The game need a sniper cap pls....

Comments

  • badsitrep
    494 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    IllIllIII wrote: »
    full951 wrote: »
    let it go. 8 people disagree with the idea of a cap on the forums
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    I hate campers too. Like most guys.

    However, the amount of hyperbole, and exaggerated claims of "20 snipers on a team" are ridiculous.
    Just insane.

    Any limit is going to be detrimental to a sandbox shooter based on choice. Limiting choice is always a bad idea.

    You are not allowed to impose your will on anyone, for any reason, ever, which is what these pro limit guys wanna do to the other players.

    "But rock1obsta," I can hear some of you saying, "the campers impose their will on me by not ptfo'ing."

    To which I reply, "campers suck. I know. I feel yer pain cuz it annoys the hell outta me, too," but they aren't imposing anything.

    Someone camping doesn't force anyone to play the game in a completely different way than how they want. No matter how inconvenient it may be to deal with them.

    At it's core, this limit argument is all about trying to control how someone else plays. Nothing more.

    Players who really, truly believe that someone should alter their playstyle because they don't like it should put their money where their mouth is and buy the games for them then .

    Seriously believing that someone is obligated to play your way is just ridiculously wrong.

    Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play at all. To think otherwise indicates a malfunction in one's thinking.

    You have zero power over someone else's choice. That's how it is, and thats how it should stay.

    Imagine if a buncha scouts decided they wanted to limit one of the other classes. The outcry would be epic.

    They could easily say "too many medics reviving people isn't fair. I gotta keep killin em cuz they keep reviving, and there's too many guys alive on the other team. Make a medic limit."

    Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

    Complaining about the use of a valid tactic, be it camping or reviving is fine. Complain away.

    But actively lobbying for any limits to player choice in a game built on it is always going to be 100% wrong.


    Nonsense. That's a strawman argument. No one telling players how to play. They want limit how many can play a class on a map.

    They already limit the number of players who can use stuff in the game. Pilots, tankers, horseman, elite kits, etc.


    No. Sorry but I think you're wrong.

    Eliminating player choice is one of the absolute worst ideas a game dev can do. Especially when their games encourage choosing a role.

    In terms of planes, vehicles, horses, whatever, these are assets to be shared. Not classes unto themselves. Can't be pilot class without a plane, and so on. They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman, & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort. Most definitely not a Battlefield game.

    lol.

    "They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman , & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort."

    This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

    sounds reasonable to me but you're not going to get any traction here. there's like a brigade dedicated no's from the same people . so let it go. it's all been said already and the devs don't care much about the ideas shared on this forum anyway

    There aren't many great ideas tho ;)

    People are to supposed come up with ideas here?

    I thought this was the place where people dump their salt for us, troglodytes (aka the regulars), to feast upon and gather into sodium-enriched stockpiles for the approaching winter.

    Have I been forumfielding the wrong way for the past 6 years?
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Imabaka70 wrote: »
    Wait I thought everyone was crying because it was to easy to get kills as a scout. Now I'm confused by this tomfoolery

    Didn't you know? There are two sections of this community that complain about Scouts.

    One side claims that snipers are the easiest thing in the game to use and get kill with and claim they can't win game because enemy team has so many snipers that they can't even move out of spawn.

    The other side claims the EXACT opposite, and insist that the vast majority of snipers in this game are worthless, and that having too many on YOUR team can cause you to lose.

    Despite contradicting each other at every turn and arguing EXACT opposite points about Scouts on this forum - they seemingly coexist without even realizing the other exists.
    everyone knows Assault is the easiest class to play

    The mistake you are making (IMHO) is the difference between personal success and team success.
    The average sniper has a great K/D---even in a losing effort!
    The team loses 1000-458 but the average sniper who goes 18-4 feels very accomplished and had nothing but good times.
    Everyone else on his team (apart from other snipers) are pretty frustrated.

    Picture an NFL Quarterback whose team lost the Superbowl, but yet he had 3 TD's and passed for 350 yards--and in the post-game interview he is all smiles and says "Man I had a tremendous game and had a blast out there tonight". He would be completely out of touch with the fans who are going to be very unhappy--along with the head coach.

    Some care about the win over all else, and others only care about their personal statistics.
  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    Astr0damus wrote: »

    The mistake you are making (IMHO) is the difference between personal success and team success.
    The average sniper has a great K/D---even in a losing effort!
    The team loses 1000-458 but the average sniper who goes 18-4 feels very accomplished and had nothing but good times.
    Everyone else on his team (apart from other snipers) are pretty frustrated.

    Picture an NFL Quarterback whose team lost the Superbowl, but yet he had 3 TD's and passed for 350 yards--and in the post-game interview he is all smiles and says "Man I had a tremendous game and had a blast out there tonight". He would be completely out of touch with the fans who are going to be very unhappy--along with the head coach.

    Some care about the win over all else, and others only care about their personal statistics.

    We can argue semantics all day long, but I could just as easily rebut with the fact that you're simply implying that "everyone else on his team" are frustrated - which, by default, implies that everyone else in the game is playing solely to win and solely for the team effort - when that's absolutely and obviously not true at all.

    Not to mention the fact it implies that everyone else aside from the sniper is contributing and ptfo'ing.

    I'm very well aware of the (one side's) argument that "camping snipers make teams lose", even though that argument is entirely unsubstantiated and leaves out a variety of parameters.

    Like the one I just mentioned for instance - it implies that everyone else aside from the camping snipers on the team are not being worthless, which is absolutely untrue. I've seen Medics camp in windmills and not heal anybody. I've spawned in on squad mates playing Medic and Assault who run right past uncontested enemy objectives as I try and cap them.

    Not only that, but time and time again I've seen people of ALL classes sitting at the bottom of a scoreboard with a negative K/D and a sum of points that may as well have been zero.

    The real travesty here is that in all the blatant dislike of how camping snipers personally play, everyone is insisting that they're the only ones in any given match that aren't PTFO'ing, and are the only ones that DIRECTLY contribute to the loss of a match.

    The real comedy is that people on that side of the fence only respond to my point with "Well, yeah, but I'm willing to bet those bad Assault, Medic, and Support players are at least near objectives, which distracts enemies and helps in the long run" - which has not only been argued against me on this very topic SEVERAL times, but is also unsubstantiated BS.

    The fact of the matter is that camping Scouts are not the only ones that don't PTFO, and camping Scouts are not the only ones that directly contribute to a match losing. It's a gross over-exaggeration to imply that "everyone" aside from camping snipers are upset that SOLELY camping snipers are causing them to lose.

    Hell, it's an over-exaggeration to imply that "everyone else" is upset that they lose a match in the first place, especially when that notion is preceded that SOMEHOW the camping sniper SPECIFICALLY isn't upset that their team lost.

    People who dislike snipers (and who have probably always disliked snipers in this franchise, and probably dislike snipers in most FPS games they play, period) just use camping snipers as a scapegoat for the crux of bad things that happen to them in the game.

    Team can't push up in Rush? It's the camping snipers fault
    Team can't hold obj's in CQL? It's the camping sniper's fault.
    Can't run out into the open like an idiot? It's the camping sniper's fault.
    Get your dome popped while running to an objective in a straight line without cover? It's the camping sniper's fault.

    Forget about the 4-5 Assault players sitting at the bottom of the scoreboard going 3-17 with 1,000 points 15 minutes into the match who spawn and rush into the open - it's definitely the camping sniper's fault. /s

    Forget about the fact that the player who just got sniped from 200m away was standing still outside of cover for 10 straight seconds - Snipers are just overpowered. /s
  • XXxx_ABH_xxXX
    573 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Astr0damus wrote: »

    The mistake you are making (IMHO) is the difference between personal success and team success.
    The average sniper has a great K/D---even in a losing effort!
    The team loses 1000-458 but the average sniper who goes 18-4 feels very accomplished and had nothing but good times.
    Everyone else on his team (apart from other snipers) are pretty frustrated.

    Picture an NFL Quarterback whose team lost the Superbowl, but yet he had 3 TD's and passed for 350 yards--and in the post-game interview he is all smiles and says "Man I had a tremendous game and had a blast out there tonight". He would be completely out of touch with the fans who are going to be very unhappy--along with the head coach.

    Some care about the win over all else, and others only care about their personal statistics.

    We can argue semantics all day long, but I could just as easily rebut with the fact that you're simply implying that "everyone else on his team" are frustrated - which, by default, implies that everyone else in the game is playing solely to win and solely for the team effort - when that's absolutely and obviously not true at all.

    Not to mention the fact it implies that everyone else aside from the sniper is contributing and ptfo'ing.

    I'm very well aware of the (one side's) argument that "camping snipers make teams lose", even though that argument is entirely unsubstantiated and leaves out a variety of parameters.

    Like the one I just mentioned for instance - it implies that everyone else aside from the camping snipers on the team are not being worthless, which is absolutely untrue. I've seen Medics camp in windmills and not heal anybody. I've spawned in on squad mates playing Medic and Assault who run right past uncontested enemy objectives as I try and cap them.

    Not only that, but time and time again I've seen people of ALL classes sitting at the bottom of a scoreboard with a negative K/D and a sum of points that may as well have been zero.

    The real travesty here is that in all the blatant dislike of how camping snipers personally play, everyone is insisting that they're the only ones in any given match that aren't PTFO'ing, and are the only ones that DIRECTLY contribute to the loss of a match.

    The real comedy is that people on that side of the fence only respond to my point with "Well, yeah, but I'm willing to bet those bad Assault, Medic, and Support players are at least near objectives, which distracts enemies and helps in the long run" - which has not only been argued against me on this very topic SEVERAL times, but is also unsubstantiated BS.

    The fact of the matter is that camping Scouts are not the only ones that don't PTFO, and camping Scouts are not the only ones that directly contribute to a match losing. It's a gross over-exaggeration to imply that "everyone" aside from camping snipers are upset that SOLELY camping snipers are causing them to lose.

    Hell, it's an over-exaggeration to imply that "everyone else" is upset that they lose a match in the first place, especially when that notion is preceded that SOMEHOW the camping sniper SPECIFICALLY isn't upset that their team lost.

    People who dislike snipers (and who have probably always disliked snipers in this franchise, and probably dislike snipers in most FPS games they play, period) just use camping snipers as a scapegoat for the crux of bad things that happen to them in the game.

    Team can't push up in Rush? It's the camping snipers fault
    Team can't hold obj's in CQL? It's the camping sniper's fault.
    Can't run out into the open like an idiot? It's the camping sniper's fault.
    Get your dome popped while running to an objective in a straight line without cover? It's the camping sniper's fault.

    Forget about the 4-5 Assault players sitting at the bottom of the scoreboard going 3-17 with 1,000 points 15 minutes into the match who spawn and rush into the open - it's definitely the camping sniper's fault. /s

    Forget about the fact that the player who just got sniped from 200m away was standing still outside of cover for 10 straight seconds - Snipers are just overpowered. /s

    I am not religious but Amen. It is allways fascinating to see how average, or even bellow average, these "limit everything exect what I like" players are. I was taught that to improve something you need to understand it and the anly way for that is to achieve a certain degree of mastery and experience about the issue. There is no way around that.
  • Skill4Reel
    349 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Astr0damus wrote: »
    The mistake you are making (IMHO) is the difference between personal success and team success.
    The average sniper has a great K/D---even in a losing effort!
    The team loses 1000-458 but the average sniper who goes 18-4 feels very accomplished and had nothing but good times.
    Everyone else on his team (apart from other snipers) are pretty frustrated.

    Picture an NFL Quarterback whose team lost the Superbowl, but yet he had 3 TD's and passed for 350 yards--and in the post-game interview he is all smiles and says "Man I had a tremendous game and had a blast out there tonight". He would be completely out of touch with the fans who are going to be very unhappy--along with the head coach.

    Some care about the win over all else, and others only care about their personal statistics.


    I think that this is a very good analogy that describes how I feel in most conquest (or any objective game mode) matches. It also perfectly highlights how the needs of all player types in this community are not being met.

  • SumwhatKrazy
    555 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've never really agreed with this suggestion in the past but since the last DLC i agree. The new maps suck due to lack of cover, lack of land vehicles and **** loads of snipers. People argue that they've tried to be historically accurate and make long wide open maps with some trenches and that war was hell in WW1 and death. That may be well and true but somehow i doubt there were so many snipers back then..
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Astr0damus wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Imabaka70 wrote: »
    Wait I thought everyone was crying because it was to easy to get kills as a scout. Now I'm confused by this tomfoolery

    Didn't you know? There are two sections of this community that complain about Scouts.

    One side claims that snipers are the easiest thing in the game to use and get kill with and claim they can't win game because enemy team has so many snipers that they can't even move out of spawn.

    The other side claims the EXACT opposite, and insist that the vast majority of snipers in this game are worthless, and that having too many on YOUR team can cause you to lose.

    Despite contradicting each other at every turn and arguing EXACT opposite points about Scouts on this forum - they seemingly coexist without even realizing the other exists.
    everyone knows Assault is the easiest class to play

    The mistake you are making (IMHO) is the difference between personal success and team success.
    The average sniper has a great K/D---even in a losing effort!
    The team loses 1000-458 but the average sniper who goes 18-4 feels very accomplished and had nothing but good times.
    Everyone else on his team (apart from other snipers) are pretty frustrated.

    Picture an NFL Quarterback whose team lost the Superbowl, but yet he had 3 TD's and passed for 350 yards--and in the post-game interview he is all smiles and says "Man I had a tremendous game and had a blast out there tonight". He would be completely out of touch with the fans who are going to be very unhappy--along with the head coach.

    Some care about the win over all else, and others only care about their personal statistics.

    And with a sniper cap your server will still have the same amount of hillhumpers.
    And just fewer ptfo scouts.
    What did you accomplish then?
  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited October 2017
    What some find annoying, others don't.

    I dont really play scout (just a hill humping session on Fao) ask me if I care what you think.
    I also don't care what others play.
    I don't play a game to be bothered about others playstyle, i play to relax and in no way am I gonna let anybody else I couldn't care less about make a difference to that.

    I don't feel any different if I win or lose, its completely forgot about once the next round starts.

    If others affect you, then you're doing it wrong imo.

    Once you start ignoring what you can't control and focus on what you can, ie yourself, you'll enjoy the game even more.
  • 1uzl129tmw
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The issue I take with snipers is that it feels cheap. Really cheap.
    Out of nowhere you'll get one hit killed by someone halfway across the map, and because you have no hope of avoiding the kill it feels like you've been cheated. Happens all the time and is very frustrating.

    I would like to see the sniper rifles made much less powerful, its very frustrating when I'm entrenched with a LMG on a bipod raining down a storm of bullets hitting baddies left and right just for them to laugh in my face and run off. For guns that use the same or similar bullets/cartridges LMGs and bolt actions rifles should deal the same damage.

    Sniping has its place in game types like conquest. If you get a real team player sniper guy they're great. But the majority of the snipers aren't capping objectives or supporting their squad by getting spotting flares out or flagging/spotting the baddies (actually no one spots enemies! I can only assume they don't want people stealing their 'kills') .
    They just sit on a ridge taking pot shots at guys half a mile away. There's a game mode for playing in that style, its called team deathmatch.

    So in summary:
    Over powered weapons
    Encourages selfish game play
    I don't like it
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1uzl129tmw wrote: »
    The issue I take with snipers is that it feels cheap. Really cheap.
    Out of nowhere you'll get one hit killed by someone halfway across the map, and because you have no hope of avoiding the kill it feels like you've been cheated. Happens all the time and is very frustrating.

    I would like to see the sniper rifles made much less powerful, its very frustrating when I'm entrenched with a LMG on a bipod raining down a storm of bullets hitting baddies left and right just for them to laugh in my face and run off. For guns that use the same or similar bullets/cartridges LMGs and bolt actions rifles should deal the same damage.

    Sniping has its place in game types like conquest. If you get a real team player sniper guy they're great. But the majority of the snipers aren't capping objectives or supporting their squad by getting spotting flares out or flagging/spotting the baddies (actually no one spots enemies! I can only assume they don't want people stealing their 'kills') .
    They just sit on a ridge taking pot shots at guys half a mile away. There's a game mode for playing in that style, its called team deathmatch.

    So in summary:
    Over powered weapons
    Encourages selfish game play
    I don't like it

    If you get ohk by a sniperrifle he shot you in the head and he deserved that ohk.
    It takes alot less effort to kill upclose with a lmg or smg/shotgun
  • rock1obsta
    3791 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    What some find annoying, others don't.

    I dont really play scout (just a hill humping session on Fao) ask me if I care what you think.
    I also don't care what others play.
    I don't play a game to be bothered about others playstyle, i play to relax and in no way am I gonna let anybody else I couldn't care less about make a difference to that.

    I don't feel any different if I win or lose, its completely forgot about once the next round starts.

    If others affect you, then you're doing it wrong imo.

    Once you start ignoring what you can't control and focus on what you can, ie yourself, you'll enjoy the game even more.

    Yep.
    People worry too much about how others play instead of just themselves.
  • trip1ex
    4641 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    I hate campers too. Like most guys.

    However, the amount of hyperbole, and exaggerated claims of "20 snipers on a team" are ridiculous.
    Just insane.

    Any limit is going to be detrimental to a sandbox shooter based on choice. Limiting choice is always a bad idea.

    You are not allowed to impose your will on anyone, for any reason, ever, which is what these pro limit guys wanna do to the other players.

    "But rock1obsta," I can hear some of you saying, "the campers impose their will on me by not ptfo'ing."

    To which I reply, "campers suck. I know. I feel yer pain cuz it annoys the hell outta me, too," but they aren't imposing anything.

    Someone camping doesn't force anyone to play the game in a completely different way than how they want. No matter how inconvenient it may be to deal with them.

    At it's core, this limit argument is all about trying to control how someone else plays. Nothing more.

    Players who really, truly believe that someone should alter their playstyle because they don't like it should put their money where their mouth is and buy the games for them then .

    Seriously believing that someone is obligated to play your way is just ridiculously wrong.

    Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play at all. To think otherwise indicates a malfunction in one's thinking.

    You have zero power over someone else's choice. That's how it is, and thats how it should stay.

    Imagine if a buncha scouts decided they wanted to limit one of the other classes. The outcry would be epic.

    They could easily say "too many medics reviving people isn't fair. I gotta keep killin em cuz they keep reviving, and there's too many guys alive on the other team. Make a medic limit."

    Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

    Complaining about the use of a valid tactic, be it camping or reviving is fine. Complain away.

    But actively lobbying for any limits to player choice in a game built on it is always going to be 100% wrong.


    Nonsense. That's a strawman argument. No one telling players how to play. They want limit how many can play a class on a map.

    They already limit the number of players who can use stuff in the game. Pilots, tankers, horseman, elite kits, etc.


    No. Sorry but I think you're wrong.

    Eliminating player choice is one of the absolute worst ideas a game dev can do. Especially when their games encourage choosing a role.

    In terms of planes, vehicles, horses, whatever, these are assets to be shared. Not classes unto themselves. Can't be pilot class without a plane, and so on. They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman, & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort. Most definitely not a Battlefield game.

    lol.

    "They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman , & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort."

    This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

    Man, I dunno what to tell ya. We'll hafta agree to disagree.

    lol. I think we agree now. They have to limit things in order to make the game they want to make. And they have to limit things so you don't have too many doing one thing and not enough doing the other.



  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    I hate campers too. Like most guys.

    However, the amount of hyperbole, and exaggerated claims of "20 snipers on a team" are ridiculous.
    Just insane.

    Any limit is going to be detrimental to a sandbox shooter based on choice. Limiting choice is always a bad idea.

    You are not allowed to impose your will on anyone, for any reason, ever, which is what these pro limit guys wanna do to the other players.

    "But rock1obsta," I can hear some of you saying, "the campers impose their will on me by not ptfo'ing."

    To which I reply, "campers suck. I know. I feel yer pain cuz it annoys the hell outta me, too," but they aren't imposing anything.

    Someone camping doesn't force anyone to play the game in a completely different way than how they want. No matter how inconvenient it may be to deal with them.

    At it's core, this limit argument is all about trying to control how someone else plays. Nothing more.

    Players who really, truly believe that someone should alter their playstyle because they don't like it should put their money where their mouth is and buy the games for them then .

    Seriously believing that someone is obligated to play your way is just ridiculously wrong.

    Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play at all. To think otherwise indicates a malfunction in one's thinking.

    You have zero power over someone else's choice. That's how it is, and thats how it should stay.

    Imagine if a buncha scouts decided they wanted to limit one of the other classes. The outcry would be epic.

    They could easily say "too many medics reviving people isn't fair. I gotta keep killin em cuz they keep reviving, and there's too many guys alive on the other team. Make a medic limit."

    Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

    Complaining about the use of a valid tactic, be it camping or reviving is fine. Complain away.

    But actively lobbying for any limits to player choice in a game built on it is always going to be 100% wrong.


    Nonsense. That's a strawman argument. No one telling players how to play. They want limit how many can play a class on a map.

    They already limit the number of players who can use stuff in the game. Pilots, tankers, horseman, elite kits, etc.


    No. Sorry but I think you're wrong.

    Eliminating player choice is one of the absolute worst ideas a game dev can do. Especially when their games encourage choosing a role.

    In terms of planes, vehicles, horses, whatever, these are assets to be shared. Not classes unto themselves. Can't be pilot class without a plane, and so on. They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman, & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort. Most definitely not a Battlefield game.

    lol.

    "They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman , & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort."

    This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

    Man, I dunno what to tell ya. We'll hafta agree to disagree.

    lol. I think we agree now. They have to limit things in order to make the game they want to make. And they have to limit things so you don't have too many doing one thing and not enough doing the other.



    Zzzzzzz.

    No they dont have to limit it.
  • trip1ex
    4641 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    I hate campers too. Like most guys.

    However, the amount of hyperbole, and exaggerated claims of "20 snipers on a team" are ridiculous.
    Just insane.

    Any limit is going to be detrimental to a sandbox shooter based on choice. Limiting choice is always a bad idea.

    You are not allowed to impose your will on anyone, for any reason, ever, which is what these pro limit guys wanna do to the other players.

    "But rock1obsta," I can hear some of you saying, "the campers impose their will on me by not ptfo'ing."

    To which I reply, "campers suck. I know. I feel yer pain cuz it annoys the hell outta me, too," but they aren't imposing anything.

    Someone camping doesn't force anyone to play the game in a completely different way than how they want. No matter how inconvenient it may be to deal with them.

    At it's core, this limit argument is all about trying to control how someone else plays. Nothing more.

    Players who really, truly believe that someone should alter their playstyle because they don't like it should put their money where their mouth is and buy the games for them then .

    Seriously believing that someone is obligated to play your way is just ridiculously wrong.

    Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play at all. To think otherwise indicates a malfunction in one's thinking.

    You have zero power over someone else's choice. That's how it is, and thats how it should stay.

    Imagine if a buncha scouts decided they wanted to limit one of the other classes. The outcry would be epic.

    They could easily say "too many medics reviving people isn't fair. I gotta keep killin em cuz they keep reviving, and there's too many guys alive on the other team. Make a medic limit."

    Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

    Complaining about the use of a valid tactic, be it camping or reviving is fine. Complain away.

    But actively lobbying for any limits to player choice in a game built on it is always going to be 100% wrong.


    Nonsense. That's a strawman argument. No one telling players how to play. They want limit how many can play a class on a map.

    They already limit the number of players who can use stuff in the game. Pilots, tankers, horseman, elite kits, etc.


    No. Sorry but I think you're wrong.

    Eliminating player choice is one of the absolute worst ideas a game dev can do. Especially when their games encourage choosing a role.

    In terms of planes, vehicles, horses, whatever, these are assets to be shared. Not classes unto themselves. Can't be pilot class without a plane, and so on. They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman, & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort. Most definitely not a Battlefield game.

    lol.

    "They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman , & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort."

    This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

    Man, I dunno what to tell ya. We'll hafta agree to disagree.

    lol. I think we agree now. They have to limit things in order to make the game they want to make. And they have to limit things so you don't have too many doing one thing and not enough doing the other.



    Zzzzzzz.

    No they dont have to limit it.

    ZZZZZ. Yes they do.
  • 1uzl129tmw
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    1uzl129tmw wrote: »
    If you get ohk by a sniperrifle he shot you in the head and he deserved that ohk.
    It takes alot less effort to kill upclose with a lmg or smg/shotgun
    I would agree with you, but there have been numerous times I have point blank shot baddies in the head and they turn around and kill me.
    I don't want to limit snipers, but I hate being cheated by snipers that have special rules. It's the unfairness that upsets me. When compared to the support class it is blindingly appartent that sniping is disproportionately effective. LMGs and mortors should tear people to shreds! You can tell how effective the mortors is but the number of players that use it. And 7 hits for the Lewis gun to score a kill is a joke.
  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    I hate campers too. Like most guys.

    However, the amount of hyperbole, and exaggerated claims of "20 snipers on a team" are ridiculous.
    Just insane.

    Any limit is going to be detrimental to a sandbox shooter based on choice. Limiting choice is always a bad idea.

    You are not allowed to impose your will on anyone, for any reason, ever, which is what these pro limit guys wanna do to the other players.

    "But rock1obsta," I can hear some of you saying, "the campers impose their will on me by not ptfo'ing."

    To which I reply, "campers suck. I know. I feel yer pain cuz it annoys the hell outta me, too," but they aren't imposing anything.

    Someone camping doesn't force anyone to play the game in a completely different way than how they want. No matter how inconvenient it may be to deal with them.

    At it's core, this limit argument is all about trying to control how someone else plays. Nothing more.

    Players who really, truly believe that someone should alter their playstyle because they don't like it should put their money where their mouth is and buy the games for them then .

    Seriously believing that someone is obligated to play your way is just ridiculously wrong.

    Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play at all. To think otherwise indicates a malfunction in one's thinking.

    You have zero power over someone else's choice. That's how it is, and thats how it should stay.

    Imagine if a buncha scouts decided they wanted to limit one of the other classes. The outcry would be epic.

    They could easily say "too many medics reviving people isn't fair. I gotta keep killin em cuz they keep reviving, and there's too many guys alive on the other team. Make a medic limit."

    Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

    Complaining about the use of a valid tactic, be it camping or reviving is fine. Complain away.

    But actively lobbying for any limits to player choice in a game built on it is always going to be 100% wrong.


    Nonsense. That's a strawman argument. No one telling players how to play. They want limit how many can play a class on a map.

    They already limit the number of players who can use stuff in the game. Pilots, tankers, horseman, elite kits, etc.


    No. Sorry but I think you're wrong.

    Eliminating player choice is one of the absolute worst ideas a game dev can do. Especially when their games encourage choosing a role.

    In terms of planes, vehicles, horses, whatever, these are assets to be shared. Not classes unto themselves. Can't be pilot class without a plane, and so on. They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman, & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort. Most definitely not a Battlefield game.

    lol.

    "They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman , & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort."

    This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

    Man, I dunno what to tell ya. We'll hafta agree to disagree.

    lol. I think we agree now. They have to limit things in order to make the game they want to make. And they have to limit things so you don't have too many doing one thing and not enough doing the other.



    Zzzzzzz.

    No they dont have to limit it.

    ZZZZZ. Yes they do.

    Zzzzz, ain't happening
  • rock1obsta
    3791 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    1uzl129tmw wrote: »
    1uzl129tmw wrote: »
    If you get ohk by a sniperrifle he shot you in the head and he deserved that ohk.
    It takes alot less effort to kill upclose with a lmg or smg/shotgun
    I would agree with you, but there have been numerous times I have point blank shot baddies in the head and they turn around and kill me.
    I don't want to limit snipers, but I hate being cheated by snipers that have special rules. It's the unfairness that upsets me. When compared to the support class it is blindingly appartent that sniping is disproportionately effective. LMGs and mortors should tear people to shreds! You can tell how effective the mortors is but the number of players that use it. And 7 hits for the Lewis gun to score a kill is a joke.

    Lol....did you just....agree with yourself? I gotta try that......

    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    I hate campers too. Like most guys.

    However, the amount of hyperbole, and exaggerated claims of "20 snipers on a team" are ridiculous.
    Just insane.

    Any limit is going to be detrimental to a sandbox shooter based on choice. Limiting choice is always a bad idea.

    You are not allowed to impose your will on anyone, for any reason, ever, which is what these pro limit guys wanna do to the other players.

    "But rock1obsta," I can hear some of you saying, "the campers impose their will on me by not ptfo'ing."

    To which I reply, "campers suck. I know. I feel yer pain cuz it annoys the hell outta me, too," but they aren't imposing anything.

    Someone camping doesn't force anyone to play the game in a completely different way than how they want. No matter how inconvenient it may be to deal with them.

    At it's core, this limit argument is all about trying to control how someone else plays. Nothing more.

    Players who really, truly believe that someone should alter their playstyle because they don't like it should put their money where their mouth is and buy the games for them then .

    Seriously believing that someone is obligated to play your way is just ridiculously wrong.

    Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play at all. To think otherwise indicates a malfunction in one's thinking.

    You have zero power over someone else's choice. That's how it is, and thats how it should stay.

    Imagine if a buncha scouts decided they wanted to limit one of the other classes. The outcry would be epic.

    They could easily say "too many medics reviving people isn't fair. I gotta keep killin em cuz they keep reviving, and there's too many guys alive on the other team. Make a medic limit."

    Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

    Complaining about the use of a valid tactic, be it camping or reviving is fine. Complain away.

    But actively lobbying for any limits to player choice in a game built on it is always going to be 100% wrong.


    Nonsense. That's a strawman argument. No one telling players how to play. They want limit how many can play a class on a map.

    They already limit the number of players who can use stuff in the game. Pilots, tankers, horseman, elite kits, etc.


    No. Sorry but I think you're wrong.

    Eliminating player choice is one of the absolute worst ideas a game dev can do. Especially when their games encourage choosing a role.

    In terms of planes, vehicles, horses, whatever, these are assets to be shared. Not classes unto themselves. Can't be pilot class without a plane, and so on. They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman, & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort. Most definitely not a Battlefield game.

    lol.

    "They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman , & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort."

    This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

    Man, I dunno what to tell ya. We'll hafta agree to disagree.

    lol. I think we agree now. They have to limit things in order to make the game they want to make. And they have to limit things so you don't have too many doing one thing and not enough doing the other.



    Assets should be limited. Classes should not.
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Lol he quoted me, but somehow his name ended up on top :D
  • DingoKillr
    3467 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    1uzl129tmw wrote: »
    1uzl129tmw wrote: »
    If you get ohk by a sniperrifle he shot you in the head and he deserved that ohk.
    It takes alot less effort to kill upclose with a lmg or smg/shotgun
    I would agree with you, but there have been numerous times I have point blank shot baddies in the head and they turn around and kill me.
    I don't want to limit snipers, but I hate being cheated by snipers that have special rules. It's the unfairness that upsets me. When compared to the support class it is blindingly appartent that sniping is disproportionately effective. LMGs and mortors should tear people to shreds! You can tell how effective the mortors is but the number of players that use it. And 7 hits for the Lewis gun to score a kill is a joke.

    Lol....did you just....agree with yourself? I gotta try that......

    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    I hate campers too. Like most guys.

    However, the amount of hyperbole, and exaggerated claims of "20 snipers on a team" are ridiculous.
    Just insane.

    Any limit is going to be detrimental to a sandbox shooter based on choice. Limiting choice is always a bad idea.

    You are not allowed to impose your will on anyone, for any reason, ever, which is what these pro limit guys wanna do to the other players.

    "But rock1obsta," I can hear some of you saying, "the campers impose their will on me by not ptfo'ing."

    To which I reply, "campers suck. I know. I feel yer pain cuz it annoys the hell outta me, too," but they aren't imposing anything.

    Someone camping doesn't force anyone to play the game in a completely different way than how they want. No matter how inconvenient it may be to deal with them.

    At it's core, this limit argument is all about trying to control how someone else plays. Nothing more.

    Players who really, truly believe that someone should alter their playstyle because they don't like it should put their money where their mouth is and buy the games for them then .

    Seriously believing that someone is obligated to play your way is just ridiculously wrong.

    Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play at all. To think otherwise indicates a malfunction in one's thinking.

    You have zero power over someone else's choice. That's how it is, and thats how it should stay.

    Imagine if a buncha scouts decided they wanted to limit one of the other classes. The outcry would be epic.

    They could easily say "too many medics reviving people isn't fair. I gotta keep killin em cuz they keep reviving, and there's too many guys alive on the other team. Make a medic limit."

    Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

    Complaining about the use of a valid tactic, be it camping or reviving is fine. Complain away.

    But actively lobbying for any limits to player choice in a game built on it is always going to be 100% wrong.


    Nonsense. That's a strawman argument. No one telling players how to play. They want limit how many can play a class on a map.

    They already limit the number of players who can use stuff in the game. Pilots, tankers, horseman, elite kits, etc.


    No. Sorry but I think you're wrong.

    Eliminating player choice is one of the absolute worst ideas a game dev can do. Especially when their games encourage choosing a role.

    In terms of planes, vehicles, horses, whatever, these are assets to be shared. Not classes unto themselves. Can't be pilot class without a plane, and so on. They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman, & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort. Most definitely not a Battlefield game.

    lol.

    "They must be limited in order to promote the specific game the devs wanna make. Otherwise you got nobody as an infantryman , & everyone else in a vehicle of some sort."

    This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

    Man, I dunno what to tell ya. We'll hafta agree to disagree.

    lol. I think we agree now. They have to limit things in order to make the game they want to make. And they have to limit things so you don't have too many doing one thing and not enough doing the other.



    Assets should be limited. Classes should not.
    Good example of that today 3 Tankers only 2 Tanks on the same team.
    Edit: oh yeah, the map was Amiens.
  • HardAimedKid
    11386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Is this where I come to dispute getting robbed on my battlepacks?
Sign In or Register to comment.