KalNet Message Board

The man might have a point:

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/jakub_rant_sniper/

Maybe the answer is to have the sniper rifles more accuratly modeled, with all the drawbacks as well as the advantages. I am sure the Rifles in WW2 had many, many disadvantages.

Perhaps.

I fully agree with him on the BF1942 and ET thing, though. Also, his point on the bullets for a semi-automatic weapon and sniper rifle are valid.

Though, he does underestimate the value of good map design.

That's pretty true, he complains about maps where it is easy to snipe the two or three entrances to the base, an easy way around this is to not play with scopes on those kind of maps.

Do you think the map design is better in BF1942 and ET then in CoD, and this is why the snipers don't dominate?

I think every point he makes is valid.
And I tend to agree entirely with him on just about every point.

Map design, yes, but more importantly the fact that it takes more than one shot. That means less chance of spawn raping.

TF and TFC both had powerful snipers. The difference was that, say on the well6 map, there almost always was a side entrance around the snipers. That and you had to hold down the fire button to get the kill shot. None of that *bam bam bam* 3 kills in a row stuff. Quake 2 & 3 both allow you to get extra armor so that 1 rail will critically hurt you, but not kill you (though, Quake 2 still aloud for spawn raping which Quake 3 didn't). We would all agree that the rail is powerful in Q3, but that a guy decent with a rocket launcher can still go 1 on 1.

Sniping rifles are powerful weapons. However, they don't usually get the whole 1 shot/ 1 kill deal. At least 2 should be needed (unless it's an unprotected head shot--then you should be buggered).

I don't think that Quake is a very good example of the kind of thing he is talking about. It is very different from these so called "realistic" games.

The very idea of "realism" in a game boggles my mind...
Games that attempt realism are stupid, flat out. You cant have realism in a game for the simple fact that it is a game.

I agree with Jason on Map balance, but sniper rifles are over powered in most games that claim to be realisitc.... It retarded really...

Just my two cents..

Note: I have a migraine right now, coherence may not be so good in post.

I agree, but one has to admit that the rail and sniper rifle are very similar in their usage and execution. The whole "Finger of god" thing he talks about.

I will agree they are similar but in Quake it dosen't matter that it's the "finger of god" where in these other games is can be a real problem, purely based on the type of game.

Dude, have you ever played the Q3 CTF space map online where everyone has the rail.


Teh suck.

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:Dude, have you ever played the Q3 CTF space map online where everyone has the rail.


Teh suck.

Did you just contradict your own earlier statement?

THE JEW (RaVeN) earlier wrote:We would all agree that the rail is powerful in Q3, but that a guy decent with a rocket launcher can still go 1 on 1.

1 vs 1



..................so no.

Not to mention space maps are completely different than all other types of maps.

So if your first comment was about 1vs1 then you would admit that it has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is about sniping in multi-player gaming, specifically groups of snipers making a charge impossible.

Quake comment (last sentence, 2nd paragraph) was/is an aside note showing that some games can have a "finger of god" weapon that is counterable, but still get borked due to crappy level design.

In that, it is relevant.

I agree that Quake is not the best game to illustrate this article. However, I don't play those other realistic games (ie. R6, CS, etc.). They suck. I can only comment on what I know. I have a relative knowledge of Quake. Ask me about Rainbow 6 and I'll tell ya about the 6 fairies down in front of the male strip club.

If you wanna relate it to Starcraft go right ahead.