|
|
Post by individual on Jan 5, 2010 21:05:13 GMT -5
I don't think it's a big deal, since you can't be revived.
There's a cheap team strategy for snipers in last stand on W@W: Have two of 'em stand in the same spot with the "second chance" perk. If your buddy gets shot, you revive him. Virtually invincible sniper camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Jan 5, 2010 23:40:09 GMT -5
I don't think it's a big deal, since you can't be revived. There's a cheap team strategy for snipers in last stand on W@W: Have two of 'em stand in the same spot with the "second chance" perk. If your buddy gets shot, you revive him. Virtually invincible sniper camp. Until someone lofted a rifle grenade and killed the both simultaneously. |
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371 
|
Post by mannon on Jan 5, 2010 23:47:29 GMT -5
Better not to stand right next to each other, but yes second chance was really good when you had teammates using it and not so great when you didn't. ;p
Personally I kinda like the whole second chance with revivals thing. It makes things a little more forgiving so long as you work with your teammates and can get a moment to revive.
But I definitely like it better when more people are using it than just a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Jan 6, 2010 6:06:57 GMT -5
As for underpowered as long as the sniper shoots first and doesn't miss how are they underpowered? And if they don't shoot first or do miss then how are they being a proper sniper? In sniper vs AR the win goes to whomever sees and shoots first whether your the sniper or the AR. Not really, because snipers have the discomfort of non-fatal hits. I'd agree with you if AR shots didn't do damage under chest level or something, but that's not the case so I don't. In any straight-up confrontation regardless of distance, the sniper loses. How does that make them NOT underpowered? |
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Jan 6, 2010 8:12:00 GMT -5
Because if your in a strait up fight you're already not sniping, you're just shooting at people far away.
Even if a sniper gets a nonlethal hit on their first shot they have just done over 50 damage incurring a big damage kick and put lots of blood on the AR user's screen which I should mention is actually lagged and will happen at a slightly later time for the sniper's target. The target then has a very short window of opportunity to locate the sniper and start shooting at them and they have a lag disadvantage in this case since the sniper's second shot only has to get to the host before the AR user's first shot gets to the sniper and foils his aim. So, even in a 2 shot kill the sniper that fires first on an unsuspecting target still has the overwhelming advantage. And there is no sniper rifle that is a 3 shot kill even with a silencer.
Now in double health mode... sure. But obviously the game is not balanced for double health.
A sniper's job is to shoot first and not miss. If that first shot kills then obviously the target has no chance as long as the sniper does their job. If the sniper winds up in a 2 hit kill situation then they either missed their 1HK area or they are using the M21 with a silencer, but the M21 and WA2000 are quite capable of delivering 2 hits fairly quickly, or it was a penetration shot, but snipers already have an advantage on penetration shots over AR users due to having higher penetration as well as higher damage.
Sniper sees AR first, Sniper wins.
AR sees Sniper first, AR wins.
Sniper and AR see each other at the same time AR wins.
What's wrong with that when sniping is all about preventing your targets from seeing it coming in the first place? If all you want to do is be able to kill people at long range you don't need a sniper rifle for that. Pickup an LMG or an accurate AR and take people out across the map to your heart's content. But if you want to hit people at long range with a very fast TTK that limits their ability to respond then sniper rifles are your best bet.
Sniping is and should be about stealth, not frontal assaults. If sniper rifles could engage and kill ARs and LMGs in strait up fights then snipers might as well run and gun instead of getting into sniping positions and taking targets of opportunity. I suppose that would be great for anyone that misses the old Quake railgun, but I'd prefer the guys that can 1 hit kill me have some limitations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Jan 6, 2010 8:57:05 GMT -5
Sniping is and should be about stealth, not frontal assaults. I totally agree, but consider the way to game plays, in a real 'warfare' situation, you're unlikely to see people sprinting round with knives and shotguns. Hell, even AR user's in most game modes aren't particularly cautious and tactical, which somewhat negates the use of a sniper. A sniper usually expects a target to be fairly static, and waits for the correct moment to take the shot. When you've got players flying around all over the place doing their best Usain Bolt impressions, then it's kind of hard for a sniper to perform in their normal 'zone', hence why you often see 2HK's or last stand's. Surely some common logic should prevail here, and a player who's caught at the fringe of a grenade blast and get's half their leg charred isn't going to be back to normal in 5 secs, neither is a guy who's got a huge hole in his chest from a .50 sniper round. There should be situations where Last Stand isn't activated, but they need to be properly thought about before even considering implementation. |
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Jan 6, 2010 9:18:43 GMT -5
There are situations where Last Stand is not activated, explosives, melee attacks, and headshots. It is that way so that you always have a chance to prevent Last Stand, but it is not guaranteed.
Even then just because someone goes into Last Stand the sniper is not guaranteed to lose the kill. If the person bleeds out the sniper gets the kill, and if they fall in the open the sniper can finish them off pretty easy. Even if they drop behind cover the sniper can attempt to get a penetration kill. And not all that many have Last Stand.
Still... I say that the person that drops someone into Last Stand deserves the kill and if someone else finishes them off they should only get an assist.
When it comes to Final Stand, however, that person still has 50 health, all their weapons, and can potentially get back up and go to fully health, thus you cannot actually award a kill for simply dropping someone into Final Stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Jan 6, 2010 11:48:19 GMT -5
Sniping is and should be about stealth, not frontal assaults. If sniper rifles could engage and kill ARs and LMGs in strait up fights then snipers might as well run and gun instead of getting into sniping positions and taking targets of opportunity. You can not economically "get into sniping positions and take targets of opportunity". It just doesn't make you win. In addition, snipers are not just about stealth and tactical loitering ALL the time, they are also about relocating and ambushing. It's extremely easy to kill anyone who camps too much/long, and this goes especially for snipers. There is, however, just not nearly enough situations in the game for snipers to economically present ANY significant opposition averaged over time. |
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Jan 6, 2010 12:30:37 GMT -5
Snipers have an answer for when they are relocating or are not sniping... secondary weapons.
Snipers may have a harder time topping the kills in a game because other players are killing at a faster pace with all that running around. I don't think the answer is to let snipers run around too.
Besides pure kills aren't everything. Good snipers usually have very high kill death ratios.
Also while it's generally easy to kill campers it's possible to turn that around and ambush the would be camper killers. Hell I killed the same guy 5 times in a row with nothing but claymores the other day. I never even saw him until I got silly and let him come up the ramp instead of setting another claymore. heh
Revenge killers are often very predictable.
If Snipers were to have a better chance to fight strait up fights then I would insist they at least get the same mobility penalties as LMG's instead of 100% speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Jan 6, 2010 14:20:12 GMT -5
Snipers have an answer for when they are relocating or are not sniping... secondary weapons. A class shouldn't be purely reliant on their secondary. As it stands, I often make more pistol and knife kills than sniper kills though. Snipers may have a harder time topping the kills in a game because other players are killing at a faster pace with all that running around. I don't think the answer is to let snipers run around too. The first is true and the second I agree with. Snipers shouldn't be run-and-gunners. Yet they should not also be utterly reliant on surprise, especially since very few maps support good and constant sniper cover. I don't mind snipers not being able to play 100% effectively on all maps, but a few more than just Wasteland wouldn't be bad. Besides pure kills aren't everything. Good snipers usually have very high kill death ratios. True, pure kills aren't everything (outside of FFA), but KD means even less. KD matters only on TDM, whereas pure amount of kills is more useful in all other gametypes. And snipers fare relatively badly on TDM because their team gets REALLY in the way most of the time. Also while it's generally easy to kill campers it's possible to turn that around and ambush the would be camper killers. Hell I killed the same guy 5 times in a row with nothing but claymores the other day. I never even saw him until I got silly and let him come up the ramp instead of setting another claymore. heh Yes, this is true, and because snipers are inherently based on caution, ambushing is about half of the work (and the kills  ). However, you're usually completely reliant on your secondary for this; the sniper rifle itself is not sufficient for this. I don't really mind that either because it's not supposed to be a strong point of the rifle. What I DO mind is that a sniper's strong points are not strong enough compared to the assault rifles (which everyone are using atm, with very few exceptions). The solution: either make snipers stronger, or assault rifles weaker. Either would solve the issue IMO. |
|
). However, you're usually completely reliant on your secondary for this; the sniper rifle itself is not sufficient for this. I don't really mind that either because it's not supposed to be a strong point of the rifle. What I DO mind is that a sniper's strong points are not strong enough compared to the assault rifles (which everyone are using atm, with very few exceptions). The solution: either make snipers stronger, or assault rifles weaker. Either would solve the issue IMO. 