The tactical significance of sniper rifles, accumulated rebuttals and why they're here to stay

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

It seems at least once approxiately every 72 hours we are treated to another thread calling for the excision of sniper rifles, .50 caliber rifles or both from DayZ.

I have engaged in many of these threads in an attempt to argue for the tactical significance of sniper rifles in the game, suggest ways in which players can deal with the existence of these weapons, support the fact that they enhance rather than detract from the overall experience, and systemtically rebut each of the common arguments put forth for their removal.

In the interest of sparing my fingertips and your eyes, I am going to post a single response to which I can link in the future any time the Suggestions or General Discussion forum plays host to another one of these exciting exchanges.

As new arguments take shape or old ones morph into new forms, I will update this thread with new rebuttals. I fully expect discussion to take place within this thread as well, but my main purpose here is to have a repository of my feelings on the subject as it seems to come up so often.

So, here are the arguments I have seen for their removal, and rebuttals:

It is unrealistic for these rifles to exist given the game's setting.

This is a common argument against the presence of sniper rifles. That it just "doesn't make sense" for them to be lying around Chernarus given the setting.

The problem is, this is an incredibly slippery slope upon which a single step would result in the removal of approximately all of the game's weapons save perhaps the hatchet. None of the weapons in DayZ accurately recreate reality in their frequency or location. You would not be finding Winchesters and Lee Enfields lying behind haystacks in barns, nor Makarovs under the dining room table of the neighbor's house nor Revolvers in the grocery store nor M1911s in the church nor really any of the weapons in almost any of the locations you find them in DayZ.

If you did find them, they certainly wouldn't come conveniently pre-packaged with ammunition.

Following this argument to its logical conclusion, we would end up with a version of DayZ in which on any given 50 player server approximately 5 players have firearms and of those only 1 has ammunition. The rest would be swinging hatchets or poking each other with pointed sticks which I think we can agree as a community would not be a very compelling experience for anyone involved.

Which is why DayZ does not seek to accurately recreate reality in this regard. It makes weapons and ammunition more common and distributed more widely than they would be in reality precisely to facilitate game play.

If you can suspend disbelief long enough to accept that barns infinitely generate shotguns and crossbows, then you can easily extend that suspension of disbelief to the fact that the military was dispersed across Chernarus in an attempt to combat the early infection and quell uprisings in many areas.

Why do deer stands have military equipment? Because they were no longer being used as deer stands - the military started using them to keep tabs on the spread of the infection and the roaming bandits that began wandering the countryside in the early days after the infection. Why do firestations have guns? Because they were set up as temoprary strong holds. Military presence in the grocery stores because they had to defend what little provisions remained from rioting civilians. Have you noticed all the HMMV's around? How about the piles of dead bodies indicating that the military were involved in early cleanup efforts? Why do you think there are crashed helicopters carrying high-value military equipment and sometimes medication? The military were transporting new supplies into the airfields for dispersion among forces throughout Chernarus.

As bandits became more common and began to take over abandoned military equipment, armor and helicopters - it would have become necessary for the military to employ more powerful equipment including .50 caliber rifles to counter their presence.

These weapons are too common.

A common argument, but the most easily rebutted. Once rocket fixes item and ammunition duplication issues, certainly in DayZ stand-alone but perhaps earlier, all questions of frequency and commonality will be washed clean.

Right now hundreds of rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, maybe thousands of rifles and tens of thousands of rounds are being magically created from nothing each and every day.

If we can stem the tide of duplication, we can have a discussion about how common these items really are.

It takes "no skill" to sit in one spot and snipe.

There are three rather short and sweet problems with this argument.

The first is that it requires "no skill" in the same way to fire any weapon from a prone position at a stationary target. I can sit prone in a church aisle and point my gun at the door and pull the trigger any time anyone's face shows up in the door way and I'm employing a "no skill" strategy. This does not imply the necessary removal of the weapon in question.

The second is that a great deal of skill involved in sniper combat comes long before combat initiates. Choosing an ideal vantage point - one which both provides a sight picture of the target in question while simultaneously providing sufficient cover for the sniper himself can be a chore and to do so on short notice requires extensive knowledge of the map, terrain, and common enemy movement behaviors. This is especially true when seeking to cover dynamic targets such as the randomly occurring helicopter crash sites which can present a huge issue for a sniper since they have two sides and can provide natural cover and concealment for any enemy near or approaching the target area.

Lastly, it actually does require a fair amount of skill to effectively snipe targets using these rifles. Unless the target presents at a fixed distance and remains stationary, effective firing is as challenging as it is with any other weapon in the game, if not moreso.

There are no effective counter-measures against snipers.

This is one of the most baffling arguments I have seen levied against sniper rifles as they themselves are their own counter measure.

If you suspect a sniper might be in the area, or you just want to double check to be sure - assign a counter sniping team to scout the area using appropriate optics and engage any targets using sniper rifles. If a sniper can see you to fire, you can see him to fire back. It's all a matter of who is more aware and who has the better sight picture (see above re: skill involved in sniping).

New players are helpless and victimzed en masse.

A common argument which is usually followed immediately by a story starting with "So I was in Cherno..."

The fact is new players are not helpless to avoid snipers. There are countless counter measures even unarmed players can take to make themselves more difficult targets:

• Avoid Cherno and Elektro at all costs.
  
• Do not remain stationary any longer than necessary. If you must be stationary, go prone first.
  
• Travel near cover whenever possible - walls, buildings, steeply sloped terrain, trees etc. can all stop sniper sight lines and bullets. You can almost always cover at least one direction with an object.
  
• Do not stand on rooftops.
  
• Travel through forests whenever possible, even if it means going a little further or round-about.
  
• If you must travel through open fields, do so at their most narrow point and run full speed in a zig-zag fashion towards the next nearest cover source. Never stop under any circumstances, even to check your map. Wait until you're under cover to do that. Very few snipers in the game are good enough to hit a target at full-sprint moving serpentinely, even at a modest distance. Occasionally you may encounter a crack shot, but most of these jackasses will just shoot around your feet while you run unharmed to the next stand of trees.
  

etc., etc. the list goes on. Don't be a victim. Plan ahead and think about what you would do if you were a sniper, and then avoid doing things that would make you vulnerable to those same strategies. When you are sniped, think about the mistakes you made and what you might do differently next time around.

Snipers are only used to murder other players. There are no "legitimate" uses.

This is such a vacuous argument that I'm surprised how often it appears in these discussions.

I have had my life saved on countless occasions by my sniper team because they spot threats before I do and open fire, either scaring off an approaching bandit or eliminating them before they have a chance to engage me. From your point of view it looks like "senseless murder" but from our point of view it is well-planned, specifically-intentioned tactical combat. We are eliminating threats before they become dangerous. Exactly what sniper rifles were designed to do, and they do the job in DayZ beautifully. You may think medium or short range combat is "more exciting" but I'm not here for your excitement.

I planned ahead and have a team so you don't get to get close to me to shoot your AK or your M16 at me. Maybe that makes you sad, but it makes me very happy and it gives me more reason to make friends and have a squad and communicate and cooperate and work together which are all things people on this forum seem to claim this game lacks an incentive to do... well, here's your incentive: if you're tired of snipers, then cooperate with some other survivors and come up with a plan to neutralize or counter their effect on your strategy and game play experience.

Sniper rifles aren't used against zombies, therefore they don't belong in DayZ.

This argument ignores the fact that rocket himself has declared and intends for players to be the greatest threat in the game. Tactical sniper rifles are not used for zombies generally, true. But, so what? I'm more concerned with the threat of players than zombies and that's not a flaw in the game design. That's precisely what rocket intended and precisely why sniper rifles remain an important tactical element of the game.

The weapons are too deadly. One-shot-one-kill should not be in the game.

This is an attractive argument for a lot of people because it appeals to a sense of "balance" which has been a ubiquitous hot topic since the first online games. We are conditioned to expect game designers to strive to ensure that every choice has a trade-off, every benefit a downside and any strength a weakness. It's also a difficult argument to directly rebut, since it rests heavily upon player preference, expectation and a long-standing cultural design tradition.

My rebuttal is two-fold: to indicate two ways in which these rifles are balanced, and to support rocket's general philosophy on balance as a focus of game design.

The first way in which these rifles are balanced is that they are absolutely outclassed in medium- and short-range combat on uneven terrain, heavy foliage or urban settings. Unless a sniper is able to pre-select a vantage point and know when and where his target will appear, he is faced with the choice of firing "from the hip" or attempting to acquire a sight picture through a shakey, wandering reticule. By the time the sniper is able to steady the sight and come to rest on a target, any assault rifle would have fired a full clip. Even a Winchester can outclass a .50 caliber at ~200m and shorter distances, such as you would find in many towns, cities and building interiors.

Second, a natural balance exists in that these rifles are available to everyone in the game in equal measure. You don't have to be a certain class or level or faction or nationality or skin color in order to acquire any of these weapons and use them yourself. If you find them so absolutely overpowering as to make their user some kind of immortal killing machine, then you would do well to find one yourself and assign a member of your team to immortal killing duties. To the contrary I think you, like I did, will find that they are not actually the boon that they first appear to be and often the player with the sniper rifle ends up prone behind a wall while players with more effective medium-range weapons and optics engage in PvP combat. And when you're out exploring the world, looting helicopter crashes and trying to farm car parts to repair vehicles, most combat takes place at these medium and short ranges. Sure, a sniper can just stay away from the action and lay in the trees, but that in itself is a balance tradeoff. You spend hours doing "nothing" on the off chance that you will be able to use your concealed position and vantage point to your advantage. Carrying a second weapon in your pack is possible but incredibly limiting in terms of inventory space, and swapping weapons takes time that is usually unavailable in urban combat scenarios.

Maybe you disagree with these assessments and still consider the rifles "imbalanced." Fine. Let us discuss the greater issue of "balance" in general; we know rocket's opinion on the subject. He's not interested in balance and has no intention of providing it.

So we are left to ask ourselves, can we play and enjoy a game we perceive as imbalanced? Can a game that sometimes feels "unfair" be fun not simply in spite of but sometimes because of the presence of that unfairness? Is it unacceptable for a game to make us feel frustrated or even victimized? Will the challenge of adapting to these perceived imbalances make us take a different perspective on the game, one we might not have otherwise considered?

I think these are all questions rocket is toying with. I personally don't believe .50 caliber rifles are particularly "imbalanced" but many do and neither opinion is probably right. But if rocket remains true to his vision, the imbalance will remain true or otherwise - so you should look to how you can adapt to it rather than asking for it to be removed from the game.

(New 8-Aug) The inventory requirements, encumbrance and handling difficulties are not accurately represented by the game.

Though I do not necessarily consider this an argument for the removal of the weapons, I will include and discuss it for two reasons: first, it is a very commonly sited problem with these weapons in DayZ, and second because I actually completely agree. Eureka! We've struck oil.

But, right. Okay. We need to talk about how to solve that problem, not simply take the weapons out of the game because of it. "Cutting off the nose to spite the face," and all that, right? Taking these weapons out because we don't want to put our heads together and come up with a way to make their management and maintenance a more compelling trade-off is kind of like giving up. We can probably do better.

Decent ideas have already been proposed in this thread, and I'll add a few:

• Reticule wander when firing from standing and crouched positions is too subtle. Increase it to more accurately represent the importance of firing these weapons from a prone, supported position.
  
• Increase the number of inventory slots necessary to store these weapons in a backpack. 12 or 15 may do them more justice.
  
• Players using these weapons may run more slowly, or tire more easily
  
• Should any kind of stamina or exhaustion system be implemented, carrying these weapons might contribute to said.
  
• Weapons could be assembled and disassembled using a toolbox, but with a realistic time requirement. So, perhaps a disassembled AS50 might only occupy 8 slots in your backpack, but re-assembling it would require both a toolbox, and 60-90 seconds prone on the ground while performing the task. A very compelling trade-off between inventory space and speed/efficiency.
  

However, filed under "be careful what you wish for:" all of these same issues and restrictions would probably apply to LMGs which are similarly bulky and difficult to operate from any position save prone and supported, right? Military experts can correct me if I'm wrong here but I highly doubt shoulder-fired SAWs are as accurate as they seem to be in game.

Cheers to those who raised this issue, though. It's a good topic to discuss w/ respect to these weapon systems.

Edited August 8, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[A Friend 8]

Word to big bird.

[Rono 56]

Good post but you forgot the "50S KILL IN ONE SHOT TAKE THEM OUT AT LEAST WHEN I GET HIT WITH A DMR I CAN ALT+F4" argument.

[Zoop 343]

Sniper rifles aren't used against zombies, therefore they don't belong in DayZ.

This argument ignores the fact that rocket himself has declared and intends for players to be the greatest threat in the game. Tactical sniper rifles are not used for zombies generally, true. But, so what? I'm more concerned with the threat of players than zombies and that's not a flaw in the game design. That's precisely what rocket intended and precisely why sniper rifles remain an important tactical element of the game.

I would take this even further and say primary weapons are not used against zombies. I barely ever use anything other than my secondaries to dispatch zombies, because ammo for primaries is just too valuable.

[Heaves 4]

The overall sniper debate is as pointless as people calling for PvE servers. Not only would you go against the game's overall vision, but ultimately, you would make it boring. Sniper Rifles add to the already tense atmosphere the game creates. Aside from that, as stated enumerous times, the game is designed in the eyes of rocket, and he wants to keep the rifles, period.

If, however, you don't like that sniper rifles are for keeps, then you can either:

A - Accept the fact that they are here to stay, and get over it.

or

B - Create your own zombie survival mod.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Heaves

[Vampy (DayZ) 1]

I think people don't realise the unique selling point of DayZ is that PvP combat is not only included, it is the prime feature of DayZ. The main reason DayZ is getting the attention it is comes down to the fact that it is so unique you're scared of other players. Trust is one of the main factors. This isn't L4D2, this isn't CoD, this isn't WoW, if a guy wants to kill you and does so, you lose your shit. I can't fucking stand people who keep complaining that they're killed by a sniper in Cherno and then post and find it hilarious when they kill a guy with a L85 who said he was friendly with a hatchet.

tl;dr if you complain about PvPers who shoot on site buy a different game

[random51 172]

Sniper rifles are fine, any gun that is a 1-hit kill to a full health player *without* a headshot isn't.

It is a matter of gameplay balance, not realism, not people complaining about getting killed.

The most devastating gun in the game shouldn't also be one of the easiest to use, IMHO. Again, gameplay balancing, not realism is what forms this opinion.

[Tarkastio 38]

I don`t often find a thread in which I agree with every point the OP has made, this is one of them.

Beans for you.

[Polkaman 60]

If you're on DayZ/ARMA II for the gunplay, you're on the wrong game.

Good points

Edited August 6, 2012 by Polkaman

[Demon20 46]

Well said. Should leave very little for debate...but unfornately they will bring up the same BS 72 hours from now. But well said sir.

[necroslord 73]

I'm still waiting to see how the game balances out after fixing dupes and database reset. However for those saying "going aganst the overall vision of the game". I don't think rocket envisioned the game as a sniper competition. Currently the game revolves heavily on sniper rifles.

[Blindingsun 233]

in the real world. wars are not "balanced" why should this game be?

he who dies with the most toys = still dies.

[Lupin-III 44]

SERPENTINE PATTERN!

[nucleqrwinter@gmail.com 156]

IMO, Rocket should actually TRY things.

This is an alpha of a mod and there's no good reason that we shouldn't TRY removing or adding features or weapons and see what happens.

I've been playing for like a month and a half and the only things that have been added are bear traps and some algorithms for zombies' sight/hearing.

[Lennsik 176]

Well said, OP.

It's hard to argue why we should keep snipers without people getting extremely defense, but it looks like you shot down every angle of it. And what's scary is, if we removed sniper rifles, we're removing a player dynamic in the game, reducing the amount of choices of play style we'd get. And who would want that?

[Professional N00b 347]

I'd have to agree with every point made. Good job, putting them all together in an easily understandable and well worded format too.

I've killed many players as a "sniper" (though I don't think I'm quite good enough to earn that title, I'm still just a crazy-ass moron with a long ranged gun) but have yet to die from one because I know how snipers work and operate. The only people I've ever shot is those who stop in the middle of a field to talk to their teammates, or who go into extremely exposed areas (ex: the construction site in Stary) and sit there trying to shoot zombies.

If you don't want to be sniped... Don't. Sit. In. The. Fucking. Open.

[slonlo 43]

I don't think rocket envisioned the game as a sniper competition.

That's just it though, it's not. I VERY rarely encounter folks with precision rifles when I'm not expecting it. Actually, now that I've been playing a while, I am NEVER surprised by a sniper. If someone takes a shot at me, I was in a spot where I knew it might happen. Just like the kid I shot this weekend running across an open field with his buddy outside Starry (that then stopped RIGHT at the treeline). He shoulda known better. Then he Alt+F4'd as he was spurting blood (but that's another argument). But not long afterward I was engaged by 3 guys (2 in ghillie's) with at least one semi-auto precision rifle and I dove behind a rock, then hauled ass through some bushes. It's not hard guys. Just be smart. That's what makes this game so much fun. You gotta think!!

[Kerwyn 77]

You sir, can have my beans.

I'm sure the people this thread is actually intended for while completely ignore this thread and continue to cry about the fact that someone shot them with a sniper rifle. Oh well, I guess you can't win them all.

I for one enjoy the challenge of having to properly recon an area before I move in. That I actually have to pay attention to the route I take, and where I can be seen from, just like in real life. And for those crying that the guns are too common? if we went real, the only guns which would be any sort of common would be shotguns and hunting rifles. Meaning yes, there would be -even more- people with "sniper" rifles in the game.

[gizm0 96]

scaring off an approaching bandit

and how do you know they were a bandit and not some possible friendly?

also While I won't agrue with you against the need of snipers but whats the need for the m107 and AS50 when we have the DMR,M24,SVDcamo,possibly the m14?

Edited August 6, 2012 by Orthus

[Lennsik 176]

Shoot at their feet, of course.

I'm usually the assault guy going in and looting, but there are times in my group where I take recon. I've yet to kill a player with a sniper rifle. In fact, I've killed over 40+ zombies as a Sniper than anything else. We all play differently.

[slonlo 43]

The only difference I'd like to see is the 'zero' system. I know that is an Arma thing, and has nothing to do with DayZ, but I would prefer actual MRAD adjustments at least for the rifles with mil-dot reticles. The subtensions are correct to the point that you can accurately range targets, so being able to make a call off the splash and make an adjustment would be great!! Then folks would either have to make a wild ass guess at elevation or make up their own dope cards. Then people with "no training" would have a much harder time with the "sniper" rifles.

Again, that is asking WAY too much, I know. Just something I've thought about since getting into Arma.

[random51 172]

If duping wasn't near automatic, including magazine refill upon login would you really waste rounds shooting at somebody's feet? If you're going to use a bullet you should maximize the return on your investment. Aim for the head and then drink all their Dew.

[Knollte 13]

Every weapon with a more powerfull calibre than 5.56mm should have a decent chance to cripple or knock out.

Dont start making the one hit kill weapons end game eqipment to pwn the noobs i am fine with .50 cal rifles as long as i can also one hit the snipers with my lee enfield should the be to predictable (pls fix the dinner bell).

[evoxtom 142]

I just believe the 1 shot kill (.50) snipers have no business here. I believe the dmr, cz (especially fitting), and others with scopes need to hit someone twice for a kill. (dependent on distance as they are now.)

It's just anti immersive to me, to be paranoid that someone with a .50 cal sniper is on every hill top watching me. And everyone with it seems capable enough with said man cannon to blow off my leg (in the least) and kill me.

Not many people can just pick up the .50 and fire this thing without hurting themselves. Lower caliber rifles are much more "user friendly."

While I don't snipe, I do believe it's absolutely imperative it stays nonetheless. I just ask for a tad more balance to go along with this mod. (we all know dayz is suppose to be unfair, but a tad more balance should be welcomed to balance out the fact that everyone's grandma wants to be some bad ass sniper they saw in a movie.)

[slonlo 43]

Not many people can just pick up the .50 and fire this thing without hurting themselves. Lower caliber rifles are much more "user friendly."

Actually... have you ever fired an M82? They don't kick much at all (like you might think). Tuck it in your shoulder and it's a pussy cat. That big ass clam shell brake will clear your sinuses (and knock the wind out of anyone not directly behind you). They are definitely too common, but that's a matter of duping. Plus I would have killed for a .50 calibre rifle the other night to stop a van. Plus they are effective against helicopters, if/when they come back. I haven't used one in the game yet though, perhaps they are too accurate. The .50 BMG cartridge is NOT meant for accuracy, and you aren't gonna be finding match grade ammo with 750 gr A-max or solid lathe turned bullets in Chernarus. Make it like 2MOA and there will be fewer people taking shots at 600 with that thing. Again, I don;t know if that's possible through the mod though. But if you had a 11" ring around your point of aim where it would hit randomly at 500m it'd be a much more realistic situation.