It is hard to tell if you agree or disagree with these statements, so I'm assuming you agree with them for the purposes of my reply.

1) I agree.
2) I have no problem with risk vs. reward. But nobody runs into CQC with a sniper rifle when other more effective choices are available. The CQC guys have the highest risk but get the highest rewards. There is a reason you don't see herds of snipers in CQC. The few snipers who do run with squads in close support are running with some of the best corps in the game. This takes a lot of pressure off the sniper because their squad is killing everything in sight.
3) This isn't true at all. Some of the best spots have very narrow points of view.
4) The best spots should be reachable by anyone. Anyone should have the ability to CQC me when I'm sniping. I dislike the redline.
5) No.
6) While this is strictly true is isn't necessarily bad. See my point #3 above.
7) I agree. Sitting still is an invitation to counter-sniping or ambush by angry reds in a clown car.
8) Some of the shorter range weapons in the game have ranges that are close enough to 100m that the player is only a second or two from you if he is running/sprinting. So, I'm going to give this one a cautious 'No'.
9) Bull. Absolute fresh from the bovine's bum. Bull, bull, bull. If a guy starts hacking then, by this logic, nobody should be able to shoot him. Because if you can't stop him, he should be allowed to hack.
10) Absolutely. It is one of our most important functions.

Munch

I'm not sure I disagree with your above statement but I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

I disagree that "To use the best spots you need control of the area". To me this meant that my team or I had to be in control of an area for me to get the best sniping spot or to snipe effectively.
Munch

I would argue that sniping has always had an appropriate level of risk. The easiest people to snipe are snipers.

I think part of the problem is that people fit for CQC find that they can't take out a sniper with their own weapons due to range issues. For some reason this is deemed unfair -- as it would require travel time to get into range or a fit change to use a more appropriate counter-sniping weapon.

I'm also not sure the best spots should be easy to reach by everyone. For example, a light suit may find it easier to climb or jump to some structures. This doesn't mean that the sniper can't be shot down from this perch but it does imply that some suits would not necessarily be able to access the best spots. Specialization of this nature would not be a bad thing -- as it might reduce complaining about "unkillable" heavies sniping with impunity.

Let's not confuse some of the issues players find frustrating with the current implementation as being problems relevant to the concept of sniping as a whole instead of how it is being conducted in some instances.

CCP generally takes an awful big hammer to swat a fly and it seems that sniping is going down this path.

Glitches -- instead of nerfing sniping perhaps the glitches could be attacked instead? I have to say though that rendering issues can suggest glitches but if a sniper has hunkered down behind a hill of course you can't shoot him -- he can't shoot out either. That's not a glitch.

Risk -- sniping was only riskless if nobody else was sniping. Which leads to your following point. However, the whole point of sniping involves having a range advantage. By design, you must have a weapon that can reach the sniper to kill the sniper. This is not OP on it's own.

Something isn't OP because it's inconvenient to counter or otherwise a pain in the ass. I know everybody loves to hate snipers but if CCP is going to have them in the game (without nerfing them to death) people are going to have to learn to deal with it.

Unless the building is in the red line as well anybody can climb it -- or be airlifted onto it. Alternately, drop ships should be able to take out snipers.

There are always options if people will take them. Even changing fits is not a sin. Do we not have to grab AV when the tanks come to town?



True, but this is where I consider snipers, or myself, to be a pain in the ass. How many people want to interrupt what they are doing, grab a LAV, drive across the battlefield, sneak up behind me while I'm aiming... and commit depraved acts to my soon to be corpse?

The answer is certainly more than zero -- but in general a sniper can often get far enough way (without bringing the redline into the equation) that he or she can run when it looks like someone is pissed off and looking for sniper scalp.

Sniper's shouldn't be forced into close CQC support just to make killing them easier. They aren't OP for the fact that they have range -- that's what snipers do. They kill at range and preferably from concealment. From a dust point of view "relative" concealment.

I would've preferred having the building tops without the border/railing, but also lacking cover. You can snipe, but you're out in the open. Securing objectives, etc. below ground is also good (and makes sense).

I dislike the restricting firing from above/using roofs because the element of verticality added depth to maps and play. It's abused, clearly, on those skyscrapers and the like. However, maps where someone can be on the equivalent of a second story up a ladder... that was ok, right?

I think adding tunnels/indoor areas/etc. was probably enough to hobble snipers without the odd building edits.

These indoor objectives are bullsh*t regardless of sniping. All a team has to do in domination is just grab it first, drop the links then RE the place or lob grenades and sit on it and wait for an orbital.

There is no chance for the other team to take it away due to the cover provided unless it's a non-proto squad that grabbed it prior to being stomped out.