Recon - Sniper

you actually think sniper rifles in this game are only supposed to be used in the exact same manner as their real life counterparts

No. I'm telling you that's how the designers want you to use it, that that's their philosophy. That's where you are the one who really, really does not get it.

And you can try to use the Mini Scout with its faster rate of fire at close range is you want. Just be good or suffer.

But in the end I'm wasting time here: nobody's ever gonna listen to you, because what you want is not an interesting weapon balance for this game. So go on raving, that's fine. 

Exactly, if you're going close range with a sniper rifle you better get a headshot or you will likely lose out 1 on 1, as expected.

AlphiB wrote:

No. I'm telling you that's how the designers want you to use it, that that's their philosophy. That's where you are the one who really, really does not get it.

It's called feedback, ever heard of it? But ok then, be consistent about it and from now on I expect you and everyone who agrees with you to start shooting down all the negative feedback about all other stuff like random recoil many are complaining about. After all, that's how the designers wanted it, right? Just let them do whatever they want and shut down the BF Labs.

At least what I'm arguing for is nothing new, a return to the classic sniper balance that made much more sense, worked much better and made the game way more fun for the aggressive recon playstyle. It's the same damage logic as any other weapon, starting with max damage that gradually decreases over distance. Many have already given negative feedback about the sweetspot concept, because it's weird to have bullets increase damage over range, even for a game. If it worked so good back then I see absolutely no reason why it would suddenly break the game balance if it was applied here.

Anobix wrote:

Exactly, if you're going close range with a sniper rifle you better get a headshot or you will likely lose out 1 on 1, as expected.

If only that exact same logic was also applied to reg guns, but oh no that would turn soldiers into "bullet sponges" and wouldn't be much fun would it? So let's instead require only snipers to be only effective if you're extremely skilled, but not for everything else, because that's good gun balance. 

Are you wanting body shots to one-shot at close range? As an aggressive player myself who enjoys quickscoping in CoD, I'm against the idea of body shots one shotting in BF games. There's a risk vs reward with that play style and if you don't get your headshot then you better be fast and get your pistol out.

Damage scaling for snipers are fine the way they are.

No not necessarily, the damage should be balanced vs other class weapon's damage and TTK. Since most automatic weapons in BF6 can kill with just 3 or 4 hits to the body (even just the limbs) at close range, also having much less spread than ever before and higher muzzle velocity that rivals even some sniper rifles, it means non-sniper guns are far more deadly then previous BF games.

Kunstula wrote:

No not necessarily, the damage should be balanced vs other class weapon's damage and TTK. Since most automatic weapons in BF6 can kill with just 3 or 4 hits to the body (even just the limbs) at close range, also having much less spread than ever before and higher muzzle velocity that rivals even some sniper rifles, it means non-sniper guns are far more deadly then previous BF games.

Its an automatic weapon....it's supposed to be deadly at close range vs a bolt action considering you're not supposed to be running and gunning with a sniper to begin with.

Snipers are balanced around headshots. If you can pull off headshots up close, then you're rewarded with a one shot kill. You're playing a high risk style that is rewarded with good aim.

If you're in CQC and don't have confidence in getting your headshot then whip out your pistol. The revolvers are goated in this game.

Raansu86 wrote:

Its an automatic weapon....it's supposed to be deadly at close range vs a bolt action considering you're not supposed to be running and gunning with a sniper to begin with.

Then by that logic sniper rifles are supposed to be deadly at long range, yet when they are people start crying that it's "too easy". But when automatic weapons are deadly at close range all is fine apparently.... ROFL...I can't believe people do not see the glaring hypocrisy and a double standard with this take, what a joke.

Raansu86 wrote:

Snipers are balanced around headshots.

And that's the problem right there. Either all weapons should be balanced around headshots or none of them. Right now we have automatic guns that deal full damage even with just hits to the limbs, but not sniper rifles, that's a major weapon balance issue.

Then by that logic sniper rifles are supposed to be deadly at long range, yet when they are people start crying that it's "too easy".

Don't mix everything up. Nobody is calling for sniper rifles to lose their ability to do one-shot kills, so nobody is asking for them to be less deadly. People are asking that a special type of weapons with a deadly ability take some skill to be used. Go check videos of any BF before this one to see what they mean. 

Right now we have automatic guns that deal full damage even with just hits to the limbs, but not sniper rifles, that's a major weapon balance issue.

So again, you're using the wrong vocabulary, which is confusing, and using that to say something completely wrong.

There is no "full damage" for these gun categories. There is base damage and damage to the head. Every weapon deals base damage adjusted for range when hitting anywhere but the head. Every weapon will inflict base damage multiplied by its headshot multiplier when hitting the head. PERIOD. 

There is currently no specific damage to the limbs, for any weapon. Go check your own video, and maybe try to understand what you see this time. 

Kunstula wrote:

And that's the problem right there. Either all weapons should be balanced around headshots or none of them. Right now we have automatic guns that deal full damage even with just hits to the limbs, but not sniper rifles, that's a major weapon balance issue.

lol what? The balance is the fact that a headshot is a oneshot on snipers. It would be stupid to have body shots be one shot. This isn't CoD where you're kinda forced to play aggressive and all the maps are really small so one shot upper body is necessary.

Even on the smaller maps in BF6, you have all the room in the world to play a proper sniper. If you're running and gunning, you're taking that high risk and are rewarded with good aim. If upper body shots one shot you'd be basically running around with a long range shotgun and that would be stupid.

Either pull your pistol out when you're running around, or get better at hitting your headshots. Full autos are supposed to counter bolt actions at close range.

Kunstula wrote:

Then by that logic sniper rifles are supposed to be deadly at long range

They literally are.... No offense, but this just sounds like you have bad aim. BF6 is the easiest sniping as ever been. All the maps favor sniping pretty heavily and all of the snipers have relatively low bullet drop and zeroing is insanely easy even without the range finder.

AlphiB wrote:

Don't mix everything up. Nobody is calling for sniper rifles to lose their ability to do one-shot kills, so nobody is asking for them to be less deadly. People are asking that a special type of weapons with a deadly ability take some skill to be used. Go check videos of any BF before this one to see what they mean.

It's funny how you accuse me of the very thing you are doing yourself since that start of this discussion. People are in fact calling for sniper rifles to become less deadly, you are just arguing semantics here. All at the same time while arguing for automatic weapons to be remain easy. That's not balance, that bias.

AlphiB wrote:

So again, you're using the wrong vocabulary, which is confusing, and using that to say something completely wrong.

There is no "full damage" for these gun categories. There is base damage and damage to the head. Every weapon deals base damage adjusted for range when hitting anywhere but the head. Every weapon will inflict base damage multiplied by its headshot multiplier when hitting the head. PERIOD. 

No I don't, you are in fact using the wrong vocabulary.

What you call "base damage" is what's known as minimum damage. What I call "full damage" is what's known as maximum damage. Currently there are 3 different area's on the body that have different damage multipliers. 1. The chest, which is neutral or has no damage multiplier. 2. The rest of the body, consisting of the lower torso and the limbs that can have a negative damage multiplier. 3. Then there's only one area on the body that has a positive damage multiplier which is the head, giving extra or bonus damage. 

Take the M433 for example: it's full damage/maximum damage is 25 and it's base damage/minimum damage is 16.7

Now to get back to the point.

Sniper rifles:

Head: positive damage multiplier (bonus damage) 
Chest: neutral damage multiplier (1x)
Anywhere else on the body: negative damage multiplier

Automatic weapons: 

Head: positive damage multiplier (bonus damage)
Chest: neutral damage multiplier (1x)
Anywhere else on the body: neutral damage multiplier (1x)

Sniper rifles have a negative damage multiplier for most of the body, whereas automatic weapons don't even have a negative damage multiplier anywhere on the body at all. 

AlphiB wrote:

There is currently no specific damage to the limbs, for any weapon. Go check your own video, and maybe try to understand what you see this time.

My video clearly showed that there is in fact a negative damage multiplier to the limbs for sniper rifles and I'll post another here again that clearly shows a difference in damage multipliers to the chest and the limbs.

That face that you still keep denying this in the face of irrefutable proof shows you're either trolling or simply incapable of accepting anything that contradicts your current beliefs. In either case, that's your problem.

Raansu86 wrote:

They literally are.... No offense, but this just sounds like you have bad aim. BF6 is the easiest sniping as ever been. All the maps favor sniping pretty heavily and all of the snipers have relatively low bullet drop and zeroing is insanely easy even without the range finder.

Haha, that's hilarious calling me out for bad aim while still crying about snipers when automatic weapons are more accurate, have higher muzzle velocity and deal higher damage over longer range than ever.

At least with sniper rifles you still have to land a headshot or a chest shot within the sweetspot range to be deadly, whereas automatic weapons can hit anywhere on the body, even the limbs to be deadly.

Kunstula wrote:

My video clearly showed that there is in fact a negative damage multiplier to the limbs for sniper rifles and I'll post another here again that clearly shows a difference in damage multipliers to the chest and the limbs.

Who cares? Go for headshots or stop sniping. If you're not getting head taps you're playing wrong.

Kunstula wrote:

Haha, that's hilarious calling me out for bad aim while still crying about snipers when automatic weapons are more accurate, have higher muzzle velocity and deal higher damage over longer range than ever.

At least with sniper rifles you still have to land a headshot or a chest shot within the sweetspot range to be deadly, whereas automatic weapons can hit anywhere on the body, even the limbs to be deadly.

Who's crying about snipers outside of you? Recon/sniping makes up the majority of my play time. Sniping is perfectly fine the way it is right now. You're mad that you can't one tap to the chest because you choose to play in a high risk way while not having the skill to achieve the high reward results. And if you're losing to AR's at long range.... uh, well... ya...that is a skill issue lol.

As far as sweet spots go....I could care less about sweet spots because I don't go for body shots....like ever. I am always looking to head tap. Sweet spot could just not exist for all I care.

That's not the point, I see reading comprehension isn't your thing, but that's ok, some people are just born with low IQ.

I guess you didn't see the Q&A where a dev answered someone complaining about sniping being "too easy" and already forgot your own comment where you call sniping "too easy". I also doubt you're a sniper main, as no sniper main would claim sniping is too easy in this game where automatic weapons are better than ever before.

Because sniping IS easy in this game compared to past BF games lol (and I'm not suggesting it be changed, I think its fine the way it is right now), but ya I TOTALLY don't snipe in this game.... definitely not.... I'm no pro or anything, but sniping is my favorite play style in every fps game.

Edit: Two more screens for good measure. Obviously I play other classes as well, especially when vehicles start to annoy me, but its pretty clear that I play recon/sniping more than anything else lol.

I think I've made my point. Next time you wanna call someone out on what they play....well, don't lol.

What you call "base damage" is what's known as minimum damage. What I call "full damage" is what's known as maximum damage.

Max damage is what people call base damage without falloff from distance. It's literally the number you see in the stats when you check a weapon, because in most cases, you will actually deal less than that due to falloff. It is NOT headshot damage. Just type it in google and have a look at how people use it. 

Sniper rifles:

Head: positive damage multiplier (bonus damage) 
Chest: neutral damage multiplier (1x)
Anywhere else on the body: negative damage multiplier

A negative damage multiplier would make the total damage... Negative. That does not exist. I have to assume you mean a multiplier lower than 1, because with you, I have to translate everything.

But I did bother to make a few google searches, in case of DICE had introduced a mechanic I hadn't heard about. Your own initial video showed 64 to the torso and 64 to the limbs, which is how the system is supposed to work. Best I can find is a couple of reddit posts that say that while the mini scout lacks a proper sweet spot (one-shot kill in the upper torso), it actually still deals x1 damage to the upper torso at short range.

To be clear, that would be a perk. The mini scout has a multiplier of 0.8 at short range, so it should deal 64 everywhere but the head. If it deals 80 in the upper torso, that's a bonus. Best I can tell is, you got it completely reversed. 

So, I went and tested every sniper rifle, shooting at each and every dummy in the firing range in the 9 (head), 7 (neck), 8 (torso), and 5 (lower leg).

First thing I wanted to do is to apologize: the explanation I gave for how sniper rifles damage work is entirely wrong. Sure, they were explanations I got from supposedly serious YouTube videos and the charts they produced, but still, I should not have used such arrogance and definitive tone for something I had never checked in details myself.

To be clear however, you are not quite right yourself: there is simply no multiplier whatsoever.

At short range, ALL sniper rifles deal the same damage: 100 to the head, 80 to the sweet spot, 64 elsewhere. This despite the fact they don't have the same base damage (hence the absence of any multiplier, these are just set figures).

Over the range, the damage will vary from gun to gun, which makes sense as you enter the sweet spot range for some of them. For those that are long range (PSR and L115), the damage remains 100/80/64 all the way to the 125m mark. For those that have a sweet spot before 125m, the damage increases until the sweet spot and decreases afterwards.

The mini scout is the exception here: its damage decreases with distance, starting at the same 100/80/64 at the closest target. Impossible to say how low it goes from the range itself.

Which does lead me to my second remark: I had completely forgotten most sniper rifles had a base damage of 100. After all, when sniping, for me it's either headshot or a miss, I never really cared for the actual numbers. But that leads to a big question:

You want sniper rifles to deal max damage at close range no matter the body part. For every sniper rifle but the mini scout, that would be a one-shot kill even if shooting a finger. Can I assume you didn't mean that, and mostly based your experience and frustration on the mini scout stats? 

AlphiB wrote:

You want sniper rifles to deal max damage at close range no matter the body part. For every sniper rifle but the mini scout, that would be a one-shot kill even if shooting a finger. Can I assume you didn't mean that, and mostly based your experience and frustration on the mini scout stats?

Someone else in this thread already asked me that question and like I said before, I am not necessarily in favor of close range 1HK ability to the body for sniper rifles, and definitely not the entire body. 

IMO sniper rifles should be balanced vs how accurate and fast other class weapons kill. Right now you have automatic weapons that have way less ADS spread than ever before, much higher muzzle velocity and have no lower damage multiplier to the lower torso and limbs. IMO this is very unbalanced and strongly in favor of automatic weapons. That can be solved in multiple ways, for example by nerfing automatic weapons accuracy, like more ADS spread and/or more recoil and apply the same lower damage multipliers to the lower torso and limbs to all other weapons classes.

Man, I just explained there is no multiplier at all for sniper rifles...

But let's put it another way: there is no multiplier for lower torso and limbs. Instead, there is a - bigger than one - multiplier for higher torso and head for sniper rifles, but only a multiplier for head (not for higher torso) for automatic rifles.

So sniper rifles already have the advantage of higher damage in the sweet spot, and a higher multiplier than any other weapon for headshots. Not only that, but they already deal more damage per shot at close range in the lower torso and limbs than any other weapon bar the shotguns and the M44 handgun.

Or to put yet another way: if you agree sniper rifles should not one-shot in the body, then the next available number is two shots. Which is exactly what you have right now. 

AlphiB wrote:

Man, I just explained there is no multiplier at all for sniper rifles...

But let's put it another way: there is no multiplier for lower torso and limbs. Instead, there is a - bigger than one - multiplier for higher torso and head for sniper rifles, but only a multiplier for head (not for higher torso) for automatic rifles.

And exactly how do you know there isn't? I have not seen any official information that confirms what you're saying. Then again there is also none that confirms mine, but if we look at some of the previous BF games (see attached picture) we can clearly see that using a 1x damage multiplier for the chest and a < 1 multiplier for limbs is far more common than what you claim, so what seems more likely to be true then?

AlphiB wrote:

So sniper rifles already have the advantage of higher damage in the sweet spot, and a higher multiplier than any other weapon for headshots.

Oh please, that is not an advantage at all. All weapons have a certain range where they do the most damage and in the case of sniper rifles it's just shifted to a much further range instead of the start of the bullet trajectory. 
A sniper rifle that doesn't 1HK with a headshot is pretty much useless, they can make the headshot multiplier 2x, 3x or even 100x, it won't make a difference once it passes the max health mark. You make it sound like having a higher headshot damage multiplier for bolt action rifles is some kind of advantage over non-sniper weapons.

AlphiB wrote:

Not only that, but they already deal more damage per shot at close range in the lower torso and limbs than any other weapon bar the shotguns and the M44 handgun.

Nice cherry picking here, sniper rifles also have a much lower fire rate, so the damage output per second is actually much lower than any other class weapon. Hitting your shot at close range in the lower torso and limbs with a sniper rifle is not nearly as advantageous as you try to make it seem. I've had loads of situations where I hit the enemy first, but still lost because I couldn't land enough hits with the pistol to finish him off in time.

AlphiB wrote:

Or to put yet another way: if you agree sniper rifles should not one-shot in the body, then the next available number is two shots. Which is exactly what you have right now.

Whether sniper rifles deal 99 or 50 damage per bullet mathematically it will still be a 2 hit kill yes, but acting like it won't make any difference in the game is stupid. If you need to make more follow up pistol hits in a split second that can quite often make the difference between winning and losing. Also when you hit an enemy without killing him he can more quickly heal enough HP to survive another hit, the auto heal in this game is very fast. And don't start with the "you should go for headshots only", that's a persistent myth. No sniper goes exclusively for headshots, nor is it always feasible when you have to quickly hit a moving target, especially when they slide, jump and move in an unpredictable manner which is very easy in the game due to a lack of momentum combined with high movement speed.

It's really hard to stay polite with someone who does not bother to read...

First, there is no multiplier for limbs for sniper rifles. you can tell because they all deal exactly the same damage at close range, no matter their stats. I can't explain math to you.

Secondly, we know there is no limb multiplier. Go and check the community updates, they're literally talking about introducing it and it should undergo testing in BF Labs shortly.

Thirdly, sniper weapons are not supposed to be as easy nor as good as automatic weapons at close range, period. Nobody really cares that you disagree with that.

Bye now. 

Kunstula wrote:

A sniper rifle that doesn't 1HK with a headshot is pretty much useless,

Good thing all the sniper rifles 1HK on a headshot regardless of range.

Kunstula wrote:

You make it sound like having a higher headshot damage multiplier for bolt action rifles is some kind of advantage over non-sniper weapons.

I mean... it literally is. I can 1 tap you at any range as long as its a headshot. Even if I miss and only get a body shot, I'm still at an advantage at long range because I only need two body shots.

Kunstula wrote:

And don't start with the "you should go for headshots only", that's a persistent myth.

No its not lol.

Kunstula wrote:

No sniper goes exclusively for headshots,

I do, and any half decent sniper does.

Here's the reality. Sniper rifles are long range weapons. They have a massive advantage over automatic rifles at long range. The opposite is true that a gun that is full auto is 100% going to have an advantage over a bolt action at close range. If you're being aggressive, you're making that choice of high risk for a high reward. If you don't have the confidence to quickscope and land headshots, then pull out the **bleep** pistol when you're moving around and snipe once you're set up in a safe spot.

+1.

I mean this is basic stuff, and 2 seconds on the firing range would disprove everything Kunstula said.

Says the one who admitted to not checking the details before making claims.

Also, I never said I wanted sniper rifles to be as easy or as good as automatic weapons at close range, but keep twisting the facts if it helps you feel like you're in the right here.

Goodbye.