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

[TheBeanAholic 16]

It's simple the only people who complain are noobs who run around Cherno and climb up on the silos and get shot from Dovry. If people learned that you can be shot at anytime and are more careful then it wouldn't be a problem, but people like running around down the street in Elektro and complain that snipers are OP.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

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.

I've added a response to the "The weapons are too deadly" argument. It turned out longer than I hoped, but oh well. It's already a novella of a post.

I'm not going to address your "anti-immersive" claim because I feel that falls under the previous claim that these rifles are "unrealistic" or "out of place" in the game.

You cannot claim they are anti-immersive just because they can kill you. Fear of death is pretty much the most immersive thing you can ask for in a survival game.

[evoxtom 142]

I've added a response to the "The weapons are too deadly" argument. It turned out longer than I hoped, but oh well. It's already a novella of a post.

I'm not going to address your "anti-immersive" claim because I feel that falls under the previous claim that these rifles are "unrealistic" or "out of place" in the game.

You cannot claim they are anti-immersive just because they can kill you. Fear of death is pretty much the most immersive thing you can ask for in a survival game.

Fair enough, but I fear every gun in game. I would still be equally paranoid in town if someone had the drop on me with a cz, soI believe my opinion on balance would not detract from the game at all.

Just my opinion though. Touché.

Edited August 7, 2012 by evoxtom

[random51 172]

1-hit body shots are poor gameplay. Any attack that kills you effectively instantly and requires almost no skill whatsoever makes for really bad gameplay.

You either understand this or you don't really understand game mechanics. I'm going to leave it at that because there is no point arguing it with people who get their jollies from using the I-Win button.

You manage to kill somebody with a headshot from a DMR or SVD, only using one round, you've shown some skill, you can call yourself a videogame sniper with pride. You kill somebody with a shot anywhere to the body with an AS50 or M107, all you are is a glorified whack-a-mole player.

...which is why every cheesedick sniper on the hills above elektro or cherno is rocking an AS50 if they can. It is trivially easy to kill that guy 800m away who has the range of a string of spaghetti without him even aware you're there. Not only are you using the highest damage, easiest to use sniper rifle in the game, you're seeking out targets who for the most part are guaranteed to not have similar capabilities.

...but hey, keep on doing it and keep on feeling special because you're a DayZ whack-a-mole champion. The good players will continue to laugh at you while they face real challenges up north.

[urspider2018@gmail.com 109]

requires almost no skill whatsoever makes for really bad gameplay.

This was addressed in the OP.

[oZiix 45]

Excellent read.

It all comes down to efficiency! The AS50/M107 are the most efficient sniper rifles in the game. That is why people prefer them.

The next tier down of sniper rifles do 8000 damage unless it's a headshot. You are pretty much dead anyways if you don't die you are not effectively going to return fire at the range you where engaged at in the first place. You will have to bandage or bleed out, possible broken bone. The sniper has basically won anyway you are pretty much neutralized he can see where you ran or crawled and has time to move. All the 50.cals do is give you no chance to retreat but the other rifles still basically did their job of they hit.

Honestly taking 50.cal snipers out just forces those same players to go one tier down. Taking all snipers out forces those players to m14, saws, fn fals. It is efficiency and that's there is to it. Those same players will always pick the weapon with the longest effective range and that does the most damage.

Saying it requires no skill is a dumb argument it absolutely dumb to say its no skill because it's a one shot kill. This isn't COD (yes I said it).

I use to play a ton of MW2 and there was this forever arguement that by giving yourself a limiting barrier intervention bolt action > Barrett 50.cal meant you where more skilled even though the Barrett was more efficient.

[oZiix 45]

Apologizies for errors typing on iphone

[CLewis 31]

No duping and with wind (hopefully this is introduced in the stand-alone), there would be less of a "problem" with snipers.

[petermann2 19]

TLDR version, please.

[Lennsik 176]

TLDR version, please.

Tl;Dr: Stop being a lazy tosser and read it if you're interested enough.

[-NGR- Larkinto 87]

tl;dr

If the 1-hit kill rifles weren't in the game firefights would be A LOT more exciting and tactical. Point, click. Point, click. Is boring as fuck. As is being killed instantly out of the blue without ever having had a chance to fire.

I'm all for the M24, CZ550, SVD and DMR because they take some amount of skill to accurately place shots and take down a target. But the .50s kill in one shot to anywhere on the body, they take no skill to use and in my opinion they take away from the gameplay. Remove the .50 cals, keep the other rifles. Let's bring back to exciting firefights of post-chopper crash/item duping DayZ.

Edited August 7, 2012 by -NGR- Larkinto

[euryale 72]

All hail the almighty ZDB.

I used a few time my DMR to take out zeds around crashed choppers, so my squad could loot it without having to deal with all of those pests.

Also, I believe that a .50 cal should be a 1 hit kill. I see this game as something more hard and, therefore, fun that way. This is not some random arcade fps

[LawsOfFire 21]

that is the best words i have heard in a time. i am tired of people "remove 50 cal. remove infrared on fal. remove this and that"

[oZiix 45]

tl;dr

I'm all for the M24, CZ550, SVD and DMR because they take some amount of skill to accurately place shots and take down a target. But the .50s kill in one shot to anywhere on the body, they take no skill to use and in my opinion they take away from the gameplay.

Assuming your playing on a server that doesn't range with scroll wheel.

The SVD is the easiest rifle to range of all the snipers. M24 and DMR basically range the same with mil-dots. CZ is its own animal. 50.cals still have to be ranged with mil-dots.

Your only argument against 50.cals being in the game is that they are 1 Shot kills which is fucking dumb. Urals, VS3 become tanks if you take out 50.cals. Helicopters fly around free with out 50cals. Yes you can kill all those vehicles with those weapons but it's going to take alot of ammo.

It's a dumb argument do you really think if a sniper has you lined up with a DMR and knows its not going to be a headshot he still won't take the shot? He is still going to take the fucking shot so your only argument for skill is that he has to shoot you twice because his gun isn't as powerful as a 50.cal.

[reuben5150 83]

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.

(New 7-AUG) 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.

Here's a good rule of thumb-

No sniper rifle should be OHK unless it's a headshot or fired at very close range.

Also 50cal should have low firing rate and low magazine capacity.

This isn't arma anymore and it's not " real life ", the above rules work very well.

[Vipala 32]

Well served OP. Take that "@CoD pr0s with madsk!lllz!!"

Edited August 7, 2012 by Vipala

[reuben5150 83]

Also, duplication is only part of the problem, rare items may have a very low spawn rate but it's still " endless "

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Here's a good rule of thumb-

No sniper rifle should be OHK unless it's a headshot or fired at very close range.

Also 50cal should have low firing rate and low magazine capacity.

This isn't arma anymore and it's not " real life ", the above rules work very well.

Work very well to accomplish what?

What is your stated goal in asking the designers to artificially limit the magazine size, RoF and damage capabilities of these weapons?

Just because it makes you feel safer?

You need a better reason than that.

Also, duplication is only part of the problem, rare items may have a very low spawn rate but it's still " endless "

What "problem" are you referring to?

I feel like I've done a sufficient job addressing the claim that the mere presence of these rifles presents a "problem," so what's left? Give me something to respond to here and I'll work with it mate.

Sufficiently low spawn rates combined with periodic loss of items ensures rarity. If you want to encourage rarity, kill snipers and bury their guns with their corpses.

Neato!

Edited August 7, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

Amazing post.

Should sticky to shut up the QQers

[bazbake 456]

In the real world, sniper rifles aren't one-shot/one-kills and shooting people from closer away with a rifle as opposed to farther away causes less damage, not more. If I sneak up on you and you spin and pop me with a sniper rifle, that gun overpenetrates. That means it makes a tiny hole and then goes through the wall without stopping.

If sniper rifles were as deadly as the gamers in DayZ think they are, the military would use nothing but sniper rifles. Instead, there are only a few hundred snipers in the entire US military and they're mostly used for reconnaissance.

You can't argue realism in one breath and then game balance in the other breath when sniper rifles are neither balanced nor realistic in this game.

Let me emphasize this for people who still refuse to acknowledge it.

Your belief that sniper rifles should kill in one hit comes from VIDEOGAMES AND MOVIES. You are basing your entire defense, reliance, and beliefs about the weapons on works of fiction. The only rifles that should even be close to one-shot/one-kills are the .50 caliber weapons. The others are standard NATO rounds (they can barely stop someone in the first place, that's why modern weapons shoot 3-6 of them in a volley...because one isn't enough!) and 7.62s, which still do less damage than pistols.

The reason people are annoyed at sniper rifles is because the other weapons do less damage and no one seems to know how guns work!

"BULLETS! HOW DO THEY WORK!"

If the game treated sniper rifles and pistols and shotguns like they work in real life, no one would give a crap about anything smaller than a .50 caliber. You'd sit in a nest adjusting for windage, eventually get a shot on a moving target, and he'd go down. And then he'd get back up and you'd get another shot off if you're lucky and he'd go back down. And then he'd get up and you'd get another shot off and he'd go back down.

Then he'd turn around, fire about 15 bullets in your direction and ruin your day right quick.

Eventually you'd be like, "Screw this," grab a double-barrel shotgun, a weapon with some REAL stopping power, and chase him down.

Or maybe next time you'd move it out to the tree line where he can't shoot back at you because THAT'S WHAT SNIPER RIFLES ARE FOR. Sending normal-sized rounds with normal-sized damage really, really far so no one can shoot back. They're not for shooting magical disintegrating lasers PEW PEW style a mile away. They're for increased engagement range favoring penetration INSTEAD OF stopping power. Sniper rifles aren't designed to kill in one hit, they're designed to wound in one hit from really far away.

That's real talk.

P.S.

Your knowledge of guns is bad. Your argument is bad. You should feel bad. (But not too bad, don't kill yourself or anything, just sulk in the corner for a while.)

Edited August 7, 2012 by BazBake

[Heiduk 265]

Sniper rifles should be a part of the game and I agree with the points about new players, PvP, and zombie killing.

I don't agree with most of the OP's other points. I had a long rebuttal written for each of the other points before realizing that all of the other arguments boil down what the game is about. Is it deathmatch at a SOCOM sniper training facility that has been overrun by zombies? Is it an authentic survival game against a hostile environment and players in a post-soviet satellite country? Is it hide and seek in the woods? The designers can invalidate any of the arguments made in this or similar threads based on what they want the game to be.

For the record I would like to see the .50 cals removed. Rocket has consistently indicated that he is most interested in authenticity and these weapons are by far the least authentic in terms of abundance, performance, and logistics. Well except for helos.

[vetrox 16]

I got nothing against sniper rifles (been killed by them myself a number of times)

One of my most exhilerating moments in dayz was me and a teamate running through an open feild and hearing sniper rounds fly past us. I managed to take cover behind a hay bale (yeh they stop bullets) and my team mate thought it would be smart to turn around, stand still and get his binoculars out.

Fortunatley the sniper didnt realise there were 2 of us (some how) and as he came out to loot the body I managed to down him with a hefty wall of akm rounds.

If someone wants to spend their whole time on dayz on top of a building waiting for someone to come along and stand still so they can get a free kill then by all means do it...Its kinda what sniper rifles are for.

[thefonztm@gmail.com 86]

Zedsdeadbaby, thanks for the thoughtful reasoning. I have one major issue that I'd like you to address. I'll post it up after I get off work today if no one beats me. I would mention it briefly, but I don't want to present an incomplete arguement.

[Heaves 4]

In the real world, sniper rifles aren't one-shot/one-kills and shooting

The OP is not talking about 'real world' ballastics.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Heaves

[The Sad Panda 113]

As annoying and frustrating as sniper rifles can be, there is absolutely no reason for a Dev to make a completely knee-jerk reaction and nerf / remove sniper gameplay. Let me clear something up also, I've never held a sniper rifle in any of my character's hands or backpacks, the closest I've ever had would be the M14 AIM.

As the OP mentioned, Duping / scripting has placed vastly more of these items into circulation than is intended. Our small group of four has only encountered ONE M107 rifle as a legitimate drop since we started playing. That's 400 individual man-hours with ONE .50 cal drop. In that time we've never seen a DMR, CZ550, SVD camo, Rangefinder, or a (legitimate, non hacked) pair of NVGs. With this in mind (and accounting for what could even be a MASSIVE amount of bad luck on our part), it still doesn't make sense that the tree lines of high-pop servers are infested with Ghillie suit wearing, anti-material rifle toting "Marksmen" who sport what seems to be a never ending supply of what is supposed to be a rare ammo.

Does it suck getting dropped from out of nowhere?

Yes

Does it seem fair that hours of hard work can be undone in an instant?

No

Knowing that this is an Alpha-stage TEST of a mod, does it make sense to take action against a class of weapons that has been VASTLY over inflated past it's intended levels of "normal" gameplay?

No, No, No, No, and NO again.

Look, i feel your pain, I'm by no means sitting up on cloud nine completely immune to the victimization that not only snipers, but also hackers and admin abuse breeds in this game. However, you MUST understand that (and I already know that this will fall on deaf ears) this is not a representation of a finished project. In fact, in the gaming industry only a few titles have a public BETA (not a game demo labeled as a beta, which is being increasingly common), a public alpha like this is pretty rare to begin with, and being on a scale this large, it could even be unprecedented.

Whether or not you went out and bought Arma II: CO for the sole purpose of playing DayZ (I did, I'm not ashamed of it), you are still TESTING a product. Luxuries such as game "balance", stability, and complete functionality are just that - luxuries. We're not here because the game is ready to ship as a stand-alone product, if it were you would have bought "DayZ" instead of "Arma II" from your retailer.

No-one is being forced to play-test this mod, if you find something to be game breaking or just generally un-enjoyable, please, by all means - take a break.

Edited August 7, 2012 by The Sad Panda