aguspal said:
Yes. But the very fact that even if a sniper rifle is actually a 2 hit kill unless it is a headshot, its still cheap. Why? Because with a good shoot (A very precise one, true, but) it can still be a 1 hit kill in the head.
Difficult? Sure.
Possible? Very, in the hands of a veteran player of whatever game we are talking about at the moment.
What could the killed one do to counter/react to this in any way at all? Well, I guess he could have hoped that the LUCK was on his side, and that either this seasoned pro sniper missed somehow, or he just happens to take cover as he passes by. Or the Sniper gets distracted by another enemy right at that moment...
From this your problem seems to be that there's no chance to react. This is my problem with all "Quick Kill 'Hyper Realistic'" shooters. It doesn't just apply to sniper rifles, it applies to everything.
Assault Rifles aren't too bad in accurassy at range. In a number of games a hit nearby or to you will decrease your accurassy or zoom you out of your sniper zoom in. Now, with an assault rifle at long range, 2 shots to the head kills in most games. Most assault rifles in games will fire those 2 shots in around 1.2 seconds or so - including the waiting time to regain accurassy after your first shot.
Is it difficult?
Yes.
In the hands of a Veteran player, it is as possible as getting a Sniper headshot at long range. You don't have as much zoom as a sniper, but if you're good you don't need it.
Then you have close range, where if you happen to be looking in the wrong direction at any given time, you can be killed in under 2 seconds via a burst from an assault rifle, SMG, shotgun, pistol - anything. No time to react. You just have to pray that you were facing the right direction to begin with.
Luck shouldt be a factor in competitive games. At least, not on them all, and specially NOT to the point of begin a game changer. (DISCLAIMER: This is coming from a person whom actually likes to play Smash bros Matches with items turned on. So no, I am not one of those guys. Hence why I belive that it does have its places in some games, but not in FPS games).
Luck factors into every game in some way, generally the same way it factors into real life. Getting sniped from across the map isn't the same sort of luck as random items, its the same sort of luck as turning the corner and finding out there's a squad of enemies there camping. Should all games force a kick to any camper player because you might get unlucky and run into one?
If not, then they also shouldn't remove snipers entirely because its that same type of luck. Its that luck of not knowing what's around the next corner, then finding out if its good or bad - provided there is good map design.
This "encounter" all *might* be a bit one sided for the sniper, dont you think?
Nope. I've killed more snipers with my assault rifle than I've been killed by for a couple of easy reasons:
1. I use the same scope as they do. Smaller maps a 4x ACOG sight that gives me a reasonable level of zoom, and has no scope sway. This frees me to attach things other than a bipod to the underside of my gun.
On long range maps, a 6x or 7x scope, as 12x Scopes zoom too much, and make it difficult to get a reasonable field of view around your target, which thanks to bullet drop means you can either aim at him and have the bullet drop too fast and not hit him, or aim above him, but not know where he is and miss him. I also use a bipod to eliminate scope sway.
2. I shoot fast, and can afford to miss. If I miss a shot, that snipers next shot is also going to miss. I can burst 31 bullets with reasonable speed, and be guaranteed that at least 3 will hit. As the sniper is generally prone down on the ground, its easier to hit their head than their body, and they die in 2 hits.
Meanwhilst, if the sniper misses one shot, I lose some accurassy, yes, but I have more bullets and a faster fire rate, making me better equipped to deal with that loss of accurassy.
Really, the only snipers I've had problems with have been the ones that grab an SMG rather than a sniper and go assault recon, running round with claymores or portable respawn points, and getting 2 second kills at close range.
Sure, I guess the enemy of the sniper should have avoided all the areas that are out doors and just fight IN doors. Except:
1)This pretty much limites the zone of play for the WHOLE enemy team. No outdoors or get killed by pro sniper, guys! (Well, unless the enemy team rushes with like 4 guys that 2/3 will probably die so the Sniper cant probably kill them all before they kill him... Thats if theres only 1 sniper, of course).
2)The whole game changing fact that 1) is, is all because of 1 GUY. Just one guy with a sniper can change the game so much like that. I cant think of another weapon that does this.
3)What if the map/level/campaing dosnt have/barely has indoors areas? (Granted, on this case It would pretty much be a sniping level, forcing you to use said weapon, otherwise get killed by snipers... this time more then 1. Forcing weapons when you have a whole set to choice from=Not good IMO. Althougt I guess you could partially blame the level desing for this one).
This comes down to good level design. A map should not be one open plain. A sniper at any given point should not be able to see the whole map, or if they can they should be far enough away that bullet drop and damage drop off make their shots ineffective.
A sniper's worst enemy is anything other than flat terrain. Are there bushes nearby? They hide you from the sniper. Is there a rock? It hides you from the sniper. Is there a building? It hides you. Is there a cliff on the map? It hides you. Are there hills? They hide you.
In each of these cases, the sniper has a limited area it can actually see to shoot. Yes, it is deadly in said area, however no more so than any other weapon thanks to the 'Hyper Realism' of quick kills and deaths. Positions that are good for sniping are often also good for getting counter sniped, or obvious to avoid - for example, on top of that hill where you can see everything. There's either no cover, and you're exposed, or there's cover, and your effective FoV is reduced even further.
Compare to an encounter in close/medium range of assault rifles (or shotguns, Sub machine guns, or any combination of those... See? There IS weapon variation for once on those encounters! Unlike the sniper fest) far more interesting, and any of the two sides can win, depending on their skills, weapon choice and some litte old luck! (Yes, there is some luck here. Like, you can just happen to spray and get a headshot, much like snipers can. BUT theres a big difference here, and that is, if it was really a close/medium range encounter, then both sides could of have done this. Unlike Anything thats not snipers vs Snipers)
In an even encounter the odds of a sniper killing you are the same as the odds of someone with an SMG or whathaveyou killing you. If you both see each other at the same time, then in each case its evenly set. Whoever shoots first with the better weapon wins. Hell, the sniper probably is disadvantaged here, as if you have a worse weapon but are accurate they can't do anything - their accurassy is gone from the second your bullet hits them - whilst someone with a better SMG that doesn't rely on accurassy can spray, deal more damage faster or get a lucky headshot, and win.
However, cases are never even, and this goes for both snipers and other weapons. You walk somewhere and there's a sniper that sees you, but you don't see him - he's going to shoot and kill you, and you're going to die.
If you walk somewhere and someone has an SMG or whathaveyou, and they see you but you don't see them - they're going to shoot you, and you're going to die.
You could argue that snipers are harder to see, but I don't agree with that. They take one shot and they appear on people's maps, and are then easily spotted and they don't move too much, so you'll know they're there. Someone with an SMG can shoot, then walk off, and you'll have no idea where they are. Since they're generally close range then there is often some obstacle or other obscuring half your view, and if they come from that half, you're screwed.
Its my whole problem with quick kill mechanics on the whole - it is quite based on that sort of gameplay. Its not exclusive to snipers, it affects every weapon.
This all is in the account that, at least from what I have seen, not much games have snipers that actually take 2 hits to kill, unless in the head. Or if there *IS* one such sniper, theres always a 1 hit kill sniper anywhere-not-just-head types, thats have a few "downgrades" such as higher reload time, etc. That all dosnt matters if at the end you are going to kill someone in 1 hit.
Well, that depends on the game you play.
Counter Strike had 2 to 3 hit kill snipers, though it also had a one hit anywhere kill sniper.
BF3 snipers don't kill in one hit unless to the head.
Halo snipers, if memory serves, don't kill in one hit unless to the head.
There are undoubtedly games with snipers that do kill in one hit, however its far from every FPS.
...Well, I hope I didnt come as some kind of whiner noob, I just wanted to express this somewhere since a LONG time of online FPS gaming, and I really want to get opinions on those facts. I would suggest how to change the Snipers in a way that they can still be in game X, without being obsolete/removing it (Stuff like 3 hits to kill sure make the Sniper less broken, but then obviously no one would use it, and... cmon, since when snipers kill in 3 hits LOL, not beliable at all!)- This is why I belive the sniper its broken too. The CONCEPT of it, 1 hit kills, while obviously true in Real life, dosnt have a place in competitive FPS.
For me I feel it comes down to a matter of the FPS type you want to play, and most want to play the type that I hate - the quick kills type.
In an FPS where an assault rifle takes 10-15 shots to kill, a 4-5 hit kill sniper isn't too bad. However, a 3 hit kill sniper when assault rifles kill in 3 hits and fire quicker is obsolete, especially since they can match each other at range with enough skill.
Sadly, most people want to die instantly - or more accurately want their opponents to die instantly - leaving everything down to who saw who first, rather than who was the better shot with the better weapon.
And to an extent, I do have to agree with them. An FPS where it takes ages to kill enemies does get old and annoying after a while. However, I've always thought games like Halo CE struck a decent compromise between the two. Kills aren't so fast that its always a who saw who first scenario, but they're not slow enough to be boring. However, Rocket Launchers need nerfing - their AoE is rediculous.
Again, this is all IMO, obvioulsy (I wonder how many times I wrote that damn word). Hoping to get counterarguments
(Or really, anything at all to revive this thread will work. Its quite an interesting thread).
Yeah, I don't get why a lot of people don't take things as IMO on the Internet. I've occasionally come down to just putting a disclaimer at the top of my post on some forums stating that everything is IMO, just to get in before all the "Well, that's just like, your opinion, man" people who don't get that, yes, this is my opinion :/
Really, IMO should go without saying, and its a shame sometimes it doesn't.
