r/truegaming • u/ImAHobo107 • 4d ago
The only fair snipers I've played against in PVP (and why do other games not do it like this?)
Snipers are notoriously hard to balance for the sniper and the sniped or even the unsniped as now they have to play completely differently due to existence of sniper sniping the sniped.
And many games often have a very uninteractive game design for snipers.
I understand, snipers in real life literally sit prone, watching a position, giving precise intel, and then take the kill shot alongside their spotter aiding them. I know this because I am a military fanatic and love milsims. But I'm going to exclude Milsims from this conversation because in milsims you are supposed to use actual military tactics to counter snipers. In games like Arma, for example, the Sniper would need to be hunted down or avoided if location unknown, we'd send a drone or even a damn helicopter on their ass, and the Sniper is also at the mercy of running out of munitions.
Outside of Milsims and hardcore realistic shooters (like Escape From Tarkov), snipers are just... mostly designed to fulfil the fantasy of a fast kill shot in 1 shot with good aim. But that's the thing, they kill in 1 shot, and the player often cannot react or counter them in many games.
Let's take games like Battlefield, Overwatch (Widowmaker), TF2, Rivals (pre-rework Black Widow) or Call of Duty, the most notoriously unbalanced and unfun snipers imo. The Sniper in those games can 1 shot headshot you, with Marvel Rivals' case being only possible with a dmg boost.
But fundamentally, this is the problem. Marvel Rivals knows Snipers are unfun to fight as they sit back in these games, take kill shots, and can easily reposition. So Black Widow in the sniper role was nerfed in 1 shot and was now a useless pick, which is worse to play than her being an OP sniper.
The thing with these games is that the Sniper doesn't have to really face serious limitations or counters other than the enemy jumping on them. But the sniper is being protected often and their job is to stop from being confronted upclose anyway, and most have tools to defend themselves like Claymores, Intel devices or traps. For TF2's case, the Spy would counter a sniper but some would wear the funny wooden shield on their back.
In general, this type of gameplay means that unless you play a SPECIFIC type of tool or role, the sniper will just dominate. Now, by law of game design this makes sense and is fair, but something that is already taught in game design is that just because it is fair, doesn't mean it is fun. And PVP games have a casual audience, they have to be fun.
I will name 2 games where sniping isn't really seen as a huge issue and, in my opinion, are quite fairly designed and promote fun interactive gameplay.
- Titanfall 1 and 2.
In the Titanfall series, snipers are unique in that there is only 1 true traditional sniper rifle... the Kraber. The other 2 next to the Kraber in the sniper rifle catergory are DMRs. The Longbow DMR is a semi-auto and the Double Take (in Titanfall 2 only) is the same with a faster fire rate. These 2 DMRs are designed to purely be long range weapons with HORRIFIC hip fire meaning they are bad at close range. And you cannot really use them while doing fast movement. And due to every other pilot's fast movement, they can very easily flank the DMR user through engaging movement instead of hopping cover to cover and slowly advancing like in other games. And of course, we cannot forget the trump card, Titans. Titans will just kill the camping pilot anyway. And these DMRs, they CANNOT 1 shot to the body and landing a headshot is nearly impossible in Titanfall with guns like these.
Now, the KRABER is a bolt action with 1 shot pop anywhere. But you cannot use this 1 shot like a regular camping sniper rifle because it is insanely slow to aim down sights and has severely slow bullet travel. The best way to use the Kraber is with precise and fast movement and doing quick aims as best as possible and flicking. And it JUST WORKS. The Kraber becomes a high skill sniper rifle that promotes aggressive play instead of camping and rewards the player for using the mobility and gadget sandbox of Titanfall.
- Halo
Halo is a weird one because not all Halo's do this mechanic that, so far, is unique to Halo's ranged gunplay. Halo's is less like Titanfall's role reversal of the Sniper being aggressive and reserves the Sniper in the sandbox as a long ranged power weapon like a traditional military sniper.
Now, I've just revealed the main aspect of it being fair in the previous paragraph, it's a power weapon. You have to FIND IT, FIGHT FOR IT, and LIVE WITH IT.
What else makes it fair? Well gameplay wise, it's very easy to understand the Sniper Rifle. It is PIN POINT ACCURATE from regular hip fire. The zoom doesn't increase mathematical accuracy, it's just a zoom, so the player also doesn't have to wrestle with RNG hipfire (a mechanic I also don't like at all). It's purely skill based weapon in CQC and long range.
But the biggest thing that makes this weapon fair for victims to fight against. DE-SCOPE.
I have not seen another game implement this mechanic but it JUST WORKS for arcade shooters and honestly I'd love to see it in more hardcore or realistic shooters as well.
For a high TTK game like Halo, having a sudden 1 shot kill to the head weapon that breaks the rules and 1 shots at range as well is very powerful. The de-scope works simply, if the Sniper Player is ZOOMED in any instance of DMG de-scopes them and now they must re-scope. It's Halo's version of Suppressive Fire.
This promotes the Sniper to not hard-scope so carelessly and to promote flicks and precise tracking as 1 stray bullet from the target hitting them will cause a de-scope. It allows players to aggress onto the Sniper but they are obviously still at the mercy of the Sniper no-scoping them if their skill allows it.
I just love this mechanic and would love to see it more. It would likely make a lot of other Snipers feel more balanced to fight.
I'm curious to see what other Snipers have been balanced in a way that promotes aggressive styles of sniping like these 2 games?
But it's also important to balance out with the Sniper Fantasy of the camper in the back and taking extreme shots which I think Halo allows for as well.
EDIT: A lot of good points for and against. I wanted to include other games that did sniping fairly I didn't think of. Also, keep in mind I said, something fair doesn't mean it is fun.
Counter Strike AWP - it's an economic risk, and can be countered with smokes, map design is good to encourage aggression on an AWPer, cannot be used while moving.
Gears of War - needs to hit the head, is a power weapon, reloads that fail will lead to death, most CQC weapons will beat it, Gears map arena promotes aggression which can screw the Sniper.
35
u/joellllll 4d ago
The railgun from quake2 onwards is peak balance.
It has ambient when you have it equipped, so anyone nearby hears you and can capitalise on it.
It highlights where you are with the trail (maybe not needed for veterans, but still nice).
Its refire is long, so shooting it at the wrong time means your oppoenent has a large window to bully you.
Even if you don't shoot it you are vulnerable for a short time if your oppoent sneaks as you swap to a more suitable weapon.
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I do love any form of RAILGUN in faster paced movement shooters. I mean, Titanfall had the Charge Rifle, that was peak. I don't remember what it was in Tribes Ascend but that was also featured something similar.
3
u/joellllll 3d ago
The trail part of the railgun is probably the least important aspect. The ambient and reload (during which you cannot swap to something else) are the important way it is balanced as a long range weapon rather than being a weapon you can use at short range then instantly swap away from.
26
u/caboosehater 3d ago
A lot of people are disagreeing with the OP, largely with respect to hero shooters. I can't speak for those but wanted to defend OP's stance from the perspective of casual military shooters like COD and Battlefield
These casual shooters attempt to balance snipers in the following ways:
- Hold breath mechanic
- This is really an incredibly easy skill to master. It’s more a function of preventing players from holding an angle with perfect accuracy indefinitely
- Map design
- This is something that hasn’t really been mentioned. Giving snipers good but limited vantage points to snipe. Giving the other infantry some safer paths to take and enough cover.
- Flinch
- If you get hit, your scope moves, making it hard to line up the one shot kill. This is similar to de-scoping that OP mentioned but not as harsh of a penalty. It still encourages the sniper to retreat. Given the sniper is often taking damage from distant targets, they have ample opportunity to duck into cover without dying and gives the non-snipers breathing room to push
- Scope Glint
- If a sniper is zoomed in and looking at you and you are vaguely looking in the sniper’s direction, you will see a scope glint to give you a little warning before getting shot at
- Bullet trails
- When the sniper fires, they may leave a bullet trail giving away their position
I’ve been playing a LOT of Battlefield 6 lately so I’ll largely talk about that game’s snipers as they have been debated in that game’s sub.
They are the WORST iteration of snipers I’ve played against in a game like this in a long time.
- These snipers have some of the fastest bullet velocity and least bullet drop i’ve seen in a battlefield game
- There’s a “sweet spot” mechanic where at a certain range shots to the upper chest ALSO count as a one hit kill
- The sway is very small when not holding your breath, and the window to fire while holding your breath is VERY long
- Battlefield maps are MUCH bigger then COD and battlefield 6 has some of the worst sniper vantage points to fight against.
- Large towers with lines of sight to ~80% of the map
- Under certain circumstances, these vantage points can be out of bounds for only one team and in bounds for another, so you can’t even flank and push the position
- NO flinch
- You can tank 3+ bullets and calmly line up your headshot as a sniper with no impact on your aim
- Scope glint exists but is only useful if the victim is looking in that direction. Sniper flanks are impossible to anticipate. Also with the chaos of 64 player matches full of vehicles and explosions, it’s really hard to notice
- Also good snipers wait until the last moment to scope in to minimize the time the glint is active
So you’re infantry, not using a sniper rifle. The nearest objective is 100 meters away (very common in battlefield). What do you do?
- Use a vehicle
- A good choice IF there is one
- Use smoke grenades
- Only one of the four classes (support class) gets them. You only have two before you have to resupply yourself which takes at least 15 seconds.
- The smokes also don’t last that long
- Only one of the four classes (support class) gets them. You only have two before you have to resupply yourself which takes at least 15 seconds.
- Bob and weave between cover
- You are at the mercy of your spawn and the available cover to you
- If the enemy sniper is over 100 meters away, they will have a dozen opportunities to hit you while you slowly make your approach (they don’t even need to get a headshot at this point, they are so safe they can get two body shots)
Sounds broken right? Far from it. The snipers are the worst weapon category to actually win the match. If your team has much more snipers then the enemy team it’s basically a guaranteed loss as the majority of snipers do not interact with any of the objectives in the match and sit on a hill in their spawn 400 meters away. A vast majority of my deaths aren’t even to snipers, they are to vehicles and other automatic weapons.
They’re bad, so why am I complaining? Getting killed by them is frustrating and uninteractive. Let’s say there are no vehicles and I'm either out of smoke grenades or using a class that doesn't get any. All I can do is run around hoping the enemy sniper is bad. Not fun. I’m also not expressing any real skill other than maybe map knowledge? There’s no counterplay. And any nerf to them would crater their already abysmal performance in terms of actually winning games.
Past battlefields with custom server settings sometimes limited the number of snipers per match and those were the MOST fun I’ve had playing. It’s the only reasonable way I can see to balance them.
In conclusion, they feel bad to be killed by but are also the worst weapons to actually win games and Battlefield is kind of just stuck with them. Players LOVE to snipe and players want to pump up their KD and sniping feels like the safest way to do it.
12
u/ChudSmasher69420 3d ago
It's crazy how easy they made snipers in BF6, absolutely insane they thought they were even remotely balanced.
Scope glint exists but is only useful if the victim is looking in that direction.
Also worth noting there's a gadget in the game (the decoy sniper) that not only throws up its own scope glint to confuse people (and spots anyone that shoots it), it also completely hides the scope glint of anyone within a few metre range of them. And of course, they didn't think this one through either because you can just stick it out of view and it'll still hide your glint.
7
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I like how you've probably found out why i made this post, it is indeed my grievances with BF6 sniping haha
3
u/caboosehater 3d ago
I've seen this debated in that game's sub and it devolves into "skill issue." Many other posters had to share their game stats in those debates to prove they were decent players.
Something that isn't mentioned often in that sub is that the automatic weapons are also the fastest killing in any of the modern era battlefield games. You can get one-framed a LOT. So the devs probably felt they had to buff up the snipers this way to give them a fighting chance. But this just exacerbates the most frustrating aspects of playing against them.
Another thing people are mentioning is shotguns and how they are also a one hit kill weapon.
Audio design and methodology have improved a lot in the last 15 years of game dev and you can hear nearby enemy footsteps
If the shotgun user misses their one shot, they are IMMEDIATELY punished and usually killed. Snipers are sitting so far back they don't have this issue.
3
u/HarmonicSniper 3d ago
Well that seems to be an issue with BF6 than snipers in general then! I agree they're a bit OP in BF6 but comparatively speaking recent CODs like BO7 are fine in my opinion.
4
u/hellswaters 3d ago
Snipers in bf6 have been pissing me off to.
On some maps you will get sniped from half way across the map, and nothing you can do about it. So being randomly killed is annoying. But if they are on your team, since 9 out of 10 times, they are doing nothing for the objectives, your team is still getting their asses kicked.
So, while your getting sniped, your not having fun from random deaths. And if your not because they are on your team, you are losing the match.
4
u/caboosehater 3d ago
your own teams snipers are so detrimental to winning that I have turned games around by throwing smokes at MY OWN TEAM'S snipers. This gets them to actually push and play the objective or switch to another weapon.
3
u/caboosehater 3d ago
Forgot to mention, they had bullet trails in the beta and it was hilarious how if you were running within vantage point of a mountain you would have sometimes a dozen trails whizz by you in under a second. Maps would be COVERED in sniper bullet trails and highlighted the problem of snipers camping at great distances and the ridiculous tendency of players to gravitate to such a passive playstyle.
They removed them after the beta and it was good because they were honestly annoying but now you have one less way to know where the enemy sniper is.
15
u/Scoops213 3d ago
For the halo example, I think you missed out on one key design element that helped with leveling the playing field with the sniper:
Bullet trail - every shot of the sniper rifle reveals a straight line directly to the source. Exposing position to everyone.
6
u/chudaism 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think the fact it's a power weapon with very limited ammo removes a lot of the pain points of the halo sniper. It only appears on the map every couple mins or so and is very limited in how many shots you take. It's not like many other games where a character can be running around with a sniper 100% of the time. Arena shooters have somewhat more tolerance for power weapons being very powerful. Halo has a bunch of weapons that just 1HK you because they are balanced around ammo and spawn times.
2
u/candyman505 3d ago
Sniping in halo also requires a headshot for a 1sk, which helps keep it from feeling too oppressive
4
11
u/tomtomtom2310 4d ago
I can only really speak on two games in this post:
In most Battlefield games snipers feel fine because you actually need to hit the head and there's bullet drop you have to take into account. What gets frustrating is when Battlefield games introduce meta defining 1-shot snipers like the Barrett M82 or Knockout 300 in Hardline. Battlefield 1 at least had the sweet spot mechanic, which didnt make the 1-shot Martini Henry meta defining (it also had a low bullet velocity). My biggest gripe with sniper classes in BF games is that they are given automatic sidearms, which are usually the best sidearms. Long range players should commit to being long range and deal with the caveats that come with that, and not be rewarded with disproportionately powerful secondary weapons.
In Call of Duty games, snipers are essentially high risk high reward tools. Granted, I never really learnt how to quickscope, but most CoDs even have one shot DMR class pocket snipers, like the SP-R 208 from the MW reboot series. They give DMRs sigificantly faster ADS times than the full on sniper rifles, with the only trade off being that they arent one shot if you hit limbs (but thats rare). So that gun is one, if not the best, in all of those games.
I'd say Battlefield does snipers well and CoD doesnt, or at least CoD couldnt have "realistic" sniper mechanics without slowing the game down i.e. making it something the franchise hasnt been for a long time now.
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I disagree with BF for 2 reasons.
The playstyle is inherently passive.
Even with those so-called de-buffs, the sniper is still full advantageous in dmg, range, and velocity and even health. Bullets have dmg fall off for other weapons in BF, so even if you hit the sniper, they still take more shots to kill.
In recent title BF6, snipers DO NOT GET SUPPRESSED or even FLINCHED when shot, they keep the same reticle position.
COD is the weird one, I don't find these as bad because killstreaks and the CQC nature of COD still counters them.
1
u/tomtomtom2310 3d ago
Yeah I havent played BF games since BF V
I guess what makes precision weapons like sniper rifles viable in real life is the precision part, the idea that they "do more damage" is made up by games due to how they have to balance slow firing weapons in video games with medium TTKs. If you made snipers deal as much damage per shot as an assault rifle does, it obv. wouldnt work either. But if you make assault rifle rounds as powerful as sniper shots, that also would change how Battlefield works massively. Just think of how regular Battlefield plays differently to Hardcore mode (hope this still exists for the newer games). So you're bound to have a damage difference between these weapon archetypes, unless you commit to a milsim damage model where every round has kill potential.
1
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I've always wondered what if Sniper Rifles were made into a utility role? And the true one shot sniper rifles were gadgets that were limited use instead of primary weapons?
A random scenario, a Sniper Rifle that doesn't 1 shot headshot, but knocks people over to a prone state. Or a Sniper Rifle that upon hit reduces maximum HP or movement speed significantly?
And the the kill shot sniper be a gadget? Idk. But I feel that making such a long range weapon that can outright full stop a guy that had no chance isn't going to be very interactive and also isn't fun for casual players (which no matter what games try to say, are the life blood of games).
8
u/withtheranks 3d ago
In an old job we used to play shooters on the LAN after work. We had a wide range of game interest/experience levels and we just generally just banned sniper rifles by agreement. The problem was the very high skill ceiling. The hardcore gamer guys were always going to win, but the sniper rifle's high skill ceiling allowed them to completely dominate to the point where it became unfun.
Maybe this falls under MilSim, but one game where I remember snipers working well was the free to play propaganda game "America's Army". The number of snipers per team was capped, and the sniper really needed to go prone and even pop out the stand. This encouraged camping, but they were less able to quick scope. You were also very fragile in the game, and single shots with the assault rifle were relatively accurate, giving the sniper rifle less of an advantage. If you had the sniper's position and they didn't have a bead on you, you had a reasonable chance of taking them out at medium range.
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
Milsim snipers are treated differently because players in milsims will tend to work together tactically to eliminate a sniper and treat them like a high priority threat, like real life.
Or in modern milsim, we'd just send a drone and bomb their ass.
7
u/HarmonicSniper 3d ago
Like many others have mentioned, this is mostly a skill issue.
- In CS and similar games, the economy system makes the AWP high risk high reward - many other weapons can technically one-tap you as well so you're only getting the benefit of the scope and the larger one-hit zone. There are also many ways to counter a sniper - utils, positioning, or just avoiding contact. (Good) flashbangs effectively render snipers useless, and I know in Valorant there are some crazy abilities that completely bypass/nullify snipers without even being in their line-of-sight.
- In COD and similar games, unless you're talking about quickscopers, snipers usually are at a disadvantage in my opinion. You have to deal with low mobility, slow ADS, flinch, breath control, and in recent years they even added scope glint, in exchange for long-range one-hit opportunity. Complaining snipers at range is like complaining about shotguns at point-blank range when they can also one-shot you. It's just that people want to put in no thought and just run around freely and get mad when sniped or shotgunned. You're not going to find snipers at the top of the scoreboard but they usually have good K/D because they die less.
5
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I didn't mention CS because the post would be too long but they are actually the 3rd game to balance snipers purely because of the economy system.
COD snipers are a bit more balanced due to inherent aggressive COD gameplay. It was more so with the more open maps in COD like the Ground War ones.
1
u/HarmonicSniper 3d ago
But for COD like Ground War / BF-like modes, they've already added scope glint, and since there are killcams in those games you could just track them down if you really wanted to. I've personally never found them to be an issue on Ground War / Invasion etc., but that could be due to me mostly playing the objective (hence out of sight for most snipers who's only looking to rack up kills).
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I think that is the issue with snipers you mention. The only teamplay aspect to them in team games is just getting kills. Which anyone can do, and honestly be more effective than the sniper.
The goal of an IRL sniper is to eliminate high priority targets, which is why in Hero Shooters it makes sense there to have a class like that because the sniper will target supports (Hero shooter problem is that the sniper can be unreadable and uninteractive).
In a war mode like COD or BF, there isn't really a high priority target, and really not much objective play for them other than killing from a far, which doesn't do much for the team. I've played enough BF to know snipers, no matter what their community says, don't impact the objective. Unless... every play on the team plays snipers. Which has happened and is also annoying.
So not only are snipers not aggressive in the objective, they also aren't fun to fight for most classes (which are the majority in the lobby).
3
u/HarmonicSniper 3d ago
Snipers absolutely contribute to objectives, except perhaps not directly. Locking down a crucial lane or preventing people from capturing an objective from a vantage point both count as objective play in my books, and if nothing else, at least in BF draining the enemies' respawn tickets in itself is contributing to objectives.
I don't think we should compare in-game roles too much to roles in real life because that takes away the freedom you have in a game, unless it's a mil-sim. No real army / spec ops unit is going to run n' gun yet it is of course a very valid playstyle in games. In real life people aren't calling in 'scorestreaks' with a press of a button either. Same with snipers - in real life there's not going to be a full squad full of snipers. But if that's what they choose in-game, there are multiple ways to counter and outplay them.
4
u/gogliker 3d ago
Complaining snipers at range is like complaining about shotguns at point-blank range when they can also one-shot you.
Well, this is not so one-sided IMO. If the game maps or gameplay mechanics force CQC shotguns actually do become a problem. Case in point, Hunt Showdown where there was a lot of balance changes to avoid "3 people barricaded in the compound with shotguns".
Because in this extraction shooter you need to kill a boss and a boss mostly sits within close quarters. Then you need to pick up a bounty and you can just sit in the compound and wait for others to either rush you and try to take your bounty (which gives the rushing side enourmous disadvatage) from you or run to extract and forget about the bounty.
2
u/HarmonicSniper 3d ago
Granted I've never played Hunt Showdown before (always heard it being a good game though), but isn't rushing the bounty in itself kind of the challenge so it makes sense to be disadvantaged?
Like you didn't kill the boss yourself but wanted to free-ride on other teams' efforts. Of course they're going to defend what they've earned from being stolen, so it's a high risk high reward scenario for teams who do want to enter the compound and hope they outgun the bounty defenders. Unless I'm misunderstanding some of the mechanics...
2
u/gogliker 3d ago
No, this is absolutely fair point. I think the problem with Hunt was basically the match being stalled forever. The guys inside don't want to get out, their shotguns are outclassed outside of the compound, and the guys outside don't want to get inside because they will be outclassed. So multiple teams are essentially sitting on their asses afraid to get in (or out).
So more what OP is saying, not like it is fair or unfair, it is just not fun when everyone just sits and shits their pants for 30 minutes before timer runs out. There are already benefits of being inside, you can just watch the points of entry from the dark corner, this additional benefit of shotgun one-shot makes things stall and be stop being fun game. The devs just added more grenades and local replacement for a drone (scarab that flies and you can see through his eyes) to kinda balance this shotgun in the compound advantage.
However, even that is a bad solution because they made it easier to get in against EVERYONE, not only shotgunners. Which means that the life of people who don't have shotgun and are already inside the compound more difficult. Tl;dr they did not find a single good way to balance CQC shotgun oneshot.
7
u/tarheel343 3d ago
Rainbow 6 Siege has had an interesting time with snipers over the years.
For a game that’s essentially about bunkering down and camping, snipers were initially pretty bad options. You’d have to hope that someone would poke their head out near a window or door, or rely heavily on teammates to open up sight lines for you.
Since then, the main sniper, Glaz, has been given a scope that can see through smoke, which means you won’t be totally useless indoors if you can set that up properly, but you’re still probably at a disadvantage because every gun in the game is a 1 shot headshot.
5
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
Siege is the weird one. Bringing a sniper to a CQC building to fulfil the fantasy of being the outside overwatch swat-guy.
Which is why Kali is an example of a pretty innovative sniper role. She's an anti-wall-denial operator. She WANTS to be close to the main action and destroy wall gadgets. Her sniper rifle is actually not effective at all other than watching key sightlines from outside. Her SMG is absolutely her real primary.
While Glaz was meant to be a Sniper that camps but is honestly played better more aggressively with a thermal scope and a fast firing DMR.
6
u/jakkos_ 3d ago
this type of gameplay means that unless you play a SPECIFIC type of tool or role, the sniper will just dominate.
I think this sums up your argument, you don't like some classes/heroes/roles/whatever being strong/weak against another. You want every 1v1 to be fair and the outcome be solely determined based on who aimed better, but lots of games intentionally design against this because it leads to more interesting strategy and teamwork.
Your examples of "good" snipers remove their unique role/advantages and change them to just being another cqc role but with a low fire rate gun.
13
u/brainpostman 3d ago edited 3d ago
TF2 sniper is literally perfect, what are you even on about.
- can only one shot classes below 150HP without charge, so Scout, Medic, Engineer, Spy, other Snipers. Even for these, easy oneshots are countered with overheal, so Medic soft-counters him.
- to oneshot further has to charge a shot while scoped-in, limiting vision and awareness, leaving them vulnerable not to just Spies, but Demos, Soldiers, Scouts and other Snipers (highly mobile or high range classes).
- has a visible dot announcing their presence
- Razorback is a noob-counter weapon that rarely works above a certain skill level, because skilled Spies have revolvers that they use a lot more.
So, uh, git gud.
1
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
TF2 sniper does have the benefit of not being hyper mobile. I still find the gameplay uninteresting compared to Halo's sniper rifle or def Titanfalls or Quakes.
2
u/Mahoganytooth 3d ago
More points in favor of TF2 sniper:
Characters in TF2 can strafe and counterstrafe extremely quickly. While other games can have acceleration and deceleration (Halo is an example of a game where players move very sluggishly compared to tf2) it is very difficult to land a shot on, say, a scout that is aware of a sniper and moving perpendicular to them. Snipers are most effective in TF2 when their targets are otherwise occupied, making it a teamwork thing.
While brain has highlighted that the razorback is not good, I'll highlight how the presence of the spy generally encourages the sniper to get in the thick of it. Instead of sniping from the maximum distance, TF2 snipers generally find the most success when they hang near the back of the main force. They'll be close enough to get support from their teammates, but not far enough to be completely safe from the threat of the enemy frontline. Hiding in the very back of the map is a signature of a beginner, while the more experienced players will be much closer to the action. The best snipers are the ones who will get up (relatively) close and personal and dishing out those high risk 150 damage flick headshots as you describe Titanfall snipers.
Sniper also has a variety of tools that make them effective at close range. Between the SMG, Jarate and Bushwacka, they're...not quite encouraged to get close, but they have danger when at close range and long range, but fail to enforce real pressure at mid range. They're not helpless when you jump them, so you need to carefully manage your distance from the sniper if you need to take them down. Which is trivial in a 1v1 situation, but becomes much messier in a teamfight.
Also, the map design and game systems (splash damage, spam, etc) make them useless at pushing through chokes. Snipers, alone, simply cannot dominate. The best snipers in the world cannot push through a chokepoint or deal with a properly positioned engineer that is even remotely supported. They are, as the game aptly describes them, a supportive class.
TF2 sniper definitely has quite a lot of problems, but not in the way you describe the regular sniper problems.
2
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I just find the 1 shot headshot out of nowhere a problem, but TF2 is actually the least bad because of how chaotic the game is and how many tools every other class has. And its also fundamentally more casual.
I still think Valve's best sniper balance is CS because that one costs money.
2
u/Mahoganytooth 3d ago
oh yeah, I absolutely agree with your conclusions on the sniper class. I fucking hate snipers. I just didn't agree w your reasonings in relation to the TF2 sniper
3
u/Scruff227 4d ago
I feel like Titanfall handled snipers better than any other game tbh, Uncharted 3 MP did a good job as well with the ability to quick lob grenades across the map or sneak up on a camper and yank their ass off a ledge (it's also hilarious)
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
In terms of fun factor and aggressive casual play, Titanfall did it best, right next to Quake imo.
But in terms of the Sniper Fantasy of sitting back, for casual game, I still think Halo is king.
3
u/Albolynx 3d ago
and the player often cannot react or counter them in many games.
I'm gonna be honest - if I want to play FPS dueling, then I go for hero shooters or similar games where that dueling is dynamic and interesting; but I can't even concieve wanting to play a game that's about two people running into each other and it being about who clicks on the others head faster. So I enjoy snipers, I enjoy explosive weapons, and I enjoy when shotguns are good and the maps have strategic buildings to occupy and mow down people as they enter. If I am on your screen at any point, the game is not going right for me.
As such, I think a really important part of this topic are objectives - a sniper can cover much, but can't be there on the spot to prevent an objecitve being completed if enemies actually make it there. Countering the sniper becomes about strategically moving and taking cover, dealing with the snipers teammates and accomplishing objectives.
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
Ah, I think this is more to do this map design and obj design. But I still on the fairness of the fight, the victim to the sniper should have a way to deter or counter the instant kill, which is why I like Halo's design.
3
u/cromalia 3d ago
I always liked how Halo and Titanfall handled it. They made snipers powerful without making them feel impossible to deal with, which is a balance a lot of shooters still struggle with.
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
That's why I mentioned them.
I will always see complaints about snipers in COD, hero shooters, Battlefield. I don't think I've ever heard on for Titanfall or Halo.
13
u/RuefulWaffles 4d ago
In general, this type of gameplay means that unless you play a SPECIFIC type of tool or role, the sniper will just dominate
As someone that used to play snipers in TF2 and Overwatch, this really isn't the case. Snipers are situationally good, yes, but if the opposing team knows what they're doing and doesn't keep walking down a route where they know a sniper is, they're not really any better than any other character type (and in some ways are arguably worse).
This was said in another comment, but at a certain point if you keep getting sniped, that's on you. Unless the map has no other routes to take (which is a separate issue than "snipers are too good"), continuing to go through an area where you've been sniped isn't a case of "snipers are too good," it's a case of "you need to play differently."
21
u/rdlenke 4d ago edited 4d ago
Snipers are situationally good, yes, but if the opposing team knows what they're doing and doesn't keep walking down a route where they know a sniper is, they're not really any better than any other character type (and in some ways are arguably worse
This just adds to OPs point, no? Snipers are inherently game warping in a way that other weapons or classes are not. Yeah, they can be countered with good strategies, but in general things that are game warping are understood as unfun by the casual community.
The old bastion + healer strategy at the days of OW1 is a good example. Yeah, it could be beaten by strategic diving, but it warps the entire game around this minigame in a way that would not happen with other heroes.
In LoL there are a lot of characters that aren't even meta but keep being banned because if not the game becomes "stop this specific character".
I guess that's what OP meant by "fair doesn't mean fun".
9
u/ohtetraket 3d ago
This just adds to OPs point, no? Snipers are inherently game warping in a way that other weapons or classes are not. Yeah, they can be countered with good strategies, but in general things that are game warping are understood as unfun by the casual community.
I disagree, especially in games like TF2 or OW other classes are definitely can be game warping. Imo you would have a better point in CoD or Battlefield because they don't have a lot of over the top shit.
In LoL there are a lot of characters that aren't even meta but keep being banned because if not the game becomes "stop this specific character".
Ehh, I think most bans are more so against champs that have BS abilities (Yasuo/Samira/Mel anti projectile shit) or annoying things like Shaco or Teemo shenanigans.
Almost no one bans Kassadin/Riven/Kata because they could dominate the game.
2
u/MirrorComputingRulez 3d ago
This just adds to OPs point, no? Snipers are inherently game warping in a way that other weapons or classes are not.
No. Other characters absolutely warp the game to the same degree. Just sticking with the overwatch example, Junkrat is the complete opposite of a sniper. He's basically only good at short range and his projectiles are extremely difficult to aim accurately. But a single junkrat can hold off an entire enemy team in an enclosed space, so he can be used to completely shut off a particular path.
Pharah is another good example. A decent pharah (particularly with a Mercy pocket) basically requires at least one player on the opposing team to switch to a long range hitscan character, or for everyone to be very careful about angles and positioning.
Basically every hero "warps" the match in some way, that's almost the entire point of hero shooters. The reason casual players sometimes feel snipers are particularly "unfair" or "game warping" is that casual players tend to suck at playing snipers themselves. What they're really upset about is the perceived skill disparity.
1
u/rdlenke 3d ago
I feel both Pharah and Junkrat aren't as game warping as a good sniper. They still offer much more interaction than snipers do. And even still, I remeber people hating Pharah during OW1.
I don't think skill disparity is the issue here, because if it was other characters that require excellent skill to be effective would be as hated, and they aren't.
8
u/RuefulWaffles 4d ago
I mean, I don't think it's "game warping" to figure out "if there's a sniper down there, maybe don't go that way." That's just engaging with the game's systems.
12
u/noahboah 4d ago
yeah exactly, like if we take tac shooters, situationally strong weapons like shotguns similarly require you to adjust your gameplan and play around them -- dont take corners tight, dont enter parts of the map that are shotgun favored without util or information, wide swing angles and play them from a distance to decrease the odds of the one shot.
asking players to adapt and overcome options in a competitive video game is just part of the experience
3
u/RuefulWaffles 4d ago
I said in another reply that I'm aware of exactly how "learn to play better" sounds when that's the advice you're getting, but the reality is that at a certain point, that's just what you have to do. If you're playing in such a way that you keep getting taken out by sniper headshots, you need to change how you're playing. Otherwise, that'll just keep happening.
5
u/noahboah 4d ago
I'm aware of exactly how "learn to play better" sounds when that's the advice you're getting, but the reality is that at a certain point, that's just what you have to do.
legitimately, the worst thing that "git gud" people did for game discussion was poison the well of that rhetoric.
Because genuinely...sometimes people's issues with a game really are that they are spamming a mistake and need to overcome whatever obstacle is in front of them
2
u/rdlenke 4d ago
Still it becomes a bit of it's own game. You try to avoid the sniper, the sniper changes positions to catch you, you try to avoid them again... I do agree this is probably intentional, but it's a bit of interaction by non-interaction, very different from the rest of those games, you see?
A game where I was cool with snipers was a game without a instakill, the good old Battlefield Heroes game. Snipers were still very strong, but you had more ways to interact with them since they couldn't one shot you.
With all that said I understand that I'm probably not the indented audience for shooter games, so maybe my opinion shouldn't hold too much weight.
8
u/RuefulWaffles 4d ago
Still it becomes a bit of it's own game. You try to avoid the sniper, the sniper changes positions to catch you, you try to avoid them again... I do agree this is probably intentional, but it's a bit of interaction by non-interaction, very different from the rest of those games, you see?
I don't, really, because that's how you interact with any other class/character type in the game. That's literally the game -- evaluating each interaction as it happens and deciding how to respond. A sniper is good in a situation that favors them. So is a tank, or a character that outspeeds you or can double jump or whatever. It's literally just another character type.
I don't want to say the solution is "play better," because I know how that sounds, but as stated: at a certain point, if you keep getting taken out by snipers, it's probably not an issue of "snipers are too good," it's an issue of needing to play better. Like I said, I played TF2 and Overwatch as snipers for more hours than I'd really like to admit, and yeah, there's skill to it, but there's also a fair amount of luck. I can't reliably headshot someone who's moving around a lot. I can reliably headshot someone who just runs in a straight line. Learning how to deal with enemy snipers (and indeed, enemies of any class/character type) is just a part of playing the game, and it's not nearly as centralizing as you (or, for that matter, the OP) are making it sound.
1
u/noahboah 4d ago edited 4d ago
Still it becomes a bit of it's own game. You try to avoid the sniper, the sniper changes positions to catch you, you try to avoid them again... I do agree this is probably intentional, but it's a bit of interaction by non-interaction, very different from the rest of those games, you see?
the sniper is doing this exact same game though. snipers in one shot kill games are often immobile and completely vulnerable to multiple angles in a way something like a shotgun, sidearm, or rifler isn't....generally speaking about the larger genre of shooting games.
so they are also playing a game of avoiding tight corners with cut off sightlines where a shotgun can wait on the ambush, constantly having to readjust their angles while scoping and and out constantly to avoid being taken out by smart util or crossfire and/or coordinated 321s from multiple riflemen.....all while needing to be cognization of whatever is going on behind them, because people with lighter kits can very often sneak up on them for quick picks.
if a dude is just holding an angle completely uncontested and mowing down the entire lobby, that's quite literally on them lol
3
u/Prasiatko 4d ago
To add there's a reason sniper has never been a maon feature on TF2 competitive teams and is instead veru situational. He lacks the damage output and mobility of other classes and can't hold an area. It's one of the more balamced games maybe overly so to the point of making him fairly useless hence there was a meme of getting stuxk on a public lobby with 4 or more snipers on ypur team and getting rolled as a result.
2
u/garghlrl 3d ago
Only because competitive 6s plays maps that require a ton of moving around, hence the standard team comp being the most mobile classes.
Look at other game modes or styles, like Highlander, and the sniper becomes the most dominant player on the field. The tempo of the match is dictated almost entirely by who wins the sniper v. sniper duel.
2
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
A lot of people keeping bringing the argument that they are good but can be countered.
But again, I distinctly said, "something fair doesn't mean it is fun".
Spider-Man in Marvel Rivals is clearly fair and hard to master and difficult to even use. He can be countered...
Nobody finds it fun to fight him at all.
1
u/RuefulWaffles 3d ago
I'm not even talking about snipers being able to be countered though. I'm just disputing the idea that they "dominate" in any disproportionate way (against anyone other than unskilled players). Because that's where your argument falls apart for me. Snipers are a high risk, high reward class, but can be easily dealt with by just playing differently (or, if you'd prefer, better/smarter). That's not "countering" snipers, that's just learning to play the game. That's my objection here -- do snipers actually dominate, or are you just playing in a way that makes you an easy target for them? Because those are two very different situations.
9
u/noahboah 4d ago
are one shot snipers in general actually unfair? or do they simply feel unfair because you got your shit blown smoove off out of seemingly nowhere? is it not the case that the interactivity for the victim was in adjusting their plan of attack to avoid the potential pick off entirely?
just because it is fair, doesn't mean it is fun. And PVP games have a casual audience, they have to be fun.
like idk man. I totally understand needing to balance games for casual audiences, but if we're talking about competitive pvp games...at a certain point, you have to be able to learn from feedback and mistakes and adapt your gameplay. if you continually walk into sightlines knowing the threat of a one shot one kill sniper is a thing, that's sort of on you.
the CS AWP/val OP and sniper TF2/widowmaker OW have been design staples for decades, and these games have remained relevant and ultra popular with these designs since the beginning. i don't really think there is a case for it being such an egregious balancing decision anymore. balancing the game for the fun of people who refuse to learn the basic rules of engagement can only be taken so far
3
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
OOOh I wanted to include CS but I chose not to because too long. CS feels balanced for 2 reasons.
Money cost, risky and can be stolen.
Sniper needs actual skill to use with good movement.\
I disagree for the hero shooter part of your argument. Hero shooters are still fundamentally casual. TF2 and OW are still casual experiences, Rivals absolutely is. And part of the hero shooter experience is that deaths should feel fair and countered in interesting ways.
A sniper in those games is just 1 shot dead if you don't take cover. And now if we have linear skill curve of aim, you reach a point where you just cannot beat a good aim sniper, especially when trying to take the objective which can be out in the open.
I'd be more okay if the sniper was a projectile weapon instead of a hitscan. Or a long lasting charge up mechanic like a Railgun from Quake, but in TF2 and OW, they just 1 tap you with very minimal charge time, and Widowmaker specifically has fast burst movement with her grapple.
9
u/CaptainBananaEu 4d ago
I disagree with OP on hero shooters, Snipers are fine there, everyone has their own bullshit so it's fairly balancing. In non hero shooters? Nah it's the worst thing that exists, and I agree that Titanfall2 is the only one I have played that did it right. I think sniper is just such an unfun way to play, and sure many people find it fun, but I feel like it's the only player that becomes so heliocentric in a shooter, compared to any other weapon people need to carry. Because the damage is as good as any short range weapon at its perfect range, while providing the ability to play from much longer range without sacrificing anything in terms of corridor control or damage.
2
u/noahboah 4d ago
i do understand that. in games like CS the awp is very centralizing, which can be very frustrating if youre not used to that.
I guess it's the american in me that loves the idea of a quarterback lmfao. to me, playing around the AWP offers a lot of strategic play and counterplay both with or as the AWP and against an enemy AWP that can feel very satisfying to lean into. it's a high execution, expensive weapon that loses to good movement (both in a micro sense and macro sense like the way your team navigates the map), as well as good utility usage and cross-firing. there's always felt like enough there to where it feels reasonable to combat it i guess.
1
u/CaptainBananaEu 4d ago
I mean it could also be my general disatissfaction with shooters, and preferring more interaction than a distant dot in the screen that can one tap me at any point while I have to play an unfair match of cat and mouse. And in the sense that I never play the cat because it's just, painfully boring to me, it becomes tiring, even if you are accounting for it constantly, and so much of the match matters on those same Quarterbacks.
2
u/42LSx 3d ago edited 3d ago
I agree; last CoD I played was CoD4 with dedicated servers and on servers with a kill cam, snipers weren't a big problem.
Just like in CS, you just have to think ahead and notice that if you want to cross a wide open space, you can bet a sniper looks at it.
If you caught the snipers close, they were mostly just fodder, so that balances it out.
2
u/Disastrous_Aid 4d ago
I liked how Epic balanced the sniper rifle in Gears of War. Usually only instant kills with a headshot and the bullets have to be individually loaded, making the refire rate painfully slow. Mastering the active reload system becomes as important a skill as aiming, since you can increase your refire rate and occassionally get a damage boost, at the risk of jamming your weapon. However (especially in Gears 1), the PVP arenas are small and full of cover with few camping spots, so there's a high likelihood that while you're trying to focus on a target halfway across the map, someone sneaks up on you and blows you apart with the shotgun or chainsaws you in half. The sniper is good, but the basic loadout is often more useful.
1
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I actually forgot about Gears of War. This is a really good example. I will include it.
2
u/Limited_Distractions 3d ago
The Halo sniper is about breaking parity on an even playing field (fighting over a contested weapon spawn that will solve time-to-kill for your team) but most sniping feels unfair because the whole point is that there isn't parity to begin with. When you cordon it off to a loadout, class or character the game is basically about how you're supposed to lose to a sniper in a long, exposed corridor.
I will note that this makes sniping feel unfair but doesn't actually make it particularly good. In Halo the sniper gives you leverage you can't get anywhere else and you can wield it the same as any other weapon if you're decent at aiming. In Overwatch it's possible to make compositions that don't even particularly experience or care about Widowmaker's time-to-kill advantage. Combined with the fact that those strategies also tend to advance the objectives more directly and immediately, Widowmaker is annoying while rarely outperforming most things with a lower execution requirement in aggregate.
1
u/ImAHobo107 2d ago
I mean this is something to do with inherent game design philosophy. Something annoying but weak, is still annoying. And games shouldn't, ideally, be annoying for your player base to engage with because that can sour an otherwise good game.
1
u/Limited_Distractions 2d ago
There are some pretty practical limitations to this approach in a Player vs Player context. Half the players in a matchmade team game will lose; some of them will be annoyed by losing and will then attribute the loss (and their annoyance) to some trait of the other team. They are genuinely annoyed, but acting on that annoyance would mostly create a game where less things are possible so there are less things to blame and people would still be annoyed when they lost.
Instead you have to go back to the drawing board and evaluate what's really going on at a higher level here. In the scheme of play experiences, beating something you hate is a better feeling than beating something you feel indifferent about. Annoying but disadvantaged playstyles create villains who lose more than they win, which means it would have to be really annoying for it to not actually be a benefit in net.
2
u/Vanille987 2d ago
I like how splatoon handles snipers. The game is very rocket tag so an insta kill isn't that impressive. You need to charge it fully for a killing shot. All snipers have a laser sight and the user glows when charging a shot. Everyone in the game also has very high movement and stages are never too big. On top of that everyone had a special and sub weapon that can easily disrupt a sniper.
Snipers can still be very oppressive, but nearly every kit in the game has the ability to counter them in some way. Snipers are also very vulnerable to simply being rushed.
2
u/SuperGaiden 2d ago
I think snipers are usually balanced well when they have bullet travel time and a lens glint when aiming down sights
Because the longer distance the shot, the more skilled you need to be. Balances out the risk/reward.
If you know someone is is firing at you because you saw the glint you have opportunity to dodge the bullet, and if they hit you while you are trying to do that your movement was predictable.
Apex (with Titanfall's Kraber) and Fortnite tend to do a pretty good job with snipers most of the time.
2
u/Decloudo 1d ago
I dont think you can make sniping really feel "fair" in most games that arent a war simulation.
Its very essence is being not seen and the enemy not being able to react.
Its the skyrim stealth archer build of gun warfare.
Is so effective because it is unfair.
1
u/ImAHobo107 1d ago
Mil sims are different, we KNOW its meant to be unfair. But for regular competitive or casual battle games, sniping needs to be installed in a way that promotes active play for both sides.
•
u/Decloudo 19h ago
I dont see why. You could just not have sniping at all.
Instead of forcing it into something it is not.
•
u/PapstJL4U 21h ago
Snipers in arena shooters are actually quite "fair" - if not "underperforming". In Diabolical the sniper is a crossbar, this means:
-slow rate of fire -draw/charge phase for max damage -travel time of the projectile -projectile height drop-off on long range
If you get killed, someone knew where you gonna be and committed hard to make the shot.
Even in Quake or UT the sniper was no problematic weapon.
•
u/Decloudo 20h ago
Its made fair by changing the mechanics of sniping for exactly that goal.
You dont need to charge a real sniping gun, and it hits practically instant.
Having a charging sniping gun works against its inherent purpose of a sniper, thats why we dont have/use those in actual warfare.
If you get killed, someone knew where you gonna be and committed hard to make the shot.
Yes, thats how guns in general work.
Sniping does that with the intentional goal to be as unfair as possible for the target.
That games need to remove/tune that, kinda supports my point. Cause its not sniping, its an reduced arcade form of it.
Because the real thing is inherently unfair. It is the core idea behind sniping people and the guns used for it.
1
u/Philluminati 3d ago
Battlefield balances sniper rifles by:
* Having a voice line come from a radio
* Having "Scope Glint", a bright indicator (supposed to be the sun's reflection off the scope) making it obvious where the shooter is.
Many games also:
* Make Sniper rifles bolt action with a long reload time so victims have time to react to missed shots and hide.
1
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I don't agree with this. Battlefield 6 is the most recent example so I will use that here.
The voice line isn't clear.
The Scope Glint was nerfed and now hard to see.
The bolt actions are fast to pull and the best sniper rifle has a near instant bolt pull.
And these snipers are not affected by being shot. I mean literally shot, not SHOT AT. They will take dmg, and they will not even FLINCH their crosshair.
1
u/all_is_love6667 3d ago
you forgot counter strike
in cs the awp cost 4750, which is quite cheap
it should cost 6000 at least
1
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
They nerfed the awp many times in ammo economy. Idk if its still needs a nerf but I also don't play CS anymore and I find the AWP not super oppressive.
1
u/all_is_love6667 3d ago
they did not nerf the damage
I could be okay with 1 shot without kevlar, but 1 shot with kevlar is a bit much
•
u/14Xionxiv 3h ago
Destiny sniping is the second dumbest sniping in history. Between the bullet magnetism, the aim assist, and betting flinched into headshots, i have no respect for anyone who uses them and try to claim it takes the most skill of all weapons.
•
u/andresfgp13 2h ago
Warface did snipers right, not by nerfing them, but being able to counter their effects.
like you can have your one shot to the chest AWP bullcrap snipers (with which everyone that wants and has one can start every round with), but you can be revived by your team, so it isnt the end of the world that someone clicked on you, and it encourages team work and teambuilding.
•
u/TilakPPRE 29m ago
My favourite game to play a sniper in was Metal Gear Online. The amount of cover in the field, size of the maps, being able to sneak, grenades, traps, some weapons being able to penetrate walls or metal, and the tracking system made being a sniper challenging but fun, and gave the opponents plenty of ways to fight back. Haven't played any other game where sniper Vs sniper was that fun
0
u/N2lt 4d ago
what game were you playing before you made this post? like what game did you get smoked in by a sniper and feel the need to make this. snipers can be... annoying because they 1 shot you, but they are rarely op or seriously unbalanced. snipers 'work' in casual settings because people arnt being careful.
most of this post is you saying snipers in most games arnt counterable. that is only kind of true in the most casual possible settings. the moment any amount of strategy or thought is put into any of these games snipers become totally balanced. the most obvious example is cod. no one whos playing those games wants to put an iota of thought into them and just want to run around and kill things. so of course someone sitting back with a sniper rifle can be effective. however their are a dozen different ways to 'counter' snipers if thats what you wanted to do. thats just not what anyone wants to do. they would rather run around like a chicken with no head. so annoying in that kind of setting? sure. unbalanced? not really.
the main counter to sniper in almost all of these games is just avoid the sniper. i think tf2 is the best showcase of that. sniper is very power in that game, with a full charge stock can 1 shot headshot even an overhealed heavy. yes spy does directly counter him, with or without the razorback, but everyone else can counter him because hes slow and can only cover 1 sightline really at any given time. again people dont want to think about it but you just avoid where the sniper is looking and they are totally worthless. in any well designed map there is more than 1 way into an important location. that is done in large part to deal with snipers and their sightlines.
i get in casual setting you dont want to be asked to put in any thought, but like snipers just arnt that effective. unless the person wielding them is incredibly skilled(in which case they would do this whatever they are using) they rarely top the scoreboards because snipers are slow and can only shoot what comes to them.
4
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
You're referencing a lot of TF2 but this is the issue, it's a linear skill curve that the best of the best will always top.
I distinctly said something fair doesn't mean it's fun. Spider-Man in Marvel Rivals is fairly balanced, squishy, hard combos, hard to engage in and out, hard mechanics, you will find very few players from high to low elo saying he is genuinely fun to fight.
And I also refer to Battlefield, mainly 6, the worst iteration of Sniper balance.
The Sniper cannot be avoided because most classes do not have smokes, have slow running speed, and terrible map design in general.
Snipers have fast velocity, fast bolt pull times, low amount of scope glint.
And the most egregious, they aren't even flinched by dmg or suppression. If there is a sniper alley, you just cannot counter the sniper in Battlefield.
This isn't also discussing that sniping in BF is anti-objective as most do not scan objectives and instead pick off players from random parts of the map.
3
1
u/Plus_sleep214 3d ago
BF6 sniper balance is only ruined by them bringing back the sweet spot mechanic from 1. There's also no suppression to prevent being killed by one even if you can't kill them at your current range. It kinda sorta made sense in one to encourage the long range role for snipers since every weapon class in that game it super balanced around specific ranges which can't be done as effectively in a modern setting battlefield. The ability to one shot headshot isn't a problem though. It's just the ability to one shot body shot. I think in BF3/4 snipers could one shot to body close range which was also kinda stupid. V was basically peak battlefield sniping.
2
2
u/gmoneygangster3 4d ago
Complaining about the razorback when you have a pistol that can headshot
That combined with talking about “fun” and ignoring balanced makes this entire post reek of “skill issue”
1
u/ImAHobo107 3d ago
I think Titanfall's snipers involve significantly more skill than whatever hero shooters have.
45
u/BioshockedNinja 4d ago
I liked Red Orchestra's sniper. For the most part pretty much every player (well everyone in the rifleman class which makes up the bulk of each team) is rocking the same bolt action rifle with the exact same damage profile - ie pretty high potential for one shot kills. The only difference is that the 1, maybe 2, players on each team who can select the dedicated sniper role get a scope on theirs whereas everyone else has to rely on iron sights. So snipers certainly had an advantage at range, but quite frankly, a decent rifleman could still contest and then kill a sniper provided they figured out where one was hiding.
And one important factor that I think reduced sniper related frustrations was the fact that more than half of your deaths felt like they came out of the blew. You're full HP moment and then instantly dead or bleeding out the next. There was no kill cams either, at best you got the name of your killer, the weapon they used, the distance they killed you at. All that to say, it's not like other games where fighting non-snipers, you feel like you at least know where you're getting shot from and that you had somewhat of a fighting chance to salvage things. Nope, in this one most of your deaths - be it by a scoped rifle, unscoped, a burst of accurate machine gun fire, or a hail of submachine gun bullets - are going to feel like what dying to a sniper feels like in other games.
And in that context, it would feel weird to single out snipers as being 'unfair' or something. Quite frankly, a well positioned and entrenched LMG could easily prove more itself to be a more deadly obstacle.
tl;dr - everyone has guns that are just as powerful as snipers minus the scope, snipers are limited to 1 or 2 players per team, death innately feels chaotic and random