Profile of zarok47

Quite a lot of stuff

First off: I always do ctrl+a and crl+c before posting here, so to "save" my post.

Furthermore, you are better than most players (which makes you top in my eyes) and are trying to defend snipers, the bane of every USF player, so this should be interesting.

Now on to the response itself:

To reiterate: my two issue's with snipers are as follows

- Imagine needing an AT gun to counter an AT gun.

- Imagine that, when said AT gun is build, the entire game (d)evolves into countering said AT gun.
If that fails, it's gg. If that succeeds, it's gg.

I was originally going to write "Imagine needing an AT gun to counter (the effects of) an AT gun. Which brings me right to your point 1.

You describe here using another sniper to counteract the bleed from the first sniper. This is exactly what is wrong with snipers. What then follows is the idea that rushing an LV is an alternative to getting your own sniper, but you also admit here that it is not as effective, costs fuel and is generally expected in 1's. The latter means the sniper user will also build them and a pak isn't exactly forced, but expected.
Your then mention other ways of countering the effects of the sniper (namely JLI) but these are doctrinal and again, not as effective.

All of this still leads to my main point: In order to (effectively) counter (the effects) of a sniper, you need your own sniper.
This is bad game design and is something that should be fixed.

Furthermore, this gets complicated by the fact that snipers can be gotten after building pak, LV and some mainlines, making the quest for mapcontrol utterly mood.

This leaves untouched my second point: namely that the entire game (d)evolves around mitigating (the effects) of a single unit.
This is also bad game design and is something that should be fixed.

Your second point has a lot of claims which I cannot verify or are rather subjective. What stands out however is this sentence: "However once Ostheer gets into a clear winning position Sniper can be the final nail in the coffin."
This is what Kimbo did and is also testimonial to the power of a sniper in a game designed around comebacks: they shut the door completely. Unless you get your own sniper and yada yada yada.

Third point: ad hominem. Your statement attacks the character of those who are against snipers and furthermore could easily be turned around (also something I planned to do in my first post) as follows: most people defending snipers are those who abuse them the hardest.
Objectively true? Yes but does it serve any other purpose other than attacking your character (or those defending snipers)? Nope. As such I removed it from my first post and I think your statement should never have been in your post as well.

Your fourth point still misses the mark. Which is that an early LV's is not a counter to (the effects of) the sniper (not to mention said sniper can be build after the LV rush) since the bleed will continue. Early map control is nothing compared to bleeding manpower like a stuffed pig (the entire game, mind you), which is what snipers do.

Your fifth point acknowledges the indirect fire in teamgames, so there is that. But you missed the part where snipers can "enhance" sandbag+dual MG camping. As such, my point here is as follows: snipers don't fix this issue.

Your sixth point: my point here is twofold: no other unit forces this dynamic on the opposing player and more importantly, one side has to exert a tremendous amount of micro to mitigate the effects of a singular unit on the battlefield (unless they get their own sniper, is this getting old yet?). Which also comes back to my second point: a sniper on the field forces the entire game into countering (the effects of) that sniper.

So with all that out of the way, the problem of the sniper is (again) reduced to this:
- Imagine needing an AT gun to (effectively) counter (the effects of) an AT gun.

- Imagine that, when said AT gun is build, the entire game (d)evolves into countering said AT gun.
If that fails, it's gg. If that succeeds, it's gg.

Fix this and sniper have a viable place in this game.

As was done in this post

(and what relic tried with JLI and pathfinders) this is possible while still creating an interesting unit.

Seeing as that is unlikely to happen at this point (or in coh3 for that matter) the proposed nerf atleast moves us away from the 2 issue's I keep mentioning and opens up the game.

- Imagine needing an AT gun to counter an AT gun.

- Imagine that, when said AT gun is build, the entire game (d)evolves into countering said AT gun.
If that fails, it's gg. If that succeeds, it's gg.

That is my problem with snipers. It has become less prominent over the years, but it's still there in the hands of certain players (see Kimbo's game 5 vs ISI and game 3( I think) vs CN for example). Fix it completely and I am fine with snipers being in the game.

And now for your first post:

They are fine imo.

1. Not central part of the meta in any game mode.

How is this relevant to the sniper balance?

2. They break up the hated sandbag camping/double mg static frontline gameplay that so many people hate.

I always thought indirect fire did that. Heck, sandbag camping/double MG play can be improved with a sniper, so you have even less of a chance of beating it.

3. People who want them nerfed are mostly people who are incapable of using them themselves.

Ad hominem with a superiority complex. I am disappointed you would resort to this.

4. They create an interseting asymmetry where onen player has to be active constantly to avoid bleed and try to convert the lack of stopping power of his opponent into map control.

Couple of problems with this:
1. Ostheer could go sniper after building up its army (see again kimbo game 5 vs isi) not creating this gameplay at all.
2. Assuming opponent can get map, what is he going to do with it? LV's are sooo expected, every sniper user has prepared counters for it (see kimbo's sniper game vs CN) making map control mostly worthless. Worse still, the sniper bleed sometimes prevents teching.
3. What you call interesting I call one player jumping through burning hoops while blindfolded in order to counter a single unit (unless he get's his own sniper) and often failing. Once again I point to Kimbo's sniper game vs CN.

Again, I am not diametrically opposed to snipers being in the game. But the two issue's I highlighted at the top of the post need to be fixed completely for that to happen.
For that reason I think the proposed nerf is a step in the right direction.

What? How is that supposed to be at all logical?

You stated your "experience" playing with Sanders was that he's excessively toxic, and you defacto declared that to be the case.

What's the point in backtracking?

He lied.

Stuff

You questioned if there was a standard metric and I provided the explanation in the form of sov and ost.
You will agree those factions aren't mirrored. That is what every good player wants, not having to pick a commander to fill in fundamental gaps in the faction.

Or do you think sov and ost are mirrored?

you can check my playercard.

Link it, then.