Yes, I want this so much. Folding up the bipod each spawn gets annoying.

Are there any disadvantages or advantages for folding the bipod up? Or is it just so you don't have to worry about the gun locking onto something with the bipod.

Originally posted by Beans:

Are there any disadvantages or advantages for folding the bipod up? Or is it just so you don't have to worry about the gun locking onto something with the bipod.

I think only the latter.

Similar for the bayonet would be nice.

No.

This would be bad. Especially in regards to bayonets.

But for the machine gunners case I want people who pick the role to actually play the role. The bipod extended by default encourages them to do that. Or discourages them from the role so someone else can take it.


Nobody complained about this in RO2. Physically impossible in that game. You give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

No.

This would be bad. Especially in regards to bayonets.

But for the machine gunners case I want people who pick the role to actually play the role. The bipod extended by default encourages them to do that. Or discourages them from the role so someone else can take it.


Nobody complained about this in RO2. Physically impossible in that game. You give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

It's not feasable to try and always have your bipod out resting on something. Gameplay is dynamic, staying in one place does not work well. I try to duck my head often but end up getting shot. In practice in seems like it would work but in theory it doesn't. Is it pretty unrealistic to be rushing and then aiming down your sight and shooting an M60? Yes, but there is nothing far-fetched about being able to hip fire an M60 other than it's weight taking a toll on your stamina.

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

No.

This would be bad. Especially in regards to bayonets.

But for the machine gunners case I want people who pick the role to actually play the role. The bipod extended by default encourages them to do that. Or discourages them from the role so someone else can take it.


Nobody complained about this in RO2. Physically impossible in that game. You give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

It's not feasable to try and always have your bipod out resting on something. Gameplay is dynamic, staying in one place does not work well. I try to duck my head often but end up getting shot. In practice in seems like it would work but in theory it doesn't. Is it pretty unrealistic to be rushing and then aiming down your sight and shooting an M60? Yes, but there is nothing far-fetched about being able to hip fire an M60 other than it's weight taking a toll on your stamina.

None of those issues have to do with the bipod.

If you want to use it as an assault rifle you're better off using an assault rifle.

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

It's not feasable to try and always have your bipod out resting on something. Gameplay is dynamic, staying in one place does not work well. I try to duck my head often but end up getting shot. In practice in seems like it would work but in theory it doesn't. Is it pretty unrealistic to be rushing and then aiming down your sight and shooting an M60? Yes, but there is nothing far-fetched about being able to hip fire an M60 other than it's weight taking a toll on your stamina.

None of those issues have to do with the bipod.

If you want to use it as an assault rifle you're better off using an assault rifle.

Then I don't get it, what does the extended bipod encourage? You to set it up the MG on something right? I would have no problem if they got rid of ADS on machine guns when you don't have it set up, it should be like that.

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

No.

This would be bad. Especially in regards to bayonets.

But for the machine gunners case I want people who pick the role to actually play the role. The bipod extended by default encourages them to do that. Or discourages them from the role so someone else can take it.


Nobody complained about this in RO2. Physically impossible in that game. You give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Well in my case I was playing Hill last night and found while trying to set up and cover the hill the bipod often made me stick in one direction so if I tried to move I'd have to tear down the bipod for a second and when people are running around on a hill I can't do that every second to keep myself on target.

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

No.

This would be bad. Especially in regards to bayonets.

Why? How would the option - so that it's not forced on players - via a checkbox in the settings menu (as per OP in regards to the current one for fire modes) be especially bad?

Originally posted by Geoffrey Boycott OBE:

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

No.

This would be bad. Especially in regards to bayonets.

Why? How would the option - so that it's not forced on players - via a checkbox in the settings menu (as per OP in regards to the current one for fire modes) be especially bad?

It's been brought up a number of times now in many threads. I've seen a few arguments against it. One of them is that it cheapens the gameplay. Another is that it's just unlikely that someone would arrive to a Vietnamese battlefield with their bayonet attached.

A player that's bothered to attach their bayonet has an advantage in melee over someone who hasn't. They've taken the time to prepare for something that really has a slim chance of happening, so (if it does happen) they are rewarded for their forethinking.

In contrast, if everyone just spawned with their bayonet attached (as everyone would do, since it provides few disadvantages), this tactical advantage is lost. It denies players an otherwise additional ability to prepare and an element of gameplay depth is given up.

Also, in previous WW2 games it wasn't a stretch of the imagination that a rifleman might have arrived with his bayonet attached. However, this seems really unlikely in Vietnam. Of the hundreds of photos of the war available, it's comparatively rare to see anyone with a bayonet attached at all, so its rarity should be reflected in-game too.

Originally posted by petiatil:

Originally posted by Geoffrey Boycott OBE:

Why? How would the option - so that it's not forced on players - via a checkbox in the settings menu (as per OP in regards to the current one for fire modes) be especially bad?

It's been brought up a number of times now in many threads. I've seen a few arguments against it. One of them is that it cheapens the gameplay. Another is that it's just unlikely that someone would arrive to a Vietnamese battlefield with their bayonet attached.

A player that's bothered to attach their bayonet has an advantage in melee over someone who hasn't. They've taken the time to prepare for something that really has a slim chance of happening, so (if it does happen) they are rewarded for their forethinking.

In contrast, if everyone just spawned with their bayonet attached (as everyone would do, since it provides few disadvantages), this tactical advantage is lost. It denies players an otherwise additional ability to prepare and an element of gameplay depth is given up.

Also, in previous WW2 games it wasn't a stretch of the imagination that a rifleman might have arrived with his bayonet attached. However, this seems really unlikely in Vietnam. Of the hundreds of photos of the war available, it's comparatively rare to see anyone with a bayonet attached at all, so its rarity should be reflected in-game too.

Thanks. I thought that bayonets reduce accuracy in RS2? Which makes it a trade-off between having the tactical melee advantage at the expense of ranged accuracy.

I thought bayonets gave a bit of wobble

Originally posted by Fox Butt:

I thought bayonets gave a bit of wobble

They increase weapon sway, as they should.

They increase weapon sway and reduce recoil.

But both are barely noticeable.