Suggestion for class balancing

=RvE=FuSiOn · Post by **=RvE=FuSiOn** » 2006-05-26 13:07

lol what u been smoking mustache??? id like some too btw...
LOL support class being realistic? rofl... sorry but this is abit too funny....
u know there is little or no recoil on support weaponry in PRMM?
Did i also mention there are no muzzle flashes for the support guns or for any other guns? It makes them an invincible class my friend. I dont know who u have been outgunning with that assault rifle, but id like to see you meet me on a server and see how over moddled and over powered the support guns really are....
And as for comming headon behind a support soldier? u know u will almost always die, sorry to say it you have been playing some real newbies if that is the conclusion you came to... As for everything else i agree....
Peace

BlitzQuick · Post by **BlitzQuick** » 2006-05-26 13:14

i think it would be cool to make the support class like inacurate while standing like really hard to shoot...a little better crouching still hard though...but the laying down being able to mount the gun that would be sweet

Burning Mustache · Post by **Burning Mustache** » 2006-05-26 13:28

=RvE=FuSiOn wrote:lol what u been smoking mustache??? id like some too btw...

No need to be impolite.

LOL support class being realistic? rofl... sorry but this is abit too funny....
u know there is little or no recoil on support weaponry in PRMM?

I disagree. I notice recoil while firing with the machine guns for more than 2 or 3 consecutive shots.
Also, keep in mind that real life machine guns are DESIGNED to fire extended bursts of 20 or 30 shots in a row, when laying on the ground.
Granted, accuracy won't be that good but this is for suppressing fire.
The idea behind suppresive fire is not to hit your enemies with every shot but to lay down a literal carpet of bullets so that an enemy, SHOULD they be stupid enough to leave their cover, will get hit eventually by an odd bullet, not because of the accuracy of the gun, but because of the sheer amount of bullets fired.
As I said, the support guns in PRMM, in my opinion have a bullet spread MUCH larger than the assault rifles.
While I agree that a skilled gunner can hit an enemy with the machine gun and single fire / 2 round bursts even at VERY long distances, so can an assault rifle. The support guns are not more accurate than the assault rifles at all, they DO have a larger bullet spread though.
Keep in mind that in real life, a machine gun such as the SAW fires the same calibre ammunition that most assault rifles fire, in addition to a barrel length which usually exceeds that of most assault rifles.
There is NO argument as to why support weapons should be that much less accurate than assault rifles (and in real life, they really are not).

I guess it comes down to personal experience.
From what I have experienced, the support guns in PRMM are less accurate (i.e. have MORE bullet deviation / bullet spread, whatever you may call it) than the assault rifles.

I don't see anything wrong with how the weapons behave.
Both, assault rifles and light machine guns are equally deadly and accurate as hell in real life.
There may be a problem with the classes in PRMM. The support guys should be slower and should be allowed to fire while being prone for the most part. If you decide to fire the machine gun "from the hip", standing, you should get a penalty to accuracy, I agree with that.
Also, something that would affect all classes but could be implemented nevertheless, is to adjust the prone-mechanisms.
Proning shouldn't be "instantly" and it should take 1 or 2 seconds after lying on the ground until you could fire, I think that would "cripple" the support class a lot and make sure people use it defensively, which is their purpose.

But again, I think the weapon behaviour itself is pretty solid.

Did i also mention there are no muzzle flashes for the support guns or for any other guns? It makes them an invincible class my friend.

I have yet to see the correlation between muzzle flashes and invincibility.
While it is true that NO rifle / class in PRMM has muzzle flashes, I AM fairly sure that I have killed one or two guys in this mod already. Hence, they are not invincible, even though they don't have muzzle flashes

Seriously though, yes, it's true that muzzle flashes would add to the gameplay experience, but seeing as ALL classes and rifles lack this, it evens things out and doesn't make this an exclusive support class advantage.

I dont know who u have been outgunning with that assault rifle, but id like to see you meet me on a server and see how over moddled and over powered the support guns really are....

I'd say it's fairly even, from what I've been playing.
Over very long distances though, I have been outgunning lots of machine gunners, and vice versa, have been killed by assault / medic guys while trying to "snipe" them with my SAW about as often.
Really, maybe I just had such a different experience but to me it seems quite balanced, given equally skilled players.

And as for comming headon behind a support soldier? u know u will almost always die, sorry to say it you have been playing some real newbies if that is the conclusion you came to...

I'm not sure what exactly you mean here.
If you attack an enemy support guy "head-on", meaning you, with an assault rifle charging at him from behind your cover while he is suppressing you with heavy fire, you are SUPPOSED to die instantly, as soon as you emerge from the cover.
What good would suppressive fire be if the enemy could just run out of his cover without dying ?
If he manages to get a position and pin you down with a spray of bullets, the support gunner is SUPPOSED to be advantaged because he's doing exactly what he is designed to do.

Post by **Katarn** » 2006-05-26 14:09

By the way, the M249 IS an assault rifle, and the added weight would actually REDUCE recoil.

Burning Mustache · Post by **Burning Mustache** » 2006-05-26 14:41

Pretty much my point - the machine guns in PRMM shouldn't be WORSE than the assault rifles - if anything, they should be more lethal.

I realize, of course, that it's ridicolous to have a whole squad made entirely of machine gunners.
The class needs to be less attractive and less of an all-rounder, like it is now.

As I said, make the machine guns' main purpose to be fired from prone position only (hence big penalty as opposed to assault rifles when firing standing) and also work on the "instant-prone" thing. Have a delay of 1 second or so after going prone until you can fire. This should give the (standing) assault classes the edgde over the cumbersome, heavy support class in one-on-one fights in close quarters.

On the other hand, a proning support guy who has set up position and is firing upon an enemy squad should be feared as hell - like in real life.

The weapons themselves are really ok.
Most people who complain about the support class don't get that real-life machine guns are FUCKING deadly as fuck. And rightfully so (they have insane amounts of ammunition available, they have insane rates of fire and they are designed for the purpose of firing as many bullets as possible over an extended period of time - this IS deadly).

The thing we need to work on is the support class itself, the soldier.
He could be a little slower and disadvantadged when shooting while not proning and when he gets attacked by surprise.
On the other hand, he SHOULD have the higher ground if he has already set up position and an enemy squad comes charging at him.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-26 16:08

LMGs are intended to give one soldier in the fireteam the fire power of an entire rifle squad on an accurate weapons platform... I think they are doing their job quite well, and could actually use a bit of an increase in burst accuracy.

OverwatchX · Post by **OverwatchX** » 2006-05-26 16:29

Armand61685 wrote:Then its realism boundries should be pushed as far as the engine can allow. So far, all of this balancing and fairness stuff is just a tactic on trying to draw in more arcady players to the mod, and not focusing on attracting the players that should be playing this mod, MIL SIM people.

Exactly. Its the "Lets appeal to a broad base" approach. Almost like selling out in order to garner attention or obtain mass appeal.

Its funny. There is a niche out there just begging to be filled by a realism mod. Thats why Red Orchestra broke out from other mods. Because it was true to itself in an uncompromising fashion and not a clone of other FPS games with a sprinkle of realism. It said, "This is realism as much as we can push it with the engine". Not "Lets add new maps and vehicles and lace vanilla BF2 with a little more realism but not too much...cuz we want pac man players to come and play it too."

Like Ive said before, I love the MOD, moreso than others. Vanilla BF2 was always pissing me off with its arcade crappy play style. It just makes me shake my head when I see people reject realism for gameplay.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-26 16:33

'[R-DEV wrote:Katarn']By the way, the M249 IS an assault rifle, and the added weight would actually REDUCE recoil.

M249 SAW is an LSW not a rifle. And extra weight does not mean less recoil necassarily as the inertia of the body is greater.

Deuce6 · Post by **Deuce6** » 2006-05-26 16:55

^ agree with Mav. It's NOT an assault rifle.

And burning mustache, your account of suppressive fire is off. Why would you want to put rounds by an enemy? Your whole objective is to kill the enemy, not scare the shit out of him. Supressive fires is accurate fires designed to kill or keep the enemy from moving.

Burning Mustache · Post by **Burning Mustache** » 2006-05-26 18:34

Deuce6 wrote:^ agree with Mav. It's NOT an assault rifle.

And burning mustache, your account of suppressive fire is off. Why would you want to put rounds by an enemy? Your whole objective is to kill the enemy, not scare the shit out of him. Supressive fires is accurate fires designed to kill or keep the enemy from moving.

Which is EXACTLY what I said.
Suppressive fire is used to keep the enemy from moving out of their cover, or, should the enemy be as stupid as to rush out while a machine gunner is firing at their position, to kill them. What exactly is "off" in my interpretation of "surpressive fire" there ?

Burning Mustache · Post by **Burning Mustache** » 2006-05-26 18:45

JohnDoeGamer wrote:Exactly. Its the "Lets appeal to a broad base" approach. Almost like selling out in order to garner attention or obtain mass appeal.

"Lets add new maps and vehicles and lace vanilla BF2 with a little more realism but not too much...cuz we want pac man players to come and play it too."

It just makes me shake my head when I see people reject realism for gameplay.

No offense there buddy, but like I said, if we wanted to get this mod to be 100% realistic (or as "realistic as the engine can push it") we would have to get rid of the whole "cpature some nice faggy colored flags in the middle of a battlefield" and "oh-no-i-got-killed-but-it-doesnt-matter-because-i-can-respawn-in-30-seconds" system.

The rounds might look like that:

2 Teams start out to battle each other, maybe over some objective or just to the death (after all, "capturing flags" is not realistic so we'd have to find some other gameplay modes).
You, being an infantry soldier, rush out towards the enemy. You might be lucky and take out one or two enemies. All of a sudden you hear a shot from the far distance and fall down to the ground.
You're dead.
A sniper hit you from a distance of about 300 meters and you had no chance to see him at all.
A medic can't "revive" you either, because that's unrealistic and even if you WOULD survive the wounds, you'd wake up in a hospital but you definitely wouldn't be able to fight anymore.
So you're stuck with being forced to watch the remaining 10 minutes or so of the game because you're dead and you can't join again (because, hey, "respawning" would be unrealistic!)

You might see that 100% realism wouldn't make for a fun game at all.
This is the reason why we have respawning, why we have flag captures and why we have medics with "magical" medical kits that can heal your wounds right out there on the battlefield, when, in real life, after taking even one fucking round you would be UNABLE TO FIGHT. WHATSOEVER. AT ALL.

100% realism wouldn't make for an awful lot of fun really, and it is, from what I've gathered, not what the PRMM developers are aiming for either.

We have to find a nice way inbetwenn which, while not being as arcadey as vBF2, will offer a decent amount of realism and attractive gameplay to enjoy yourself and have some fun shooting each other over a couple of flags on virtual, unrealistic cities, coastlines and whate-have-you.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-26 19:16

I would love it if we could just secure areas instead of raising a flag... The flags look really corny IMO. Is there any way to keep the spawnpoints and flag capture systems but take away the flags?

fred450 · Post by **fred450** » 2006-05-26 22:47

Mustache you have some really good ideas. But let me first clarify that I DONT want 100% realism. After all it's a screen for a view and a keyboard for a weapon. And I'll never say let's die in real life when we die in PRMM. As for respawn beeing unrealistic, I'll shock you guys saying it is not and you'll all agree with me. Here's why: have you ever seen a real battle between two great forces of 32 soldiers each? I have never. Most vBF2 is 16vs16 and PRMM is less, because it's aimed at a restricted public. Respawning (when rightly done) simulates reinforcements because people die in battle all the time. So if you die in an FPS you should come back as another soldier, unless you have hundreds or thousands of players in the same server (currently impossible). I'm seeing several efforts from members of this forum (myself included) to change the flag/spawning system, because it's something that simply came along from the original BF2 gameplay and, well, it sucks. I doubt it would have been done this way if it was originally done by the PRMM devs. I also realize that the most realistic thing is to have a very big map with two opposing bases and spawn only at them, with no flags in the middle to cap (agreeing with six7), but it would be boring. I suggest flags remain and give heavy points to owners to simulate territorial control all the way to the enamy base, which would be the final objective. But no flag or squad spawn, if you die you'd respawn instantly at your rear base (this would make bases very well defended). To help with the travelling problem there would be several fast respawning transport-only vehicles, like trucks and the already implemented little bird.

As for machineguns I also agree with you all that they are very devastating in real life and should not weakened in PRMM. But such weapon have its own disvantages, since in a real army you don't see them as the main troops gun, but the assault rifle. Thats because they are heavy (which does reduce recoil and improve accuracy) which means, besides the moving problem, it takes longer to point it at your target/incoming threat. With an assault rifle you can aim quicker and probably kill first than with a long and heavy MG. That's why compact submachineguns and pistols are excelent choices for CQB. The MG is the choice when you can afford to lay prone for a long time and not keep moving around too much. Which reminds me, there should be a way to rest your weapon (not only the MG) on objects to allow prone-accuracy when standing still or crouch. That'd be awesome and realistic. To sum things up, there should be some tweakening on the Support class (not on the machinegun itself) because this class IS currently unbalanced and I don't know in what server you been playing mustache, but no way you can outgun a Support with Assault (no matter if he's prone or not) unless from very long distance. I have tested this a lot already, and I'm fairly efficient with a rifle. Furthermore I switch to Support and no one stays alive in front of me for long enough to even aim at me, despite I'm moving all the time (all I have to do is to use the ironsight and I'm instantly a death machine. Ok I'm not so good but you get the message). I think it would be realistic to decrease mouse sensitivity for Support class (we have games done this way already), but that is annoying even for me. I guess we need suggestions here...

fred450 · Post by **fred450** » 2006-05-26 22:55

Edited. No need for more posts about instaprone.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2006-05-26 23:09

Burning Mustache wrote:No offense there buddy, but like I said, if we wanted to get this mod to be 100% realistic (or as "realistic as the engine can push it") we would have to get rid of the whole "cpature some nice faggy colored flags in the middle of a battlefield" and "oh-no-i-got-killed-but-it-doesnt-matter-because-i-can-respawn-in-30-seconds" system.

The rounds might look like that:

2 Teams start out to battle each other, maybe over some objective or just to the death (after all, "capturing flags" is not realistic so we'd have to find some other gameplay modes).
You, being an infantry soldier, rush out towards the enemy. You might be lucky and take out one or two enemies. All of a sudden you hear a shot from the far distance and fall down to the ground.
You're dead.
A sniper hit you from a distance of about 300 meters and you had no chance to see him at all.
A medic can't "revive" you either, because that's unrealistic and even if you WOULD survive the wounds, you'd wake up in a hospital but you definitely wouldn't be able to fight anymore.
So you're stuck with being forced to watch the remaining 10 minutes or so of the game because you're dead and you can't join again (because, hey, "respawning" would be unrealistic!)

You might see that 100% realism wouldn't make for a fun game at all.
This is the reason why we have respawning, why we have flag captures and why we have medics with "magical" medical kits that can heal your wounds right out there on the battlefield, when, in real life, after taking even one fucking round you would be UNABLE TO FIGHT. WHATSOEVER. AT ALL.

100% realism wouldn't make for an awful lot of fun really, and it is, from what I've gathered, not what the PRMM developers are aiming for either.

We have to find a nice way inbetwenn which, while not being as arcadey as vBF2, will offer a decent amount of realism and attractive gameplay to enjoy yourself and have some fun shooting each other over a couple of flags on virtual, unrealistic cities, coastlines and whate-have-you.

Hey smart guy, the flags are abstract markers of locations where you have to capture. Notice how all of the flags are placed in areas that looked like crucial points to capture? They are indicators what to capture, and meant to be abstract.

Lol, i see you're trying to expose "hypocrisy" in us realism people. Lame attempt. Some things are fantasy, like the battlegrounds and maps, and the cities, but they are similarily modeled after cities that would be in the mid east and china. But none of that has anything to do with battle immersion, realism, and REALISTIC teamwork.

Keep trying, buddy.

fred450 · Post by **fred450** » 2006-05-26 23:22

Burning Mustache wrote:Vehicles, especially tanks would be next to useless if there was no way to repair them.

I forgot to mention all vehicles could be auto-repaired (slowly) at the main base, inside hangars or something, not needing an engeneer Why should it be a privilege of choppers and planes? The engeneer might stay, though, to repair bridges or artillary and stuff like that. Not to be destructive, sabbotage is the job of Special Forces. Besides you don't want mines around your base as you depend on tanks coming out of it.

Burning Mustache wrote:there are maps, such as Muttrah City which don't even include any vehicles (except for helos at the US carrier, of course)

Those are small maps that dont need ressuplying sources. Besides you can resupply at the chopper, which i've done several times even when beeing MEC and even the chopper was wrecked. All the US team has to do is to land on a safe place instead of keep happylly flying around. The MEC dont need vehicle since their rear base is at land and will privide enough supplyes. Plus the Assault class must be given a more decent amount of ammo at start, given his role.

Burning Mustache · Post by **Burning Mustache** » 2006-05-27 00:30

fred450 wrote:I forgot to mention all vehicles could be auto-repaired (slowly) at the main base, inside hangars or something, not needing an engeneer Why should it be a privilege of choppers and planes? The engeneer might stay, though, to repair bridges or artillary and stuff like that. Not to be destructive, sabbotage is the job of Special Forces. Besides you don't want mines around your base as you depend on tanks coming out of it.

I agree here. Vehicles can already resupply at the UAV trailer, they might just aswell be able to get repaired there aswell. But then again, when I'm driving a tank I tend to play as engineer anyway, so when my tank / APC gets hit or I run out of ammo, I just park my tank next to the UAV trailer, get out, repair the tank, get in, wait until I'm done resupplying and drive off to happy battle again.
Not being able to repair might encourage people who drive APCs to use the engineer class more often (which would be realistic - when I kill a tank I don't expect two machine gunners or medics to get out of the wreck - tank crews are usually armed with PDWs or similarily light weapons). I wouldn't mind the repair-ability at the base though.

EDIT: For christ's sake though, make sure that EVERY map HAS a UAV trailer.
I have spent ages trying to find the UAV trailer on Jabal al Burj (sp?) to resupply my APC.
I had to abandon it in the end

As for the engineer class being used for repair purposes only..
Meh... I don't know. I guess people really wouldn't want to play the class if the only thing you can do is repair stuff and barely defend yourself with a weapon that is inferior to 90% of the other weapons in the game.
I don't really see a lot of mine / claymore spamming on the servers right now, so I think it's okay when the engineer carries anti tank mines. MAYBE remove the claymores.

The way I see it:
Spec OPs should be used for offensive explosive deployment (SLAMs with timed explosion, so they can't be used for vehicle ambushes, etc.) and minor infantry battle (operating alone behind enemy lines, etc.)

Engineer should be used to deal with all repair stuff (assets, friendly vehicles) and to drive the heavier vehicles (tanks, APC) because he knows how to hanlde them (in-game: he can repair them).
In addition he gets anti tank mines for defending purposes and possibly remotely detonated C4 for ambushes because, when not actively driving in the tank, he has more of a defensive role, hence the defensive explosive weapons.

While this might seem to make the engineer a pretty powerful class, this is pretty much the way it is now, and I really can't see that class being overused. I think engies are fine the way they are now. Maybe remove the claymores and give those to a different class.

Those are small maps that dont need ressuplying sources. Besides you can resupply at the chopper, which i've done several times even when beeing MEC and even the chopper was wrecked. All the US team has to do is to land on a safe place instead of keep happylly flying around. The MEC dont need vehicle since their rear base is at land and will privide enough supplyes. Plus the Assault class must be given a more decent amount of ammo at start, given his role.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Muttrah and it's totally fine and dandy without vehicles

The thing is just, if you're playing as MEC and you want to set up a defensive position (be it as sniper or, even more importanly, as support with a machine gun) you will need TONS of ammunition.
As of now, the machine gunners get 1 or 2 additional clips depending on SAW / RPK. If you give lots of suppressive fire, these few-hundred rounds can go down pretty quickly.
If you watch military documentaries or images, you will find that machine-gunners, who have set up a defensive perimeter, have a guy next to them supplying them with ammunition.
It would be stupid if, as a support gunner, you'd have to get up, run some 300 meters back to your base (which is a long distance in BF2), resupply, and set up your position again.
I think we just need one class who can hand out ammo bags.

I realize that supply crates are a solution aswell, but keep in mind that the squad leader is the only one who can request them and if you have a support gunner on a rooftop whil the rest of the squad is moving on the ground, it's hard for the squad leader to point the supply drop request accurately, so they will actually land anywhere near the gunner.

Besides, the assault class is, as of now, limited to 3 bags of ammo before he runs out. It's just enough to be able to support the squad comfortably for a while until he has to resupply at an ammo crate / vehicle aswell.

As for your above post, again, I think we can agree here.
The machine gun dynamics themselves are ok, it's the behaviour of the overall class that needs fixing.

One thing I propose is to fix the insta-proning (for all classes, mind you).
If you go prone, you see the nice prone-animation and it should take about one second after hitting the ground until you can fire or even bring your iron sights up.
For the heavy support weapons, maybe make that two seconds.
It'll make sure the support guys remaing prone and in position. If you are prone and crawling around, make it so that you have to rest for 2 seconds again until you can fire.
Also add a heavy penalty on accuracy / bullet spread when shooting whilst standing.

This should give the infantrymen carrying light assault rifles the edge when it comes to everyday combat situations, where running and quick movement is involved, but it will keep the advantage the support guys have while lying prone with their weapons fixed and aimed towards the enemy.

As for the sensitivity-slow-down;
You sound like you aren't a big fan of it either

I think it would be a rushed limitation, and people might find ways (scripts, whatever) around it.
I also think that, with my suggestions, the situation could be improved to a enjoyable point where this wouldn't be necessary anyway.

I like this thread.
It's a good discussion and I hope we can help to improve this thing.

fred450 · Post by **fred450** » 2006-05-27 00:58

Burning Mustache wrote:add rangefinger binocs and make the sniper scopes' dashes represent in-game distances so we can actually USE the range finder and the rifle's scope to actually AIM and adjust our aiming to the distance we are shooting at, rather than being forced to guess the bullet drop over and over again.

One of the best suggestions I ever seen on this forum.

=RvE=FuSiOn · Post by **=RvE=FuSiOn** » 2006-05-27 01:01

Mustache i appologise if i sounded very rude before, but heres the kicker...
Too often i have been shot by a support class by instant proning and first shot kills from a very very far range... I honestly think that is the all in 1 class, takes absolutely no skill whatsoever.
Do this test.. You will see most guys using the support kits being mini rambos running around without cover because they know they can take down anything with a simply prone and shoot immediately.
I concentrate alot on the infantry side of playing and i like to think im pretty decent at it. I love the m16 and yes i do out gun support guys, but in a headon while a support guy is standing he is still able to hit me and kill me even if i prone and go full auto on him.
Yes i agree this class probably needs to be more unattractive, because ive seen servers where there is nothing but just support, support and more support.
No on Ever plays medic to help the team ( I do always when there is a need)
So you can kinda see where im comming from.
I dont however agree that support guns are very realistic. In =RvE= we have a few military personel that have actually used some of the support weapons and they say its just not right... Sniper rifles are also way off.

Burning Mustache · Post by **Burning Mustache** » 2006-05-27 01:33

Fusion:
No offence taken, mate

I agree with you on the assault vs support combat thing.
If a support and assault guy are running around the map and spot each other pretty much at the same time and start firing at each other, the assault guy, with his light rifle should have the upper hand over the support guy.

As of now, the support class really is THE allrounder-class for infantry battles, when really the assault class should be entitled to this position.

Hence my proposals of "crippling" the accuracy of the machine guns whilst standing, to give the assault rifles an edge in these situations.

On the other hand, once a support guy has taken position (which should take some time and shouldn't be possible from one instant to the other via "insta-proning", mind you), he should be able to unleash hell on the enemy, and rightfully so.
Well set-up machine guns are to be feared more than the most elaborate and hidden sniper by other infantry.

I definitely agree that the class needs to undergo changes, because it IS overpowered the way it is now.
I hope that the dev team might want to test some of my suggestions or come up with similar ones to see them in a future release.

As for the guns themselves;
Well, certainly the guns won't behave 100% realistic, but then again, you have to fit it in the general picture.
Take your usual battlefield 2 map;
Judging by the distances in-game, most battles take place over distances of about 200, maybe 300 meters, at best (mind you, that I generally get the feeling that all the distances in BF2 don't add up at one point or another anyway).
I know that with most modern assault rifles, especially if they are fitted with scopes (such as the Steyr AUG or the G36E), a trained gunner (e.g. soldier) can EASILY hit targets at distances of 200 meters and above.
In BF2, 200 meters are already quite far, on some maps you can't even SEE beyond 300 meters, which would still be very well in assault-rifle range.

Now, consider the sniper rifles.
Wikipedia says that the M24 has an "effective range" of 800 (!!) meters.
You can't even run this far on some battlefield maps

If the sniper rifles would be as accurate and effective as in real life, they would be waaaay to strong. There is NO way a decent sniper would miss a single target in the game. This shouldn't happen.

I agree that the sniper rifles themselves need a lot of work (most of all as in that they are totally unpredictable at the moment, see also my suggestions with the scopes and binocs above), but if they would behave like in real life, they would just break the game because they are so strong.

The battlefields presented in the game are nowhere close to real battlefields (snipers, for instance should be able to get FAR MORE out of the main combat zones, but the maps limit them to), so the weapons need to be a little adjusted to that.