Okay, big Joker post incoming.
Now here is my point of view:
Project reality is a) about fun b) about teamplay c) about realism, and this order. Being about fun is the essential purpose of a game. And the essential means to achieve this are rules. You can't have a game without rules. To have a good game, the rules need to meet one single, most important condition: they have to be fair. A game which is not fair is one sided and boring. The uncertainity about the outcome of the game makes it thrilling and interesting, hence fun. So in the case of multiplayer games, it can be paraphrased like this: the game needs to be balanced!
We do have quite some problems in terms of balance, like the insurgency mode shows often enough. People just don't like to play insurgents, and they complain a lot about the game mode on the forums. I don't tell you what I think about it (perhaps I agree, perhaps I don't, so don't even start discussing insurgency now
), I just want to tell you what I noticed. These imbalance (whether perceived or real) cause frustration and thus are bad and unwanted.
Now as PR is a lot about teamplay, with a lot of synergy effects and interdependancies, you can't compare the classes directly to each other, like you could in some other shooters, saying this class is overpowered or this one here is underpowered. But you can compare the gameflow for the different classes and thus estimate the amount of fun they are.
Since fun is something highly subjective, it is actually impossible to compare it properly. But I think we can all agree that there are situations, which most, if not all players would describe as "no fun". It is no fun hiding behind a rock while being shot by an APC who exactly knows where you are. It is no fun spwaning and being shot into the back. And it is no fun being shot from somewhere far away, and not being able to defend yourself.
Of course being in the open is always bad, because you are begging for being shot. But you can't always stay somewhere hidden, because your SL wants you to cross an open area. Of course the SL should adjust his tactic to his squad composition and vice versa, but there is unfortunately only one medic class (and only one specialist and a few others, the medic only representing them). So if a SL decides for some reason to enter open areas, for example to surround the enemy, or for the very simple reason that the map consists of mostly open areas, he has the choice between having a fighter who can't engage effectively on long range, or to go without a medic. First one is the lesser evil, so people usually go with this solution.
And this solution puts a medic into a disadvantageous situation, completely without his fault. He showed himself willing to play this important class for the team, but as a "reward" he feels somewhat at a disadvantage.
Yes, a medic should concentrate on keeping the squad alive, but actually, so should the entire squad. A medic comes only to play when the squad failed in the primary task of self defense (which - in difference to older times - is nowadays valued more than killing the enemy). When nobody is injured, the medic is no more special than any other soldier in the squad. And besides of that, every combat medic is a rifleman at first place, and THEN a medic at second place.
WHEN people do get injured, the medic jumps in and saves the day. While some people can indeed enjoy the aspect of directly helping your teammates (more than any other form of direct interaction between players in this game), often enough players go for a medic because nobody else wants, but the group needs a medic. A squad can basically go without any class, except for the medic. He is a must. So he is often played by people who do NOT particularly enjoy healing up others. This is something which should always be kept in mind.
Now what would be the advantage of medic being able to choose a scoped rifle?
Well, one argument against it was that people would focus too much on killing and not enough on their actual task. I think this is plainly wrong, because it is a problem of the player, and not a problem of the class. While I do agree that people often need to be "pushed" into a direction in terms of gameplay, I disagree in the case of PR. This game is so much about interaction with the others, that every form of patronization would just punish those people who would play the game properly, anyway. And there are plenty of them, the majority, I would even dare to say. So in my opinion, saying "A medic should play carefully so we give him a crappy weaon to discourage him of being aggressive and play risky" is a really bad form of patronization.
The other argument was, that the squad needs someone who is protecting them against close range encounters while everyone being focused on the enemy in the distance. Again I think this is wrong argumentation. Because who on earth says it has to be the particular task of the medic? What has a medic to do with short-range protection? Shouldn't it be in the responsibility of the SL to assign this task to a member of his choice? Again it's not like CQB is integral part of the medic role. Don't patronize people by forcing them to have CQB focused classes in their groups. If they don't want to, let them!
The point of always being able to choose ironsights or scope (except of a few exceptions, like marksman, sniper, pilots or crewmen) is simply to give players another option to adjust to the circumstances. Many classes do have this advantage, others do not. Those classes who don't do indeed have secondary capabilities, but I don't think this makes up for it. As the name says, they are secondary capabilities, you only occasionally use. But you are a soldiers 100% of the time, and soldiers fight. Despite all of that teamplay and other stuff, it is still a shooter, and nobody of us would deny that it is always fun to kill an enemy.
So in my eyes, to keep this game as fair and entertaining as possible for everyone, all classes with only the exception of those four I mentioned above (marksman, sniper, pilot, crewman) should have the choice between ironsights or scope. Or, those classes with ironsight, should get an optional "zoom" mode like in ArmA. But everyone should enjoy the same amount of flexibility, choices and patronization as everyone else. Which is especially important in a game which has a limited choice of roles and having listening to other players being an integral part of the gameplay.
- Spec
