or through rocks, metal etc. because when shot and laying down and using the scope to figure out where the hell the fire came from you sometimes see finally the opposite sniper with its last and final shot due to muzzle flash and not by scope glare.

5. does the search scope, or mono scope or how it is called, give scope glare as well?

and this goes for other weapons as well, and i mean not the glare, but why they are visible or precisely the opposite etc. sometimes you have to read a lot on fora to get this information about weapons but not from DICE it self. no hard feelings though.

Comments

  • Man_ILoveFishing
    395 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    M3 infrared is great but lmfao, in smoke it looses it mind and everything gets dark and fuzzy and after scope usage everything goes from dark to normal after 1 second, really annoying. 
  • Carbonic
    1900 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions
  • ragnarok013
    3820 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    M3 infrared is great but lmfao, in smoke it looses it mind and everything gets dark and fuzzy and after scope usage everything goes from dark to normal after 1 second, really annoying. 

    That's because it's an infrared scope and not a thermal scope.
  • fragnstein
    817 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    M3 infrared is great but lmfao, in smoke it looses it mind and everything gets dark and fuzzy and after scope usage everything goes from dark to normal after 1 second, really annoying. 

    Its meant to be used at night and is supposed to see as far as the IR flashlight mounted on top will illuminate(the big thing that takes up your view)
  • Hawxxeye
    7587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 24
    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions
    Did the weapon took 4-6 body shots to down someone in WW2?
    IMHO if the damage is being adjusted for balance, then so should its visibility through the scope. It should not be worse than a regular x3 scope or it might as well be replaced with a regular x3 scope since there are no night maps in the game outside in 2 operations that nobody plays
  • Man_ILoveFishing
    395 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 24
    M3 infrared is great but lmfao, in smoke it looses it mind and everything gets dark and fuzzy and after scope usage everything goes from dark to normal after 1 second, really annoying. 

    That's because it's an infrared scope and not a thermal scope.


    ?

    EDIT: Nvm, probably is thermal also. I know how infrared works tho but ingame i.e inside aerodrome, if there is a little smoke somewhere, you get blurred instantly. I'm gonna record later a clip.
     
    EDIT2: Better example:
    https://youtu.be/w1S-Kgvsq-4
  • GrizzGolf
    1396 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions
    I didnt think that was true. You learn new stuff everyday 
  • Lancelot_du_Lac
    224 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    As I understand it, the spotting scope and iron sights do not 'glint'. Don't know about the M3 scope.
  • Carbonic
    1900 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Hawxxeye said:
    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions
    Did the weapon took 4-6 body shots to down someone in WW2?
    IMHO if the damage is being adjusted for balance, then so should its visibility through the scope. It should not be worse than a regular x3 scope or it might as well be replaced with a regular x3 scope since there are no night maps in the game outside in 2 operations that nobody plays
    It doesn't have to be either realistic or completely unrealistic, it can be somewhere in the middle like the rest of the weapons.  So what if in BFV it's a gimmicky weapon, a challenge, only really suited for 2 maps, there are so many weapons in the game that should not really matter.
  • Hawxxeye
    7587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 27
    Carbonic said:
    Hawxxeye said:
    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions
    Did the weapon took 4-6 body shots to down someone in WW2?
    IMHO if the damage is being adjusted for balance, then so should its visibility through the scope. It should not be worse than a regular x3 scope or it might as well be replaced with a regular x3 scope since there are no night maps in the game outside in 2 operations that nobody plays
    It doesn't have to be either realistic or completely unrealistic, it can be somewhere in the middle like the rest of the weapons.  So what if in BFV it's a gimmicky weapon, a challenge, only really suited for 2 maps, there are so many weapons in the game that should not really matter.

     Because it is the only SAR of the recon.
    If it was an assault weapon your argument would be much stronger due to the alternatives there.
    But for the recon this is the only weapon that combines that RoF, mag capacity, range, recoil and damage combination.

    Post edited by Hawxxeye on
  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions
    You know what is not consistent with WW2 weapons? The MG42. That thing shot so fast it could cut a man in half. In BFV I have people literally AD strafing to dodge bullets. Its a joke. The fact that anyone can go toe to toe against an MG 42 in this game is a joke. Prone players have no defensive options like AD strafing or bunny hopping, or moving in general. They are free kills. When real suppression was removed due to complaints, nothing was changed/fixed/added to help MMG players, in fact MMG's have only received steady nerfs since launch. 

  • Carbonic
    1900 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Yes yes yes, but the balance between realism and gameplay has to be maintained. I guess you could make the MG42 über realistic but then you would need to add a longer setup time and a quite low MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) rate to the weapon and then have people whine that their gun is slow to set up and failed at critical moments ruining their fun.

    In short, it can't all be realistic but when it can without ruining the fun then why not :)
  • The_BERG_366
    2766 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    You know what is not consistent with WW2 weapons? The MG42. That thing shot so fast it could cut a man in half. In BFV I have people literally AD strafing to dodge bullets. Its a joke. The fact that anyone can go toe to toe against an MG 42 in this game is a joke. Prone players have no defensive options like AD strafing or bunny hopping, or moving in general. They are free kills. When real suppression was removed due to complaints, nothing was changed/fixed/added to help MMG players, in fact MMG's have only received steady nerfs since launch. 

    So you just want the mg42 to give YOU the power to win every single direct gunfight, and that everyone else has to play around it in order to defeat it? Great sense of balance you got there.

    Also btw: nothing beats the mg42 in pure damage output. So if you hit your shots and aren't straight up slower than your opponent then you should be able to win most direct gunfights.
  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 30
    Carbonic said:
    Yes yes yes, but the balance between realism and gameplay has to be maintained. I guess you could make the MG42 über realistic but then you would need to add a longer setup time and a quite low MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) rate to the weapon and then have people whine that their gun is slow to set up and failed at critical moments ruining their fun.

    In short, it can't all be realistic but when it can without ruining the fun then why not :)



    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions


    So its ok to be realistic when it fits your needs...but not others. 


  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 30
    (Quote)
    You know what is not consistent with WW2 weapons? The MG42. That thing shot so fast it could cut a man in half. In BFV I have people literally AD strafing to dodge bullets. Its a joke. The fact that anyone can go toe to toe against an MG 42 in this game is a joke. Prone players have no defensive options like AD strafing or bunny hopping, or moving in general. They are free kills. When real suppression was removed due to complaints, nothing was changed/fixed/added to help MMG players, in fact MMG's have only received steady nerfs since launch. 

    So you just want the mg42 to give YOU the power to win every single direct gunfight, and that everyone else has to play around it in order to defeat it? Great sense of balance you got there.

    Also btw: nothing beats the mg42 in pure damage output. So if you hit your shots and aren't straight up slower than your opponent then you should be able to win most direct gunfights.
    Actually yes, when someone comes around the corner, the MG 42 should win 90% of the time. This is the balance for not being able to "run and gun", the balance for being a free kill due to ZERO defense abilities. 

    Do you comprehend the idea of a glass cannon...because ALL PRONE guns are glass, but in the case of MMGs, no cannon. 

    The proof is in the game play. When I have a sniper at 20 meters AD strafe, aim and get his head shot before I can kill him...then yes there is a problem.

    But secondly, you are also leaving out the bit of how latency affects still targets vs moving targets. I assume you leave this out because you do not understand how it works. Its simple. A moving object on the playfield IS NOT located at the position the still object sees it at. However, a moving object DOES see exactly where the still object is at all times, simply there is no need for data to "catch up". This gives the moving player an advantage over the stationary player.

    Because there is no way to solve this problem, balance decisions (that dice did not make) should have taken place to counter this. For example. One thing that can be done is to make prone weapons immune to spotting, or prone players in general. Going prone leaves the player defenseless, literally. The upside should be a stronger attack. 

    This is basic game philosophy 101. 


    Ohh also, the MG 42 has an extremely wide bullet pattern. I once shot an AP mine at my foot, at 1200 RPM expended 50 rounds and did not hit the AP mine. True story.
  • Carbonic
    1900 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Carbonic said:
    Yes yes yes, but the balance between realism and gameplay has to be maintained. I guess you could make the MG42 über realistic but then you would need to add a longer setup time and a quite low MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) rate to the weapon and then have people whine that their gun is slow to set up and failed at critical moments ruining their fun.

    In short, it can't all be realistic but when it can without ruining the fun then why not :)



    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions

    So its ok to be realistic when it fits your needs...but not others.
    The needs of the game not me, but yes.
  • MarxistDictator
    5234 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Don’t bother trying to argue in favour of machine guns around here, people will cry about the MMGs in this game even though they are useless unless prone precisely because they are being used in the only situation they can even be remotely effective. I encountered similar thick skulls on BF3 battlelog where I pointed out that unless someone was in extremely close range LMGs couldn’t hit anything with any success having more spread than PDWs and without a spread increase that was microscopic vs ARs. Apparently that is ‘wanting to run and gun with LMGs’ even though an AR would still win every gunfight if LMGs got heavy barrel (and not the nerfed version of the same attachment some of them eventually did get). MGs are supposed to be the weakest gun on the battlefield apparently because they are not professional grade like ARs or semi autos you just spam at max fire rate with no recoil or spread.
  • xKusagamix
    1171 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 31
    Don’t bother trying to argue in favour of machine guns around here, people will cry about the MMGs in this game even though they are useless unless prone precisely because they are being used in the only situation they can even be remotely effective. I encountered similar thick skulls on BF3 battlelog where I pointed out that unless someone was in extremely close range LMGs couldn’t hit anything with any success having more spread than PDWs and without a spread increase that was microscopic vs ARs. Apparently that is ‘wanting to run and gun with LMGs’ even though an AR would still win every gunfight if LMGs got heavy barrel (and not the nerfed version of the same attachment some of them eventually did get). MGs are supposed to be the weakest gun on the battlefield apparently because they are not professional grade like ARs or semi autos you just spam at max fire rate with no recoil or spread.
    There're so much crying about the MMGs and AT-Rifles but the kill feed is always dominated by Assault ARs and SARs. Nothing is considered "balance" if it's not Assault.
  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Carbonic said:
    Yes yes yes, but the balance between realism and gameplay has to be maintained. I guess you could make the MG42 über realistic but then you would need to add a longer setup time and a quite low MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) rate to the weapon and then have people whine that their gun is slow to set up and failed at critical moments ruining their fun.

    In short, it can't all be realistic but when it can without ruining the fun then why not :)



    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions

    So its ok to be realistic when it fits your needs...but not others.
    The needs of the game not me, but yes.
    So DICE uses the "we balance it this way for realism" when it suits their needs, but then "does not balance for realism" when that also suits their needs. 

    This explains in great detail why BFV is in such shambles. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. 
  • ragnarok013
    3820 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Carbonic said:
    Yes yes yes, but the balance between realism and gameplay has to be maintained. I guess you could make the MG42 über realistic but then you would need to add a longer setup time and a quite low MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) rate to the weapon and then have people whine that their gun is slow to set up and failed at critical moments ruining their fun.

    In short, it can't all be realistic but when it can without ruining the fun then why not :)

    Carbonic He'd also have to run with an assistant gunner and frequently change barrels which wouldn't be fun for the normal player either.

Sign In or Register to comment.