Re: The Case for a Sniper # Cap

@blackbeardteach  If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that limiting the sniper class will cause people to flock to the sniper class? And, certain players won't be able to counter snipe when they want to due to a maxed out sniper count, so they won't be able to take out a lone enemy sniper?

The sandbox element is one argument to preserve the status quo. However, if the cap were say, half the team, I don't see this really causing players to flock to the limited sniper class. And, players can choose to say, mortar the enemy snipers - with a sniper # cap, instead of focusing on mortaring a dozen enemy snipers, the support player can return to PTFO quicker.

Overall, I've been seeing the exact opposite and literally nearly every Operations game, players complain about the snipers in the back not pushing. In my experience, a majority of losing teams will have a disproportionate sum of snipers. I've noticed that teams that don't PTFO as a whole will cause other players to "give up" and start to snipe as well, causing the sniper count to swell even higher. Instead, if the cap were there, then perhaps players wouldn't be faced with low morale to begin with.

@blackbeardteach Ahh I see, so you were arguing for a sniper # cap. That said, I do see what @EA_Atic is saying about maintaining the sandbox element.

The big picture that I think EA and DICE is (or should) be focusing on to make gamers happy, at least for the Battlefield franchise (as opposed to sci-fi, fantasy, etc. games), is to focus on these two tenets, in order of priority:

1. Implement immersion through authenticity / realism.

2. Promote sandbox game play.

IME and IMHO, #2 cannot conflict with #1, meaning that #1 must take priority. For instance, IRL, soldiers are pushing and moving as a unit. If everyone plays as a sniper, it's unrealistic and takes the fun out of the game for many players, as it doesn't feel immersive. That's where the sandbox element of unlimited snipers conflicts. Implementing a cap of 8 is still a lot, but it helps to push the game forward.

Another example going the other way this time is if we were to have say, aliens in BFV with UFO airships, then it won't matter how much sandboxing is done to the game - the issue has to do with the lack of immersion due to the advanced alien enemies. Of course, it's one thing if it's an Easter Egg (which is totally fine), but making it the heart of the game would be breaking rule #1, and many players will feel like they are no longer immersing themselves in an action game, but would now be passively playing since they are consciously reminded that it's just a fictional game.

If, however, a more open-ended sandbox style doesn't conflict with the immersive realism of the game, then they should be sandboxing the game to the max. That's where EA-Atic's idea of an all-out tank-on-tank battle is harmonious with immersive realism. Massive, unlimited tank-on-tank battles have happened, and are a very practical possibility. So there wouldn't be any doubt in the first place to ruin one's immersion of the game at all.

And yes, authenticity is relative - I'm not saying that BF games are supposed to be as realistic as possible; but rather, they are increasingly realistic relative to previous BF titles. Besides the obvious improvements in graphics, one prime example is that with BFV we now have attrition and no longer have aura effects to reload and heal. Examples such as that, the longer revive mechanism, etc. are why I can guarantee that the next BF title after BFV will be relatively more realistic (save for any BF titles that may be set in the future, of course). This whole thing is also why COD Infinite Warfare had such a huge backlash: gamers wanted a more realistic and immersive boots on the ground game, but rule #1 was broken.

Just my 2 cents.