Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

[vbl]

With the coming of the L96 sniper rifle I've seen a lot of incidental talk about making the M95 (or the L96) a one-shot-kill sniper rifle. This is a horrible idea.

Infantry players experience a lot of incidental damage such as splash explosions, running into other players, being bumped by vehicles, being plinked by unaware teammates, falling down hills, or taking stray bullets. Most players rarely stay at 100% health for very long, so a hit with the M95 (which leaves only 2 bars of health) is already a one-shot kill under many circumstances. Those who can score headshots (a skilled minority) also get access to a one-shot kill in exchange for their precision.

Can you imagine the shift we'd see if the M95 scored a one shot kill by hitting anywhere on a healthy target? I can:

• A one-shot kill would encourage a level of spawn camping previously unseen. Right now, in order to camp a spawn point, players must stand very close (as with a shotgun or LMG) or use some kind of explosives, such as C4. Neither is very sustainable because being close to the action puts the camping player at much risk, and ammo reserves for explosives are usually limited (and require "setting" the C4, wherein the camper might be killed).
  
  A one-shot kill rifle, however, would allow snipers to sit far off in the distance and score easy kills on players as they appear, leaving absolutely no room to run, and no chance to spawn elsewhere and come back to easily locate the camper.
  
• Bad for the teamwork economy. Much of the teamwork scores people earn are from heals, and the number of healing opportunities will drastically go down when everyone is dying instead of being heavily injured. Yes, there is a new opportunity for revives, but it would reduce the game to an annoyingly binary level. Plus, if you're hurt, you can run and find a medic, whereas while dead, the Medic must come find you - and we all know how likely that is.
  
  And that's assuming that your team would even have medics, because...
  
• Everyone will be a sniper. If the noob tube and C4 chucking crazes have taught us anything, it's that players will always gravitate toward the easiest kills. Bet your bottom dollar that if a one-shot kill rifle existed, everyone in the game would play the kit that had it. Do you really want a team of 15 other snipers? Do the existing snipers really want new players to be able to pick up the M95 after only one rank and be able to bag kills as handily as the practiced veterans? Do any of us want that? Probably not.

It's bad voodoo. So please stop suggesting it.

[CommanderD]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

.303 shouldnt be 1 shot kill unless its a head shot but the .50 should be those things make wholes in things in real life.

[vbl]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

.303 shouldnt be 1 shot kill unless its a head shot but the .50 should be those things make wholes in things in real life.

It helps to read a post before responding to it.

[Darksniper75]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

With the coming of the L96 sniper rifle I've seen a lot of incidental talk about making the M95 (or the L96) a one-shot-kill sniper rifle. This is a horrible idea.

Infantry players experience a lot of incidental damage such as splash explosions, running into other players, being bumped by vehicles, being plinked by unaware teammates, falling down hills, or taking stray bullets. Most players rarely stay at 100% health for very long, so a hit with the M95 (which leaves only 2 bars of health) is already a one-shot kill under many circumstances. Those who can score headshots (a skilled minority) also get access to a one-shot kill in exchange for their precision.

Can you imagine the shift we'd see if the M95 scored a one shot kill by hitting anywhere on a target? I can:

• A one-shot kill would encourage a level of spawn camping previously unseen. Right now, in order to camp a spawn point, players must stand very close (as with a shotgun or LMG) or use some kind of explosives, such as C4. Neither is very sustainable because being close to the action puts the camping player at much risk, and ammo reserves for explosives are usually limited (and require "setting" the C4, wherein the camper might be killed).
  
  A one-shot kill rifle, however, would allow snipers to sit far off in the distance and score easy kills on players as they appear, leaving absolutely no room to run, and no chance to spawn elsewhere and come back to easily locate the camper.
  
• Bad for the teamwork economy. Much of the teamwork scores people earn are from heals, and the number of healing opportunities will drastically go down when everyone is dying instead of being heavily injured. Yes, there is a new opportunity for revives, but it would reduce the game to an annoyingly binary level. Plus, if you're hurt, you can run and find a medic, whereas while dead, the Medic must come find you - and we all know how likely that is.
  
  And that's assuming that your team would even have medics, because...
  
• Everyone will be a sniper. If the noob tube and C4 chucking crazes have taught us anything, it's that players will always gravitate toward the easiest kills. Bet your bottom dollar that if a one-shot kill rifle existed, everyone in the game would play the kit that had it. Do you really want a team of 15 other snipers? Do the existing snipers really want new players to be able to pick up the M95 after only one rank and be able to bag kills as handily as the practiced veterans? Do any of us want that? Probably not.

It's bad voodoo. So please stop suggesting it.

There is no such talk. So it is a useless debate you are starting. They improved the M95 accuracy and that of the other sniper rifles. Not one of them will be a 1 shot 1 kill weapon. But skill will allow a headshot. Which now are almost impossible with the M95 or at least severely random. I've played for over 70 hours with the M95 and tend to shoot long range, but it is totally random. And it is adressed in the patch. Which is a good thing, because it should have the same accuracy as the M24. So don't start panick threads, the sniper rifles were badly in accuracy department and they changed it respectfully. No need for fuss. I and 10000's other people are glad they finally fixed it.

Cheers

[Bob_the_Insane]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

Steering away from RL as this is a game after all I would have to agree with the OP. An accurate, reliable, one shot kill weapon would drastically alter the gameplay of BF2 I think. Why use any other kit unless you make armoured vehicles hugely more available...

Everthing thing in the game is balanced to one degree or another and this does not always (ever?) agree with reality.

Here is a question worth looking at, as it is apparantly so effective why is not every single US Army (or Marine) sniper equiped with a .50 calibre rifle? Why use the M24 at all?

[Darksniper75]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

Here is a question worth looking at, as it is apparantly so effective why is not every single US Army (or Marine) sniper equiped with a .50 calibre rifle? Why use the M24 at all?

Because it's ****ing HEAVY. It's not something you move around. The orginal M82A1 that is in the game would only allow shots fired from a prone position and running with it was slow. They decide to leave it out of the game. The M95 has a record on longrange shooting. It's highly accurate and the game displays it terribly wrong as it stands. They adressed it correctly by increasing the accuracy. See the 10000+ threads about complaints on the M95. And I agree that it shouldn't be a 1s1k weapon on people wearing armour. On classes without armour it may as well be a 1s1k weapon. The weapon is already severly loud and even with increased accuarcy, longrange kills, like the M24, 1s1k are hard. But now the M95 is totally random and should be adjusted as they did. But for all those that fear, it ain't a 1s1k.

Cheers

[vbl]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

There is no such talk. So it is a useless debate you are starting. ... So don't start panick threads, the sniper rifles were badly in accuracy department and they changed it respectfully... No need for fuss.

I just searched on "one shot" and found upwards of 10 posts in the last few days suggesting the idea. It has been a long-running point of discussion, particularly with the M95, and I thought it time to make a cogent post about the issue.

[$kelet0r]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

well for those who would prefer a one shot kill weapon sniper rifle every other weapon in the game would have to double its lethality
AR = 1-2 shot instant kill/incapitation
GL = 30m kill diameter


So the haters can hate but it would be ridiculous to make a one shot kill weapon in bf2 without changing the game totally and for the worse IMHO

[Hu.Z_of_PLA]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

Personally I think a 1s1k M95 can actually be balanced, first, we have to assume that it uses .50 BMG, not .50 match grade ammo and gives it an accuracy even worse than before (thus making long range sniping pretty much impossible), and second, you have to go prone before you can fire, and the scope animation is reasonable slow that you can't do a CS style AWP whore (i.e, jump around and snipe people)

[Darksniper75]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

I just searched on "one shot" and found upwards of 10 posts in the last few days suggesting the idea. It has been a long-running point of discussion, particularly with the M95, and I thought it time to make a cogent post about the issue.

It won't happen, so the post is kinda useless in my view.

Cheers

[PermenentMarker]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

With the coming of the L96 sniper rifle I've seen a lot of incidental talk about making the M95 (or the L96) a one-shot-kill sniper rifle. This is a horrible idea.

Infantry players experience a lot of incidental damage such as splash explosions, running into other players, being bumped by vehicles, being plinked by unaware teammates, falling down hills, or taking stray bullets. Most players rarely stay at 100% health for very long, so a hit with the M95 (which leaves only 2 bars of health) is already a one-shot kill under many circumstances. Those who can score headshots (a skilled minority) also get access to a one-shot kill in exchange for their precision.

Can you imagine the shift we'd see if the M95 scored a one shot kill by hitting anywhere on a healthy target? I can:

• A one-shot kill would encourage a level of spawn camping previously unseen. Right now, in order to camp a spawn point, players must stand very close (as with a shotgun or LMG) or use some kind of explosives, such as C4. Neither is very sustainable because being close to the action puts the camping player at much risk, and ammo reserves for explosives are usually limited (and require "setting" the C4, wherein the camper might be killed).
  
  A one-shot kill rifle, however, would allow snipers to sit far off in the distance and score easy kills on players as they appear, leaving absolutely no room to run, and no chance to spawn elsewhere and come back to easily locate the camper.
• Bad for the teamwork economy. Much of the teamwork scores people earn are from heals, and the number of healing opportunities will drastically go down when everyone is dying instead of being heavily injured. Yes, there is a new opportunity for revives, but it would reduce the game to an annoyingly binary level. Plus, if you're hurt, you can run and find a medic, whereas while dead, the Medic must come find you - and we all know how likely that is.
  
  And that's assuming that your team would even have medics, because...
• Everyone will be a sniper. If the noob tube and C4 chucking crazes have taught us anything, it's that players will always gravitate toward the easiest kills. Bet your bottom dollar that if a one-shot kill rifle existed, everyone in the game would play the kit that had it. Do you really want a team of 15 other snipers? Do the existing snipers really want new players to be able to pick up the M95 after only one rank and be able to bag kills as handily as the practiced veterans? Do any of us want that? Probably not.

It's bad voodoo. So please stop suggesting it.

When I first started playing battlefield2 and realized that a .50cal bullet does not kill one shot... I found it rather sad...

And I say this being a Counter-Strike Player...

However, after playing Battlefield more and more...
I strongly agree with your arguments.

Very solid points... that is my opinion.

[vbl]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

It won't happen, so the post is kinda useless in my view.

Cheers

Except that it actually provides logical rationale for anyone who thinks that it's a decent idea. All you've done is babble.

[Paas]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

Steering away from RL as this is a game after all I would have to agree with the OP. An accurate, reliable, one shot kill weapon would drastically alter the gameplay of BF2 I think. Why use any other kit unless you make armoured vehicles hugely more available...

Everthing thing in the game is balanced to one degree or another and this does not always (ever?) agree with reality.

Here is a question worth looking at, as it is apparantly so effective why is not every single US Army (or Marine) sniper equiped with a .50 calibre rifle? Why use the M24 at all?

The Army uses the M24, which is potentially going to be phased out by an upgraded version of the Stoner Sr-25. The Marine Corp. uses the M40a2.

As to why both don't exclusively use the M82? It's cubersome. It's overkill for most anti-infantry applications. Furthermore, the beast is almost impossible to shoot with any respectable accuracy unless you're prone and supported; or just supported against a Jeep or Tank. Even then, the M82a1 is a 2moa accurate weapon at 1200m. It's not somthing to take surgical shots with, yet, it's a weapon that can hit a human target with 100% accuracy at under 1200m if you do your part. If you do hit them... it's not a debate about if there is a medic nearby. :P

The M24 on the other hand is a .5moa accurate weapon (which match ammunition), around 1moa without. It has an engagement range of 800m to 1000m... and beyound. Although, those are the official recommneded ranges. The M24 does a much better job of allowing quicker engagements of targets, almost on the fly. It's not as cumbersome as an M82 (Not everyone in the Army/Marine Corp is even my size. I'm only 5'9 185, so you can imagine that being and issue), so the smaller troops can use it effectively.

I think the M82a1 should be a one shot kill weapon though... Otherwise, just phase it out. I also think the .50 on the tops of vehicles should be a insta' kill weapon. Less they be phased out.

Yet, I also belevie the M4 shouldn't outshoot the M16. The Ak-101 shouldn't do anymore damage than the M16, and the SVD should have the same stopping power as the M24; it's debatable as to if it should have a little more.
I think the M249 should be just as accurate as the M16 at ranges under 600m (It's 600m for point, 800m for area). I also think the A.A. should be 4x as deadly. As deadly as the A.A. in the Project Reality mod.

...so, I think a lotta' things need to be addressed. So, I guess take my opinions with a grain of salt? I'm an realism extremeist!

{WP}Paas

p.s. - In response to Mr. Variable. I think this is were the concept of Kit Restrictions come in. 1 sniper per team on 16 player maps, 2 snipers per team on 32, 4 snipers on 64. Furthermore, don't have it limited by the actuall map size, more by the number of people on the server.

For instance, Between 0 - 31 each to is alotted one Sniper. 23-63, 2 Snipers. 64, 3 Snipers.

Yet, these kit restrictions could apply for all clases. Sure, it would take a bit of "Freedom of Choice" out of the players hands. Yet, for some odd reason, I don't really care. I'm just sick of being on a team primarly composed of SF; or having to go against and entire team of SF operators. It's like the Navy Seals are being completely forward deployed in mass numbers or somthing... and everyone has C4!? ...it doesn't even make for competition. We end up just mowing down the very easy to kill SF and winning the match. I leave the situation feeling as if I cheated or somthing because the opposing force was smart enough to join squads and balance their kit count. Dice - EA should help the slower folks out and do it for them...

...just my extremeist two cents.

[666PROTECTOR]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

i 1 shot killa -good idea but only if ther are one or two guns like that on Battlefieldlike in deset combat

[Digital-Boy]

Re: Reasons why a one-shot kill rifle is a bad idea for BF2.

I always find it funny how some people advocate making the M95 a super-accurate, OHKO weapon because "that's what the M95 should do." There are two obvious problems with this:

1) As DarkSniper said before, the M95 is flippin' HUGE. If it were reflected accurately, it would take a long time to set up a shot and you wouldn't be able to fire from a standing position. So in making the M95 more realistic, you would have to nerf it at the same time that you were improving it, and people would hate it anyway.

2) If BF2 were realistic, the assault rifles would have better accuracy and damage, and snipers would get pwned anyway. I was amazed how everyone was complaining about how bad the sniper rifles got nerfed when every weapon in the game was rendered less effective than in previous BF games.