Oh dear, you can't use the sniper rifle as a CQC weapon

[Tagaziel]

I wasn't trying to say that Fallout 1 or 2 didn't have issues with balancing. I think this is besides the point.

Then don't bring them up in an irrelevant tangent.

The scope of choice in designing sniper rifles is either quickscoping or no firing untill the target is at a minimum distance?

What other point allowing the player character's to use sniper rifles in absolutely every position, even if the enemy is right next them, has?

I thought the range, slowness, and few shots was what made sniper rifles distinct, and that this arbitrary restriction is unnecessary.

Why is it unnecessary? So that players don't have to deal with maintaining distance and providing cover for their marksmen? You and Solar are both blowing this out of proportion.

You can't use the sniper rifle if the enemy is too close, as in, next to you, or close by. It's a simple bit of gameplay making different weapons more distinct, is all. Unless you plan on charging enemy head on with everyone and using sniper rifles on people right next to you, you're not even going to notice it.

You simply can not say that this arbitrary little change is all that holds the game back from having characters able to kill anything up to medium range with a sniper rifle while running.

Never said it. You're claiming that it's arbitrary, making it seem like it ruins the entire game system by not allowing you to use sniper rifles in close combat.

Arguing that without it, a top down tactical rpg, has a distinct action fps feature, as seriously as you do is absurd. You can't seriously say that "It's really no problem, Solar's just having one of his days I guess, taking a completely irrelevant point and complaining."

Because it is completely irrelevant. It's a small little feature that makes sense. At the distances this is triggered, your enemy would simply grab the rifle and break it over your head.

So the game already has what I suggested? I don't quite see how that is a point in your favor.

I don't see how that matters. It was mentioned that range affects accuracy and different weapons have different applications. What you and Solar did was take a minor feature of sniper rifles and making it out into some kind of tragic limitations that ruins gameplay.

I really like how you remove some of Surf Solar's arguments in his quote here.

He edited them in after I posted the reply. The point still stands: it's pointless nitpicking. He might as well argue that the game includes statistics that don't reflect every possible real life situation. Because, surprise, this is a game and, as all games are, it's an abstraction of reality.

 

[Akratus]

I wasn't trying to say that Fallout 1 or 2 didn't have issues with balancing. I think this is besides the point.

Then don't bring them up in an irrelevant tangent.

It wasn't irrelevant. I was saying, that being able to shoot someone standing next to you with a sniper rifle in Fallout 1 or 2 is not a problem in those games. If you do think it's a problem, then surely it's still the least of your worries when it comes to F1 and 2 combat issues. It's a bottom of the barrel issue. It doesn't affect the game being able to shoot then or not.

The scope of choice in designing sniper rifles is either quickscoping or no firing untill the target is at a minimum distance?

What other point allowing the player character's to use sniper rifles in absolutely every position, even if the enemy is right next them, has?

Can you rephrase that? I don't that's a proper english sentence. Or are you asking me what point it has to be able to shoot someone right next to you?

Well duh.
-Freedom of choice.
-Realism.
-Sense of immersion, firing a weapon not for it's intended use in a panic.
-You might get a lucky moment, one of those watercooler stories.
-There is no reason not to let someone be able to do it.

I thought the range, slowness, and few shots was what made sniper rifles distinct, and that this arbitrary restriction is unnecessary.

Why is it unnecessary? So that players don't have to deal with maintaining distance and providing cover for their marksmen? You and Solar are both blowing this out of proportion.

If we are, then you surely are as well. We never said that we don't want snipers to have to maintain distance and cover for marksmen! Stop infering completely different arguments!

We are simply saying that restricting that options serves no purpose. Even if something is a silly choice, having it is better than not having it. Since having it does nothing but give the player more options, and the benefits I put in a list earlier.

You can't use the sniper rifle if the enemy is too close, as in, next to you, or close by. It's a simple bit of gameplay making different weapons more distinct, is all. Unless you plan on charging enemy head on with everyone and using sniper rifles on people right next to you, you're not even going to notice it.

So why restrict it in the first place?

You simply can not say that this arbitrary little change is all that holds the game back from having characters able to kill anything up to medium range with a sniper rifle while running.

Never said it. You're claiming that it's arbitrary, making it seem like it ruins the entire game system by not allowing you to use sniper rifles in close combat.

Of course it doesn't. Suddenly when I use the word arbitrary I'm infering that the entire game is ruined because of it? Again, you're making things up.

Arguing that without it, a top down tactical rpg, has a distinct action fps feature, as seriously as you do is absurd. You can't seriously say that "It's really no problem, Solar's just having one of his days I guess, taking a completely irrelevant point and complaining."

Because it is completely irrelevant. It's a small little feature that makes sense. At the distances this is triggered, your enemy would simply grab the rifle and break it over your head.

Well if it's from a distance where any skilled combatant can stop the person from shooting. Why didn't you bring this up before?

Of course from such a distance it's possible for enemies to be able to stop you. It's not possible that you simply can't shoot Enemies who you can overpower should still be able to be shot if you try and shoot them up close with a sniper rifle.

So the game already has what I suggested? I don't quite see how that is a point in your favor.

I don't see how that matters. It was mentioned that range affects accuracy and different weapons have different applications. What you and Solar did was take a minor feature of sniper rifles and making it out into some kind of tragic limitations that ruins gameplay.

How is it a feature?

"It was mentioned that range affects accuracy and different weapons have different applications." That doesn't mean you should ever be blocked from firing because of anything but your own mistake or the capabilities of enemy npc's.

I really like how you remove some of Surf Solar's arguments in his quote here.

He edited them in after I posted the reply. The point still stands: it's pointless nitpicking. He might as well argue that the game includes statistics that don't reflect every possible real life situation. Because, surprise, this is a game and, as all games are, it's an abstraction of reality.

Regarding his post, I apologize for accusing you of that, while it wasn't your fault, then.

But these points do not stand either. This has nothing to do with statistics. Or the fact that games are incapable of being 100% realistic.

It is an easily removable arbitrary limitation.

 

[Hassknecht]

How close until the sniper stops working are we talking, though?
It makes sense that a rifle stops working right next to you, because it has a certain length. But something like five meters? Three meters? Firing from the hip is a valid option, a sort of last resort in that range.
Personally, I'd prefer a system like this:
For long ranges, the sniper has superior accuracy and hit chances.
Below a certain range (depending on the scope that's being used) hit chances are reduced dramatically as the scope's useless and the weapon has to be fired from the hip.
Even closer the hit chance might increase a little, as it's easier to hit even when firing from the hip. It shouldn't be impossible to shoot someone three meters away.
In melee range the rifle stops working altogether, as the enemy is standing pretty right next to the barrel.

This way the role of the weapon is properly accounted for and there's no arbitrary rule invoked.

 

[Tagaziel]

Thank you Hassnknecht. You show that the concept isn't hard to understand. I believe it does work like you described in the game.

It wasn't irrelevant. I was saying, that being able to shoot someone standing next to you with a sniper rifle in Fallout 1 or 2 is not a problem in those games. If you do think it's a problem, then surely it's still the least of your worries when it comes to F1 and 2 combat issues. It's a bottom of the barrel issue. It doesn't affect the game being able to shoot then or not.

And the Wasteland 2 minimum distance requirement for sniper rifles doesn't either.

Can you rephrase that? I don't that's a proper english sentence. Or are you asking me what point it has to be able to shoot someone right next to you?

Well duh.
-Freedom of choice.
-Realism.
-Sense of immersion, firing a weapon not for it's intended use in a panic.
-You might get a lucky moment, one of those watercooler stories.
-There is no reason not to let someone be able to do it.

I feel pity for you if having to move two steps away from an enemy to shoot him with over a meter long rifle robs you of immersion or convinces you that the game robs you of freedom.

If we are, then you surely are as well. We never said that we don't want snipers to have to maintain distance and cover for marksmen! Stop infering completely different arguments!

We are simply saying that restricting that options serves no purpose. Even if something is a silly choice, having it is better than not having it. Since having it does nothing but give the player more options, and the benefits I put in a list earlier.

So why restrict it in the first place?

You still sure you're not blowing it out of proportions?

"OH GOD I HAVE TO MOVE TWO STEPS AWAY TO USE A SNIPER RIFLE THIS GAME IS SO UNIMMERSIVE AND LIMITING"

Of course it doesn't. Suddenly when I use the word arbitrary I'm infering that the entire game is ruined because of it? Again, you're making things up.

Or maybe, just maybe, you and Solar are bitching about this like it's some kind of end of the world, completely ignoring everything else said in the preview.

Well if it's from a distance where any skilled combatant can stop the person from shooting. Why didn't you bring this up before?

Because as Hassknecht showed, it's perfectly possible to understand this.

Of course from such a distance it's possible for enemies to be able to stop you. It's not possible that you simply can't shoot Enemies who you can overpower should still be able to be shot if you try and shoot them up close with a sniper rifle.

Again, you just have to take a couple of steps. I have no idea why you insist that sniper rifles should be acceptable as CQC weapons.

How is it a feature?

fea·ture (fchr)
n.
1.
a. Any of the distinct parts of the face, as the eyes, nose, or mouth.
b. The overall appearance of the face or its parts. Often used in the plural.
2. A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic

"It was mentioned that range affects accuracy and different weapons have different applications." That doesn't mean you should ever be blocked from firing because of anything but your own mistake or the capabilities of enemy npc's.

OH GOD I HAVE TO TAKE TWO STEPS THIS GAME IS UNFAIR

But these points do not stand either. This has nothing to do with statistics. Or the fact that games are incapable of being 100% realistic.

It is an easily removable arbitrary limitation.

Why is it arbitrary?

Rifle is long.

You can't shoot someone standing next to you with a rifle when it would smack him in the side of the head.

You take a few steps to use it properly and fire.

Jesus, it's not rocket science.

 

[Hassknecht]

Ah, but I don't think it has been properly said that the sniper rifle does only stop working at point blank range. I think Surf and Akratus are under the impression that it stops at like 5m or 10m or some other arbitrary limit, which would indeed be stupid.
I think we need to calm down and get clear and what we know and what we mean.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Thing is, in Jagged Alliance 2 you had sniper rifles, assault rifles, machine pistols and hand guns. At some point you replaced hand guns with machine pistols which have been replaced by assault rifles. What made Sniper weapons not overpowered was the fact that they required a lot of action points to use them so you would fire at best one shoot per round, sometimes two depending on the range and target. But accurate shots would always require more then half of the points you had. It never felt like it was overpowered but nothing stoped you from shooting a target that was directly in front of you. The problem was only, that you had usually not enough points for a second shoot most of the time. Thats why It was usefull to keep machinepistols in the inventory if you had a sniper rifle.

The problem was that sniper rifles were stupidly overpowered and had no penalties in close combat in vanilla J.A.2. I remember storming buildings with snipers, because one shot to the head was usually all that was needed.

as far as certain weapon system goes this would be probably not even that difficult for someone who's trained with the weapon. Remember, most sniper rifles are not to different from bolt action rifles or semi automatic rifles as far a the handling goes. And a few of those weapons also have normal ironsights even.

If you happen to get with those weapons in a situation where the distance is rather small, then you will always have issues. Eventually. I am not a designated marksman here. And I have no clue what other weapons Wasteland 2 will contain. But it would seem rather silly in my eyes if you cant use your sniper rifle just to switch to your bolt action rifle for example which shots now just "fine" because it has no scope attached on it, I mean how hard can it be to hit a target that is 2 meters away from you with a rifle without using the ironsight firing from the hip? I am just saying, if you use that kind of logic, then you have to use it on all weapons equally, not just sniper rifles. What makes them a problem is the fact that they fire usually very slow and they are rather large weapons compared to machine pistols. But the same is also true for most machine guns and assault rifles.

If you really get that close to the enemy that he can "touch" you, then you would most probably get in a hand fight or brawl anyway where they try to grab your weapon or just beat you with their fists or knife even. And if the game would do something like that, THIS would be awesome. And also a lot more believable then just showing "error! Target to close!" and then you gun them down with a comparable weapon that has no scope ...

 

[majek]

Thing is, in Jagged Alliance 2 you had sniper rifles, assault rifles, machine pistols and hand guns. At some point you replaced hand guns with machine pistols which have been replaced by assault rifles. What made Sniper weapons not overpowered was the fact that they required a lot of action points to use them so you would fire at best one shoot per round, sometimes two depending on the range and target. But accurate shots would always require more then half of the points you had. It never felt like it was overpowered but nothing stoped you from shooting a target that was directly in front of you. The problem was only, that you had usually not enough points for a second shoot most of the time. Thats why It was usefull to keep machinepistols in the inventory if you had a sniper rifle.

The problem was that sniper rifles were stupidly overpowered and had no penalties in close combat in vanilla J.A.2. I remember storming buildings with snipers, because one shot to the head was usually all that was needed.

Erm no... Sniper rifles in JA2 were next to useless, compared to godly assault rifles like C-7. There was just 2 anyway, Dragunov and M24. JA2 expansion UB added the more snipers : VAL, PSG-1 and especially the 50.cal Barrett , which i concede was op.
It was 1.13 mod than finally made all snipers OP, even with Starwalker trying to balance the stats, it didn't matter since everything soon followed the "every feature is a good feature, especially if it benefits the player" way of thinking.

 

[Akratus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUxryF8tTgU

Imagine the target was 1 meter away, and not 25 feet.

GEE THAT'D MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE

 

[Hassknecht]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUxryF8tTgU

Imagine the target was 1 meter away, and not 25 feet(? is what he said I think)

GEE THAT'D MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE

As the Remington 700 is longer than 1m, it kinda would make it impossible. A standing target, that is, not one on the ground.
Which is apparently what Tag was talking about all along.

 

[Akratus]

It doesn't look that long, and any gun with a barrel that extends more than 1m from your body is ridiculously designed.

 

[Hassknecht]

The R700 is 1.092m long. I know, not a problem.
But you see the point, I hope. If the target is right in front of you, melee range, a long rifle will be kinda unwieldy.
But every gun extending more than 1m is ridiculously designed? That's basically every single non-bullpup sniper rifle.

 

[Crni Vuk]

it doesn't matter anyway, because any restriction you attribute to sniper rifles can be as well applied on any other weapon that has the same or similar size, like most machine guns and assault rifles. Thats why limitations like they are discussed here where you simply "cant use" sniper rifles from a certain distance, like lets say 1m, feels a bit to arbitrary in my opinion because there is no reason why. Lets say it should apply to a sniper rifle but not a machine gun, which most of the time is as big like a sniper if not even more in some cases then why is the machine gun here the exception?. And I am sure the Sniper rifle will not be the only big gun you can hurl around in Wasteland 2. I mean it makes more sense to have that with lets say a rocket luncher then a sniper, except you want to blow your self away. But i have heard that some people do even that ... so ...


I think there should be simply a huge penalty for using a sniper from a very close distance. The best way to deal with it would be if the characters would engage in a hand to hand fight when the target is so close that you "literaly" cant shoot anymore, you know a situation where you can almost kiss the hair your enemy has on his chest. And then it should apply to ALL kind of weapons, even machinepistols, because if you are THAT close, then you want probably to grab the gun of your oponent anyway. It would mean a new level of combat and tactical thinking where you have to avoid even as gunslinger to get in close combat if the enemy simply has the advantage here, for what ever reason, either because they are physically superior or have more close combat skills. I mean I can see why its not possible to use a sniper while a bear hugs you or a Lizard sits on top of you trying to bite your head off, but that also counts for almost all other weapons except for hand guns and knifes and such.

 

[Akratus]

The R700 is 1.092m long. I know, not a problem.
But you see the point, I hope. If the target is right in front of you, melee range, a long rifle will be kinda unwieldy.
But every gun extending more than 1m is ridiculously designed? That's basically every single non-bullpup sniper rifle.

Of course it'll be unwieldy.

Don't take me for someone who wants to be able to charge people with a marksman, or consistently be able to shoot people up close with one.

But it shouldn't be restricted, when it's possible, and not a problem. Sure it should fail most of the time. But I think it'd be pretty cool to be able to shoot someone who surprisingly comes up to one of your characters if they are quick, experienced and/or lucky. On the other hand I also would like it if such a character fails when he fires, on account of the enemies' agility/hand to hand skill etc.

Hell, you can do it in XCom.

Also, what Crni says.

 

[DarkCorp]

I think the idea of luck and skill in a sniper weapon would be a very interesting concept.

Imagine scenario:

A. Soldier is moving through a narrow allyway, has high luck and skill (either melee or specific weapon skill/agilitywith said weapon). He runs into an enemy hidden behind a corner and the game starts crunching numbers.

Luck combo with agility: He manages to react in such a quick way that it provides a bonus to both scenarios below.

Skill (preferrably melee): Soldier can use the heavy ass rifle to bash the enemys skull in (the soldier would most likely get a huge bonus to melee crit).

Skill (weapon): With high enough luck and skill, said soldier manages to pull off a fancy move that allows him to 'no scope' kill the badguy by performing some kind of automatic roll away.

 

[Brother None]

Ah, but I don't think it has been properly said that the sniper rifle does only stop working at point blank range. I think Surf and Akratus are under the impression that it stops at like 5m or 10m or some other arbitrary limit, which would indeed be stupid.
I think we need to calm down and get clear and what we know and what we mean.

Correct. It can't be used in melee range, if your enemy is in an adjacent square. At close ranges it gets a penalty but can still be used. That's how it works now, but like any mechanic it can still be tweaked during testing, we'll see.

 

[Crni Vuk]

they should actually expand it to ALL firearms except for pistols maybe, because it would make sense that you cant use a machine gun or assault rifle in the same situation where you cant use a sniper, if we talk only about the size here.

 

[Akratus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWsz7u4eN8I&t=02m03s

 

[SnapSlav]

In DotA2, the Hero Batrider fairly recently underwent a number of consecutive nerfs to his abilities and stats, because he was the single-most-valued Hero in the entire game, and therefor "too good". The first nerf I'm aware of (which came to mind while reading this thread, which is why I'm bringing it up) was while using his Ultimate ability, Flaming Lasso (which literally lasso's a target, restraining them), Batrider could NO LONGER ATTACK. He could cast spells, and as before he could still move and use items, but critically, he could no long attack in the few seconds this ability was functioning. Did that make perfect sense? Not really. In the ideal middle ground where suspension of disbelief allows for magic and giant bats to ride atop, why does it make more sense that your bat suddenly can't spit fire for a few seconds while you have someone tied up? Why are you able to access items on your person, and use any other abilities at your disposal while the only drawback you suffer is the inability to physically attack? But those are ridiculous concerns suited for nitpicking for nitpicking's sake, not solving a problem, as it was a wise decision to apply the changes, PURELY for balance purposes. (It also proved to be insufficient, as the Hero remains the #1 used in tournaments as of today, even after having suffered further nerfs.) It needed to be done, and nowadays NO ONE dwells on the fact that Batrider cannot attack for a couple seconds while lassoing a target, because it doesn't matter at all...

It hurts me when I see people crying foul because they undervalue mechanical changes for the sake of balance. Balance is EVERYTHING. When I go on a veritable quest to find the "perfect" menage of mods for FONV, one thing is at the front of my mind- balance. I don't want flare and visceral mods that make the game easier. I don't want them to make the game pointlessly difficult. I don't want 2 mods that individually increase difficulty to combine and make the game absurdly impossible. The mods need to interact with the game, and each other, to strike a proper balance. There are levels of convenience versus realism that fall between balance and fun and each player has different priorities regarding this. Many players take completely for granted that items, ammo, collectibles, or whatnot from just about any game they play are "magically" collected simply by walking into/over/through them, which is not realistic whatsoever. We don't actually pick things up by walking on them, we aren't amorphous blobs that assimilate whatever we touch. We pick things up, manually. But to mitigate monotony and repetition, such actions are removed from games, because what purpose would THAT level of realism serve them? It wouldn't be fun in the slightest. Check out the title Breakdown for the XBox for a perfect example of realism for realism's sake, and how that can disrupt enjoyable gameplay. I LOVE Breakdown, but I cannot deny that having to pick up each and ever can of soda, ammo clip, and key gets awfully tedious and kills the narrative's pace, constantly.

JUST because something seems "unrealistic" is not a cause for alarm, just like "for balance" should not, on its own, raise any red flags for concern. The whole picture needs to be taken into consideration, and if the Sniper Rifle in WL2 must suffer a detriment completely unique to itself simply because it would otherwise render other weapons obsolete, then... Seriously, there is no price being paid, no problem at all. That's absolutely fine. At the end of the day, should you find yourself compelled and enthralled by a particular title, marveling at all of the options and choices it presents you, with no abusive "easy way out" exploit so that it captivates your time for weeks and months to come, the relatively insignificant matter of "Well that one thing wasn't entirely realistic" is meaningless and trivial in the scope of things.

 

[Arden]

I don't see a problem "forcing" the player to switch weapons at a certain distance. There was a lot of talk about realism and at what range exactly a sniper rifle would be useless. If realism is the point, arguing about how you could still use a long rifle with a scope at cqc range is extremely unrealistic. In RL a sniper would switch weapons far earlier. Against a charging enemy he would do so shortly before they reach his throwing range of a defensive grenade and then to a sidearm. You only have one life and no saves in RL, so acting stupid is not really an option.

It's just in games, after allocating a lot of skillpoints to a long range weapon, that the players don't see the need to switch weapons. It's solely a matter of balance, because often the sniperrifle hits hard and accuracy penalties are mitigated by skill (player or PC). Switching to a pistol, if the pc has no skillpoints for it, often makes things actually worse, so no one bothers and uses sniperrifles all the way. And we really got used to that.

Talking about lack of choice in this context is, for me, disregarding the intelligence and training of the player character. It's like complaining that it's not possible to jump off a cliff in the game. Yes, that too is a lack of choice, but that option is not present because any selfrespecting pc would not consider doing something like that. It's a break of immersion in my opinion. It's stupid and out of character. Might as well make AoE weapons not hurt the PC and give everyone a missile launcher.

I just hope that using pistols good enough to hit a target at very close range will not be too costly in terms of skillpoints (becoming a real good gunslinger is another thing). In almost all games no one switches weapons because alternate choices are worse than stupid ones without a big invetment of skillpoints.

 

[fred2]

A sniper rifle is a dedicated long range weapon that can't even be used if the enemy's too close.

My sides.

Unless by "too close" they mean close quarters, where you'd be able to bludgeon them to death with damn thing, that does sound ridicules.

I suppose they have some engine limitation, because if its just to force people to use sidearms it is annoying. Any chance that on top of the basics such as weight, magazine capacity, rare ammo types, fire mods, range and penetration. we have ready time, LOS or ?


EDIT:
@Tagaziel, I don't know, what have been done to your dog but, from the very first post here it seem like you have a bone to pick with everyone.