How do you feel about 1 hit kill snipers?

145791019

Comments

  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited May 2016
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Sir-xer21 wrote: »
    as a weapon though, God is it broken in Hardcore.

    I would then use Hardcore as an example to show that even if rifles were capable of getting an OHK at 100m+, they would not be a "plague" on this game like people imply they would be, and not everyone would be using them. The majority of snipers in Hardcore are still ridiculously inaccurate, and CQB snipers are still the rarest types of players.

    right, but that's a function of players sucking, not a weakness of the weapon itself.

    and im arguing that the kit itself was essentially useless in hardcore, hence, why you never saw it.

    everyone and their mothers rightfully saw that the M16, AEK, and M416 were vastly superior to most of the other guns in BF3. most people still sucked with them though and wouldnt get any appreciable difference compared to other ARs. Didnt mean there wasnt an imbalance, its just not something that's going to show with the average player, and on some level, kit balance is far more important than weapon balance.

    the differences become far more apparent when you're playing with very skilled players as the skill gaps change exponentially. if you're playing with the random scrubs you find on pub servers, you probably wont notice the difference very often because most players regress towards the mean regardless of the weapon characteristics anyways.


    the defensive perk shouldnt exist, because it punishes everyone when the point was simply to counter sniper rifles, but we're basically at the old Stopping Power vs Juggernaut or Magnum Vs Body Armor debates. The defensive perk is only OP when you dont give people an offensive perk choice to counter. that said, there shouldnt be any perks, and the way to improving recon isnt making Snipers god weapons, its making their kit gear useful.

    Recon died the day DICE gave support C4.
  • MrChaoticalGamer
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    head shots should always be 1 hit kill, body shots no more then 2, unless its the area where the heart is, question is, should 1 shot kills count , when your shot in the foot like that in hc modes in bf4. that was my only gripe about sniping in hc mode, but it applied to alot of weapons not just snipers.

    it been well blanced if had to shoot some one five or 4 times it make sniping useless
  • DingoKillr
    4233 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I think people need to think a little broader then whether BA should have 1 Hit kill, if what has been indicated Bolt Action Rifle are only for the Scout class. At this point it is the only primary indicated for the Scout which it would need to perform CQB or Long Range (my guess about 500m).?

    In BF2, BF3 and BF4 Snipers had access to BASR and DMR, BF3 and BF4 setup even allowed for Recon to CQB.

    If it was me, I would not have 1 Hit Kill to the whole chest or head, I would create a Inner Head and Inner Chest hit box, both of these would be 1 hit kill from the front only.

    I would make BA with Iron sights to have a low hip fire/movement plenty, then with a scope attached the hip fire/movement plenty would be much higher. This creates BA as CQB or as Sniper not both effectively at the same time.

    The damage now does not need to be 100 at 30m it can be 65 at 10m if the 1HK zones have the right multiplier for BA. Then you could have 65 for 50m drop off to 50 at 300m.
  • H-Hour_Absolute
    462 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited May 2016
    What is your gameplay style, that snipers have any impact whatsoever on any of you?

    Short of *also* playing sniper (I intentionally differentiate between "sniper" and "recon" ), I cannot remember a single match, HC or otherwise, where opposition snipers have had any impact at all.

    Honestly, with the exception of Rush and it's MCOMs (arming/disarming can be stopped by a sniper), I can't imagine a single use for the class at all.

    Maybe a hostage-based game mode, or a high-value-target based mode...but in conquest? They serve no purpose.

    And yes, I run Recon with a Silenced A91, a Spawn Beacon, and either a TUGS or C4 about 50% of the time- the only use for that class.
  • dragonassasin98
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Within reason ohk is fine if its in mid chest and head. But i hate when i shoot someone in the chest with a smg 5 times but they dont die and shoot me 2-3 times i die. Also with ohk the question also is raised like if i shoot you in the eyeball with my pistol should that be a one hit kill.
  • Loqtrall
    12426 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2016
    Sir-xer21 wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Sir-xer21 wrote: »
    as a weapon though, God is it broken in Hardcore.

    I would then use Hardcore as an example to show that even if rifles were capable of getting an OHK at 100m+, they would not be a "plague" on this game like people imply they would be, and not everyone would be using them. The majority of snipers in Hardcore are still ridiculously inaccurate, and CQB snipers are still the rarest types of players.

    right, but that's a function of players sucking, not a weakness of the weapon itself.

    and im arguing that the kit itself was essentially useless in hardcore, hence, why you never saw it.

    everyone and their mothers rightfully saw that the M16, AEK, and M416 were vastly superior to most of the other guns in BF3. most people still sucked with them though and wouldnt get any appreciable difference compared to other ARs. Didnt mean there wasnt an imbalance, its just not something that's going to show with the average player, and on some level, kit balance is far more important than weapon balance.

    the differences become far more apparent when you're playing with very skilled players as the skill gaps change exponentially. if you're playing with the random scrubs you find on pub servers, you probably wont notice the difference very often because most players regress towards the mean regardless of the weapon characteristics anyways.


    the defensive perk shouldnt exist, because it punishes everyone when the point was simply to counter sniper rifles, but we're basically at the old Stopping Power vs Juggernaut or Magnum Vs Body Armor debates. The defensive perk is only OP when you dont give people an offensive perk choice to counter. that said, there shouldnt be any perks, and the way to improving recon isnt making Snipers god weapons, its making their kit gear useful.

    Recon died the day DICE gave support C4.

    I honestly don't believe that weapons should be balanced based on their FULL potential. Because how many players, out of the millions that bought and played BF4, do you believe actually USE those weapons to their full potential?

    Sniper rifles shouldn't be balanced to be a 2-shot kill at virtually any range just because there are an extraordinarily tiny group of players that are pinpoint accurate and are gods with OHK rifles in their hands.

    A sniper rifles effectiveness in CQB shouldn't be balanced as if everyone in the game that wields them is going to be 75% accurate, especially when the VAST majority of people that use them in this game are less than half that accurate, and are even moreso inaccurate in CQB situations.

    That would be like balancing C4 based on the premise that every single person that's using them is going to be able to sneak up on 75% of vehicles they run in to, and that those vehicles won't move at all, and will be totally unaware they're about to be blown up. Or balancing tanks and scout helis on the premise that everyone that uses them are masters at those vehicles, which we know is not the case, seeing as people who actually do master them ******** WRECK with those vehicles beyond belief, and aren't just "good" with them.

    I think scout helis are a perfect example of my balancing logic - just because there are A FEW players that can hop in a scout heli and totally DESTROY with it, and are master pilots that can out-maneuver lock-ons consistently, doesn't mean that scout helis are "overpowered". It doesn't mean that scout helis should be nerfed so that master scout pilots that dedicate 100% of their game time to them only have the capability of doing "good" with them.

    Just because there are some people who are ungodly skilled with a weapon, doesn't mean that the weapon is overpowered and should be nerfed so that it's virtually impossible for anyone else to use successfully on a consistent basis.

    Again, Hardcore proves that even making bolt-action rifles OHK at ALL ranges won't cause them to be a plague for this game, and it won't cause everyone and their uncle to be using them 24/7, 100% of the time. Snipers still suck in hardcore, where their guns are supposedly "god guns". Just because the guys who are insanely good with rifles under the current damage model will be godly good with OHK rifles doesn't mean that OHK rifles will be overpowered. It just means that THOSE people will make OHK rifles SEEM overpowered.

    Luckily, 99% of the people that use bolt action rifles in this game are NOWHERE NEAR that accurate or that proficient with bolt action rifles. Just like 99% of the people that fly scout helis aren't anywhere near as good as the master pilots that melt infantry as easily as they breathe or blink. Not everybody is a Xarcotix or a WHISP.

    Balancing the weapon based on that only challenges the godly, super-good bolt-action users, and brutally punishes those that love bolt-actions, but are nowhere near as good as those top players. Weren't we just participating in a "mil sim" thread where we agreed that the interest of the majority outweighs that of the minority?

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________

    Also, I'd argue that the recon kit is FAIRLY powerful in Hardcore based on one thing - The respawn beacon.

    In Hardcore, there is no squad spawn - the only person you can spawn on is your squad leader, and if they're dead, you're pretty much screwed. UNLESS - your recon squadmate has a well positioned spawn beacon. I can't tell you how many objectives I've capped and defended single-handedly because I had a spawn beacon where enemy players didn't. I'd wipe a squad, cap the objective before they could spawn back in, and there's nothing they can do about it.

    If bushwookies weren't so worthless as to use their spawn beacon as their own personal camping spot respawn point - Recon players would be a force to be reckoned with in Hardcore. There's nothing like being killed by an enemy, and then immediately spawning in the sky above them, parachuting in behind them, and stabbing them in the back without them knowing what's going on at all - especially when that enemy's spawn options are restricted purely to his squad leader.

    You and your team wipe a squad, and the entire squad is then forced to either spawn on a base further away from the one you're defending or just capped, or wait for their squad leader to do the same so they can spawn on him. Using dynamic respawning to your advantage is a fantastic means to get over on the enemy. One or two good squads with a Recon that knows what they're doing with the spawn beacon can change the tide of battle in Hardcore purely because of the gimped squad spawn system.

    Also - their ability to use C4 in RELATION with the spawn beacon is incredibly powerful, especially considering that in Hardcore vehicles have no 3rd person view capabilities and no health regen.

    Again, I can't tell you how many times I've parachuted in from my spawn beacon on top of or behind camping tanks that are camping infantry on objectives and blown them up with little to no effort. Or how many times I've been parachuting in from my beacon, and dropped a C4 on top of a tank I was passing by to weaken it so my tanks can more easily take it out. The support class may have C4 - but without a recon soldier with a spawn beacon, they don't have the capability a Recon player carrying C4 and Spawn Beacons do in Hardcore (which is why it's literally the ONLY loadout I use when I play Hardcore).

    I've come in first place as an aggro recon in Hardcore plenty of times (Not to say I haven't had my fair share of *** whoopings in Hardcore as well) - it's just that the majority of the guys that use the kit in Hardcore would rather camp and be virtually worthless than actually play the class proactively to it's strengths in that particular game mode.

    At least we can agree that the defensive perk is broken and is essentially a counter without a counter. It's like if stingers were made to counter aircraft, and aircraft had no flares. They take no skill to use at all, grants instant satisfaction to the user, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it. Broken mechanic is broken.
  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    now, to explain, i wasnt suggesting that OHK bolt actions would be the scourge of the game. they existed in BC2 up to BF4 and didnt overtake the game. but as you said, that's a player problem, not a fundamental problem with the weapons themself. and yeah, now that you make the point about balancing it around the majority sucking, i see what you're getting at. but i thinkthey're walking a fine line on it as it is. i think extending the range is for sure not a good idea, as all weapons have to have limitations, which is where im coming from. i get that the idea is to give players tools to play the objective, but at the same time, there needs to be limitations.


    i will also like to add that the general slower rate of fire of the guns in this game is already going to tilt advantages to higher damage models.

  • H-Hour_Absolute
    462 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Sir-xer21 wrote: »
    now, to explain, i wasnt suggesting that OHK bolt actions would be the scourge of the game. they existed in BC2 up to BF4 and didnt overtake the game. but as you said, that's a player problem, not a fundamental problem with the weapons themself. and yeah, now that you make the point about balancing it around the majority sucking, i see what you're getting at. but i thinkthey're walking a fine line on it as it is. i think extending the range is for sure not a good idea, as all weapons have to have limitations, which is where im coming from. i get that the idea is to give players tools to play the objective, but at the same time, there needs to be limitations.


    i will also like to add that the general slower rate of fire of the guns in this game is already going to tilt advantages to higher damage models.

    There were no OHK-all-distance-guns, which means there were no OHK guns in BC2 (sure, if you got within distance of certain guns it was OHK, but...no "absolute OHK guns" existed so it's not the same).
  • Visegrip117
    1346 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited May 2016
    @H-Hour_Absolute
    There were no OHK-all-distance-guns, which means there were no OHK guns in BC2 (sure, if you got within distance of certain guns it was OHK, but...no "absolute OHK guns" existed so it's not the same).

    I believe you are right. There may have been a OHK at all ranges rifle in BC1, but I honestly can't remember. But in BC2 there was not. There was the .50 cal and it did something like 95% damage at all distances past the up close (40ft or whatever the ohk range was) So if you was even slightly injured it would kill you
  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Sir-xer21 wrote: »
    now, to explain, i wasnt suggesting that OHK bolt actions would be the scourge of the game. they existed in BC2 up to BF4 and didnt overtake the game. but as you said, that's a player problem, not a fundamental problem with the weapons themself. and yeah, now that you make the point about balancing it around the majority sucking, i see what you're getting at. but i thinkthey're walking a fine line on it as it is. i think extending the range is for sure not a good idea, as all weapons have to have limitations, which is where im coming from. i get that the idea is to give players tools to play the objective, but at the same time, there needs to be limitations.


    i will also like to add that the general slower rate of fire of the guns in this game is already going to tilt advantages to higher damage models.

    There were no OHK-all-distance-guns, which means there were no OHK guns in BC2 (sure, if you got within distance of certain guns it was OHK, but...no "absolute OHK guns" existed so it's not the same).

    i meant within the range, obviously.
  • Visegrip117
    1346 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    i meant within the range, obviously.

    Good morning sir, I see you're an early bird too
  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    i meant within the range, obviously.

    Good morning sir, I see you're an early bird too
    nah, i live in hawaii. its late here

  • AFROSRB
    317 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    head shots should always be 1 hit kill, body shots no more then 2, unless its the area where the heart is, question is, should 1 shot kills count , when your shot in the foot like that in hc modes in bf4. that was my only gripe about sniping in hc mode, but it applied to alot of weapons not just snipers.

    This...
  • ImAverageSniper
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield Member
    I am a believer in OHK's for sniper rifles. Having said that, there still has to be balance. I think OHK's should apply to a headshot at any distance with any sniper rifle, within 50m to the upper chest area, and within 10-15m to the stomach. Anything below the stomach should be a two shot kill at any distance.

    www.youtube.com/eximum - The Average Sniper
  • Visegrip117
    1346 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Sir-xer21 wrote: »
    i meant within the range, obviously.

    Good morning sir, I see you're an early bird too
    nah, i live in hawaii. its late here
    Oh lol it was 4:10am where I was

  • DANNYonPC
    263 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    L0rdV1ct0r wrote: »
    1 shot head
    2 shots torso
    3 shots limbs

    That is how it should be in my opinion

    IMHO this is pretty unbalanced. SR should have a great stopping power to compensate ROF and size


    Aim better
  • Troopperfofo
    371 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited May 2016
    I don't really see the problem with 1 hit kill bolt actions. Personally I would want the damage system set sort of like Verdun.

    I love Verdun and everything kills you super easy.

    Bolt actions - 1 hit anywhere.

    Semi auto rifle - 1 hit anywhere

    LMG - 2 hit chest 1 hit head

    SMG - 3 hit chest/limbs 1 hit head

    Revolver - 1 hit head/chest. 2 hits limbs

    Semi auto pistol - 3 hits chest/limbs 1 hit head.

    Trench gun - 1 hit everywhere.

    Flame throw 1 hit everywhere.

    Barbed wire - Varies depending on how hard you struggle.





  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    I am a believer in OHK's for sniper rifles. Having said that, there still has to be balance. I think OHK's should apply to a headshot at any distance with any sniper rifle, within 50m to the upper chest area, and within 10-15m to the stomach. Anything below the stomach should be a two shot kill at any distance.

    www.youtube.com/eximum - The Average Sniper

    50 meter range for that chest? Thats insane!
    I don't really see the problem with 1 hit kill bolt actions. Personally I would want the damage system set sort of like Verdun.

    I love Verdun and everything kills you super easy.

    Bolt actions - 1 hit anywhere.

    Semi auto rifle - 1 hit anywhere

    LMG - 2 hit chest 1 hit head

    SMG - 3 hit chest/limbs 1 hit head

    Revolver - 1 hit head/chest. 2 hits limbs

    Semi auto pistol - 3 hits chest/limbs 1 hit head.

    Trench gun - 1 hit everywhere.

    Flame throw 1 hit everywhere.

    Barbed wire - Varies depending on how hard you struggle.





    That would be awful. One hit to the foot for a semi auto? Lol.

    Verdun is more sim anyways.
  • NatsuTerran
    170 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    I honestly just want to see sniper rifles get the vehicle treatment. Let only recons be able to pick them up (they will be lying around in deployment, only 1-3 per team depending on map/mode), and they will trade in their DMR for them. That way sniper rifles can be 1 shot kills to, say, the torso up at any range. It will be balanced by small numbers, gives snipers more influence over a game, and deters half your team from camping in the hills accomplishing nothing. Win/win/win.
  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    I honestly just want to see sniper rifles get the vehicle treatment. Let only recons be able to pick them up (they will be lying around in deployment, only 1-3 per team depending on map/mode), and they will trade in their DMR for them. That way sniper rifles can be 1 shot kills to, say, the torso up at any range. It will be balanced by small numbers, gives snipers more influence over a game, and deters half your team from camping in the hills accomplishing nothing. Win/win/win.

    So basically just make them battle pickups? I dont think anyone wins in that scenario.
Sign In or Register to comment.