Pointlessly accurate?

[Paratrooper]

The thing is, the "pin-point" scopes gives you a higher probability of hitting the target.

[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).

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.

The circle never got any smaller and hence the "chance" of hitting where I'm aiming at (be it the off-center or the dead-center) hasn't changed, assuming that there's an equal probability of hitting every point within the circle.
I think you're going for a perception. Yes, being dead center makes your aim more "centered" but it doesn't increase the likelihood you'll hit the center at all.

[Paratrooper]

Yes, being dead center makes your aim more "centered" but it doesn't increase the likelihood you'll hit the center at all.

So aiming my gun to the very right also won't change the probability of me hitting the enemy? That's apparently what you're implying.

What do you want us to do in our future gun sights? Move the crosshairs a little bit to the left or right?

[Fluttershy]

Yes, being dead center makes your aim more "centered" but it doesn't increase the likelihood you'll hit the center at all.

Using this incredibly poor visual aid, you can see having a sight that isnt offcenter will increase the odds of hitting, unless you somehow know where the center is, in which case you arent using your sight anyways.

[Speshul]

Yes, being dead center makes your aim more "centered" but it doesn't increase the likelihood you'll hit the center at all.

So aiming my gun to the very right also won't change the probability of me hitting the enemy? That's apparently what you're implying.

What do you want us to do in our future gun sights? Move the crosshairs a little bit to the left or right?

Whoa slow down, I don't "want" anything.

All I'm trying to point out is that people get way too focussed on the exact center rather than the actual spread of where bullets might go. As long as you know how big that is and where it is, you could even just use a scaled-down version (to be accurate to the spread) of the default hipfire sight as a scope and still do as well as a "pinpoint" scope.

EDIT: also, I posted this because I facepalm over the custom sight threads (not going to name names) that literally change one or two pixels or add a little bit of furnishing and then proclaim that their performance drastically improved. People make one or two pixel changes, and add a bit of furnishing around... I bet the average player won't notice between a pixel placed at 399,300 and 400,300 while they're busy trying to shoot and not get shot. It's akin to moving the peas on a plate from the left side to the right and then saying the meal went from 2-star to 5-star quality.

[Paratrooper]

Yes, being dead center makes your aim more "centered" but it doesn't increase the likelihood you'll hit the center at all.

So aiming my gun to the very right also won't change the probability of me hitting the enemy? That's apparently what you're implying.

What do you want us to do in our future gun sights? Move the crosshairs a little bit to the left or right?

Whoa slow down, I don't "want" anything.

All I'm trying to point out is that people get way too focussed on the exact center rather than the actual spread of where bullets might go. As long as you know how big that is and where it is, you could even just use a scaled-down version (to be accurate to the spread) of the default hipfire sight as a scope and still do as well as a "pinpoint" scope.

EDIT: also, I posted this because I facepalm over the custom sight threads (not going to name names) that literally change one or two pixels or add a little bit of furnishing and then proclaim that their performance drastically improved. People make one or two pixel changes, and add a bit of furnishing around... I bet the average player won't notice between a pixel placed at 399,300 and 400,300 while they're busy trying to shoot and not get shot. It's akin to moving the peas on a plate from the left side to the right and then saying the meal went from 2-star to 5-star quality.

'course it would improve. A scope with the center at the pixel (100,100) would always be less accurate from a point on the exact center (This is a hyperbole, but I'm basically telling you that ANY deviation from perfection could be very bad for performance in the long run)

I don't think that the improvement is THAT drastic, but there certainly is an improvement.

Besides, scopes with circles around it could be a little distracting. A dot is good enough for anyone.

just use a scaled-down version

Aren't these perfection scopes simplistic and small enough for you :/

EDIT: Pics


Damn straight I'll kill this guy.


I'm not so sure...

This situation is much more severe in farther distances, since circles cannot be trusted.


I guess I could probably hit this guy...


I'm almost sure this will be a kill shot.

[Speshul]

'course it would improve. A scope with the center at the pixel (100,100) would always be less accurate from a point on the exact center (This is a hyperbole, but I'm basically telling you that ANY deviation from perfection could be very bad for performance in the long run)

I don't think that the improvement is THAT drastic, but there certainly is an improvement.

Besides, scopes with circles around it could be a little distracting. A dot is good enough for anyone.

just use a scaled-down version

Aren't these perfection scopes simplistic and small enough for you :/

EDIT: Pics


Damn straight I'll kill this guy.


I'm not so sure...

This situation is much more severe in farther distances, since circles cannot be trusted.


I guess I could probably hit this guy...


I'm almost sure this will be a kill shot.

You didn't center to bottom comparison pics the same at all... And the top two? I'd say both of those are just as likely to give a killshot, depending on how you want to perceive your shots to go.

I've said my point in this topic already in my last post.

[Yakkers]

The circle never got any smaller and hence the "chance" of hitting where I'm aiming at (be it the off-center or the dead-center) hasn't changed, assuming that there's an equal probability of hitting every point within the circle.
I think you're going for a perception. Yes, being dead center makes your aim more "centered" but it doesn't increase the likelihood you'll hit the center at all.

You're missing an important factor here: you're not always going to have the site perfectly on your target. I'd rather have an equal amount of leeway in any direction than have a higher chance of making the shot if I aim a little too far to the right instead of the left.

It's not about the chances of the shot being right on the dot, it's about how close an average shot will be to the crosshair.

[Putin]

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

^^Yep but they hate that -_- they want 400,300 every time.

[Gorman]

Having a circle makes no sense, the scope image does not change based on distance, but the spread does. Your scope would only be calibrated for 1 distance...

By the way, I think you will find that the scatter of bullets is normalized around the center point, so yeah it is better.

[Paratrooper]

You didn't center to bottom comparison pics the same at all... And the top two? I'd say both of those are just as likely to give a killshot, depending on how you want to perceive your shots to go.

It would be MUCH easier if there was a dot at the center of the circle.

Also, like Gorman said, the firing cone in .75 has a higher probability of hitting on or near the center.

[TheOperator]

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.

Well gee, I wonder if anybody would ever decide to create such a thing.

OH WAIT! I DID! MONTHS AGO!!!

Here ya go.

*feels unappreciated*

I have done a lot of testing and your shot will not hit anything outside of the center circle, no matter how far or close. It has a range finder for both blocks and people.

Using a circle has greatly improved my accuracy. I KNOW now if I will hit my target or not and that way I wont waste my shots.

[Paratrooper]

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.

Well gee, I wonder if anybody would ever decide to create such a thing.

OH WAIT! I DID! MONTHS AGO!!!

Here ya go.

*feels unappreciated*

I have done a lot of testing and your shot will not hit anything outside of the center circle, no matter how far or close. It has a range finder for both blocks and people.

Using a circle has greatly improved my accuracy. I KNOW now if I will hit my target or not and that way I wont waste my shots.

But-but-but, that circle still has a dot in the center. OP is asking for a circle.

Good sight, btw.

[mikuli]

Oh please, if the rifle had an equal chance to hit any single point inside that circle, fogline shots at the head would never hit. We are talking about a CEP of half of the diameter of what has been suggested - the area where 50% of the shots will land in. I am pretty sure the current accuracy model goes by the gaussian curve as opposed to the old, random but very small area one. "I am pretty sure" as in, "I think Ben said this".

Consume with a grain of salt.

To add some actual material, here's a video from a duel between me and ExiTeD in a pinpoint-wallduel map. If you watch it in HD, you should see that most - if not all - of the misses I shoot are because of poor hand coordination rather than 0.75 accuracy.

[MrHaaaaaaxFF]

Oh please, if the rifle had an equal chance to hit any single point inside that circle, fogline shots at the head would never hit. We are talking about a CEP of half of the diameter of what has been suggested - the area where 50% of the shots will land in. I am pretty sure the current accuracy model goes by the gaussian curve as opposed to the old, random but very small area one. "I am pretty sure" as in, "I think Ben said this".

Consume with a grain of salt.

To add some actual material, here's a video from a duel between me and ExiTeD in a pinpoint-wallduel map. If you watch it in HD, you should see that most - if not all - of the misses I shoot are because of poor hand coordination rather than 0.75 accuracy.

Yep yep. I mostly miss by lag, or my fricken hand doesn't want to copparate.
mikuli has a good point.