Well, I've always heard ideas to make the EM6 their starting rifle, so that seems to indicate that they really don't like too high damage weapons... Essentially, if you increase the speed and weight of the bullet, you also increase the kick. Reducing the weight of the rifle would make that kick even stronger. A forcefield could still stop it, depending on how it works and how strong it is.Also the impenetrable shields I was talking about were the spawn room ones. The MAX has a faceplate that seems to be 2 inches of a material capable of stopping a 150mm AP round round. Seems like defensive tech is doing pretty well here? In the end, it depends on how you define defensive tech defeating offensive. You're never gonna have perfect defense or perfect offense, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a war, would there? And I wouldn't say that HE shells aren't intended for taking out infantry... But we digress. Your opinion was that we would never be capable of stopping a sniper rifle bullet with something that you can deploy on an infantryman. But to ancient Egyptians stopping an arrow with body armor was unthinkable, but by the 14th century it was quite possible.
I found a good 188 yard position today but I just found out the screenshot didn't work. I don't even remember where I was.
They don't seem to like Infiltrators as a whole, judging from what they're doing to our range and how our stealth has worked throughout the course of the entire game. It's pretty obvious that the development team consists primarily, if not completely, of run and gun oriented players who grew up on new gen FPS games which focused around small maps. Every change they make for the Infiltrator seems heavily geared towards turning us into a typical run and gun oriented class, from the SMG to the Infiltrator Update and finally to this proposed update on sniper rifles. Rather, I suppose I should say that they just don't like long ranged snipers. Again, this is not nessisarily true. The theoretical gauss rifle has less recoil than conventional weapons...and does much more damage. Granted, they typically have a larger projectile...if I remember correctly. The VS have weapons that have little recoil as well, due to the type of technology they use. With that said, I'd be happy to have prone incorporated into the game. Depends heavily on how the shields work. I theorized that they're kinetically based due to the ability for the knives to penetrate...low velocity objects actually do better at penetrating the shields than high velocity. With that said, the rounds incorporated into the sniper rifles could theoretically be shielded in a material that negates this low grade shielding. The material that performs this function is likely to be expensive, hence the reason why it's not too terribly utilized on the battlefield and restricted to snipers...who are supposed to make as many of their shots count as possible. One could argue why they don't kill by striking a body shot...but that's pretty obvious, gameplay. It's doing well...it's just not exceeding the ability to kill. As you said, if there was a perfect defense...there wouldn't be much of a war. The entire system of the ability to kill over defense goes with the system of having counters, that's why a MAX can take a 150mm AP round to the face...but suffers more significant damage from other sources. Truth be told, I'd like a little more realism in the game...but they took the whole counter system to the extreme. If a tank hits me with any type of round...I should probably be in pieces. Actually, that's a very good example of my point... After a while, we succeeded in defense against arrows....................................and then bullets came into existence, completely destroying that defense. That's what happens, you figure out a way to defend against a method of killing...and something better comes along, the art of killing always exceeds defense. Granted, your spawn room shields were a good example, but I've been killed by tank rounds while behind those walls. True, this is due to a glitch...but still. With that said, it's a good example of a defense technology that has no counter beyond turning the base towards your own faction...but it's still not something that's been shrunk down into a personal shield, and what we have is weak. What it ultimately boils down to is, if not long ranged sniping...why tanks, why aircraft, why anything? Why not just have Quake Arena where everyone is essentially equivalent to one another.
I can confirm three kills outside the 150m cap with an M-77b BASR. A HA at 163 and the infiltrator next to him. And an AV turret engineer from ~210m. And a commissioner kill from 100m on a flying LA... Needless to say, today was a good day for the infiltrator. And of course all of these are headshots (yes even the miracle kill with the commissioner). Thanks SOE!
1HS = Kill no matter from where SOE please get some people for balance who know this game, not the staff that is doing it normal pls...
I don't snipe often, and I often get killed by snipers I cannot see. As someone who mains light-assault I have absolutely no problems with getting oneshotted at the 300m range so long as it's a headshot. As far as I'm concerned, If you have to consider bullet drop, lag time, and possible target movement, and still get the headshot, you deserve the kill. Summary: Sniper headshots should always kill. Coming from a non-sniper.
I think it should be brought up to those arguing about the real weapons vs in game weaponry that we are playing characters made of nanites using weapons made of nanites and presumably firing nanite bullets or shells. We have no idea if traditional military weapons even affect nanite soldier bodies or if the regular laws of physics even apply to nanites because they could be similar to a hologram where real matter just passes through without any effect. Similarly the bullet drop for these weapons and bullet speeds could be restricted based on nanites properties which we do not understand since they are fictional. And also before I hear more argument nanite weapons are designed to disrupt the connection between the players consciousness and their avatar. Regular bullets may not be able to do this. In the world of planet side not a single life is actually lost in this war which we fight endlessly, we are simply controlling a nanite avatar which fights against other nanite avatars controlled by people of different factions. This is the future of warfare. Nobody dies.
<3 Science Fiction is based upon theoretical science. Nanotechnology is already being developed today, just not to the extreme lengths displayed in Planetside 2. However, and quite ironically enough, if we ever exist long enough to perfect the technology...the applications will EXCEED what's in Planetside 2. If you want to have the body of a dragon, you can theoretically do that way down the road. Nanites are nothing more than microscopic machines, but they can be used to augment living tissue...or replace it in the case that we transfer our consciousness to robotic bodies. There's a myriad of potential paths humanity could take with nanotechnology... - Remaining biological with the aid of nanotechnology as a means to rid ourselves of disease, aging, etc... Or... - Essentially downloading our minds into completely artificial forms that can be reassembled and configured to our pleasing. In an extremely long timeline, we could be either artificial or organic and still achieve whatever form we choose through the use of nanotechnology and genetic engineering. This is all stuff that's being talked about today, based upon what science we DO have and believe is possible. Not too long ago, Harvard reverted the aging process of mice...to give you a sense of what we're doing that the common folk would deem absolute science fiction. That's what science fiction is though...it's theoretical possibilities based upon current scientific fact. So, using reality to argue things is actually a pretty good idea...because the best science fiction is based off real life and what may transpire way down the road based upon that.
PS2 lore is 100% nonsense because organic limitations are brutal and the future of warfare is robotic. Why on earth would you ever want to use meatbags not able to withstand 10g, with reaction times in hundreds of milliseconds, lousy max speed, limited vision (both fov and spectrum) and aiming using oldfashioned eyes and limbs? Nanite-powered machines would win hands down. Also I'd never want to experience a violent death, being blown to pieces, losing limbs and whatnot even if was not for real.
So, lets put it this way: -Over 150 meters - paralax - bullet to the head will not kill, ergo two body shots will not kill. Kill on 2 x ohk or 3 x body shot. -Over 150 meters - nyx - bullet to the head will not kill. But two bullets to the head will kill [2 x 2 x 250]. No sway, no trail, dandy suppresion sound, super fast refire rate [comparing to bolt action]. Ive done tests on static targets. 27 inch lcd + 4xZoom. Its doable even on render distance. Suddenly scout rifle is more efficient, more quiet, faster and better designed for lond range sniping. Excuse me? Where is logic here? Scout > Sniper rifle ? I get it - more fps - better fluid gameplay. Better gpu - better visible infiltrators. But now - the bigger the screen, the better sniper? Ive tried it also on 17 inch laptopt - no way - my eyes hurt on x4. [Keep in mind, im writing this basing on the data provided by soe on forum]. Either we will have above paradox, or nyx will be even more nerfed.
Well, nobody really likes long ranged snipers because nobody likes not being able to fight back =P I'm pretty sure that by Newton's third law the recoil will be pretty much the same even if it is a gauss rifle? VS weapons would be different because they don't use kinetic energy to kill. Still, TR use regular bullets... Why would any material be expensive when you can just replicate anything you want because nanites? There's always a bigger gun and there's always a deeper bunker, doesn't mean that a 2 inch plate that can stop a 150mm AP shell isn't pretty damn effective... so if it can stop it, why couldn't a forcefield just as advanced stop a sniper bullet? It took hundreds of years before bullets were actually made practical: the early ones usually just got their wielders killed. But the point I was trying to make is that while we may think that it's impossible to make a defense against something now but in the future everything's possible. Even now you have helmets that do a decent job of stopping weaker rifle bullets. Well, they designed it that way. They just obviously don't want to have people dying from such long ranges. From a game design perspective it makes a lot of sense, just like nerfing A2A lockons makes a lot of sense even though 600 years from now noseguns should probably be ancient history.
I would like to point out that realism can be docked for the backseat for two main reasons: A) It is a game B) one side uses conventional weapons, another uses gauss weaponry, and the final uses lasers. All do the same general damage. For the sake of gameplay, let's be realistic in saying that realism would have a hard time fitting in. I think comparison to other FPS's would be better. Now, think of a common/major title FPS game that does not allow OHK with sniper rifles. Most new customers are likely to come from these games and are going to be slightly confused when even the default rifles (TR and VS) cannot OHK to the head. Period. BASR's would be their next investment, and we all know that only headshots matter there. So that puts them off to try something else. Like smg infiltrator. I would rather deal with 5 sniper z1967's than one smg z1967.
It's frustration based. As an Infiltrator, I can't fight back against an enemy vehicle or aircraft either...I can't do anything to them at all. This is why communication and teamplay is so incredibly important...you need those classes, vehicles, or aircraft that can deal with what you're having trouble with. Like I said previously, I loathe Harassers...and I sure as hell can't fight back against them. As I said previously, Planetside 2 is a real time strategy game alongside a first person shooter, and it should be treated as such. Call in another sniper, and there you go. Well, we're implementing a resource system into the game...so that should essentially make this a little more realistic. You need a material for the nanites to be created from, and I believe that's what they're essentially incorporating into the game...and making it reflect their old resource concept from the original game with a more up to date style. In reality, it's theoretically possible that nanites could replicate themselves from organic and non-organic components...like replicators off of Stargate SG1. This, however, wouldn't translate into the game very much...and ultimately, you still have to have a base material to construct the nanites from. There's a constant progression in technology, but as I said...there's always an advancement in killing technology over defensive. Take reality, for example, where our single most advanced form of war oriented technology happens to be nuclear weapons...capable of devastation which we have no real or adequate defense from. Using a nuke is so devastating that we have all essentially decided not to use them. The technology to kill just always exceeds the ability to defend yourself...and each time a type of defensive technology is released that's capable of nullifying the previous methods of killing, something new comes out that makes that defensive tech obsolete or generally inadequate. Sniper rifles are dedicated to taking out infantry with a single hit, and in a futuristic setting...if you have guns that are capable of bypassing that shield through repeated fire...whittling it down as we can in Planetside 2...there's going to be a technology capable of bypassing it altogether, but it's likely to be less cost efficient due to what's needed. We have helmets that do quite well against weaker rounds, hell we have body armor that's great at doing well against many weapons. We also, however, have alternate technology that makes most of these armors obsolete. We have high caliber ammunition such as the 50.cal from your Barret Sniper Rifle, for a modern example. ...in a not so modern example, we have plenty of things in development that are likely to be released before any type of superior armor. Ways to kill with radiation and sound have progressed further than defensive technologies, for example. You can make someone sick, crazy, and even kill them with sound based weapons...which we're toying around with while experimenting with who knows what else. If we ever shrink down coilgun technology...the devastation those could cause to infantry would be ungodly. Hell, we're even working on tiny miniature mosquito-like robots that can inject a toxin into your bloodstream and kill you instantly. This is stuff we're working on. Our desire to devise new ways to kill eachother is always far more motivated than our drive to protect...and the simple way that technology works also tends to ensure that this happens. If you fabricate a technology capable of protecting someone, it's typically the case that you can use that same exact technology to take out someone using that type of technology...or you have simply advanced in technological intelligence to fabricate something else capable of doing so. For example, with the shields we have in Planetside 2... We have the ability to certify the ability to bypass stronger shields with our vehichles...so it's extremely likely that we have the technology to incorporate something similar into high caliber ammunition that can completely nullify these shields. It would, however, make for some expensive ammunition. The ability to kill in a single shot, just like in reality, makes it worth it. With that all said, It doesn't really make sense that they would do this, seeing as how it pushes an entire playing style out of the game. Long ranged sniping gives people who do not have adequate twitch response mechanics a way to play a first person shooter that isn't based around twitch response...BUT...is balanced and challenging in its own way. Trying to balance a game based upon the frustration of your players, rather than actual balance, is not a good idea...especially for a game that's NOT supposed to be a simplistic team arena. Frustration is something that provides one of the most significant psychological rewards when you overcome it within a game. I have seen a few run and gun oriented players support long ranged sniping and say that they revel in the challenge of not only avoiding that one hit kill from an enemy Infiltrator...but running right at them while weaving, and then hosing them when they get to their location. When they can't do that...they simply shrug and avoid them completely, because it's not like we're doing anything productive if we're incapable of killing you. If you make us miss, you pretty much DID kill us. We have the same punishment...a loss of time that could have otherwise been used to score experience points. We HAVE to nail that headshot...or we fall behind in our experience per hour gain compared to yours. Make us miss...you effectively kill us. Also a good point... Let me clarify that I'm not saying that realism should come over gameplay, just that good science fiction is based upon theoretical possibilities in reality. Also...I'd honestly like to see a little more realism put into the weapon technology of the three races...meaning that I would like to see the VS gain a little more of a technical flare to their weapons, and the NC more true to theoretical gauss tech. The three factions should feel VERY much like they're using completely different forms of technology...and since this is ultimately a real time strategy game on the macro scale, we COULD do this and make it work...just like Starcraft.
150mm plate armour stops the shell by dispersing the kinetic energy. Unfortunately, for an infantryman, his key weakness is the part of the body between head and shoulders. Unless he's wearing full mech armour, ie a MAX, there's no neck reinforcement. Even if the bullet doesn't penetrate the shield, the kinetic force is being applied, and I'm fairly certain even a nanite-built soldier can't withstand half a tonne of force being instantaneously dealt. So, yes, helmets can stop small arms bullets, but they still wont save you from snipers. You may want to review the history of the F4 Phantom, and their noseguns.
If snipers are OP because the only counter is another sniper and the best infantry can do is annoy them for a while, then aircraft with flares are OP. Whenever I lock on with my AA rocket launcher and fire they just use flares and boost away only to come back ten seconds later. Since the only counter to aircraft with flares and boosting is another aircraft (which wastes aircraft resources just to counter) this is unfair because all my rocket launcher does is force them to fly away for a while, only to come back and continue firing. It is totally unfair because I am a mediocre pilot and, since I can't go toe-to-toe in an ESF, there is no way for me to take out an aircraft firing at me. /s
I was bored once and decided to see how much sniper fire was needed to kill an enemy max. Started sniping him in the head, he didn't care (probably didn't notice), went through a magazine and a half then I realized this would never be worth my time.
In one of Mustarde's clips there was a footage of the all inf squad alphaowning a MAX, iirc it was 2 salvos. For all intents and purposes they are immune to snipers.
Frankly I'm more annoyed at getting gunned down from behind by an SMG infiltrator than headshotted at 300m by a bolt action infiltrator. In the latter case I'm more impressed with the skill. Moreover the loss of headshots at 300m will reduce the number of bolt action users, since the chief advantage they have is damage and range, specifically for extremely long distance sniping. Instead we'll see more semi auto snipers who try to get the 2-3 hit body shots rather than headshots. Not much of a problem, since we all have to learn to shoot somewhere. My issue is with the fact that there will be MANY more SMGfiltrators. Fortunately my shotgun seems to love them.
Didnt they pull off the range limit on sniping? Like in the last "reddit-ama-stuff" ? NV change will go live, render distance will OHK.
I read something about that...but I figured it was a quote taken out of context due to the vague words used. Basically, they still haven't decided but it wasn't nessisarily scrapped. If they changed their mind about the sniper rifle cap...I'd be downright smitten and hope it was a product of my countless walls of friggan text detailing my perception of long ranged sniping balance, what we do, and how we'll be able to do it better once this damn optimization is finished... ....................I just don't want to get my hopes up and be a sad panda.
