Maybe you shouldn't make yourself a target. Why do you think snipers in today's military are so valued? Why do you think they get tortured if they're caught? Because they're annoying little pricks who are extremely good at what they do. More than two shots is ridiculous. If you get shot in the face with a large caliber rifle you will die. If your shot in the heart, you will die. Let's be realistic. If you put yourself in the open long enough for someone to place they're crosshairs over your face and destroy your soul, then you deserve to die. Sorry. And I will be the one who puts the bullet between your eyes without you even knowing I'm there. Looking forward to making you rage in game.

Are we talking about realism or playability? Realistically, yes, one bullet to the head will kill 99.99% of the time. In terms of playability, you're ruining the game for everyone else. Realistically, pointing a dot at my head isn't very hard. Perhaps they could add in windage, gravitational effects, heat, tumbling, deceleration and any other physics that come into play.

The game isn't being ruined for everyone else. If someone is a good sniper you should make it a point to hunt them down and stop them sniping takes an amount of skill that not everyone has. It isn't hard to make yourself scarce when you know there is a good sniper on the other team. People hate it because they get sniped get angry then instead of thinking ok I got sniped he must be in this general area I should try and get behind him they just go off and run after every enemy they see. Catch even a good sniper in close range and you get an advantage right off the back. It isn't ruining anyones fun unless the person needs to grow a thicker skin. If you can't handle being sniped in the head how the heck will you handle it when your Boss gives you a job you spend a week of your life on it then he fires you because you screwed up. Simple fact is you won't if getting sniped bothers you that much that it takes all the fun out of the game for you then you should just not be playing it probably. On a second point you complain about how realistically it would be a 99.99% kill to the head but it ruins peoples playability. Then you have the audacity to suggest they add in windage, gravity, heat, tumbling, deceleration and other physics? Ya sounds good it makes no sense that a gun that fires a massive round at high speeds needs to take more than 1 shot to kill with a head shot so I can have fun playing but lets add in a ton of stuff most of which can't even be accounted for in a video game. Theres a reason BF has bullet drop but not cross wind. How the heck are you supposed to account for that in a game? See the wind? Feel the wind? It's a skill that takes years of actual shooting to perfect add it into a video game and you just ruined the play ability of snipers for absolutely everyone and they literally become a run around 360 no scope luck machine. Sorry for sounding like an ass and a jerk but come on use your head and stop complaining about a game mechanic that you deem OP just because you die to it now and then. The game is set in the future on EARTH not 80 billion years in the future in some parallel universe on a planet called "IF I DON'T LIKE IT IT'S OP". The game is going to have some amount of realism and more than likely will have 1 hit head shots in most instances. When you start taking the realism out of video games and try to make everything fair you make the whole thing pointless. It goes from having a diverse array of weapons that all he the power to do slightly different things to the same weapon with lots of different skins. You try to balance things just so people don't feel like their out gunned you turn it into another cookie cutter FPS. Why shouldn't a person who has been playing 1hr not feel out gunned by someone who has put months into it. What the heck makes snipers destroy your playability so much when they don't even care about how you play. For all they care you can pick up a rocket launcher and blow them up. Saying snipers should take 2+ shots to kill anywhere is like saying I don't like getting blown up so if a JDAM dropped from a plane hits 2 feet away from me I should live. Well look at BF4 China rising bomber runs. They were scared people would cry that a JDAM falling from the sky that you can only gain access to by being at the most contested point on the map at the right time once every 5 min would be called OP if it 1 hit kill infantry with splash damage. Well guess what you can stand 2 feet from a JDAM hitting a tank and the tank blows up but you live. You know why? People like you crying that something is OP so instead of me being smart and taking the time to adapt how I play to the current situation I want the Devs to make it so that the only successful way to play is my own and anyone who plays other wise in a way I deem OP should just be horribly out gunned because I'm not good enough to make a simple evaluation of hey maybe I shouldn't walk out in the open stand there and fire straight up in the air someone my shoot me with a sniper rifle.

I hunt snipers. I kill snipers. They respawn. I kill them more. No problem. The problem is the disruption to my objective. I have something in mind that I'd like to do. I get sniped. All of a sudden I have to drop everything I'm doing and respond to a snickering turd up on the mountainside. My point is that it ruins the continuity of play for a combat troop. That much is undeniable. I'm not saying that there's no room for them, but I am saying that the one shot kill is a huge annoyance and is not fun for the recipient. The quantity of snipers in play is directly proportional to the level of annoyance.

That's literally the point of a sniper. They're SUPPOSED to distract you from your objective.

Since when has that been ruining the game for everyone else? Not in halo, not in COD, Not in BF. Head shots have almost always been a guaranteed kill as they should be. Players who are skillfull enough to place a tiny reticule on a tiny head, which may or may not be moving, at a football fields distance, and pull the trigger quick and accurate enough to make that shot, then they should be rewarded with a kill. Takes a lot more skill and patience than walking in a room spraying and praying to connect with someone or something

If sniping were remotely interesting, they'd have first made a game specifically for it. Sniping was added to combat games because too many people couldn't take the heat of the battleground. They wanted to aim and shoot without being shot at, because they couldn't aim while moving, and because the stress was unbearable.. They needed a handicap. Snipers are hypocrisy incarnate. It is wrong wrong wrong, but it is a fact of life, so the rest of us tolerate it and allow snipers to think that they somehow add value to the game.

Your logic behind that is false. Snipers were not added to combat games to "relieve the stress" of those who couldn't handle it. Snipers add tactics to combat games. It makes other people make different choices in game, it changes strategies. You implying that they did it for people who couldn't handle combat, implies that you just have a deep hatred for snipers, as I'm assuming that they bug the piss out of you. They have a game for snipers. Actually multiple games. To implement into a game of futuristic warfare does nothing but add variation and strategy to the game. It gives players a different approach to combat, a more strategic one than walking around guns blazing. For those who are skilled enough, and have enough patience to use a sniper may heavily disagree with your argument. I am that guy that always pops your head off when you walk around the same corner more than once. Don't want it to happen again? Change your tactics and don't choose the same route. Find me and gank my ass if your good enough. Most snipers are very easy to counter. You just have to use your head... < see what I did there? O.o

If you're getting ganked as a sniper, then you're doing it wrong. Your weapon range is long enough to eliminate hostiles on approach. It's like giving one contender a club and another a bow and arrows in an open arena and telling them to go at it. If you're getting tagged by the short range guy, then you obviously don't know how to use your weapon. A combat soldier, on the other hand, who is shot in the back of the head by an enemy 250 meters away who he didn't even know was there is a victim. Nobody can possibly maintain 360 degree awareness out to the range of a sniper rifle. So yes, combat soldiers use cover as often as possible, but because some situations in battle require exposure to snipers on approach to an objective, combat soldiers are forced into an uncomfortable vulnerability, as they are aware of an unseen threat about which they are helpless to do anything. In general, combat soldiers must die in order to get an azimuth to the sniper's location. Snipers are armed with a telescope and a cannon. Combat soldiers are armed with a close to mid range weapon. Who has the advantage? It takes guts to charge into a battle zone, knowing that snipers are out there and that if I tarry too long, I will be targeted and dropped. So I have to stay on the move, while maintaining 360 degree awareness within 70-80 meters, which means turning my full body around in a circle every five to ten seconds because there is no peripheral vision or head turning, maintaining trigger finger readiness and split second decision making when an object comes into view - friendly or hostile? Add to that the randomness of terrain glitches, getting snagged on walls and uneven ground, and running/jumping fatigue (in some games), ammo count, squad formations, and tactics specific to the surroundings (urban, jungle, open), the mind of a combat soldier can be crowded with endless possibilities, so we train. We train. We train. And only when those skills have become second nature we move fluidly without hesitation onward, onward into the next ambush, and now to cover, but always steadily progressing to the objective. Contrast that with the lemonade-sipping sniper taking in the sun on his lawn chair while holding his crosshairs on my head, waiting for the clear shot. Where's the respect man? I wish snipers would join the fight and dare to step onto the battlefield. Come on in. The water feels great :)

The difference is the risk level. I've played both roles and dealing with the constant threat of being in the battle has an astoundingly different high-intensity feeling in contrast to firing from a secure, static location that is out of range for the legitimate combatants. The human response to being sniped can even include feelings of injustice. Ultimately, it is a game, and I'd rather play a fun game. I don't think anyone has said, "wow, that is so fun" after getting sniped :(

Agreed...the people wanting one shot kill or 1/head, 2/body obviously love sniping... However, few things more satisfying than sneaking up on some pansy sniper hiding in a bush and knifing them to death (and continuing in imagination world where I keep slicing with the knife until I can pack all their various parts into little sandwich bags for my pets =D)

I like to sneak up behind them, aim my pistol at their occipital lobe, watch them bear down on their sight, eagerly tracking their target, and then right before they pull the trigger ... I do.

It's a part in real life warfare. If you don't want to get sniped always have it in the back of your mind that some guy is looking at your head from a scope, stick to cover and move fast

[quote] It's like bicycles driving on the road with cars. They just don't mix[/quote] You are aware that many cities have bike lanes on their roads, for the very reason that they are supposed to travel on the same roads together. Unless you're like a kid just riding for fun, you're not supposed to ride your bike on the sidewalk, so where else are they supposed to ride? I agree with the rest of your post.

Don't get me wrong. I love bicycles as a form of commuter transport, exercise and joy, but in the town I live in, bike lanes are few and far between so they end up riding in the lane with cars which results in a procession of 20 angry drivers behind a poor dude who just wants to be healthy, or can't afford a car. In my home state, the law recognizes cyclists as a road entity with the same rights as a motor vehicle. It is legally mandated to give them the same treatment as a motor vehicle. In other words, if they are in the lane, then they must be regarded as taking up the entire width of the lane that they are in. It's simply not a good mix, and everyone ends up irritated. Because I would like to ride my bicycle to work but am afraid of motor vehicles, I actually raised a request to our mayor to add more bike lanes in our municipality. I am a huge advocate of safe bike riding.

[quote]in the town I live in, bike lanes are few and far between so they end up riding in the lane with cars which results in a procession of 20 angry drivers behind a poor dude who just wants to be healthy, or can't afford a car.[/quote] Such a generalization here... I am 33, and I don't have a car or a license. Cycling is my main form of transportation. It's not that I can't afford a car, (implying that everyone who could afford one would have one. which is a generalization in itself,) it's that I have a genuine fear of driving. It's not that operating a vehicle is difficult or overwhelming, it's everything else that comes with, like those 20 angry drivers you mention. [quote]It is legally mandated to give them the same treatment as a motor vehicle. In other words, if they are in the lane, then they must be regarded as taking up the entire width of the lane that they are in. It's simply not a good mix, and everyone ends up irritated.[/quote] Irritated or not, rules are rules, and these rules aren't like those petty "nonsense rules" that a lot of states have that make little to no sense, that have either been leftover from years ago, or put in place as a cheap way for police/the state to make money off people breaking them. By opting to drive, people are saying "I will obey the road laws" - it comes with the territory. That being said, drivers typically vastly outnumber cyclists, so it isn't like drivers have to endure hundreds of cyclists a day. What you describe is just impatient drivers. They are getting "irritated" at the cyclist, well if you replaced that bike with a slow driver, the same end result remains. It's likely more of problem with the drivers not the bike of cyclist, and how they tend to have the mindset of, "I have shit to do, get the -blam!- out of my way." In my state, it's a law to allow 4' of clearance when passing a cyclist. On a good day, maybe 4 people actually obey this law. Now I'm sure many of them aren't even aware of it or forgot about it, but that's not even the point. Everyday I'm going to work, tractor trailers, trucks, SUV's, cars, etc. they all just wiz past, many not even slowing down, giving me just enough room to not kill me, because god forbid they actually slow down and wait for a safe time to pass me while leaving me adequate space not to hit me, and I'm riding on the shoulder the whole time, so it's not like I'm in the middle of the lane making passing while leaving space a difficult endeavor... [quote] Because I would like to ride my bicycle to work but am afraid of motor vehicles, I actually raised a request to our mayor to add more bike lanes in our municipality. I am a huge advocate of safe bike riding.[/quote] I don't know who your cities roads are or where you need to ride/get to, but when you cycle, you typically look for non-busy roads to travel - cutting through developments, back roads, etc. You also have the luxury of riding where cars can't, like a narrow alley, a field, on the side of cars waiting in traffic, parking lots, on the sidewalk (I will ride on the sidewalk where it makes sense, like on one way roads going the opposite way, if it gets me to where I need to go) So if you're scared of getting hit, there's usually an alternate, safer route that can get you to where you need to go. All the safe riding rules and precautions are only going to do so much. I'd argue that the biggest obstacle to overcome, are drivers themselves who seem to have a huge bug up their ass and think that they own the road.

Hi, Horse. No offense intended. Just lazily trying to get an idea across. I find that effectively encoding my thoughts is tedious and verbose at best. In oder to spare the community from a long winded explanation, I spoke in generalities. I was wrong to do so in this matter and I extend my warm wishes to bikes, bike riders, roads, drivers and the law.

You should have just not said anything, because your "apology" comes off as condescending and sarcastic... I don't care either way, since I wasn't offended to begin with, just wanted to point out where you seemed short-sightedness and/or uninformed on certain issues.