Snipers in PS2

[ArcIyte]

How do you want them to function?

They are easily my #1 pet peeve with Battlefield 3. No one wants them on their team, and no one wants to fight them. Sniping in BF3 is also very easy, so even the average joe can be incredibly annoying and put a huge damper on an otherwise fun game.

Snipers in modern FPS games are assclowns. Some 15 year old kid who just watched Enemy at the Gates. I think they should expand on the role of supporting marksmen instead of the "lone wolf" sperglord sniper. I want to see it played as someone who gathers intel for their outfit/empire and can help a firefight from long range.

They mentioned Infiltrators getting some kind of spotting efficiency certs. That's a step in the right direction as far as teamwork goes. An idea of mine is maybe they can fire special "tag" rounds that function kind of like a SOFLAM in BF3 or tracer dart in BFBC2, so that lock-on AT weapons have reduced or no lock-on time.

[Conq]

I hope they function more as support. Finishing off targets, spotting, suppressing other snipers, ect. Maybe let them headshot other Infiltrators but I think a Heavy Assault should survive a few hits, at least.

Typically it's just too easy of a class and the only time I really enjoy them is when they are harder to play. Tribes 2 and SW: Battlefront come to mind as two games that required two headshots with long reload/recharge pauses between. You had to work for the second shot as players freaked out, zig-zagged and darted for cover. I never played PS1 so I don't know how they functioned there.

[Lonehunter]

Be nice if Sniper's where the only ones who could spot people

[Warborn]

PS1 did it perfectly by making snipers more of a support function than anything else. You could still get kills as a sniper, but your main use was suppression, taking out deployables or other important targets, and so on. If they make it anything like BF3 the game will probably be fairly terrible for infantry. The huge, open areas of Planetside would mean that unless you're fighting in a base, you'll be having headshot wars with guys too far away to effectively engage with shorter range, less accurate weapons like cyclers and so on.

So, ideally, no one-shot-kills, difficult to aim, and maybe with more of a spotting/suppression role. Maybe even make them fire shots that inflict status effects in addition to doing a moderate bit damage. So bullets that slow a target, cause some effect to a vehicle, mark a target to be visible on everyone's map, etc. Making snipers powerful would do a lot to kill the outdoor infantry combat game, so frankly I'd rather they underpower them than let them have any chance of being dominant.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Warborn

PS1 did it perfectly by making snipers more of a support function than anything else. You could still get kills as a sniper, but your main use was suppression, taking out deployables or other important targets, and so on. If they make it anything like BF3 the game will probably be fairly terrible for infantry. The huge, open areas of Planetside would mean that unless you're fighting in a base, you'll be having headshot wars with guys too far away to effectively engage with shorter range, less accurate weapons like cyclers and so on.

So, ideally, no one-shot-kills, difficult to aim, and maybe with more of a spotting/suppression role. Maybe even make them fire shots that inflict status effects in addition to doing a moderate bit damage. So bullets that slow a target, cause some effect to a vehicle, mark a target to be visible on everyone's map, etc. Making snipers powerful would do a lot to kill the outdoor infantry combat game, so frankly I'd rather they underpower them than let them have any chance of being dominant.

You don't necessarily have to remove 1 shot kills to balance them. Add a charge function to them like TF2's sniper, make it much longer of course. Relegates sniper rifles to sniper role and limits the amount of killing they can do within x time period without limiting the top most strength of the rifles. You can effectively make them very powerful like this but limit them from being stupidly annoying like Battlefield.

By doing this you can completely limit the sniper to a glass ceiling of strength when played perfectly. Added benefit is that they lose all awareness of their surroundings in being forced to play like this too.

In conjunction with giving lower power none charge rifles, and closer range rifles, the infiltrator can serve both long range and squad level roles depending on how people want to cert it, and the snipers in game can be limited in their annoyance level.

Though, really, both methods achieve the same thing, limiting the killing speed, I personally think a 1 hit kill hs charge system is weaker than a 2-5 hit system without charges, if you force them to wait til full charge for every shot with these rifles they're less effective because the lower damage rifles would kill much faster due to wounded opponents going down in fewer hits etc. Not to mention no scope in charge system means they can have full surroundings awareness too.

Not that I'm saying to make it exactly like TF2... Just to use the mechanic as it offers good possibilities for speccing.

Also, the downtime between shots means they "should" occupy that time looking at enemies they can't shoot doing something else, like hitting the spot button for someone else to shoot them.

[Cricetinus]

I imagine the role of the sniper in PS2 to be taking down squishy VIPs like medics and engineers. That is in addition to counter-sniping and general suppression fire of course. I am very intrigued about how the scouting aspect might work though, marking enemies through scope for alternate methods of elimination sounds pretty sweet.

I remember a few battles in PS around some giant bridges though, I had a lot of fun sniping during those.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

I wonder how much of a PITA it would be code it so the rounds are affected by wind, elevation, temperature, planet rotation etc etc and also to not have the bullets be instant travel.

it's too easy to just line up the sights and click. If they work hard enough to be able to do it properly, then they deserve 1 shot kills.

[ThirdCross]

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

I wonder how much of a PITA it would be code it so the rounds are affected by wind, elevation, temperature, planet rotation etc etc and also to not have the bullets be instant travel.

it's too easy to just line up the sights and click. If they work hard enough to be able to do it properly, then they deserve 1 shot kills.

Bullet drops/speed are going to be in PS2 so no hitscan snipping.

[Thoreaux]

The absolute best thing would be if they straight up copied PS1's system. That is, give the bullet significant travel time (realism be damned), and require the gun to be held perfectly still for a second or so before firing (again, realism be damned). This makes sniping a motion prediction task, not a twitch skill, making it a bit more of a cerebral task requiring an investment of practice to get good at.

Also, I am a big, big fan of a 2-shot kill system. 1 shot kills are.... troubling. I like the idea that the first shot provides a warning, and the second shot is the real contest between the sniper and their prey. Did the target go too far from cover? Can you guess where they'll be even though they're zig-zagging? Do they know how to move randomly to throw you off?

What kept snipers balanced in PS1 was the fact that most snipers were not great at landing the all-important second shot, leading many people to regard the bolt driver as a weak weapon. If you could land the second shot reliably, however, the bolt driver suddenly became a very powerful tool. It took time and practice to get to that point, though.

So key points:

• Motion prediction, not twitch
• 2-shot kills
• xXxL33t5niperGokuxXx decides to change his name

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

=
xXxL33t5niperGokuxXx decides to change his name

Sorry Goku~

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

Do they know how to move randomly to throw you off?

Left. Right. Left stop left. Right stop right stop right. left. Repeat.

Too much Halo.

[texico]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

The absolute best thing would be if they straight up copied PS1's system. That is, give the bullet significant travel time (realism be damned), and require the gun to be held perfectly still for a second or so before firing (again, realism be damned). This makes sniping a motion prediction task, not a twitch skill, making it a bit more of a cerebral task requiring an investment of practice to get good at.

Also, I am a big, big fan of a 2-shot kill system. 1 shot kills are.... troubling. I like the idea that the first shot provides a warning, and the second shot is the real contest between the sniper and their prey. Did the target go too far from cover? Can you guess where they'll be even though they're zig-zagging? Do they know how to move randomly to throw you off?

What kept snipers balanced in PS1 was the fact that most snipers were not great at landing the all-important second shot, leading many people to regard the bolt driver as a weak weapon. If you could land the second shot reliably, however, the bolt driver suddenly became a very powerful tool. It took time and practice to get to that point, though.

So key points:

• Motion prediction, not twitch
• 2-shot kills
• xXxL33t5niperGokuxXx decides to change his name

Great post and you've hit the nail on the head, and those are the reasons why I too think PS1 sniping mechanics should just be the same for PS2.

I really think the 2-shot kill is a must. 1-shot kills are just frustrating. The reason is the ability to survive from a 2-shot kill weapon is on their ability to react to their environment. They know whether they die or not is in their control, so it's less frustrating if they do die. With 1-shot killing, the player has no ability to react to the threat. Instead, they literally have to cut elements of their gameplay out. If they do happen to die, it's frustrating, there was nothing they could do at all.

The requirement for motion control and 2-shot kills therefore meant people accepted dying to a sniper was "reasonable" and they even respected snipers if they could do it.



Just take a look at what the BF3 community thinks about sniping in BF3. It's massively negative, and the good snipers themselves have a bad reputation, and the perception is that snipers are lame.

Now ask the PS1 community what they thought about sniping in PlanetSide. The response is usually very positive, and the good snipers are usually given a certain amount of respect and admiration for having the motion-prediction and diligence to snipe well.

That alone should tell you that BF3 got it wrong in their game, while PlanetSide got it right. Of course, there might have to be minor changes to fit PS2's technology and gameplay mechanics, but you should be shooting more for the key mechanics of PS1's sniping, rather than the modern arena-style FPS.

Plus, as I enjoy Sniping too, I don't want to have to be treated like dirt by the PS2 community because the Sniping mechanics make it lame/annoying. I, and probably most snipers here, want to be treated respectfully for mastering a difficult, fair skill in the game.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

The absolute best thing would be if they straight up copied PS1's system. That is, give the bullet significant travel time (realism be damned), and require the gun to be held perfectly still for a second or so before firing (again, realism be damned). This makes sniping a motion prediction task, not a twitch skill, making it a bit more of a cerebral task requiring an investment of practice to get good at.

Also, I am a big, big fan of a 2-shot kill system. 1 shot kills are.... troubling. I like the idea that the first shot provides a warning, and the second shot is the real contest between the sniper and their prey. Did the target go too far from cover? Can you guess where they'll be even though they're zig-zagging? Do they know how to move randomly to throw you off?

What kept snipers balanced in PS1 was the fact that most snipers were not great at landing the all-important second shot, leading many people to regard the bolt driver as a weak weapon. If you could land the second shot reliably, however, the bolt driver suddenly became a very powerful tool. It took time and practice to get to that point, though.

So key points:

• Motion prediction, not twitch
• 2-shot kills
• xXxL33t5niperGokuxXx decides to change his name

This.

I'm pretty sure the tank thing will screw outdoor combat all to hell anyway, so I probably won't be sniping much. But it was a specialty of mine in PS1, particularly counter sniping and moving targets. Was not a fan of the tandem sniping tactics used by duos to score instant kills either.

I've seen battles get completely turned around just because of a small shift in the snipers. Tower charges that were failing miserably because of enemies on the walls suddenly broke through and made it to their destination because a few others and myself picked up BDs and started taking out the wall crawlers and enemy snipers.

Hell I suppressed a cave base by myself while my team attempted to punch their way inside. After I think 80 kills and 0 deaths, finally a cloaker managed to sneak up on me while heading back for more rounds. The tell I got was "I guess the fish finally got to shoot back".

[Infektion]

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

I wonder how much of a PITA it would be code it so the rounds are affected by wind, elevation, temperature, planet rotation etc etc and also to not have the bullets be instant travel.

it's too easy to just line up the sights and click. If they work hard enough to be able to do it properly, then they deserve 1 shot kills.

LOL Planet rotation? I think the only way for that too happen is if the planet was turning at an impressive rate.

[Skitrel]

There is absolutely no purpose in actively simulating effects that a player will not see in gameplay. Snipers aren't going to have a myriad of tools to test and check their aim prior to a shot, and a target isn't going to sit around long enough for them to go through these things. The result of that would simply be people taking shots then readjusting based on where that shot went, all on the fly.

There's no point in accurately simulating these things if they're not things a player will see in game, IF you were going to do something like this then simple changes to ballistics gravity would be far simpler, in x region ballistics gravity is ever so slightly right, left, or anything else, to a random degree of power. Rotate these random effects by region periodically with the day and night cycle to cause the effect of it changing like weather. Add a hud element to snipers that shows the direction of the current effect relative to compass directions.

This would be far simpler to do and use 1 metric, a gravitational simulation. I sincerely doubt that there'll even be a gravitational simulation though and without such the above couldn't be done. It's easier and less taxing to use BF3s method of a standard bullet trajectory that every bullet always takes, dependant on ammo type. BF3 doesn't do any calculations at all, it's always the same curves. This is exactly what I expect to see PS2 do.