Why are snipers getting nerfed?

Snipers are fine the way they are.

For Coh3 Timing of Snipers: please dont put sniper in t1.

The brit sniper timing is the only bearable way if you want to include snipers so much

i also had the idea of not being able to Retreat and/or A-Move with a sniper which would punish sniper abusers a lot

If snipers are so broken can somebody explain to me why:

1. They are not a particularly common unit in any gamemode.

2. They are rarely seen in tournament play?

I agree that snipers are broken vs brits but that's because Ostheer in general just outperforms brits. Also Brits have countersnipers and strong UC play early on can compensate the mp drain.

There's a pattern of people trying to eliminate "annoying" or "cancerous" units from the game. The problem is that people consider everything cancerous that doesn't fit their extremely narrow idea of how the game should be played. This has caused a mainline inf and medium tank power creep making the game extremely boring.

Sniper vs Sniper duels are also where coh has the highest skill ceiling imo.

If snipers are so broken can somebody explain to me why:

There's a pattern of people trying to eliminate "annoying" or "cancerous" units from the game. The problem is that people consider everything cancerous that doesn't fit their extremely narrow idea of how the game should be played.

Balance Team wants to turn COH 2 into a Tower Defense Game so anything that is a threat to MG Spam or Blobbing will get nerfed.

I agree with GiaA. Snipers give flavour to the game and you mostly see them in high level of play. Average coh players will have a game without building snipers and that's fine. Hope relic won't fix something that isn't broken(CoH3).

Snipers were so bad in COH1, had so few counters compared to COH2, and only one faction had really easy immediate access to it, counter-sniping had an absurd element of RNG, that I'm honestly fine with how they are in COH2 - maybe that's just because of the trauma from COH1 snipers, since basically anything would be an improvement from them.

- Imagine needing an AT gun to counter an AT gun.

- Imagine that, when said AT gun is build, the entire game (d)evolves into countering said AT gun.
If that fails, it's gg. If that succeeds, it's gg.

That is my problem with snipers. It has become less prominent over the years, but it's still there in the hands of certain players (see Kimbo's game 5 vs ISI and game 3( I think) vs CN for example). Fix it completely and I am fine with snipers being in the game.

And now for your first post:

They are fine imo.

1. Not central part of the meta in any game mode.

How is this relevant to the sniper balance?

2. They break up the hated sandbag camping/double mg static frontline gameplay that so many people hate.

I always thought indirect fire did that. Heck, sandbag camping/double MG play can be improved with a sniper, so you have even less of a chance of beating it.

3. People who want them nerfed are mostly people who are incapable of using them themselves.

Ad hominem with a superiority complex. I am disappointed you would resort to this.

4. They create an interseting asymmetry where onen player has to be active constantly to avoid bleed and try to convert the lack of stopping power of his opponent into map control.

Couple of problems with this:
1. Ostheer could go sniper after building up its army (see again kimbo game 5 vs isi) not creating this gameplay at all.
2. Assuming opponent can get map, what is he going to do with it? LV's are sooo expected, every sniper user has prepared counters for it (see kimbo's sniper game vs CN) making map control mostly worthless. Worse still, the sniper bleed sometimes prevents teching.
3. What you call interesting I call one player jumping through burning hoops while blindfolded in order to counter a single unit (unless he get's his own sniper) and often failing. Once again I point to Kimbo's sniper game vs CN.

Again, I am not diametrically opposed to snipers being in the game. But the two issue's I highlighted at the top of the post need to be fixed completely for that to happen.
For that reason I think the proposed nerf is a step in the right direction.

I agree with Zarok on this. I really dont like the incentive that every faction should have a sniper just so they can counter snipe the other, is that the best way of tackling the issue people have? So boring, sorry I mean what great game-play.

In my opinion, I would like some sort of stock camo unit besides the sniper (even as a upgrade) that's good enough to kill a sniper. At least that would be another variable to consider when a sniper is on the field.

Ok just nerf snipers effectively removing them from the game. It's not like LVs are unbleedable and unkillable as well. In fact there isnt a single unit in coh2 that is reliably killable except for static Arty. The few games where snipers are used mid game vs Sov and USF are usually over anyways. Ostheer could invest the 340 in some other way and still win because the faction is OP as hell.

Ok just nerf snipers effectively removing them from the game. It's not like LVs are unbleedable and unkillable as well. In fact there isnt a single unit in coh2 that is reliably killable except for static Arty. The few games where snipers are used mid game vs Sov and USF are usually over anyways. Ostheer could invest the 340 in some other way and still win because the faction is OP as hell.

This is a rather emotional response to my post (in which I put quite some effort). I also have a deja vu feeling since top players have "defended" snipers like this before.

I guess I hoped for something more.

snipers are the reason i quit coh1 and raged like hell in my ending time in coh1. snipers should only exist to snipe certain models of teamweapons for a good timed flank

Snipers need to be reworked from a design perspective. I like the idea of a unit that outranges weapon teams and attacks them from a distance, but can be pushed off easily...

Oh wait, a mortar already fulfils that role.

So, instead of being a long range kiting damage dealer, IMO snipers should be turned into recon first units. This way, they would fulfil a valuable role in game, which is not really represented by any of the core units (Infantry Recon/ Stealth Recon).

How to do this? Well, I would make Snipers small squad size (2 to 4-man) Recon teams, with a paid ability that allows them to snipe a specific model, with a cooldown (This ability could also provide a burst of suppression or a short stun). These recon teams should get moving cloak, and have access to other abilities that synergize with them being used for recon (IE flares or maybe radio beacons). They will be able to fight, but should have DPS curves tailored for longer range combat (or at least different ranges than the owning faction's mainline infantry).

With these changes, snipers become far less frustrating to fight, far more consistent to use, and fulfil a new, unique role in every army's core composition. In addition, there will be plenty of space to differentiate these Recon teams for each faction asymmetrically.

---

I know this likely won't happen in COH2, but I hope something like this happens in COH3.

This is a rather emotional response to my post (in which I put quite some effort). I also have a deja vu feeling since top players have "defended" snipers like this before.

I guess I hoped for something more.

well i wrote a detailed response and it got deleted when i clicked postso I just summarized it. Btw I'm not a top player by any stretch of the imagination. I primarily play and theorycraft about this game for fun and dont see it as a competitive game. Got no stakes in tourneys or anything. I'm also a USF fanboy.

I guess I'll give you a more detailed response because I know you're a competent player who understands the game so it's not pointless to argue with you as opposed to many other people. I'm gonna use numeration but I'm not specifically referencing the numeration from your post.

1. For some reason there is the unquestioned assumption that snipers have to be "killable" and that the only way to make them killable are either countersnipers or units with snipe abilities like the British recon from CoH1. Imo both these assumptions are wrong.

Let's start with the latter one: You cannot reliably countersnipe a well played sniper. Ostheer has a 10 ammo maphack on their Scout car. A smart soviet will go Radio Intercept when playing snipers. Brits are of course screwed in this regard but it's not really relevant because the Ostheer sniper comes out earlier anyways and the brit just has to expect an ostheer snipe since it's the only matchup where it's actually part of the meta.

What a countersniper does reliably isn't killing the opponents sniper but rather even out the manpower drain by starting to snipe infantry himself. A common mistake you see is people keeping their sniper hidden forever trying to get the countersnipe instead of starting to drain mp themselves. So what makes the sniper so unique in its role as an mp drain unit? It causes reliable mp damage without causing any bleed itself. It is the most efficient unit at this. This comes with the trade off of having no stopping power, meaning it can only operate in conjunction with other units. Light vehicles also cause unopposed MP drain but the drain is less intense. A well played m20 will reliably rack up 20+ kills in a close game, a well played sniper will do twice as much at least. Light vehicles also cost fuel. However they force ATGuns and give massive map pressure which makes them a much more common and at least equally oppressive MP drain unit as the sniper. They are literally part of every 1v1 and not building them is pretty much an automatic loss. It's just that for whatever reason Light vehicles are accepted as part of the game and snipers aren't.

My main point here is: There are other ways to counter a sniper than a countersniper. Any manpower efficient unit (primarily LVs but potentially also infantry that trades well and threatens the sniper so he can't operate as aggressively like JLI) will counteract the bleed caused by the sniper and come with other additional advantages.

Let's talk about snipers being unkillable: In the hands of good players almost every unit is unkillable as I said earlier. If there was a reliable way to kill a sniper the unit would be trash almost by definition.

2. About the thing you mention about the Ostheer sniper being built in the mid game: Ostheer is a broken faction against USF and UKF. Against USF they don't rely on the sniper at all and most of the time the sniper is just an unnecessary risk in a game that you are winning anyways. Against brits the sniper is probably overpowered, but brits have the easiest access to a countersniper, so the brit vs Ost imbalance doesn't really support your argument and the matchup is broken for a variety of other reasons as well. Vs soviets a mid game sniper is VERY rarely seen. It's actually most common among C-B tier players because the Ost player tends to have a bit of breathing room in those games. At top tier you almost never see it. The one exception you mentioned was on langres in a game that was strongly in favor of Ostheer. Langres is a map that is absurdly imbalanced in favor of ostheer regardless of the sniper. However once Ostheer gets into a clear winning position Sniper can be the final nail in the coffin.

3. About my ad hominem argument: What I said is objectively true even though it is not an argument in favor of either side. There is a large amount of good players who are relatively bad at using snipers or don't use them at all. And that is definitely part of the reason people hate it so much.

4. Map control is a massive advantage. Vehicle timing are absolutely game changing. Having good map control as USF is pretty much the only way to win the game vs Ost because you need to snowball. An early sniper plays into that.

5. Indirect fire will never be relevant in 1v1 because it's balanced around teamgames.

6. I can't really adress your "buring hoops" response to my argument about the asymmetrical dynamic a sniper creates because it doesn't have any substance. A sniper forces one side to be active. It forces focused attacks that punish the lack of stopping power. That to me is a very interesting shift in dynamics from the usual gameplay where 1 inf unit is mirrored by another inf unit and it just comes down to who has the more ideal positioning.

well i wrote a detailed response and it got deleted when i clicked postso I just summarized it. Btw I'm not a top player by any stretch of the imagination. I primarily play and theorycraft about this game for fun and dont see it as a competitive game. Got no stakes in tourneys or anything. I'm also a USF fanboy.

I guess I'll give you a more detailed response because I know you're a competent player who understands the game so it's not pointless to argue with you as opposed to many other people. I'm gonna use numeration but I'm not specifically referencing the numeration from your post.

1. For some reason there is the unquestioned assumption that snipers have to be "killable" and that the only way to make them killable are either countersnipers or units with snipe abilities like the British recon from CoH1. Imo both these assumptions are wrong.

Let's start with the latter one: You cannot reliably countersnipe a well played sniper. Ostheer has a 10 ammo maphack on their Scout car. A smart soviet will go Radio Intercept when playing snipers. Brits are of course screwed in this regard but it's not really relevant because the Ostheer sniper comes out earlier anyways and the brit just has to expect an ostheer snipe since it's the only matchup where it's actually part of the meta.

What a countersniper does reliably isn't killing the opponents sniper but rather even out the manpower drain by starting to snipe infantry himself. A common mistake you see is people keeping their sniper hidden forever trying to get the countersnipe instead of starting to drain mp themselves. So what makes the sniper so unique in its role as an mp drain unit? It causes reliable mp damage without causing any bleed itself. It is the most efficient unit at this. This comes with the trade off of having no stopping power, meaning it can only operate in conjunction with other units. Light vehicles also cause unopposed MP drain but the drain is less intense. A well played m20 will reliably rack up 20+ kills in a close game, a well played sniper will do twice as much at least. Light vehicles also cost fuel. However they force ATGuns and give massive map pressure which makes them a much more common and at least equally oppressive MP drain unit as the sniper. They are literally part of every 1v1 and not building them is pretty much an automatic loss. It's just that for whatever reason Light vehicles are accepted as part of the game and snipers aren't.

My main point here is: There are other ways to counter a sniper than a countersniper. Any manpower efficient unit (primarily LVs but potentially also infantry that trades well and threatens the sniper so he can't operate as aggressively like JLI) will counteract the bleed caused by the sniper and come with other additional advantages.

Let's talk about snipers being unkillable: In the hands of good players almost every unit is unkillable as I said earlier. If there was a reliable way to kill a sniper the unit would be trash almost by definition.

2. About the thing you mention about the Ostheer sniper being built in the mid game: Ostheer is a broken faction against USF and UKF. Against USF they don't rely on the sniper at all and most of the time the sniper is just an unnecessary risk in a game that you are winning anyways. Against brits the sniper is probably overpowered, but brits have the easiest access to a countersniper, so the brit vs Ost imbalance doesn't really support your argument and the matchup is broken for a variety of other reasons as well. Vs soviets a mid game sniper is VERY rarely seen. It's actually most common among C-B tier players because the Ost player tends to have a bit of breathing room in those games. At top tier you almost never see it. The one exception you mentioned was on langres in a game that was strongly in favor of Ostheer. Langres is a map that is absurdly imbalanced in favor of ostheer regardless of the sniper. However once Ostheer gets into a clear winning position Sniper can be the final nail in the coffin.

3. About my ad hominem argument: What I said is objectively true even though it is not an argument in favor of either side. There is a large amount of good players who are relatively bad at using snipers or don't use them at all. And that is definitely part of the reason people hate it so much.

4. Map control is a massive advantage. Vehicle timing are absolutely game changing. Having good map control as USF is pretty much the only way to win the game vs Ost because you need to snowball. An early sniper plays into that.

5. Indirect fire will never be relevant in 1v1 because it's balanced around teamgames.

6. I can't really adress your "buring hoops" response to my argument about the asymmetrical dynamic a sniper creates because it doesn't have any substance. A sniper forces one side to be active. It forces focused attacks that punish the lack of stopping power. That to me is a very interesting shift in dynamics from the usual gameplay where 1 inf unit is mirrored by another inf unit and it just comes down to who has the more ideal positioning.

Pretty much this.

After thinking about this, I think all snipers maybe should have been moved to about the 5 minute mark like the Brit sniper. That way even sniper-less factions will soon have an LV on the field to counter the sniper. Also, the sniper can't reign as freely as in the early battle since weapon upgrades will kick in soon that make wiping it easier.

The current nerf will affect the Allied snipers more than the Ostheer one. If the unit is slowed down so much after the shot, Obersoldaten chasing it will instantly force a retreat. Long range units will also have an easier time dealing with it, which is also rather the case for Axis units.

I am still for a suggestion similar to Stormjager's: Reduce the general moving speed of the sniper, but increase it back to normal when in cover (meaning having a shield symbol).
No more free shots on open fields and walking away until another infantry squad arrives. Instead an emphasis on positioning and good use of cover, as well as choosing proper egress paths.

Quite a lot of stuff

First off: I always do ctrl+a and crl+c before posting here, so to "save" my post.

Furthermore, you are better than most players (which makes you top in my eyes) and are trying to defend snipers, the bane of every USF player, so this should be interesting.

Now on to the response itself:

To reiterate: my two issue's with snipers are as follows

- Imagine needing an AT gun to counter an AT gun.

- Imagine that, when said AT gun is build, the entire game (d)evolves into countering said AT gun.
If that fails, it's gg. If that succeeds, it's gg.

I was originally going to write "Imagine needing an AT gun to counter (the effects of) an AT gun. Which brings me right to your point 1.

You describe here using another sniper to counteract the bleed from the first sniper. This is exactly what is wrong with snipers. What then follows is the idea that rushing an LV is an alternative to getting your own sniper, but you also admit here that it is not as effective, costs fuel and is generally expected in 1's. The latter means the sniper user will also build them and a pak isn't exactly forced, but expected.
Your then mention other ways of countering the effects of the sniper (namely JLI) but these are doctrinal and again, not as effective.

All of this still leads to my main point: In order to (effectively) counter (the effects) of a sniper, you need your own sniper.
This is bad game design and is something that should be fixed.

Furthermore, this gets complicated by the fact that snipers can be gotten after building pak, LV and some mainlines, making the quest for mapcontrol utterly mood.

This leaves untouched my second point: namely that the entire game (d)evolves around mitigating (the effects) of a single unit.
This is also bad game design and is something that should be fixed.

Your second point has a lot of claims which I cannot verify or are rather subjective. What stands out however is this sentence: "However once Ostheer gets into a clear winning position Sniper can be the final nail in the coffin."
This is what Kimbo did and is also testimonial to the power of a sniper in a game designed around comebacks: they shut the door completely. Unless you get your own sniper and yada yada yada.

Third point: ad hominem. Your statement attacks the character of those who are against snipers and furthermore could easily be turned around (also something I planned to do in my first post) as follows: most people defending snipers are those who abuse them the hardest.
Objectively true? Yes but does it serve any other purpose other than attacking your character (or those defending snipers)? Nope. As such I removed it from my first post and I think your statement should never have been in your post as well.

Your fourth point still misses the mark. Which is that an early LV's is not a counter to (the effects of) the sniper (not to mention said sniper can be build after the LV rush) since the bleed will continue. Early map control is nothing compared to bleeding manpower like a stuffed pig (the entire game, mind you), which is what snipers do.

Your fifth point acknowledges the indirect fire in teamgames, so there is that. But you missed the part where snipers can "enhance" sandbag+dual MG camping. As such, my point here is as follows: snipers don't fix this issue.

Your sixth point: my point here is twofold: no other unit forces this dynamic on the opposing player and more importantly, one side has to exert a tremendous amount of micro to mitigate the effects of a singular unit on the battlefield (unless they get their own sniper, is this getting old yet?). Which also comes back to my second point: a sniper on the field forces the entire game into countering (the effects of) that sniper.

So with all that out of the way, the problem of the sniper is (again) reduced to this:
- Imagine needing an AT gun to (effectively) counter (the effects of) an AT gun.

- Imagine that, when said AT gun is build, the entire game (d)evolves into countering said AT gun.
If that fails, it's gg. If that succeeds, it's gg.

Fix this and sniper have a viable place in this game.

As was done in this post

(and what relic tried with JLI and pathfinders) this is possible while still creating an interesting unit.

Seeing as that is unlikely to happen at this point (or in coh3 for that matter) the proposed nerf atleast moves us away from the 2 issue's I keep mentioning and opens up the game.

Imo snipers are just way to effective against mainlines really. Its not like support weapons are supper scared of them (while they are supposed to kinda), but mainline being cripled by the snipers.

It really doesnt matter what inf you have early on, but one sniped model pretty much instantly turns the fight in favor of the sniper player and breaks all dynamic of cover\possitioning.

If snipers indeed have been more or of a tool to fight teamweapons, as they were supposed to, and all factions either had proper counters to snipers or snipers wouldn't be avaible from the get go for sov\ost then they might have been alright.

Right now Snipers are just the tools to abuse imo. They were effective against everyone in vCoH and in CoH2 they are just abused against factions which cant properly answer to early game snipers.

Sniper changes should start by reducing HP 80...

Not that there aren't legitimate arguments in favor of the sniper nerf, but the 'not every faction has access to them' one makes no sense to me.

OKW and USF have plenty of things stock that other factions get only doctrinally or not at all. Forward retreat point, elite infantry, heavy tank, vehicle self-repair, etc. There is a ton of room for counterplay vs. snipers. You don't need to directly counter or kill them, and they don't fill such an essential game role that every faction needs to be able to build them.

I think it's a good change, but that snipers' vet requirements should be lowered alongside it. You are going to be taking more risk by engaging with a sniper, and something to help with their scaling is deserved IMO.