It's okay we both care for this game, and do not want to see it flop. I wish that Ubisoft will release a open beta to the public.
Ubisoft why u no release a public beta?
Last edited by elitesniper365; 06-24-2012 at 07:01 AM.
Snipers should only one hit to the head.
Back on topic. I want to see one-hit kill Bolt-Action, not Semi-Auto rifles. Stop playing BattleField and play some real old video games that had one-hit snipers.
This game is not going to have wide open sniping maps like Battlefield. They are going to be Call of Duty size maps. So snipers are not going to have time to aim for a headshot. Plus in real ife snipers always aim center mass. Almost never aim for a headshot. If you do not like the real life arguement deal with it. In BattleField the soldiers have bullet resistant vest, in Farcry they do not.
And man, most of the time I spend on my PC is spent on modding, I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer.
EDIT: Dug up my SV98 stats from battlelog;
Means, using the SV98 60% of my kills are headshots, with the ratio being 65% with the L96.
Last edited by razorfinnish; 06-24-2012 at 09:47 AM.
What you ask for when you ask for one hit kills, you ask to make the sniper rifle the most effective, versatile weapon available.
Sorry, but if you cant deal with a one head shot kill model, maybe you should find a different play style. I don't snipe a lot, but shooting people in the head in games is not very difficult.
And @ elitesniper365, perhaps you haven't played a lot of battlefield, but snipers have plenty of time to aim for head shots at mid and semi close ranges. Its easier than distance shots actually.
Last edited by PandaThing; 06-24-2012 at 10:41 AM.
Maps (xbox): Freebooter, Reactor
Might see me here...
Folks, please keep the discussions civilised.
For a few posts there this thread was in danger of being closed, with those responsible having action taken against them.
Thankfully, its now back on track.
If you disagree with a post, then debate the weakness in each others arguements, do not resort to personal attacks.
If you have any queries about the moderation of this forum, please feel free to raise them with either the Moderators or Forum Management Team via Private Message.
Thanks for your cooperation.
First off, one hit kill snipers add an extra dimension to a game. Seeing as Far Cry 2 was a slower, more tactical version of COD, if it wasn't for the the M1, Dart rifle and 50 cal being one hit kill in torso/head, then the game would have been an absolute camp fest. One hit kill snipers neutralize set ups at long range and force the other team to account for a long range threat. As well, they are the trump card against explosives users and can effectively deter a team from camping one area. The sniper did what it does in real life, instills fear and panic thus causing your opponent to either counter it or change their plan of attack. Not everyone wants a strict infantry battle where one or two types of players get all the kills. If I wanted that I'd go play crysis 2.
Avoiding death from these almight super weapons is not difficult as well. Some maps in FC2 were designed with the sniper in mind and there are numerous ways to avoid the long range sightlines. Essentially, if you run in a straight line at someone, they will kill you with whatever weapon is in your hand, the only difference between the guns is distance. You should also win any close range battle against a sniper, even if the sniper can quickscope as they have such a low fire rate and have to freeze to shoot. Ignoring lag issues, if you get kill close range by a sniper either they are extremely good or you messed up.
In Far cry 2, the most versatile weapon was the AR or the SAW. Majority of competitive matches followed a similar formula, with AR/SAW fighting in the middle and either snipers at the back or PARA running up front. Lots of versatility.
To further my point, in the secret list of the top 10 xbox players for FC2, their primary weapons were:
2 50 cal
50 cal is dangerous in the right hands and dominates long range. However, ARs and SAWs beat it mid-range and the PARA owns it short range. The best players find ways to compensate for these deficiencies.
AR16 is king of mid range, 2 bursts can kill someone even at long range if the aim is true. Hipfire at close range allows the gun to compete with the PARA in that department.
SAW is useful in all situations. Can kill cross map is 2-3 bullets, mid range is only second to ARs accuracy and short range hipfire can bring down a crowd.
PARA useless long range, only ever effective at mid range in the right hands (mine) and should dominate close range.
I can understand that people don't like being killed by a far off enemy but at the end of the day it's your own fault for giving an open shot. If your struggling with snipers, I suggest adapting to a playstyle that minimizes the amount of open shots you provide the opposing sniper. A good sniper sets up on a heighted position with great sightlines, therefore it should not be too difficult to either make that position cold (no interaction with that area) or flank to force a close range battle. Nerfing the long range component of gunplay results in a game like Black ops where camping is prevalent and everyone uses the same 2 guns. As well, with a 1 hit sniper, hot/cold locations on a map become more important and thus increase team play and tactical decisions.
2 shot snipers result in good players discarding the weapon and less interaction between teams. You could say that making head shots only 1 hit kills adds an element of skill to using the weapon. My counterpoint to that is that it makes the weapon inefficient and almost useless in a majority of situations. FC2 pre-patch which had 2 hit kill snipers except for 50 cal and was boring to play competitively. No dynamics to it except meet in the middle to try and get kills. No set ups, not real holding dominant positions, only real strategy was to run around in a group or flank. When the patch came and competitive matches with 3 diamond weapons could be done without banning half a lobby, is when the game really took off competively. Now proper, intelligent set ups came into play. Teams could not camp an area effectively without exposing themselves to long range fire.
Take Clear cut uprising for an example (its a large bowl shaped map with a cliff on either side, all capture points in the middle of the bowl.) APR side has a closer spawn to two of the capture points, but UFLL can provide overwatch with 50 cal on all three points.
Pre patch, everyone would go in a group and fight in the middle where there is no cover. It was very similar to the style of fighting that you see in films like the Patriot where armies stand in a line and shot each other. game would generally end within 8 minutes with the side winning the first engagement normally the victor.
Post patch, well I played 2 games on that. Our set up for a 5v5 on UFLL side, 4 of my teammates supporting the capture points, me up above on the cliff with a 50 cal. Game went like this, 1st shot was on captain and caused the opposing to abandon their set up. They immediately had 1 guy switch to a sniper class, he got massacred 5-0. They sent another person with sniper, and i spent the rest of the game battling them. This created a 4v3 battle for the capture points. When I died, their snipers pinned my team down, when they died, their captain died. They used timing tactics, they'd shoot at me to get my attention and force me into to cover, when that happened one of the snipers would support their captain who ran as fast as he could to a point. Both times, i played this game type competitively post patch, the match was decided in the last 30 seconds.
You would not have this deep of a battle if you had did not have one hit kill snipers.
Not all maps favored snipers. I have only ever seen 1 person in my 100s of matches on love Shacks do well with a 50 cal.
Last edited by Mintage53; 06-24-2012 at 04:44 PM.
This is a great thread! We're actually working hard right now to make the gameplay balanced in terms of things like weapon damage/spread/damage fall-off/explosive radius and so on... We want to deliver a balanced and fun experience so we take this very seriously, your feedback is awesome.
Keep discussing and we'll be lurking in the background, analyzing...
I have no idea if this is allowed, but here we go..
Online multiplayer is what I like best in Far Cry 2. But I only play the "player match" ( as do many ) coz there are too little maps in the ranked match . It would be greatly appriciated by many ( I believe ) if there will be more maps to choose from. The downside of the player match is that you get only a few diamonds to upgrade weapons... depending on the game host.
It might be a good idea to allow more "custom" maps in the ranked matches. Maybe you can use the player ranking of the maps to allow them to enter in the ranked matches?
Another "nice to have" is a balanced function of the teams... You often see high scoring individuals team up, which will lead to one weaker and one stronger team with predictable results and boring play for the weaker teams.
My 2 cents.. :-)