Nah he took a gamble shooting at a moving sniper. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. RNG will always be part of this game, and it's kinda a beauty of the game.
Who doesn't move their Sniper? It's not like you can wait for your opponent not to move it after a shot. You have to just take your chances.
I agree about RNG but Sniper vs Sniper has always been a different animal. It's all or nothing. It doesn't have a large sample size to average out. It's ~500+ Manpower on one 50% dice roll.
I feel like people are too focused on countering the sniper(s) with a sniper. Ignoring all the other ways of defeating snipers. If you make the snipers more reliable at countersniping snipers then you'd create more dominance and focus on snipers tbh. And you channel your options into getting a sniper.
Well this I can agree with, but what other option is there that can deal with a well defended Sniper? Artillery, that's it. Which is even less dynamic and interesting than Sniper vs Sniper. I'm not sure how you can approach buffing Jeeps/Bikes that would let them be a reliable Sniper counter 30 minutes into a game.
I think what we really need to focus on is reducing what makes them strong in the first place: their cost effectiveness.
Going back to the point that everyone always moves their Sniper - what if they had a reason not to? You made it sound like the Countersniper had a choice whether to shoot at a moving Sniper or not. What if we made that an actual choice? Like moving your Sniper after a shot gives you that 50% miss chance, but it also had penalties attached. Maybe longer cooldown between shots, lower accuracy, or longer cloak time (so units other than Snipers have a shot at killing it).
It would reduce the advantage for "microing" your Sniper, but I'm not even a top-tier player and I feel that moving your Sniper after every shot is second nature. I don't know if this is my preferred angle at addressing Snipers but the idea occurred to me while reading your post.