cy6 wrote:IMO, if you are really far away from the battle and picking off random combatants, you are not helping the team defend an objective or go on an offensive. When I snipe, i am always nearby an objective so for 3 reasons:
1) If the enemy team is advancing, it is up the to sniper to injure/kill enemies rushing the team objective from afar and buy time for the frontline troops time to respawn/retaliate
2) If the enemy team is defending an objective, it is up to the sniper to injure/kill spawning soldiers so the team can capture it more easily
3) If the team has completely left an objective unguarded and an enemy spy infiltrates a team objective, it is up to the sniper to have a sidearm readily available to kill the hacker in order for the team to keep the objective.
In a sense, a sniper plays the same role as a heavy, but with different methods.
If a sniper is doing none of the above, if the sniper is picking off random enemy troops he/she is not a team player. Also, one cannot use the excuse that "a sniper is a team player if he gets kills to force the enemy to respawn" because the only the kills that really matter are the ones that will affect the team's overall intentions. IE) killing a random in an open field is not as effective as killing (or simply injuring) an enemy running with 3 others that are rushing an objective. Only the latter will give your team a fighting chance.
Your line of thinking is very valid and I've often engaged in conversations with others with a similar line of thinking. After all what's the point of objective based play if you are not part of the group aiding in the capture or defend of the the objective?
Where I am coming from in my line of thinking is the aspect of optional team play vs the path of least resistance. It would seem that the design and set up of the SR class and it's weapons promote the long range picking off folks rather than moving with the group.
The issue comes in when you look at time to fire and set up, visibility, and rewarding player experience. I simply contend that the game design for the class, good or bad based on your particular point of view, promotes snipers being some place with open views and killing who that can vs moving along at distance with a team. I've listed some of the reasons I think this in my OP.
While I think the issue is entirely relative to personal game play style and disposition I would venture to say most will find they are more effective at range in open spaces rather than constantly trying to move from spot to spot.
An example of the game play i'm talking about it is the idea that when a sniper sets up he/she communicates to the team enemy movements and what targets are open while also trying to defend at least one capture point or area of enemy traffic. Depending on the flow of the match there may be times when there isn't much action or when it becomes obvious that it would be better to pick a new vantage point. In addition I view the job as counter sniper, when the team calls out they are being pinned down or taking fire from another sniper.
I would also contend that as a sniper your best advantage is the spot that is just beyond the range of the other long range weapons.
I don't mean to imply that it can not be done, I 'm simply saying that the current design and set up of the class favors long distance, high vantage points, and less frequent re-positioning.
The facts on if that's good or bad is really down to personal preference. That's why if the dev team would perhaps shed light on how they envisioned the role operating , it would be helpful in providing feedback in relation to how the role is currently functioning.