The game need a sniper cap pls....

Comments

  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Is this where I come to dispute getting robbed on my battlepacks?

    No this is where you come to get caps on things people don't like.
    Be careful, they might try and cap your banter ;)
  • trip1ex
    4656 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    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

    Zzzzz it will.
  • trip1ex
    4656 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    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.

    Yep sniper rifles are assets.
  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    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

    Zzzzz it will.

    :lol: :lol: :lol:
  • rock1obsta
    3791 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    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.

    Yep sniper rifles are assets.

    Not to me they aren't.
  • HardAimedKid
    11386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    Is this where I come to dispute getting robbed on my battlepacks?

    No this is where you come to get caps on things people don't like.
    Be careful, they might try and cap your banter ;)

    But my battlepacks.. I'm triggered
  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »

    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.
    trip1ex wrote: »

    ZZZZZ. Yes they do.

    Have you just gotten to the point you won't even argue your point anymore? Because this is just an example of you proclaiming unsubstantiated crap.

    Like DICE "having" to limit so you don't have too many doing one thing and not enough doing the other, comparing the four major classes to vehicles like they're even remotely the same thing or are of remotely the same importance when it comes to the overall design of the game.

    DICE don't "have" to limit classes in order to make the game they want to make. They haven't limited classes in 15 years - I'd say that after that amount of time, it's BLATANTLY apparent that a Battlefield without class limits is "the game they want to make".

    Sorry, but blindly spewing "Yes they do" is not an argument. It equates to a two year old reacting to being told they don't need a cookie by screaming 'YES I DO". Nonsense.
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    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.

    Nice subtle stat bash, except I have only owned the game since July and I played prinarily Medic for first 2 months--with the Mondragon Storm--Also I play on console with Aim Assist and Auto Rotation both OFF
    You know anyone else like that?
    (That's a rhetorical question)

  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Astr0damus wrote: »

    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.

    Nice subtle stat bash, except I have only owned the game since July and I played prinarily Medic for first 2 months--with the Mondragon Storm--Also I play on console with Aim Assist and Auto Rotation both OFF
    You know anyone else like that?
    (That's a rhetorical question)

    He is righ tho.
    Same in the "cheat threads".
    The lower the stats the more cheats people see... ;)
  • XXxx_ABH_xxXX
    573 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Astr0damus wrote: »

    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.

    Nice subtle stat bash, except I have only owned the game since July and I played prinarily Medic for first 2 months--with the Mondragon Storm--Also I play on console with Aim Assist and Auto Rotation both OFF
    You know anyone else like that?
    (That's a rhetorical question)

    It was not directed to you specifically. And I play on console too. With both assist off. I know our strugle.

    Cheers!
  • Granathar
    249 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Yep sniper rifles are assets.

    Sniper rifles killing with one shot should be. Sweetspot is just **** and should not exist. Only Martini-Henry has enough drawbacks to actually deserve OHK.
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Granathar wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Yep sniper rifles are assets.

    Sniper rifles killing with one shot should be. Sweetspot is just **** and should not exist. Only Martini-Henry has enough drawbacks to actually deserve OHK.

    As a scout player i agree.
  • Granathar
    249 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    IllIllIII wrote: »
    As a scout player i agree.

    Hey, I play scout too. I play all classess, I'm not some kind of Assault barbarian :/ Number of times when I got killed within sweetspot range it too damn high. When I'm killed with headshot - I'm fine with it, he had to deserve it with good aim. When I got killed by 10-A, well - it sucks but I can't say that I was helpless. But when I die suddenly and see that some guy one-shotted me with 1903 I just feel cheated. He took a ****, barely aimed shot and killed me with luck, because I don't believe he knew exactly what range it is. But if he actually knew - it's even worse, because he is sweetspot-camping.
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Granathar wrote: »
    IllIllIII wrote: »
    As a scout player i agree.

    Hey, I play scout too. I play all classess, I'm not some kind of Assault barbarian :/ Number of times when I got killed within sweetspot range it too damn high. When I'm killed with headshot - I'm fine with it, he had to deserve it with good aim. When I got killed by 10-A, well - it sucks but I can't say that I was helpless. But when I die suddenly and see that some guy one-shotted me with 1903 I just feel cheated. He took a ****, barely aimed shot and killed me with luck, because I don't believe he knew exactly what range it is. But if he actually knew - it's even worse, because he is sweetspot-camping.

    To be honest i rarely get ohk'ed within the sweetspot tho.
  • Granathar
    249 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    IllIllIII wrote: »
    To be honest i rarely get ohk'ed within the sweetspot tho.

    I always check if I died by headshot or not when it comes to sniper rifles and if map is not really big then these sweetspot kills are not rare.
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I probably have a different playstyle, since they are kinda rare to me.
  • Shadowblastz
    100 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    remove the sweetspot and welcome even more campers in the back of the map just like in BF4.

    Sweetspot encourages players to move in that range and since the furthest range is up to 150m i think its still not as far as the BF4 500+ meter snipers. It gives snipers a perfect stat to difference from one another. And the amount of times the sweetspot is actually abused is rare.

    shotguns also have a 1shot kill up close, you can almost say the same for automatico.
    The only difference is that shotguns need to be close whilst snipers need to be at medium range. Both have their drawbacks, sniper sweetspots are further so safer whilst shotguns are up close but sniper shots are way harder to land and harder to follow up than shotguns who can just spam trough people upclose.

    This topic has 18pages of people QQ'ing who just need to learn to play. Nothing more to it.
    Hill humpers are noobs but noobs exist in every class, stop blaming snipers whilst that medic whose closing in to revive me just runs over my body oblivious as always.
    You want a sniper limit? I want a age minimum, kids!
  • XXxx_ABH_xxXX
    573 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited October 2017
    Granathar wrote: »
    IllIllIII wrote: »
    To be honest i rarely get ohk'ed within the sweetspot tho.

    I always check if I died by headshot or not when it comes to sniper rifles and if map is not really big then these sweetspot kills are not rare.

    Take note about your health at the moment of the kill. I use the M.95, no sweet spot, and if I dont get the headshoot or the consecutive fast two shoot kill, my most common kill is by hiting allready wounded enemies.
    I agree Sweet Spot could disapear. So do Aim Assist.
  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I just want to remind everyone who wants absolutely no OHK range for rifles that the RSC, which has the same mag size as most rifles but has a 5x faster Rof, is having its 2 body shot kill range increased to 70m in the upcoming balancing pass.

    That means the RSC will 2 shot kill at ranges (what has so far been Scout-intended range) where Scouts are supposed to dominate, and will do so 5x faster than any Scout rifle without an OHK at that range.

    If camping snipers is your side of the issue, then removing any possible OHK will not only make rifles the absolute least competitive weapons in the game (aside from the m95 because of its rof), but Scouts will only camp more, and further away.

    But in saying that I also wanted to bring up what I said earlier - this thread is now baring the heads of BOTH contradicting sides of this argument.

    We now definitively have two sides blatantly contradicting each other by one side claiming snipers need to be limited because they suck and having too many makes you lose, as the other side is insisting sweet spots be totally removed because rifles are too easy and OP to use and make the game hard to play.

    All in all, I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that if snipers were limited or had their OHK removed, people would still find a reason to complain about them
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Scout: a.k.a Rambo class

    dope-pod-scout-life-vse-ok-rambo-01.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.