[Bridget]

The Sniper's weakness is no downside to his long range capabilities, because his long range capabilities directly protect him, making it more of a minor con if ever the tables are turned. He has no real hard downside. That's a major problem. Yes, the Sniper is very hard to kill, when you are able to kill him. Damage and range benefits are overpowered together. Have one or the other, or implement a huge con that affects him in general (not in certain situations like his weak health/armor), and it's getting there.

The Railgun is not comparable to the Sniper rifle. For one, the Railgun is a fast moving projectile. The Sniper Rifle is hit-scan. If you can consistently hit someone across the yard with the rail gun, then I compliment you. It's more difficult than, say, using a hit-scan weapon. Though I think all the classes should be at equal ranges to allow equal opportunity (in a general sense), I would be less likely to rage if Sniper used a fast moving projectile instead of hit-scan.

Yeah, I think the Sniper was added 'just because'. It was to appeal to people who, and I mean this with no offense, suck. This is 'Team Fortress Forever' at the core of it. The offense should be able to enter the enemy base and see how well they fare against its defense. Snipers shooting people down lead to Engineers and Demomen and Soldiers and Heavies and what have you sitting in the base killing the occasional attacker who gets through.

The O has no push because of fucking Snipers, so they give up and go D, and it turns into D v D because no one wants to go into the yard and get sniped by someone who is so crippled they can't play a real class like Soldier, for example. This game would be more exciting without Snipers ruining any 'momentum' that might build up.