Re: [DL] One Eye Hindrance?

["Marshal_Law" <marshal_law@dslextreme.com>]

Well, do a Google on "eye dominance" and you'll see that when it does come
to aiming, we inherently use only one eye.  It has to do with stereoscopic
vision.  One eye aims, the other is there to provide some additional depth
information, but isn't vital to actually hitting the target, it just "feels"
more natural to shooters and archers to have both eyes open.  Most people
are either left eye dominant or right eye dominant, just like with hand
dominance.  The interesting thing is that it's not always on the same side.
There are people who are right hand dominant, yet left eye dominant.  If
you're just getting into archery or shooting and have this "cross dominance"
problem, current standard procedure is to shoot according to your eye
dominance, not your hand dominance.  In other words, if you fire or shoot a
rifle or bow right handed, you aim with your right eye.  If you are left-eye
dominant, this causes problems and you have to shut your left eye in order
to aim properly with the right eye.  Some champion shooters/archers do this
and always have an eye closed.  Some only have one eye due to injury.
Having one eye does not stop you from being very accurate with a gun or a
bow.

The whole double the range increment seems way out of control to me.  I
would go with what the first poster said, have it act like Bad Eyes, with
the penalty applying to any range, except when Drawing a Bead in which case
the penalty is removed.  I would also allow the character to buy that
penalty off later, the same way you can buy off some hindrances, which would
represent him training his remaining eye to compensate.  You could leave a
permanent -1 penalty for the last range increment even after buying off the
hindrance due to the lack of depth perception.

I also think some "blindside" penalty seems fair in melee combat, and
perception situations, but again, I would allow this to be bought off.  The
melee combat penalty should always be somewhat present though, but I'd allow
it to be reduced.  The perception penalty would be situational.  Since the
person's brain would, over time, become more aware of sounds on that side, I
would allow the perception penalty to be completely bought off to perceive
things involving sound.

CRK



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Reemull" <reemull@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <deadlands@gamerz.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 1:59 AM
Subject: RE: [DL] One Eye Hindrance?


> Thanks for all the responses - two main routes to go down.  I like the
> idea of making it quite different from Bad Eyes, but the whole idea of
> squinting to aim removing the penalty is quite cool IMO.  I'll have a
> play about with the ideas and chat with the player and see what comes
> out.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roy
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
> unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>