Does “no scoping” do less damage then scoping

Question

Specificly in Sniper Rifles i have noticed that when I "no scope" a target (normally at close range) it appears that the damage I do is significantly less then when im scoping a target. This has put me in the habit of actually scoping in no matter the distance.

When I "no scope" I normally aim for the chest, being the easiest spot to hit. I decided I would actually make an effort to see if my suspicions were correct. So far it would seem that it definately does less damage compared to scoping a target for a chest shot as they die easily in one shot, "no scoping" a chest shot usually takes 2 shots with a Black Widow on Bronze difficulty against weaker troops.

I did see the question that explained the benefits of headshots versus everything else. Which even "no scoping" a headshot will cause a death to the smaller enemies but definately not to stronger troops that i easily one shot while scoping.

I'm hoping someone else has noticed this besides me or knows if there is something else a foot?

Asked by Paralytic

Answer

I tested this today by using my asari vanguard. I used stasis bubble to freeze two cannibals next to each other and then shot one in the midsection without scoping and the other while zoomed in. The zoomed shot did four bars of damage while the non-zoomed shot did two bars. I think it's safe to say that zooming results in more damage. I used a Viper I without any mods for the test.

Answered by Brysonic

Check more discussion of this question.

loading..