Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

As a Red Orchestra 2 player, I have a respect for snipers, as it takes a massive amount of skill. Leading your target, correcting sites for distance, hiding yourself well and relocationg when required. Snipers in that game are extremely good, as it is an extremely difficult role to fight in. Only 2 people in each team can actually use a scope as well, so many snipers are doing it iron sites, making the feat more impressive.

thenoobbomb wrote:Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

I don't think anyone here is raging on actual snipers so much as they are raging on the games which reduce the skill level of sniping to the point where you can snapshot/quickscope.

TF2 and Tribes Ascend have probably the best method for making sure snipers are effective as intended-- the charge-up method...

Indeed sniping from a long distance, even compensating for bullet drop is skilled. Quickscoping is up there with the "hur hur hur shotgun y you no longer range?" crowd.

winnertakesall wrote:As a Red Orchestra 2 player, I have a respect for snipers, as it takes a massive amount of skill. Leading your target, correcting sites for distance, hiding yourself well and relocationg when required. Snipers in that game are extremely good, as it is an extremely difficult role to fight in. Only 2 people in each team can actually use a scope as well, so many snipers are doing it iron sites, making the feat more impressive.

"Sites" are where a sniper would make their shot from.
"Sights" are what they would adjust to make their shots.

"Sights" are on a gun, "sites" are where you might find a gun.

thenoobbomb wrote:Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

Considering most games are at a range where appreciable bullet travel time is negligible all most snipers do is point and shoot...
The ones that manage to hit long targets or targets in vehicles are impressive.
Everyone else is simply a target that's too scared of me to fight properly...

thenoobbomb wrote:Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

Try sniping in tribes, or any number of games that calculate proper bullet drop and travel time.

"lol my sights wiggle a little unless i press buttan" is not anywhere in the realm of hard.

Never being able to QS, I always compromised and scoped and aimed very fast, in MW2 I could swing 90 degrees at least and take of their head and yes I did hold my breath, that any fairer?

I got told off for hard scoping but I didn't care seen as I was 8-1 up and the person who gave me flak quit on 0-5.

Grundz wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

Try sniping in tribes, or any number of games that calculate proper bullet drop and travel time.

"lol my sights wiggle a little unless i press buttan" is not anywhere in the realm of hard.

I don't think you've played BF3.

They do calculate proper bullet drop and travel time. The problem is that it only really matters in that regard if you use a ballistic scope. There's becoming a trend where people use ACOG scopes instead, as they do not have to stabilize for their shots and the shots are a bit easier to predict.

Kanluwen wrote:

Grundz wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

Try sniping in tribes, or any number of games that calculate proper bullet drop and travel time.

"lol my sights wiggle a little unless i press buttan" is not anywhere in the realm of hard.

I don't think you've played BF3.

They do calculate proper bullet drop and travel time. The problem is that it only really matters in that regard if you use a ballistic scope. There's becoming a trend where people use ACOG scopes instead, as they do not have to stabilize for their shots and the shots are a bit easier to predict.

Yes I have, but not very much.

BF3's bullet drop/travel time isn't very accurate, if you are using the .50, sure, it can be hard to hit a target at long range, if you are using the aw338 style rifle, its pretty much a laser. Ive actually had dramatically stupid success just using the m249 with silencer as a long range weapon. which is rather dumb.

Oh I'm aware of the shenanigans with LMGs. It's very annoying to be able to apply more precision fire with my MG36 on semi-auto than I can with my M40A3.

The biggest problem, simply put, is that the hit characteristics for each gun are different. The M98B(which actually isn't a .50, it fires a .338 Magnum round per the little info blurb on it) for some reason has a very strange "tumble" to its rounds. You can compensate for this by using the ACOG scope rather than the 12x ballistic scope.

The L96, a new addition, is far more accurate.

Grundz wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

Try sniping in tribes, or any number of games that calculate proper bullet drop and travel time.

"lol my sights wiggle a little unless i press buttan" is not anywhere in the realm of hard.

IIRC Tribes doesn't have that much bullet drop and travel time does it? For the sniper rifle I mean. For most of the other weapons it certainly does.

Melissia wrote:

Grundz wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Dont rage on snipers. It requires more skill then you guys think, and its a lot harder them bunny jumping and shooting.

Try sniping in tribes, or any number of games that calculate proper bullet drop and travel time.

"lol my sights wiggle a little unless i press buttan" is not anywhere in the realm of hard.

IIRC Tribes doesn't have that much bullet drop and travel time does it? For the sniper rifle I mean. For most of the other weapons it certainly does.

Yeah but it takes up to 6 charged shots to kill someone (Heavy) from a 5 clip rifle. They have a miniscule travel time and dmg drop off, actually i think only the 1st one does, the energy one doesn't but consuming your energy on each shot sucks a lot.

Edit: what I meant to say is that the second sniper doesn't have a travel time, it still retains damage drop off at range.

Melissia wrote:

"lol my sights wiggle a little unless i press buttan" is not anywhere in the realm of hard.

IIRC Tribes doesn't have that much bullet drop and travel time does it? For the sniper rifle I mean. For most of the other weapons it certainly does.

THAT I will agree with, Grundz.

The m249 is fairly accurate up to 600m though.

I think the issue is most FPS maps are nowhere near large enough to use a sniper correctly, how many FPS's have you seen with standard maps where you can easily be over 600m away from a target?

Not many. It was possible in Homefront for example on many of the maps (one in particular comes to mind, where you could hide on a billboard sign and snipe all the way across the map which was probably a kilometer or two across), but I can't think of many more.

You'd need a minimum of 800m x 800m grid to employ weapons properly. Or nerf the range on everything equally.

There's quite a few maps in BF3 where that is possible.

Operation: Firestorm immediately springs to mind, and it's one of those places where Grey_Death and I are able to do some very nasty things as a Recon/Engineer combination.

I lock down the highway with the Laser Designator, making the crane where I'm firing from a target for tank fire (and in some cases--I've had them devote two jets and the attack helo just to dislodge me from my perch! ) and allowing for my teammates with Javelins to shut their armour down early.

What's more, with that perch I can have pretty unimpeded firelanes with my rifle.

Amaya wrote:You'd need a minimum of 800m x 800m grid to employ weapons properly. Or nerf the range on everything equally.

here's the thing, it doesn't matter

you die in 4-5 bullets at any range, pretty much period. so i can buzz out a burst of m249 rounds at long range, and even with "bad" accuracy, chances are i'll get you with 2 or 3 of them, if I follow up with a second burst, 9 times out of 10 you are dead.
this is a common issue in "realistic" shooters, zip thunk thunk thunk dead and who knows where it came from, some prick with your spawn point lined up or some walkway, at long range people seem to move slowly (its just a function of angles) and it is very easy to aim even at very small targets traveling slowly (people dont run 100kph in BF)
the only game ive seen that does this "well" and unrealistically was empires (iirc) where rifles and pistols did max damage at close range and longer range weapons did low damage at close range and had it ramp upwards as they traveled out.

Believe it or not, but stupid unbalances and stuff like "yeah i hide in this crane and nobody can stop me!" sells games, but to make real balls-to-the-wall sucesses such as tribes:A (should be topping 1m players over 8 hours played this month) TF2 and others, while games like blacklight stagnent, is they are just not accessible to most people, they just get annoyed when they get tagged by some idiot hiding in a tree a mile away with a ump for the 200th time for no reason.
Dont get me wrong, I like battlefield, 2142 is one of my favorite games ever, vehicles are fun, but saying that sniping is hard in those games is totally wrong, I've been a professional gamer, I was in EBT back in the day, the level of skill to run roughshod over PUGs in battlefield and similar games is nowhere near what I consider "skilled"
Drop a mort on someone traveling 200kph horizontal to you with 5sec hangtime before it lands, flagtoss to someone traveling perpendicular to you at the same speed, in midair, while you are under fire, midair someone (cha ching!) even at reasonable range, and we'll talk

Kanluwen wrote:

winnertakesall wrote:As a Red Orchestra 2 player, I have a respect for snipers, as it takes a massive amount of skill. Leading your target, correcting sites for distance, hiding yourself well and relocationg when required. Snipers in that game are extremely good, as it is an extremely difficult role to fight in. Only 2 people in each team can actually use a scope as well, so many snipers are doing it iron sites, making the feat more impressive.

"Sites" are where a sniper would make their shot from.
"Sights" are what they would adjust to make their shots.

"Sights" are on a gun, "sites" are where you might find a gun.

Sorry written on my new iPod, still getting used to it, I also get annoyed to a large degree when people say 'loose' instead of 'lose'.

But I digress! I cannot recomend red orchestra 2 enough, nice and one of the most realistic shooters I have played

Grundz wrote:

Amaya wrote:You'd need a minimum of 800m x 800m grid to employ weapons properly. Or nerf the range on everything equally.

here's the thing, it doesn't matter

you die in 4-5 bullets at any range, pretty much period. so i can buzz out a burst of m249 rounds at long range, and even with "bad" accuracy, chances are i'll get you with 2 or 3 of them, if I follow up with a second burst, 9 times out of 10 you are dead.
this is a common issue in "realistic" shooters, zip thunk thunk thunk dead and who knows where it came from, some prick with your spawn point lined up or some walkway, at long range people seem to move slowly (its just a function of angles) and it is very easy to aim even at very small targets traveling slowly (people dont run 100kph in BF)
the only game ive seen that does this "well" and unrealistically was empires (iirc) where rifles and pistols did max damage at close range and longer range weapons did low damage at close range and had it ramp upwards as they traveled out.

Believe it or not, but stupid unbalances and stuff like "yeah i hide in this crane and nobody can stop me!" sells games, but to make real balls-to-the-wall sucesses such as tribes:A (should be topping 1m players over 8 hours played this month) TF2 and others, while games like blacklight stagnent, is they are just not accessible to most people, they just get annoyed when they get tagged by some idiot hiding in a tree a mile away with a ump for the 200th time for no reason.
Dont get me wrong, I like battlefield, 2142 is one of my favorite games ever, vehicles are fun, but saying that sniping is hard in those games is totally wrong, I've been a professional gamer, I was in EBT back in the day, the level of skill to run roughshod over PUGs in battlefield and similar games is nowhere near what I consider "skilled"
Drop a mort on someone traveling 200kph horizontal to you with 5sec hangtime before it lands, flagtoss to someone traveling perpendicular to you at the same speed, in midair, while you are under fire, midair someone (cha ching!) even at reasonable range, and we'll talk

I killed a tank with an assault rifle once...

is they are just not accessible to most people

I would argue that TF2 is far more accessible to most people than the MW games, actually. It just kinda does not have the "omg real badass hardcore MUHREENZ, GREY AND BLOOD AND BROWN EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME!" look that many of the more droll FPS gamers like.

Dunno why people think battlefield has excellent graphics. They're just really boring for the most part-- at least TF2 is stylized to try to be somewhat interesting and unique...

When Battelfield 3 was new you could get away with 'proper sniping' as people would stand around in the open and were more concerned with infantry combat. It was also fairly generous with the lead you would need to give to catch laterally moving targets (well in fact, you didnt need to lead at all).

Now that the Meta has evolved to be far more vehicle orientated the long range sniper is less of a valid tactic. When you do clip a moving target the chances are he's on full health.

When i want to do some sniping now i just put on the regular scope, staright bolt and a sliencer. Taking much more of a DM role, its even a bit more fun, though invloves far less satisfying headshots.

Melissia wrote:

is they are just not accessible to most people

I would argue that TF2 is far more accessible to most people than the MW games, actually. It just kinda does not have the "omg real badass hardcore MUHREENZ, GREY AND BLOOD AND BROWN EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME!" look that many of the more droll FPS gamers like.

I ment TF2 was more accessible

Snipers are a support class that means you will be need to choose who to shoot rather than just shoot everyguy that you see.
Dont be afraid to use your pistol as well. It is often one of the best weaons you will have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is most FPS maps are nowhere near large enough to use a sniper correctly, how many FPS's have you seen with standard maps where you can easily be over 600m away from a target?

WWII online battleground europe Blitzkrieg. The entire map is half the size of europe. Your bullets will drop but if you are skilled enough and have ranked up to the sniper class you will do great. The best class however is the rifleman wth the boltaction iron sights rifle.

Melissia wrote:

is they are just not accessible to most people

I would argue that TF2 is far more accessible to most people than the MW games, actually. It just kinda does not have the "omg real badass hardcore MUHREENZ, GREY AND BLOOD AND BROWN EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME!" look that many of the more droll FPS gamers like.

Dunno why people think battlefield has excellent graphics. They're just really boring for the most part-- at least TF2 is stylized to try to be somewhat interesting and unique...

You're confusing graphics quality with style.

The graphics on Battlefield are fairly realistic, with quite a bit of attention paid to details.

TF2 has their graphics toned down a bit, much like many MMOs to allow for players to run on a variety of different machines. To distract from that fact, they chose a stylized manner of graphics where their style is part of how they make the game a bit more "accessible" at the same time.

Kanluwen wrote:You're confusing graphics quality with style.

Personally, I'd say taht you're unnecessarily separating the two. I stated "graphics", meaning as a whole (combined quality, consistency, and style), rather than graphical quality specifically

Normally I'd agree that I'm unnecessarily separating the two, but you were equating two different things(the color palettes) with "how good things look"(which is the quality).

It's a nitpicky difference, but you know me Mel.