Poll: Should sniper rifles be able to kill people in one bodyshot.

[TornadoADV]

As previously mentioned, since Sniper Rifles are chambered for practically the same round as assault rifles (excluding the .50 BMG and .308 LUPA), that should make any non-pistol/shotgun/SMG hit auto lethal.

Actually, no. Most assault rifles are chambered in either 5.56 (.223) or 5.45. Most sniper rifles are chambered in 7.62 x54 or x51. The only "assault rifle" chambered in 7.62 (x39 also) is the AK-47, of which most modern militaries do not use, with the Russians preferring the AK-74 chambered in 5.45. There's a large difference between all of these rounds.

Also, Lapua is an ammunitions maker, not a type of ammunition. The .308 you're looking for is Winchester.

Don't be an idiot, plenty of Assault rifles/Battle rifles were/are chambered for 7.62mm (G3, FN-FAL, AK-47, M1 Garand, BAR, M-14) Not to mention the majority of MMGs. Take your pointless semantics else where. And I wasen't thinking of winchester, i was thinking of the Lapua round, which is actually .338. Forgot my other 3.

 

[spartan231490]

Yes. In games with minimal health, like CoD, but not in high health games like halo.

 

[ElPatron]

Yes and no.

Any sniper has to be a hard hitter because of it's slow firing nature. But if a game has a rifle with 100% to 98% accuracy then it should only do about 92-95% damage.

A more powerful rifle would have a lower accuracy, and it's power should have a steeper damage drop-off.



However, if it is a semi-auto rifle, it's obvious it should take 2-3 body hits for a kill. If you introduce monsters such as the M107/M82 then you could use recoil in rapid fire unbearable.

Don't be an idiot, plenty of Assault rifles/Battle rifles were/are chambered for 7.62mm (G3, FN-FAL, AK-47, M1 Garand, BAR, M-14) Not to mention the majority of MMGs. Take your pointless semantics else where. And I wasen't thinking of winchester, i was thinking of the Lapua round, which is actually .338. Forgot my other 3.

You are correct, except those are battle rifles and not assault rifles.

To be an assault rifle, it must use an intermediate cartridge, which the 7.62x51 NATO is not.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

It's realistic, so... Yes.

 

[Geekosaurus]

I like that the poll is so evenly matched. I thought it'd swing wildly one way or the other.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

As previously mentioned, since Sniper Rifles are chambered for practically the same round as assault rifles (excluding the .50 BMG and .308 LUPA), that should make any non-pistol/shotgun/SMG hit auto lethal.

Actually, no. Most assault rifles are chambered in either 5.56 (.223) or 5.45. Most sniper rifles are chambered in 7.62 x54 or x51. The only "assault rifle" chambered in 7.62 (x39 also) is the AK-47, of which most modern militaries do not use, with the Russians preferring the AK-74 chambered in 5.45. There's a large difference between all of these rounds.

Also, Lapua is an ammunitions maker, not a type of ammunition. The .308 you're looking for is Winchester.

Don't be an idiot, plenty of Assault rifles/Battle rifles were/are chambered for 7.62mm (G3, FN-FAL, AK-47, M1 Garand, BAR, M-14) Not to mention the majority of MMGs. Take your pointless semantics else where. And I wasen't thinking of winchester, i was thinking of the Lapua round, which is actually .338. Forgot my other 3.

Those aren't assault rifles. They are Battle Rifles... While there isn't much of a difference, there is an actual difference between them. Much like there isn't much of a difference between .223 and 5.56, but there is enough of a difference that it matters.
An assault rifle is considered one because it fires an intermediate round. The 7.62, .308, etc are high powered rounds. The 5.56 is an intermediate round.

 

[GeneralSeasick]

If anything, Snipers need to do less damage.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

TF2 is the most balanced suggestion, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. Staying scoped charges power and a full charge will body-shot-kill anyone who isn't a Heavy. However, you are vulnerable while scoped so head-shots are safer but more difficult.

You could easily make it make sense, while playing along with the supposed realism mechanics they use in "realistic" war shooters. Just take the whole shaking mechanic and use that as the charge meter-- when scoping, your aim will be unsteady and holding an enemy by the crosshairs will "charge" your shot. Taking a shot before you're fully charged will cause the game to angle the bullet away from your target. Do a quickscope and it'll just flat out say you missed. Fire a bit too quickly, but aim dead on on someone's head, and it'll make it a grazing shot that skins the side of what you can see-- still damaging, but not blowing somebody's brains out. Fully charged, the gun is still, the shot'll go right where you're aiming, and a heart shot/head shot will drop them. That work?


EDIT: Incidentally, most people don't seem to realise this: Sniper rifles are just highly accurate rifles used for aimed shots at range. They are not automatically more powerful. Most "snipers" are just modified assault rifles with a scope firing single-shot. The whole "snipers are one-hit-kill" thing only makes sense if EVERY gun is one hit kill.

That is actually kinda perfect. If not perfect, then still really damn good. I applaud you for that one.

Now I have to gripe about un-scoped fire in the MW series. I wonder how hard it is to hip-fire a sniper rifle at someone literally at point blank range. I tend to miss. I don't think that should be the case, but I just want to say it. It should probably knock you on your rear afterwards and probably dislocate something, but it should connect.

 

[crepesack]

In call of duty it's not an issue because the maps are scaled down. It's easy to just run up and back door a sniper. On BF3 though the maps are huge and a single sniper can get total map dominance if he 1 hit ko-d people.

IMO What should happen is that snipers are auto 2 hit kills to the torsoe but damage done by sniper rifles takes longer to recover from or disorients you in some way to make it actually possible to get a follow up shot or give your team a chance to pick him off with random spray.

 

[Valdus]

I have an issue with Sniper Rifles one-shotting anyone on the body. Having said I have the same problem for the head as well considering RL snipers are trained to aim for the center of mass unless their target is especially close.

And quite frankly it's stupid. I remember the first Gears of War game online where each match was determined by who got the sniper rifle first (and when it's a weapon that can one-shot someone, can you blame them?)

If body hits are added then I won't even touch FPS anymore. And since when were sniper rifles more powerful than normal rifles? Aren't they just modified to be a bit more accurate and with a scope attached? Why should a single sniper shot to the head (or body for the purposes of this thread) be any more lethal than two or three shots from any automatic weapon?

 

[Yopaz]

It's more realistic if one hit kills, but it's pretty cheap. What could have been done is to make the hit box be more than just simply bodyshot and add vital points of the body such as heart, liver, kidneys and flesh wounds.

Being killed by a camping sniper is always annoying so in a way I am undecided on this one.

 

[radioactive lemur]

IRL snipers NEVER go for the headshot, even if the target is wearing body armor. They are fully 100% confident that the .50 caliber bullet will lethally penetrate any protective gear known to man.

 

[C2Ultima]

If a game wanted the realistic gold medal, they could have it so that getting hit in the limb with a sniper makes that limb stop functionning. Your vision gets blurrier minute by minute, and your controls steadily become less responsive.

If it were a one shot kill anywhere, that'd be terrible. One shot to the toe = instant death. No thank you.

 

[Erttheking]

It depends, if you want to make it so that a body shot can kill, make it inacurate from the hip and that it takes awhile to aim down the sight so that it only works from a long range...also no quickscoping, that was a stupid idea then and it was a stupid idea now. But if you want to make it so that it doesn't work, don't make the head the size of a grape, espically if you're using a bolt action rifle with a painfully long reload time.

Also fuck quickscoping for either option.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

yes, i think that sniper rifles (in most games should be OHK in the chest-throat or face area, and heavy damage to limbs, that seems fair, but whats to stop close range snipers running up to you using them like shotguns?

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Depends on the game, and the other weapons.

For example, in halo, no way.

In battlefield 3, though, I feel that the bolt actions need to be a OHK to certain parts of the body at closer ranges, with the area being smaller depending on the rifle (sv98 smallest, m98b largest, m40 in the middle)