[quote=GeneralButtNaked]

What is the point of being a Sniper if you have to be in range of assault weapons to use them? I have to get into my stance (making me immobile), pull my rifle up, line up the shot, and shoot, while you are putting 10-15-20 rounds in me at the same distance. I get a total of 3-5 shots before reloading and you have a 50 round or more per magazine on rapid fire.

What you are saying is taking away the entire point of a sniper... Reach out and touch someone . The entire purpose of a Sniper (real world) is long range suppression and assistance. Right now it is a 2.5 to 1 ratio (250 vs. 600). That isn't unrealistic by any means, If anything, it is underwhelming. Just like in real life, Snipers SHOULD have more distance to their shots. A 338 Lapua or a 416 Rigby (or a Barrett .50 Cal while we're talking about it) have much longer accurate ranges than an M-16 or AK-47. The three previously mentioned can all reach out to about a mile (the Barrett .50 in 2012 had a confirmed kill at 1.75 miles. Granted, that's a world record, but a 1 mile shot is not unheard of anymore in the sniping world, just extremely difficult.) However, the documented and accepted max effective range is 1.1 miles.

An M16A2 has a max effective range for AREA, not person specific, targets of about 1/2 a mile; an M4 is only 1/3 of a mile. I know as of 2008 the Army didn't even do shooting (for regular forces, I'm not sure on SF, etc.) of 330 yards which is less than 2/10 of a mile. An AK-47 only has about a 225 yard max effective distance which is about 1/10 of a mile. So really, if an assault rifle has a max effective range of 250, we should be seeing 1000 minimum distance which is only 4 times farther, not the 6 times farther of the standard world.

The maps and their layouts have taken the sniper out of 80% of them. I don't want to be a guy just sitting up in the hills picking a few guys off and getting 4-5 kills a game. But many of the maps are set up where there is no Line of Sight to any or only 1 of the Null cannons on the map. If that single null cannon isn't being contested, there's not a whole lot I can do. Until recently, I only had sniper skills so I'm not going charging into the middle of a firefight at 100 meters and in just to get whacked.

On that same note, it is really upsetting when I get into a position to be helpful to the team, see a bunch of reds on a ledge, put 5 or 6 rounds from a maxed out Charge Sniper Rifle (running 3 complex and 1 enhanced light damage modifier) into someone and they don't go down. I had a game recently where there were 3 guys on a ledge (1 heavy and 2 mediums I believe). I put 25 rounds into the three of them. I'd be willing to bet 19 of them hit. I didn't kill one of them. I once hit a heavy with 3 HEAD SHOTS in a row and they still had almost full armor. When I can put 100 rounds out during a match, put 60% on target (I'd say that is a good # for this debate), and I'm only ending up with 6 kills, there is something wrong here. Look at the info in my first comment. Each weapon in this game has it's real world counterpart (the rail and forge gun are protos but there is still something out there.) Most machine guns take several rounds through armor. A shotgun blast is going to take out pretty much anything at close range. On the same note, a Barrett .50 Cal (or anything used for sniping by most miltary snipers) are a one shot, one kill type of weapon. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that should theoretically be a 2 shot at most weapon can't take someone out with 6 or 7 shots.

Something needs to be done to make the Sniper at least a viable option on the battlefield instead of relegating it into uselessness.

[quote=GeneralButtNaked]

What is the point of being a Sniper if you have to be in range of assault weapons to use them? I have to get into my stance (making me immobile), pull my rifle up, line up the shot, and shoot, while you are putting 10-15-20 rounds in me at the same distance. I get a total of 3-5 shots before reloading and you have a 50 round or more per magazine on rapid fire.

What you are saying is taking away the entire point of a sniper... Reach out and touch someone . The entire purpose of a Sniper (real world) is long range suppression and assistance. Right now it is a 2.5 to 1 ratio (250 vs. 600). That isn't unrealistic by any means, If anything, it is underwhelming. Just like in real life, Snipers SHOULD have more distance to their shots. A 338 Lapua or a 416 Rigby (or a Barrett .50 Cal while we're talking about it) have much longer accurate ranges than an M-16 or AK-47. The three previously mentioned can all reach out to about a mile (the Barrett .50 in 2012 had a confirmed kill at 1.75 miles. Granted, that's a world record, but a 1 mile shot is not unheard of anymore in the sniping world, just extremely difficult.) However, the documented and accepted max effective range is 1.1 miles.

An M16A2 has a max effective range for AREA, not person specific, targets of about 1/2 a mile; an M4 is only 1/3 of a mile. I know as of 2008 the Army didn't even do shooting (for regular forces, I'm not sure on SF, etc.) of 330 yards which is less than 2/10 of a mile. An AK-47 only has about a 225 yard max effective distance which is about 1/10 of a mile. So really, if an assault rifle has a max effective range of 250, we should be seeing 1000 minimum distance which is only 4 times farther, not the 6 times farther of the standard world.

The maps and their layouts have taken the sniper out of 80% of them. I don't want to be a guy just sitting up in the hills picking a few guys off and getting 4-5 kills a game. But many of the maps are set up where there is no Line of Sight to any or only 1 of the Null cannons on the map. If that single null cannon isn't being contested, there's not a whole lot I can do. Until recently, I only had sniper skills so I'm not going charging into the middle of a firefight at 100 meters and in just to get whacked.

On that same note, it is really upsetting when I get into a position to be helpful to the team, see a bunch of reds on a ledge, put 5 or 6 rounds from a maxed out Charge Sniper Rifle (running 3 complex and 1 enhanced light damage modifier) into someone and they don't go down. I had a game recently where there were 3 guys on a ledge (1 heavy and 2 mediums I believe). I put 25 rounds into the three of them. I'd be willing to bet 19 of them hit. I didn't kill one of them. I once hit a heavy with 3 HEAD SHOTS in a row and they still had almost full armor. When I can put 100 rounds out during a match, put 60% on target (I'd say that is a good # for this debate), and I'm only ending up with 6 kills, there is something wrong here. Look at the info in my first comment. Each weapon in this game has it's real world counterpart (the rail and forge gun are protos but there is still something out there.) Most machine guns take several rounds through armor. A shotgun blast is going to take out pretty much anything at close range. On the same note, a Barrett .50 Cal (or anything used for sniping by most miltary snipers) are a one shot, one kill type of weapon. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that should theoretically be a 2 shot at most weapon can't take someone out with 6 or 7 shots.

Something needs to be done to make the Sniper at least a viable option on the battlefield instead of relegating it into uselessness.

I went through and numbered your comments, hope you don't mind.


1. The railgun argument has some basis so I can somewhat agree with that. however, instead of nerfing the sniper, give the railgun a longer range.

I will concur with the scope strength. It is massively annoying when sniping from the "extreme" ranges of 500m away where a portion of the time they wont render (not to mention the buildings and surrounding terrain look like butt) or phase out into building walls or just flat out pop out of existence. 500 meters.....that is NOT that far away people. I was hitting targets in the service with a 240 bravo at that distance without much trouble....and you are telling me that dust sniper tech/optics are barely making the cut? I could understand reduced distance if it was out to 1000, but the suspension of disbelief at this point is bothersome.

On another note I went on a sniping spree with the NT-511, which I used to use very frequently prior to 1.8. However with all the damage nerfs this go 'round that thing hits like a wet noodle. Its taking approx. 5 shots to down SOME mediums...these are non headshots of course, but prior to 1.8 it was somewhere like 3. I do not/can not/will not understand how you can justify it taking that many rounds on mediums (even more bothersome with heavies becoming more popular), hell even some scouts are taking 2-3 shots at a time. Yeah, I'll get hate for saying it, but the phrase "One shot, One Kill" is there for a reason. At this stage of the patch I am not sure the devs were paying attention to everything that the damage mod nerf and proficiency changes were affecting. I still run a 5 damage mod logi and even now its a massive pain in the rear with anything less than proto level weapons (in comparison, naturally). Stop rubber banding our balls CCP!

1) Increase range of SR scopes (back to 800 preferably)
2) Increase SR Damage to compensate for patch reductions
3) Alternative optics (thermal imaging, Night Vision, etc etc)

See you in the burn zone!

Snipers tend to make me angry, and no it's not they keep killing me and I'm losing my suits while they're safely sitting back in the red zone away from the battle complaining that they want hit detection for that kind of range. No, this is about playing Domination and having 3-10 snipers on my own team camping the red line/mountains. Can't really take an objective When most of my team is hiding up in the red line with a sniper rifle thinking they're making a difference, though in all reality I think they really don't care if they win or lose as long as their k/d is good. They don't even bother trying to take out enemy snipers because my guess is if we miss a shot at them, they might figure out where we're at and we might actually die or something.

It's like they group up in the mountains, huddle around, somebody brings a 30 pack, and they just watch their team lose, but it's ok, their k/d is positive! Need more of an incentive for people to put down a sniper rifle and actually get into the battle and actually win a game. Their win/lose ratio might be terrible, but it's all about k/d man. Reminds me of this old comic I read that featured 2 cats as the main characters, they did an Unreal 2004 Assault strip about the train level where the attackers had to board the enemy train. All the attackers just got on their platform with sniper rifles and didn't bother boarding the enemy train then after the battle were like wtf, how did we lose? I got out my sniper rifle and everything.

Suck my massive tanker d!ck, you little scrub.

Im no coward. I've never hidden out in the redline, and my main target have always been other tanks. So I definitely put myself and my expensive tanks on the line. A lot of the times i'm even alone against several other tanks, because useless noobs like you think that you should get away with only speccing into infantry crap. I cover YOUR ass from the blaster maddys and somas that would've buttraped you if I wasn't there.

So take your "coward demographic" remark and shove it.

OnT:

Hate my own teams snipers for that very reason. There are ways to **** them off though. When I see a bunch of chickenshit snipers hiding in our redline and the battle is going bad, I run up to them and crouch right in front of them, blocking their scopes and field of view.

Claims hes not a coward
Sits in a safety shell with thousands of EHP that resists most weapons and self heals

I really don't understand the tanker hate, why group all tankers in the same category?