Snipers in dust have one endgame issue that's going to surface soon, as corps get the game. Dust is local objective based, and snipers are a global field asset.

This will ultimately mean, that the counter to snipers is at the same time the only way to win the game: tanks and frontline troops, using drop uplinks to deploy, bypassing sniper cover. A full local team wins, so why waste time thinking about snipers?

The core issue can be fixed - and the game can be broadened much - by introducing open objectives without cover. A random generator makes objectives spawn without hacking cover, let's say 25% probability. The game changes drastically as tanks are required to provide hack cover, and sniper dominance along with tank dominance gives an advantage at holding some of the objectives. A game with 3/3 open objectives is a game of field control, a game with 0/3 open objectives is your generic assault bash. Teams need to adapt to circumstances, and base design allows you to play to your strenght.

Mini fixes to accompany:
GÇó thale damage reduction, clip size +1
GÇó range scaled damage. optimal range 200m, falloff 400, sharpshooter actually matters.
GÇó scope selection

No one likes open objectives?
They're supposed to be death-traps. It's a suicide mission for infantry without heavy vehicle support, and a high risk objective for vehicles. Sounds like good times to me.

I originally disagreed with open objectives but your post does make the idea seem more exciting.

Snipers in dust have one endgame issue that's going to surface soon, as corps get the game. Dust is local objective based, and snipers are a global field asset.

This will ultimately mean, that the counter to snipers is at the same time the only way to win the game: tanks and frontline troops, using drop uplinks to deploy, bypassing sniper cover. A full local team wins, so why waste time thinking about snipers?

The core issue can be fixed - and the game can be broadened much - by introducing open objectives without cover. A random generator makes objectives spawn without hacking cover, let's say 25% probability. The game changes drastically as tanks are required to provide hack cover, and sniper dominance along with tank dominance gives an advantage at holding some of the objectives. A game with 3/3 open objectives is a game of field control, a game with 0/3 open objectives is your generic assault bash. Teams need to adapt to circumstances, and base design allows you to play to your strenght.

Mini fixes to accompany:
GÇó thale damage reduction, clip size +1
GÇó range scaled damage. optimal range 200m, falloff 400, sharpshooter actually matters.
GÇó scope selection

Snipers in dust have one endgame issue that's going to surface soon, as corps get the game. Dust is local objective based, and snipers are a global field asset.

This will ultimately mean, that the counter to snipers is at the same time the only way to win the game: tanks and frontline troops, using drop uplinks to deploy, bypassing sniper cover. A full local team wins, so why waste time thinking about snipers?

The core issue can be fixed - and the game can be broadened much - by introducing open objectives without cover. A random generator makes objectives spawn without hacking cover, let's say 25% probability. The game changes drastically as tanks are required to provide hack cover, and sniper dominance along with tank dominance gives an advantage at holding some of the objectives. A game with 3/3 open objectives is a game of field control, a game with 0/3 open objectives is your generic assault bash. Teams need to adapt to circumstances, and base design allows you to play to your strenght.

Mini fixes to accompany:
GÇó thale damage reduction, clip size +1
GÇó range scaled damage. optimal range 200m, falloff 400, sharpshooter actually matters.
GÇó scope selection

Think about it this way - in Low/Null Sec corporations 'own' their planets. Who in their right mind would construct null-canons on their own planet which are out in the wide open?

Also, soon enough we're going to have a sort of procedural map creation, so there will be thousands of map variations and people won't be able to get in the same old positions they've learnt from playing the maps hundreds of times. This will make the player and team approaches vary massively.

Finally, it is currently quite easy to get into the right position to snipe anyone hacking one objective (except for the consoles in the underground or indoors bits). I have no doubt there will be more variations to the null cannon consoles but the idea of having one with zero cover from any direction flies in the face of logic.

Thale damage reduction? Not only no, but Kitten No!

How about damage reduction for whatever Office Class Weapon you like to use, not just the one that butt hurt our semi-consistent Forum Troll?

The entire point of Office Weapons is their improved stats and relative difficulty to acquire. Plus the heavy requirement of SP to Skill up enough to enable their use.

It makes an occasional shift from local to global tactics, which is a good change. The game is now all about fighting in strategic spots, while it could be that AND fighting for field control. On those maps you mentioned, Laurent, only Manus Peak is the one where I would not contribute more at front line than as sniper. And I suck at frontline.

Edit: thus far in 100% corp matches I've fought, its first minute of game stall by sniping, then I hop voluntarily to AR because I want the team to win. Drop uplinks bypass snipers.