Poll: Should sniper rifles be able to kill people in one bodyshot.
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It depends on the balancing and pace of the game. A game like CoD when people die faster than an aphid in a ladybug box it is fine, and more realistic... Again most guns would kill you if you are shot in the body. If you want realism then go play Red Orchestra. However if everyone's a cement truck in play then snipers would be OP to be able to kill people from body shots. It's all about balancing and depends on the game. Anyway there is a reason you don't see everyone in the military running around with curtain rods worth of rifle, any bullet can kill and they do have problems (weight, skill required etc)
The only correct answer here is: depends on the game
Depends entirely on the game and its balance. In some games a one-headshot kill by itself would have been way overpowered, while in others a one-bodyshot kill would be perfectly balanced. It depends on the game mechanics entirely. How fast do units move? How much damage does everyone else/every other do? How easy are they to hit? What kind of skills, if any, do players have? How are the maps in terms of sight/fire lines? etc, etc.
If you're thinking of game balance in terms of isolated weapons you're doing it very wrong.
Good example:
In a game like Battlefield Heroes where everyone soaks ten million billion bullets and move slow as hell, maps are generally open and snipers can turn invisible, a one hit headshot kill would have been broken as all fuck.
However, a "one headshot kill", "two body shot kill" policy in Battlefield Bad Company 2 is more than adequate, since everyone moves faster, has more cover, does more damage, people run out of ammo, and most of the classes can blow your face off even while in cover.
Conversely, in that same game, snipers are roughly underpowered in the inadequately named "hardcore mode". Being unable to kill in a single bodyshot with a slow firing weapon when everyone else can kill you by breathing on you with automatics, is kinda shit.
Then you have games like TF2 that are more dynamic in their modules. You can one-headshot-quickscope kill certain classes (usually classes that either have an easy time avoiding you or closing the distance), but you need either more shots or a long charge to kill other classes (that move slower and are, therefore, easier to hit).
Balance needs to consider the entire game. Otherwise it's not balance, it's just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Depends entirely on the game and its balance. In some games a one-headshot kill by itself would have been way overpowered, while in others a one-bodyshot kill would be perfectly balanced. It depends on the game mechanics entirely. How fast do units move? How much damage does everyone else/every other do? How easy are they to hit? What kind of skills, if any, do players have? How are the maps in terms of sight/fire lines? etc, etc.
If you're thinking of game balance in terms of isolated weapons you're doing it very wrong.
Good example:
In a game like Battlefield Heroes where everyone soaks ten million billion bullets and move slow as hell, maps are generally open and snipers can turn invisible, a one hit headshot kill would have been broken as all fuck.
However, a "one headshot kill", "two body shot kill" policy in Battlefield Bad Company 2 is more than adequate, since everyone moves faster, has more cover, does more damage, people run out of ammo, and most of the classes can blow your face off even while in cover.
Conversely, in that same game, snipers are roughly underpowered in the inadequately named "hardcore mode". Being unable to kill in a single bodyshot with a slow firing weapon when everyone else can kill you by breathing on you with automatics, is kinda shit.
Then you have games like TF2 that are more dynamic in their modules. You can one-headshot-quickscope kill certain classes (usually classes that either have an easy time avoiding you or closing the distance), but you need either more shots or a long charge to kill other classes (that move slower and are, therefore, easier to hit).
Balance needs to consider the entire game. Otherwise it's not balance, it's just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Normally, I will go for your head. But if you're bopping around like a fucking frog ducking and weaving, I'm just going to say "fuck it", charge the shot and plow it through your chest. (TF2)
Lately it's becoming harder to both headshot AND backstab...
Lately it's becoming harder to both headshot AND backstab...
I am all for making an ultra realistic multiplayer FPS game where bullets actually kill people and are not just jars of jam that kind of hurt people that can regenerate. One bullet and you're on the ground. I really would like to see what the community makes out of it.
OT: Like everyone said, depends, if the game is trying to be balanced, to be realistic etc.
OT: Like everyone said, depends, if the game is trying to be balanced, to be realistic etc.
To be honest it depends on the weapon, if it's the start sniper no. If the sinper is upgraded or at least the hardest to unlock or it's the singler player then yes.
Hardcore mode, always, standard mode 2 shots. More than 2 shots is just stupid.
I tried the recon class exactly once in BF3. I was on a hardcore server, came in as recon and got the sniper rifle out. Came up right behind a guy maybe 20m away. Went to scope just for fun, hit him in the body (didn't bother aiming for the head as at 20m or so it seemed pointless) shot him and he got up and ran out of sight before I could shoot again.
I dropped a grenade to suicide and came back as assault.
I tried the recon class exactly once in BF3. I was on a hardcore server, came in as recon and got the sniper rifle out. Came up right behind a guy maybe 20m away. Went to scope just for fun, hit him in the body (didn't bother aiming for the head as at 20m or so it seemed pointless) shot him and he got up and ran out of sight before I could shoot again.
I dropped a grenade to suicide and came back as assault.
It's easy enough for developers to give you a five second immunity, so you can run away from where you spawned and get into some cover.
In real life, I believe that such a shot would have the power to kill, so for realism's sake, yes, this should be kept in the game. Of course, no-one respawns in real life, so that isn't an issue, until we start fighting as remotely piloted robots against one another. We're a few years away from that though.
In real life, I believe that such a shot would have the power to kill, so for realism's sake, yes, this should be kept in the game. Of course, no-one respawns in real life, so that isn't an issue, until we start fighting as remotely piloted robots against one another. We're a few years away from that though.
What, no. Why the fuck should it? Do you just really HATE fun games, and you'd prefer all of the games to just be teams of snipers taking pot shots like those really crappy AWP Game Mode CSS maps?
Then don't shoot them in the head still, because that's part of the realism imparted in the game, otherwise there would be no hit locations.TestECull said:
You obviously do if you posted in a thread about it...
Again, you're stating these like they're facts. And nowhere did I say they needed to be super realistic, I said they help with immersion.
Yes, but the game still possesses hit locations, you can kill them easily with a well-aimed shot to the head with the 9mm, or plug away at center mass several times... Nice biased example you made there... Also, where in the game can you even aim at a target from over 300yards anyway?
Actually, I don't play games like Halo, and COD, and BF, you're assuming again, and making an ass of yourself. You also assume I don't get outside or something? Now you're just slinging insults buddy.. and then you just run off... I guess I can see why you're not big on challenges, you're running away when someone poses a coherent view differing from your own...
You know, I heard knitting can be quite fulfilling...
We're talking about a competitive multiplayer shooter here, if it didn't have any challenge, how would it be competitive? or even a game per se?gmaverick019 said:
No, I wasn't referring to broken game mechanics, I was referring to self-control, if you're raging over losing some game, then it's your fault. And I'd be a touch worried about what you'd do in a situation that actually warranted getting angry over...
No, I didn't say I feel sorry for you, I said I worry about you, that's a clear sign of obsession, I was stating it from a professional standpoint as legitimate concern, I'm sorry you took it the way that you did. I suggest a more careful reading next time, honest mistake otherwise, but you didn't have to turn into a sarcastic ass (Might want to work on that lashing out at those who show concern thing, you can put it in your notebook you mentioned)
Yes, that is true. But it's not the bullet itself that kills you as it is in a brain-scrambling headshot. Your body going into shock is a secondary effect of the bullet from the loss of blood and damage to your organs. The OP was talking about having high power long distance rifles do megadamage and kill you instantly, which doesn't happen with a body shot unless it's to the heart.Roggen Bread said:
you went off on plenty of tangents that weren't revolved around competitive multiplayer, and so did i, so that point is null, and there is a difference between having fun/trying your best, and being "competitive", guess which one i don't really care for.Mischa87 said:
raging over losing a game..?? when did i ever say that? out of all the friends i know that play video games i'm the last one to ever get angry..(true story bro.) so don't know where exactly you pulled that one out of.
ah i did misread that word, woopsie, and obsession? i said PLAYED, not total hours, even then, it adds up to way less than most people put into run throughs of lots of games (see most jrpgs or bethesda games rpgs) but from a professional standpoint? really? i'm sorry i look like such a feeble sheep from your high horse up there, i was merely being a sarcastic ass on the point that not all people play games for pure challenge, as you assuredly made so in your original comment that most people seem to do as such.
edit: if you really want to continue this ridiculously frivolous argument, then just PM, this is off topic beyond belief.
hmmm, i agree, but in tf2, i have to say bodyshoters are beyond hated, mainly because of the F2P hatred, and that most F2P players pick up sniper....
First off, I'm not a "bro" how many men do you know with the name Mischa? Also, it's ironic you're taking on the mentality of those competitive gamers you so despise.gmaverick019 said:
Well, for one, I didn't say raging as losing a game (You very well could be good at the games in question, but you may not like them) I was refering to this
Which, in your own words, implies that you rage over multiplayer RTS games, or games not on easy/normal (You may wanna stay away from the newer Ninja Gaiden games then)
Not sure I'm seeing the difference between played, and total hours... isn't total hours what you've been playing? Or do you sit there and watch the game on the screen for a few hours or what?
Yes, from a professional standpoint, I have over 5 years of counseling experience.
And not sure if you noticed, but it's in human nature to try to better oneself, which one can only do via experience, and of course to gain experience, one must attempt something which isn't easy, so, something with at least a little challenge.
So, I'm pretty sure most people actually do try for something challenging, otherwise they wouldn't grow, and mature.
Now, unless you have more being offended-at-nothing to do, I'm done here.
No. It should disable someone though, and to get the kill, you have to finish them off properly.