They wanted to be "realistic"? Real wars aren't fair or balanced, and neither are real weapons. I don't care if it ruins your game, you shouldn't have tried to make it "realistic" in the first place. This is the price that has to be paid.
Poll: Should sniper rifles be able to kill people in one bodyshot.
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
In real life a decent sized revolver can blow your head clean off.
Military sniper rifles, on the other hand, fire self-propelled nearly foot-long slugs that break the sound barrier at targets over a couple of miles away with extreme precision. One of these suckers flying near you is enough to cause injury, and they're usually loaded with explosives, so even if you miss it usually means someone is losing a limb.
Yeah.
I think you guys ought to be thankful that video game sniper weapons are as low-key as they are.
Military sniper rifles, on the other hand, fire self-propelled nearly foot-long slugs that break the sound barrier at targets over a couple of miles away with extreme precision. One of these suckers flying near you is enough to cause injury, and they're usually loaded with explosives, so even if you miss it usually means someone is losing a limb.
Yeah.
I think you guys ought to be thankful that video game sniper weapons are as low-key as they are.
Considering all the pushing the fans of grey-brown "realistic" FPS' have done, they damn well should let "sniper rifles" kill in one body shot.
Have you seen what a high calibre rifle round can do to flesh and blood? I have (not a human body, but a wild pig is close enough anatomically) and it's not pretty, even with body armour those things SHRED tissue. Hell a limb shot should be instant kill with one of them, because you bleed out pretty damn fast once your arm/leg has been ripped off.
Either have it be "realistic" or have it be fun, if I wanted to deal with iron-sights and wind compensation/bullet drop I'd be on the shooting range, not playing a computer game.
Have you seen what a high calibre rifle round can do to flesh and blood? I have (not a human body, but a wild pig is close enough anatomically) and it's not pretty, even with body armour those things SHRED tissue. Hell a limb shot should be instant kill with one of them, because you bleed out pretty damn fast once your arm/leg has been ripped off.
Either have it be "realistic" or have it be fun, if I wanted to deal with iron-sights and wind compensation/bullet drop I'd be on the shooting range, not playing a computer game.
Not without serious limitations. Like having to go prone, open a bipod and charge an extremely loud and obvious shot, with a gun that waves like crazy, and having to account for shit like rain. Or like one shotting a scout as a sniper in TF2: They're extremely fast, and the shot needs to be charged, so it's not so unreasonable. Otherwise snipers can just reign death upon their enemies. Maybe in something fairly close range like CS, but generally that'd be a bit OP.
Close to right, that's in most military doctrine, not just for snipers, a dead soldier costs one dead solider and a burial detail, a wounded solider costs a lot more in terms of resources, 4/5 to 1 I think if I recall my military history correctly, it's also hell on morale to see a mate missing his legs.Ithera said:
Maybe if there was a hit box just for the chest, not the gut or limbs. Heck, I'd be up for it, bodyshots would make my sniping easier.
No, as a sniper even I can see that's broken. However, snipers should be able to kill in one headshot, regardless of what type of sniper it is. I cannot believe Battlefield 3 failed in this department; what a useless class.
No, they also shouldn't be able to kill at close range, they should take 3 shots even as bolt action. Don't try and give me 'it's unfair' shotguns can't kill more than 4 feet away in best case scenarios and even then they probably require a second shot that requires cycling. Sniper rifles have become this swissarmy gun where they're 1 hit kills at any range...and go through walls to boot.
It's ridiculous, it makes no sense in terms of game balance that they're 1 hit kills at any range. Someone gets close? You pull out your pistol and shoot with that. Just like a shotgun user would have to hide from anyone beyond 6 feet.
It's ridiculous, it makes no sense in terms of game balance that they're 1 hit kills at any range. Someone gets close? You pull out your pistol and shoot with that. Just like a shotgun user would have to hide from anyone beyond 6 feet.
I would say, yes, but only when it comes down to a a bullet going through someones torso. A torso shot is almost guaranteed to puncture a virtual vital organ, and for realism, a shot like that would more than likely be fatal, especially if it was in the upper body. Extremities, however, I would say no, not unless the round happened to be .50 caliber.
In all honesty, it depends on the rifle. The ubiquitous Barrett and its line of .50 caliber anti-materiel rifles would be able to sheer off limbs with a just a grazing shot, so in my opinion, that being unable to kill someone with a single shot is just a little ridiculous, but it's acceptable because when it comes to multiplayer, weapon balance can make-or-break it.
In all honesty, it depends on the rifle. The ubiquitous Barrett and its line of .50 caliber anti-materiel rifles would be able to sheer off limbs with a just a grazing shot, so in my opinion, that being unable to kill someone with a single shot is just a little ridiculous, but it's acceptable because when it comes to multiplayer, weapon balance can make-or-break it.
One hit sniper rifles can be okay. Just don't make them superior to shotguns, assault rifles and automatics even at close ranges. The main mistake is to assume that the things are balanced because they can miss. But anyone with better than 50% accuracy then breaks the game.
Requiring more hits is probably the best way to balance them. It's hard to break that limitation. But the important thing is that there is some form of balance.
Requiring more hits is probably the best way to balance them. It's hard to break that limitation. But the important thing is that there is some form of balance.
If you get hit in the chest with a 7.62mm bullet at long range while wearing body armor call a medic. If you get hit in the chest with a .50 bullet at long range while wearing body armor call a chaplain.
As such my answer is it depends on the weapon and range.
As such my answer is it depends on the weapon and range.
As games stand today, No for any number of reasons.
1.too easy to kill someone
2.its unrealistic(if the game is "aiming" for "realism")
3.fails to promote skill development beyond the minimum.
4.everyone will be doing the same d@mn thing
5.unbalances the weapons (in more modern games)
And so on. While sniper rifles are indeed powerful(irl), however this insta-killing aspect disregards the power of guns in general within games. A bullet to the heart for just about any gun (hell even zip guns) can kill a person (especially at point blank range) while a shot to something like the shoulder is not.
The problem is that in current games use the long standing Hitbox style of game mechanics(as far as i am aware). It doesn't matter where you get hit in a characters hitbox(of a given body part), the effect is the same. Though it is also quite silly that you can kill someone in a game by shooting them repeatedly in the toe. Most Game-Makers are aiming for Photo-realism in their graphics, not their mechanics.
There has yet to be a game that implements in a characters body(human or alien) any "internal organs" mechanics. The closest system i know is the RPG idea of damaging limbs which is only a few steps up from the FPS standard(not to knock it or anything). Of course it is unlikely that such a system will be implemented any time soon since the mass media would have a fit about it [insert generic uninformed fear-mongering here]. In the meantime I really don't mind he old fashion hitbox system, just no 1-shots to the chest with sniper rifles. That's just no fun.
1.too easy to kill someone
2.its unrealistic(if the game is "aiming" for "realism")
3.fails to promote skill development beyond the minimum.
4.everyone will be doing the same d@mn thing
5.unbalances the weapons (in more modern games)
And so on. While sniper rifles are indeed powerful(irl), however this insta-killing aspect disregards the power of guns in general within games. A bullet to the heart for just about any gun (hell even zip guns) can kill a person (especially at point blank range) while a shot to something like the shoulder is not.
The problem is that in current games use the long standing Hitbox style of game mechanics(as far as i am aware). It doesn't matter where you get hit in a characters hitbox(of a given body part), the effect is the same. Though it is also quite silly that you can kill someone in a game by shooting them repeatedly in the toe. Most Game-Makers are aiming for Photo-realism in their graphics, not their mechanics.
There has yet to be a game that implements in a characters body(human or alien) any "internal organs" mechanics. The closest system i know is the RPG idea of damaging limbs which is only a few steps up from the FPS standard(not to knock it or anything). Of course it is unlikely that such a system will be implemented any time soon since the mass media would have a fit about it [insert generic uninformed fear-mongering here]. In the meantime I really don't mind he old fashion hitbox system, just no 1-shots to the chest with sniper rifles. That's just no fun.
I'm running through a battlefield, kicking ass and taking names. I'm invincible, I see killstreaks and multikills lining up and getting objectives and theres nothing to st-
Oh wait. Why am I dead?
Oh, a guy from 1 mile away that I didn't see barely hit me with a sniper and instakilled me. Was it a headshot? Nope.
Oh wait. Why am I dead?
Oh, a guy from 1 mile away that I didn't see barely hit me with a sniper and instakilled me. Was it a headshot? Nope.
007 Goldeneye had head shots... and they've stuck around since.Atmos Duality said:
No, I think snipers need to be powerful to be one or two shots to the body. I don't mean the game should pick between the two, I mean it should be mostly one shot to the body, as modern ballistic armor used in the field will not stop a 7.62mm round or indeed a 12.7mm round (yes, let's throw in the 8.6mm .338 Lapua Magnum too, for kicks) from a high powered rifle unless at very long range. Much of the area of your body will yield a kill or be more than enough to knock you out of the fight.
I would say other shots to the body should do lots of damage if not kill you. I mean, the sniper would be nearly balanced anyway. It's slow to shoot and aim, and if you do wind effects and gravity, provided your map is large enough, it is harder to get hits. More importantly, it does promote using cover, so It's a good game element. Having to slowly kill someone by shooting them in the chest then working the bolt to shoot them again kills the point of the sniper. I mean, the rifle is supposed to be used to dominate the battlefield at long range, but when the enemy gets within standard tactical combat range, you have some trouble, and in short range, you are cooked. That is the way it should be, and only with more powerful snipers can that happen properly.
TF2 got it right - needing to take time to CHARGE a shot tobefore it can kill in one BODY hit, rather than just point-and-click death. Even then, it only works on 5/9 classes, most of which wouldn't be an immediate threat to the Sniper anyway.