Slashdot Mirror
On FPS Sniping And The Ruination Of Gameplay
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."
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.
Its only the newbies that complain. Once you get into skilled gameplay (think leauges), no one complains. The awp in counterstrike costs $4725, way too risky unless you have the money to back it up. You can take out an awp with ak or colt really easily to, or you could just keep the awper flashed/smoked and they won't be able to hit you.
Play the game, don't cry about the game. It's more fun once you learn how to play.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
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.
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.
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.
There was a fantastic mod for the original Unreal (it was called serpentine, if anyone else remembers it) that actually did all of what you're talking about. IIRC, it had the zoomed view, manual reloading, time-of-flight, something like double-damage on headshots with all weapons, and grenades with realistic blast radius. I only wish I could find a version for Unreal Tournament...
Having to lead your target, figure the drop over the range, and reload the sniper rifle after 5 shots made for a lot of fun.
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).
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.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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
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.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
This total control is why the sniper is feared. Their gun is no more deadly than an AK-47 in real life - a bullet is a bullet, and the author says this in the article.
.30-06 with a shortened case. The .30-06 will reliably take down anything short of an elephant; and it'll even take down an elephant if you can get a good shot. (At the dawn of the 20th century, the .30-06 and 8mm Mausers were weapons of choice for African poachers.) It's used, repeatedly and successfully, against bears, elk, moose, water buffalo, rams, and other big and tough-to-kill animals.
.300 Winchester Magnum... four thousand foot-pounds. Or the .338 Lapua... five thousand foot-pounds. And these are all common sniper weapons.)
The muzzle energy of a 5.56mm NATO (the M-16's cartridge) is about 1300 foot-pounds. The muzzle energy of a 7.62mm Russian (the AK-47's cartridge) is about 1500 foot-pounds.
The muzzle energy of a 7.62mm NATO (most military sniper weapons) runs 2,650 foot-pounds. In other words, a 7.62mm sniper rifle more than doubles the muzzle energy of an assault rifle.
The number one indicator of how bad a gunshot will hurt you is where the bullet is placed. A 9mm to the tip of the nose will obliterate the medulla oblongata and cause instantaneous death within a hundredth of a second; but a 12-gauge to the foot will just take off your foot.
The number two indicator of how bad a gunshot will hurt you is how much muzzle energy the round has, and the round's wound ballistics. Read Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down for examples. Army Rangers equipped with the M-16A2 were scoring multiple torso hits against Somali insurgents, but the 5.56mm round simply went clean through. It left neat holes which, while painful and probably eventually lethal for the insurgents, didn't do very much to incapacitate them.
On the other hand, the Delta Force snipers were equipped with M-14 battle rifles firing the 7.62mm NATO round. The 7.62mm round more than doubled the muzzle energy of the 5.56mm round--and unlike the 5.56mm round, the 7.62mm rounds generally did not exit their targets. The Delta Force snipers were getting reliable one-hit kills--not incapacitations, outright kills--on pretty much any shot that landed from the pelvis on up.
The 7.62mm cartridge is basically a
The 5.56mm cartridge is a varminting round--typically used against anything up to a coyote.
Not all bullets are created equal. Shot placement is first and foremost the determinant of damage; but it's nonsense to say that an AK-47 round does roughly equal tissue damage and trauma to a 7.62mm NATO round.
(And don't even get me started on the
But I would venture to guess even a few hits from the pelvis up from an AK-47 would incapacitate most soldiers (I note you didn't compare the AK to sniper rifles, which are the two main weapons in CS. I'd be more interested in that)
.338 Lapua or the .300 Winchester Magnum.
I did compare the two. Most sniper rifles today use the 7.62 x 51mm NATO cartridge--2,650 foot-pounds of force. That'd cover the PSG-1, the M24, the M40, the M21, the MSG-90, the Accuracy Internationals, etc.
Some higher-caliber weapons use the
The AK-47 uses the 7.62mm x 39mm Russian cartridge--1,500 foot-pounds of force.
And as the Black Hawk Down example shows, sometimes assault rifles do a pretty lousy job of putting the bad guy down. Admittedly, half the reason there was the ammunition used was armor-piercing (and as such tended to punch clean through instead of causing a lot of wound trauma), but the 5.56mm M-16A2 versus the 7.62mm M-21 comparison is a good real-world example of the differences between the two.
That said, the few FPSes I enjoy playing are Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six: Raven Shield. In both of those games, wound effects are frighteningly realistic. If you get hit, and the wound breaches your armor, you're very likely to be incapacitated or killed from just one round.
From the article
.338 Lapua Magnum caliber can push a 200 grain
.338 Lapua at 250 grains, we get a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps.
.338 Lapua would slice through it like butter.
"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
bullet to over 3200 fps.
Or if we were to consider the
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, but the
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano