Re: Cool Sniper Addon (with video demonstration!)

**206 Wolfpack** · 09-09-2008, 03:00 PM

Ehh As a sniper on a actual mission (not something like Evo or Dom) I mainly just try to act as a scout and only take out the high priority targets so the rest of the team can actually have a slightly good challenge, Snipers in ArmA is kind of like the way of choosing the handicap in game. I kind of prefer whichever gun it is that has the scope and can zoom in with the scope even after zoomed, its alright for close quarter battles and makes for a perfect marksman gun in the game,

**Delta** · 09-10-2008, 04:11 AM

Many people do not understand that an actual sniper role is used mainly for reconnaissance* and rarely for target elimination. Just my two cents on the secondary topic.

*re-con-nais-sance
noun
Military observation of a region to locate an enemy or ascertain strategic figures.

**Xmaster** · 09-10-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Delta

Many people do not understand that an actual sniper role is used mainly for reconnaissance* and rarely for target elimination. Just my two cents on the secondary topic.

*re-con-nais-sance
noun
Military observation of a region to locate an enemy or ascertain strategic figures.

True.

**Davies** · 09-11-2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Delta

Many people do not understand that an actual sniper role is used mainly for reconnaissance* and rarely for target elimination. Just my two cents on the secondary topic.

*re-con-nais-sance
noun
Military observation of a region to locate an enemy or ascertain strategic figures.

But am I right in thinking the sniper has a more active role when it comes to Special Forces?

**jex** · 09-11-2008, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Davies

But am I right in thinking the sniper has a more active role when it comes to Special Forces?

By definition a sniper is special forces but it really boils down to the mission. Take domination for instance, without even being on the server i'll tell you the next objective will have around 3 t-72's, 2 shilka's, 3-4 infantry squads, 2 brdm's, 2-4 uaz's and 3 or 4 bmp's. Recon of the area isn't that useful because what do you do with the information? You know as soon as the first shot is fired they're all going to move. Little planning is done around the placement of enemy because of the limitations of the AI.

Now on the other hand if you had a mission that required the recon team to insert to a viewpoint dodging enemy patrols so they could set up over looking the objective to give guidance to the team moving in, I reckon a much better exerience will be had. The recon team is doing it's job and can engage targets if they have too (protecting the assaulting team if they need to retreat, say). If they do though, the enemy patrols they dodged earlier could come looking leaving the spotter the job of providing rear security but exposing the recon team meaning they may need to exfil and putting them at risk.

It's all down to the way the mission is made and the best missions are probably those that incorporate different ways of completing it and giving different roles to play but making sure everyone gets something to do. For instance, the spotter in the above example would probably have the least to do if there was no danger of being discovered as he runs security for the sniper team (I think, but don't quote me). Take that away and he's just a guy with some binoculars. Leave the sniper up there with no threat of being found, and he takes away the excitment of the assault team if he starts killing everything he can see.

All in all though, everyone should be working for the benefit of the team and how to accomplish the task at hand. The first objective of any team player is to ensure that he protects his team mates at all times.

**206 Wolfpack** · 09-11-2008, 09:16 PM

Yep, and I've had snipers/spotters countless times tell the team where just shilkas are so we can take those out and leave the rest to air support while getting anything looking like its fleeing,

**jex** · 09-12-2008, 05:23 AM

The red circle isn't that big so finding them isn't hard. Leaving the rest to air support equates to shooting fish in a barrel. So that's 2 people on the server wiping everything out - what do the other players do?

**Thindian** · 09-12-2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by jex

The red circle isn't that big so finding them isn't hard. Leaving the rest to air support equates to shooting fish in a barrel. So that's 2 people on the server wiping everything out - what do the other players do?

Welcome to warfare in 2008. If you want realism, that's realism. A majority of the war in the middle east is fought with technology. If we can take out BGs without putting our boys in danger, we'll do it.

**jex** · 09-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Thindian

Welcome to warfare in 2008. If you want realism, that's realism. A majority of the war in the middle east is fought with technology. If we can take out BGs without putting our boys in danger, we'll do it.

So we all grab sniper rifles and cobra's and kill the enemy from 2 clicks away? I want a challenge, hence why I play the game. I want a certain amount of realism but until the AI are intelligent enough to be realistic, your point falls short. Since the Ballistics aren't realistic, the aircraft aren't realistic and the AI aren't realistic, why do we want to impose realistic approaches to warfare? If I want realism this is far, far from it and using one aspect of realism where the game falls totally short on being realistic seems lacking. My other point still stands too - with a sniper and a cobra, what else do you need to take out a city - is that realistic too?

**Parabe11um** · 09-12-2008, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by jex

So we all grab sniper rifles and cobra's and kill the enemy from 2 clicks away? I want a challenge, hence why I play the game. I want a certain amount of realism but until the AI are intelligent enough to be realistic, your point falls short. Since the Ballistics aren't realistic, the aircraft aren't realistic and the AI aren't realistic, why do we want to impose realistic approaches to warfare? If I want realism this is far, far from it and using one aspect of realism where the game falls totally short on being realistic seems lacking. My other point still stands too - with a sniper and a cobra, what else do you need to take out a city - is that realistic too?

If that is your view then no part of this game is really challenging unless its T vs T. I would say the only bigger risk you have in CQB is that you cannot always see whats around the corner. However, its not like the AI uses brilliant tactics in CQB. I do not see it as being fun or a challenge to reduce teamwork or assests used just to make it "challenging." If that were the case I would grab a pistol and charge a city by myself. As long as we play against the AI it is always shooting fish in a barrel regardless of what tactics or weapons one uses. The AI is predictable, it will react to a threat excactly the same way(well at least almost) regardless of what you do. I really do not see how having 1 or at most 2 guys with sniper rifles on a mission removes any use of other players. If said sniper takes out a couple of targets at 2k I am willing to bet that there will still be plenty of action in the town/city.

**Tacho** · 09-12-2008, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Parabe11um

I frequently play sniper and I never engage enemies unless my CO or SL tells me too. Just because some people lack the grace to follow orders does not mean everyone who picks up a sniper rifle does.

Also, while yes in a way the ai reacts badly, I have not seen players react that much better when shot at from far away. If you as a sniper are engaging enemies who are ready then you are doing something wrong be it against players or ai.
It is a role that focuses on recon and long range support and attacks of opportunity.

I find it rather simplisitc to say that because you are out of harms(sometimes not always) way it is not a class that requires skill. Not every role in this game is about getting as close to your enemy as possible or being in a vulenerable position. I would say try hitting the ai at ranges over 1.5km while they are moving or when you need to eliminate a high value target(gl, mg, etc) before your squad gets mowed down using 1 round or at worst 2 per target and tell me its shooting fish in a barrel.

Its like every game, a sniper can either be a noob with a scoped rifle who just runs in racks up kills and violates every doctorin for teamwork or sniping or it can be someone who provides recon and valuable support for his squad. The same however can be said for any kit. There are those who charge into CQB and just unload a clip or two, get some ai/player kills and then die doing essentially nothing for their team. So I feel it matters more how you play your kit not what that kit is.

I advise you gents to go play in an organized mission with a sniper/marksman who follows orders. Judging a class by those who basically abuse it does not seem very fair.

You've made some really good points...I've had this debate many times with players..from BF2 and now in ArmA..a sniper is the eyes of his Company and his squad...I would and have sat for many hours as a Recon/Sniper in both BF2 and ArmA Tournaments...calling in enemy movements of men and armor..and even though I've been sat around for hours on end and not even taken a shot..I still get a buzz...

**jex** · 09-13-2008, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Parabe11um

If that is your view then no part of this game is really challenging unless its T vs T. I would say the only bigger risk you have in CQB is that you cannot always see whats around the corner. However, its not like the AI uses brilliant tactics in CQB. I do not see it as being fun or a challenge to reduce teamwork or assests used just to make it "challenging." If that were the case I would grab a pistol and charge a city by myself. As long as we play against the AI it is always shooting fish in a barrel regardless of what tactics or weapons one uses. The AI is predictable, it will react to a threat excactly the same way(well at least almost) regardless of what you do. I really do not see how having 1 or at most 2 guys with sniper rifles on a mission removes any use of other players. If said sniper takes out a couple of targets at 2k I am willing to bet that there will still be plenty of action in the town/city.

Sniping and assets reduce teamwork because both don't require it. Aircraft wipe the floor with everything and the sniper is untouchable. Compare that to closing within 200 meters of the enemy with a squad and see if you notice the difference. I've had running battles through the streets, breaking contact and defending a strongpoint on the outskirts of a city in domination. I guess I could have had more fun sniping from a hilltop 2 klicks away, calling endless arty strikes or jumping in a cobra the lay waste (actually the last one actually appeals to me because I love flying but I hate the simplistic target aqcuisition).

Snipers have a role too. I enjoy being sat on a hill, like tacho mentions, calling out targets but I don't have a problem with people like tacho because they are playing as part of a team.

Take the following example, you team approaches the city and as you start to move in a sniper opens up on the town, firing non stop. The arty operater starts calling in strike after strike and one guy is steaming in with a T72, untouchable for the first 2 or 3 kills. Then the cobra shows up and that's more than you need to conquer each and every city. Take a team of 8 guys within the engagment distance of the AI and spot the difference.

**beita** · 09-13-2008, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by jex

...

Take the following example, you team approaches the city and as you start to move in a sniper opens up on the town, firing non stop. The arty operater starts calling in strike after strike and one guy is steaming in with a T72, untouchable for the first 2 or 3 kills. Then the cobra shows up and that's more than you need to conquer each and every city. Take a team of 8 guys within the engagment distance of the AI and spot the difference.

Exactly my thoughts.

I've come to the conclusion that the majority of players DON'T like that style of play, they prefer the former style of play.

That's fine. Domination is a great mission for that style of play.

What I have a problem with is when they take that style of play into more complex, restrictive missions. It doesn't fit and it can ruin a mission easily.

I don't dislike snipers. I dislike it when a player who doesn't know how to BE a sniper takes up the role and uses it as a "killing platform". Same goes for tanks, APCs, combat/transport helis ... etc. etc.

**206 Wolfpack** · 09-13-2008, 05:52 PM

Yep, and you do know that you can use airplanes (including A10) without taking the fun out of it, when I pilot to keep the plane alive for long as possible I just stay on the runway ready to take off, engines off and out of the cockpit so no BS Su or KA50 spawns right above you and blows it up. For snipers I just ask this, get a laser designator if you have a friendly GBU harrier and only laze targets when SL asks you to do so, then have the SL call in the bomb drop..

And preferably not on groups of inf, just hard targets like buildings with enemy in it or tanks/apcs..

**Sc[ + ]pe** · 09-13-2008, 11:28 PM

ArmA is a fairly-realistic combat simulator that unrealistically portrays powerful tools in such a manner that it is easy for skilled players to abuse these tools and rob fun from the other players.

These tools are fun to use and as such are great assets on the battlefield, and though the problem is only partly on ArmA's soldiers, the larger issue is that some players choose to abuse these assets and eliminate the need for more conventional warfare. Neither the tool nor the player are inherently flawed, but a skilled -- and more importantly, team-oriented --player is required to handle these roles effectively.

Does that sum it up about right?

Thread Tools

Display