The nice thing is that you can have the best or superior weapon, ability etc. Heavies get the biggest guns but when lights can easily climb around and flank the heavy and if they don't get to shoot the best gun won't do you any good.

Skill does beat all.

As many people have said countless times on this forum, there is no "sniper" rifle, there are only short rifles. You can put a scope on a short rifle and attempt to snipe with it, but the gun is intended for other uses as well.

Err, wouldn't 1SK headshots increase the amount of "Snipers" since they (should) be relying on headshots for the most part?

Fact remains that you're right. Positioning is a part of being skilled. But, being able to turn around and still kill someone who has the advantage is skill 2. Guess it all depends on what you call skill. In my eyes, skill is being able to a. Play as a team efficiently b. Being able to kill someone even though you were at a disadvantage at first.


Lately it seems that this isn't true *Cough* COD *Cough*
However, individual skill should beat a lot (except playing as a team obviously)

Short or long rifle makes no difference when determining if it is a "sniper" rifle. Also, I said a snipers weapon, not sniper rifle, but I'm going to argue against your point anyways because I like guns.

A sniper rifle is a rifle used to ensure more accurate placement of bullets at longer ranges than other small arms. A =typical= sniper rifle is built for optimal levels of accuracy, fitted with a telescopic sight and chambered for a military centerfire cartridge. The rifle itself could be based on a standard rifle; however, when fitted with a telescopic sight, it becomes a sniper rifle. It doesn't have to be a .50calibur magnum sniper rifle with a range of a ~mile to be considered a sniper rifle.

Technically any modern rifle could be a sniper because of "rifling", when fitted with a scope(what makes the bullet spin and travel through the air more accurately, caused by forming grooves in the metal inside the barrel). The game might be trying to avoid using the term because some people don't like "sniper rifles" in games, but it is what it is.

I live in Texas, and I like guns. I like to shoot handguns(.45) and shotguns(12gauge) more than rifles(in real life, at shooting ranges. If I were in combat I would prefer a rifle). Shooting an M-16 was a disapointment I have to say, but its effective single target range is up to 550 yards(~1/3 of a mile). I would call that getting sniped(you probably need a scope to do it, as well), even though it is technically classified as an assault rifle. I haven't got my hands on an M4 Carbine or AK yet. I did shoot a p90, it was fun(and scary).

Sorry if my use of "snipers weapon" and "rifle" bothers you, you can call it whatever you want.

Back to the point of the thread.
I hope people aren't camping and everyone is making good use of the SMART system, and the battles are extremely aggressive for both sides. This would not allow much opportunity for headshots until you are up close, or pause to try to complete an objective.

If you get the jump on anyone and don't manage to kill them, that is lack of skill on your part, and skills on their part. Just because you snuck around shouldnt grant you a kill in a game like this. Stick to CoD and "realistic"(only thing that is realistic about it is how fast you die) shooters if you prefer that.

True. Positioning should grant you the advantage, not an automatic win. A person shouldn't have to pay because there is an advantageous route that leads right behind their position.

Then, with respect to your first post, no that was not a snipers weapon, as the player was not using it to place shots accurately. The weapon in his hands, when given a scope, could be used by someone claiming to be a sniper, but the weapon itself is not restricted to that role.

I don't like using the term "sniper rifle" because it makes people think of a purpose build weapon with few other roles. Whether a Remington 700 firing a .22, or a Barret M85 firing a .50, you would be hard pressed to use either weapon at the front lines.

A standard rifle equipped with a scope could be considered a "Sniper's rifle" but not a "Sniper Rifle", as that term is usually reserved for a rifle built from the bottom up for maximum accuracy. A more accurate term for a standard rifle with a scope, however, would be marksman's or sharpshooter's rifle. The main difference between a marksman and a sniper is that a marksman is a normal soldier who is able to aim accurately at longer ranges, where a sniper tends to be off on his own.

I didn't mean to get into another debate with you, the only reason I started it is that people always seem to think that sniping is something you have to be dedicated to. In Brink, you can take a short rifle, "snipe" a few shots, and then move in to use the rifle as a rifleman would. There are only two non-automatic rifles in the game. Neither of those are intended to be exclusively for sniping. So it would be better to think of it as giving a normal soldier the ability to occasionally snipe, rather than giving snipers the ability to join normal combat.

I think 1 shot exactly to the dome, or 2 shots anywhere on the face should be enough to have a "headshot" kill.

We've said numerous, numerous times on this board, there are no one-hit killshots.

I didnt say that there would be a 1 hit headshot. I was saying, 1-2 hits is usually the amount of shots that I like for a headshot. No more then 2.

Seeing as it has been said that a buffed rifle shot can kill an unbuffed light body type in 1 headshot, I believe rifles can kill light classes in 1-2 headshots, mediums anywhere 2-3, and heavies anywhere between 3-4.

I still stand with a general of 3 - 4 headshots to kill someone. That makes it really worth to aim for the head, because you won't get kills by shooting foots and legs. If a foot/arm shot does 1 damage, a headshot should do 2.5x and a chest shot 1.4-1.6x

Ofcourse, adjustments need to be done considering:
- Body types
- Range
- Weapon power
- Buffs
- ...

I meant for my earlier post to be general guidelines for the semi-automatic rifles, which will probably have the highest damage per shot in the game (except for grenade launchers). We also have to consider that it will be extremely difficult for someone to get a headshot on an opponent who is vaulting, sliding, climbing, and wall-running around the map.

Yes, but I imagine the walking mountains that are heavies will learn to avoid short rifles a bit, high damage per shot and accuracy means that a light could chip away their health with headshots, from a decent range.


and what he is saying is that there will NEVER be a one-shot kill, including headshots. Exceptions may be made, in very odd circumstances, like a buffed short rifle headshotting a unbuffed light player. At the very least, I would assume lights normally take a headshot and then a body shot, mediums 2 headshots, and heavies 3.

This is just speculation on my part, and there is no evidence to support me, but I wouldn't expect much less than what I said, possibly more.

The heavy could, after knowing someone's sniping at them, either spray minigun rounds in the general direction of the sniper, forcing him out of scope/making him run away, or the heavy could launch a generous amount of grenades in the sniper's vantage point.

Ah, but a skilled sniper would never be caught firing a shot from the same place twice in a row, especially with the dynamic movement that Brink offers. The fact that the short rifles work just fine in closer combat, if at a bit of a disadvantage, makes it even easier to move around.

Link plz.



Note not all people who snipe are skilled. Which is why the rifles will be most effective in the hands of a light.

My point was that the light wouldn't be the sole person responsible for the heavy's death, pumping four or five shots into him. Chances are likely that the sniper shot may take off health buffs and weaken the heavy, but not the direct cause of the kill.

Well your right that a sniper won't be caught firing from the same place twice, but a more skilled sniper wouldn't be caught at all.

Now i could see a scoped short rifle being able to get two shots to hit before the shooter moved on. Head shots not so much.

I really dislike the idae of 3-4 headshots for a kill. Because that basicly means it takes way too long to kill someone without hitting the head.

However, it should definately take many, many bullets to get a kill by only hitting the feet/legs.

If the game is designed well enough, they should be able to find a decent number of headshots needed. I rather have an headshot extra than one less. If you can keep hitting the head during a firefight, you should definitely be able to win from someone aiming for the body.

Splash is spending at least a quarter of a year solely balancing Brink. I'm sure that, over those three months or so, they find the correct damage ratio between body/head shots that works best with Brink's gameplay.