Infiltrator scope / sights

[fedhell]

Hello everybody,

This is my first post here, i usually just lurk, but I cant find the information im looking for anywhere so i hope you all can help me :-)

While watching the 3 days of gameplay with totalbiscut, all of the snipers i saw had very large scopes that took all of the screen, and blacked the rest. I love to snipe (i play Blacklight Retribution while waiting for PS2 beta), but the way that I snipe is with like a 3x or 4x sight, not necessarily a full scope.

This video is the sight style on a sniper that i love
ShocKeD || Guy From Space || Blacklight Retribution Montage (HQ) - YouTube

And this one is the style that we saw at E3, that i cant stand
//Blacklight Retribution\\PiiDGEOT//Sniper Run through Gameplay with Bolt Action\\- YouTube

So ultimately i was wondering if anybody knows if we can put a "sight" on our sniper rifle, instead of a full "scope".

Thanks in advance,

-Fedhell

[Electrofreak]

Hello everybody,

This is my first post here, i usually just lurk, but I cant find the information im looking for anywhere so i hope you all can help me :-)

While watching the 3 days of gameplay with totalbiscut, all of the snipers i saw had very large scopes that took all of the screen, and blacked the rest. I love to snipe (i play Blacklight Retribution while waiting for PS2 beta), but the way that I snipe is with like a 3x or 4x sight, not necessarily a full scope.

This video is the sight style on a sniper that i love
ShocKeD || Guy From Space || Blacklight Retribution Montage (HQ) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn2LPcvI7Oc)

And this one is the style that we saw at E3, that i cant stand
//Blacklight Retribution\\PiiDGEOT//Sniper Run through Gameplay with Bolt Action\\- YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iBfzSb3ad0)

So ultimately i was wondering if anybody knows if we can put a "sight" on our sniper rifle, instead of a full "scope".

Thanks in advance,

-Fedhell

They've told us like a million times how customizeable everything is, and I remember watching a vid (great, now I'm going to be digging for the link) where they mentioned that you could even put a scope on a shotgun if you wanted, even though it would be relatively worthless.

So in short, it's very likely you'll be able to put whatever scope you want on your sniper rifle.

Edit - Here it is. Check this video out: SOE Community Webcasts: PlanetSide 2 Weaponry - YouTube

[Rasui]

Yeah, quick scoping in close combat is not sniping. I can do without that bs in planetside, thanks.

[Furber]

I don't snipe very much, but I'm sure they will have different scopes that support different game play styles.

[Solidblock]

That wasn't sniping, but I get what you mean. Yes, you can do that. If CoD and Battlefield 3 let you put those scopes on, then I'm sure PS2 will.

[MrKWalmsley]

Quick scoping is fucking horrendous. And if that is how you play you have absolutely no right to say that you are a sniper. You're a glorified shot-gunner.

[fedhell]

Quick scoping is fucking horrendous. And if that is how you play you have absolutely no right to say that you are a sniper. You're a glorified shot-gunner.

Im not sure why you hate quickscoping. I find it the best of both worlds. I can preform at short med and long ranges. A shotty really falls off at med long, where as the sniper in vid 1 has quite the range. Its enjoyable, quite the rush, as if you miss the first bullet at med/close your probably dead. It does take skill.

Please elaboriate why its so bad.

-Fedhell


EDIT: Ive also recorded a video of me playing blacklight retribution soo ill add that below so you can see that i dont really play it like running around with a shotty. Unlike the first vid i still like to hold my range. Please ignore my voice it sounds horrible recorded :-(.

Blacklight Retribution Bolt Action Gameplay HD - YouTube

[Otleaz]

Im not sure why you hate quickscoping. I find it the best of both worlds. I can preform at short med and long ranges. A shotty really falls off at med long, where as the sniper in vid 1 has quite the range. Its enjoyable, quite the rush, as if you miss the first bullet at med/close your probably dead. It does take skill.

Please elaboriate why its so bad.

-Fedhell

Not only does it kill immersion for everyone involved, it is exploiting quality of life mechanics to make an easy kill.

And yes, it is damn easy. The only reason you don't see more people doing it is because they feel like douchebags when they try.

[Winfernal]

I guess having "xX1337quiCkScopeZghettoshotgun fragmovies" for PS2 is inevitable.

[MrKWalmsley]

I can preform at short med and long ranges. A shotty really falls off at med long, where as the sniper in vid 1 has quite the range.

Oh god it really went over your head didn't it? Snipers don't perform at all at med or short ranges unless using a pistol. And if you think even the greatest distance in Blacklight or most of FPS's actually count as long range then I'd like to inform you they don't, they class as medium range at most.

If you are one shotting people at that kind of range you are not a sniper, you are a combat marksman, and if you are shooting people at close combat with it, it is practically a slug shotgun. Ergo, practically nothing you did can be classed as sniping.

And as a person who used to quick-scope in CoD all the time, I hate it because it actually takes no skill, particularly when aiming down sights automatically locks onto a nearby target. All you have to do is get your cross-hair somewhere near to the target and go into your sights and the auto-aim does the rest. It just made it far too easy, and being a fan of a challenge I stopped doing it and turned to conventional "sniping".

[fedhell]

if you think even the greatest distance in Blacklight or most of FPS's actually count as long range then I'd like to inform you they don't, they class as medium range at most.

What game do you suggest i try then to get a feel for 'sniping'? Im willing to try here. I enjoy the rifle. Not looking to start the a flame war, i think if you look at the video of me playing blacklight you will see i dont play it like you think i do.

-Fedhell

[TAA]

Quick Scoping Takes So Much "Skill" - YouTube

[MrKWalmsley]

What game do you suggest i try then to get a feel for 'sniping'? Im willing to try here. I enjoy the rifle. Not looking to start the a flame war, i think if you look at the video of me playing blacklight you will see i dont play it like you think i do.

-Fedhell

Sorry if I sounded a bit like a bastard. And yeah I did realise a difference but that other guy was still running around with it like a shotty. I wouldn't really class what you were doing as quick scoping though, it seemed you only did it when you happened to be caught off-guard which is fair enough.

Anyways if you want to try out some proper sniping I'd suggest Project Reality mod for BF2. It's not the prettiest game but it sure as hell has great gameplay.

Here's a bit of sniping in it although some of it would be considered on the border between long and medium range.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c0Sc1FP-Y6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Stew]

In a base youll be able to own people with a snipers and a 4x scope wihout any problems ;) your suposed to be able to change every scopes like BF3 !

So dont worry about that ;)

[Jonny]

To OP. The game your playing (i've not heard of it before) does look fun and I'm one that likes twitch reaction shooting in certain fps weapons. However, I would say that style of "sniping" wont suit planetside 2.

First of all the looking down scope animation is so fast i'm suprised the character doesn't put it through his skull each time. This fast scope is probably part of the game design, seeing as you have a wall hack as part of the game also. If you know where everyone is all the time, it comes down to fast scope quick reaction times to denote who wins.

Having a long range powerful weapon which scopes that fast would, I imagine, be overpowered for the infiltrator. At the same time though, you don't want it being too slow. I imagine this is something we can all give feedback on once the beta has started :)

[Rbstr]

Ever since BC2 I've preferred to have a 4x when I play "sniper". Especially with a semi-auto. You out range most assault rifle users but you get to keep some closer in capability.
Combined with pistols that are actually deadly and usable it makes you much more useful than the half dozen idiots sitting on the ridge not attempting to capture anything.

Call it "designated marksman" if you want. Doesn't matter to me.

Of course, if all marksman-type guns are restricted to the Infiltrator it won't be as viable in PS2. Simply because they're much squishier than other classes.

All you have to do is get your cross-hair somewhere near to the target and go into your sights and the auto-aim does the rest.
What does anything enabled by auto-aim have to do with PS?

[Otleaz]

What does anything enabled by auto-aim have to do with PS?

Even without auto-aim it is easy mode.

It won't be a problem since only infiltrators can use snipers though.

[MrKWalmsley]

What does anything enabled by auto-aim have to do with PS?

I was using that against quick scoping in general. Stop quote mining, and learn what 'context' means. Using that kind of quote mining you could have just as easily said "What does quick scoping have to do with PS?" and it would have made just about as much sense.

[Boothie]

saw a rds sight among the options in one of the e3 vids and what with infiltrator not bound to sitting on a hill 500m away being a sniper only i suspect the possibility of converting snipers to battlerifles by boosting firerate and recoildampening, this sadly opens the door for quickscopers i think but think everyone should calm down about it and wait til we see how it turns out.

[CutterJohn]

I don't get the hate.. Its a gun. Guns shoot stuff, irrespective of range. Its not like sniper rifles are super OP up close.. they still do less dps than battle rifles, shotguns, etc.

[MrKWalmsley]

I don't get the hate.. Its a gun. Guns shoot stuff, irrespective of range. Its not like sniper rifles are super OP up close.. they still do less dps than battle rifles, shotguns, etc.

DPS doesn't matter when we are talking about a weapon which can kill in one shot. All that matters in that instance is how much damage it does with that one shot, and in this case, it is a lot.

Love the logic to, lets see how it works with something you may be opposed to:
"Insta kill, auto-lock on, infinite range, infinite ammo 5000 bullet per second mini guns. I don't get the hate.. Its a gun. Guns shoot stuff, irrespective of range"
See? Doesn't quite work does it?

[IMMentat]

Say no to quickscope.
Its instant access perfect accuracy for no downside. It may be semi-realistic (if you ignore thhe jump-duck turn and headshot crap in that video) but in a game it ruins the balance of play.

[CutterJohn]

DPS doesn't matter when we are talking about a weapon which can kill in one shot. All that matters in that instance is how much damage it does with that one shot, and in this case, it is a lot.

Love the logic to, lets see how it works with something you may be opposed to:
"Insta kill, auto-lock on, infinite range, infinite ammo 5000 bullet per second mini guns. I don't get the hate.. Its a gun. Guns shoot stuff, irrespective of range"
See? Doesn't quite work does it?

Yes, thats called overpowered.

My point is that if it can head shot people at long range, then quite obviously it can headshot at short range too. It will in fact be better at it because of that whole friction thing. Introducing arbitrary mechanisms to force it to be atrocious is dumb and lazy.

If one hit kills are bad, they need to go away, rather than having some nonsensical rule that defies the coherency of the game internal logic.

Hence my point. Its a gun. It should behave like a gun is established in the game to behave. Meaning no ridiculous cof because for some reason infantry turn to butterfingers when holding a single shot rifle, no reverse damage degradation that flies in the face of all bullet physics, no removing the reticle, etc.

[MrKWalmsley]

Yes, thats called overpowered.

My point is that if it can head shot people at long range, then quite obviously it can headshot at short range too. It will in fact be better at it because of that whole friction thing. Introducing arbitrary mechanisms to force it to be atrocious is dumb.

If one hit kills are bad, they need to go away, rather than having some nonsensical rule.

Erm, what exactly do you think I am suggesting to fix quick-scoping? What have I said to make you think that I would introduce any kind of mechanic which would be unrealistic?

[CutterJohn]

Erm, what exactly do you think I am suggesting to fix quick-scoping? What have I said to make you think that I would introduce any kind of mechanic which would be unrealistic?

Because the 'fix' requires it. As I've said. Its just a gun. No different than the battle rifles which can also quickly ADS with a scope. Nobody calls that 'quick scoping' though, thats just normal behavior.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Not only does it kill immersion for everyone involved, it is exploiting quality of life mechanics to make an easy kill.

And yes, it is damn easy. The only reason you don't see more people doing it is because they feel like douchebags when they try.

Not an quick-sniper myself, but anyone who gimps themselves or makes a gameplay decision based on how a bunch of babies will think of them is a tool. I don't do it, but I'm not going to bomb on someone for using (or even abusing) something to win. If something is overpowered, you blame the developer, not the player. Any serious FPS player understands this.

[Otleaz]

Introducing arbitrary mechanisms to force it to be atrocious is dumb and lazy.

I'm not saying it should change, but I find it funny that you say that.

Quickscoping is only possible because of an unrealistic quality of life mechanic. In real life handling a sniper rifle would be sluggish compared to a pistol or an smg. Swinging it around, stopping it, and shooting someone would be quite the feat.

If they simulated that in a game it would feel sluggish and unfun. Thus, quickscoping was born.

[CutterJohn]

I'm not saying it should change, but I find it funny that you say that.

Quickscoping is only possible because of an unrealistic quality of life mechanic. In real life handling a sniper rifle would be sluggish compared to a pistol or an smg. Swinging it around, stopping it, and shooting someone would be quite the feat.

If they simulated that in a game it would feel sluggish and unfun. Thus, quickscoping was born.

As it would be with a battle rifle or LMG. Yet nobody has ever accused those of quick scoping.

[Otleaz]

As it would be with a battle rifle or LMG. Yet nobody has ever accused those of quick scoping.

While that is true, I think the TTK is the reason sniper rifles get all the attention. In other games, LMG are usually just assault rifles with crappy accuracy and more ammo.

[MrKWalmsley]

Because the 'fix' requires it. As I've said. Its just a gun. No different than the battle rifles which can also quickly ADS with a scope. Nobody calls that 'quick scoping' though, thats just normal behavior.

What fix? You know there is more than one way to alter capabilities right? Like having a slower scoping time for sniper rifles? Not only does it stop this kind of bollocks it's more realistic since in real life if you have a sniper rifle you don't just ram it up into your eye ball and expect to have it perfectly centred. If you looked down your sights as quickly as in these vids first of all the gun would probably move considerably due to the rapidity of your posture change, and secondly the rapidity would mean you would still have to take a second to centre your view down the scope, get your bearings from the massively changed view (in terms of where you are looking and more importantly, the amount of zoom you are now looking through) and then compensate for the gun movement to bring it back on target.

There! Problem solved! And you make it fair by reducing the time it takes to scope when you up rate of fire, or downgrade damage so that it becomes fair. What's the problem? Is this unrealistic? Is that making an arbitrary mechanism, or is it balancing? Explain with detail please!

[GreatMazinkaise]

Or we could just go back to the Bolt Driver's original mechanics:

*massive CoF bloom with anything other than careful movement
*2-shot kills
*reload after every shot

No quickscoping under those conditions.

[CutterJohn]

What fix? You know there is more than one way to alter capabilities right? Like having a slower scoping time for sniper rifles? Not only does it stop this kind of bollocks it's more realistic since in real life if you have a sniper rifle you don't just ram it up into your eye ball and expect to have it perfectly centred. If you looked down your sights as quickly as in these vids first of all the gun would probably move considerably due to the rapidity of your posture change, and secondly the rapidity would mean you would still have to take a second to centre your view down the scope, get your bearings from the massively changed view (in terms of where you are looking and more importantly, the amount of zoom you are now looking through) and then compensate for the gun movement to bring it back on target.

There! Problem solved! And you make it fair by reducing the time it takes to scope when you up rate of fire, or downgrade damage so that it becomes fair. What's the problem? Is this unrealistic? Is that making an arbitrary mechanism, or is it balancing? Explain with detail please!


What I meant by arbitrary. It takes no less time to scope a battle rifle or whatever than it does a sniper rifle. Its just a scope.


A sniper rifle is a rifle with a scope on it. Thats it. Its not some magical entity. People are running around with miniguns. A single shot rifle should pose no great difficulties.

[MrKWalmsley]

Or we could just go back to the Bolt Driver's original mechanics:

*massive CoF bloom with anything other than careful movement
*2-shot kills
*reload after every shot

No quickscoping under those conditions.

First one is good, second negates the point of a sniper and seriously nerfs actual snipers and the third doesn't stop quick-scoping at all, as the videos that have been presented show. Sorry.

What I meant by arbitrary. It takes no less time to scope a battle rifle or whatever than it does a sniper rifle. Its just a scope.


A sniper rifle is a rifle with a scope on it. Thats it. Its not some magical entity.

Good, then delay the scoping time on a scoped battle rifle!

[CutterJohn]

Good, then delay the scoping time on a scoped battle rifle!

Sniper rifles with reflex sights and laser pointers.

[GreatMazinkaise]

First one is good, second negates the point of a sniper and seriously nerfs actual snipers and the third doesn't stop quick-scoping at all, as the videos that have been presented show. Sorry.


Not really sure how it negates the point of a sniper (you can still get long distance kills with little risk to yourself outside of hard counters)...

Also, no one likes snipers, so I'm not seeing the problem.

[MrKWalmsley]

Sniper rifles with reflex sights and laser pointers.

Well now we are out of the realm of quick-scoping and into the world of quick-reflex-sighting :D

[jabber]

all sniper rifles should be 2+ shot kills, even with headshots.
1 head shot + 1 body shot / 3 body shots seems fair to me.

having a 1 shot kill turns it into a shotgun what works at close, mid and long range

[Electrofreak]

all sniper rifles should be 2+ shot kills, even with headshots.
1 head shot + 1 body shot / 3 body shots seems fair to me.

having a 1 shot kill turns it into a shotgun what works at close, mid and long range

Not if you keep bloom high and a body shot isn't a 1 shot kill.

At close ranges, targets move around a lot, and if your cone of fire is the size of the enemy and you need a headshot to kill him, you need to be very lucky to get a 1 shot kill. Obviously a shotgun is the superior weapon to have in this situation.

[Rasui]

Yes, thats called overpowered.

My point is that if it can head shot people at long range, then quite obviously it can headshot at short range too. It will in fact be better at it because of that whole friction thing. Introducing arbitrary mechanisms to force it to be atrocious is dumb and lazy.

If one hit kills are bad, they need to go away, rather than having some nonsensical rule that defies the coherency of the game internal logic.

Hence my point. Its a gun. It should behave like a gun is established in the game to behave. Meaning no ridiculous cof because for some reason infantry turn to butterfingers when holding a single shot rifle, no reverse damage degradation that flies in the face of all bullet physics, no removing the reticle, etc.
It has nothing to do with 'infantry suddenly turning to butter fingers' or 'bullet physics'. Those single shot rifles have long barrels and are quite heavy. That's what makes them accurate enough to be used at long range. They're extremely unwieldy for close quarters fighting. Imagine if you rounded a corner and went to aim the rifle at an enemy standing in front of you, you would be sticking it over his shoulder. Which is exactly why SMG's and carbines were invented. But how do you simulate that in a virtual world were strength, coordination, and weapon length aren't real things? Simple, you give it a big cone of fire to simulate how clumsy you would be trying to run and gun with the thing. Otherwise you really are breaking physics and as a result giving people a weapon with far too many strengths and not nearly enough downsides.

So no, it wouldn't actually be better at headshotting things at short range. The same characteristics that make it amazingly accurate at long range also make it ineffective at short range. You aren't going to suddenly whip a 15-20lb rifle that's 3-4 feet long to your shoulder and stabilize it for a snap headshot, that's ridiculous.

[DarkChiron]

I'm confused. Are we saying a gun that kills in 1 headshot that has long between-shot times is overpowered compared to a gun that kills in 4 shots that fires 10 rounds a second?

I just want to know where the discussion is and everyone seems to be talking in vagaries.

[The noob]

Here's what I think sniper rifles should act in Planetside 2

Bolt-Action Rifles:
Pros
1: Can kill lighter classes (ranging from infiltrators up to engies and medics) in 1 shot
2: Can deal decent amount of damage on body shots

Average #shots to kill: 1 shot to the head, 2 shots for everything else. Double that for heavy assaults, maxes should migitate most of the damage, requiring many headshots to kill

Cons:
1: Must reload after every shot
2: Massive loss of accuracy when unscoped (makes noscoping unreliable)
3: Massive loss of accuracy (scope goes crazy), when moving around the area while scoped
4: Tracer shots will reveal your position
5: Going into scope takes longer than other weapons, possibly around a 1.5 seconds or more, making quick scopes should you be forced in close quarters combat fruitless, as you'll likely die before you can finish and get a shot off.

Semi-automatic rifles
Pros:
1: Can fire several shots before reloading
2: Versatile, can have scopes replaced with more close range equals, making it a mid-close range battle rifle.
3: More accurate and suitable for close range combat, accuracy loss in regards to unscoped or moving around doesn't affect the semi-automatics like the bolt actions.
4: Has equal time of going into sights or scopes as normal rifles.

Avg #shots to kill: 2-3 for headshots, 5-6 for body shots. Double that for heavy assaults. Maxes will also migitate most of the damage.

Cons:
1: Takes at least a few shots to kill lighter classes (regarding headshots)
2: Loss of range, bullet drop affects semi-autos more than bolt-actions

I'm confused. Are we saying a gun that kills in 1 headshot that has long between-shot times is overpowered compared to a gun that kills in 4 shots that fires 10 rounds a second?

I just want to know where the discussion is and everyone seems to be talking in vagaries.

I believe what people are essentially worried about are quick-scopers and no-scopers. I'd say that people rightly believe that a rifle that can both 1 shot at range, and also be a power close quarters weapon that can easily 1shot at close quarters. can be problematic. Best thing to do would be to encourage its usage at range, discourage its usage up close.

[Rasui]

I'm confused. Are we saying a gun that kills in 1 headshot that has long between-shot times is overpowered compared to a gun that kills in 4 shots that fires 10 rounds a second?

I just want to know where the discussion is and everyone seems to be talking in vagaries.

No, we're saying that the bolt-action shouldn't be effective at close range. Just like the gun that kills in 4 but fires 10 a second shouldn't be effective at medium/long range.

[DarkChiron]

No, we're saying that the bolt-action shouldn't be effective at close range. Just like the gun that kills in 4 but fires 10 a second shouldn't be effective at medium/long range.

Most games I've played do this so I'm just confused why it's a concern. How incompetent do we think the devs for this game are?

[Rasui]

Most games I've played do this so I'm just confused why it's a concern. How incompetent do we think the devs for this game are?

I personally have faith, however, I'm still going to be vocal against quick-scoping on the off chance that any dev might consider it.

Sniper rifles with reflex sights and laser pointers.

Ok, this post just feels petty. Is there a point to your argument or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Because all I can seem to discern is that you're in favor of an awful mechanic that shouldn't exist in ANY game.

[Russ]

Id also like to point out that infiltrators as a class have the lowest shield and health of any other. Making them the most fragile, aka why they have a cloak to supplement that. So having one running an gunning would not really help them out at all.

Before someone comments on the cloak being op. Cloaks are not 100% invisibility, even the most camouflaging only lasts a few seconds and takes several more to recharge (stated by Higby). So as distance increases their cloak is more effective, same thing is true with modern camo patterns. So everything points to them staying AWAY from their target. Not upclose.


EDIT: TTK was much high in PS1 so it made sense to make it a 2 shot kill then.

[The noob]

Id also like to point out that infiltrators as a class have the lowest shield and health of any other. Making them the most fragile, aka why they have a cloak to supplement that. So having one running an gunning would not really help them out at all.

Before someone comments on the cloak being op. Cloaks are not 100% invisibility, even the most camouflaging only lasts a few seconds and takes several more to recharge (stated by Higby). So as distance increases their cloak is more effective, same thing is true with modern camo patterns. So everything points to them staying AWAY from their target. Not upclose.


EDIT: TTK was much high in PS1 so it made sense to make it a 2 shot kill then.

When it comes to cloaks, I believed they said that if you completely sacrifice a primary weapon, that you'd gain borderline, if not full on invisiblity, alongside a longer cloak. Essentially, an infiltrator who wishes to operate in close quarters areas without fear of being easily seen can do so, it will simply take sacrifices to do so (which would mean no sniper rifles, smgs, or shotguns, which all have a lot of killing power in the right situations).

[Russ]

When it comes to cloaks, I believed they said that if you completely sacrifice a primary weapon, that you'd gain borderline, if not full on invisiblity, alongside a longer cloak. Essentially, an infiltrator who wishes to operate in close quarters areas without fear of being easily seen can do so, it will simply take sacrifices to do so (which would mean no sniper rifles, smgs, or shotguns, which all have a lot of killing power in the right situations).

Giving up primary? No, there are countless pictures not to mention E3 footage showing otherwise. Though i do think i hear Higby comment on if you wanted to go completely invisible it may take you primary away. But it sounded like an idea floating and not something actually currently in.

[The noob]

Giving up primary? No, there are countless pictures not to mention E3 footage showing otherwise. Though i do think i hear Higby comment on if you wanted to go completely invisible it may take you primary away. But it sounded like an idea floating and not something actually currently in.

Who knows, it may be an idea, but I remember things similar to this being mentioned all the way back in the PcGamer mags (feels so long since then). It would be a rather nice idea actually, sacrifice long range abilites so you can operate better in close quarters (for example, specializing in hacking, knives, etc), and vice versa.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Yes, Planetside had a high TTK... it also had a more difficult to use sniper rifle. A second shot should be rewarded, since the first one isn't the hard to get.

OSK on snipers is fine though... the more dead snipers the better.

[Vydofnir]

Im not sure why you hate quickscoping. I find it the best of both worlds. I can preform at short med and long ranges. A shotty really falls off at med long, where as the sniper in vid 1 has quite the range. Its enjoyable, quite the rush, as if you miss the first bullet at med/close your probably dead. It does take skill.

Please elaboriate why its so bad.

-Fedhell


EDIT: Ive also recorded a video of me playing blacklight retribution soo ill add that below so you can see that i dont really play it like running around with a shotty. Unlike the first vid i still like to hold my range. Please ignore my voice it sounds horrible recorded :-(.

To be honest, the first video in the OP actually made me sick to my stomach. I'm extremely out of practice when it comes to FPS, and I was never exactly top drawer to begin with, so there is no way I'm going to be getting a kill in edgewise if that's what I have to compete with on a regular basis.

That being said, I felt like your video was a much fairer portrayal of what you're getting at. As far as I could tell, what you were doing was no where near game-breaking, and it was clear that there was a respectable amount of skill involved on your part. If you want to slap a 4x scope onto a bolt action rifle, that's fine by me.

It seems to me that the best way to balance the issue is to make the weight of a weapon a factor in determining the speed at which you can sight it. Sniper rifles would sight slower than assault rifles, assault rifles slower than carbines, etc. The attachments you choose could have an effect on this as well: You want an over-sized scope on your battle rifle or a grenade launcher on your AR? That's perfectly fine, but there would be a tradeoff.

[TAA]

Not an quick-sniper myself, but anyone who gimps themselves or makes a gameplay decision based on how a bunch of babies will think of them is a tool. I don't do it, but I'm not going to bomb on someone for using (or even abusing) something to win. If something is overpowered, you blame the developer, not the player. Any serious FPS player understands this.


QFT.

[Gandhi]

A bolt action can be OSK on other snipers, 2+ shots on everyone else. Everyone's happy, right?

[The noob]

A bolt action can be OSK on other snipers, 2+ shots on everyone else. Everyone's happy, right?

I think most people are arguing about quick scoping and no scoping, not on the ability to one shot. I'm relatively fine with it as long as the heavies and maxes aren't one shot able, and that there are no one shot body shots,, which is common in low TTK games, that's just bullshit right there. Hitting a moving target in the head isn't exactly the easiest thing, taking travel time and bullet drop into consideration as well.

[Gandhi]

I think most people are arguing about quick scoping and no scoping, not on the ability to one shot.
Well that's easy. No and no.

Firing a sniper rifle without scoping should be wildly inaccurate, to the tune of the COF taking up half the screen. It's supposed to be the exact opposite of a close quarters weapon, so it should be just as useless at close range as a shotgun is at long range. Otherwise what's the point? We're talking about designing fitting game mechanics here, not real life.

Quick scoping ties into that as well. I can't think of a single redeeming quality for it from a game design standpoint.

[The noob]

Well that's easy. No and no.

Firing a sniper rifle without scoping should be wildly inaccurate, to the tune of the COF taking up half the screen. It's supposed to be the exact opposite of a close quarters weapon, so it should be just as useless at close range as a shotgun is at long range. Otherwise what's the point? We're talking about designing fitting game mechanics here, not real life.

Quick scoping ties into that as well. I can't think of a single redeeming quality for it from a game design standpoint.

Agreed, I wasn't supporting any of them. I don't think they have any place here, and would make 1 shotting OP if people could run around using them as close range shotguns.

[CutterJohn]

Ok, this post just feels petty. Is there a point to your argument or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Because all I can seem to discern is that you're in favor of an awful mechanic that shouldn't exist in ANY game.

Explain how you would prevent someone from putting that on their sniper rifle? Its a scope rail, pretty standard stuff.


Well that's easy. No and no.

Firing a sniper rifle without scoping should be wildly inaccurate, to the tune of the COF taking up half the screen. It's supposed to be the exact opposite of a close quarters weapon, so it should be just as useless at close range as a shotgun is at long range. Otherwise what's the point? We're talking about designing fitting game mechanics here, not real life.

Quick scoping ties into that as well. I can't think of a single redeeming quality for it from a game design standpoint.


Shotguns are not useless at long range. With a proper saboted slug you can hit accurately out to 150-200m. With buckshot, you'll have a 1-2m wide pattern at 100m, depending on choke used.

Sniper rifles are mostly just slightly heavier caliber rifles. M-14s are used as sniper rifles. They were a standard issue battle rifle for 20 years. Others are just modified hunting rifles. If you're talking something like a .50 caliber, irl, you wouldn't use one of those standing up. But this is a game where you can run around with a rocket launcher and MCG, so realism doesn't really work as an argument, nor the fact that its heavy.



I don't get why people think weapons should be so stratified. Sure, a sniper rifle should be a bad choice for CQC. But that shouldn't mean its pointless to pull out due to ridiculous restrictions on it. Just like an LMG or MCG should be able to lay a good stream of fire on a snipers position. That doesn't mean its a good weapon for that role, it just means its not its strong suit.

[ziegler]

I dont play COD...but quick scoping is a problem in PC games? I know its a problem on consoles due to them compensating for playing with boxing gloves compared to a PC.

But quickscoping is a problem in PC games like the BF series? never heard it before.

[Gandhi]

Shotguns are not useless at long range. With a proper saboted slug you can hit accurately out to 150-200m. With buckshot, you'll have a 1-2m wide pattern at 100m, depending on choke used.

Sniper rifles are mostly just slightly heavier caliber rifles. M-14s are used as sniper rifles. They were a standard issue battle rifle for 20 years. Others are just modified hunting rifles. If you're talking something like a .50 caliber, irl, you wouldn't use one of those standing up. But this is a game where you can run around with a rocket launcher and MCG, so realism doesn't really work as an argument, nor the fact that its heavy.
I'm confused. I thought we were talking about a video game here?

[Envenom]

Quick scoping is the bane of video games and has no place in PS2. Go play CoD.

[proxy]

Quick scoping is the bane of video games and has no place in PS2. Go play CoD.

No you.

Personally, I like the medium range recon the OP talks about. I can give overwatch to squad mates, be a spawn point, etc. I think every squad deserves a designated marksman.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I think every "designated marksman" deserves to spend 90% of his game time staring at the respawn screen. Real warriors put themselves at risk when getting kills.

[proxy]

I think every "designated marksman" deserves to spend 90% of his game time staring at the respawn screen. Real warriors put themselves at risk when getting kills.

I think you have a pretty unrealistic view. Not sure why you put quotations on a real thing. Pretty disrespectful to people who do this in real life, unlike your "real warriors". Whatever that means.

These are not snipers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_marksman

Educate yourself.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I think you have a pretty unrealistic view. Not sure why you put quotations on a real thing. Pretty disrespectful to people who do this in real life, unlike your "real warriors". Whatever that means.

These are not snipers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_marksman

Educate yourself.

I thought we were on a forum butting heads about a game, not the unbalanced constant open beta that is reality. But if we're talking reality it goes without saying that soldiers have often taken a dim view of some unseen asshole taking potshots at them from an unknown location, often to the point of doing very unkind things to them when found.

In FPS games, this attitude is also pretty common, for obvious reasons. Proud Warrior Race guys aren't fond of Sniper Elites spoiling their fun.

Edit: And for the record, in a computer game there really is no appreciable difference between a sniper and a designated marksman, hell, I'd be surprised to see a meaningful distinction between the two in a miniatures game.

[proxy]

I thought we were on a forum butting heads about a game, not the unbalanced constant open beta that is reality. But if we're talking reality it goes without saying that soldiers have often taken a dim view of some unseen asshole taking potshots at them from an unknown location, often to the point of doing very unkind things to them when found.

In FPS games, this attitude is also pretty common, for obvious reasons. Proud Warrior Race guys aren't fond of Sniper Elites spoiling their fun.

I am glad you can speak for soldiers and that it goes without saying. You're quite the authority. I just offered the idea that you show a little respect.

Its seems from your point of view, you'd rather this be an infantry only game? CQB only game? Without those pesky people covering you? I'm not talking about super long range snipers here hanging out by themselves. I'm talking about people who work as a team, move with you, provide support.

How about those stupid tanks and aircraft? They compromise your "real warrior" ethic?

[Otleaz]

To be fair, the game would probably be better without sniper rifles.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I am glad you can speak for soldiers and that it goes without saying. You're quite the authority. I just offered the idea that you show a little respect.

Its seems from your point of view, you'd rather this be an infantry only game? CQB only game? Without those pesky people covering you? I'm not talking about super long range snipers here hanging out by themselves. I'm talking about people who work as a team, move with you, provide support.

How about those stupid tanks and aircraft? They compromise your "real warrior" ethic?

I'd prefer that we all had empathic weapons so that strength of spirit would be the primary consideration, actually, but that really doesn't suit the genre.

It does go without saying... enemy snipers are not viewed positively, even in real life. Friendly snipers are viewed differently, which also goes without saying.

Tanks and aircraft are cool, but for one reason only... most tankers and pilots prefer to kill each other (bailing wouldn't be such an issue otherwise). Snipers may well enjoy fighting each other, but they primarily kill other infantry types, all of whom resent being killed by an attacker they probably can't even see.

Covering fire? In a game? You can't be serious...

[proxy]

I'd prefer that we all had empathic weapons so that strength of spirit would be the primary consideration, actually, but that really doesn't suit the genre.

It does go without saying... enemy snipers are not viewed positively, even in real life. Friendly snipers are viewed differently, which also goes without saying.

Tanks and aircraft are cool, but for one reason only... most tankers and pilots prefer to kill each other (bailing wouldn't be such an issue otherwise). Snipers may well enjoy fighting each other, but they primarily kill other infantry types, all of whom resent being killed by an attacker they probably can't even see.

Covering fire? In a game? You can't be serious...

What? Holy shit there is too much fucked up in this post to reply too.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[TheDAWinz]

I'd prefer that we all had empathic weapons so that strength of spirit would be the primary consideration, actually, but that really doesn't suit the genre.

It does go without saying... enemy snipers are not viewed positively, even in real life. Friendly snipers are viewed differently, which also goes without saying.

Tanks and aircraft are cool, but for one reason only... most tankers and pilots prefer to kill each other (bailing wouldn't be such an issue otherwise). Snipers may well enjoy fighting each other, but they primarily kill other infantry types, all of whom resent being killed by an attacker they probably can't even see.

Covering fire? In a game? You can't be serious...

Proxy has a way better point than you. Snipers are suppose to be 500-600m out picking off and spotting targets for Air/land/sea forces to engage. Not running around with a scoped shotgun.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Proxy has a way better point than you. Snipers are suppose to be 500-600m out picking off and spotting targets for Air/land/sea forces to engage. Not running around with a scoped shotgun.

I know what snipers are supposed to do... I just don't believe that it is sporting. Considering I'm not a fan of ADS in general I don't really think that I would ever ask for/want a scoped shotgun.

[TheDAWinz]

I know what snipers are supposed to do... I just don't believe that it is sporting. Considering I'm not a fan of ADS in general I don't really think that I would ever ask for/want a scoped shotgun.

Have fun firing a gun in real life and trying to hit a target.

[DarkChiron]

Proxy has a way better point than you. Snipers are suppose to be 500-600m out picking off and spotting targets for Air/land/sea forces to engage. Not running around with a scoped shotgun.

Indeed. Typically sniper rifles do more damage because they're so much harder to score hits with. In this game figuring for bullet drop and bullet travel time, it's going to take some time getting used to hitting moving targets. The same really can't be said for a guy with an SMG at 5 m out.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Have fun firing a gun in real life and trying to hit a target.

This is why I play...wait for it... GAMES.

Indeed. Typically sniper rifles do more damage because they're so much harder to score hits with. In this game figuring for bullet drop and bullet travel time, it's going to take some time getting used to hitting moving targets. The same really can't be said for a guy with an SMG at 5 m out.

They've still got an easier sniper setup than the old Bolt Driver... I don't imagine the old Planetside REXO snipers will have trouble adjusting to the new weapons. Their sniper duels might be more interesting with cloaking/OHSK though.

[TheDAWinz]

This is why I play...wait for it... GAMES.

Not untill someone invades your country.

[Landtank]

Considering I'm not a fan of ADS in general

I like twitchy reflex based gameplay too, the kinds where skill and teamwork is irrelevant. Lol jk, I respect both gameplay types in all seriousness.

More people like games to have some semblance of reality, it helps with immersion GREATLY.

I don't like snipers that much in games, but designated marksmen are cool. It's similar to having a SAW team, it allows your squad to be more versatile.

I also agree that this is a game, but different people like different games :/

[GreatMazinkaise]

Not untill someone invades your country.

Where the hell did that come from? Also, I live in the US, which has only been successfully invaded by Canadians and is a logistical nightmare to invade except by an adjoining border. I don't really see the point at which this would ever be a real concern.

[Electrofreak]

To be fair, the game would probably be better without sniper rifles.

I don't really understand the sniper hate. They have a very specific, specialized role, and outside of that role they are largely ineffective.

People moan about stepping out of a building and getting sniped, but they seem to have no qualms about getting in an aircraft or a tank and splattering a sniper who has little chance to defend himself.

This isn't Unreal Tournament, PlanetSide is combat on a massive scale and that includes long distances. If you don't want to get sniped, stay behind cover, move quickly, or get in a vehicle. In short, deal with it!

[TheDAWinz]

Where the hell did that come from? Also, I live in the US, which has only been successfully invaded by Canadians and is a logistical nightmare to invade except by an adjoining border. I don't really see the point at which this would ever be a real concern.

I know, so do I. Im talking about door to door drug warfare thats spilling over.

[Landtank]

I know, so do I. Im talking about door to door drug warfare thats spilling over.

Lol.

[Brusi]

Generally i dislike the the quick-scoping mechanic. Although it's fun to learn how and hear people cry hacks when you perfect it. It kind of ruins the rest of the game if the ability to quickscope overlaps with the niches held by other guns. Many games handle this pretty simply though...

Move at all and you will never hit shit. Not saying this is the best solution, but it's perhaps the most realistic? I dunno... i like the idea of the sniper being pigeonholed enough to stop it from being able to dominate in every situation.

The higher the TTK is, the better the risk/reward of quickscoping gets. If a regular gun is going to take a second or two to kill you, and you can instagib people with a sniper... then your best option is to learn how to control the sniper in every situation.

Too many games let you learn how to play the game with sniper only.

Now, back to the world of PS2!!! Perhaps the power of the sniper is already incredibly balanced, by the fact that they have the least armor?!

[ziegler]

well..now that I have read up on it and understand why I never heard of it....I dont do COD.

COD has it on PC because there isnt a PC version of COD, it's a straight console support with added features...like mouse and kyb support!!!!....I mean...you cant get M/K support on a 360, that's a helluva feature!!!.....


So, I doubt that exploiting a autoaim game mechanic will be an issue with PS2 since it isnt polluted with console design.

[diLLa]

The people who hate getting sniped are probably the ones running around like a chicken holding a sign in his hand which contains "Shoot Me".

Then these people try it for themselves and conclude that they can't hit shit with it, so they decide to unrationally hate snipers.

[Gandhi]

The people who hate getting sniped are probably the ones running around like a chicken holding a sign in his hand which contains "Shoot Me".
It's not about getting killed by snipers, it's about how snipers change the gameplay by virtue of how they're implemented. If it's fairly reliable to one shot someone then you're forcing everyone to zig zag from cover to cover all the time, regardless of whether there's a sniper around or not. Because you just don't know. That's a fundamental gameplay difference to snipers always needing two shots, and I think it's pretty clear why.

So the question is which type of gameplay do we want? Do we want to force people to always play as if there's a sniper, even in an otherwise empty base? Or do we want to give snipers one "free" hit on someone before it becomes a contest of skill? His skill at dodging the second shot and reaching cover vs your skill of landing that second shot.

Same with quickscoping and no scoping. It's possible to counter both, that's not the point, the point is you end up with totally different gameplay depending on how they're implemented. Which type is more suitable for Planetside 2? That's the question.

[diLLa]

It's not about getting killed by snipers, it's about how snipers change the gameplay by virtue of how they're implemented. If it's fairly reliable to one shot someone then you're forcing everyone to zig zag from cover to cover all the time, regardless of whether there's a sniper around or not. Because you just don't know. That's a fundamental gameplay difference to snipers always needing two shots, and I think it's pretty clear why.

So the question is which type of gameplay do we want? Do we want to force people to always play as if there's a sniper, even in an otherwise empty base? Or do we want to give snipers one "free" hit on someone before it becomes a contest of skill? His skill at dodging the second shot and reaching cover vs your skill of landing that second shot.

Same with quickscoping and no scoping. It's possible to counter both, that's not the point, the point is you end up with totally different gameplay depending on how they're implemented. Which type is more suitable for Planetside 2? That's the question.

Only headshots should be 1 shot kills if you implement it. Body 1 shot kills are stupid, I agree.

Assuming sniping is actually hard to do, and increases in difficulty the longer the shot is, than I don't think you would have to play as if a sniper is always aiming at you, as the chance he would headshot you isn't that big.

Obviously, sniping needs a fine balance between difficulty and awards.

People who say the game is better off without it are the ones I described in my previous post.