The game need a sniper cap pls....

Comments

  • trip1ex
    4965 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I was just thinking how much whinging and whining would occur if on certain maps DICE created a special limited class called Sniper that used Elite crates as pick ups.

    Such a class would need to have a special ability so you could be looking at 1HK to the body at any range, maybe no glint on the scope, extra range is also possible or even a silencer like the M1903 in SP.
    Other equipment possibly a P08, shield or decoy, ammo pouch.

    Scout would still have rifles but sniper scopes would be switched to the marksman scope keeping the bipod so you still had the sniper variants.

    I think that is the only way DICE would limit a class, but it would never happen.

    I even chip in to provide my own conspiracy as to why there is no new Elite in the Tsar DLC it is because of the salt level already so high just think what an Elite Woman Sniper bring.

    It would be interesting if they just made sniper rifles pickups and/or treat them like they do planes/tanks/cavalry.

    IN BF4 they had a high-powered sniper rifle pickup.
  • trip1ex
    4965 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    Gforce81 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »

    Someone had a decent idea of giving less and less points to snipers the more and more snipers on a team above a certain ideal range. And vice versa too. More points to snipers the farther their number drops below the ideal range. The idea being to use points to motivate players to not play sniper when there are too many on the team and motivate them to try sniper when there are too few.

    You mean like how they removed the marksman bonus in BF4 and prevented snipers from scoring even as much as mediocre PTFO players - which also did nothing to stop snipers from playing how they want?

    It's not about stopping people from playing sniper how they want. Snipers should operate from long range. IT's about discouraging a team from having an inordinate amount of snipers.

    And I'm all for having a 2nd version of Conquest that is more structured while still providing the free for all version for those that don't care about anything other than doing whatever they want whenever they want.

    How in the name of zeus' glorious **** is lowering scoring going to cause less people to play as scouts?

    They already score way less than people actually playing objectives.

    How many scoring changes is it going to take to show that snipers don't care how many points or kills they get?

    Snipers care about sniping.

    It certainly won't hurt. And it's just an idea that sounded like it would be worth exploring. There are players motivated by pts. Certainly everyone wants to level up right? Even DICE made it so non-premium players earn 0 points during Premium Friends promotion. The idea being to motivate players to buy Premium.

    And so I imagine it would have some effect on the number playing sniper overall.

    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points. That's going to motivate some to not play sniper.

    IT's also an idea that would be easy to implement. And you could judge the results after a month.

    Then why shouldn't this same logic apply to all 4 infantry classes? Why single out Scout?

    It should apply to everyone, I'm personally sick of having a team made of 27/32 Assault.

    Sure do it to every class. Makes sense.

    But thread is titled sniper limits and I never see 27/32 Assault.


  • Gforce81
    3666 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Gforce81 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »

    Someone had a decent idea of giving less and less points to snipers the more and more snipers on a team above a certain ideal range. And vice versa too. More points to snipers the farther their number drops below the ideal range. The idea being to use points to motivate players to not play sniper when there are too many on the team and motivate them to try sniper when there are too few.

    You mean like how they removed the marksman bonus in BF4 and prevented snipers from scoring even as much as mediocre PTFO players - which also did nothing to stop snipers from playing how they want?

    It's not about stopping people from playing sniper how they want. Snipers should operate from long range. IT's about discouraging a team from having an inordinate amount of snipers.

    And I'm all for having a 2nd version of Conquest that is more structured while still providing the free for all version for those that don't care about anything other than doing whatever they want whenever they want.

    How in the name of zeus' glorious **** is lowering scoring going to cause less people to play as scouts?

    They already score way less than people actually playing objectives.

    How many scoring changes is it going to take to show that snipers don't care how many points or kills they get?

    Snipers care about sniping.

    It certainly won't hurt. And it's just an idea that sounded like it would be worth exploring. There are players motivated by pts. Certainly everyone wants to level up right? Even DICE made it so non-premium players earn 0 points during Premium Friends promotion. The idea being to motivate players to buy Premium.

    And so I imagine it would have some effect on the number playing sniper overall.

    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points. That's going to motivate some to not play sniper.

    IT's also an idea that would be easy to implement. And you could judge the results after a month.

    Then why shouldn't this same logic apply to all 4 infantry classes? Why single out Scout?

    It should apply to everyone, I'm personally sick of having a team made of 27/32 Assault.

    Sure do it to every class. Makes sense.

    But thread is titled sniper limits and I never see 27/32 Assault.


    Funny, cause I feel the opposite
  • Loqtrall
    12090 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »

    It certainly won't hurt. And it's just an idea that sounded like it would be worth exploring. There are players motivated by pts. Certainly everyone wants to level up right? Even DICE made it so non-premium players earn 0 points during Premium Friends promotion. The idea being to motivate players to buy Premium.

    And so I imagine it would have some effect on the number playing sniper overall.

    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points. That's going to motivate some to not play sniper.

    IT's also an idea that would be easy to implement. And you could judge the results after a month.

    It certainly WOULD hurt. Your (or someone's, you were just agreeing with them) idea to lower scoring for Scouts the more Scouts are on one team would DEFINITELY hurt the Scouts that ARE trying to actively PTFO and help out to the best of their ability.

    And to add to that, it wouldn't help the actual issue either, because obviously most snipers aren't sitting 200m away to get high scores.

    Secondly, I highly doubt DICE's choice to award players no points was due in part to them not actually owning the content they're playing on (thus the name "Premium Trials"), and the actual aim at getting people to buy the DLC was by allowing them to try it first through Premium Trials. I'm sure getting to try the maps and finding out you like them is a larger incentive to buy the DLC than earning points.

    The mere fact that some snipers actually help out makes the idea of "no snipers on the team getting any points" completely ill-thought-out.

    And lastly, just as an additive, as someone who has owned the game since day 1 and isn't even rank 100 yet - no, not everyone wants to level up.

    Like I said - all snipers care about is sniping. They're not getting tons of points, they're not racking up dozens of kills, so why else would they be sitting 100+m away from objs on a rock the entire match?

    As long as there's the choice to pick up a scoped rifle and pick off enemies at long ranges, people will do it because it's what they want to do. The only way you're going to get anyone to not play the way they want to play is to design the game so they can't play the way they want to play - and that's not the type of game Battlefield is or has ever been.
  • Loqtrall
    12090 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Gforce81 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »

    Someone had a decent idea of giving less and less points to snipers the more and more snipers on a team above a certain ideal range. And vice versa too. More points to snipers the farther their number drops below the ideal range. The idea being to use points to motivate players to not play sniper when there are too many on the team and motivate them to try sniper when there are too few.

    You mean like how they removed the marksman bonus in BF4 and prevented snipers from scoring even as much as mediocre PTFO players - which also did nothing to stop snipers from playing how they want?

    It's not about stopping people from playing sniper how they want. Snipers should operate from long range. IT's about discouraging a team from having an inordinate amount of snipers.

    And I'm all for having a 2nd version of Conquest that is more structured while still providing the free for all version for those that don't care about anything other than doing whatever they want whenever they want.

    How in the name of zeus' glorious **** is lowering scoring going to cause less people to play as scouts?

    They already score way less than people actually playing objectives.

    How many scoring changes is it going to take to show that snipers don't care how many points or kills they get?

    Snipers care about sniping.

    It certainly won't hurt. And it's just an idea that sounded like it would be worth exploring. There are players motivated by pts. Certainly everyone wants to level up right? Even DICE made it so non-premium players earn 0 points during Premium Friends promotion. The idea being to motivate players to buy Premium.

    And so I imagine it would have some effect on the number playing sniper overall.

    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points. That's going to motivate some to not play sniper.

    IT's also an idea that would be easy to implement. And you could judge the results after a month.

    Then why shouldn't this same logic apply to all 4 infantry classes? Why single out Scout?

    It should apply to everyone, I'm personally sick of having a team made of 27/32 Assault.

    Sure do it to every class. Makes sense.

    But thread is titled sniper limits and I never see 27/32 Assault.


    lmao and that's an even worse idea.

    That would mean that at least two classes would always be earning less points because they'd be used more. The notion that there should be 8 of each class to earn normal points and anything over that would cause said class to start earning less is dumb, considering that anyone can literally pick any class they want at any time, and some situations (like tankers dominating) even warrant you to CHANGE your class to deal with it.

    Again - not that well thought out at all, and I have no idea why you're so adamantly supporting such a suggestion.
  • trip1ex
    4965 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Gforce81 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »

    Someone had a decent idea of giving less and less points to snipers the more and more snipers on a team above a certain ideal range. And vice versa too. More points to snipers the farther their number drops below the ideal range. The idea being to use points to motivate players to not play sniper when there are too many on the team and motivate them to try sniper when there are too few.

    You mean like how they removed the marksman bonus in BF4 and prevented snipers from scoring even as much as mediocre PTFO players - which also did nothing to stop snipers from playing how they want?

    It's not about stopping people from playing sniper how they want. Snipers should operate from long range. IT's about discouraging a team from having an inordinate amount of snipers.

    And I'm all for having a 2nd version of Conquest that is more structured while still providing the free for all version for those that don't care about anything other than doing whatever they want whenever they want.

    How in the name of zeus' glorious **** is lowering scoring going to cause less people to play as scouts?

    They already score way less than people actually playing objectives.

    How many scoring changes is it going to take to show that snipers don't care how many points or kills they get?

    Snipers care about sniping.

    It certainly won't hurt. And it's just an idea that sounded like it would be worth exploring. There are players motivated by pts. Certainly everyone wants to level up right? Even DICE made it so non-premium players earn 0 points during Premium Friends promotion. The idea being to motivate players to buy Premium.

    And so I imagine it would have some effect on the number playing sniper overall.

    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points. That's going to motivate some to not play sniper.

    IT's also an idea that would be easy to implement. And you could judge the results after a month.

    Then why shouldn't this same logic apply to all 4 infantry classes? Why single out Scout?

    It should apply to everyone, I'm personally sick of having a team made of 27/32 Assault.

    Sure do it to every class. Makes sense.

    But thread is titled sniper limits and I never see 27/32 Assault.


    lmao and that's an even worse idea.

    That would mean that at least two classes would always be earning less points because they'd be used more. The notion that there should be 8 of each class to earn normal points and anything over that would cause said class to start earning less is dumb, considering that anyone can literally pick any class they want at any time, and some situations (like tankers dominating) even warrant you to CHANGE your class to deal with it.

    Again - not that well thought out at all, and I have no idea why you're so adamantly supporting such a suggestion.

    I didn't say there should be 8 of each class. I said it makes sense for there to be limits for all classes. And since you're asking I'd base the limits on the map just like they limits the # of tanks and planes and cavalry based on the map.

    So on some maps you might have a higher sniper limit than on others. The max limit for each of the 4 classes doesn't have to add up to 32 either. You can have some flexibility in there for the composition of each team's forces to differ slightly.

    I don't think answering a few replies regarding this idea is the definition of adamant.

  • trip1ex
    4965 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »

    It certainly won't hurt. And it's just an idea that sounded like it would be worth exploring. There are players motivated by pts. Certainly everyone wants to level up right? Even DICE made it so non-premium players earn 0 points during Premium Friends promotion. The idea being to motivate players to buy Premium.

    And so I imagine it would have some effect on the number playing sniper overall.

    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points. That's going to motivate some to not play sniper.

    IT's also an idea that would be easy to implement. And you could judge the results after a month.

    It certainly WOULD hurt. Your (or someone's, you were just agreeing with them) idea to lower scoring for Scouts the more Scouts are on one team would DEFINITELY hurt the Scouts that ARE trying to actively PTFO and help out to the best of their ability.

    And to add to that, it wouldn't help the actual issue either, because obviously most snipers aren't sitting 200m away to get high scores.

    Secondly, I highly doubt DICE's choice to award players no points was due in part to them not actually owning the content they're playing on (thus the name "Premium Trials"), and the actual aim at getting people to buy the DLC was by allowing them to try it first through Premium Trials. I'm sure getting to try the maps and finding out you like them is a larger incentive to buy the DLC than earning points.

    The mere fact that some snipers actually help out makes the idea of "no snipers on the team getting any points" completely ill-thought-out.

    And lastly, just as an additive, as someone who has owned the game since day 1 and isn't even rank 100 yet - no, not everyone wants to level up.

    Like I said - all snipers care about is sniping. They're not getting tons of points, they're not racking up dozens of kills, so why else would they be sitting 100+m away from objs on a rock the entire match?

    As long as there's the choice to pick up a scoped rifle and pick off enemies at long ranges, people will do it because it's what they want to do. The only way you're going to get anyone to not play the way they want to play is to design the game so they can't play the way they want to play - and that's not the type of game Battlefield is or has ever been.


    The point is to get less players to play sniper. IF you want to call that hurting players that want to play sniper/scout then I agree. That's the pt.

    Players get a good amt of points by sniping from distance. You don't have to lead the leaderboards to want to get points to level up. And players like to level up because it gets them more toys to play with and skins etc.

    And it is pretty obvious that not getting points for playing during Premium Friends is aimed at motivating players to get the DLC. I didn't say it was the only motivation or the main one.

    I disagree there are not other ways to motivate players to not use a scope without strictly limiting the number that can use a scope. This doesn't mean other ways will automatically work either.

    BAttlefield limits what players can do already. It limits how many players can pilot a plane at a time. It limits how many that can drive a tank. It limits how many pickups there are. It limits how many cavalry there are. HOw many boats. etc etc.

    It's not about making players not play the way they want to play. IT's about not having an inordinate amount of snipers on a team.

  • Loqtrall
    12090 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    trip1ex wrote: »

    I didn't say there should be 8 of each class. I said it makes sense for there to be limits for all classes.

    vvvvvvvvv
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points.
    trip1ex wrote: »
    So on some maps you might have a higher sniper limit than on others. The max limit for each of the 4 classes doesn't have to add up to 32 either. You can have some flexibility in there for the composition of each team's forces to differ slightly.

    I don't think answering a few replies regarding this idea is the definition of adamant.

    And now your system is getting way more complex than you originally said it would be. Now some maps team makeups have to be different than others in order for every class to earn an equal amount of points for putting in an equal amount of work as other classes.

    For one, the max limit for each class would never add up to 32 because elite kits, vehicles, and cavalry exist in multiples simultaneously on almost every map.

    That leads me back to what I JUST argued - that every game there will be a completely random amount of people NOT in vehicles, playing cavalry, or using an elite kit, and that would make a system reliant on a soft cap on the number of people per class just silly.

    Like I said - what if there are 8 Assaults, and 8 Assaults is the limit at which they can earn a normal amount of points and having anymore on the team would cause Assaults to start scoring less - now what happens if I'm a Medic at A on some map and there's a tank there capping it and NO assaults, so I have to switch to one to take out the tank?

    In that instance, EVERY assault player on the team now scores less because I had to take out a tank on an objective no Assaults were on.

    The system also completely disregards the fact that some classes are played more than others, and Assault are played much more than others in that regard.

    Again, it completely goes against the fact that the game is designed to allow you to play whatever you want and however you want, whenever you want.

    It makes no sense that people will randomly start scoring less because there's more people playing that class in the server. On top of everything I just said about the notion, it also punishes people (like the Scouts playing the objective that I mentioned earlier) for something they absolutely cannot control.

    I can't see that type of system working at all in a game where 32 people on a team are allowed to play however they want. You can't have soft limits on class scoring dictated by how many people are playing each class when the classes in the game have no hard limit.

    Like I said - if that system existed, literally every single game you play will have one class not earning as many points as others solely because there are more than a certain amount of people playing said class.

    It's absolute nonsense imo.

    Lastly, I would call your support of the idea adamant considering you're still supporting it through several logical counter-arguments that explain just how it would hurt people in the game and make absolutely no sense in many instances.
    trip1ex wrote: »
    The point is to get less players to play sniper. IF you want to call that hurting players that want to play sniper/scout then I agree. That's the pt.

    Players get a good amt of points by sniping from distance. You don't have to lead the leaderboards to want to get points to level up. And players like to level up because it gets them more toys to play with and skins etc.

    And it is pretty obvious that not getting points for playing during Premium Friends is aimed at motivating players to get the DLC. I didn't say it was the only motivation or the main one.

    I disagree there are not other ways to motivate players to not use a scope without strictly limiting the number that can use a scope. This doesn't mean other ways will automatically work either.

    BAttlefield limits what players can do already. It limits how many players can pilot a plane at a time. It limits how many that can drive a tank. It limits how many pickups there are. It limits how many cavalry there are. HOw many boats. etc etc.

    It's not about making players not play the way they want to play. IT's about not having an inordinate amount of snipers on a team.

    If the point of adding the mechanic you're talking about is to get less players to play sniper, it will NOT succeed in achieving it's objective - as DICE have already lowered sniper's scoring methods SPECIFICALLY in past games and it did nothing to lessen how many people camped at range with rifles.

    Again (seeing as you seemed to have ignored this part), at that point you're not "helping" the people who want to see less snipers, and you're actively hurting snipers who actually PTFO and deserve to score the points they should be scoring.

    Players get a good amount of points sniping at range? Compared to what? Shooting 200m away with an LMG? You can cap 3 objectives and get 10 kills and still get more points than most long-range snipers would get in the entirety of a match.

    You don't have to lead scoreboards to want to level up, but if what you want to do is actively level up, you're eventually going to have to get more than 3,000 points per match (especially from level 90 to 100 which requires the most xp by far), and I adamantly stand by my opinion that the vast majority of camping snipers in this game aren't doing it for score at all.

    And your spiel about limiting vehicles is moot. Vehicles are not one of the major classes that makes up the crux of this game and that 75% of players in any given match are going to be playing. Vehicles and the like (cavalry and elite kits) are power multipliers meant to be taken advantage of by a team in order to get ahead, and they've been that way since the very beginning of the franchise - just as the freedom to pick any class you want has been that way since the very beginning of the franchise.

    Vehicles do not make up the majority of the game or make up the structure of how the game is played from the perspective of the bigger picture (class-based FPS). Otherwise infantry-only maps or maps with only 1 or 2 vehicles max would not be the most popular (looking at you Metro, Locker, Suez, Fort, Argonne, and Tsaritsyn).
  • DingoKillr
    3738 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I was just thinking how much whinging and whining would occur if on certain maps DICE created a special limited class called Sniper that used Elite crates as pick ups.

    Such a class would need to have a special ability so you could be looking at 1HK to the body at any range, maybe no glint on the scope, extra range is also possible or even a silencer like the M1903 in SP.
    Other equipment possibly a P08, shield or decoy, ammo pouch.

    Scout would still have rifles but sniper scopes would be switched to the marksman scope keeping the bipod so you still had the sniper variants.

    I think that is the only way DICE would limit a class, but it would never happen.

    I even chip in to provide my own conspiracy as to why there is no new Elite in the Tsar DLC it is because of the salt level already so high just think what an Elite Woman Sniper bring.

    You mean similar to the one that spends more time OHK infantry than shooting at tanks, you mean that class of elite? That kind of is in the game already.
    Sort of but it would focused on Anti-Infantry. The Tank Hunter does damage to Tanks. A Sniper would do damage to planes, horses and infantry at much longer ranges.
  • Captain_DarIing
    1425 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I was just thinking how much whinging and whining would occur if on certain maps DICE created a special limited class called Sniper that used Elite crates as pick ups.

    Such a class would need to have a special ability so you could be looking at 1HK to the body at any range, maybe no glint on the scope, extra range is also possible or even a silencer like the M1903 in SP.
    Other equipment possibly a P08, shield or decoy, ammo pouch.

    Scout would still have rifles but sniper scopes would be switched to the marksman scope keeping the bipod so you still had the sniper variants.

    I think that is the only way DICE would limit a class, but it would never happen.

    I even chip in to provide my own conspiracy as to why there is no new Elite in the Tsar DLC it is because of the salt level already so high just think what an Elite Woman Sniper bring.

    You mean similar to the one that spends more time OHK infantry than shooting at tanks, you mean that class of elite? That kind of is in the game already.
    Sort of but it would focused on Anti-Infantry. The Tank Hunter does damage to Tanks. A Sniper would do damage to planes, horses and infantry at much longer ranges.

    Speaking of which, I wish DICE would up the range for K bullets doing max damage against at least planes.
  • Major_Pungspark
    1488 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I was just thinking how much whinging and whining would occur if on certain maps DICE created a special limited class called Sniper that used Elite crates as pick ups.

    Such a class would need to have a special ability so you could be looking at 1HK to the body at any range, maybe no glint on the scope, extra range is also possible or even a silencer like the M1903 in SP.
    Other equipment possibly a P08, shield or decoy, ammo pouch.

    Scout would still have rifles but sniper scopes would be switched to the marksman scope keeping the bipod so you still had the sniper variants.

    I think that is the only way DICE would limit a class, but it would never happen.

    I even chip in to provide my own conspiracy as to why there is no new Elite in the Tsar DLC it is because of the salt level already so high just think what an Elite Woman Sniper bring.

    You mean similar to the one that spends more time OHK infantry than shooting at tanks, you mean that class of elite? That kind of is in the game already.
    Sort of but it would focused on Anti-Infantry. The Tank Hunter does damage to Tanks. A Sniper would do damage to planes, horses and infantry at much longer ranges.

    Speaking of which, I wish DICE would up the range for K bullets doing max damage against at least planes.

    And then the moment you fire the engineer AT-rocket or whatever it is at a plane, vicious damage.......woho, plane hit, 25 damage! Or something like that...
  • MsieurLeodagan
    369 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Gforce81 wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »

    Someone had a decent idea of giving less and less points to snipers the more and more snipers on a team above a certain ideal range. And vice versa too. More points to snipers the farther their number drops below the ideal range. The idea being to use points to motivate players to not play sniper when there are too many on the team and motivate them to try sniper when there are too few.

    You mean like how they removed the marksman bonus in BF4 and prevented snipers from scoring even as much as mediocre PTFO players - which also did nothing to stop snipers from playing how they want?

    It's not about stopping people from playing sniper how they want. Snipers should operate from long range. IT's about discouraging a team from having an inordinate amount of snipers.

    And I'm all for having a 2nd version of Conquest that is more structured while still providing the free for all version for those that don't care about anything other than doing whatever they want whenever they want.

    How in the name of zeus' glorious **** is lowering scoring going to cause less people to play as scouts?

    They already score way less than people actually playing objectives.

    How many scoring changes is it going to take to show that snipers don't care how many points or kills they get?

    Snipers care about sniping.

    It certainly won't hurt. And it's just an idea that sounded like it would be worth exploring. There are players motivated by pts. Certainly everyone wants to level up right? Even DICE made it so non-premium players earn 0 points during Premium Friends promotion. The idea being to motivate players to buy Premium.

    And so I imagine it would have some effect on the number playing sniper overall.

    Let's say you got normal points when there were 8 snipers. But started getting less and less above that. Pretty soon you get to 16 snipers and you reach a point where no snipers on the team get any points. That's going to motivate some to not play sniper.

    IT's also an idea that would be easy to implement. And you could judge the results after a month.

    Then why shouldn't this same logic apply to all 4 infantry classes? Why single out Scout?

    It should apply to everyone, I'm personally sick of having a team made of 27/32 Assault.


    You are in Battlefield in Conquest with vehicles, normal no?
  • Major_Pungspark
    1488 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    27/32 players assault will never happen, didnt even happen in Bf4 and there they poured vehicles onto the maps with no thought of what would happen.
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    27/32 players assault will never happen, didnt even happen in Bf4 and there they poured vehicles onto the maps with no thought of what would happen.

    Neither will ever 27/32 scouts ever happen...
  • Major_Pungspark
    1488 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    No, but 20 do...well, not that often but it does...was a while ago now but I have gotten used to 12-15 now.
  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    IllIllIII wrote: »
    27/32 players assault will never happen, didnt even happen in Bf4 and there they poured vehicles onto the maps with no thought of what would happen.

    Neither will ever 27/32 scouts ever happen...

    Don't lie, it happens all the time, apparently ;)
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    No, but 20 do...well, not that often but it does...was a while ago now but I have gotten used to 12-15 now.

    You do know that 7 is statistically the average number of scouts per team right?
    I know this is sometimes alot higher, but that means it is alot lower in other maps..
  • Skill4Reel
    353 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The team with the most long range snipers on Monte Grappa Frontlines will typically get crushed very quickly. Just try not to be on that team. Also there is no point in limiting snipers when most of the people that just spend the entire match sitting in one spot all of the time will probably do the same with any class that they are using.
  • rock1obsta
    3813 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    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.
  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    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.

    Well said :)
Sign In or Register to comment.