snipers ruining game

Comments

  • MarxistDictator
    5249 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The snipers in this game were only ridiculously out of line with the launch weapons. LMGs suffered terrible initial accuracy and garbage DPS at any range which is why you only saw people run and gun with the BAR (a proto AR) for 6 months. The SLRs all racked huge spread if you fired within like 30% of the max RoF and dropped damage off by like 25m. The most damaging CQB guns besides shotguns were pistols. The Martini Henry sweet spot was an OHK to the entire body if you wanted to play closer and flares had no counter.

    100% why would you even play other classes

    Scout is literally the reason for new TTK, since people didn't want their OHK railguns touched.
  • opsis_1
    255 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
  • -Antares65z
    1788 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    It's not snipers on the *other* team that's a problem. It's snipers sucking the PTFO out of your own team that ruins matches.
  • GerocK-
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?

    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.
  • Ronin9572
    1310 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    (Quote)
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    Spot on!
  • -Antares65z
    1788 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sure miss the days of the ProconRulz plugin and being able to set classes/weapons restrictions. The plugin did wonders for promoting more balance in games like BC2. 
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Sure miss the days of the ProconRulz plugin and being able to set classes/weapons restrictions. The plugin did wonders for promoting more balance in games like BC2. 
    Yeah I always looked out for BF4 servers that had sniper rifles restricted.  Recon: Loved them.  Snipers: Ugh.
  • GerocK-
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.
  • GerocK-
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.

    I'm a bit confused whether or not you're talking about everyone who chooses Sniper/Scout class or if you solely mean people who prone at the back of the map with a Sniper Rifle?

    But I am convinced rounds are won by the top 5 or sometimes top 10 players of a team. Not lost by the players on the bottom of the scoreboard.
    Players always manage to score only 2k-5k points in a full round of Conquest, I don't really think it matters what class they played or where they were on the map.

    The player who prones at the back of the map with a sniper rifle is obviously the most useless player in the team. But the player who I despise even more is the mouthy Medic on the middle of the scoreboard with 5 kills and 17 deaths who justifies his low score by saying "I'm Medic" and then he's not even the top reviver or healer of the game.


  • eggfarts1220
    124 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    can't move without a sniper head shot. ruining game. get some guts and get in the trenches.
    You are 100% right! 
  • IamNotThatWhichU
    113 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I agree with disposalist. If game has gone sideways i sometimes go sniper because i get sick of trying to attack on my own. Sniper is easy, it really is for total n00bs.
    Having said that, even though most days i couldn't hit a barn door at 10 yards, i often come top as sniper. Why? Because i use the epuipment :)

    Gerok: your comment about looking at bottom 10-15 players, saying they are a mixture, doesn't really stack up. Because especially when a game has gone sideways, you will see lots of players leaving teams, and being replaced. So the bottom 10-15 players could very well have only joined in the last 5-10 mins, explaining their low score, regardless of whether they play sniper or otherwise.

    Snipers do not PTFO. That means flags are lost. That means snipers have less and less opportunity to snipe from various positions. It also means that on maps like Suez, all flags are quickly lost, one side is pinned in base, and its a total pointless whitewash.

    Snipers really should be renamed 'n00b' class. And limited to 4 or 5 per team.
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.

    I'm a bit confused whether or not you're talking about everyone who chooses Sniper/Scout class or if you solely mean people who prone at the back of the map with a Sniper Rifle?

    But I am convinced rounds are won by the top 5 or sometimes top 10 players of a team. Not lost by the players on the bottom of the scoreboard.
    Players always manage to score only 2k-5k points in a full round of Conquest, I don't really think it matters what class they played or where they were on the map.

    The player who prones at the back of the map with a sniper rifle is obviously the most useless player in the team. But the player who I despise even more is the mouthy Medic on the middle of the scoreboard with 5 kills and 17 deaths who justifies his low score by saying "I'm Medic" and then he's not even the top reviver or healer of the game.


    It's sniper that's the problem. The rifles and the behaviour they encourage. Not scout, though scout is a difficult class to PTFO with. I love playing scout (SMLE Carbine and flares) but don't get to do it often, because it is so rarely actually needed and other classes are almost always a better choice if you want to win the match.

    As far the top 5 getting the win? Yes, kinda, but their job is *much* harder if a lot of their team is sniping. If those noobs were on the objectives they at least are providing targets for the enemy. If they are sniping, the enemy are all focused on those on the objectives. You will be getting much more enemy fire if your team is sniping.

    I'd rather have that medic. At least he knows he should be helping the team and he took at least 17 bullets that might, potentially, have been mine.
  • GerocK-
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.

    I'm a bit confused whether or not you're talking about everyone who chooses Sniper/Scout class or if you solely mean people who prone at the back of the map with a Sniper Rifle?

    But I am convinced rounds are won by the top 5 or sometimes top 10 players of a team. Not lost by the players on the bottom of the scoreboard.
    Players always manage to score only 2k-5k points in a full round of Conquest, I don't really think it matters what class they played or where they were on the map.

    The player who prones at the back of the map with a sniper rifle is obviously the most useless player in the team. But the player who I despise even more is the mouthy Medic on the middle of the scoreboard with 5 kills and 17 deaths who justifies his low score by saying "I'm Medic" and then he's not even the top reviver or healer of the game.


    It's sniper that's the problem. The rifles and the behaviour they encourage. Not scout, though scout is a difficult class to PTFO with. I love playing scout (SMLE Carbine and flares) but don't get to do it often, because it is so rarely actually needed and other classes are almost always a better choice if you want to win the match.

    As far the top 5 getting the win? Yes, kinda, but their job is *much* harder if a lot of their team is sniping. If those noobs were on the objectives they at least are providing targets for the enemy. If they are sniping, the enemy are all focused on those on the objectives. You will be getting much more enemy fire if your team is sniping.

    I'd rather have that medic. At least he knows he should be helping the team and he took at least 17 bullets that might, potentially, have been mine.

    Those are valid arguments and I agree with them. But I feel it's more theoretical / hypothetical which only prove true in very close games.
    The majority of games end with a difference of at least 200 points. I don't believe 1-3 camping snipers (who are bad at the game) will make up for that if they choose to be cannonfodder inside a flag zone instead of camping outside.
    -
    Suez is the prime example where people switch to sniping over time. But that happens when one team is steamrolling the other. Even the winning team switches to sniping.
    So yes, turning the game around is impossible after too many people switch to sniping, but chances of turning it around were already very small to begin with.
    -
    About PTFO snipers: I think the flare gun is by far the best gadget to aid in capturing a flag. And a good sniper is perfect for defending a flag. I don't agree that any other class is almost always a better choice than Scout. I PTFO regardless of what class I play and I base my class on what's needed most for the team. My SPM on Scout is almost the same as Assault, which is the standard PTFO class on paper (1300 spm vs 1400 spm).



  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.

    I'm a bit confused whether or not you're talking about everyone who chooses Sniper/Scout class or if you solely mean people who prone at the back of the map with a Sniper Rifle?

    But I am convinced rounds are won by the top 5 or sometimes top 10 players of a team. Not lost by the players on the bottom of the scoreboard.
    Players always manage to score only 2k-5k points in a full round of Conquest, I don't really think it matters what class they played or where they were on the map.

    The player who prones at the back of the map with a sniper rifle is obviously the most useless player in the team. But the player who I despise even more is the mouthy Medic on the middle of the scoreboard with 5 kills and 17 deaths who justifies his low score by saying "I'm Medic" and then he's not even the top reviver or healer of the game.


    It's sniper that's the problem. The rifles and the behaviour they encourage. Not scout, though scout is a difficult class to PTFO with. I love playing scout (SMLE Carbine and flares) but don't get to do it often, because it is so rarely actually needed and other classes are almost always a better choice if you want to win the match.

    As far the top 5 getting the win? Yes, kinda, but their job is *much* harder if a lot of their team is sniping. If those noobs were on the objectives they at least are providing targets for the enemy. If they are sniping, the enemy are all focused on those on the objectives. You will be getting much more enemy fire if your team is sniping.

    I'd rather have that medic. At least he knows he should be helping the team and he took at least 17 bullets that might, potentially, have been mine.

    Those are valid arguments and I agree with them. But I feel it's more theoretical / hypothetical which only prove true in very close games.
    The majority of games end with a difference of at least 200 points. I don't believe 1-3 camping snipers (who are bad at the game) will make up for that if they choose to be cannonfodder inside a flag zone instead of camping outside.
    -
    Suez is the prime example where people switch to sniping over time. But that happens when one team is steamrolling the other. Even the winning team switches to sniping.
    So yes, turning the game around is impossible after too many people switch to sniping, but chances of turning it around were already very small to begin with.
    -
    About PTFO snipers: I think the flare gun is by far the best gadget to aid in capturing a flag. And a good sniper is perfect for defending a flag. I don't agree that any other class is almost always a better choice than Scout. I PTFO regardless of what class I play and I base my class on what's needed most for the team. My SPM on Scout is almost the same as Assault, which is the standard PTFO class on paper (1300 spm vs 1400 spm). 

    1 to 3 snipers? No. 5 to 8 snipers? Yeah. 8 to 12? Definitely.

    It's only when you get more than a few snipers that you're team's PTFO power is screwed. The thing is, this is not the case for any other class or sub-class. There is pretty much no such thing as having a problem because of too many medics, assault or support, no matter their chosen weapon. Even telescopic LMGs can still work well hip-fired. Sniper rifles are aweful at anything other then long range.

    Suez is a prime example, yes, but pretty sure that "going sniper" isn't just what happens *after* a team starts losing. It can also *cause* the team to start losing and can certainly take a slightly uneven match and totally screw it.
    And when the winning team switches to sniping, it's not as big a deal, because sniping isn't too bad when defending. If you're team is winning, then sniping isn't a disaster. If you need to take flags, it is.

    As for PTFO 'snipers' - there is no such thing hehe. PTFO Scout? Yeah. The point I try to make in these threads is "Scout" is not bad (harder than other classes to PTFO with, but useful - I am rank 50 several times over - it's great fun), but "Sniper" is almost impossible to PTFO with. Yes, Scout is useful for PTFO when there is a handful with iron sights or carbines so that they are actually within flare range of objectives. To try and do the same thing but pick a sniper rifle is to just gimp yourself. Sniper rifles are for sniping and sniping is not for PTFO. It's that simple.
  • GerocK-
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.

    I'm a bit confused whether or not you're talking about everyone who chooses Sniper/Scout class or if you solely mean people who prone at the back of the map with a Sniper Rifle?

    But I am convinced rounds are won by the top 5 or sometimes top 10 players of a team. Not lost by the players on the bottom of the scoreboard.
    Players always manage to score only 2k-5k points in a full round of Conquest, I don't really think it matters what class they played or where they were on the map.

    The player who prones at the back of the map with a sniper rifle is obviously the most useless player in the team. But the player who I despise even more is the mouthy Medic on the middle of the scoreboard with 5 kills and 17 deaths who justifies his low score by saying "I'm Medic" and then he's not even the top reviver or healer of the game.


    It's sniper that's the problem. The rifles and the behaviour they encourage. Not scout, though scout is a difficult class to PTFO with. I love playing scout (SMLE Carbine and flares) but don't get to do it often, because it is so rarely actually needed and other classes are almost always a better choice if you want to win the match.

    As far the top 5 getting the win? Yes, kinda, but their job is *much* harder if a lot of their team is sniping. If those noobs were on the objectives they at least are providing targets for the enemy. If they are sniping, the enemy are all focused on those on the objectives. You will be getting much more enemy fire if your team is sniping.

    I'd rather have that medic. At least he knows he should be helping the team and he took at least 17 bullets that might, potentially, have been mine.

    Those are valid arguments and I agree with them. But I feel it's more theoretical / hypothetical which only prove true in very close games.
    The majority of games end with a difference of at least 200 points. I don't believe 1-3 camping snipers (who are bad at the game) will make up for that if they choose to be cannonfodder inside a flag zone instead of camping outside.
    -
    Suez is the prime example where people switch to sniping over time. But that happens when one team is steamrolling the other. Even the winning team switches to sniping.
    So yes, turning the game around is impossible after too many people switch to sniping, but chances of turning it around were already very small to begin with.
    -
    About PTFO snipers: I think the flare gun is by far the best gadget to aid in capturing a flag. And a good sniper is perfect for defending a flag. I don't agree that any other class is almost always a better choice than Scout. I PTFO regardless of what class I play and I base my class on what's needed most for the team. My SPM on Scout is almost the same as Assault, which is the standard PTFO class on paper (1300 spm vs 1400 spm). 

    1 to 3 snipers? No. 5 to 8 snipers? Yeah. 8 to 12? Definitely.

    It's only when you get more than a few snipers that you're team's PTFO power is screwed. The thing is, this is not the case for any other class or sub-class. There is pretty much no such thing as having a problem because of too many medics, assault or support, no matter their chosen weapon. Even telescopic LMGs can still work well hip-fired. Sniper rifles are aweful at anything other then long range.

    Suez is a prime example, yes, but pretty sure that "going sniper" isn't just what happens *after* a team starts losing. It can also *cause* the team to start losing and can certainly take a slightly uneven match and totally screw it.
    And when the winning team switches to sniping, it's not as big a deal, because sniping isn't too bad when defending. If you're team is winning, then sniping isn't a disaster. If you need to take flags, it is.

    As for PTFO 'snipers' - there is no such thing hehe. PTFO Scout? Yeah. The point I try to make in these threads is "Scout" is not bad (harder than other classes to PTFO with, but useful - I am rank 50 several times over - it's great fun), but "Sniper" is almost impossible to PTFO with. Yes, Scout is useful for PTFO when there is a handful with iron sights or carbines so that they are actually within flare range of objectives. To try and do the same thing but pick a sniper rifle is to just gimp yourself. Sniper rifles are for sniping and sniping is not for PTFO. It's that simple.

    I think our main disagreement is that you say a bad Medic is still better than a bad Sniper, I don't really see a difference other than min-max tinkering on the edges.

    PTFO = PTFO, regardless of class or weapon. PTFO sniping definitely is a thing.
    A bad player who doesn't PTFO is useless for the team. The prime example is indeed the hilltop camping Sniper, but there's players on every class that stay outside capture zones and/or don't use their gadgets for the benefit of the team. 
    A "bad" player who does PTFO will have an impact on the game, but mostly by having his body inside a capture zone and aiding in the actual capture. I say "bad" for lack of a better word; but I mean that his aim is not good and/or he neglects to use his gadgets properly.
    A good/great player will greatly impact the game regardless of class or weapon. He is good at the game and can make any class/weapon work with great effect

    Because I feel that we've been talking about the "bad" player in this thread I don't think it matters which class they are. Other than being inside the capture zone, his actions are situational and will have minimal effect. Sometimes I'd rather have a revive, sometimes I'd rather have a flare gun being used.

  • WetFishDB
    2329 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.

    I'm a bit confused whether or not you're talking about everyone who chooses Sniper/Scout class or if you solely mean people who prone at the back of the map with a Sniper Rifle?

    But I am convinced rounds are won by the top 5 or sometimes top 10 players of a team. Not lost by the players on the bottom of the scoreboard.
    Players always manage to score only 2k-5k points in a full round of Conquest, I don't really think it matters what class they played or where they were on the map.

    The player who prones at the back of the map with a sniper rifle is obviously the most useless player in the team. But the player who I despise even more is the mouthy Medic on the middle of the scoreboard with 5 kills and 17 deaths who justifies his low score by saying "I'm Medic" and then he's not even the top reviver or healer of the game.


    It's sniper that's the problem. The rifles and the behaviour they encourage. Not scout, though scout is a difficult class to PTFO with. I love playing scout (SMLE Carbine and flares) but don't get to do it often, because it is so rarely actually needed and other classes are almost always a better choice if you want to win the match.

    As far the top 5 getting the win? Yes, kinda, but their job is *much* harder if a lot of their team is sniping. If those noobs were on the objectives they at least are providing targets for the enemy. If they are sniping, the enemy are all focused on those on the objectives. You will be getting much more enemy fire if your team is sniping.

    I'd rather have that medic. At least he knows he should be helping the team and he took at least 17 bullets that might, potentially, have been mine.

    Those are valid arguments and I agree with them. But I feel it's more theoretical / hypothetical which only prove true in very close games.
    The majority of games end with a difference of at least 200 points. I don't believe 1-3 camping snipers (who are bad at the game) will make up for that if they choose to be cannonfodder inside a flag zone instead of camping outside.
    -
    Suez is the prime example where people switch to sniping over time. But that happens when one team is steamrolling the other. Even the winning team switches to sniping.
    So yes, turning the game around is impossible after too many people switch to sniping, but chances of turning it around were already very small to begin with.
    -
    About PTFO snipers: I think the flare gun is by far the best gadget to aid in capturing a flag. And a good sniper is perfect for defending a flag. I don't agree that any other class is almost always a better choice than Scout. I PTFO regardless of what class I play and I base my class on what's needed most for the team. My SPM on Scout is almost the same as Assault, which is the standard PTFO class on paper (1300 spm vs 1400 spm). 

    1 to 3 snipers? No. 5 to 8 snipers? Yeah. 8 to 12? Definitely.

    It's only when you get more than a few snipers that you're team's PTFO power is screwed. The thing is, this is not the case for any other class or sub-class. There is pretty much no such thing as having a problem because of too many medics, assault or support, no matter their chosen weapon. Even telescopic LMGs can still work well hip-fired. Sniper rifles are aweful at anything other then long range.

    Suez is a prime example, yes, but pretty sure that "going sniper" isn't just what happens *after* a team starts losing. It can also *cause* the team to start losing and can certainly take a slightly uneven match and totally screw it.
    And when the winning team switches to sniping, it's not as big a deal, because sniping isn't too bad when defending. If you're team is winning, then sniping isn't a disaster. If you need to take flags, it is.

    As for PTFO 'snipers' - there is no such thing hehe. PTFO Scout? Yeah. The point I try to make in these threads is "Scout" is not bad (harder than other classes to PTFO with, but useful - I am rank 50 several times over - it's great fun), but "Sniper" is almost impossible to PTFO with. Yes, Scout is useful for PTFO when there is a handful with iron sights or carbines so that they are actually within flare range of objectives. To try and do the same thing but pick a sniper rifle is to just gimp yourself. Sniper rifles are for sniping and sniping is not for PTFO. It's that simple.

    I think our main disagreement is that you say a bad Medic is still better than a bad Sniper, I don't really see a difference other than min-max tinkering on the edges.

    PTFO = PTFO, regardless of class or weapon. PTFO sniping definitely is a thing.
    A bad player who doesn't PTFO is useless for the team. The prime example is indeed the hilltop camping Sniper, but there's players on every class that stay outside capture zones and/or don't use their gadgets for the benefit of the team. 
    A "bad" player who does PTFO will have an impact on the game, but mostly by having his body inside a capture zone and aiding in the actual capture. I say "bad" for lack of a better word; but I mean that his aim is not good and/or he neglects to use his gadgets properly.
    A good/great player will greatly impact the game regardless of class or weapon. He is good at the game and can make any class/weapon work with great effect

    Because I feel that we've been talking about the "bad" player in this thread I don't think it matters which class they are. Other than being inside the capture zone, his actions are situational and will have minimal effect. Sometimes I'd rather have a revive, sometimes I'd rather have a flare gun being used.

    I think the nuance here is that ‘Sniper’ isn’t a class in BF1.  Scout is.  By calling someone a Sniper it is indirectly implying that they aren’t playing the objective, instead humping a hill somewhere.  In this context a PTFO Sniper is a bit of an oxymoron.  A PTFO Scout, is simply someone playing that class and playing objectives and thus not humping a hill.

    Personally, I would take a bad medic over a bad sniper every day of the week.  At least the bad medic might revive a good player occasionally, and acts as a potential distraction on an objective.  Even a bad Assault would act as a distraction on a flag allowing the better players to return fire.  And even a bad support who doesn’t give out ammo does the same, and has the added benefit of when they die allowing the better players to swap kit, put down ammo, and swap back - and then maybe revive them ;).  All of that contributes way more to objective play than someone who is just arbitrarily laying on their belly so far from an objective that any kill or death they get makes little to no difference.  That’s why having too many snipers is a bad thing.
  • GerocK-
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited December 2019
    WetFishDB said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    GerocK- said:
    opsis_1 said:
    Been playing quite a bit for the last two months and see no issue with snipers. The more snipers the less cappers.
    You don't see an issue with less players not PTFO because they'd rather be pitching a tent in the back forty and racking up easy kills?
    I always believe the amount of useless players are somewhat equal on both teams. Also I have never seen a camping sniper with more than 15 kills in a game. It still sucks they exist, but because they exist in both teams I believe games are still "even".
    In my experience this is rarely the case. People tend to "go sniper" when their side starts losing and CQC feels tough, which then makes it worse and causes a potential momentary imbalance to become unrecoverable.  Then the team is definitely losing and finding CQC hard and even more people go sniper.  An imbalance becomes a landslide.

    Games where there are too many snipers on both sides do happen, though, but are still very painful.  Neither side can PTFO properly and the match is slow and irritating.

    Too many snipers is bad no matter why.

    The part about switching to sniper when your side is losing is true, I didn't think about that one.
    But I didn't just mean snipers as useless players. There are plenty of players who play other classes who are just as useless as a hilltop sniper, but they don't draw as much negative attention to themselves.

    Just calling out snipers as useless players based on how many are on your team doesn't give a proper representation. There are plenty of snipers who PTFO properly.

    Just look at the scoreboard at the end of a game and look at the bottom 10-15 players of each team. They exist of all 4 classes and both teams will have equal scores.
    There are players who camp and suck no matter the class, yes, but there's only one loadout that is *designed* to camp and makes it hard to PTFO and that's the sniper. It is what bad players choose when trying to actually win a match feels too tough.

    The reason they are singled out is because 95% of them *are* sucking the life out of a match.  This is not the case for any other sub-class (sniper, not scout/recon).

    There are good snipers. They are very rare. Sorry to those good snipers, but you guys don't make it worthwhile. Even with good snipers, more than a few is too many. A team just doesn't need that much overwatch and can't handle the lack of PTFO power.

    The sniper should be an elite kit or a limited spawn like cavalry.

    I'm a bit confused whether or not you're talking about everyone who chooses Sniper/Scout class or if you solely mean people who prone at the back of the map with a Sniper Rifle?

    But I am convinced rounds are won by the top 5 or sometimes top 10 players of a team. Not lost by the players on the bottom of the scoreboard.
    Players always manage to score only 2k-5k points in a full round of Conquest, I don't really think it matters what class they played or where they were on the map.

    The player who prones at the back of the map with a sniper rifle is obviously the most useless player in the team. But the player who I despise even more is the mouthy Medic on the middle of the scoreboard with 5 kills and 17 deaths who justifies his low score by saying "I'm Medic" and then he's not even the top reviver or healer of the game.


    It's sniper that's the problem. The rifles and the behaviour they encourage. Not scout, though scout is a difficult class to PTFO with. I love playing scout (SMLE Carbine and flares) but don't get to do it often, because it is so rarely actually needed and other classes are almost always a better choice if you want to win the match.

    As far the top 5 getting the win? Yes, kinda, but their job is *much* harder if a lot of their team is sniping. If those noobs were on the objectives they at least are providing targets for the enemy. If they are sniping, the enemy are all focused on those on the objectives. You will be getting much more enemy fire if your team is sniping.

    I'd rather have that medic. At least he knows he should be helping the team and he took at least 17 bullets that might, potentially, have been mine.

    Those are valid arguments and I agree with them. But I feel it's more theoretical / hypothetical which only prove true in very close games.
    The majority of games end with a difference of at least 200 points. I don't believe 1-3 camping snipers (who are bad at the game) will make up for that if they choose to be cannonfodder inside a flag zone instead of camping outside.
    -
    Suez is the prime example where people switch to sniping over time. But that happens when one team is steamrolling the other. Even the winning team switches to sniping.
    So yes, turning the game around is impossible after too many people switch to sniping, but chances of turning it around were already very small to begin with.
    -
    About PTFO snipers: I think the flare gun is by far the best gadget to aid in capturing a flag. And a good sniper is perfect for defending a flag. I don't agree that any other class is almost always a better choice than Scout. I PTFO regardless of what class I play and I base my class on what's needed most for the team. My SPM on Scout is almost the same as Assault, which is the standard PTFO class on paper (1300 spm vs 1400 spm). 

    1 to 3 snipers? No. 5 to 8 snipers? Yeah. 8 to 12? Definitely.

    It's only when you get more than a few snipers that you're team's PTFO power is screwed. The thing is, this is not the case for any other class or sub-class. There is pretty much no such thing as having a problem because of too many medics, assault or support, no matter their chosen weapon. Even telescopic LMGs can still work well hip-fired. Sniper rifles are aweful at anything other then long range.

    Suez is a prime example, yes, but pretty sure that "going sniper" isn't just what happens *after* a team starts losing. It can also *cause* the team to start losing and can certainly take a slightly uneven match and totally screw it.
    And when the winning team switches to sniping, it's not as big a deal, because sniping isn't too bad when defending. If you're team is winning, then sniping isn't a disaster. If you need to take flags, it is.

    As for PTFO 'snipers' - there is no such thing hehe. PTFO Scout? Yeah. The point I try to make in these threads is "Scout" is not bad (harder than other classes to PTFO with, but useful - I am rank 50 several times over - it's great fun), but "Sniper" is almost impossible to PTFO with. Yes, Scout is useful for PTFO when there is a handful with iron sights or carbines so that they are actually within flare range of objectives. To try and do the same thing but pick a sniper rifle is to just gimp yourself. Sniper rifles are for sniping and sniping is not for PTFO. It's that simple.

    I think our main disagreement is that you say a bad Medic is still better than a bad Sniper, I don't really see a difference other than min-max tinkering on the edges.

    PTFO = PTFO, regardless of class or weapon. PTFO sniping definitely is a thing.
    A bad player who doesn't PTFO is useless for the team. The prime example is indeed the hilltop camping Sniper, but there's players on every class that stay outside capture zones and/or don't use their gadgets for the benefit of the team. 
    A "bad" player who does PTFO will have an impact on the game, but mostly by having his body inside a capture zone and aiding in the actual capture. I say "bad" for lack of a better word; but I mean that his aim is not good and/or he neglects to use his gadgets properly.
    A good/great player will greatly impact the game regardless of class or weapon. He is good at the game and can make any class/weapon work with great effect

    Because I feel that we've been talking about the "bad" player in this thread I don't think it matters which class they are. Other than being inside the capture zone, his actions are situational and will have minimal effect. Sometimes I'd rather have a revive, sometimes I'd rather have a flare gun being used.

    I think the nuance here is that ‘Sniper’ isn’t a class in BF1.  Scout is.  By calling someone a Sniper it is indirectly implying that they aren’t playing the objective, instead humping a hill somewhere.  In this context a PTFO Sniper is a bit of an oxymoron.  A PTFO Scout, is simply someone playing that class and playing objectives and thus not humping a hill.

    Personally, I would take a bad medic over a bad sniper every day of the week.  At least the bad medic might revive a good player occasionally, and acts as a potential distraction on an objective.  Even a bad Assault would act as a distraction on a flag allowing the better players to return fire.  And even a bad support who doesn’t give out ammo does the same, and has the added benefit of when they die allowing the better players to swap kit, put down ammo, and swap back - and then maybe revive them ;).  All of that contributes way more to objective play than someone who is just arbitrarily laying on their belly so far from an objective that any kill or death they get makes little to no difference.  That’s why having too many snipers is a bad thing.

    Yeah, this whole discussion became a bit messy due to different understandings of certain terms. To make my previous post more clear: I only see a difference between PTFO and Non-PTFO. So my PTFO Sniper is your PTFO Scout. I chose to say Sniper because @disposalist specifically said a Scout can only PTFO with iron sights or carbines, while I think you can still perfectly PTFO with an actual Sniper Rifle equipped.
    You can't say a Sniper is always worse than a different class just because the most useless player in the game happens to be a Sniper too.
    And I agree with your reasoning to prefer a bad player choosing a different class than Scout, but like I said I think that's really min-max influence and really situational. A revive and a resupply is always welcome, especially if they revive/resupply a good player. But personally I look at the minimap every two seconds, so for me a flare often does me more good than an occassional extra revive.
    -
    Edit: Forgot to add the following.
    You don't have to be capturing flags to PTFO. No one ever defends a flag in this game. It's just a blob of people moving through flags from A to E. Once enough flags are captured to hold the majority I like to switch to a defending playstyle, to make sure the majority of flags is kept.
    There are a lot of maps where a Sniper Rifle is the perfect weapon for that. Fao Fortress place yourself on B, C or D. St. Quentin Scar on C, D or even B. Sinai Desert on C or D.
    Enemy players have to cover a lot of open ground to even reach those flags, it's very effective to hold them off with a Sniper.
Sign In or Register to comment.