Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

On FPS Sniping And The Ruination Of Gameplay 269

Posted by simoniker from the bang-bang-you-dead dept.
An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has a great article today which puts forth the claim that sniper rifles in multiplayer FPS games have made the genre infinitely worse. They take the time to explain why, and what improvements need to be made. It's definitely not the standard 'I hate campers' article." The editorial argues: "Every... 'reason' for the existence of sniper rifles - realism, historical accuracy, weapon diversity, giving players identifiable roles - is a lie", concluding that "...in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On FPS Sniping And The Ruination Of Gameplay More

On FPS Sniping And The Ruination Of Gameplay

Comments Filter:

  • durr! (Score:4, Funny)

    by rylin ( 688457 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:10PM (#8035191)
    and as the server falls down on its knees, ten thousand slashdotters yell proudly - "headshot!"

  • America's army (Score:4, Informative)

    by wed128 ( 722152 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:11PM (#8035203)
    Not true...in America's Army (My FPS of choice)...the sniper rifle is a very difficult weapon to master, and leaves you very adept to attack...there is almost no way of defending yourself at close range.

    • Re:America's army (Score:3, Redundant)

      by wolf- ( 54587 )
      Very true.
      #1 Takes skill to finish the sniper training
      #2 Limit of one or 2 per side, dependant on total number on team
      #3 It is NOT easy to get a frag using it.

      But then, the article author is living in his own little world. He wants "realism" but is playing a GAME.

    • Re:America's army (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:33PM (#8035463) Homepage Journal
      If you RTFA he says that he's pretty much only talking about CS and other FPS games where the sniper rifle is the "finger of god".

      Right or wrong, what this guy is saying is nothing new. And as history has shown, the games aren't going to change.

      The one point he misses in cs is that the extremely good players can get an aug or an m4 and get across the map and complete the objective without getting killed by snipers. What the sniper rifle does in CS is give the incredibly unskilled players the role of weeding out the average players and each other. The above average cs player will have the bomb planted so fast you'll still be reloading your awm. Kevlar, helmet, flash, aug, five seven, all hostages have been rescued.

      Sure, you may have a better kill ratio. But our team has won ever game, hmmmm. One more thing, the "problem" he describes only exists on public servers. In any sort of real CS game with serious play, sniping is almost nil if you are on the offense team (T on DE map, CT on CS map). In a match the only thing that anyone cares about is which team wins, on the pub people only care about kill ratio. When people care about their team winning they put the sniper rifles away. That's not a game flaw, that's a people flaw.

      This is why NS is gaining a lot of ground and becoming the Half-Life mod of choice. Heck, it IS the mod of choice. It hides the kill ratio. All anyone cares about in a game of NS is the team winning, and all the non-n00bs play as such.

      • Re:America's army (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lafiel ( 667810 )

        To be honest, I agree with you, but I believe you're dumbing down the severity of the issue (in terms of counterstrike). Public servers are the heart of the game, the first thing you play and what the general populace goes to have fun. They're not matches and they're not edge of your seat elite vs elite teams.

        I think he's got a point. Servers without sniper rifles (i've seen them) are actually much more rush-orientated. There's nothing really to do, right? Just get in there and kick some ass. No one's blow

      • If you think CS has good gameplay then you have a lot of other games you need to try.
    • That stands to reason since America's Army is supposed to be realistic unlike other FPS games. Sniper/Scount School is very difficult.

  • Same is true: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:16PM (#8035261) Homepage Journal
    ... in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else." ... in real life. Snipers are a bitch. It takes very real work to take out a sniper in a battlefield, especially a good one. Snipers are hated in reality because of the real, significant damage they can do to a battle scenario.

    Welcome to realism. Killing people is not as easy as your average Game-Junkie might think it is.

    I find it moderately ludicrous that such an analysis can be made, in all seriousness.

    If anything, this article demonstrates just how big the fantasy world most gameplayers live in can be ... the 'detached delusion' of opiated players looks to have some interesting consequences ... of course snipers suck. That's reality!

    • Re:Same is true: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by b0r0din ( 304712 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:30PM (#8035420)
      I agree. I know the movie Enemy at the Gates was an awful, awful movie, historically speaking, but snipers were one of the reasons the Germans got bogged down in Stalingrad.

      I do agree, however, that the bolt-action rifle should take time to load. That being said, I personally love the snipers' abilities. I think it'll be much more interesting when 3-D graphics make sniper rifles shine at distances to signal their presence, too, and make them vulnerable to things like RPGs once graphics will include things like walls that can be blown up.

    • Re:Same is true: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rhetoric ( 735114 )
      Very good point, although one thing I did agree with in the article was the talk about reload times and the number of shots it takes to kill someone. I always wished games would be more real in that sense.

    • Re:Same is true: (Score:5, Informative)

      by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:47PM (#8035613)
      In real life. Snipers are a bitch. It takes very real work to take out a sniper in a battlefield, especially a good one.

      If I recall correctly, Army counter-sniper doctrine begins with "first, call in an artillery strike..." That should tell you just how serious the armed forces take snipers: the preferred method of dealing with one involves saturating city block-sized areas, one after another, with artillery barrages until there's nothing living larger than an amoeba.

      In real life, snipers suck. Unless they're on your side, in which case they're so "cool" they have their own nickname: Murder, Incorporated.

      There are only a few well-known snipers (or, as they're called in the Marines, scout-snipers) in the last century. Vasily Zaitsev and Carlos Hathcock are probably the two best-known, Zaitsev working in the Siege of Stalingrad and Hathcock working during the Vietnam War. Zaitsev's exploits are legendary: read the book Enemy at the Gates (avoid the movie, if you want to know the real story) and you'll shudder.

      Hathcock's exploits are just as well-known. During the Vietnam War, he and his spotter once eliminated an NVA weapons platoon--around fifty men--in eight hours. It was Hathcock's scout-sniper unit which first received the appellation Murder, Incorporated. To this day, the Marine Corps nickname for their scout-sniper teams is "Murder, Inc.".

      Many regular soldiers and Marines hold scout-snipers in contempt. Why? Because regular soldiers and Marines are scared shitless of snipers. They are the total antithesis of warfare. Soldiers understand killing in the heat of battle, when the adrenaline's pumping and you know you're in danger and your buddy just got severed in half by an RPG-7. They don't like it any--and no sane person should!--but they understand it. To a regular trooper, a scout-sniper isn't war: a scout-sniper is the Angel of Death following you wherever you go, and ending your life at a totally random moment, without warning, without escape, without mercy.

      A scout-sniper who's working for you may be the Angel of Death walking the field on your side, but he's still the Angel of Death, and troops tend not to like that one bit.

      • Re:Same is true: (Score:4, Informative)

        by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:11PM (#8036680) Homepage Journal
        Good post. For anyone reading- they took out that platoon by pinning them down for a while, letting them have a single avenue of 'escape' that led them to a position that had already been sited in for heavy artillery earlier. BOOM! Hathcock and his partner did not shoot all of them.

        Interestingly enough he did not have the most official sniper kills in viet nam. But Marine Sniper is a great read if you like this kind of stuff.

      • Re:Same is true: (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:39PM (#8036967) Homepage Journal
        Not to bog down the thread further...

        I knew a guy who was a sniper in Vietnam. One of his favorite stories involved him taking out a few people during a field promotion ceremony. A Major was giving an award to a Vietnamese soldier. He waited until he pinned it on the soldier and they saluted each other before he took out the newly promoted soldier. Then then immediately took out the Major.

        He could have taken them out at any time, but chose his moment to send a message to the rest of the people present. Like most snipers, he was so far away that the bullet hit before the sound of the rifle so his targets didn't have a chance.

      • Re:Same is true: (Score:5, Informative)

        by reclusivemonkey ( 703154 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @06:19PM (#8037426)
        Not forgetting...

        Simo Hayha. Finland. 1939 - 1940. A member of the 34th Infantry Regiment and a farmer by trade, Simo Hayha became a most feared sniper during the 1939-40 (30 November 1939 14 March 1940) Winter invasion of Finland by the Soviet Union. Using nothing more than an iron sighted Mosin-Nagant Model 28, Simo is credited with killing 505 Russians during a nine month period - a feat still unmatched today by any sniper in any conflict.

        snipercountry.com/sniphistory [snipercountry.com]
    • In real life, snipers don't respawn :P

      OTOH, more seriously, while snipers in games get irritating, I've never had a problem dealing with them. Lay down some cover fire, create a diversion, etc. Snipers are an obstacle just like any other.

    • There is also the fact, which I think was part of the point of the article, that to be a sniper is hard. not everyone in the military can be a sniper. It takes skill. That is not the case in a lot of FPS games. He argues that it is too easy to be a good sniper in a game like CS.

      I'm not sure I agree with that. I always stink at using the sniper rifle. But that could just be because I stink at the game period.
    • Go play CS, there is nothing even remotely realistic when someone is owning the map with an AWP. Let me explain one of the basic strategies, JUMP around a corner, zoom, fire, kill, jump back. That process takes all of about 2 seconds. That is what the author is ranting about, that is why I personally stopped playing CS. Please explain to me how any of that relates to realism?

      The other real big problem with CS is most of the maps all revolve around 2 narrow paths, so it becomes almost impossible to tak

  • Err... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Mukaikubo ( 724906 )
    I thought rocket launchers were the flavor of the week to whinge about.
    • I thought rocket launchers were the flavor of the week to whinge about.

      Nah, that was back in the original Quake. I hated RL and quad whores in Q1, especially when they'd finally get fragged, lose the map, then blame someone else for "Stealing their pack". The weapon balance got much better in Q2 and Q3.

  • Rocket Launcher (Score:2, Insightful)

    by m0rph3us0 ( 549631 )
    The rocket is the sniper's bane. Any serious sniper will soon have half the opposing team on his ass lobbing dozens of rockets at him.

    • Re:Rocket Launcher (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Joe5678 ( 135227 )
      If that does happen, that one player has taken half the opposing team out of the game.

    • Re:Rocket Launcher (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "The rocket is the sniper's bane. Any serious sniper will soon have half the opposing team on his ass lobbing dozens of rockets at him."

      Whenever I played Quake 3, everybody thought the proper protocol when dealing with a sniper was to bitch. In all the games I've ever played, I have never ever seen anybody say "Hey man, you're kicking my butt to the point that I'm not really having any fun. Could you please lighten it a bit?"

      The fact of the matter is that there are people who will become insanely good
    • Then you get called a rocket whore, or some other name that implies you use rockets too much, or are cheap.

      It's the circle of FPS whining.

  • Stupid Article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by etymxris ( 121288 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:23PM (#8035342)
    This article was nothing but an ad hominem rant. I almost never play sniper, and suck at it when I do. I do fairly well otherwise. So apparently there must be some skill that snipers possess that I do not.

    I don't like snipers either. But neither do snipers like spies that stab them in the back ;) Just because there is one class that you cannot beat as easily as the others, this does not make the class "bad" or "low skill". In fact, it usually means the opposite.

    There is a reason for every class. In Team Fortress, Heavy Weapons and Rocket guys would be the only classes anyone played were it not for snipers.
    • I don't know, there's not much reason for the pyro...

      (Actually, he can be alright if there's enough people playing that you can afford to have one.)

      Tim

    • Re:Stupid Article (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Perdo ( 151843 )
      "So apparently there must be some skill that snipers possess that I do not"

      That would be ping, sir :)

      Seriously, I agree with you. Playing engie, I can absolutely rule the battlefield. Playing sniper, I'm dogmeat. If anyone plays sniper against me as an engie, they are dogmeat too.

      Perhaps I'm a bit biased, I quit playing TFC about a month after I had made it to 7th place out of 50,000 players back when the CLQ was still recording stats...

      And no, I did not cheat.

      I actually long to toss a few EMPs occasio

  • its all in the implimentation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Grand ( 152636 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:23PM (#8035345)
    AA (america's army) does a very good job at making the sniper have a real disadvantage. You cant hold the gun straight while standing up, only when your lying on the ground can you get the gun to be steady. While crouched its less steady, but can be used. To get the scope to almost stop, you have to put down the bipod on the gun, and that takes even more time. The other thing it does well, is it takes a couple of seconds to reload the gun. If you find yourself in close combat (guy runs up behind you), it takes several seconds to switch to a pistol or a machine gun. But of course, the one big advantage is you can kill someone with one shot from very far away

    I think the author of the article is a pissy CS player. CS has a poor implimentation of the AWP, you can shoot the gun and IMMEDIATELY switch to your pistol. You can even switch back right away and your rifle is reloaded. You can run around and when you stop moving, you have instant accuracy.

    I totally agree with the one shot one kill for a sniper in FPS's, but you have to give big disadvantages at close range and while moving. The role of the sniper is not to run around. You set up somewhere far away. They even have spotters there for close combat situations.

    • Absolutely Agree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by *weasel ( 174362 )
      The problem is in bad game design, not in the concept of a particular weapon itself.

      When accurate modelling of the power of a sniper rifle is not accurately offset by its shortcomings, it's bound to unbalance things. the shortcomings being chiefly - refire rate, recoil, bulk, required stances (prone, propped or seated), range falloff, spotting, support, etc.

      Sniper rifles in video games often ruin balance because they don't model those things at all, or effectively enough.
      They don't have falloff over dist

  • Give that man a pacifier (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:25PM (#8035363) Homepage Journal
    Yep, another Snipers suck article. First, let me take a shot at annonymous submitter for thinking this is a great article. Everthing mentioned in the article is simply solved by game design.

    Too many people with sniper rifles? Then limit the amount available. Problem solved. Oh no, they fire too quickly. Well, that's easily solved with a change to the reload variable. Problem solved. Boo hoo, they take me down with one shot. Well, duh, that's the whole purpose of a sniper rifle. This simpleton doesn't take into account that a sniper rifle round fires at a much higher velocity than a AK47 and does much, much more damage. Hey, it might not kill you, but it damn will incapacitate you which in a game is pretty much the same thing. Waaah! They have more points at the end of the game. Well, put a ratio penalty on the rifle. Sniper kill is worth 1/2, MP40 worth 1 and a knife kill worth 2 points. Problem solved!

    Good grief, why not write an article about how health packs are unrealistic and how in WWII they didn't have medics running around healing and poisoning other soldiers. If this whiner has a problem with it all... then stop playing and find a game that plays by "your" rules. Gah! FiringSquad needs better editorial control rather than let this drek hit the web.

    • Boo hoo, they take me down with one shot. Well, duh, that's the whole purpose of a sniper rifle.

      That's the whole point of an AK47 too. The AK47 fires its rounds plenty fast enough to tear someone completely apart with one bullet. All of these games have made assault rifles less powerful due to gameplay considerations. They don't want to do the same thing with the elephant gun because people like it. But it does fuck with gameplay.

    • I know a certain writer... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alkaiser ( 114022 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:53PM (#8035672) Homepage
      that needs to be beaten with a Physics textbook.

      That was the biggest, smack-my-face-due-to-sheer-idiocy point in the whole article..."Oh look, these bullets are the same size, they should do equivalent damage."

      Well, why isn't an AK-47 used for sniping then, dammit? It fires WAYYYY more bullets. The velocity is way different! F=MA.

      Geez...more like the Fired Squad.

      Sniper rifles require less skill and that isn't realistic with real life...so you think the reason they were giving them to 10-year olds in Somalia is because those 10 year olds were crack Commandos? Hello?! They're supposed to be easy to use, and they're supposed to be effective at killing their targets. That's why they FIRE SO DAMN SLOWLY!
      • There are more variables than that. There's jacket, grain, tip, shrapnel...

        There are actually more reasons to use the AK-47. Plenty of US military personel in Iraq use them because they are actually more reliable in the desert and are smaller then the M16 version they're using. They can carry the AK-47 in the Hummvee and can be easily serviced and like you said, a 10 year-old can use it.

        Not to further beat the article writer in the ground, but it's very possible to fire off three shots in eight second

        • Naw man...what killed Kennedy...that was an enigma wrapped inside a mystery wrapped inside an enigma...or at least that's what the animatronic robots at OliverStoneLand said.

          From all that stories I've heard, the AK-47 is the Volkswagon Beetle of guns...you just smack them back into place and they start going again.

          Anyway, I've seen displays on the History Channel, or in old Olympic Biathalon (ski then stop...and shoot targets...then ski again!) competitions where they can easily squeeze a round and re-aim
  • This guy is dead wrong. Why wouldn't one shot from a armor piercing 30-06 or a .308 kill? Remember the sniper in Virginia/DC/Maryland. Granted armor would minimize 1 shot kill to an extent but not completely.

    I do agree however that AK's etc should do more damage. However, if that were the case kid's would never get a learning curve.
  • Is the solution to nerf the sniper rifle, like in CS? No. Matches are still slow - probably slower than before, actually

    What does the guy mean by nerf? I don't remember the rifles becoming foam, but then I don't actually remember any significant changes to the sniper rifles in CS, so I'm lost as to this bit. Good article generally though, sniper rifles do spoil CS.

  • Very Realistic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arrow ( 9545 ) <mike AT damm DOT com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:31PM (#8035433) Homepage Journal
    This article gives no basis to its arguments whatsoever.

    I fashion myself a bit of a sniper, thats the roll I play for the most part in Battlefield 1942. I also take part in competitive long range shooting IRL.

    The truth of the matter is the military employs snipers for two basic reasons: 1 or 2 well placed snipers can hold down 50+ troops. And snipers can create a sense of fear on the battlefield, that any second your head is going to be whisked off your shoulders by an unseen enemy. This same fear is what makes multi-player FPS games fun.

    Like it or not, in the real world a sniper rifle is "the finger of god" also.

    • Re:Very Realistic (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      That's the point. No individual player on a competitive video game should be able to hold down 50+ troops. It slows things down significantly. What makes multi-player FPS games fun is the feeling that at any moment someone could jump out from around the corner and start mowing you down with a machine gun. Random death without defense is not fun, it is terribly frustrating.

      I agree that the reviewer is smoking crack when he says that sniper rifles aren't effective in real life. In real life, basically a

  • Snipers are Real (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:31PM (#8035441) Homepage
    I think the problem is that in most games, snipers are realistic. In real life snipers get a spot and spend TONS of time there and don't move around. Also, you have one (maybe two) snipers, not half the team. The guns are not light, so you couldn't run around and shoot people with 'em point blank when you are looking for a new spot.

    In other words, I think the problem is not the guns, but the fact that they are treated just like any other gun, which they are NOT. Fixing that would probably make things better, but it wouldn't be that fun so why include a sniper rifle at all.

  • Uh (Score:2)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 )
    This is just biased rant against particularly awful implementations of sniper rifles. Plenty of games feature real reloading, instability, losing focus after shooting, whatever. It may well be that sniper rifles are bad in general in computer games for specific reasons but the author fails woefully to prove the case.
  • The elephant gun isn't fair in CS, but that's because they decided to make it more quake-like after beta.

    A plain assault rifle, at the ranges involved in a CS game, is as good as a "sniper" rifle. When the M4-A1 was super accurate, in the early betas, there was much less reason to use a sniper rifle.

    In real life, with practice, you can shoot someone very accurately from very far away with an M16 or AK47 type assault rifle. One or two shots will take them out of the "game". But Valve decided that games wer

  • 2. Historical Accuracy. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    2. Historical Accuracy. Sorry son, the battlefield just isn't comprised of 50% snipers.

    The battlefield isn't comprised of 90% virgins living in their parents bedrooms either, but that doesn't stop us from playing.
  • " it's just a matter of who's faster and more accurate "

    Um... someone tell this whining child that's the whole point of most FPS games. He just can't stand to lose, so he has to whine about snipers.

  • What I know about snipers... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Asprin ( 545477 ) <(gsarnold) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:43PM (#8035582) Homepage Journal

    What I know about snipers comes primarily from experimenting with Half-Life/CS. Snipers (and especially cheaters) make the game is unplayable because I cannot survive long enough to learn how to play.

    First round, I walk out of a building and BAM! I'm dead -- one shot from about 200m away.

    I wait until next round, walk out of the start zone and BAM! I'm dead again. This time I got to return fire before dropping.

    Next round, I actually saw him first and hit him three times including a head shot (hey, I'm getting the hang of this!) but he doesn't fall. He spins, looks at me funny and BAM! I die again.

    So, I don't play anymore. The lousy, cheating wannabe jerks can have their stupid game. I'm just glad I didn't pay for it.(*) (if I had, I'd have returned it with extreme predjudice.)


    [(*) Just to clarify: by "didn't pay for it", I mean that I **PURCHASED** Half-Life single-player and **DOWNLOADED** CS for free instead of paying for the CS retail version. I don't want anyone mad at me!]
    • Sounds to me like 1) you're not picking the right maps and 2) not picking the right servers. And if you think the place to "learn how to play the game" is online, you're sadly mistaken. That's why there's single player mode of most games (haven't played much CounterStrike, so I don't remember if that holds directly, but certainly you can learn the engine well enough with the Half-Life single player game).

      • I don't think it's a lack of skill with the controls. I've been through all three of the HL single player games (Half Life, Opposing Force and Blue Shift) start to finish at least three or four times each, so I know my way around the engine and the combat controls (I even tweaked 'em to make them significantly more usable) and that's why this is so frustrating: I understand there's a learning curve, and I even expect to be bad at it for a while, but I shouldn't just die immediately like my bullets (even whe
  • Maps aren't laid out for useful sniping. In the "real" world, snipers don't use scoped rifles to hit man-sized targets at 50 yards.
  • I can see that this individual has certainly dealt with some frustrating experiences with sniping opponents. I will have to disagree with sniper rifles being the "bane" of first person shooting though. It seems to me like I've read more about cheating being the bane of online FPS games more so than sniper rifles. Also, just because I would contend against this writer's arguments doesn't mean that I can't use any other weapons. Truth be told, in a FPS I am actually lousy with a sniper rifle and prefer to
  • From time to time I like to snipe. It can be a fun challenge to find the right spot to pick off opposing players. I also recognise how unbalanced sniper rifles are in most FPS.

    The unbalanced game play is the real issue. More often then not it is easy to play a sniper and rack up huge kill ratios with no real skill. Too many game maps are sniper havens with long clear lines of fire. Once entrenched it can often be near impossible to remove the sniper. A few snipers can quickly slow a game down making it bor

  • Americas Army example (Score:3, Informative)

    by c.r.o.c.o ( 123083 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8035750)
    If anyone has ever played Americas Army, they'll know what I'm talking about. For everybody else, let me just say that having a sniper rifle in AA does not give any great advantage. The game developers spent a LOT of time getting the weapons feel, accuracy, speed of reload, etc as close to the way they are in real life as it is possible with today's technology. There is an annectdote where the programmers had real US weapons master sargeants check the weapons in game, and had them tweak them a lot of times untill they were realistic enough.

    In this game all rifles (M4s, M16 and variants), sniper rifles (M24, M82), machine gunes (M249) and their russian counterparts move in the rithm of the character's breathing, movement and a few other factors. The character position (walking, crouching or prone) also affects accuracy, as does the health level (forget about sniping if you are red, almost dead).

    In fact, it is sometimes easier to shoot long range with an M4 or M16 than it is to shoot with a sniper rifle (m24 or M82). The sniper rifles are very hard to shoot because they have very long reload times between shots and they shoot one bullet at a time so if you miss you might die. The m24 is the easier of the two, because the m82 requires refocusing after every shot due to recoil. Not to mention that your accuracy goes to hell someone shoots close towards you, even if they don't touch you.

    I'm a fairly decent player (60 honor points), and I can shoot well enough that I can take out most snipers with my m4 or m16. Unles, of course, the sniper is at least as good as I am, which doesn't happen too often to ruin the game for me. And even then there are ways to get close enough to a sniper to put him at a great disadvantage.

    If in any game the sniper rifle gives an unfair advantage (as it used to in CounterStrike), that game is not very well designed.

  • I'm an avid DoD player, and snipers are a way of life. I don't complain too much about them, mainly because I'm skilled enough to kill them.

    And frankly, if I decide to "snipe", I'm usually using the Kar or the Garand, depending on the side I'm on. I'm MUCH faster and MUCH more accurate with them. As well, I have more flexibility, and more grenades, which is important in that game.
    • but then they nerfed the k98 for 1.1...made it not as accurate (I never really thought it a balance problem when playing on the oposing team and half the allied maps had the enfield)

  • BS (Score:2)

    by elmegil ( 12001 )
    in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else.

    Only if you can find a sniping spot that gives you good views of a high traffic area and doesn't leave you vulnerable. While you're zoomed in, you can't see what's going on around you very effectively. In my experience, only a few poorly designed maps actually have spots that are surefire sniping heaven. All the others, you try to camp, anyone who's familiar with the map can figure out where you are, sneak up on you from another direct

  • Implementation (Score:5, Informative)

    by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:06PM (#8035884)
    The problem's with their implementation.

    Sniper rifles in most games are, as the article describes, fingers of God. Point them at where you know a target's going to be, click fire as the target moves under the crosshairs, he's dead. Then near-instant repeat.

    A couple of really simple additions would level the playing field, bringing sniper rifles back to more realistic levels...

    Variable Cones Of Fire
    Most sniper rifles aren't that fast to fire. Ghost Recon does a great job of this with a cone of fire that expands the more you move. Those things fire large caliber rounds to try negating wind effect so have the thing recoil heavily, throwing the cone of fire waaay off for a second or two.

    Slow Reloading
    Now add a slow reloading animation for WWII era rifles. You end up with a weapon that can be devastating but can't clip off entire squads in a couple of seconds. Again, Ghost Recon does a great job: Modern rifles do use clips but, because of their large caliber, you only get half a dozen shots before you have to slowly change clips.

    Wind
    Just like golf games, add wind effects. Put a wind gauge or whatever on the screen. Now the sniper requires genuine skill to factor in the wind speed and distance of shot as the crosshairs are now just a guide.

    Combine a cone of fire that widens as the player moves and now it takes real skill to balance tracking a shot to compensate for wind changes with moving it smoothly enough to not lose your accuracy.

    Wind can also become a balancing factor. Make it a server config option. Sick of snipers? Make it a very windy, gusty day. Feel like there aren't enough snipers, calm the wind right down.

    Slow Focusing
    Have you ever tried moving your eyes, from something close to something far away, really quickly. It takes a moment to adjust. Make the responsiveness of scopes somewhat slower and you take out the ability to sit zoomed largely out, watching the wide angle, then zoom in for the kill. All of a sudden you need a spotter, just like many real world sniper teams who watches the wide angle, tells you where people are coming from, and guides your shots.

    Mix all of those in and a sniper rifle can still be truly lethal. But it takes a genuinely skilled marksman, with a smooth aim, the ability to factor in wind and distance, and a spotter working with him - and he kills one at a time. The unbalanced 4:1 ratios stop and normal players stand a genuine chance while rushing them.

    • one more (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Inominate ( 412637 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:50PM (#8036421)

      Lead Time
      Bullets are not lasers, they have to take time to travel to thier target, which may move. In most FPS games, bullets instant-hit, there is no travel involved, just a laser drawn through the air.

    • Re:Implementation (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dr Reducto ( 665121 )
      Thank you sir, you saved me the effort of typing out a post like yours. I remember when my dad first taught me to shoot at 13 (Im 17 now). I thought it would be like videogames. How wrong I was.

      I learned that a scope only makes shooting more difficult. It does not make it possible to knock quarters at 100 yards (without practice, that is). Iron sights own, espescially if you are one of those freaks who does that 1000yards/iron sights tournament in Ohio.

      I learned that outside of point blank range, fir
    • there is a game that does just about all of this. I think only the wind effect is missing.

      Day of Defeat, a halflife mod does a great job at integrating snipers into the game, without them being over powered. it's very well balanced.
      • They did.
        Up until the current version. By allowing snipers to move around while in the scope, and lifted the 'from the scope' firing point up to the players eyeball.

        A sniper can shoot with his shot originating at a very high position, allowing him to hide alll but part of his head behind cover. A player with an ordinary rifle is stuck 'shooting from the hip'.

        It's exactly this sort of 'selective realism' that causes the problems of snipers in fps games.

    • Another one would be "shakey hands"... metal gear solid 2 actually uses this one IIRC. If you get in a "nervous" situation or are holding the gun too long, you start having problems with steady aim.

      Of course, IMO, FPS's are the least advanced, plastic-and-cardboard games still being made. When you have the play control of MGS, the customizability/growth of an RPG, the strategy of an RTS (yes I know about Savage), etc., you'll have a game that's not just last decade's best-seller with new graphics.

  • Is it just me or does the author come across as little more than a "whiney bitch". Seriously! Seems like if he had so much mad skillz or whatever that he'd be able to avoid sniper attacks. Now it sounds like a lot of the problem is with CS...so shouldn't the article be titled "How Sniper Rifles Ruin CS?". Lots of posts above detailing how the author's whining doesn't apply to various other games...

    Take UT2003 - now I'm sure a god like player is going to be death with the lightning gun...but damn that g
  • Snipers are powerful, yes. That is precisely why people like to play as them. It is very satisfying to pick people off from afar. Since the point of playing a game is to have fun, if they make the game more fun then they are obviously making the genre better.

    I've played plenty of games where the sniper is not overpowerful, or even the most useful class. A good example is Quake 3 Fortress.

    So, basically, "stfu noob". ;)

  • ... and boy does someone sound bitter. Been hit one too many times by snipers have we? Some running into wide open areas in a straight line? Someone standing in one strategic place with a straight shot from anywhere in the battlefield (and usually up high to supposedly get position on everyone else)? When you're playing these games, and you're really into not getting killed every 5 seconds, you learn things you should do, and shouldn't do. You have a very accute awareness of where a sniper is most likely to

  • Hell, MOST modern guns - a single shot knocks the victim and two of his close personal friends out of combat (think giving medical attention)

    Delta Force is the only game I have personally played that gets this anywhere close to right (a single shot tends to take a victim out of combat)

    Yes, you aren't dead with a single shot to the leg - but you are in pain, not participating in combat anymore, and in fact are taking one or two other squad members to bring you out of combat - I always loved the older FPS

    • Rogue Spear works like that too (presumably also other Rainbow 6-series games like Ghost Recon). It's great for tension and twitchiness, but it makes the style of the game completely different - in something like CS you can do Arnie-style heroics after taking quite a few shots, but in Rogue Spear you'll be lucky to survive more than a couple of submachine gun bullets, and that's when you're armoured. As a result, you tend to be very cautious indeed.

      (Amusingly, this attention to realism also means that the
  • There were M-1 garand sniper rifles that did have
    a high tech realistic touch called a "clip". Springfield bolt action rifles are from 1903.
    Garand rifles came about 1936.
  • I must kind of agree with the article when it comes to most modern games. Counterstrike being the *prime* example.

    However, sniper rifles have been used properly in games without being totally imbalancing. Take the original Quake Team Fortress modification. Before the prevelance of broadband connections, the sniper was extremely well balanced. Their role [and really, their only role] was to provide suppressive fire over open ground. Snipers were easy to counter with your own snipers, or via spamming [no, no
  • It sounds like this guy, along with a lot of Slashdotters, are just not very good at playing CS. A lot of people have said any "newb" can pick up an AWP and become an instant killing machine getting incredible kill ratios. This is horribly false. It is not easy to get the hang of the AWP at first. Everyone is strafing around which destroys accuracy and makes you an easy kill. I have played on cal-m teams for CS. My brother still does play on a cal-m and with cal-i teams, so I think I am qualified to t
  • the biggest question to ask is, can anyone just grab a sniper rifle and dominate a game? and of course the answer is just 'no'. its no different from games with a shotgun or a rocket launcher.

    this guy sounds like the standard online FPS player, who just runs around with a gun and shoot anyone that you see mindlessly, or grabs a sniper rifle and sits in the one spot. he sounds like the kind of person that you meet a lot in online FPS games, that are easily killed just by using a basic semblance of tactics

  • ammo producing same energy from different guns? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anil ( 7001 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:09PM (#8036663)
    1. Realism ... If they are, so would be the MP44 Sturmgewehr or AK-47 at shorter distances, which use similarly sized ammunition.

    Just because two weapons use the same sized ammunition doesn't mean they deliver the same kinetic blow.

    First, bolt-action weapons don't waste any energy on blowback/rocker/whatever action to automatically cycle the next round into the chamber. This adds a whole lot of energy to the bullet as nothing is diverted from its purpose of propelling the bullet (this is why snipers still use bolt action weapons when newer technologies are open to them).

    Then you have the difference in barrel length, which means that more of the energy of the gunpowder is utilized. (Ever fire a snub-nose magnum pistol ... that huge jet of flames coming of out the muzzle may look cool, but it is all just wasted energy).

    Then there are all the different powder loads you can put behind a bullet of the same caliber. This is something that games don't visibily take into account because it would add too much complexity (note the ability in Counter Strike and other games to simply put a silencer onto a weapon without using reduced load/subsonic ammunition. The game still makes the weapon do slightly less damage, but you don't need to buy or change ammo).

  • ...in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else.

    I think you will find that in real life, snipers also have an advantage over everyone else.
  • Day of Defeat has done a good job with the sniper rifles. The sniper class is only as valuable as their shoddy pistol while on the move, but painful when in position.

    Its very balanced, and you can see a wide diversity of player classes at the top. There's several reasons for this. Firstly, the game is about taking ground, not holding it. Snipers are good at closing off routes, not at capturing flag points. Secondly, machine gunners often fit better. They can keep down a whole squad, while the best a sniper
  • ...like several games have already. Meaning, your aim will waver and make it difficult to hit distant targets unless you're lying prone.

  • (note: I'm talking about the TF mod for Quake, not the Half-Life version.)

    As one of the best snipers from the days of QuakeWorld Team Fortress (certainly not the best, but I was known), I have some expertise on the use of the sniper rifle in that game.

    I don't know if this sort of implementation has been used elsewhere, but here's how the sniper rifle in that game worked. There was no zoom function on it, though a simple FOV script could solve that. A player had to stop moving or change direction while

  • The real problem is not the existance and use of a particular weapon, it's simply that most maps make sniping very profitable, with large open areas with little cover.

    There are ways to dumb down sniping (breathing, reloading, bullet speed, etc), but the reality is that a level with few walls and a few good hiding spots favor the sniper. In a real war they would be favored. In a real war those spots would be covered by other snipers and artillary

    So, yes, snipers suck on maps which favor them. What's

  • Snipers *DO* have a huge advantage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by riprjak ( 158717 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:41PM (#8037002)
    Having spent a chunk of my 20's crawling around in a gilly suit with a hideously expensive rifle with an even more hideously expensive targeting system strapped to the top, I feel its fair to say that snipers *DO* have a huge advantage.

    A huge ammount of training goes into teaching you to correctly use your firearm, that is assuming you have the raw skill to use one in the first place. Targets are engaged down range with insanely accurate weaponry without the pressure and uncertainty of direct engagement.

    Of course, sniper vs. squad with assault weapons at close range is one very, very costly and difficult to replace corpse.

    Whilst realism dictates the use of snipers; they will always destroy game balance. Just as including the M214 (The Amazing Rotary Machinegun As Used So Effectively By Blain In Predator, to quote the literature) would unbalance gameplay.

    However, if your team works as a team and employs effective counter sniper tactics; fps games such as counter-strike are still fun and, in tactical terms, a realistic experience. Unfortunately smoke grenades in such games are simulated far too poorly; a single smoke grenade should create larger, thicker clouds of smoke much more rapidly; and without microwave radar (requiring a non-man portable emmiter), a sniper cant see you through a cloud of smoke.

    just my $0.02AUD
    err!
    jak.
  • People who complain about snipers are confusing real life with game life rules and physics. You can't complain about snipers using real life rules and physics and then in the next breath justify a jumping around machine gun toting player by saying its how the game physics dictate play.

    Face facts, its a game. There are certain rules and physics that occur in the game to make it game-like. If it were completely realistic it wouldn't be fun.
    • Oh and another thing. The author of the article keeps going on and on about kill ratios. But the games he mentioned are all team based. You shouldn't be concentrating on getting more kills that your teammates, you should be concentrating on helping the team win the round in any way you can. If that means charging forward to be a decoy and getting gunned down while better players take out the objectives then so be it. Its a team win and that is what the point is.
  • 1. Realism. No, sorry, there's nothing realistic about taking a shot every second with your scoped Mosin-Nagant or Springfield. They're bolt-action rifles and need to manually load the next bullet, meaning losing sight of the target.The guns also aren't one-shot kills. Funny, in battlefield, you lose your scope, take a good amount of time to reload, and it takes 2 hits to the body or one to the head.

    2. Historical Accuracy. Sorry son, the battlefield just isn't comprised of 50% snipers.
    In battlefield, th

  • snipers (Score:3, Funny)

    by dnight ( 153296 ) <dnight@@@lakkadoo...com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @06:12PM (#8037355)
    Sure they have an advantage. But it's equaled by the satisfaction of sneaking up and dropping a satchel charge in thier face.
  • I for one love BF1942 and a good round of Enemy Territory - in those games, sniping actually *does* take skill. Yes, anyone can grab a sniper rifle - but to be good at it, consistently good, requires skills.

    I like being a sniper - in BF1942 especially since there are no real "set" routes to get to a point - as a sniper, you do need to look at the terrain, find a suitable spot (i.e. somewhere you can get a shot off without immediately being mowed down), and actually hope and pray to god that those airplanes
  • People playing these games are always complaining about "camping", something that's almost always synonymous with "sitting in one place, waiting for the enemy", "sniping", and, of course, "winning".

    The fact that the entire gameplay depends on at least one person moving around at any one time, makes it a bit impractical to include a weapon that enables the player to sit still and shoot from a long distance.

  • Why Sniper rifles should be included.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @08:19PM (#8038720) Journal
    Jakub, in his ranting listed 4 reasons that sniper rifles shouldn't be included in FPS games. Or 4 reasons that weren't "good enough". But there is only one overwhelming reason anything should be included in any game...

    Fun

    Plenty of people enjoy sniping, in various games. Sure the sniper rifle(AWP) in CS is a bit over powering, but CS is only one game. The sniper rifle in Unreal Tournament is underpowered compared to the shock rifle, rocket launcher and flak cannon. The railgun in quake is powerful, but plenty of people still use a rocket launcher.

    While a camper may take out his or her share of newbies, It takes quite a bit of skill to camp, against very good/great players. All things being equal, a very good player knows all the camping spots and the advantage in any FPS is always with the player who is moving not the one who is standing still.

    To camp against a great player, you need better spots, and you need to be smart about where you camp and where the player has looked. You might have to piston jump, or rocket jump depending on the game to take a good spot. That doesn't take skill? Aiming does take skill? Usually you get one or two shots in most games with a sniper rifle before whoever you are shooting at figures out where you are. You had better make them count.

    All in all, his argument is pretty poor. I could make a better argument about rocket launchers being low skill but included in most games than Jakub has about sniper rifles.

  • Lets try to translate this... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @08:42PM (#8038897) Journal
    Ok, for those that didn't RTFA, and for those that did, but still would like a Reader's Digest version, broken down by paragraph:
    1. Whaaa, snipers keep killing me,I'm a god, they must all suck.
    2. I only care about K:D ratios, therefore that must be all they care about.
    3. Sniper rifles in games aren't realistic. People keep killing me with them, I'm a god, therefore sniping doesn't take and skills. I hate campers.
    4. I'll justify my position by listing some strawman arguments.
    5. Realism, sniper rifles kill people with one shot, this can't be real. Editor's note: Yes, guns can and do kill, or disable, people with one shot. And in this type of game, disabled is as good as dead. For reference, see Viginia Sniper. Also note, that the other guns he lists also tend to kill people quickly and messily.
    6. Historical Accuracy, there's too many snipers. Editor's note: People also don't rush into firefights and dance around each other spraying bullets, this is usually called suicide. Realism has little to do with games, other than a basis for the game.
    7. Weapon Diversity, whaaa snipers keep killing me so I feel compled to snipe also. Editor's Note: did you even consider finding a way to deal with the sniper, other than a headlong rush?
    8. Skill, I'm an Ub3r l33t g@m!ng g0d, they kill me, therefore sniping must not require skills.
    Page Two
    1. My opinions are now fact, because I say so. Everone wants to use the sniper rifle because it gives a good K:D ratio, and this is all people care about.
    2. Snipers make me actually have to think about tactics, I just want to run in like a mad man shooting my gun.
    3. Whaa, snipers make me have to think about tactics. They don't have skillz, but they can aim damn well. They make the game hard for me, because I have to outthink them, but they are the ones who don't think about the game. Editor's note: Ok, so they can aim like crazy, but they don't have any skills? Also, they seem to be able to control the game, but they are the one's who don't understand the flow of the game? And they don't know how to survive in a real firefight? Ok, the last may be true, but it sounds like they beat you before they got to that stage, by out-thinking you.
    4. Whaa, I can't deal with snipers so I'm going to call them names.
    5. Whaa, snipers get too many kills. Its not realistic. Editor's Note: Yes, we have established that we are playing a game, move on already.
    Page Three
    1. There are some games that actually have the snipers weaked enough that they don't bother me.
    2. I like these games, the snipers aren't a threat to my masculinity.
    3. I don't want weaked snipers. I want CoD without snipers, 'case they kill me.
    4. Limiting snipers doesn't solve the problem, I still get killed by the few snipers in the map.
    5. Everyone would agree with me, if they would only try it. The only way to play an FPS is to do brainless headlong rushes at the enemy.
    6. Whaa, snipers make me have to think.

    So why is this article more than the standard, "I hate campers" rant? The guy spends three pages complaining about snipers, and only comes up with the solution of removing them from games. Its sounds like he needs to either figure out a way to deal with snipers, or just stick to servers where rushing and spraying is the only tactic. Personally, I'd rather have snipers, they make me have to actually think about what I am doing. Do I want to cover that wide open area, and risk getting shot? Or do I find a more circutiuos route that is safer? Or maybe even figure how to deal with the sniper, and then take the quick route.

  • Reverse Problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @08:50PM (#8038974)
    I'd say that the reverse is true in BF1942. The sniper is very hard to get many kills with, but many people seem to like playing as a sniper. As long as you don't run in a straight line in the open for too long (which is pretty stupid), you're a pretty hard target to hit.

    So you get lots of snipers sitting around doing bugger all for the team, wildly shooting rounds in the vague direction of the enemy team. In the meantime the enemy storms in with assaults and captures all the flags.

  • OK, Now I'm officially pissed off (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @12:13AM (#8040333) Homepage Journal
    From the article

    "The guns also aren?t one-shot kills. If they are, so would be the MP44 Sturmgewehr or AK-47 at shorter distances, which use similarly sized ammunition."

    This idiotic fuck knows NOTHING about external or terminal ballistics. It's not only the SIZE of the bullet that makes it lethal, it's the amount of energy that the bullet delivers.

    The MP44 Sturmgewehr fired 7.92x33mm Kurz ammunition, it pushed a 122 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2,055 fps. The AK-47 fires 7.62x39mm ammunition, this pushes a 125 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of approx 2130 fps. The .338 Lapua Magnum [cpcartridge.com] caliber can push a 200 grain
    bullet to over 3200 fps.

    Or if we were to consider the .338 Lapua at 250 grains, we get a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps.

    Are you fucking high?

    It's a heavier bullet (in one case twice the mass) at nearly 150% of the velocity of the two lesser calibers. There is no way under the sun that you can liken their lethality.

    The two lesser calibers would bounce off of a target armored to level IV spec [bulletproofme.com], but the .338 Lapua would slice through it like butter.

    In short, Mr. Jakub, you don't know what in the fuck you're talking about.

    I'm sick and tired of people who know nothing about ballistics pretending to be experts when they are trying to bolster a weak position.

    Fine, he [whiney little bitch voice] doesn't like campers and snipers.[/whiney little bitch voice], he has the right to his opinion, but don't take this asshole's word for gospel, because that it ain't.

    LK

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Close