Snipers in PS2

[bullet]

I just have to add this in here for teh lulz.

http://youtu.be/H4MRo4QONQ4?t=1m24s

BTW 90% of his videos are awesome. Great waste of time while you wait for PS2.

[Gandhi]

Instant death without warning is a bad gameplay mechanic, that's basically what it boils down to for me. And this applies just as much to infiltrators backstabbing a sniper.

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Instant death without warning is a bad gameplay mechanic, that's basically what it boils down to for me. And this applies just as much to infiltrators backstabbing a sniper.

No it's not....it is funny as hell.

If you don't like death in a game with no death penalty then I suggest you not bother logging in.

Surely you are not suggesting that you can walk away from a boomer blowing up in your face? A Vanguard running your ass over?

Look at the bright side of things, at least you will not respawn at a AMS jut in time to watch the purdy light from the sky sending you right back to watch the bar of bad slowly fill back up again.

If you are standing still long enough for a sniper to get a headshot in, then you deserve to have your ass sent back to the tubes.

[Lokster]

Please don't gimp the sniper class. A lot of the previously posted concerns are valid, but most are not.

If a sniper needs to shoot someone 4-5 times (even 3 is too many imo) before they get a kill, it is not a sniper. Why not just play MA or HA, as it would be less frustrating. Snipers pride themselves with precise, powerful, long range shots.

That being said, I too, hate the lame snipers that sit back and do nothing for their team in BF3. But consider that BF3 is about pushing forward and taking an objective as quickly as possible with no thought to tactics (on Rush game type that is) -- something PS2 will not be.

I believe PS2 needs to have OSOK snipers with bolt weapons that score head shots on an enemy wearing less than heavy armor. I also believe the only class that should be able to spot is the sniper/recon class.

Just my 2 cents.

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by kadrin

Because what you're asking for will lead to quick-scoping one shot kills. I know a number of people, myself included, who could abuse the hell out of that at ANY range, we would no longer be giving up our close range effectiveness for long range, we'd be beyond effective at all ranges.

We already do this in other games, like Battlefield 3, you think that bullet drop or travel time means anything at close range? You think it matters that I have to scope in to an 8x zoom to fire at close range when I've already lined up the shot without the scope easily?

One hit kill weapons are broken, especially one that can be effective at all ranges. This is just another reason why I'm also against headshots being a damage multiplier, Planetside 1 worked very well without it, Planetside 2 can too.

The cure to quick scoping at short range is called "reverse damage degradation." If your not XX meters from a target, no OSOK for you.

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by ArcIyte

They are easily my #1 pet peeve with Battlefield 3. No one wants them on their team, and no one wants to fight them.

I hear ya, but that problem works itself out automatically in Planetside's base-capping flow.

There's rarely a time when staying put and sniping for a long time is beneficial. You stake out a new base, pick off some roaming enemies, and as your forces push inside the courtyard -- sniping suddenly becomes useless.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Basing snipers in a game like Planetside by using experiences from match-based shooters is a fallacy.

In match-based shooters, you're always fighting against the clock. Be that clock on a timescale, or counted in terms of kills, it's always a mad rush to beat the other team to one finish line or another. Snipers or a slow class. They get kills slowly, and they move slowly; they are generally counterproductive in a match-based shooter except for very specific circumstances, and most times you're better off with just another run-and-gun grunt.

In a game like Planetside, battles can go for hours. It makes sense to play the long game, to get kills slowly but efficiently, to scout and deny area to the other army. Suppression plays a much bigger role when there's no clock to beat.

I really hope the devs don't have match-based shooters on the mind when balancing snipers.

Also, I really, really sad that sniper rifles sound like they might be kit-specific to infiltrators. Just another example of modern gaming being a lead-by-the-nose, no-we'll-decide-how-you-play-thank-you-very-much model.

[Lokster]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Basing snipers in a game like Planetside by using experiences from match-based shooters is a fallacy.

In match-based shooters, you're always fighting against the clock. Be that clock on a timescale, or counted in terms of kills, it's always a mad rush to beat the other team to one finish line or another. Snipers or a slow class. They get kills slowly, and they move slowly; they are generally counterproductive in a match-based shooter except for very specific circumstances, and most times you're better off with just another run-and-gun grunt.

In a game like Planetside, battles can go for hours. It makes sense to play the long game, to get kills slowly but efficiently, to scout and deny area to the other army. Suppression plays a much bigger role when there's no clock to beat.

I really hope the devs don't have match-based shooters on the mind when balancing snipers.

Also, I really, really sad that sniper rifles sound like they might be kit-specific to infiltrators. Just another example of modern gaming being a lead-by-the-nose, no-we'll-decide-how-you-play-thank-you-very-much model.

+1 sir. I approve of this message.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Shade Millith

Grab a sniper rifle yourself and start putting bullets back into them.

Grab infiltrator armor and stick a knife or a pistol barrel into their back.

Grab a mossie or reaver and kill them.

The rock paper scissors approach doesn't work well for snipers when they can one-hit all other classes. You basically want a class that can only be killed by itself while at the same time able to kill every other infantry class one-hit at any range. You really can't give that kind of power to a class. Not sure if you remember the balancing act of the Jackhammer's triple shot and that was really only designed for close range. You want to basically give a jackhammer to a player with unlimited range.

The whole idea of a 2-hit system is that you must be relatively safe since the TTK is higher for a sniper, but the amount of damage at one time is extremely high. So you can hit someone, but it leaves you open. Basically you trade TTK for range. Then again it sounds like the TR is getting the HSR so the actual balancing should be interesting.

[Tamas]

In your bush, camping.

Heavy assault+Engineer+Infiltrator - three best classes I'm going to pick.

Yeah, Sniping is fun as hell, when you can aim at long range. I expect 1km headshots in PS2, even with bullet drop. Shoot, cloak, relocate, shoot, cloak, relocate.

[texico]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

The absolute best thing would be if they straight up copied PS1's system. That is, give the bullet significant travel time (realism be damned), and require the gun to be held perfectly still for a second or so before firing (again, realism be damned). This makes sniping a motion prediction task, not a twitch skill, making it a bit more of a cerebral task requiring an investment of practice to get good at.

Also, I am a big, big fan of a 2-shot kill system. 1 shot kills are.... troubling. I like the idea that the first shot provides a warning, and the second shot is the real contest between the sniper and their prey. Did the target go too far from cover? Can you guess where they'll be even though they're zig-zagging? Do they know how to move randomly to throw you off?

What kept snipers balanced in PS1 was the fact that most snipers were not great at landing the all-important second shot, leading many people to regard the bolt driver as a weak weapon. If you could land the second shot reliably, however, the bolt driver suddenly became a very powerful tool. It took time and practice to get to that point, though.

So key points:

• Motion prediction, not twitch
• 2-shot kills
• xXxL33t5niperGokuxXx decides to change his name

Great post and you've hit the nail on the head, and those are the reasons why I too think PS1 sniping mechanics should just be the same for PS2.

I really think the 2-shot kill is a must. 1-shot kills are just frustrating. The reason is the ability to survive from a 2-shot kill weapon is on their ability to react to their environment. They know whether they die or not is in their control, so it's less frustrating if they do die. With 1-shot killing, the player has no ability to react to the threat. Instead, they literally have to cut elements of their gameplay out. If they do happen to die, it's frustrating, there was nothing they could do at all.

The requirement for motion control and 2-shot kills therefore meant people accepted dying to a sniper was "reasonable" and they even respected snipers if they could do it.



Just take a look at what the BF3 community thinks about sniping in BF3. It's massively negative, and the good snipers themselves have a bad reputation, and the perception is that snipers are lame.

Now ask the PS1 community what they thought about sniping in PlanetSide. The response is usually very positive, and the good snipers are usually given a certain amount of respect and admiration for having the motion-prediction and diligence to snipe well.

That alone should tell you that BF3 got it wrong in their game, while PlanetSide got it right. Of course, there might have to be minor changes to fit PS2's technology and gameplay mechanics, but you should be shooting more for the key mechanics of PS1's sniping, rather than the modern arena-style FPS.

Plus, as I enjoy Sniping too, I don't want to have to be treated like dirt by the PS2 community because the Sniping mechanics make it lame/annoying. I, and probably most snipers here, want to be treated respectfully for mastering a difficult, fair skill in the game.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

The cure to quick scoping at short range is called "reverse damage degradation." If your not XX meters from a target, no OSOK for you.

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.

[Mjolnir]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Instant death without warning is a bad gameplay mechanic, that's basically what it boils down to for me. And this applies just as much to infiltrators backstabbing a sniper.

Really? Are you serious? Do you not understand how snipers function in warfare? The entire point of a sniper is to strike without warning and immobilize enemies by forcing them to take cover until they can identify the location of the sniper. I am sorry you don't like being startled, but that is no excuse to nerf the snipers to oblivion and make them COMPLETELY USELESS, which is what you are asking for (more like whining about actually). If you don't like dying without warning every once in a while DO NOT PLAY FPS GAMES.


I also think it is not valid to compare PS2 to a game like BF3, partly because BF3 is horribly balanced to begin with but also because PS2 has a MUCH larger scale for battles and therefore is a lot more like real life; snipers can theoretically infiltrate far behind enemy lines if they want and then terrorize the enemy from afar. In a game like BF3 the maps are so small that snipers often just end up sniping each other from their respective bases, which does nothing for their team.

The problem with not giving snipers a one hit headshot kill ability is that it completely removes the psychological element from sniping. If you know NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO you will have time to react if you are shot at, you can just stand out in the open without moving with no consequences; if a sniper headshots you you can then take cover and still live, which is completely stupid. If you don't want to get sniped without warning, don't leave yourself exposed for extended periods of time.

There are plenty of ways to properly balance one headshot kill snipers other than nerfing them into oblivion (which disturbingly is what many of you are suggesting). They should have virtually no hipfire capability, and no visible crosshairs when hipfiring. Quickscoping should not be possible; you should not reach full zoomed in accuracy until you are actually zoomed in; the reason quickscoping happens in COD is because the crosshairs get smaller as you zoom in.


I really dislike all of the anger people have towards snipers in modern FPS games; ever since the Modern Warfare games people have been crapping all over the sniper class in pretty much every FPS game (probably because most of the people who use them have no idea what they are doing). It honestly seems like a lot of you don't think it is fair that a sniper class should be able to kill you from beyond your maximum range. Sorry, but this is how snipers work, and if you don't like it then perhaps you should not be playing FPS games, especially ones that are supposed to depict large scale war like in PS2. If you have proper coordination with your team then taking out a sniper should be no problem.

[KrackerJacked]

I think my biggest pet peeve is when people complain of snipers. I've never played a single player game where snipers ruined the game and I've been playing fps for 20 years. Snipers are an important role on the battlefield and very efficient. If you're going to simulate a war then you have to have them. As a lone wolf, intel gatherer or what have you. If you want to avoid them, then use tactics (smoke, 3-5 second rush, bait, armor cover, etc).

When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan I wished the devs would dumb down the snipers too

[Tamas]

Originally Posted by KrackerJacked

I think my biggest pet peeve is when people complain of snipers. I've never played a single player game where snipers ruined the game and I've been playing fps for 20 years. Snipers are an important role on the battlefield and very efficient. If you're going to simulate a war then you have to have them. As a lone wolf, intel gatherer or what have you. If you want to avoid them, then use tactics (smoke, 3-5 second rush, bait, armor cover, etc).

When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan I wished the devs would dumb down the snipers too

It's not the role, but when you get 60% players go snipers it becomes a problem. So it's the share amount of them in some cases. I hope they make it hard, so only the better players can do really well, thus discouraging all the wannabee snipers from zerging and camping without playing any objectives or doing anything for the team.