Yes. It should also be insanely hard to hit people. Sniping should be used for long distances only. No quick/no-scoping.
Poll: Should sniper rifles be able to kill people in one bodyshot.
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For those people calling for one-shot sniper rifles: they already exist in Halo and Gears, they're called the Spartan Laser and OneShot respectively. The crippling lack of ammo and long charge-up time before the shot actually fires should give a clue of how deadly instakill weapons are, and how little fun the game would be if you applied the same damage to a run-and-gun weapon.
I dont think all snipers should be one hit BS. But if you hit someone with a .50 sniper round... anywhere really... it should be instant death. and balance it by virtue of the fact its a BFG.
I suppose the weapon you are reffering to is the SR-25 Marksman Rifle, yes I know its got another name in BF3, I think its the Mk. 11. But thats what I identify it as, now remember thats firining a 7.62 round and from what I remember the AK-74 Rifle is also a 7.62, In reality you are right, both guns will drop someone in just one shot, regardless of where it hits them, but in a game, I suppose its justifiable to have that gun use the same ammount of rounds to kill someone, however the trick is to use the advantage of the sniper, Headshots and Direct Chest shots, I remember having a round where I killed 4 people in a tunnel becuase I had direct shots at their heads. the sniper is not just a One Shot easy kill weapon, there is skill towards it and BF3 reflects that, - On that note I think that that DICE didn't want a repeat of Medal of Honor, where whole teams where full of snipers and anything that moved would be raped from a distance, with 1 shot sniper kills hitting anywhere on the body of the target, which is why they chose the 2 shot kill for Bolt action and the multiple shots for Semi Auto rifles in BF3,dancinginfernal said:
it depends on what rifle you're using.. if you're using a Barrett FIFTY CALIBER rifle, then it SHOULD ALWAYS OHK... if you're using a rifle tat shoots a .22 round... it should take you probably 3 or 4 shots to the body to kill... (a shot to an unarmored head, no matter what the bullet size, should be a 1HK though...)
I said a challenge, not an exercise in futility like you described there.TestECull said:
Sniper rifles in games (In my eyes) are basically a reward for those with the patience, and skill to make those headshots at range.
And about not doing what it says on the tin as you put it, the most common round used in sniper rifles in games, and in pretty much any NATO country, is the 7.62x51mm Which is often used in machine guns, and battle rifles, and some assault rifles... now, yes, those have a reduced barrel length, which will of course reduce round velocity, but, chances are, in effective range, those rounds are going to sail right through any unarmoured targets (and even some lightly armoured ones) So, do you think those machine gun/battle rifle/assault rifles should be doing one hit kills too? They impart the same sort of tissue damage, once a bullet goes through, it can't dump any more energy into it, so the same round coming from a sniper rifle, and a machine gun, that both pass through the target, at the same location and trajectory, will effectively do the same thing (Taking bullet tumble out of the equation of course) You can make a bullet go through someone.. more...
That's where placement matters, there is actually only a few places on the human body that one can put a bullet through and expect instant incapacitation (Namely the brain, the heart, the spine, and some spare nerve bundles) Which is exactly why when the various groups out there that deal with shooting people need to disable someone instantly, they often resort to sharpshooters/snipers, because they have the SKILL to be able to place the bullet where it's needed.
I apologize if I've offended you, but your logic is quite flawed.
challenge =/= funMischa87 said:
main reason why i don't play RTS's in multiplayer and play next to all my games on easy/normal, i don't have to be stressed to the max raging at the AI every moment of the game to enjoy it, if that were true, i wouldn't have played kotor 1 and 2 over 100 times combined.
OT: depends on the context of the game for it honestly, and how they handle weight/scoping in, if you can no scope/quick scope with ease then it basically becomes one of the most OP guns in the game, but if those mechanics are suppressed enough, then yeah, one hit kills are probably decent enough.
If you're not going for an ultra-realistic shooter, then no, by no means is that fair nor balanced.
If you're going for realism (as I presume games like Battlefield, C.o.D, Counter-Strike, etc are) then yes. Absolutely. I quite enjoy the CS methodology of the AWP, if you get shot in the leg with a .338, you are done. There is no additional fighting to be done there, you might writhe about a bit on the ground trying to get accustomed to your new stump, but massive trauma and blood-loss would take over very very quickly. However, on the note of realism, also be sure to make sure that the sniper rifle in question has an accurate bullet-drop and accurate wind-physics and resistance. I believe that even a shot to a leg or an arm in a shooter should be an instant kill on the same premises. Any rifle that is large enough to be categorized as a designated marksman, or a sniper rifle (see: any cartridge over 7.62x38) is going to give that limb a very very sloppy amputation. For the sake of Balance, remove the sprint function from players using these weapons, give them a limited array of secondary weapons, and make them functionally useless when fired from the hip.
If you're going for realism (as I presume games like Battlefield, C.o.D, Counter-Strike, etc are) then yes. Absolutely. I quite enjoy the CS methodology of the AWP, if you get shot in the leg with a .338, you are done. There is no additional fighting to be done there, you might writhe about a bit on the ground trying to get accustomed to your new stump, but massive trauma and blood-loss would take over very very quickly. However, on the note of realism, also be sure to make sure that the sniper rifle in question has an accurate bullet-drop and accurate wind-physics and resistance. I believe that even a shot to a leg or an arm in a shooter should be an instant kill on the same premises. Any rifle that is large enough to be categorized as a designated marksman, or a sniper rifle (see: any cartridge over 7.62x38) is going to give that limb a very very sloppy amputation. For the sake of Balance, remove the sprint function from players using these weapons, give them a limited array of secondary weapons, and make them functionally useless when fired from the hip.
The SR-25 fires a 7.62x51 NATO and the AK-74 fire the 5.45x39. The older AK-47 fires the 7.62x39 which is significantly less powerful than the 7.62 NATO (one is a rifle cartrige, the other is a a intermediate assualt rifle cartrige.) Doesn't really affect the point you were making, FYI only.
I don't see why everyone is so afraid of one-hit kill gameplay. Snipers do not really dominate in more simulation oriented games, as the engament distances are usually far more realistic (75-150 metres on average) anyways. That is not to say close quarters combat does not happen very frequently (flanking, buildings, trenches, etc) or that the sniper's role of taking out targets at 200-400 metres is no less useful. These games usually limit the number of sniper kits available however.
Additionally, why do games like BF and COD make the assumption that a headshot is an instant kill while a shot to the chest usually isn't. I'm not arguing that a through and through shot to the head won't instantly take a soldier out of battle, but a through and through in the thoracic cavity would do the same. In addition to the heart itself, the upper chest is packed with very large vasculature. If the aorta or vena cava are pierced, the amount of blood loss is usually so massive that blood pressure drops like a rock and you would pass out in seconds. A penetration to a lung would cause an agressive hemothorax/pnuemothorax, which makes breathing extremely difficult. Running, let alone staying upright, would be nearly impossible.
I like getting some rewards for headshots. A good animation would be enough (like in Jericho), but ideally I'd like body shots to produce kills that aren't instant, ie bleeding (as in Soldier of Fortune games). It makes it feel a bit less like you're shooting at rectangular prisms.
I dont know about an immediate kill.
I guess it would depend. Through the heart would be definite one shot.
through the side where it would his multiple organs i would say sure.
Through a lung may not be an immediate death, but you'd certainly get dropped.
...
I guess Id say its circumstantial and depends on the sought after "realism" of the game.
I guess it would depend. Through the heart would be definite one shot.
through the side where it would his multiple organs i would say sure.
Through a lung may not be an immediate death, but you'd certainly get dropped.
...
I guess Id say its circumstantial and depends on the sought after "realism" of the game.
I was agreeing with you until I realised that in tf2 I quickscoped-headshotted my way through an entire team in 2fort. I kinda had to stop playing after that because it was ridiculous how easy it is to do. My two cents. (Or pence, over here).Deshara said:
OT:
Depends on the rifle and if the other person's wearing a suit of kevlar twenty inches thick.
So yes, it should, but for balancing issues, it never will.
No, and if a game is set with close quarters maps there should not be snipers in the game. My friends and I often point out there is no need for sniper rifles in games like COD because the maps just aren't big enough, compared to something like Battlefield where they play an important role.
EDIT: I also appreciate that quick scoping is a skill and I struggle to do it
EDIT: I also appreciate that quick scoping is a skill and I struggle to do it
for some reason this thread reminded me of something, how come in older games you see the i guess you could call damage per body part thing, but almost never in modern games? i mean think of the first Deus Ex, you could blow off your legs only and you would have to crawl but you could still aim perfectly which made using each medkit depending on priorities interesting for me at least instead of the usual regenerating health system that is everywhere now.