Snipers in PS2

[Aurmanite]

If you're standing still outside not behind any cover in a huge FPS map you deserve to die.

But, well,

Snipers don't need 1SK. They just don't.

Can't argue with that.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by Knocky

Your ego really knows no bounds, does it?

My ego is as boundless as your stupidity.

Snipers don't need 1SK. They just don't.

They don't I agree.

If you're standing still outside not behind any cover in a huge FPS map you deserve to die.

If sniping in this game was like ARMA I could agree. The problem is sniping in games (like BF3) is far too easy. If a sniper in ARMA killed me it wasn't too insulting because they were very well designed and balanced in that game. They were also limited so you'd often see one or two in an entire battle and that's it.

In games such as BF3 the issue might not come from one or two snipers but comes when you have 6-12. At that point the game just becomes annoying.

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

This is just annoying and doesn't feel good, it breaks the fourth wall by way of being unbelievable and anything that breaks the fourth wall lowers immersion and makes a game less fun, except in the case of games that use it for comedy.

The cure to quick scoping is simply having a settle deviation, inaccurate hipfire, inaccurate scope fire until 5-10 seconds from scoping in. No more problem.

Or, alternatively, scope in charge mechanic like TF2 sniper. Though in reality inaccurate scope in for 5-10 seconds has EXACTLY the same effect as a charge time - stopping the person from shooting immediately.

Reverse degradation unbelievable? PS1 flail? What about the BF3 grenade launcher that doesn't kill under a certain distance without a direct hit. The lore is easy to explain. Sniper bullets could be explosive and only arm at XX distance. Make a OSOK hit if the explosive part goes off on your brain basket. Players will adapt, no big deal. They will learn that the only way to get a OSOK is a headshot at over a minimum distance. I do agree the hip fire should have a large random spread.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

I know you've seen the GDC demo.

Not in high enough quality to make out the health bars.

[Kilmoran]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

Here's the thing that bugs me about 1SK headshots:

People stand still all the time. More importantly, I think they should be able to stand still without having to worry about instantly dying. You should always give people a chance at survival, even if it's a slim one. It isn't fair to punish the support classes for standing still to heal somebody or construct something. Hell, even offensive classes will pop out, crouch to fire and then withdraw. They need to be given a chance to save themselves.

The majority of my targets in PS1 were not moving when I made the first shot. Giving me the ability to 1SK them would have been a nightmare. For a target that isn't moving, any idiot can make a headshot. The PS1 bolt driver was accurate enough that it would have been trivial at medium-ish ranges. I agree that if you can headshot a moving target, it'd be nice if you were rewarded for that somehow. But killing stationary players instantly is bad, bad, bad. It's simply too powerful an ability for how easy it is, and will lead to snipers being a pestilence.

Even with a 2-shot-kill system, you can get near-instant kills pretty easily anyways. One of the cheesiest (or most effective) sniping tactics in PS1 was to simply wait for your target to start taking fire. Most people would withdraw to rep at about half health, so all you had to do was wait until a friendly started shooting at them before joining in. 90% of the time, their hp would vanish before they had a chance to react. Given the new shield system will encourage people to play peek-a-boo, a sniper's highly front-loaded damage will remain an excellent way to drop enemies who keep taking cover before the MA users can kill them. In areas with dense infantry cover, you'll want your team to have at least one sniper for exactly this reason.

Snipers don't need 1SK. They just don't.

Being flanked is part of battle though. Being caught stationary or healing or what have you is unlikely to happen if you are moving with the battle. If you are remaining stationary long enough for a sniper to exploit your position, then that was bad luck or your fault.

I understand what you are saying, but you have to look at it from a broader view. On a battlefield, staying still is never a good thing for very long ,even as a sniper. Getting killed is part of the game. Being suppressed by snipers is also part of the function of a sniper, and the closest to "fear" that a sniper can really give in a game, is the fear of imminent demise. I know I personally robbed countless snipers of kills because as soon as I was hit, i'd move to a location they were very unlikely to hit me from, heal and repair, and be far more careful, or move to some other location they likely had no shot. Being completely flanked or out shot by the most powerful sniper rifle in the game became a bit trivial when I could just keep moving, healing and repairing.

I know that the primary argument here is to snipe in pairs, and it is an excellent tactic, but i don't think it should be next to necessary when using the biggest, baddest, slowest rifle out there to get a kill after hitting the most vulnerable area of a single infantry unit. I believe balance will be achieved by the variety of sniper rifles out there, and thus tactics for using them and most appropriate ways of being able to use them well will come from that variety, but i do believe the possibility of killing at least some of the other classes with one well placed shot should be available.

Edit: I will note I am also saying this from the perspective of what a sniper rifle is designed to do. While not all equal by any measure, the purpose of a sniper rifle is to fire the most lethal round possible ,as accurately as possible, from as far away as possible depending on the configuration. It is designed to kill, primarily, single soft targets at a time. The gun itself really has no other purpose than to try to take out a single person from the most advantageous place possible for surprise attacks. All guns are meant to kill, and if possible, all guns are meant to kill with a few shots as possible. But a sniper rifle is specific in role. It is a flanking weapon for group "routing" and single target elimination.

All of that being said, taking out the possibility of it being capable of doing it's job the best (if designed for that role by the player) seems like it is taking away from the idea of what a sniper is. Me? I'm the type to use an anti-material rifle on a person. Why? Because i don't mind it being bolt action, or taking longer to fire or to reacquire the target. My task is to eliminate what ever threat to my team or to the mission I can as efficiently as possible, and that is an assurance it will get done. In Planet Side 1, a bolt driver was as effective at killing as a melee boosted ,secondary mode knife thrust. However, even the knife was more versatile than the boltdriver, and i have always felt that was a shame.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

In games such as BF3 the issue might not come from one or two snipers but comes when you have 6-12. At that point the game just becomes annoying.

That's a design issue in one particular game.

You can't condemn the entirety of sniping because of that.

[Mjolnir]

I think people need to stop comparing snipers in PS2 to sniping in BF3; BF3 is a very poorly made game with very poor balance, so any conclusions drawn from it should not be applied to PS2. I don't mind two headshot kills on heavier units, as long as the reload/cycle time between rounds is fairly short, otherwise snipers will not be able to get kills and will be even more useless. I realize it is currently "cool" to completely shit all over snipers, but they can be useful. The real problem here is figuring out a way to ensure that only the skilled players actually use the sniper class. I look at it sort of like the Spy class in TF2; tons of people run around as a spy and are largely useless to their team because they have no idea what they are doing, but a very skilled spy can completely dominating a server.

Since PS2 has wide open combat areas, a sniper could sneak behind enemy lines and then attack enemy forces from the rear. I don't see anything cheap about this, and I would not complain if I was one of the enemies getting attacked. If a sniper stays in the same place and keeps firing enemies he will likely be spotted fairly quickly and take nout by an enemy sniper, another kind of ground soldier, or an aircraft. In order to be successful good snipers will stay on the move and not engage enemies from one place for too long.

It is stupid to say that someone being a sniper "takes away" a vital spot from someone who could be another kind of foot soldier; this is just because of the stereotype that snipers are completely useless, which is false.

Basically a sniper should be able to kill enemies at long range, but suck at close/medium range. There are plenty of ways to achieve this and prevent quickscoping COD players from running around and making horrible montages with dubstep, but completely removing the sniper altogether is not one of them. I think that heavier units should be able to survive a sniper headshot, while lighter units (like the light assault) should not.

As others have said, getting a headshot at long range on a light assault that is using their jetpack and flying around will not be very easy, especially with bullet drop and travel time. I don't know why so many people say sniping in games like BF3 is easy, because it is not. Sure, sniping STATIONARY targets (like other snipers) is easy, but hitting moving targets at range is definitely a lot harder than spraying someone who is 20 feet away with an assault rifle.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

That's a design issue in one particular game.

You can't condemn the entirety of sniping because of that.

I can and I will because it's not just BF3 that is like that.

CoD sniping is annoying and less skillful than BF3 sniping due OSK and hit-scan.

BF3 sniping is annoying and hardly helpful to your team given the option of playing other useful classes.

Honestly though besides the CoD and BF franchises what other games make up the shooter market? And don't say TF2 because that's a joke of a "game" and a mockery to what QTF started.

When I look back to games like Counter-Strike I remember most servers and tournaments banning the use of the AWP. When I look back to a game like Day of Defeat I don't remember snipers being an issue because they were limited to one per team. Games like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six had snipers but they too weren't an annoyance and hardly an issue due to the difficulty of using them.

Some modern simulators like Red Orchestra or ARMA make sniping so difficult that they're not much of an issue and one can appreciate the talent of a highly skilled sniper. Oh! And they're also fucking limited. What I am getting at here is that in PS2 snipers won't be limited (nor can they be) and the problem will become even more annoying than in games like BF3. The reason why PS1 sniping was well designed and not annoying was due to the required team-play aspect of it between two players to drop one target.

Before we get too far off from what this thread is about I am going to say this: I think snipers should be in PS2 but if they follow the BF3 / CoD model they will do more harm to the game than good. Following the PS1 model would be the absolute best way to go about things but I'm afraid that simply will not happen.

[Kilmoran]

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

Before we get too far off from what this thread is about I am going to say this: I think snipers should be in PS2 but if they follow the BF3 / CoD model they will do more harm to the game than good. Following the PS1 model would be the absolute best way to go about things but I'm afraid that simply will not happen.

I largely agree here... but I will say i used to snipe in the original Rainbow Six and that game.. pretty much everything killed you in 1 to 3 shots. Even my Robar .50 BMG could take more than one shot to kill someone sometimes (Though i have killed someone with a leg shot before). My point here would be that since TTK is going to be higher over all for every other weapon in PS 2... why leave sniper rifles behind? IF TTK was the same, i'd 100% agree with you. But if they are higher for all other weapons, why not also this one /IF/ it is specced out to be that way?

[Aurmanite]

Your opinion is fine. It's noted.

The problem is your view of your opinion.

You're going to tell me that TF2 is really a mockery of what they did with the original Quake mod? Dude, did you ever play the border map? How about the hilarious look of classes in TFC? The games are so similar that the real mockery is the original expectation of us to pay for TF2.

Anyways, off topic all to hell.

Quake2 (Railgun)
Unreal games (lightning gun/sniper rifle)
Medal of Honor
God damn Goldeneye
etc etc etc
Sniping is part of the fabric of what makes an FPS an FPS.

I agree that it's important they do it right, but there's way too much whining and griping about it. I was trying my best to avoid this thread because I knew it would draw my ire like a motherfucker.

[Kilmoran]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Anyways, off topic all to hell.

Quake2 (Railgun)
Unreal games (lightning gun/sniper rifle)
Medal of Honor
God damn Goldeneye
etc etc etc
Sniping is part of the fabric of what makes an FPS an FPS.

I agree that it's important they do it right, but there's way too much whining and griping about it.

I'm going to throw out Perfect Dark and it's sniper rifle that could zoom through walls. It was balanced by a myriad of factors, including zooming past enemies right in front of you. Obviously however it was powerful, and the funny part is, it worked for sniping even in small maps and buildings simply because of that feature. That's how you designed guns in a game.. considering how your game works and how the gun will be useful but not broken amongst everything else.

[Tcakes]

really wish people would stop comparing a game we don't know a whole lot about to bf3/cod, even ps1. ya some mechanics are going to be there. however with the scale that is assumed having a scout/recon is going to be super useful. and of you have that one asshat sitting way out of nowhere so be it. it's not like there is a round ending in 20 min and played in one area. sniper rifles are powerful. period. ya I hate getting sniped just like everyone else it's part of modern fps. got to deal. if you get too pissy, hunting those bastards down and putting a knife in the back of their head isn't difficult. like a bunch of folks have said. play smart, communicate. but mostly play the GAME. don't take it so damn seriously.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

I largely agree here... but I will say i used to snipe in the original Rainbow Six and that game.. pretty much everything killed you in 1 to 3 shots. Even my Robar .50 BMG could take more than one shot to kill someone sometimes (Though i have killed someone with a leg shot before). My point here would be that since TTK is going to be higher over all for every other weapon in PS 2... why leave sniper rifles behind? IF TTK was the same, i'd 100% agree with you. But if they are higher for all other weapons, why not also this one /IF/ it is specced out to be that way?

There were no sniper rifles in Rainbow Six. They weren't introduced until Rogue Spear.

You're going to tell me that TF2 is really a mockery of what they did with the original Quake mod? Dude, did you ever play the border map? How about the hilarious look of classes in TFC? The games are so similar that the real mockery is the original expectation of us to pay for TF2.

You're citing the looks of maps and classes of how the game isn't a mockery of the original. I am talking about the game play and how what made QTF and TFC is gone in TF2.

Quake2 (Railgun)

Movement speed.
Bunny Hopping.
Rocket Jumping.

Unreal games

Movement speed.
Bunny Hopping.
Rocket Jumping.
Wall Jumping.

Medal of Honor

Console trash.

God damn Goldeneye

Console trash.

Sniping is part of the fabric of what makes an FPS an FPS.

Please don't talk to me about the "fabric of a FPS" when you cite two console games directly below Quake and Unreal. The reason why "sniping" in Quake and Unreal wasn't a big deal was due to the movement and how the game played. Sniping only became an issue when player speeds slowed down, iron sights became the norm and things such as recoil and CoF were implemented in such a way to force players to stand still in order to get the very best accuracy.

Getting a mid air rail gun shot off a guy flying across the room at MACH V was an impressive feat. Cherry picking a stationary target from 100m away with your 12x scope and near hit scan accurate M95B is not a feat. Oh! And before you say anything the reason the target is stationary is because he has to crouch and use his iron sights to be able to manage his recoil and make consecutive hits on his target.

[Aurmanite]

The only decent Medal of Honor was a PC game. The console games before it were garbage, chum.

You've obviously never played any huge maps in Unreal.

I would love you to PM me (for real) what you see as that drastically different from the original mod, to TF2. Grenade spam? MIRV's all day, baby.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Medal of Honor was a PC game before it was a console game, chum.

"The Medal of Honor series began in 1999 with Medal of Honor. It was released on PlayStation on November 11, 1999 by film director and producer Steven Spielberg."

You can stop posting now.