Poll: Should sniper rifles be able to kill people in one bodyshot.

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It depends really how you want to do it. In Battlefield they are underpowered with their odd long range accuracy and difficult to gauge bullet drop along with a near 3+ body shot kill(It should be at least 2 on bolt actions and this is ignoring realism). In games like CoD they can be overpowered with the way to scope works. Stuff like TF2 is a good balance as you have to hard scope for the body shot kill and only on some classes although apparently that makes me an unskilled noob for doing it while I get used to trying to learn to snipe TF2 style but screw those people.

CoD 2 and beforehand also did it quite well as the hipfire accuracy was laughable at the best of times making you need to use the scope. Personally, they need a full redesign.

Although as already stated if a game goes for realism or pseudo-realism is it more than acceptable for them to be 1 hit kills as most modern snipers tend to do just that and the chest area has many vital or near vital organs that can cause you to easily bleed out quickly.

 

[Yegargeburble]

Depends? Quite a large area of the chest is full of vital squishy bits.

If'n you're going for realistic, it depends on the body armor and caliber of the rifle (.22 + military grade body armor may not do much, but I am not sure)

If you are going for fun, I'd go with two to three shots at the most, as there are plenty of downsides to a sniper rifle in most games (low ammo count, high reload time, shit firing rate).

And of course, a .50 rifle should always mulch someone. Just because it is more awesome that way.

 

[Abedeus]

Perhaps if they made a hit box for the heart, otherwise I can see how people would have issues with it, though the starting sniper rifle in BF3 is total bull, 3+ body shots to kill someone, no no no no no

only the heart? Why not other vital organs? They'll drop you dead just as sure.

Anyway, no. It eradicates the macho fantasy if I can die remotely realistically.

Heart - instant death.

Esophagus - slower death, but unable to move, make voice commands and you collapse to the ground.

Liver - drop weapon you're holding and like previous, collapse to the ground in pain.

Lung - flinch, start gasping for air, pass out. Die if nobody fixes you up.

Stomach - dead after a while from septic infection.

Area below the belly - bleed from your anus, then die in embryonic position.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Given the map design, the speed with which people play and the inaccuracy of a sniper rifle in games, the sniper rifle should be a one hit kill when it hits the chest. If you expect a sniper to be as useful to the team as the other players are then you need to give them something to work with.

Asking someone to kill a guy who can, most likely, sprint into a safe spot in a second while handling some inaccuracy, massive recoil and needing to get 2 or 3 hits means having a wildly unbalanced game. Ask me again when shooters have changed.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

No.

It's retarded. Hitting someone is an incredibly easy thing to do, so it shouldn't 1 hit them. 2 body shots is fine.

 

[Slim-Shot]

I hate snipers. I hate people that play snipers. I personally wouldn't be upset if the class was simply wiped out of games.

In COD games its not so bad - the maps are small, and you can spam them through walls and what not even at a distance. In battlefield however, where maps are huge, this isn't possible.

My biggest issue with snipers is how fucking stupid they tend to be. In Bad Company 2 for instance, they never camp in a position where they can cover the flag/ncom station - oh no... they're in a goddamn bush somewhere in the middle of fucking nowhere. And don't get me started on quick scoping/no scoping. There is no way that a sniper rifle should be able to beat an assault rifle at close range. I'm glad that they have nerfed the Sniper in BF3, as to a)discourage its use and b)people who do use it actually need to have some skill. Bravo DICE, Bravo.

 

[theriddlen]

There's an easy way to make it more believable.
-You get shot in head, or anything else this vital - instant death.
-You get shot in leg - you start to limp, your accuracy falls, you can't sprint.
-If you get shot in leg with something heavy, like sniper rifle, or get repeatedly shot by something weaker, it counts as blowing your leg off/damaging it to the point of being useless. In practice this is equal to getting killed, but while you're waiting for respawn you see your character crawl for a moment on the ground before losing consciousness - theoretically alive, but unable to fight.
-You get shot in arm - you drop your two-handed weapon, and use only your pistol.
-If your arm gets blown off/damaged badly, you take couple unsteady steps before falling to the ground and losing consciousness. Counts as death.
-You get shot in the stomach, your accuracy falls, screen is blurry, you can't sprint.
-If you get shot badly you fall to the ground and die in convulsions.

 

[RanD00M]

I say it depends on the caliber. A high caliber rifle would kill you in one shot regardless of where you are hit.

 

[Treblaine]

Bodyshotting people in videogames is a bit frowned upon. Killing people in one bodyshot seems to have a strange perception. There are games like counter strike where the AWM, a sniper rifle capable of BS people in one shot, has a really bad rap and is frowned upon by most of the community. Then there are games like Battlefield,TF2,Call of duty,etc. where BS people in one shot doesn't get much complaining.

Personally, I think it could work but it needs a downside to balance it. Something like reduced mobility, hard to quickscope/noscope, etc.

it really depends, like how much other aspects of the gun are balanced. Like movement speed, sighting time sway, recoil, if all those are really difficult and the weapon depicted is something like a ridiculously powerful .50BMg then... yeah.

A .50BMG round - especially a frangible one - will dismember any limb it hits and a torso hit would literately rip you in half (so Iraq Veterans testify) so yeah.

But for .30 calibre sniper rifles like M40A1, those fire a cartridge of the same power as the FN-FAL or SCAR-H so if they kill with one chest shot then so should the semi-automatic variants.

 

[sharpshooter188]

A .50 sniper weapon not killing with a single shot is just aggravating and makes no damn sense. My vote is on yes. I've been dropped by plenty of people using ARs before. Don't stand in front of me at long range you idiot. Or how about tossing flashes and stuns? Or even a smoke! Making at least 1 heavy sniper with no 1 hit bs perplexes me.

 

[scott91575]

Why is it always the snipers that complain about this stuff? It's not like other guns just tickle when hit to the body in real life. A multiple hit sniper shot balances the games since other weapons also take more than one shot (more than a sniper rifle too).

We get it, you are not good at the game, and need to make it easier for you. You fear your digital death,and you need to sit back a mile away from any action playing point and click adventure from your hidey hole so you can brag to your online friends about your K/D.

 

[The Breadcrab]

In a fast-paced game like CoD or Unreal tournament, yes, because it's hard to even hit the guy. But in a more realistic FPS, it's just kinda cheap.

 

[Sectan]

I remember in MW2 I didn't have stopping power on my sniper rifle and I was using a silencer. Headshots didn't insta-kill people and it made me lol. Even though it isn't realistic there should be a TF2 snipe type where your shot has to charge to do damage to minimize no scoping. Or just have a *You must be x feet away from target* for shots to do full damage.

 

[SpAc3man]

Only on hardcore game modes. Other than that 2 is good. The 75% damage BF3 has for snipers is good imho

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

No. Furthermore, fuck the Machina.

 

[aprildog18]

No - and anyone who played the 2010 Medal of Honour knows why. The snipers would kill if they hit anywhere on the body and at any range.

For balance/actually acting a role in an fps it should be at least 2 bodyshots to kill and one headshot. Otherwise snipers can just point in general direction and fire to win

Then there are games like Battlefield,TF2,Call of duty,etc. where BS people in one shot doesn't get much complaining.

Can't think of a single BF game where one bodyshot can happen (excluding point blank range in bad company) and TF2 you only get bodyshots if you charge the rifle - so that's why.

BF: BC2, hardcore magnum ammo. Of course you can counter that by wearing body armor spec, but your screen will be insanely red (medic+body armor+12 Gauge Slugs+neostead to counter =P)

I think an one hit kill body-shot from long range is stupid and noobish. Quick scoping is lame too. I think quick scoping can be countered by getting a -30% health or -60% accuracy for a minute for a quick scope (due to recoil).

 

[TotalerKrieger]

In Red Orchestra 2, all firearms, excluding pistols and submachineguns, kill with one direct hit to the body. Pistols and SMGs usually kill with 2-3 of rounds to the body. It makes the combat far more exciting and dissuades players from running and gunning to some extent. It is riduculous that a 7.62x54, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x51, etc would not outright kill or incapacitate. Hell, even a single intermediate round like the 5.56x54 or 7.62x39 has enough stopping power to kill or incapacitate if the torso or abdomen is hit. I used to really enjoy arcade shooters like the BF and COD series, but after trying out RO2 and ARMA2, I don't think I will ever go back.