Sniping Mechanics and Headshots

[texico]

Does anybody else think the sniping model should strictly follow PlanetSide's? It was perhaps the best system of sniping in an fps game I've ever played. One bolt per round, with only 70% damage. If PlanetSide 2 has one-shot kills with Sniping I can imagine it being a nightmare. If PlanetSide 2 is having locational hit boxes won't this be a problem? If headshots from sniper rifles cause instant death I can imagine infantry in the field being pretty impossible.

That aside, even if it still takes multiple sniper shots, PlanetSide's model was perfect enough that it should just be the same in PS2. Same reload times, same damage % per armour type, same range and zoom. The main reason it worked so well was that it required plenty of skill and was usually always fair - it was pretty difficult to complain about dying from sniping if the sniper had to land two shots on you.

[DviddLeff]

Remember that

Bullets are going to be affected by gravity.
There appears to be a lot more cover for infantry to use.


I think that these two things will make sniping more difficult, even if its one hit kill with a head shot.

I do think that snipers should be able to one hit kill if they are lucky/skilled enough; snipers should be able to make it dangerous to cross open ground and act as a force multiplier if they are used well.

And after all if you are having trouble with a particularly good sniper just call in the air cav, or artillery, or a tank, or grab a MAX suit, or a stealth suit, etc.

[SKYeXile]

I think they're changing it to use headshots and one shot one kill. there is multiple threads around here of people raging about it.

[Vancha]

I know it's hard, but try to avoid using the first Planetside for context. From what I've seen, the sequel is too different to use rationale from the first game to decide how things should be in the second.

I was worried initially that sniping would be made even easier than it was in Planetside, but from the sounds of things it'll be harder, which is fantastic.

[Galapogos]

At the very least there will be counter-snipers in pretty much any decent sized battle, and if most people have access to most of the classes and vehicles I'm pretty sure just camping will be out of the question for any sniper that wants to get more than a handful of kills at most.

[SKYeXile]

I know it's hard, but try to avoid using the first Planetside for context. From what I've seen, the sequel is too different to use rationale from the first game to decide how things should be in the second.

I was worried initially that sniping would be made even easier than it was in Planetside, but from the sounds of things it'll be harder, which is fantastic.
except that they have active camo. :/

[EASyEightyEight]

I need to find where they said wind will also be worth considering as well, but my memory sometimes tends to make $#!% up.

Gist of it is, if one is just aiming for body shots, it's probably a lot like Planetside, only with a few other factors included in aiming. IF one is going for a head shot, they'll have to compensate with all those factors onto a very small target. Ergo, noobs won't be any bigger an issue than they already were, and truly skilled marksman should be rare.

[Vancha]

except that they have active camo. :/

Do we know anything about it? What it'll look like? How it'll function? I haven't been paying attention lately.

[Shogun]

headshots shoud give the old high damage (70-80%) and hitting other boxes should give less damage.

but i guess that´s really a thing we should discuss during beta because it´s just a thing of turning some screws for balancing without any major programming ressources involved.
remember, nerfs and buffs were the thing we still got in ps1 when there were no coders left on the project ;-)

[SKYeXile]

well its no full stealth, but you can see it to the effect of a cloaker running when the sniper is standing still. there was a picture i thought on higbys twitter, but i cant find it.

theres not much other info on it.

[Raka Maru]

Do we know anything about it? What it'll look like? How it'll function? I haven't been paying attention lately.

Here is a sniper.

[Vancha]

Here is a sniper.

That doesn't look like a sniper rifle he's holding. :p

Thanks for the pic though.

[acosmo]

That doesn't look like a sniper rifle he's holding. :p

Thanks for the pic though.

looks like a TR stealth holding a 50 cal.

[Vancha]

I looked at that picture multiple times and still managed to miss the barrel. Fair enough. I'm still wondering about the mechanics then. Whether it stays on while scoped/moving/firing.

[SKYeXile]

That doesn't look like a sniper rifle he's holding. :p

Thanks for the pic though.

explain the super long barrel then

[Vancha]

explain the super long barrel then

Beat you to it.

[Atuday]

Remember that

Bullets are going to be affected by gravity.
There appears to be a lot more cover for infantry to use.


I think that these two things will make sniping more difficult, even if its one hit kill with a head shot.

I do think that snipers should be able to one hit kill if they are lucky/skilled enough; snipers should be able to make it dangerous to cross open ground and act as a force multiplier if they are used well.

And after all if you are having trouble with a particularly good sniper just call in the air cav, or artillery, or a tank, or grab a MAX suit, or a stealth suit, etc.

I second this comment as being the best way forward for planetside2.

[Shogun]

That doesn't look like a sniper rifle he's holding. :p

Thanks for the pic though.

it was already dev confirmed that this picture shows a cloaking sniper, but we don´t have any details yet, how the mechanics will work and what penaltys a sniker (sniping cloaker) has compared to a cloaker without big weapons.

[SKYeXile]

it was already dev confirmed that this picture shows a cloaking sniper, but we don´t have any details yet, how the mechanics will work and what penaltys a sniker (sniping cloaker) has compared to a cloaker without big weapons.

i see what you did thar.

[Vancha]

it was already dev confirmed that this picture shows a cloaking sniper
It was already me-confirmed too.

[ArmaGetItOn]

I see snipers with cloaking as a huge problem, because it was a problem in battlefield heroes. In that game, you could cloak, hide out in the open and wait for the perfect shot with no fear of anyone spotting you (except cheaters, especially because it's FTP)

You should not be able to sit there and wait for a perfect shot with no fear of anyone being able to shoot at you while you wait. Cloaking in Planetside 1 was great: you could only kill from close to melee range as a cloaker, and you could spot cloakers at short range with darklight. Darklight didn't work any farther than close range, so you could only be spotted if you were moving in for a kill.

I love sniping in battlefield 3 because of the easy ability to spot snipers. You can see the glint of their scope a mile away, letting you know a sniper could be aiming at you. Even then, you only score a one hit kill on someone if it's a headshot, or if your target is already wounded.

Players do not like dying to things they feel they could not have avoided. They like to think that if they had done something differently, they would have survived. Cloaked snipers are one of those unavoidable deaths. You will have no indication of where it's coming from.

There is no way to balance this. Give snipers cloaking, and everyone will be constantly complaining about cheap kills that they could not shoot back at. Give darklight the ability to see cloaked snipers, and you ruin cloaking for everyone except snipers.

[texico]

The danger here is infantryside being nigh impossible in outdoor combat if snipers are both able to kill instantly and cloak. I suppose the effect of gravity might help. But I can imagine bands of hidden snipers KO'ing anything that moves in the open. I don't think "rarity" of the skilled is going to balance the fact that players can kill in one shot. People are very good at perfecting skills in games to exploit advantages.

Obviously it's not easy to say for sure until Beta comes around. But it doesn't seem fair that if one player happens to be skilled enough, the other will die instantly and with no ability to react. He should be given a chance, which is what the 70% damage did. Instant-killing is probably just going to diminish outdoor infantryside (which in a game of PlanetSide's scale is already difficult) and frustrate players, especially new players. And if it's possible I'd expect plenty of people to pick up that skill quickly - they always do.

[ArmaGetItOn]

The danger here is infantryside being nigh impossible in outdoor combat if snipers are both able to kill instantly and cloak. I suppose the effect of gravity might help. I don't think "rarity" of the skilled is going to balance the fact that players can kill in one shot. .

I mentioned battlefield 3 in my last post, snipers get along just fine in that game being able to be spotted miles away with their scope glint shining like the sun, and also with silly amounts of bullet drop, and bullet travel time.

All it takes to overcome bullet drop and travel time is practice. After a hundred kills, that bullet drop might as well not exist. Any skill-less idiot can figure it out.

[texico]

Players do not like dying to things they feel they could not have avoided. They like to think that if they had done something differently, they would have survived.


Yeah, this is one of the things I'm getting at too. I don't have as much of a problem with cloaking though, but I do have a problem with one-shot kills, and definitely one-shot kills together with cloaking.

[Vancha]

I see snipers with cloaking as a huge problem, because it was a problem in battlefield heroes.
Your problem has already become invalid.

In that game, you could cloak, hide out in the open and wait for the perfect shot with no fear of anyone spotting you (except cheaters, especially because it's FTP)
How do you know you'll be able to do this in Planetside 2?


You should not be able to sit there and wait for a perfect shot with no fear of anyone being able to shoot at you while you wait.
Same question.

I love sniping in battlefield 3 because of the easy ability to spot snipers. You can see the glint of their scope a mile away, letting you know a sniper could be aiming at you.
How do you know this won't be in Planetside 2? Does their cloaking device prevent their sniper scopes reflecting sunlight?

Cloaked snipers are one of those unavoidable deaths. You will have no indication of where it's coming from.
Won't you?

There is no way to balance this. Give snipers cloaking, and everyone will be constantly complaining about cheap kills that they could not shoot back at. Give darklight the ability to see cloaked snipers, and you ruin cloaking for everyone except snipers.
There is, not necessarily and no you don't.

[SKYeXile]

I see snipers with cloaking as a huge problem, because it was a problem in battlefield heroes. In that game, you could cloak, hide out in the open and wait for the perfect shot with no fear of anyone spotting you (except cheaters, especially because it's FTP)

You should not be able to sit there and wait for a perfect shot with no fear of anyone being able to shoot at you while you wait. Cloaking in Planetside 1 was great: you could only kill from close to melee range as a cloaker, and you could spot cloakers at short range with darklight. Darklight didn't work any farther than close range, so you could only be spotted if you were moving in for a kill.

I love sniping in battlefield 3 because of the easy ability to spot snipers. You can see the glint of their scope a mile away, letting you know a sniper could be aiming at you. Even then, you only score a one hit kill on someone if it's a headshot, or if your target is already wounded.

Players do not like dying to things they feel they could not have avoided. They like to think that if they had done something differently, they would have survived. Cloaked snipers are one of those unavoidable deaths. You will have no indication of where it's coming from.

There is no way to balance this. Give snipers cloaking, and everyone will be constantly complaining about cheap kills that they could not shoot back at. Give darklight the ability to see cloaked snipers, and you ruin cloaking for everyone except snipers.

same sort of problem with problem with global agenda. I really think stealth snipers are gonna be heaps op.

[ArmaGetItOn]

Players do not like dying to things they feel they could not have avoided. They like to think that if they had done something differently, they would have survived.

Yeah, this is one of the things I'm getting at too. I don't have as much of a problem with cloaking though, but I do have a problem with one-shot kills, and definitely one-shot kills together with cloaking.

Robin Walker made a great blog post on this issue several years ago talking about how they designed the sniper in TF2.

http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=2477

On things that cause an aggravating game experience:

The second was whether you felt you were actually engaged with the person who killed you. Dying to someone you weren't engaged with, especially when you were already engaged with someone else, was aggravating. Even worse was dying to someone who you couldn't have engaged with, even if you chose to. In that case, you're very unlikely to believe you could have done anything differently to survive.

The bolded sentence is cloaked snipers in a nutshell.

[LongBow]

Unfortunately, there is a mantra in games design, that says games are better if they are a bit frustrating (so you feel better when you do finally accomplish your goal).

However this is for single player games, and quite blindly some devs take what they know and copy paste this into multiplayer games, and sure in best case scenarios (like when the testers know each other or are being watched) it works (and that's how it gets through testing).

but in multi player nothing should frustrate about the game mechanics ... people being people will solve that problem for you ...

so yes I am Highly unnerved by the idea of one shot kill snipers of any kind, and while I have the utmost respect for the team on many issues this is one where I am willing to just assume whatever test data they have is inaccurate and SOE is making a bad call because of it!


----------------------------

NB I'm not hating on snipers, players who choose this style will find they are able to operate in a style much similar to that which they desired ... "stealthy" "Precise" "tactical" "skilled"
...when they do not have the Reaver swarm of hate hunting them down making them completely ineffective.

[EASyEightyEight]

NB I'm not hating on snipers, players who choose this style will find they are able to operate in a style much similar to that which they desired ... "stealthy" "Precise" "tactical" "skilled"
...when they do not have the Reaver swarm of hate hunting them down making them completely ineffective.

And we'll ALL have access to aircraft and jump packs. Not like we NEED to rely on somebody else to get vengeance for us. If the sniper stays put, he's as good as dead.

[LongBow]

Robin Walker made a great blog post on this issue several years ago talking about how they designed the sniper in TF2.


Ahh the TF2 Sniper ... the fix they eventually landed on to make 1 shot long range snipers "work" was to make them charge up to reach full power (no quick scope & difficulty of kill sprees) ... that combined with the relatively small maps and fixed predictable lanes of fire made the class work in the meta game.

While planetside could implement the charging weapon (and will have to find some way to prevent cloakers using it as a shotgun) the USP of the game (giant maps with lots of people) also prevents the traditional meta game fix.

[Jimmuc]

Higby quote on the sniper cloaking: "yep, that's an infiltrator with a sniping loadout. If you're utilizing a sniper loadout you'll have a less perfect cloak that doesn't last as long. It's more for some enhanced camouflage while moving from sniping positions than using for typical infiltration. Anyone who gets up on you with that configuration is going to see through it." and i think somewhere i read/heard that you can't snipe and be cloaked at the same time but i might be wrong on that.

[LongBow]

And we'll ALL have access to aircraft and jump packs. Not like we NEED to rely on somebody else to get vengeance for us. If the sniper stays put, he's as good as dead.

I'm actually suggesting just that ... following on from the comments above when I said "Reaver swarm of hate" I was talking about players who are no longer in their traditional role and are aggressively hard countering the sniper not to gain enjoyment but to end frustration.

Sorry for being unclear.

[Bags]

I hate snipers in BF3, as long as I can't be one shot reliably every time I take cover and stop moving for a second I'll be happy.

[Forsaken One]

Planetside is a game of fun, teamwork, and where you can feel lost in the immersion of being a part of a army.

skill giving more power to the player defys this. I'm sorry but it does.

When the game gets to the point( lets say in a year.) where all the skilled snipers and all the skilled jet flyers (I'm thinking battlefield2 style air where people bullshit that air takes skill to fly to defend the overpowered bullshit.) start to just shit all over everyone and even more so new players the games going to suck. Sure it will keep those skilled people because the games F2P and new people will make an account all the time but other then those who stay only because they can auto win with their overpowered shit because they have the skill the use it no one else will bother to stay for long.

Honestly one can't even defend the whole skill = power without pretty much admitting they just want to gain the skill to use the overpowered (whatever.) to be a legit asshole in the game and frustrate everyone who wants to play for fun.

HOWEVER. Planetside did it ok. Brains tended to win over reflexes and even in the snipers case if they wanted an instant kill they needed to have teamwork with another sniper which is at least decently fair.

you see, its simple. what happens in games where skill=power is that anything that does not have that overpowerness because unusable. forcing everyone to use what takes skill. half the content of the game ends up going down the shitter because if they use it they will be at a disadvantage as it doesn't take skill and so its not overpowered.

and so, just add the ability to cloak on top of that lameness. Honestly I'd rather cloakers get one shot kill knives then the ability of a long range weapon, let alone a powerful long range weapon.

[NCLynx]

I can imagine infantry in the field being pretty impossible.

Is everyone standing still in this imaginary world?

While I'll admit to rarely ever sniping in PS, so I might simply be an a-hole, I hardly consider PS1s way of sniping "perfect".

I feel like if snipers will have the ability to do such insane damage then they'll likely have more to watch out for than just other snipers and cloakers.

Heck I'll ride around in an ATV for the sole purpose of looking for snipers if I have to.

[texico]

I don't know how this turned into cloaking, but as I've said I don't necessarily disagree with snipers being able to have some kind of cloaking. But the mechanics need to be handled very carefully.

A big problem for Snipers in planetside was dying from people spotting you when they weren't even looking for you. Snipers had to wear normal armour, and normal armour in planetside along with red names meant you would stick out a great deal. Unfortunately, this basically led to the fact that most sniping could only really occur from behind friendly lines where you're protected by your own empire's influence; sniping could only occur from within the main body of the empire's forces on the front line.

So as I said there's a fine line with the mechanics here. Any sniper's cloaking needs to be designed so that a sniper can be hidden from the casual eye, but is fairly easily findable for anybody specifically looking for the sniper, because they've seen bullets coming from that direction for example. In PlanetSide trying to find a nice hill to snipe from meant getting farmed by aircraft most of the time that just happened to be flying overhead, or passing vehicles or soldiers - probably 80% of all lone-sniping deaths is pure chance, and it's impossible to hide from because in PS1 at least you can't make yourself any less visible than you are without wearing a pistol-only infiltrator suit. Ultimately it meant that the whole sniping vision of packing trunks full of ammo and supplies, being a lone gunman or working in very small teams away from the front line was lost. Some kind of "anti-casual eye" system of cloaking could bring all that back, but anybody specifically looking for you should be able to find you.

But it has to be two-shot kills.

[texico]

Is everyone standing still in this imaginary world?

While I'll admit to rarely ever sniping in PS, so I might simply be an a-hole, I hardly consider PS1s way of sniping "perfect".

I feel like if snipers will have the ability to do such insane damage then they'll likely have more to watch out for than just other snipers and cloakers.

Heck I'll ride around in an ATV for the sole purpose of looking for snipers if I have to.


Snipers dotted around are easy to kill. But that's not usually how it works given PlanetSide's scale. Snipers usually sit within the body of their empire's forces on the front line, Sniping people ON the front line. You can't get to them with aircav because of AA, you can't get to them on foot because of their empire's ground tanks and soldiers, and for the same reason you can't reach them in vehicles either. Maybe mossies might take a few out now and then if they're quick enough to avoid AA, but snipers just respawn at AMS' 5 feet away. If PS2's field battles are anything like PS1's, you'll have groups of 10 or 15 snipers on a hill overlooking the front line well within their empire's forces, sniping people with one-shot kills, meaning infantry can't step out in the open.

Maybe the mechanics, with bullet arcs and recoil or whatever, could make it difficult enough that landing a one-shot kill is as difficult as landing two shots in PlanetSide, but even then, what's the point? All it means is the player getting hit has NO chance. No warning, no ability to react, they just drop dead. I recon tons of people will quickly learn the skill necessary to get one-shot kills if it's possible, and they'll find a way to overcome all the other variables. If the damage is 70%, all the onus is on the player, to find cover, to not be so far away from cover or careless as to let 2 shots 5 seconds apart land on them, to try and dodge another shot by walking unpredictably. And if they die, at least they feel like it was well within their capabilities to stay alive if they were smarter next time.

[Lonehunter]

I don't think 1 shot kills should be common. Due to shields, different armor classes, possible shield implants or headshot immunities... pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, smgs should not get 1 shot kills.

But a Sniper who had to put a certain amount of time into the class (which is debatable, just not for those just casually being a sniper) should have an opportunity for 1 shot kills.

[CidHighwind]

Snipers dotted around are easy to kill. But that's not usually how it works given PlanetSide's scale. Snipers usually sit within the body of their empire's forces on the front line, Sniping people ON the front line. You can't get to them with aircav because of AA, you can't get to them on foot because of their empire's ground tanks and soldiers, and for the same reason you can't reach them in vehicles either. Maybe mossies might take a few out now and then if they're quick enough to avoid AA, but snipers just respawn at AMS' 5 feet away. If PS2's field battles are anything like PS1's, you'll have groups of 10 or 15 snipers on a hill overlooking the front line well within their empire's forces, sniping people with one-shot kills, meaning infantry can't step out in the open.

Maybe the mechanics, with bullet arcs and recoil or whatever, could make it difficult enough that landing a one-shot kill is as difficult as landing two shots in PlanetSide, but even then, what's the point? All it means is the player getting hit has NO chance. No warning, no ability to react, they just drop dead. I recon tons of people will quickly learn the skill necessary to get one-shot kills if it's possible, and they'll find a way to overcome all the other variables. If the damage is 70%, all the onus is on the player, to find cover, to not be so far away from cover or careless as to let 2 shots 5 seconds apart land on them, to try and dodge another shot by walking unpredictably. And if they die, at least they feel like it was well within their capabilities to stay alive if they were smarter next time.

Tex, believe me when I say that I understand where you're coming from, especially because your objections do ring true with a lot of my own beliefs a few months back on this. I also thought that this was going to ruin the game, and that snipers would walk around the battlefield owning the rest of the infantry. However, I came around when I realized a very simple point.

Planetside 1 was, in reality, a very slowly developing game. Air cavalry is called fast fliers for a reason. They are pretty much the only thing that reacts quickly in PS1. PS2 has been said to pick up the pace slightly, this is why I feel that snipers wont play the 'kill you all dead' role that you worry about. Yes, there will be sieges, and yes, there will be snipers shooting into the courtyard receiving one shot kills once in a while, but If the front line is moving so consistently, then the snipers will only be a momentary hindering factor to the army that is retreating, and only a temporary benefit to the one advancing.

What I'm trying to get at is that, even though snipers may have a strong short term influence on the front line, it will play a minor enough role on the battlefield that it wont be a factor. There are going to be troops with JUMP JETS. Certainly, the best of the snipers will learn how to head-shot these guys as they descend on their face from 100 feet above, but the fact that action will be faster paced means that even the SAFEST sniper and sniper perch will be subjected to the increased pace of line and troop movement.

This really just turns the sniper into a different type of infantry - a back-line infantry.

To truly make this a non-issue, the only balancing SOE really needs to be sure of is to make it so that 'no-scoping' with sniper rifles deals less than half health damage or some such, to ensure that snipers don't gain an unfair advantage in close quarters.

These have been my thoughts, but I would love to hear counter-points from any and all.

P.S. Fear the Poodle!

[Hmr85]

Tex, believe me when I say that I understand where you're coming from, especially because your objections do ring true with a lot of my own beliefs a few months back on this. I also thought that this was going to ruin the game, and that snipers would walk around the battlefield owning the rest of the infantry. However, I came around when I realized a very simple point.

Planetside 1 was, in reality, a very slowly developing game. Air cavalry is called fast fliers for a reason. They are pretty much the only thing that reacts quickly in PS1. PS2 has been said to pick up the pace slightly, this is why I feel that snipers wont play the 'kill you all dead' role that you worry about. Yes, there will be sieges, and yes, there will be snipers shooting into the courtyard receiving one shot kills once in a while, but If the front line is moving so consistently, then the snipers will only be a momentary hindering factor to the army that is retreating, and only a temporary benefit to the one advancing.

What I'm trying to get at is that, even though snipers may have a strong short term influence on the front line, it will play a minor enough role on the battlefield that it wont be a factor. There are going to be troops with JUMP JETS. Certainly, the best of the snipers will learn how to head-shot these guys as they descend on their face from 100 feet above, but the fact that action will be faster paced means that even the SAFEST sniper and sniper perch will be subjected to the increased pace of line and troop movement.

This really just turns the sniper into a different type of infantry - a back-line infantry.

To truly make this a non-issue, the only balancing SOE really needs to be sure of is to make it so that 'no-scoping' with sniper rifles deals less than half health damage or some such, to ensure that snipers don't gain an unfair advantage in close quarters.

These have been my thoughts, but I would love to hear counter-points from any and all.

P.S. Fear the Poodle!

Very well said, I couldn't agree more. I don't see this being a huge issue by any means. It really all comes down to how SOE implements it. By no means should they be 100% cloaked. But I do agree they should have some level of camouflage.

I could see cloaked snipers being 30% cloaked while on the move and 45 to 50% cloaked while sitting stationary. A good way to balance it would be when the sniper pulls his rifle up to look into the scope it drops the cloak completely making the sniper visible with a slight 2 or 3 second delay after the shot for the cloak to re-engage.

When beta rolls around will be able to get a first hand look on how cloaked snipers will work in the game. If they appear to be game breaking I'm sure the community will raise all kind of heck about it.

Edited: for confusion

[acosmo]

wow.. since when were long range AI infantry "game breaking"? if anything, you'll actually have to use your brain in order to overcome a few challenges

[Hmr85]

I am assuming you where responding to me. I was also referring to the image back on page 1 with the cloaker holding a sniper rifle and giving my version on how I think they could do it. :rolleyes:

[Rumblepit]

lmao at this one....

whats the difference between a 1 shot kill from a sniper and a tank? nothing.... you guys are saying its ok to be 1 shoted by 1 thing and not the other, is what im hearing.and the cloaking suit will allow the snipers to move at range undetected. i think most snipers will grab a jetpack over a cloak suit any day. i know i would.

this is a very common feature among modern fps games.its not that hard to get use to and it really dose not effect gameplay .




for those of you who are new to modern fps gameplay , if your standing around or not using the environment for cover as you move, your dead. snipers will be 1 of many things that will be killing you over and over again.

[Hmr85]

lmao at this one....

whats the difference between a 1 shot kill from a sniper and a tank? nothing.... you guys are saying its ok to be 1 shoted by 1 thing and not the other, is what im hearing.and the cloaking suit will allow the snipers to move at range undetected. i think most snipers will grab a jetpack over a cloak suit any day. i know i would.

I agree with the 1 shot kill. If the sniper can land a head shot cool. I never had any issue with snipers in PS1. That seems fair to me.

My only concern is with cloaker's being able to sit back at distance or up close in permanent cloak without anybody being able to see him to return fire. I have no issue with players in regular armor like in PS1 just cloakers as they where pretty effective in PS1 with out the sniper rifle if played right.

If sniper is its own class then I have no issue with a skill allowing snipers to move cloaked to where ever on a 20 or 30 second timer with a slight cool down. I do somewhat have a issue with a permanent cloak.

Its all just going to depend on how SOE implements them like I mentioned above. In case anybody gets confused I am talking about cloakers being snipers.

Edit: Sorry not trying to come off as a jerk in this. Even though I know its going to read like it.

[Rumblepit]

its a cloak mechanic for light infantry under the sniping spec., thats all.cloakers will not be able to shoot sniper rifles.

[Hmr85]

Thank you for clarifying that. That was the only real big concern for me. :)

[Rumblepit]

I don't think 1 shot kills should be common. Due to shields, different armor classes, possible shield implants or headshot immunities... pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, smgs should not get 1 shot kills.

But a Sniper who had to put a certain amount of time into the class (which is debatable, just not for those just casually being a sniper) should have an opportunity for 1 shot kills.


and i dont remember where i saw it, but this subject was talked about by the devs i think...... ill see if i can find it... they were saying you would have to invest time in that spec before the 1 shot kill becomes a option,or it was a mod for a sniper rifle that would allow for 1 shot kills but it took time to unlock....

let me see if i can find that info.

[LongBow]

whats the difference between a 1 shot kill from a sniper and a tank? nothing.... you guys are saying its ok to be 1 shoted by 1 thing and not the other, is what im hearing

I can understand the confusion - it is weird but let me try to explain.

A tank is big, its easy to spot - its also easy to predict, whatever way its turret is facing it can shoot.

with this information a player knows if it is safe to advance and if they make the wrong decision it is clear both that it was the wrong choice and why.

the problem is not instant death, it is the frustration the death causes.

(numbers chosen are to be easy not accurate)

lets say a random "wind change" causes 75% of head shots to miss no matter how skilled a sniper. And with recoil that sniper can reasonably shoot one shot once every 2.5 seconds -- so given good hunting conditions that's 1 kill every 10 seconds.

now a scenario where the sniper does 75% damage once every 5 seconds BUT there are no irritating "skill mechanics" ... that's still one kill every 10 seconds, but nobody is pissed off at the game!

---------

The primary advantage of snipers acting this way is it gives them access to a useful tool, "area denial" ... as a player sticks his head up and goes to 25% he has to stop advancing and take cover.

suddenly snipers are just as lethal in optimal conditions and, are no longer ass holes but "tactical assets"

[NewSith]

I'm thinking OSOK is fine because I am a sniper.

And also because hitting moving target is one hell of a challenge if bullet drop is present.. People will always complain about sniping if they aren't snipers themselves.

Because nothing can be more irritating than being killed by somebody you didn't even see.

But, well, get over it, everyone can hit still targets, and if you're getting killed alot, try to move more frequently. Usually it's not snipers nor their weapons to blame, but your own mistakes. I already forsee shitloads of hate towards me, since the game will be f2p, now don't make it undeserved.

[texico]

yeah, I was mentioning the same thing about the tank but I timed out and lost my post.

Instantly dying isn't a problem for players. It's their inability to react or have any influence over the events that lead to them dying instantly, even if they know what it is that's killing them. With a tank, it's not the same kind of "instantly" we're talking about here. When you're engaged by a tank, you don't die in the instant that the tank engages you. You see the tank approach, you see the turrets looking for you, you can run, you can duck for cover or hop in a vehicle, or even try to destroy it somehow. Sure, it only takes one projectile to kill you, but it can't kill you instantly as it engages you, or at least if it does and a random shell hits you with no warning, you can accept it as a complete fluke. One-hit Sniping kills you instantly as it engages you. It's not so much about the projectile.

And it does have another affect. Unlike things like tank shells, with one-hit sniping you have to adapt your game before you've even been engaged, i.e you can't do certain things at all. If you're on an open road and you see a tank coming, certainly you have to change tact and run to the trees. But you adapt when the threat is presented to you. With one-hit kill sniping, you can't move on the open road at all, more or less ever. Because of the zero reaction time to being one-hit killed you can't adapt your game to being engaged. The only say you have is to not be in that position where you can be shot, ever. And so ultimately infantry won't be able to move at all, or very little, in the field near a body of enemies, which is what infantryside is about - engaging in battles in the field between groups of infantry, with vehicles providing a little extra support and muscle. If Infantry can't move because they'll get sniped with no ability to react, there won't be any infantry out in the field, and that aspect of the game is severely diminished.

[Rumblepit]

yeah, I was mentioning the same thing about the tank but I timed out and lost my post.

Instantly dying isn't a problem for players. It's their inability to react or have any influence over the events that lead to them dying instantly, even if they know what it is that's killing them. With a tank, it's not the same kind of "instantly" we're talking about here. When you're engaged by a tank, you don't die in the instant that the tank engages you. You see the tank approach, you see the turrets looking for you, you can run, you can duck for cover or hop in a vehicle, or even try to destroy it somehow. Sure, it only takes one projectile to kill you, but it can't kill you instantly as it engages you, or at least if it does and a random shell hits you with no warning, you can accept it as a complete fluke. One-hit Sniping kills you instantly as it engages you. It's not so much about the projectile.

And it does have another affect. Unlike things like tank shells, with one-hit sniping you have to adapt your game before you've even been engaged, i.e you can't do certain things at all. If you're on an open road and you see a tank coming, certainly you have to change tact and run to the trees. But you adapt when the threat is presented to you. With one-hit kill sniping, you can't move on the open road at all, more or less ever. Because of the zero reaction time to being one-hit killed you can't adapt your game to being engaged. The only say you have is to not be in that position where you can be shot, ever. And so ultimately infantry won't be able to move at all, or very little, in the field near a body of enemies, which is what infantryside is about - engaging in battles in the field between groups of infantry, with vehicles providing a little extra support and muscle. If Infantry can't move because they'll get sniped with no ability to react, there won't be any infantry out in the field, and that aspect of the game is severely diminished.

lmao i must be the most unlucky person in planetside.

ive played many fps games with osok snipers and they are not a problem. players adapt, and move from the cover of one location to another,constantly moving while in the open.

if your just standing around in the open not using cover you deserve to die.

[texico]

I'm thinking OSOK is fine because I am a sniper.

And also because hitting moving target is one hell of a challenge if bullet drop is present.. People will always complain about sniping if they aren't snipers themselves.

Well I am a pretty hardcore sniper myself, so this isn't so much about me personally, just what I think is fair.

Because nothing can be more irritating than being killed by somebody you didn't even see.

But, well, get over it, everyone can hit still targets, and if you're getting killed alot, try to move more frequently. Usually it's not snipers nor their weapons to blame, but your own mistakes. I already forsee shitloads of hate towards me, since the game will be f2p, now don't make it undeserved.

Well there's two aspects here. First is the irritation to the actual player. And yes, you can say that they should ultimately get over it and if they don't like it, leave the game. But we want this game to be a critical and commercial success and get the acclaim it deserves, so causing frustration and negging the game (in what could be a big way) when there's no need for it makes no sense. 2-shot-kills don't exactly bother the sniper any more, but 1-shot-kills will bother victims a lot.

Then there's the second aspect I've talked about. A lot of players will get over it, but they'll all also react by changing the way they play, even if they don't moan. People won't go outside as infantry near a body of enemies, and there won't be infantryside battles near the front line because people get one-hit-killed too much, or at least, the battles will be less intense and diminished. This in my opinion is a loss for the game that affects everyone, and most people would probably share that opinion; seeing as this is a player-driven game, surely we want players doing a variety of dynamic things in the battle field to make the fights more interesting with more variables, not hidden behind cover 80% of the time or only driving vehicles in the field.



^^

[Gandhi]

It's their inability to react or have any influence over the events that lead to them dying instantly, even if they know what it is that's killing them.
I agree with everything you said. And it's not just about being able to see the tank, it's also about hearing it and seeing it on radar. All of these things give you a chance to react.

Even an OS gives you a chance to react, and unless you're unlucky enough to be caught smack in the middle of one in open ground in rexo you'll probably have time to avoid it. Now imagine if it had no delay at all. That kind of gameplay is never fun, regardless of what it is. Making it hard doesn't do anything to address this, and besides no matter how hard it is people will always get good at it. "It'll be hard" is a terrible justification for any game mechanic.

But anyway, we'll see how it pans out in beta. Worst case scenario I'll just have to become a badass air cav pilot with a nice sniper-revealing radar modification :D

[texico]

lmao i must be the most unlucky person in planetside.

ive played many fps games with osok snipers and they are not a problem. players adapt, and move from the cover of one location to another,constantly moving while in the open.

if your just standing around in the open not using cover you deserve to die.


Well as I've said, what the player deserves or whether they should bottle up and get over it is fine to say, but ultimately if they do get over it, they'll change their game in a way that demotes the presence of infantry in field battles.

And also, "standing around" is as a lot of people are suggesting a person dying from a one-shot kill would be doing is pretty exaggerated. You can be sniped with a one-shot kill even if moving, which is what most people would be complaining about (they'd probably reasonably expect to die somehow if completely stationary in the open). Even if that's not the case, if a sniper's following you with his scope you only have to stop for a moment, and most of the useful things infantry would be doing within the body of their empire in a battle would mean standing still - healing yourself or others, repairing vehicles, laying mines and spitfire turrets or field turrets, using a CUD, boarding and leaving vehicles, none of these things would be possible if people are waiting to snipe you.


And, I mean from what I've heard BF3 has had lots of complaints about its sniping. And also, most of those FPS games have perhaps 32 enemies in the biggest arena-style battles. PS2 could have what, 500? Whatever the utter limit is, it's going to be much much bigger. You're probably going to have bands of 20 Snipers on a hill that overlooks a base or the front line, which is how it tends to work in PS1. If players are

A, Getting killed with no ability to react or in any way prevent their death post-engagement
B, This is happening regularly because of the number of people doing it

You can bet anything that they'll

A, Get frustrated, complain, have a lesser opinion of the game, leave altogether
B, Stop doing whatever they're doing that's leading them to this scenario even if they enjoy it and it's good for the game (which in this case is Infantryside)

[Forsaken One]

"It'll be hard" is a terrible justification for any game mechanic.


This in a nutshell. even more so if its an excuse as to make something statistically overpowered or lame to deal with.

The game will just devolve to the point the only people having fun are the "skilled" ones shitting all over the people trying to play a video game for fun.


And also, most of those FPS games have perhaps 32 enemies in the biggest arena-style battles. PS2 could have what, 500? Whatever the utter limit is, it's going to be much much bigger. )

Unfun fact. in most F2p games even in CQC maps half or more of those 32 people will run around with sniper guns. EVEN if the game doesn't allow you to quick scope/no scope the lame ability of a one shot kill gives the gun a god level status of you ether use it and gain the skill to use it well or you pretty much GTFO of the game.

[EVILoHOMER]

Snipers were useless in PS and that was great IMO because you never got killed by one so you could stand outside and not worry, it was fast paced and fun. Another worry is headshots will make the gameplay too fast, especially seeing as games like Battlefield struggle with hit detection. I mean I'm worried that the hit boxes will be lagging 5ft behind your character like on Battlefield and head hit boxes are massive.

I would much rather one hit box and 2 shot kills from snipers. I don't want Planetside to become Battlefield, I can go play that shit if I wanted to but I don't.

[Forsaken One]

Snipers were useless in PS

They were not. They played the support role a sniper is SUPPOSE to play. calling out threats, scouting areas, picking off weakened targets or softening targets up.

A sniper shouldn't even be shooting his gun unless its a VERY important target as after the shot he'll be forced to change his spot and as such be unable to recon, call things out, and just be unable to fulfill his support dutys till he's in a new spot.

overall snipers job is not to be a killwhore, and it shouldn't be in a game ether.

[EVILoHOMER]

They were not. They played the support role a sniper is SUPPOSE to play. calling out threats, scouting areas, picking off weakened targets or softening targets up.

A sniper shouldn't even be shooting his gun unless its a VERY important target as after the shot he'll be forced to change his spot and as such be unable to recon, call things out, and just be unable to fulfill his support dutys till he's in a new spot.

overall snipers job is not to be a killwhore, and it shouldn't be in a game ether.

I don't know anyone who played a sniper because the shooting mechanics weren't that great in Planetside and it was magnified with the Sniper rifle. It didn't kill with one shot and very rarely could you get two hits in a row with the damn thing. I spose it wasn't helped that players animated very poorly and seemed to dart about all the place half the time with lag. It's like when you used to run up stairs fast and float in the air for a few seconds lol.

Yeah you have to make sniping more fun to play but actually making the shooting mechanics good. I don't want to see how crazy it is in Battlefield 3 where sniping on big maps makes people scared to go out in the open. It's like the map 2Fort is ruined purely because of the lack of action in middle half the time. Why is this? Because Snipers are so OP there that everyone camps in their base or goes under. Once you get rid of them suddenly middle turns into a mad house and the game is fun again.

With Planetside as well if there really is going to be a thousand players in a battle could you imagine like 300 snipers owning everything from long range, just isn't fun. Then you give up and become a sniper too because it's easy kills for little effort.

[DviddLeff]

300 snipers against 300 air cav and 300 tanks? Sounds like a killing spree.

You are not going to see a glut of snipers when mixed arms is the only way to win.

[Hmr85]

I played sniper off and on in PS. I can tell you I never went out alone if I could help it. Most of the snipers I know went in pairs and were on team speak. You where able to call out the target and put one round from each on the target for a instant kill. It was very effective if done right.

Snipers where by all means not at all useless in PS1.

[NewSith]

They were not. They played the support role a sniper is SUPPOSE to play. calling out threats, scouting areas, picking off weakened targets or softening targets up.

A sniper shouldn't even be shooting his gun unless its a VERY important target as after the shot he'll be forced to change his spot and as such be unable to recon, call things out, and just be unable to fulfill his support dutys till he's in a new spot.

overall snipers job is not to be a killwhore, and it shouldn't be in a game ether.

They were. Trust a member of 2 tactical outfits and one of the first auraxium snipers. Just saying.

I don't want to see how crazy it is in Battlefield 3 where sniping on big maps makes people scared to go out in the open. It's like the map 2Fort is ruined purely because of the lack of action in middle half the time. Why is this? Because Snipers are so OP there that everyone camps in their base or goes under. Once you get rid of them suddenly middle turns into a mad house and the game is fun again.

This statement is an exaggeration. I'm a medic there and I survive perfectly. All heals and rez's included. You see in BF you have limited amount of vehicles. The only counter to snipers except for other snipers is helicopter that usually doesn't give a fuck. In PS (especially in PS2) - 1 player = 1 vehicle. Anywhere anytime he wants it.

Thus:
You are not going to see a glut of snipers when mixed arms is the only way to win.

The statement I tend to agree with.

[Vancha]

Again, I'm seeing way too many assumptions about the nature of a cloaking device we know near to nothing about, and the state of sniping in Planetside 2 which we know next to nothing about.

When the game gets to the point( lets say in a year.) where all the skilled snipers and all the skilled jet flyers (I'm thinking battlefield2 style air where people bullshit that air takes skill to fly to defend the overpowered bullshit.) start to just shit all over everyone and even more so new players the games going to suck.
Assuming too much about the impact of skills.

If PS2's field battles are anything like PS1's, you'll have groups of 10 or 15 snipers on a hill overlooking the front line well within their empire's forces, sniping people with one-shot kills, meaning infantry can't step out in the open.
Assuming too much about the ease of performing a one-shot kill.

Maybe the mechanics, with bullet arcs and recoil or whatever, could make it difficult enough that landing a one-shot kill is as difficult as landing two shots in PlanetSide, but even then, what's the point? All it means is the player getting hit has NO chance. No warning, no ability to react, they just drop dead. I recon tons of people will quickly learn the skill necessary to get one-shot kills if it's possible, and they'll find a way to overcome all the other variables.
Assuming too much about the lack of forewarning and the ability to perfect a one-shot kill.

With one-hit kill sniping, you can't move on the open road at all, more or less ever. Because of the zero reaction time to being one-hit killed you can't adapt your game to being engaged. The only say you have is to not be in that position where you can be shot, ever.
Assuming too much about so many things, including who'll be vulnerable to one-shot kills.

People won't go outside as infantry near a body of enemies, and there won't be infantryside battles near the front line because people get one-hit-killed too much, or at least, the battles will be less intense and diminished.
Again assuming too much about the frequency and reliability of one-shot kills.

Now imagine if it had no delay at all. That kind of gameplay is never fun, regardless of what it is. Making it hard doesn't do anything to address this, and besides no matter how hard it is people will always get good at it. "It'll be hard" is a terrible justification for any game mechanic.
Assuming too much about forewarning of being sniped and reliability of one-shot kills.

Well as I've said, what the player deserves or whether they should bottle up and get over it is fine to say, but ultimately if they do get over it, they'll change their game in a way that demotes the presence of infantry in field battles.
Assuming too much about who'll be vulnerable to one-shot kills.

And also, "standing around" is as a lot of people are suggesting a person dying from a one-shot kill would be doing is pretty exaggerated. You can be sniped with a one-shot kill even if moving,
Assuming too much about the reliability of one-shot kills.

if a sniper's following you with his scope you only have to stop for a moment, and most of the useful things infantry would be doing within the body of their empire in a battle would mean standing still - healing yourself or others, repairing vehicles, laying mines and spitfire turrets or field turrets, using a CUD, boarding and leaving vehicles, none of these things would be possible if people are waiting to snipe you.
Wouldn't they? If a sniper is following someone with their scope, they'll be leading their target. If the target stops moving, not only does the sniper need to readjust his shot, but also compensate for bullet drop and wind. Also, if he's stopped to heal, presumably he'd die in one shot whether shot in the head or not?

A, Getting killed with no ability to react or in any way prevent their death post-engagement
B, This is happening regularly because of the number of people doing it
Again, assuming too much about the reliability of one-shot kills and the lack of forewarning that it's about to happen.

The game will just devolve to the point the only people having fun are the "skilled" ones shitting all over the people trying to play a video game for fun.
Assuming too much about the impact of skills, the skill ceiling of sniping, the ability to reliably one-shot enemies and even that someone playing a video game for fun doesn't enjoy getting shot in the head...although they probably don't.

...and very rarely could you get two hits in a row with the damn thing.

Then you knew no decent snipers.

[NewSith]

Vancha WINS...
Fatality!

[LongBow]

Ok two very obvious points.

1) we are not going to see sniper inflation whichever way the game chooses to go. They will be no more lethal just more annoying.

2) clocking is a great addition to a sniper class, it gives them a much needed defence through stealth. (more role appropriate than additional armour)


----------------------

This did however raise an interesting point, What if OSOK is in reference to a players "health bar" and not an infantryside player as we had all assumed.
That would allow all the perks of two shots to kill, on the players who need it. (HA and LA)(probably medi & eng too)
It would also imply that bullet drop is simply a counter to limit maximum range.

Another perk is that it would allow OSOK sniping in the one place it improves the game ... "counter sniping" as being detected should result in death.

[Princess Frosty]

Presumably snipers wont be able to fire and sustain cloak, and they'll just be able to use cloak to get to their sniping positions. Generally speaking infiltrators in PS1 who were running long distances to reach new areas were easy to spot anyway, remember that infiltrating was based on movement speed so only those very slow, methodical and careful infiltrators were never caught.

I'd like to see the skill/reward curve be ramped up a bit with sniping, it should be 1 hit kill in lighter armour to the head, but things like bullet travel time and bullet drop need to be simulated, maybe also directional wind.

Snipers were always a good target for infiltrators too, you did get sniper hills in the game where snipers would rain death down into base court yards during sieges, but as an infiltrator they're the people who were easy targets to get behind and lay boomers on or set up deplyable turrets behind.

Generally speaking you needed to have good counter snipers to suppress the enemy snipers, once you get snipers on snipers the rest of the troops tend to be safe since they spend all their time sniping and evading each other.

[CutterJohn]

Generally speaking you needed to have good counter snipers to suppress the enemy snipers, once you get snipers on snipers the rest of the troops tend to be safe since they spend all their time sniping and evading each other.

Hopefully regular rifles are good at countersniping. Having the same unit be its own direct counter is.. not ideal.

[Raka Maru]

Vancha WINS...
Fatality!

*Applause*

[Xyntech]

Hopefully regular rifles are good at countersniping. Having the same unit be its own direct counter is.. not ideal.

Having the same unit be one if it's own counters is fine. Dogfights are good. Tank fights are good. Sniper fights are good.

But yeah, it shouldn't be the only effective option. I'd like to see rifles be pretty good at taking on snipers at all but the most extreme ranges, where it should be pretty hard for the sniper to land a shot anyways. Beyond that, vehicles, cloakers, MAXes should all be effective anti snipers.

Hopefully a snipers biggest use will be killing medics and squad leaders. Priority targets, like snipers are supposed to go after. Anything that helps them in that capacity and keeps them from being overpowered in other ways would make me happy.

[Cosmical]

Haha, i dont know where everyone is pulling WIND DIRECTION from. What do you think this is, Worms? You really think we are going to be licking our thumbs and waiting for a breeze to die down to take a shot?

My only thought on sniping is, i want to be useful against MAX's. I didnt mind getting killed by inftantry, if i had missed my chance i deserved to. And i didnt mind being useless against vehicles, makes sense, although headshots on pilots would be a godsend.

But MAX's spotting my location and sprinting for a whole minute to get to me, with me landing bullet after bullet on them. Only for them to get in range, kill me and then walk away with no damage to their health. Rediculous.

I was thinking, Sniper shot to the head on MAX's opens up their armour to further attack from either you or infantry, something that maybe auto repairs over time. Could add some interesting teamplay mechanics, shooting a MAX's back panal off to open him up to a backstab? Wouldnt have to be any more dramatic than a particle effect on a MAX's armour.

[Traak]

One shot kills should only apply from one sniper to another. There. Problem solved. Then we would see how much shrieking in excitement snipers had for one shot kills.

Want one-shot kills? Great! Go find some other snipers to shoot at. And leave the other players alone, or be satisfied with multi-shot kills, like the rest of them.

[NewSith]

One shot kills should only apply from one sniper to another. There. Problem solved. Then we would see how much shrieking in excitement snipers had for one shot kills.

Want one-shot kills? Great! Go find some other snipers to shoot at. And leave the other players alone, or be satisfied with multi-shot kills, like the rest of them.

Do not restart it please. Let it die.

[Kaotc]

i dont see the issue with OSOK, on light and medium armour, because at the end of the day, if you get shot in the head with a sniper, your going to die.

heavy and MAX, shouldnt be OSOK.

i think sniping in BF3 is quite balanced, the scope glint is a major givaway, aswell as the spotting mechanic, which in PS2 should allow air cav to quickly go and mop them up.

[Smokingrabbit]

Having played a n infiltrater in PS1 I have no problem with the 1 shot kill. Everything was like a 1 shot with no armor lol.
WHAT IS POINT OF A HEADSHOT IF YOU STILL NEED 2 SHOTS TO KILL?

also in large scale fights you will get killed by unavoidable damage quite often. My other favorate thing in PS1 was my reaver. If you were in the open you live or die by the pilots skill alone, because you know he is firing enough rockets to kill you.

Its large a scale battlefield sometimes you will just get unlucky.

[EZShot]

Adding fuel to the fire...

Being a long time fan of shooters (especially old school) I'm firmly of the belief that a headshot with any weapon should be one hit kill *source: real life

Obviously with what looks like personal shield generators maybe that should be the case once shields are down.

It wouldn't be that big a deal with the ranges that we're looking at engaging on, would make CQB pretty dangerous.

[Gandhi]

Being a long time fan of shooters (especially old school) I'm firmly of the belief that a headshot with any weapon should be one hit kill *source: real life

You're not serious right?

[Justaman]

Adding fuel to the fire...

Being a long time fan of shooters (especially old school) I'm firmly of the belief that a headshot with any weapon should be one hit kill *source: real life

Obviously with what looks like personal shield generators maybe that should be the case once shields are down.

It wouldn't be that big a deal with the ranges that we're looking at engaging on, would make CQB pretty dangerous.

I agree, so long as where in the head you are hit is not covered in a very thick and durable helmet. At that point, penetration(and a kill) is based on the weapon used.

[EZShot]

You're not serious right?

I am.

But I haven't taken time to fully think it through with all the other game elements. I just feel annoyed when I'm playing new games like BF, CoD & TF when you're standing right in front of them (10ft) and pop them in the head with a pistol and it takes 2 sometimes 3 shots to fell someone....I don't care who you are and what you're wearing, you would have gone down with the first shot.

[Gandhi]

I just feel annoyed when I'm playing new games like BF, CoD & TF when you're standing right in front of them (10ft) and pop them in the head with a pistol and it takes 2 sometimes 3 shots to fell someone....I don't care who you are and what you're wearing, you would have gone down with the first shot.
Seems like you and I have very different ideas of what's fun in a video game. I think I'll just leave it at that.

[Graywolves]

OSOK is out of place in games with a longer TTK

[Aurmanite]

OSOK is out of place in games with a longer TTK

Games like Quake, Unreal, Halo, and Team Fortress?

[Graywolves]

Games like Quake, Unreal, and Team Fortress?

Like Planetside. And on the scale of Planetside 2 OSOK would be a huge annoyance.

[Aurmanite]

Like Planetside. And on the scale of Planetside 2 OSOK would be a huge annoyance.

While I agree that dying is an annoyance, it is a necessity in shooters.

[Gandhi]

While I agree that dying is an annoyance, it is a necessity in shooters.
Now you've gone and missed the point completely.

[Warborn]

The game has to be accessible to a fairly broad audience. Being a shooter alone will limit their potential customer base, but making it too "hardcore" of a shooter would be even more limiting. I don't think having instant kills from sniping or headshots in general would be able to justify itself as being a valuable addition to the game.

[FriendlyFire]

Nothing is more annoying than dying in .3-.5 seconds to an Assault rifle, and then not killing someone with a .50 Cal Sniper rifle in one shot. Sniper rifles need to, with no exceptions, OSK in PS2 (unlocks, possibly deep in the Sniper tree.)

You cannot compare TTK of an Assault rifle and Sniper rifle, when bullet drop and other forces are being applied to Sniper shots.

[Aurmanite]

Now you've gone and missed the point completely.

No, I caught the point. I just disagree with it, completely.

[Raymac]

From what we've seen, there will be much more cover in Planetside 2 than the first one, especially in and around the bases. So although I'm skeptical, OSOK especially for headshots, might not be as out of balance as I may think.

[Neksar]

The problem with makeing a OSOK is what justifies the transition. There would have to be a fairly sizeable drawback to taking the OSOK bonus, aside from the time it takes to earn it. Even then, I'm skeptical about the idea. A one-shot kill in a game like Planetside just doesn't seem fitting, but if they intend to modernize with headshot killboxes, it seems as though a OSOK would make more sense. Maybe some sort of upgrade that just barely pushes snipers over the OSOK threshhold of an unmodified agile suit would make sense.

[Gandhi]

No, I caught the point. I just disagree with it, completely.
So you got the point, but chose to ignore it?

Point was, fyi, that there's an important difference between dying instantly and dying over the span of a few seconds. So while dying is a necessity in shooters, dying instantly is not. It's just a design decision, like TTK or how health is handled or how the cover system works.

[Rbstr]

The game has to be accessible to a fairly broad audience. Being a shooter alone will limit their potential customer base, but making it too "hardcore" of a shooter would be even more limiting. I don't think having instant kills from sniping or headshots in general would be able to justify itself as being a valuable addition to the game.

Yeah, because no wildly popular shooters have any guns that one-shot on headshots. :rofl:

[Aurmanite]

Yeah, because no wildly popular shooters have any guns that one-shot on headshots. :rofl:

I was typing something like this but I looked up and realized my professor seemed to be speaking a different language due to my PSU forum reading.

Gandhi - I disagree that there's an important difference between dying, and dying.

Snipers are part of shooters. They always have been. People who play shooters (aside from the seemingly carebear Planetside players) understand and accept this.

Does it suck to get shot and die? Sure. Does it suck to get headshot and die? Sure. Will people revolt and ragequit? See Rbstr's post above.

[Graywolves]

Having OSOK's just encourages everyone to use OSOK weapons as much as possible.


This isn't as big a problem in normal game matches.


It is a problem when over 50+ people on either side are picking eachother off constantly.


Narrowing the play styles is not in the interest of an MMO.

[Aurmanite]

Having OSOK's just encourages everyone to use OSOK weapons as much as possible.


This isn't as big a problem in normal game matches.


It is a problem when over 50+ people on either side are picking eachother off constantly.


Narrowing the play styles is not in the interest of an MMO.

This is simply untrue.

People play what they like.

The proliferation of snipers isn't a problem in 64 player Battlefield maps, why would it be in Planetside 2? It's the exact same scenario just with more people.

I don't understand why you think someone who likes to AirCav will suddenly start sniping because of OSK's. Why people who enjoy tanking will start sniping because of OSK's. Why people who enjoy being sexual tyrannasaurs's and leveling jungles with minichainguns, will start sniping because of OSK's.

[Gandhi]

Gandhi - I disagree that there's an important difference between dying, and dying.
Well if we can't even agree on there being a difference between dying instantly and dying over a few seconds then I don't see this argument going anywhere. And frankly it's all been said before, in this thread and a dozen others.

[Aurmanite]

Well if we can't even agree on there being a difference between dying instantly and dying over a few seconds then I don't see this argument going anywhere. And frankly it's all been said before, in this thread and a dozen others.

Completely agree. We see it two different ways and that is just fine. Takes all kinds to make the world go round.

[Knightwyvern]

Completely agree. We see it two different ways and that is just fine. Takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Nah, just two. The right ones, and the wrong ones :P

I say with the system they say they have (adjusting hitbox damage individually per weapon) headshots are completely fine by me. Yes, I do mean OSOK.

[Warborn]

Yeah, because no wildly popular shooters have any guns that one-shot on headshots. :rofl:

What do "wildly popular shooters" have to do with anything? We're talking about an MMOFPS game here, not something like TF2 or CoD. They're very different genres.

Does it suck to get shot and die? Sure. Does it suck to get headshot and die? Sure. Will people revolt and ragequit? See Rbstr's post above.

Will they gain more players by having instantly lethal headshots than they will lose by having them? Probably not, no. Higher TTK and fewer bullshit deaths are probably the right direction to take the game.

[Aurmanite]

What do "wildly popular shooters" have to do with anything? We're talking about an MMOFPS game here, not something like TF2 or CoD. They're very different genres.

Are they really?

The only real difference is the fact that there's more people, and a bigger area to fight in.

If all the BF3 maps were one persistent zone and you could have tree times as many people fighting, would it suddenly be a whole different game?

No.

[Warborn]

Size makes a difference in that spawn points are not necessarily several seconds of moving away from getting back into the fight as they typically are in FPS games. Being killed can send you quite a ways away, relatively speaking, and that makes deaths you could not defend yourself against much more unpleasant to deal with.

The other difference is that the game is being made both as a shooter but also as something that will profit the most from having as big a playerbase as possible playing for as long as possible. They can't do something like what the Red Orchestra games do, and make a title that's designed to appeal to a niche of hardcore gamers and be content to occupy that niche. That doesn't work for MMOs which require constant revenue to pay for dev teams and the like.

In other words, adding in stuff that makes the skill gap too large will potentially drive players away and make the game less popular overall. Which is bad for business. Even though die-hard shooter fans might prefer it if TTK is low and headshots are always fatal and stuff, that's not necessarily the best way to handle an MMOFPS.

[Aurmanite]

Size makes a difference in that spawn points are not necessarily several seconds of moving away from getting back into the fight as they typically are in FPS games. Being killed can send you quite a ways away, relatively speaking, and that makes deaths you could not defend yourself against much more unpleasant to deal with.

The other difference is that the game is being made both as a shooter but also as something that will profit the most from having as big a playerbase as possible playing for as long as possible. They can't do something like what the Red Orchestra games do, and make a title that's designed to appeal to a niche of hardcore gamers and be content to occupy that niche. That doesn't work for MMOs which require constant revenue to pay for dev teams and the like.

In other words, adding in stuff that makes the skill gap too large will potentially drive players away and make the game less popular overall. Which is bad for business. Even though die-hard shooter fans might prefer it if TTK is low and headshots are always fatal and stuff, that's not necessarily the best way to handle an MMOFPS.

So I'm confused now.

Are the dev's supposed to be making the game more like BF/CoD, or less like BF/CoD?

BF/CoD are wildly popular with casuals, hardcores, and everyone in between.

People actually enjoy difficult games. They enjoy feeling accomplishment, feeling like they're good. This is why the modern warfare series is the most successful franchise in shooter history.

If they renamed Battlefield 2142 Planetside 2, made it persistent and released it tomorrow, it would probably do gang busters.

[sylphaen]

For anyone looking for "hardcore" shooter and saying they're best... Please, find me a hugely successful FPS games with the following items:
- one bullet disabilities/kills with bleeding mechanics
- no HUD confirming frags
- limited ammo
- no kill cam
- explosives blast radiuses with large disabling radiuses
- limited armor/ammo carrying capacity based on weight and modifying movement speed, tiredness of your character
etc...

Unless you are looking for a soldier simulator, you will simply not find any of those together in a "game".

Please, give up the OSOK stuff, it's biased towards long-range guns unless a hand-gun or automatic rifle also OSOK.

In PS, we are talking about a game with cloaking fields and bases with plasma shields in outer space. Cut the reality stuff already or at least think about what we are talking about before demanding the OSOK kind of stuff: a game !

I loved Day of Defeat and even more when there was FF/no-frag listing. And in those games, vs. good players, it was hell to take over a 20 square meter patch of land.

Asking for realistic mechanics, if you have some nuts, you should at least go all the way. BF3 or CoD are NOT realistic games. They are games with specific mechanics that appeal to some players.

Nothing tells us that copying their model would work on a larger scale. Just like copying the DoD model on a large scale game may not work.

You guys act like you would become the King of the hill with OSOKs in PS2. If you played PS1, you would realize that you are more likely to be spending a lot of time respawning than actually shooting... Unless ! Unless you played a camping sniper shooting from 1000m away with your little cloaking field !!!


If that's the kind of gameplay you are looking for in PS2, I do hope that the devs never listen to you because I sure do not enjoy camping around a spot to point and click.

[Aurmanite]

For anyone looking for "hardcore" shooter and saying they're best... Please, find me a hugely successful FPS games with the following items:
- one bullet disabilities/kills with bleeding mechanics
- no HUD confirming frags
- limited ammo
- no kill cam
- explosives blast radiuses with large disabling radiuses
- limited armor/ammo carrying capacity based on weight and modifying movement speed, tiredness of your character
etc...

Unless you are looking for a soldier simulator, you will simply not find any of those together in a "game".

Please, give up the OSOK stuff, it's biased towards long-range guns unless a hand-gun or automatic rifle also OSOK.

In PS, we are talking about a game with cloaking fields and bases with plasma shields in outer space. Cut the reality stuff already or at least think about what we are talking about before demanding the OSOK kind of stuff: a game !

I loved Day of Defeat and even more when there was FF/no-frag listing. And in those games, vs. good players, it was hell to take over a 20 square meter patch of land.

Asking for realistic mechanics, if you have some nuts, you should at least go all the way. BF3 or CoD are NOT realistic games. They are games with specific mechanics that appeal to some players.

Nothing tells us that copying their model would work on a larger scale. Just like copying the DoD model on a large scale game may not work.

You guys act like you would become the King of the hill with OSOKs in PS2. If you played PS1, you would realize that you are more likely to be spending a lot of time respawning than actually shooting... Unless ! Unless you played a camping sniper shooting from 1000m away with your little cloaking field !!!


If that's the kind of gameplay you are looking for in PS2, I do hope that the devs never listen to you because I sure do not enjoy camping around a spot to point and click.

I hope they listen to you.

They just gotta figure out what it is you're saying.

I played a lot of Planetside. A lot of my time in Planetside was spent sniping. I didn't have a cloak field, and I was rarely 1000m away. I spent way more time alive than dead.

One shot kill sniping has been in almost every single shooter from the beginning of modern shooters (post Doom/Wolfenstein), and yet people haven't flocked away from the genre. I have enjoyed sniping in Quake 2, Unreal, Tribes, Medal of Honor, most of the Battlefield series, Planetside, TF/TFC/TF2, etc. So have millions of other gamers.

If you don't like sniping, that's cool.
If you don't think sniping is useful, that's cool.
If you think sniping isn't a valid game choice, you're wrong.
If you think you have some sort of moral high ground to stand on because you don't like sniping, you're delusional.

OSKing snipers are not as big of a deal as many of you people are making them out to be. They haven't been that big of a deal in 20 years of the shooting genre.

The only way I can rationalize the way you anti-OSKers think, is that you haven't been around shooters for all that long. Your imagination isn't curbed by experience and it's running wild.

[Warborn]

So I'm confused now.

Are the dev's supposed to be making the game more like BF/CoD, or less like BF/CoD?

BF/CoD are wildly popular with casuals, hardcores, and everyone in between.

People actually enjoy difficult games. They enjoy feeling accomplishment, feeling like they're good. This is why the modern warfare series is the most successful franchise in shooter history.

If they renamed Battlefield 2142 Planetside 2, made it persistent and released it tomorrow, it would probably do gang busters.

They're supposed to take stuff that's good from popular shooters and augment it to make it more accessible to people who are more casual players. Part of that means making the potential for skill disparity to have somewhat less of an effect. That's where stuff like a higher TTK and very limited one-shot kills comes in.

When it comes to sniper shots especially I think one-shot-kills are a bad idea due to the distances that are involved in the game. Even in PS1 where you didn't have any sniper one-shot-kills generally speaking (infiltrators/wounded guys aside) snipers were still quite a presence in fights. I think people should be incredibly wary of doing anything that would make snipers more potent, because many fights will involve very wide-open areas. Plus, people won't be able to heal themselves as easily in the sequel, so snipers which require multiple hits to kill targets will find themselves better-off by the fact that not everyone has a medical device this time. It will be a very fine line to walk between making snipers useful, but not making assault rifles obsolete.

[Furret]

For anyone looking for "hardcore" shooter and saying they're best... Please, find me a hugely successful FPS games with the following items:
- one bullet disabilities/kills with bleeding mechanics
- no HUD confirming frags
- limited ammo
- no kill cam
- explosives blast radiuses with large disabling radiuses
- limited armor/ammo carrying capacity based on weight and modifying movement speed, tiredness of your character
etc...

Unless you are looking for a soldier simulator, you will simply not find any of those together in a "game".

Please, give up the OSOK stuff, it's biased towards long-range guns unless a hand-gun or automatic rifle also OSOK.

In PS, we are talking about a game with cloaking fields and bases with plasma shields in outer space. Cut the reality stuff already or at least think about what we are talking about before demanding the OSOK kind of stuff: a game !

I loved Day of Defeat and even more when there was FF/no-frag listing. And in those games, vs. good players, it was hell to take over a 20 square meter patch of land.

Asking for realistic mechanics, if you have some nuts, you should at least go all the way. BF3 or CoD are NOT realistic games. They are games with specific mechanics that appeal to some players.

Nothing tells us that copying their model would work on a larger scale. Just like copying the DoD model on a large scale game may not work.

You guys act like you would become the King of the hill with OSOKs in PS2. If you played PS1, you would realize that you are more likely to be spending a lot of time respawning than actually shooting... Unless ! Unless you played a camping sniper shooting from 1000m away with your little cloaking field !!!


If that's the kind of gameplay you are looking for in PS2, I do hope that the devs never listen to you because I sure do not enjoy camping around a spot to point and click.

Do you know how far 1000 meters is? That shot is not just going to happen, with bullet drop, wind speed, the enemy MOVING AROUND. I'm an avid sniper in PS1, and just with travel time alone, aiming for the body, I only hit about 60% of my shots from 200+ meters. I don't know if you think a bullet to the toe and a bullet to the head will do the same amount of damage, but OSOK applies (i would hope) only to the head.

Also, nobody is forcing you to 'camp around and point and click' if OSOK is implemented. It's an MMO, you can do whatever you please.



This is simply untrue.

People play what they like.

The proliferation of snipers isn't a problem in 64 player Battlefield maps, why would it be in Planetside 2? It's the exact same scenario just with more people.

I don't understand why you think someone who likes to AirCav will suddenly start sniping because of OSK's. Why people who enjoy tanking will start sniping because of OSK's. Why people who enjoy being sexual tyrannasaurs's and leveling jungles with minichainguns, will start sniping because of OSK's.

qft



So you got the point, but chose to ignore it?

Point was, fyi, that there's an important difference between dying instantly and dying over the span of a few seconds. So while dying is a necessity in shooters, dying instantly is not. It's just a design decision, like TTK or how health is handled or how the cover system works.

Would you then propose that tanks be taken out of the game because they're able to kill you with one tank shell? I happen to know its a HELL of a lot easier to hit the ground near a trooper than pick his head off. Snipers are a part of the game as much as tanks are, they both force you to pay attention to where you are, not blindly run about expecting not to be killed.

[sylphaen]

Sorry, I'm not clear sometimes. Here is a restatement.

I feel like a lot of people ask for "realism" or "pseudo-realism" or arguments linked to "realistic" gameplay to support the ideas they like. Pushing that thought to the extreme, it might make an interesting (and realistic) game but maybe not a successful (or fun) game.

In the end, different games have different gameplays and the PS2 devs will hopefully know what is best for the kind of game they want.

I think the way PS1 sniping worked was fine and I believe OSOK is not necessary.

Edit: I might be off-topic since what would bother me the most is quick-knife/quick-scope.

[Vancha]

Why are people still assuming sniper headshots will be a regular occurrence? We don't know they'll even be reliably executable.

[Aurmanite]

They're supposed to take stuff that's good from popular shooters and augment it to make it more accessible to people who are more casual players. Part of that means making the potential for skill disparity to have somewhat less of an effect. That's where stuff like a higher TTK and very limited one-shot kills comes in.

When it comes to sniper shots especially I think one-shot-kills are a bad idea due to the distances that are involved in the game. Even in PS1 where you didn't have any sniper one-shot-kills generally speaking (infiltrators/wounded guys aside) snipers were still quite a presence in fights. I think people should be incredibly wary of doing anything that would make snipers more potent, because many fights will involve very wide-open areas. Plus, people won't be able to heal themselves as easily in the sequel, so snipers which require multiple hits to kill targets will find themselves better-off by the fact that not everyone has a medical device this time.

I disagree. I don't believe they need to make it more accessible. Planetside 2 is going after a very specific market segment. It's a big segment, but it's a segment none-the-less.

People who play shooters expect to play a shooter. They don't expect to have watered down, hold-my-hand, shooter lite mechanics. Neither do I. We all want depth and breadth in our games, and this cannot be achieved by cherry picking things we like from other games and then diluting them.

The hardest part about Planetside had nothing to do with shooting mechanics or the game play engine. It was trying to figure out what the hell to do, how to find your place on the field. Essentially, the MMO part was the least accessible portion of Planetside.

Once someone figured that out, the actual FPS part was exactly the same as almost every shooter that has ever been made, with a slightly different flavor.

[Gandhi]

Would you then propose that tanks be taken out of the game because they're able to kill you with one tank shell? I happen to know its a HELL of a lot easier to hit the ground near a trooper than pick his head off.
Except you can see and hear a tank coming, giving you a chance to react and possibly even save yourself. That makes all the difference.

[sylphaen]

Do you know how far 1000 meters is? That shot is not just going to happen, with bullet drop, wind speed, the enemy MOVING AROUND. I'm an avid sniper in PS1, and just with travel time alone, aiming for the body, I only hit about 60% of my shots from 200+ meters. I don't know if you think a bullet to the toe and a bullet to the head will do the same amount of damage, but OSOK applies (i would hope) only to the head.

If what you describe is an accurate picture of how hard sniping in PS2 will be, that kind of OSOK should actually be rewarded. A near-miss on the first shot would give a situation similar to PS1 and if a first shot landed, a second one is quite possible to land before anyone gets healed (dedicated medic class in PS2?).

My issue though is:
how do you prevent someone from sniping/headshotting indoors if the gun is that potentially powerful?

[Aurmanite]

Except you can see and hear a tank coming, giving you a chance to react and possibly even save yourself. That makes all the difference.

This is not always true.

In fact, if a tank driver is doing his or her job correctly, any infantry should be dead before they hear it coming.

[Warborn]

Tanks and really all vehicles were actually incredibly quiet in Planetside. You really couldn't hear them until they were right on you. So yeah, hearing a tank coming wasn't a thing that typically happened before you died. Similarly, reavers/mosquitoes could actually sneak up on infantry pretty easily.

Once someone figured that out, the actual FPS part was exactly the same as almost every shooter that has ever been made, with a slightly different flavor.

You're aware there were no headshots of any kind in Planetside and that there were very few one-shot-kills anywhere in the game? Making bullets in the head one-shot-kill territory would be a pretty dramatic departure from the kind of gameplay Planetside 1 had.

As for the rest, I don't want to restate what I already did so I'll simply say that underestimating the value or size of the casual FPS gamer market would be a mistake. I want Planetside 2 to be really popular and do really well. Making it a game where really good gamers can easily headshot less experienced gamers and make the game very frustrating for them would be a step backwards in that respect.

Why are people still assuming sniper headshots will be a regular occurrence? We don't know they'll even be reliably executable.

Long range sniping I wouldn't worry about so much, but medium range headshots with sniper rifles would be very dominant if headshots are lethal for snipers.

[Vancha]

Long range sniping I wouldn't worry about so much, but medium range headshots with sniper rifles would be very dominant if headshots are lethal for snipers.
We still don't know how easy it'll be at even medium range, which is assuming damage isn't range-based. Maybe the further away you are, the more damage you'll do (zomg unrealistic!)

[Aurmanite]

You're aware there were no headshots of any kind in Planetside and that there were very few one-shot-kills anywhere in the game? Making bullets in the head one-shot-kill territory would be a pretty dramatic departure from the kind of gameplay Planetside 1 had.

As for the rest, I don't want to restate what I already did so I'll simply say that underestimating the value or size of the casual FPS gamer market would be a mistake. I want Planetside 2 to be really popular and do really well. Making it a game where really good gamers can easily headshot less experienced gamers and make the game very frustrating for them would be a step backwards in that respect.

Again.

Modern Warfare.
Hardcore game.
Loads of OSK's.
Lowest TTK ever.
Most successful franchise in shooter history.

But you didn't really address anything I said in my post, and you just restated the things you've already said, so it's basically zero sum.

If people got frustrated by headshot OSK's, and that was backwards movement in FPS's, explain the current trends in the genre.

Annnnnnd go.

[Vancha]

Modern Warfare.
Hardcore game.
Sorry, did you just call Modern Warfare a hardcore game?

[Knightwyvern]

Guys, don't forget. This is combined arms. Sniper giving you trouble outdoors? Options. Countersnipe, bring in air cav, tank, etc. Indoors? MAX. Explosives.

Yes, it's inconvenient having a sniper shooting at you, that's the point.

[EZShot]

A. We have no idea how difficult it will be to revive fallen team mates - This I believe would have a massive influence on this discussion as this ultimately dictates how annoying it would be to drop dead with one shot.

B. As far as sniping goes in PS1 I never enjoyed it despite being a huge fan and sniper in almost all FPS's since '97, yet, in PS I always found it more fun to use flying vehicles and max suits. I would like to see OSOK (in the face) but with a real slow time to reload. Bolt action. Add to this wind, bullet drop, light, glare, stray bullets etc.. and you're making it really hard for a sniper to concentrate on the head let alone the trigger.

I don't understand why everyone is so against this. TTK has been dramatically reduced with all weapons throughout the game. Why not let the sniper have a damage upgrade too?

EDIT: And another thing, we're not playing with 133 players a side any more, you'll be part of a much bigger pack and the battle line could well be moving much more quickly which will make the snipers work a lot harder to stay in a good position.

[Furret]

good gamers can easily headshot

This will not be an issue, because headshots will not be easy.



My issue though is:
how do you prevent someone from sniping/headshotting indoors if the gun is that potentially powerful?

This has been discussed before, but it's in the depths of a thread everyone is probably too lazy to find.

-Lore about sniper bullets absorbing nanites from the atmosphere in flight so that they power up the farther they go (reaching maximum power around 100m)
-Scope thats base zoom is high enough that it becomes unmanageable in close quarters, and becomes reasonable around 75-100m (assumes sniper either cant be hipfired or has an unreasonable spread from the hip)

[Checowsky]

This will not be an issue, because headshots will not be easy.





This has been discussed before, but it's in the depths of a thread everyone is probably too lazy to find.

-Lore about sniper bullets absorbing nanites from the atmosphere in flight so that they power up the farther they go (reaching maximum power around 100m)
-Scope thats base zoom is high enough that it becomes unmanageable in close quarters, and becomes reasonable around 75-100m (assumes sniper either cant be hipfired or has an unreasonable spread from the hip)

So very hard with bullet drop and bullet speed.

My BF3 stats:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Taunau/BF3HDK.png

I'd love to have this but if I'm honest it would not be a good thing.

[Aurmanite]

So very hard with bullet drop and bullet speed.

My BF3 stats:

I'd love to have this but if I'm honest it would not be a good thing.

You have 43% accuracy.

Of that 43%, 76% are headshots.

That looks pretty damn balanced to me.

[Raka Maru]

We must be bored while waiting for more content and beta, cuz every sniper thread, MBT thread turn into a debate...

I like my MCG, sniper rifle, Max suit, and all vehicles. What's disturbing is some people think, just because I have my sniper hat on at the time that I put a bullet through them that I'm having less fun than when I spray 100 rounds at close range, or cuz I'm stealthing and hacking base turrets, that I'm missing out on the front line action.

It's a play style, do whatever you like. I know I do...

[Raka Maru]

Head shots, can't wait to master this PS2 style. Should come with brain splat animation when OSOK'd

[Checowsky]

You have 43% accuracy.

Of that 43%, 76% are headshots.

That looks pretty damn balanced to me.

If you take into account shots I fire randomly for no good reason, pop shots at targets I don't think I can actually kill or maybe even hit that would be up quite a lot. Also note I'm, according to BF3 stats, in the top 4% for headshots on PC. So it is slightly skewed but I still think its not a great idea.

[Aurmanite]

If you take into account shots I fire randomly for no good reason, pop shots at targets I don't think I can actually kill or maybe even hit that would be up quite a lot.

This is irrelevant.

Also note I'm, according to BF3 stats, in the top 4% for headshots on PC. So it is slightly skewed but I still think its not a great idea.

You're a bad motherfucker!