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

[Bob_the_Insane]

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

Rationalizing a bit further I think they game could possible cope with a one 1s1k weapon, I mean we do have a lot of 1s1k weapons in the grenades, GL, C4, knife, AT missle (with a direct hit), m24 and m95 with head shot, tank's main gun, arty, chopper rockets, jet's bombs. Making the m95 1s1k would only be one more.

It is also supposed to be a hugely accurate weapon so why would anyone use an original weapon rather than an unlock? The rest of the unlocks are not that obviously superior to the orginal weapons. I guess you could make up for it in other ways. You could make the M95 dish out a 100 damage so it was one shot one kill and make it accurate when in the prone position. You could make it pretty inaccurate while kneeling and so inaccurate as to be unusable while standing. This would actually give the other sniper rifle an advantage when used behind walls (think of the roof of the TV building). You could also make the sniper class move slower (AT class speed) when carrying this weapon around.

You could still counter the weapon with speed, cover and armour (i.e APCs)...

It could work...

Please note that I am playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion...

[vbl]

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

Rationalizing a bit further I think they game could possible cope with a one 1s1k weapon, I mean we do have a lot of 1s1k weapons in the grenades, GL, C4, knife, AT missle (with a direct hit), m24 and m95 with head shot, tank's main gun, arty, chopper rockets, jet's bombs. Making the m95 1s1k would only be one more.

It's a matter of balance and access.

- Grenades have very limited range, take time to throw, take time to explode, and require the thrower to be relatively close to the kill point
- C4 has limited ammunition, limited range, require deployment, and require the attacker to be nearby (if used as a grenade)
- Knife requires extremely close range
- AT missile is slow and is very difficult to aim at extreme ranges, has limited ammunition, and the smoke trail reveals the attacker
- Headshots require uncommon precision
- I'm not even going to talk about vehicles, but the most obvious balance point is that there are not many available and they're huge targets

If the M95 was a 1s1k anywhere gun you'd have a weapon that:
- Anyone could get at any time, and everyone on the team could have one
- Is very precise and uses very fast projectiles (can't "see it coming" like an AT rocket and has no smoke trail to reveal the source)
- Can be used from extreme distances and in relative safety
- Has a lot of ammunition
- Requires only loose aim

Need I say more?

[bitvomit]

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

My prediction: The upcoming patch and booster pack which will introduce the AWP (as most people know it from CS) will most likely be a 1 hit kill weapon. Just look at the F2000 as an example. A ridiculously overpowered weapon that was released with SF and allowed to be used in vanilla BF2 in order to get players to buy SF to use this mighty weapon. Now, some months later, history is set to repeat itself. After enough players get killed with the 1shot1kill awp, they'll probably run out and buy euro forces immediately just to even the playing field. Of course, I may be wrong and EA will probably allow anyone to unlock these weapons regardless of what booster packs they have. However, it seems more logical that the former would happen given the recent F2000 debacle.

[Bob_the_Insane]

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

To counter that, the F2000 is simply not the super weapon that everyone makes out that it is. It is no more effective than any other assault weapon (except the G3 and hopefully the patch will adress that). The flashbang is the only real distinction for that kit...

If the M95 is not 1s1k there is no way they could possible justify that for the L96...

[Digital-Boy]

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

My prediction: The upcoming patch and booster pack which will introduce the AWP (as most people know it from CS) will most likely be a 1 hit kill weapon. Just look at the F2000 as an example. A ridiculously overpowered weapon that was released with SF and allowed to be used in vanilla BF2 in order to get players to buy SF to use this mighty weapon.

Your argument would have been better if you had used the G36E as an example and not the F2000. I seriously don't get why people think the F2000 is so powerful.

[AlphaCueUp]

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

i cant imagine ppl forming/joining squads when they could run off with their 1 hit kill sniper rifles and not have to share any of the kills...

chances are we would see a ton more lone wolfs

[Bob_the_Insane]

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

i cant imagine ppl forming/joining squads when they could run off with their 1 hit kill sniper rifles and not have to share any of the kills...

chances are we would see a ton more lone wolfs

That is possibly true but if you think about it, if you have been clipped and have even sneezed violently (i.e. lost a tiny amount of health) the M95 is alrady a 1s1k weapon to you. And medics and assault and AT and Spec Ops and Support and Engineers would be no less effective in their roles. And while a sniper would have limited 1s1k ablility they would have no way of scoring team points (not even kill assists anymore) unless there are at a flag which would in turn negate their real advantage.

To counter everyone else would need to be a little bit more careful and aware of their surrounding (as per a real battlefield) and not stand still in the open...

As I think about it I think this would have less impact on the game than I originally believed.

In the only real negative I see is the issue of a sniper lining up on a spawn point and poping off people as the appear (not that you can't already do this with the m24 and head shots if you are lined up close enough!!)...

[Sir. Shpox]

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

A while ago people were begging for zooms for the M95 and now you complaining. It's not going to be that powerful and I doubt people will spawn kill with is unless we're talking about camping on the carrier. The gun needed a well deserved upgrade and got one.

[vbl]

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

Man - some of you have horrible reading comprehension skills.

One last time. I KNOW that the M95 isn't going to be 1s1k in the patch. Some people think that it OUGHT to be, and I'm presenting facts as to why it shouldn't be. That's all. Cripes.

[Blades]

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

An easy compromise. The M95 is one shot one kill, BUT the scope drifts, making it much harder to land a shot. This is how Forgotten Hope is going to do it.

[bitvomit]

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

Your argument would have been better if you had used the G36E as an example and not the F2000. I seriously don't get why people think the F2000 is so powerful.

Well, thank you for making it better. Now we can count two overpowered weapons that are meant to force players to buy a booster/expansion pack in order to get the edge over other players. The F2000 is indeed a very powerful weapon. I've picked it up on several occasions and noted that it is extremely accurate and can kill in as little as 3 shots. Flashbangs are also extremely overpowered considering the amount of time they blind you. Ever seen an assault guy throwing infinite flashbangs from a supply crate? Not fun.

To counter that, the F2000 is simply not the super weapon that everyone makes out that it is. It is no more effective than any other assault weapon (except the G3 and hopefully the patch will adress that). The flashbang is the only real distinction for that kit...

If the M95 is not 1s1k there is no way they could possible justify that for the L96...

It's definitly not a BFG9000, but it certainly gives you an advantage over vanilla BF2 weapons and unlocks. One flashbang can lay the pwnasaurus rex down on a whole squad of players.

Realisticly, the M95 is a more powerful gun. I suppose anyway, I'm not a gun expert. But I'm sure EA/DICE are well aware of what the L96 is really most famous for and that's CS. That alone would justify a 1s1k.

[imported_VISTREL]

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

if it is 1 shot in head = 1 kill then it's not a problem, actually, it's very good. With many players jumping, and running around it's not very easy to score a headshot, and when you do it might not kill him if player has 100% health and your rifle is SVD/M95.

[Verzili]

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

well as i only ever play sniper and only ever use the m95,i would like to give my personal thoughts on the matter.

1.one shot kill<--no thanks if ur skilled you will get a 1sk if you hit the head,
2.i dont mind sharing my kill with someone(aka kill assist)
3.i welcome the improved accuracy of the new patch as in my opionin it should be as accurute as the m24 anyway.
4.if like me you only use m95 and u hit infantary in the chest(with armor)then 1or 2 popshots from the hand gun finishes them off,so its nearly a 1sk anyway.
5.i like to snipe in bf2 becuase it requires some skill to snipe,and making 1sk(not headshots)would take the skill and fun out of the game for me.

it is very nice to land a headshot from range makes the shot worthwhile,now i wouldnt get any fun from shoting ppl'sfeet to get a 1sk.
6.the m95 does have .50cal but use it as it was intended to hurt players pop drivers out of heli/planes/buggys ect.

=============================================
i am pleased with the new accuracy and thiner croshair in new patch<-hope that is true> this will fix the problems the gun has atm.but plz leave 1sk for the head only.

even though the gun can miss from time to time,dont just fire the m95 1 shot after another.take atleast 2 seconds to steady ur aim (lower dev)and u will hit.i have 60% accuracy with the m95 and hoping to get 65-70 when new patch comes out.

[Verzili]

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

if it is 1 shot in head = 1 kill then it's not a problem, actually, it's very good. With many players jumping, and running around it's not very easy to score a headshot, and when you do it might not kill him if player has 100% health and your rifle is SVD/M95.

belive u me a shot to the head is intant death svd/m24/m95 just wait for them to stop jumping then wait for you aim to steady(1-2secs)and account for bullitdrop then fire.

if some poor geza is stand still i dont just pop a round out ,i wait for a sec before i fire and a head shot kills insantly no matter what class they are.

[PHPT]

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

This whole debate is lame, the ONLY reason anyone's brought up any reason for the M95 to be one-hit-kill is because it would do so in real life.

BF2 is insultingly far from real life, the people who think it's a real-life simulator need to look at things like, say, tanks appearing out of thin air, medkits filled with fairy dust that instantly heals bullet wounds, and using defibrilators to bring someone back to tip-top condition after they stood next to a C4 charge when it went off.

The reason why one-hit-kill is a bad idea should be obvious, because you'd barely even need to aim any more. You'd need like half the team to be medics to even THINK of standing against a couple of snipers. You're talking potentially one very probable death every couple seconds from hundreds of yards away.

Suggesting it be one-hit-kill is like suggesting that medkits be removed, or more accurately, making grenade launchers shoot at mach 4.