Thank you Vanguard, you explained it better then I could have, that probably has to do with the fact that I'm currently in a Networking class with all of these computers running hot while its 85 degrees outside, so I'm a little cloudy.Vanguard1219 said:What he means in a nutshell:VZLANemesis said:I really REALLY don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about, could you elaborate? Really sorry.grinklehi said:It's going to be real alright, and I can understand why it was made. The Huntsman is designed for snipers who want to get near the thick of things, where the scope kinda gets in the way. The Razorback is better for Area Denial Snipers, as hey just gained one more way to hold the area from the enemy with the razorback giving them a 2nd chance vs Spys so as to provide better area denial after the offending spy is dealt with.
What do you mean by "Area Denial Snipers" or with "area denial"?
1) The Huntsman is better for close-range fighting because unlike the sniper rifle you don't have to worry about trying to "no-scope" an enemy.
2) "Area Denial" is pretty self explanatory. It means your denying the enemy from entering an area, usually by killing them. Fairly simple.
3) Thanks to the Razorback a Sniper can survive a sneak-attack by a Spy, meaning they can kill their would-be killer and keep suppressing an area.
Back OT: the revolver argument is pretty shaky IMO, mostly because A). The standard revolver is too inaccurate to do sniper-killing effectively, and B). The Ambassador has a shot cool down, so by the time it does enough damage to kill the sniper he might just slice you to bits with the Kukri. (NOTE: this entirely depends on the cooldown timer on the Ambassador, as well as if the new pistol does any extra damage, and as such is currently in the realm of Theory.)