I think I’m just giving you too much credit here. On the long range players can avoid snipers by taking different routes.
If you have a weapon that has a potential OHK, then the whole outcome is going to be determined by how good the person is at using that weapon
Good, then we agree. At last.
[QUOTE=tokamak;379702]I think I’m just giving you too much credit here. On the long range players can avoid snipers by taking different routes.
Good, then we agree. At last.[/QUOTE]
So considering the balance there, I still would like to know what the issue is?? SD was influenced on this issue as it shows in Brink, but I still strongly believe it was called for change from a very impulsive and personal standpoint. You still haven’t given a valid explanation on how this issue imbalances the game or does anything of that nature, which is exactly the same response I got from others, yet you advocate a solution where there is no problem. It’s balanced, yet it’s not. It’s hard, yet it’s easy. It’s not a real problem, yet it needs to be fixed. I don’t understand things like this…
Fourth time. A confrontation should be decided by both player’s input and not by just one. That’s my entire point. Whether’s it’s easy, difficult,balanced or powerful doesn’t matter, it violates one of the core principles of multiplayer gaming.
You keep saying the same thing there, but that doesn’t make any remote sense to me. Are you saying the sniper weapons should not exist in FPS games? A confrontation of different weaponry should always give advantage to the player that possesses the correct situational weapon. A sniper in CQC always requires much much more measurable effort to beat a rifle at that proximity. Why shouldn’t the sniper be viable to some degree still? What your saying is that it’s a problem simply because the sniper functions with a simple mechanic of hit and miss, but you fail to understand that every weapon has the same system just on a different scale. In this type of confrontation the rifle has the benefit of the doubt, meaning the sniper has to overcome the odds to even have a chance of winning the fight. I mean “no duh” the weight of the situation is more on the snipers shoulder since they only have a single opportunity to make the shot count, but uh… how is that even a problem? There is no violation of any principle here… not getting why your stuck on this non-explanation. Honestly it would make more sense if your argument was “just because”.
What your saying is that it’s a problem simply because the sniper functions with a simple mechanic of hit and miss, but you fail to understand that every weapon has the same system just on a different scale.
The different scale in this case means that it takes several shots and a period of time before one player dies, this means both players get to influence thte outcome rather than just one.
Even if a player only has a 1% chance of OHKing his target, that’s still 1% too many as the other guy never had a say in that 1%.
It’s not a coin-toss in that it’s 50/50 it’s a coin toss in the sense that nothing can influence the outcome. You say it’s not random, but at the same time you also say it’s really difficult. In other words in your eyes a skilful player that can manage the weapon somehow has earned it to be solely responsible for the outcome of every fight he’ll find himself in. And that is where I say it ceases to be a multiplayer game.
But that same 1% is when the sniper rifle is used on a hill, the opponent also doesn’t have a chance then…
Is that unfair aswell?
The difference is, when using the sniper rifle in close distance, it is much harder for the sniper to be used effectivly.
Sniper rifle = OHK headshot weapon, which you think is ok, as long as the sniper is used at long range?
[QUOTE=tokamak;379714]The different scale in this case means that it takes several shots and a period of time before one player dies, this means both players get to influence thte outcome rather than just one.
Even if a player only has a 1% chance of OHKing his target, that’s still 1% too many as the other guy never had a say in that 1%.[/QUOTE]
Both players do have influence over the situation. Your only using the way a sniper rifle functions as a means of an explanation, which doesn’t qualify as a reason. The sniper rifle works the same in any situation, so surely your saying that it should just not exist??? I’m not out prove anyone wrong here, just trying to understand the logic behind this issue…
EDIT: Cryt basically made this a double post lol.
[QUOTE=tokamak;379714]
It’s not a coin-toss in that it’s 50/50 it’s a coin toss in the sense that nothing can influence the outcome. You say it’s not random, but at the same time you also say it’s really difficult. In other words in your eyes a skilful player that can manage the weapon somehow has earned it to be solely responsible for the outcome of every fight he’ll find himself in. And that is where I say it ceases to be a multiplayer game.[/QUOTE]
That’s the exact same thing if a player fails to hit multiple bullets with a rifle… it’s much harder to head track with 0 spread and 1 bullet than it is to use a weapon that has less punishment on having non-direct aim, but that’s the only difference here. Every situation is the responsibility of a player to have the most precise aim. A sniper simply requires it, while a rifle has more leeway for mistakes. That’s their designed function… and considering no human has 100% accuracy, varied weapons can exist in MPFPS without issue.
You’re taking the time dimension out of the equation here. That’s the problem. In the time it takes to kill you you’ll always be able to get a shot off. That makes you the sole deciding factor in the confrontation and the other player’s effort, no matter how skilful, is completely irrelevant. It turns the game effectively into Duck Hunt where they’re the ducks and you’re the hunter (nice trivia, the original Duck Hunter had a multiplayer where the second player gets to control the duck).
The sniper rifle works the same in any situation,
Nobody is quickscoping from mountains. Now you’re just acting like a lawyer, a completely dishonest defense of an exploit you’re emotionally attached to.
[QUOTE=Crytiqal;379717]But that same 1% is when the sniper rifle is used on a hill, the opponent also doesn’t have a chance then…
Is that unfair aswell?[/QUOTE]
That’s nonsense. On the long range multiple other factors come into play like cover and the scope sway. The quickscope bypasses both.
The difference is, when using the sniper rifle in close distance, it is much harder for the sniper to be used effectivly.
But more effectively than it is supposed to be. Without quickscope the sniper would either have a huge scopeless spread or a swaying scope. The quickscope gets best of both worlds.
Sniper rifle = OHK headshot weapon, which you think is ok, as long as the sniper is used at long range?
Exactly.
I find them too powerful on infantry as well. Unscoped rockets should have a spread similar to COD’s RPG’s.
[QUOTE=tokamak;379723]
Nobody is quickscoping from mountains. Now you’re just acting like a lawyer, a completely dishonest defense of an exploit you’re emotionally attached to. [/QUOTE]
You can in fact quick scope from any distance effectively, but at a very long range your best off scoping in completely and lining up the shot. It is still possible to quickscope a moving target from a distance, but due to the lag+fov it is much less reliable for those reasons. This is where the sway comes into play, as it adds another difficulty margin to balance out the maximum distance capability of the sniper and nothing else. In fact scope sway is avoidable altogether as scoping in to the sway point is really is only necessary if the target is at an extreme distance.
[QUOTE=tokamak;379723]
But more effectively than it is supposed to be. Without quickscope the sniper would either have a huge scopeless spread or a swaying scope. The quickscope gets best of both worlds. [/QUOTE]
Your wrong here. The quickscope is supposed to be there, however the unscope part is more likely unintentional just on the sniper rifle. The sniper has multiple zoom settings, which shows it was meant to be function differently at different distances as well. What the real issue here is that you can align your shot before scoping because there’s a cross hair on the screen. If you don’t think the cross hair should be there, then that’s what you need to say. You already know where your aiming unscoped, so it’s only a matter of zooming and shooting. Quickscoping, as in scoping and shooting as fast as possible, offers no special advantage at all nor is it avoiding any intended repercussions. Making the sniper rifle only useful in a long distance camping situation is what your asking for though, as the ability to quickscope actually makes CQC sniping somewhat viable with a huge skill curve. It is still an entirely unnecessary change, as CQC sniping as it is in ETQW is very balanced (besides the wpn swap exploit). I really think your main problem is that your trying to pose an argument without any actual experience with the subject itself. The best solution would be to remove the cross hair from the unscoped sniper if anything, but the entire argument pertaining to quick scoping itself is a bit nonsensical. The shotgun is also a very good weapon to QS with as well. In a lot of games without unscoped cross hairs players develop a sense for the center of their screen too (also in 3rd cam ETQW vehicles). Pretty much one of these ordeals you have to actually try to appreciate the amount of practice and ability required to make them remotely useful… and even then they are only there to add some extra depth to the game play.
The sniper isn’t the only one that has an input. The other player can still strafe all he wants. It is much easier to strafe firing a rifle than strafing with a sniper weapon.
In a lot of games shotguns are ohk weapons at close combat range and they usually require no scoping, making the guy with the rifle have even less of a chance in a similar 1 on 1 situation than with against the guy with the sniper weapon that can QS. Obviously the shotgun sucks at range but you seem to be arguing on the bases that in a 1v1 situation it shouldn’t be based on the coin toss of one player which with the shotgun is exactly the same if not worse.
@Taodemon, there’s no issue if there’s multiple weapons that allow for this. It’s how the sniper rifle relates to other weapons that is the issue.
@Inferno, you’re clutching at straws, the sniper is a zero spread one hit kill weapon. If SD truly intended for that then I’ve held them in way too high esteem all along. I’d love to hear their comment on this, but seeing as they fixed it in Brink says enough for me.
I should add though, the RL is much harder to balance without destroying it’s original function. In this sense an unscoped delay may be better than an unscoped spread.
To be honest, when playing against indoor snipers that know how to quick scope I kill them more than they kill me, I don’t care enough, if they managed to get me it’s normally due to me been static and not moving enough, they deserve the kill if they managed to pull it off, couldn’t care less if was intentional or not by design it’s not ruining anything like icarus glitch or so.
Changed in Brink because SD reads these forums and takes development ideas from them. I wish more folks used the forums because most of the stuff here hurts the games.
The amount of effort required for rambo sniping vs the effort required to counter is completely unbalanced, and in favor of the multiple counters.
Thats why I think complaining about cq sniping is a bit ridiculous - its more flash than substance. A simple primed nade, or a pre-fired rocket beats that 9.9 times out of 10. If however you try to smg head on against a skilled cq sniper, then ofcourse youre going to get smashed.
[QUOTE=Humate;379867]The amount of effort required for rambo sniping vs the effort required to counter is completely unbalanced, and in favor of the multiple counters.
Thats why I think complaining about cq sniping is a bit ridiculous - its more flash than substance. A simple primed nade, or a pre-fired rocket beats that 9.9 times out of 10. If however you try to smg head on against a skilled cq sniper, then ofcourse youre going to get smashed.[/QUOTE]
I find it a pointless battle when people demand things based off of a view point that revolves around their own skill level and understandings. I’ve never been distraught when someone with more skill and mastery of a game beats me in a way that they shouldn’t… that’s my own dam fault for sucking arse lol. I was influenced to start CQ sniping just from the amount of whine a player friend of mine got for being so good at it, and it really requires a lot more effort and practice than most everything else in that game. Sometimes I just want break down and drop that line “Your just mad cuz you suck nab!”, but I try to hold it together and be reasonable :X.
There are games, (don’t know if it works in QW or ET) where you can simply zoom in with the sniper and mark the center of the crosshair on your monitor. I know people who have done this by placing clear tape on their screen and marking the center with a dot, eliminating the need to even use the scope at all (and all skill) Since ET games aren’t really known for their realism, (no bullet drop or scope sway, no realistic recoil) it seems reasonably possible that this could work in those games.