The game need a sniper cap pls....

IllIllIII · October 9, 2017, 10:59am

Lol, don’t tell me that’s impossible…

GRIZZ11283 · October 9, 2017, 11:01am

:lol: So you dont even have to deal with the AA, you must be trolling then :lol:

Granathar · October 9, 2017, 11:07am

It pretty much isn’t many times, because there may be someone covering every strategic spot when they stand their ground in central section of the castle. If I had something like grappling hook and could climb the wall anywhere - then I could flank them like crazy, but when there are like 3-4 entrances (and every can be watched from safe position somewhere) to this castle you are basically knee deep in poo. You may be lucky to sneak through one of them when nobody is watching, but you may as well just drop dead instantly. I play Domination like 80-90% of time so I know very well what happens there. This map is horribly unbalanced overall in Domination to be honest.

XXxx_ABH_xxXX · October 9, 2017, 11:07am

Ok. This has evolved to Cryzilla now.

IllIllIII · October 9, 2017, 11:08am

I hear 2 different stories about the aa, not sure which i should believe.

GRIZZ11283 · October 9, 2017, 11:25am

Its abused that’s all you need to know

Granathar · October 9, 2017, 11:32am

I think that console players are pretty unaware of the fact that on PC with good mouse we can aim even faster than using pad with AA. If we played on joint servers then I’m pretty sure that even AA wouldn’t save them from being destroyed in gunfights by PC players. There was once FPS game with joint console-PC servers (can’t remember what was it), but console players were so brutally obliterated that they quickly created separate servers for them.

XXxx_ABH_xxXX · October 9, 2017, 11:39am

You eont seem to realize it is the same for everyone. Pad in console. Mouse in pc.

Granathar · October 9, 2017, 11:50am

There is AA on PC? I saw 2 options in settings that seemed related to AA, but after turning it off I saw no difference or even my aim got a little bit better.

DingoKillr · October 9, 2017, 12:37pm

AA is controller based not platform so is on PC. Mouse is better for accuracy. AA is not on high powered scopes, This means Mouse is better snipers at long range while AA with Ironsights makes them better at Sweetspot range.

Ohh rubbish. Have you never played Argonne conquest?

Granathar:

DingoKillr:

It sucked in BF4 because bad admin in Asia all copied the same crappy profile and had 3 on rifle or DMR. Which meant 3 hill campers and everyone else running short range, it ruined the game, as it left Assault with longer range guns and first aid or Engineers using RPG, some real smart thinkers there. Guess what the same will happen in BF1.

Snipers don’t really need a nerf. There is just too many of them sometimes because map topology favours them a little too much. It’s good if there are few snipers, but it’s not good when there are masses of them only waiting for you to come through the door of from behind the corner. When sniper is waiting for you - you won’t have enough time to react even if you are sniper too. When Assault is camping around the corner suddenly grenades will start flying there and kill him or at least scare him out of this location. But sniper sits on his far away from there and you can’t do anything to him. On some maps mortars or infantry AT rocket destroying whole buildings can help, but on the others nothing can help - for example on Fao. Actually I feel that Fao will be fixed in next DLC if they introduce grappling hook - so you can climb anywhere and flank like mad.

You play domination what kind of sniping do you have on those maps, there just full of Run and Gun Assault or Support.

Restricting numbers to a very few means they are going to get a buff to be the equivalent of the Elite or Cavalry class.

1 rifle you are joking have you every used? Everyone has access to powerful sidearms.

I think you are too bias, against 1 or 2 snipers in a dead game mode.

trip1ex · October 9, 2017, 3:23pm

rock1obsta:

trip1ex:

rock1obsta:

I hate campers too. Like most guys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

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

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

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

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

No. Sorry but I think you’re wrong.

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

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

lol.

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

This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

rock1obsta · October 9, 2017, 4:26pm

trip1ex:

rock1obsta:

trip1ex:

rock1obsta:

I hate campers too. Like most guys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

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

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

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

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

No. Sorry but I think you’re wrong.

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

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

lol.

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

This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

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

full951 · October 9, 2017, 4:44pm

let it go. 8 people disagree with the idea of a cap on the forums

trip1ex:

rock1obsta:

trip1ex:

rock1obsta:

I hate campers too. Like most guys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

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

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

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

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

No. Sorry but I think you’re wrong.

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

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

lol.

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

This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

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

IllIllIII · October 9, 2017, 4:53pm

full951:

let it go. 8 people disagree with the idea of a cap on the forums

trip1ex:

rock1obsta:

trip1ex:

rock1obsta:

I hate campers too. Like most guys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

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

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

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

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

No. Sorry but I think you’re wrong.

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

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

lol.

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

This is the same reason why snipers need a limit.

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

There aren’t many great ideas tho

full951 · October 9, 2017, 5:19pm

yeah, but it’s a dead topic. despite many more calling for a cap than those who disagree. those who disagree, admittedly stand on strong ground. people wanna snipe. this just isn’t the kind of game that caps you from doing that and it isn’t gonna change for this title anyway. also be aware post about this topic likely fall on deag ears. take the topic to reddit and you might actually get a response from a dev

rock1obsta · October 9, 2017, 5:27pm

Loqtrall:

rock1obsta:

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

Exactly.

I don’t know why people keep trying to bring up the “but vehicles are already limited!” argument when it’s absolute nonsense, and I have no idea when it will stop or what has to be said to get it to stop.

People need to realize that the class based system is what makes up a humongous chunk of “BF gameplay” in general, because at any given time the vast majority of players on either team are going to be infantrymen. In terms of freedom of choice in that regard, Battlefield has always allowed people to play whatever class they want.

Using the counter-argument “Well, then why don’t they put no limits on vehicles if they’re all about free choice?” is absolute BS in my book - then we’d be playing World of Tanks and War Thunder in most matches because of how much power vehicles can give you, we wouldn’t be playing BF.

I’m willing to bet someone will come back with JUST as illogical an argument as the “but vehicles are limited” argument and say something along the lines of “Well, with all the snipers we may as well be playing Sniper Elite: WWI” as if 90% of all players they ever play with are camping at range with rifles.

It seems some people are just not happy with the type of game Battlefield is or has been for over a decade, and seemingly want Battlefield to be something else. And by “be something else”, I mean cater to the way they want the game to be played.

Yeah, I’m withya.
Technically, anything can be limited, but just because they can, doesn’t mean they should.
Especially when it boils down to “put a limit on snipers cuz I hate how they play.”

I don’t like campers either, but I have no business at all telling someone how to play. None.

Whether I said it directly to them myself, or tried to get the devs to say it for me by doing something insane like limiting classes.

People can play how they want. Period.

The fact that some people truly believe they should have any say in how someone else plays is just crazy.

Granathar · October 9, 2017, 5:39pm

What if I told you that they tell you how to play 99% of games? You can do what you want in Minecraft, but I wouldn’t be so sure about it nowadays either. Games have rules so they tell you how to play from definition, there is no game without rules. This argument of “telling how to play” is just so funny. I think that we should make cheats legal, because it’s the way that some people want to play and who are the devs or who are we to restrict it?

GRIZZ11283 · October 9, 2017, 5:42pm

Now you’re just being silly.

rock1obsta · October 9, 2017, 6:09pm

My sentiments exactly. Always with the extremes, this guy.

plasticman883 · October 9, 2017, 7:00pm

Not PTFO is the illness, scouts are the symptom. All classes however can be overrepresented but as they tend to need to be close to mid range in contact they can still make a difference to whatever objective is being pursued.

We’re all guilty of it now and again, but to me at least it seems BF1 in particular is particularly punishing for a team where a decent % of players who don’t ptfo. Anyone who has sat through 3 rounds of Kaiserschlacht while assaulting on ops where you can’t progress beyond the 3rd objective will agree.

The cure, IMO, is to open up the general chat for comms. At least then players who are engaging in the objective can be more effective. At the moment chat is like a graveyard on the PS4 at least. Police it from abuse by a system where if a player is muted by 3 x seperate players, they are automaticallly muted for 24 hrs.