Pointlessly accurate?

[Speshul]

Everybody knows that in this version of the game, the rifle doesn't have 100% accuracy to its shots.
Everybody who's ever been to the mods section of the forum has seen the variations over "how to make a pinpoint-accurate scope in the middle of 400x300 picture".

This doesn't make sense. At all. With the way that the rifle's bullets spread now, what's the point in having an custom sight that's "specifically made to have the dot at nearly-centre of 400x300", when at least half the time your bullet won't even be hitting that specific point?

Why bother trying to predict the exact centre of the sight if your bullet won't hit there a significant % of the time?

[TheSifodias]

True, but if you are going to estimate where the rifle shot is going to go, at least you want a pinpoint base. But seriously guys, instead of Red Dots, use crosshairs that give you a little flexibility.

[USABxGUNSLINGER]

Well, I'd rather have some kind of "middle dot" thing to help me aim, It's better than having something else. Also, your question is like asking "If real-life sniper rifles never hit exactly where the dot in the middle of the scope is, why have it?".

[Speshul]

Well, I'd rather have some kind of "middle dot" thing to help me aim, It's better than having something else. Also, your question is like asking "If real-life sniper rifles never hit exactly where the dot in the middle of the scope is, why have it?".

Except for the fact that real-life snipers have training and experience to get an estimate (no matter how rough) of where the shot will land. In AoS, it's always completely random where in the little circle the game will make your bullet fly.

Honestly, I do better with a slightly modified version of TheOperator's sight(s), where he included a VERY handy "bullet deviation" circle. Instead of focussing on a little point that I don't trust, I'd rather know the range of just where the shots might land.

[MrHaaaaaaxFF]

The spead acctually make the "almost-pinpoint" dots goes too 399,300.

[TheSifodias]

My solution: Just make a box or circle around the are that is affected by the spread. As long as you aim in that box, you're good.

[GamingFTW]

Well, I'd rather have some kind of "middle dot" thing to help me aim, It's better than having something else. Also, your question is like asking "If real-life sniper rifles never hit exactly where the dot in the middle of the scope is, why have it?".

Except for the fact that real-life snipers have training and experience to get an estimate (no matter how rough) of where the shot will land. In AoS, it's always completely random where in the little circle the game will make your bullet fly.

Honestly, I do better with a slightly modified version of TheOperator's sight(s), where he included a VERY handy "bullet deviation" circle. Instead of focussing on a little point that I don't trust, I'd rather know the range of just where the shots might land.

That is right, I make my shots as a estimate now, sometimes I get the shot but useally no, I am a Amazing sniper (not to brag) and im also good with run and gun, but because of the new accuracy sniping from a distance is harder now.

[Yakkers]

This doesn't make sense. At all. With the way that the rifle's bullets spread now, what's the point in having an custom sight that's "specifically made to have the dot at nearly-centre of 400x300", when at least half the time your bullet won't even be hitting that specific point?

Why bother trying to predict the exact centre of the sight if your bullet won't hit there a significant % of the time?

Because having a perfect center point increases the chances that the shot will go where we want it to. Even if there's a spread, I'd rather have the spread be accurately centered on my sight rather than skewed a pixel or two to one direction.

[Frostified]

Red dots are fine, as long as you have a dot at 399,300 and another at 400,300.
Some red dots are created towards are players play style. E.g Mikuli's sight.

[Speshul]

Because having a perfect center point increases the chances that the shot will go where we want it to. Even if there's a spread, I'd rather have the spread be accurately centered on my sight rather than skewed a pixel or two to one direction.

No, no it doesn't. You can't predict or control a random spread (which I'm assuming it is).

[Tai]

Let's just wait for the next version, if Ben has any sense at all he'll either revert the rifle back to it's previous state or get rid of it entirely (because it's absolutely useless as it stands now)

[Varun]

nvm.
What I meant was not what I typed.

[USABxBOOYO]

The bullet is completely random, changing .png files does absolutely nothing to that, Varun.

[Varun]

Hang on, whoops, what I meant came out wrong.
Yeah, I meant something else. nvm.

[Yakkers]

Because having a perfect center point increases the chances that the shot will go where we want it to. Even if there's a spread, I'd rather have the spread be accurately centered on my sight rather than skewed a pixel or two to one direction.

No, no it doesn't. You can't predict or control a random spread (which I'm assuming it is).

Yes, you can. You can't "control" something that's randomized, but you can predict the most effective point.

If your sight is perfectly centered, each shot has an exactly equal chance of spreading in any direction from the center point. I don't want my shot to be more likely to fire to the right of my reticle than the left, and to be able to diverge further in one direction than the other.

With the crosshairs representing your sight's point and the circle representing the shot's potential radius of spread, wouldn't you rather aim with the one on the left?
Using the sight on the right, the average shot has a higher chance of being further away from your aim point.