"The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Post by **FlowerChild** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:44 pm

Seriously, did you just come up with that on the spur of the moment, or is it quoted from another source?

Sorry to go on about it like this, but I think this may be my new favorite expression :)

BinoAl · Post by **BinoAl** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:45 pm

FlowerChild wrote:Seriously, did you just come up with that on the spur of the moment, or is it quoted from another source?

Sorry to go on about it like this, but I think this may be my new favorite expression :)

Rofl. Idk, your post reminded me of solipsism. I didn't find it near as funny as you xD

Post by **FlowerChild** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:48 pm

BinoAl wrote: Rofl. Idk, your post reminded me of solipsism. I didn't find it near as funny as you xD

Lol! Cool :)

Clever plays on words are just a big thing for me (it's one of the reasons I love the authors that I do). I can assure you that amongst many of my friends, just blurting out something like that would result in a moment of stunned silence followed by uncontrollable laughter :)

Come on..."Solipsism...fuck the world". Dude, that's just genius :)

BinoAl · Post by **BinoAl** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:50 pm

FlowerChild wrote:
BinoAl wrote: Rofl. Idk, your post reminded me of solipsism. I didn't find it near as funny as you xD
Lol! Cool :)

Clever plays on words are just a big thing for me (it's one of the reasons I love the authors that I do). I can assure you that amongst many of my friends, just blurting out something like that would result in a moment of stunned silence follow by uncontrollable laughter :)

Come on..."Solipsism...fuck the world". Dude, that's just genius :)

Shit, accidental play on words? Fuck me. xD

Kwilt · Post by **Kwilt** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:52 pm

FlowerChild wrote:
KWilt wrote:Not to draw this into a BF3 discussion, but in regards to the map variety, do you prefer the closer quarter maps, or the larger, opener maps?
I'm generally into larger maps with more players. I like large chaotic battlefields and feeling like I'm part of a larger war rather than any kind of hero with these kinds of games. I also love having lots of vehicles around, whether I'm in them or not, as I find it adds a lot more diversity to the play experience. I'm also not the kind of guy that minds being occasionally killed by something completely beyond my control (like a jet dropping on my head).

The close-quarters maps get thoroughly idiotic with 64 players. There's a subway one that generally just turns into a total stalemate with everyone dying over and over again. I think that's where BF3 shows that it's cross-platform and partially designed for the consoles the most.

Oh...that, and in the single player, which just plain sucks. Gods I'm sick of quick-time events.

Personally, I think if you're into close-quarters, the Call of Duty series is much better for that. Battlefield really excels at chaos, and I wish they would have focused a bit more on that in the level design.

Ah... that's good to hear. I was afraid that since you have a distaste for the snipey-kind, you'd loathe the large, open maps. To be honest, there shouldn't even be close quarter battles in Battlefield, since that's what Call of Duty is basically made for.

Battlefield is a game created for a unified war experience of man and machine. It's more than just infantry, and a lack of vehicles on any map is just depressing.

Post by **FlowerChild** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:55 pm

BinoAl wrote: Shit, accidental play on words? Fuck me. xD

Lol! Ok, now you understand why I cracked up laughing :)

It's rare that you can combine a rather technical philosophical term, a meme, and a summary of the whole philosophy in one phrase like that man :)

BinoAl · Post by **BinoAl** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:57 pm

FlowerChild wrote:
BinoAl wrote: Shit, accidental play on words? Fuck me. xD
Lol! Ok, now you understand why I cracked up laughing :)

It's rare that you can combine a rather technical philosophical term, a meme, and a summary of the whole philosophy in one phrase like that man :)

Lolz. It seems a bit fucked that you got the joke I made before I did :)

Post by **FlowerChild** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:58 pm

BinoAl wrote: Lolz. It seems a bit fucked that you got the joke I made before I did :)

It happens man. Sometimes the most brilliant moments are entirely accidental :)

CreeperCommando · Post by **CreeperCommando** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:10 pm

Well as long as we're off topic....
FC: yeah my plan was exactly to wait till it dropped in price, especially as stated before fps aren't my cup of tea. As long as they don't have mechanics making people play realistic and in a more actually exciting way....
My preferred genre is actually RTS but most are more like RTT (Real Time Tactic) or RTGRABHPLMYFN (Real Time Go Read A Bloody Hundred Page Long Manual You Friggid Noob) or RTYMPETW (Real Time You Must Play Exactly This Way To Win)....

The bad part in games in general is that it's bloody hard to make designs that doesn't feel forced on the player, especially in fps were any kind of 'nerfing 'supersnipurz'' will lead to complains....

My view of how to make the designs in this case successful is to try 'to make the player naturally attracted to a specific playstyle instead of pushing him there'... altough how to do it is the tricky bit....

Edit: ....and now I get that it wasn't 'for the win' that FC was thinking about, lol XD....

Kwilt · Post by **Kwilt** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:18 pm

CreeperCommando wrote:My preferred genre is actually RTS but most are more like RTT (Real Time Tactic) or RTGRABHPLMYFN (Real Time Go Read A Bloody Hundred Page Long Manual You Friggid Noob) or RTYMPETW (Real Time You Must Play Exactly This Way To Win)....

What? No RTHKAEFVOEYAPMITLTDAWW?(Real Time Hot Keys Are Essential For Victory Or Else Your APM Is To Low To Do Anything Worth While) Or does that fall under RTYMPETW?

CreeperCommando · Post by **CreeperCommando** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:25 pm

KWilt wrote:
CreeperCommando wrote:My preferred genre is actually RTS but most are more like RTT (Real Time Tactic) or RTGRABHPLMYFN (Real Time Go Read A Bloody Hundred Page Long Manual You Friggid Noob) or RTYMPETW (Real Time You Must Play Exactly This Way To Win)....
What? No RTHKAEFVOEYAPMITLTDAWW?(Real Time Hot Keys Are Essential For Victory Or Else Your APM Is To Low To Do Anything Worth While) Or does that fall under RTYMPETW?

>.< Sorry! how could I forget RTHKAEFVOEYAPMITLTDAWW!!!! Point is there is something inherently wrong with a 'strategy game' that hardly gives you time to think....
Edit:... or doesn't let you think outside the manual....

Post by **FlowerChild** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:00 pm

CreeperCommando wrote:Edit: ....and now I get that it wasn't 'for the win' that FC was thinking about, lol XD....

Oh god no. "FTW' has been around since at least the 70's. It was a main-stay of graffiti way before the kiddies turned it into the "for the win" internet meme. I always tend to think of the old-school meaning every time I see it.

joetalbot1 · Post by **joetalbot1** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:18 pm

FlowerChild wrote:
joetalbot1 wrote:Well, if you're into realism, it's the game for you. Also for you is a sledge hammer to the groin.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but whatever.

It means that if you play a game solely for realism, you are a massive sucker and deserve a sledgehammer to the groin.

BinoAl · Post by **BinoAl** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:32 pm

joetalbot1 wrote:
FlowerChild wrote:
joetalbot1 wrote:Well, if you're into realism, it's the game for you. Also for you is a sledge hammer to the groin.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but whatever.
It means that if you play a game solely for realism, you are a massive sucker and deserve a sledgehammer to the groin.

Dismissing someone's tastes for no good reason is even more deserving of a sledgehammer to the groin ;)

joetalbot1 · Post by **joetalbot1** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:42 pm

BinoAl wrote:
joetalbot1 wrote:
FlowerChild wrote:
joetalbot1 wrote:Well, if you're into realism, it's the game for you. Also for you is a sledge hammer to the groin.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but whatever.
It means that if you play a game solely for realism, you are a massive sucker and deserve a sledgehammer to the groin.
Dismissing someone's tastes for no good reason is even more deserving of a sledgehammer to the groin ;)

Touche.

Brethern · Post by **Brethern** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:50 pm

Anyone play sniper elite? that game has some of the best sniper mechanics there is.

I also like arma 2.

Stormweaver · Post by **Stormweaver** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:59 pm

Brethern wrote:Anyone play sniper elite? that game has some of the best sniper mechanics there is.

I also like arma 2.

Heh, I've played Arma 2. Unfortunately, My PC isn't the greatest out there...it had annoying FPS drops even at the lowest possible settings (and it's settings go quite low), and the sniper was literally the only unit I could ever kill things with.

CreeperCommando · Post by **CreeperCommando** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:52 pm

I've tried the ARMA 2 demo twice and both times I stopped at the tutorial part as the game seemed both buggy and not having good interface design (doesn't mean that the interface itself was bad...). It always feels like that the game designers gave up on the interface-designing and slapped the whole hotkey heap at you for you to figure out everything...
The predecessor operation flashpoint dragon rising however gave me more positive feedback, although I haven't played it that much....

Some gamedesigners tend to categorise game creation in three parts:
Core mechanics
Storytelling and narrative
Interactivity

(Although the source is much more neutral on the standpoint of 'graphics vs gameplay-mechanics', it quickly gave me the picture to still prefer game-mechanics over graphics)

This model would be a good argument as to why ARMA 2 is technically a FPS simulator, due to the 'storytelling and narrative' take full precedence over the other two other parts, them only there to fill the 'storytelling' (made as a highly dynamic story setting?).

BigShinyToys · Post by **BigShinyToys** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:25 am

I have played way too much FPS and in all that time I have never had a problem with snipers. I play mainly COD only a little BF not a fan too slow passed for me. I prefer the chaos of shipment or other small maps with small team numbers 2v2 - 4v4 . actually I prefer me vs the rest but I digress. I have played as sniper and profited add a silencer and thermal sight then double tap quickly and they are dead before the second damage packet is transmitter to there console. yes I play play station and prefer game pad to keyboard. Not a fan of picking up and moving my mouse ;) . snipers have one major flaw they get powned from Mg's as soon as your position is given away from fireing then you get over run and die. I use snipers a little subs and MG's are my new personal preference. the real problem is the lack of any kind of hand to hand combat. the network latency is a real strategy killer it makes spaming fire the most affective tactics and a sniper with a acod scope can do some serious rounds per second in the right hands. I have personally emptied a full clip into a player as a final kill using the barret 50 . even in slow motion it was quick fire rate. I copped so much complaining about it. despite that i got owned by shotguns most of the round. snipping is by know means a garmented kill. Most of the time it leaves you prone with your position given away. making snipers anything less than a one hit kill makes them useless as the player runs like a rabbit when the first hit occurs. snipers are something we are stuck with but they arnt the perfect strategy. stealth and a shotgun will most times net hight kills against snipers most of the time i find using that tactic forces them to change strategy to something else.

Sandrew · Post by **Sandrew** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:06 pm

This thread was started in 2011. Like, woah, man.

I still like this discussion, as the role of 'sniper' (more like camper usually) is almost indefinitely filled by people who suck at actually playing the game. I haven't played a shooter in years, but the last time I did I made it a sport to kill snipers (the camping ones preferably) with unscoped bolt-action rifles in COD1 or by sneaking up on them and hitting them over the head with the butt of my rifle. It was good times.

BigShinyToys · Post by **BigShinyToys** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:49 pm

Sandrew wrote:This thread was started in 2011. Like, woah, man.

I still like this discussion, as the role of 'sniper' (more like camper usually) is almost indefinitely filled by people who suck at actually playing the game. I haven't played a shooter in years, but the last time I did I made it a sport to kill snipers (the camping ones preferably) with unscoped bolt-action rifles in COD1 or by sneaking up on them and hitting them over the head with the butt of my rifle. It was good times.

This showed up as a new topic for some reason my apologies.

Extreme Boyheat · Post by **Extreme Boyheat** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:00 pm

Only recent game I've played that has snipers in it Planetside 2. In the overall scheme of things they don't really do much to impact on large-scale battles.
They may be annoying if you're killed by one but you respawn in a few seconds.
There are a dozen others guys who have already made it to the objective, because the sniper can only kill one person at a time.

CreeperCommando · Post by **CreeperCommando** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:42 pm

Actually, Planetside 2 has rather good 'sniper balance' where they more acts as long distance suppression. Forcing players to bunny-hop between buildings.
I'm guessing that due to the few areas that the snipers are really effective (open grounds) also tends to be the most mech heavy, which leads to the snipers being forced to give up the lone-wolf tactic. Adding to the fact that machine gunners and ARs can spec into long distance weapons, the game closes the gap between the classes effective ranges.

Extreme Boyheat · Post by **Extreme Boyheat** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:44 pm

I think the Terran infiltrator has a full automatic carbine of sorts which is pretty effective in close-quarters too.

Nexus Trimean · Post by **Nexus Trimean** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:55 pm

Actually This topic being Brought up now Seems Rather Fortuitous. I have been playing a lot of World of Tanks as of Late an Lurking on there forums. Where a rather active and heated discussion is ongoing about WoT's Version of the "Sniper" Artillery units.

A quick overview, Artillery gets a special view mode, Much like you would see for a satellite strike in most games, top down of the battle field. They can fire and move from this view point, and see targets spotted by their allies. and fire upon them, often without being able to Directly see the target they are firing upon. They do have to deal with CoF bloom when moving there gun, (aim time varies from gun to gun) but often runs 3-10 seconds. as well as Shell travel time. (Variable, depending on distance, up to 4 seconds corner to corner on the largest maps)

There have been a lot of people bitching about how over powered Artillery is because they can fire over some hills, with no chance for retaliation, and they generally have very powerful guns. Much Like the sniper debate in the FPS. However as stated above WoT's Artillery players have to deal with a number of things to keep them from being point click monsters, Shell Travel Time, and Aim time, Long reload times (my mid tiers load in about 8 seconds, the top tiers can take 20+) limited Ammunition supplies, and the High cost of those ammo supplies, plus if they are spotted, most other tanks can destroy them with a singe shot (and they reload much faster)

Is that enough of a handicap to create balance? What else would you consider to make the Gameplay Fair, and enjoyable for everyone?

"The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)

Re: "The Sniper Problem" (Game Design Discussion)