Snipers in PS2 - Page 10

Vancha · 2012-04-04, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Hypevosa

it's a guessing game of luck ("oh, I think he'll end up over... here!") vs a demonstration of actual skill.

I'm still not sure we're thinking of the same thing, but you're sorely mistaken if you think hitting a moving target in Planetside was purely a guessing game of luck.

SkitzoSniper · 2012-04-04, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

I'm still not sure we're thinking of the same thing, but you're sorely mistaken if you think hitting a moving target in Planetside was purely a guessing game of luck.

Some people just hate the idea of a rifle that even has a chance of 1 shot killing.

Mjolnir · 2012-04-04, 06:31 PM

I have never really heard of ambush sniping; pretty much all of the sniping I do in FPS games is leading moving targets or aiming at and shooting stationary targets; I don't know anyone that just keeps their rifle trained on one spot and hopes an enemy's head will run by.

With the engagement distances possible in PS2 getting headshots on moving targets will actually be pretty hard if they make it so the head hitbox is ONLY the head. In most games it usually includes part of the upper torso or even air above and to the sides of the head, so you seem like you are getting headshots at long range when in reality you aren't.

Hypevosa · 2012-04-04, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

I'm still not sure we're thinking of the same thing, but you're sorely mistaken if you think hitting a moving target in Planetside was purely a guessing game of luck.

From the video I have seen in another thread, it was rinse recycle repeat of jumping from ambush to ambush of people who were on a restricted walkway, and then jumping to people stupid enough to stand still intermittently, and sometimes jumping to people clearly running in a straight line and shooting them.

It's just setting up ambushes at a distance where you have a higher chance of them not changing their course (or shooting them when they aren't able too) before your bloom recovers. It's only a game of strategy and luck once you've got the minimum experience required to estimate bullet drop and travel time reliably. It's also much easier to strategize and change targets when you're able to see the entire freakin battlefield due to the FOV on the scope.

It's not that there isn't any skill involved at all, just that there's much less skill involved.

Duddy · 2012-04-04, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Hypevosa

It's not that there isn't any skill involved at all, just that there's much less skill involved.

Could you explain to me how having to predict your targets location for the shot is easier than just keeping him in your sights?

You seem to oversimplify how easy it is to hit someone in PS1, especially without constraint of where they could run (which could happen in any game) after the first shot it was actually a lot harder to hit people as they would try to move randomly.

The mark of a good sniper was understanding player behaviour and where they would be likely to go in order to line up a good shot.

Have you used the sniper in PS1? I only ask because most people who have tend to agree it was a good system compared to most. To base judgement only on a video would be somewhat inaccurate.

Vancha · 2012-04-04, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Hypevosa

From the video I have seen in another thread, it was rinse recycle repeat of jumping from ambush to ambush of people who were on a restricted walkway, and then jumping to people stupid enough to stand still intermittently, and sometimes jumping to people clearly running in a straight line and shooting them.

It's just setting up ambushes at a distance where you have a higher chance of them not changing their course (or shooting them when they aren't able too) before your bloom recovers. It's only a game of strategy and luck once you've got the minimum experience required to estimate bullet drop and travel time reliably. It's also much easier to strategize and change targets when you're able to see the entire freakin battlefield due to the FOV on the scope.

It's not that there isn't any skill involved at all, just that there's much less skill involved.

Sorry, still not seeing it. If you don't need to wait for the crosshair to settle (or an equivalent delay between moving the sights and firing), the only thing in your way is bullet drop and bullet travel time. You can instantly shoot anyone in your LOS and hit them so long as you've compensated for those two things...That's what "lead sniping" is, correct?

Hypevosa · 2012-04-05, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Duddy

Could you explain to me how having to predict your targets location for the shot is easier than just keeping him in your sights?

So I hand you 2 guns.

The first has a scope with a wide FOV, and no recoil but a bloom effect, and the other has a narrower FOV scope (higher zoom) and the gun kicks every time you shoot it but will always shoot where your crosshairs tell it to and ask you to try and shoot my friend down field.

Scenario 1:

You pick up the first, aim, and fire at him, he begins to panic since his shielding is down, and you watch as he runs around and towards a rock you predicted he'd hide behind, sight already at rest and waiting for him. Just as he's about to get there he uses his jump jets, you quickly flick to where he's about to land only to fire when your bloom was still too large and miss the shot. He continues running and you set up in his path, he uses his jump jets again, but starts going backwards towards the rock again, you assume he'll just head back to the rock and try to take cover, so you set up at the edge of the rock, where you get that second ping in, except his shields already went back up... you stare angrily at the rock as the message pops up that he logged out.

Scenario 2

You pick up the second rifle. It takes you about 5 seconds to find him on the field since you didn't scope in directly on him from where you could see his tiny dot of a body earlier, as putting your eye behind the scope and moving the rifle has thrown you from "center" a bit. You shoot him and the rifle kicks, you quickly move towards the rock you saw before you zoomed in only to see a smoke trail from the jump jets you follow the trail and see he's begun his falling arc, so you lead him a bit on the bottom and, on seeing he's about to hit the ground, fire, and ping him a second time. The scope jars but you quickly reacquire him since you remember the terrain. Unfortunately his shields regenerated a little, so he's wounded but not dead yet. He keeps running forward and you establish a lead and fire only to see him jump jetting backwards at the last second as your bullet flies beneath his airborne feet. Cursing your luck, you comb for a smoke trail, reacquiring him just as he hits the ground. You follow him for a moment and then gues he's heading back to the rock for cover - you flick over there to set up an ambush this time and fire when you see him enter your scope. *ping* dead.

Now, in both scenarios the enemy did the same exact thing, but, ignoring outcomes, which feat took more thought, action, and skill on behalf of the shooter? In which scenario do you think a group of players, instead of just a single player, would stand a better chance against a sniper?

To me, the second scenario has more skill involved since the player is able to take multiple approaches and strategies to getting a target, and must make careful use of their perception to keep finding the same enemy for a kill. They both involve player prediction, they both involve accounting for travel time and bullet drop, but the second scenario also involved alot more activity than just a quick flick and waiting a few seconds to see if the shot can be taken. I also think a squad would stand a better chance against the second gun, and, to me, that's an important point since the game should emphasize group play. It also means that snipers need to put more thought into their job. Snipers should not just consider if the target exists and spam everything that's standing still, but what the target is, and should have to scout and prioritize targets since they won't be able to shoot at everyone since they'll be reacquiring targets after each shot.

Kilmoran · 2012-04-05, 07:11 PM

^

Essentially.. i would prefer for sniping to have more realistic reasons why it's hard to stay on the target too. Having a CoF bloom to artificially state that "you are not settled enough to fire" is annoying. Having actual reasons for you not seeing the target (jarring because of recoil, narrow view because of scope, ect) is far more based on player skill than player mechanics manipulation.

I've stated before i plan to use the biggest, baddest, rifle I can, and i expect to pay for it with basically nto being able to reacquire /anything/ that's fast an agile just because of recoil, reload, speed, ect. But i also expect to be /damn/ accurate and powerful for that trade off. Now.. if i use a scout rifle for medium to somewhat long range, that one will be less powerful (possible far less), less recoil, bigger clip, decent accuracy (cause i prefer accuracy), and moderate reload speed. That is how i'd adjust, if possible, my rifles for different tasks, and i hope the game will allow for these ways of playing to be viable but balanced. I don't want to be the "God Hammer" sniper that's invincible, but i do want to have a weapon that can get the job done in a play style i prefer with my modification choices.

Duddy · 2012-04-05, 09:29 PM

@Hypevosa

Thanks for the explanation!

I think I misunderstood your position, I thought we were talking exclusively about the COF Bloom (and as such, prediction) versus the weapon kicking (and as such, leading).

I must say it concerns me that you decide that FOV is automatically decided by the types previously mentioned. The ability to change your level of zoom on the BD probably was too good, but I think it lent it self to the ability to survey the battle field, which whilst not important back in PS1 could be more relevant in PS2 if the infil has more of a recon role.

The scenarios you present are quite anecdotal, though I see the logic. However I remain sceptical that either situation is explicitly the right choice, despite my bias for the PS1 implementation.

Perhaps some midway would be best? A much toned down version of the COF (e.g. where PS1 went from 0% back to 100% settled, PS2 could be 75% to 100%) and the addition of kick perhaps?

My concern is that while you speak of how one can easily lose track of your target under low FOV and kick, I think you overstate its effects. It is my understanding (unless I am incorrect, if so tell me!) that most modern shooters utilise the low FOV kick effect yet the "sniping" in such games hardly shows the due patience I came to appreciate from PS1.

You seem to suggest that the PS1 sniper model had you snipe at anything that didn't move. It certainly encouraged stationary targets, but I don't see how stationary targets aren't appealing to the second model.

With that said, I'd argue moving targets (more specifically sporadically moving ones) were more difficult for the PS1 system than the one you describe because, FOV aside, the PS1 model punishes you more for readjusting your aim.

Also, I'm not sure how groups vs the sniper applies in your example. I actually would argue that with COF bloom it would be much harder to defend from multiple targets than it would with kick, particularly if they engaged from more than one direction. Hence making the PS1 implementation more group friendly.

So the question I'm left with for you is;

Is the COF vs Kick the problem or is FOV actually your issue? Because to me it seems the latter.

shootx · 2012-04-05, 11:00 PM

I want them to function just like in PS1. I don't want to be one shot killed as a MAX, REX, or Vehicle Pilot. Lights and infiltrator... MAYBE.. It's really pushing the deal. In PS1 if you were in a sniper's sight and didn't instantly grasp the situation you got killed and that was good... It was a 2 shot scenario which in some cases punishes the sniper, but ultimately had a very good balance (IMHO of course).

As a newb I would grab a sniper inside a base when my faction was holding the base but our courtyard was breached. I would wait for an enemy to charge in, take a little damage, and then "one shot kill the guy." Next, if I wasn't getting support from my faction or team I'd be killed by the next guy in the door if it was a legitimate rush because I would be reloading. If I was getting support I'd be able to rinse repeat previous strategy.

Hypevosa · 2012-04-05, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Duddy

Is the COF vs Kick the problem or is FOV actually your issue? Because to me it seems the latter.

It's a few things. I don't really see why lead sniping is something that should be barred, unless the goal is to gimp players and ensure they never can surpass X level of efficiency. Look at it this way - your COF system can NEVER be overcome by player skill, while a rifle that kicks where you're aiming and makes getting that second round into a target take another second accomplishes the same goal (slowing the firing rate of the sniper) but it is something that the player can eventually overcome through their own skill and effort. Trying to fight the COF is like trying to cross a line but running into a hard wall, while fighting kick is more like trying to run into a net.

FOV is secondary because it's only necessary to have a huge FOV because of the COF. If you didn't have a FOV that was large enough, the player would not know if their ambush is failing as they jumped from ambush to ambush and waited for the cone to stabilize. It's a necessary evil because of how the COF works.

I also find the idea that your sniper rifle will randomly fire in a 15 meter cone despite looking directly down the sights to be really silly, gamey, and (likely) immersion shattering. Why not just have the scope behave like a real scope? It shoots where you're aiming, but it needs to be properly dialed in to be of use? the player's head would have to take a second to adjust to where the sites are, but a player who practiced enough could learn to take the shot before their head was perfectly aligned? Not to mention the fact it's a cone makes no sense since you'd likely just be off left to right if you moved your rifle that way, and up down if you moved it that way, I've never used a rifle and had my bullets magically fly up or down as I went left to right shooting targets.

Talek Krell · 2012-04-05, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Hypevosa

Trying to fight the COF is like trying to cross a line but running into a hard wall, while fighting kick is more like trying to run into a net.

Fighting the "kick" is just muscle memory at best though, is it not? I'm under the impression that in most games you can even set up a macro to adjust your sights downward by the appropriate amount to cancel it out. If such were the case randomising it might help the problem, but that would also make it impossible to overcome by muscle memory.

Hypevosa · 2012-04-05, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Fighting the "kick" is just muscle memory at best though, is it not? I'm under the impression that in most games you can even set up a macro to adjust your sights downward by the appropriate amount to cancel it out. If such were the case randomising it might help the problem, but that would also make it impossible to overcome by muscle memory.

The point is not to have the player build simple muscle memory, but to use their eyes and the movement of the environment in the scope to learn where they need to adjust to, and a randomized kick combined with a narrower FOV would help do just that. Muscle memory would help a little still, but only minimally.

I'm also assuming we'd limit how fast a player can move the rifle while scoped.

Kilmoran · 2012-04-06, 02:32 AM

It seems there are a lot of assumptions about how sniping works in FPS games now a days. Some are right, some are wrong, but it seems to be that the older style works best (and not PS 1). Basically, the way it works now is with alot of aim assisting as well as cushion for a sniper to more easily get head shots. All of the things that make it appear hard, are more fluff than actual function. In PS 1, the CoF system was applied to sniper rifles. What this means is you /had/ to predict where a person was going to go, just so you could wait for your CoF bloom to renarrow. This was artificial in every way. What is supposed to occur, is sway and restablization. Metal gear solid did this and even had pills or what have you to help calm your heart beat/movements. Then there was holding your breath to limit sway. These things (helping you lose the sway) could be part of the cert system very easily, but the whole idea and concept of sway and all of that was always a bit random as well as skill based.

While making your character sway and breath holding and all that is "Artificial", it is representative of real challenges for a sniper and thus combatable by skill. In PS 1 sniping, you don't combat CoF with skill, you combat it with technique. The difference being that you know that you have certain "rules" to follow, so you best utilize the understand of these "rules" to give you the best chance of success. This is not the same as skill, because you cannot do anything about it. You can't know the opponent is going for the door before you'll get a good shot and take a calculated chance shot because the game itself is telling you that you simply aren't stable enough to even try. IT is not longer simply a difficult shot, it is a 100% random shot that you have no way of making better with any discipline or method at your disposal.

That is the difference between the Cone of Fire system, and having to realign due to the effects of the gun/your character. CoF for snipers.. is a very bad representation of the character having to refocus. The /player/ is held back by the character in such a way that it has to be visually represented artificially instead of literally known by a true lack of focus.

Duddy · 2012-04-06, 10:08 AM

Ok I see where you're coming from, I still disagree that you can't over come the randomness of COF by skill, but I suppose that is down to a different perception of skill.

Anyway, we're all looking for a good system to be implemented. I never said the PS1 model should be the one used, just that I prefer many elements of it over most modern shooters.

As long as the system we end up with rewards patience, learning how the weapon behaves and prevents ridiculousness such as 360 scoping then I think I'd ultimately be happy with it.