give me your best ideas

[Sidd]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but the primary weapon I described above was supposed to be pretty close to what you were describing. Its just an ordinary gun, no limits on movement or jumping or anything.
It's only the infinite range scoped version where movement is limited. This is intended to reduce its use. In any sort of in-base combat it would be the unscoped free-to-move version that's used.

[eomoyaff]

The Sniper carries no need for a different weapon. That wouldn't make him a sniper. Between Super Rail Guns and Grenade Launchers, and Trickshot Rifles -- They all alter the way the sniper was originally intended thus creating a new class out of something that literally takes away the learning curve of that particular class. I say add to the learning curve without damaging the basis behind the sniper class. By adding new weapons, or easier-to-use weaponry to the sniper class doesn't make the class better... It makes it different.

CONCLUSION:
Give the Sniper the ability to do more with what they already have. If you really put some time in to it, ACTUALLY TEST the skills a sniper could have offensively before apply thesis. Stop making theory out of something that can actually be done..

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by eomoyaff

The Sniper carries no need for a different weapon. That wouldn't make him a sniper.

This is incorrect. I could shoot you with a machine gun from a place of concealment or distance, and I would be considered a 'Sniper'. The act of hitting you with a railgun from across, say, bases would make me a 'Sniper'. Spraying you from some lone corner of the map as Heavy would make me a 'Sniper'. The definition is not founded on the weapon used. While a sniper rifle is founded for the purpose of sniping, sniping is not exclusive to sniper rifles. Besides, I could shoot someone at close range with a sniper rifle, does that make me a sniper? No, not because I used a sniper rifle, of course. So, you should realize that the weapon used is not the defining quality.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sniper
http://www.answers.com/topic/sniper
http://www.dictionary.net/sniper
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sniper (includes distance)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sniper

[Mikael_hs]

I believe the use of the word 'sniper' is malplaced because the very definition relies in turn on words which are not clearly defined, hence a mere 'family resemblance' is possible. At what distance does 'sniping' occur? Can there be 'sniping' without someone to 'snipe'? These and many more are questions every aspiring philosopher should attend to.

[Sidd]

To summarize my 3 suggestions so far

All 3 have a sniper rifle - either the existing one or a fast projectile version.

1. The frontline defender has a buffed but selective damage AR
2. The backline defender has a minature pipetrap instead of the AR
3. The attacker has a short range rifle and concs instead of AR

I really don't think you can argue that any of those suggestions are 'less of a sniper' than the current one, or that they have a reduced learning curve.

[Bridget]

Two of those suggestions have him piggy-backing on other classes. The manually detonating pipe trap belongs to the defensive demoman. Concussion grenades belong to Scouts and Medics. It's not just the act of coming up with new ideas for the Sniper, it's about making them unique and inspiring gameplay you can't get with other classes (while staying reasonable and fair.)

[Sidd]

The backline defender needs to put something explosive on the flag, or be limited to maps like highflag where the attack always concs through the flag in the same direction. It can't be a claymore type trap as that's not interactive, there's no way for the offy to use skill to beat it. So the only two I can think of are a weakened demoman's pipetrap, or a weakened rocket launcher (lol). So thats fine, if you don't want to rip of those two classes, then maybe there's no space for a backline sniper.

I don't know how you can make a valid attacking class without concs. You need some bigfastjump movement thing just to get across midfield.

[Hammock]

Originally Posted by eomoyaff

The Sniper carries no need for a different weapon. That wouldn't make him a sniper. Between Super Rail Guns and Grenade Launchers, and Trickshot Rifles -- They all alter the way the sniper was originally intended thus creating a new class out of something that literally takes away the learning curve of that particular class. I say add to the learning curve without damaging the basis behind the sniper class. By adding new weapons, or easier-to-use weaponry to the sniper class doesn't make the class better... It makes it different.

CONCLUSION:
Give the Sniper the ability to do more with what they already have. If you really put some time in to it, ACTUALLY TEST the skills a sniper could have offensively before apply thesis. Stop making theory out of something that can actually be done..

You're missing the point of this thread completely, the OP asked for ways the sniper could be redesigned to be acceptable in competitive play. This isn't a discussion on how the sniper could be more effective, it's hypothetical discussion about how he could be accepted.

And like said earlier, if you leave the sniper's main strengths as is, and just alter some of the usefullness of them, he would still not be accepted. The very core design of the sniper is considered cheap, no defender is going to want to be picked off instant killed from a distance, and no offensive person wants to be killed before they even have a chance to do something.

Thus the sniper for competitive purposes would need to be changed into more of a mulcher to be accepted in competitive play.

@Sidd

I understand you wanting to keep the long range component in with him, but if the sniper were to be remade into a mulcher, you can't let him keep his long range instant kill scope thing. Otherwise he would just rape in pubs and pickups. The change would need to be absolute, no lingering of his old style, otherwise he would just be impossible to balance.

[Sidd]

Yeah the long range weapon is mostly baggage left over from previous snipers. The core of the new attacking sniper will be his medium range rifle. However, I'm starting to think having the long scoped weapon as well won't be too big an issue. Two reasons:

1. The long range weapon will be nerfed enough so that it's ok in pub and avd play. If its ok in those modes, it will be near useless in ctf, and therefore not a problem.
2. Not many ctf maps have long sight lines the sniper could exploit. There are some where the defender might have to change position, but in most cases if the sniper can see the defender, he can get hit by a rocket in return.

[SSCUJO]

well great stuff so far, keep the ideas coming they are all new and fresh, its good to see.

bridget stop derailing this thread with arguments for the fifth time.

hammock, it was my understanding by actually polling several pickups and players that the issue of sniper in competitive play was "useless" so i set out to find a way to make a sniper "useful", if i wanted a class that didn't have the two defnining features of a sniper (distance and power) then it would just be a thread about making a new class. but i think long range has a place in league play, even if its just situation play (switch to it for a couple runs then switch back).

that being said i see where your coming from aswell, as i've watched my share of pickups and know how quick to rage people are in that community.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by SSCUJO

if i wanted a class that didn't have the two defnining features of a sniper

Which definition are you using here, then?

[SSCUJO]

the ones that every video game uses

now please back on topic

[Elmo]

he has a point though.

Also bridget... "I told you so" lol

[Bridget]

How are those classes in other video games defined as Snipers, then?

Originally Posted by Elmo

Also bridget... "I told you so" lol

If I get what you're hinting at: Sorry, I can't help myself.

[SSCUJO]

please stay on topic, if you want to talk about definitions go to your sorry excuse for a thread.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by SSCUJO

please stay on topic, if you want to talk about definitions go to your sorry excuse for a thread.

Just tell me when you're ducking my questions next time.

[Hammock]

I just don't see it happening then, I can't think of a way that the sniper could be changed to be usefull in a pickup while still keeping his current useless traits (relative to competitive play) in tact.

The competitive scene is too anal about what classes are played. Take the pyro for example, they hate the class, absolutely hate it, there's soo much hate for it that the devs could buff the hell out of it and make him stronger than the HW+solly combined, and he would still be raged on for being used in a game.

I think there's enough hatred for the class that, that it feels like they could make the pyro an exact clone of the soldier, trait for trait, ability for ability, but just call it pyro, and he would still be refused acceptance, there's no logic behind that but "pyro" is unacceptable.

The sniper sorta fits into that category.

[mervaka]

i honestly don't think bridget is derailing this thread tbh. however, if you provoke a response, then expect it. he brings up valid points.

in my opinion the sniper rifle is fundamentally flawed in that its a black sheep in the weapon loadout. with shotguns as the staple weapon, most classes are poorly equipped to respond to sniper rifles, which is an extremely specialist weapon. so i'd say that either the other classes need to be better armed to deal with snipers, or snipers need to lose their long range capability.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by mervaka

which is an extremely specialist weapon.

I'm guessing you mean unlike the Rocket Launcher, Flame Thrower, Pipe Launchers, Knife, and AC?

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by Elmo

he has a point though.

I also believe the things bridget is saying are quite valid, you're saying a sniper has to be a sniper by defnition and he's saying that definition isn't as strict as you are demanding the sniper must be.

Many of the things proposed still contain those fundamental problems that you admit exists. I don't think the strict definition that you are forcing people to adhear to is going to fix the sniper as intended.

I think that, in essence, is what bridget is trying to get across. You're blindly refusing to accept his point and he's refusing to back down on a subject he feel's strongly about.

You're completely entitled to say "Yeah okay so my definition of sniper isn't to the dictionary but its THAT kind of sniper I would like to retain" to which I think bridget would atleast back down a little. But he has every right to contest the ideas that are being given. If no-one critiques them then what good are they?

Bridget is saying "you can't retain that kind of sniper, something's got to give" and I'm inclined to agree.