Exactly. The problem is the weakness of primaries not the snipers. Snipers have been semi unchanged for the entire game while primaries have been changed making snipers seem stronger yet they are exactly the same. You want them to change but what happened to primaries will happen to snipers. Play time will be [i]even slower and dull.[/i] Snipers are the cause and effect of the nerfs with primaries. Snipers being nerfed would be ridiculous. It would make us even weaker. Nerfs only create a weaker guardian and create more problems. If snipers got added flinch people would rarely use them and shotguns would be used at a very high rate. Snipers have a flinch. It's not this easy thing to land a shot while being sprayed with high rate of fire autorfiles. There was also mida which used to be a great weapon against snipers but it got nerfed because everyone said it was to much. If snipers get nerfed people will go to shotguns and complain about how broken they are. It's an endless cycle of nerfs that result in one group of people complaining something is broke . This will increase kill times even more. They are already ridiculously high. Now with a few of the changes with grenades and abilities there [i]will be even less ways of killing a guardian.[/i] Why do you people want less ways of killing?

Again you're not listening. This isn't about making the sniper weaker. It's about fixing a broken mechanic that makes sniping while under fire too manageable. It's not less ways of killing. It's more fair ways. How can you say that being a bullet sponge but still being able to get accurate shots off fair?

By doing what you ask for it is making them weaker. It means that it will be even harder for a weapon class to kill a guardian. If one class of weapons become less effective another's will simply take its place. More people will use shotguns and we will go down the "shotguns are op they need nerf train" No more nerfs of any kind. All it does is make guardians weaker. Adding even more flinch to snipers would make them weaker even if the damage out put is the same. Take the nerf to doctrine. The problem has never been the damage it deals but the way it delivers damage. The stability and ease of control makes the gun ridiculous and cater to less skilled players. While I hate the gun and feel it is the worse meta gun pvp has seen in a long time, I still don't want to see any change. All that will happen is slower time to kill. If you add even more flinch to a sniper rifle it makes it less effective as a whole. When that happens people go to a more effective weapon such as shotguns or sidearms. Because of this pattern people will start to "over use" a weapon class and people ask for nerfs. While snipers seem dominate because it seems to be the focus of attention for some people, people use shotguns and snipers almost equally. If snipers were really broken the difference between the two most used special weapons would be much higher. If you add more flinch to snipers everyone who plays the game will suffer. PvP and Pve alike. It's not needed by any means. Neither was removing shot package. But it happened because of the [i]nerf to primaries. [/i] If they were buffed and the kill time on them wasn't almost a full second this conversation never would have happened. If you nerf more stuff the game just slows down to a crawl. If the kill time was faster the Flinch would be more severe. You wouldn't have as much time to reset. It's why we didn't hear about it in Year 1. Since primaries in year 1 killed quickly the flinch was more devasting. Now with the .8 being one of the fastest kills times it's much easier to reset and get the headshot. The problem isn't snipers or any special it's primaries. They needed buffed and kill times need to be faster. That's how you fix this non existent problem.

Shotguns don't compete with Snipers in this way to simply take it's place so that's not even an argument point. What WILL happen is (skill level being even) primaries will be able to deter sniping in a better way than they currently are without breaking anything else. You are completely over exaggerating what this will accomplish. It will not ruin anything. It will balance something that shouldn't work the way it currently does. What will ruin everything is if they try to re-buff primaries. It can't be done without breaking other things. This is the best option.

No. No its not. The best option is to accept it and deal with it. I hate doctrine. I hate it. People who use it crutch on it hardcore. It caters to the lower skilled players and allows them to do better than they should. But I don't want to see anything else changed. It's ridiculous how much bungie gives in to people who complain. If Bungie was a high school girl, she would have 3 kids working on a 4th. They gave in once and it never stopped. Balancing doesn't fix things for people. They will always complain about something. There are millions of people playing this game. Trying to balance things to make them happy will never work. EVER. I am not exaggerating. If they add more flinch to snipers the majority of the people who use them will put them down. They will be less effective and people want to use the most effective weapons. Very much like Blade Dancers. Nightstalker came out and is for more efficient in just about every aspect. People switched. There are few players who still stick with Blade dancers compared to before. It's less efficient and does t get the job done. If snipers get hit, the exact same thing will happen. Snipers don't need fixed.

But it's currently not an acceptable scenario so how can I (and others) just accept it? Sorry but I can't agree with anything you are saying. PVP gameplay ALWAYS needs to be constantly monitored for balance. Player will ALWAYS use the weapon that is most effective. Usually that effectiveness pertains to a certain scenario or criteria. Bungie has stated that their vision of balance is to allow players to have the most diverse choices when choosing a loadout for a given scenario. The current exception to that is Sniping. Sniping is currently effective in almost all ranges and scenarios MAINLY because people can get accurate shots off while under fire. They are seeing that there is not so much risk in challenging Auto Rifles, Scouts, and Even Machine guns within their intended ranges because the flinch mechanic is inadequate. It's Broken. And to be clear I'm only talking about PVP because fighting AI bots who just stand there and let you shoot at them is irrelevant to this discussion.

You are wrong.[quote][/quote] Shotguns can and are available in any given scenerio. A juggernaut titan can run a party crasher on Shores of Time with doctrine or mida and do just as well as a defender titan with a sniper and doctrine or mida. The two sweats kids I know. One of which is 5th in the world for Skirmish uses both a shotty and a sniper in 3v3. It depends on what character they are running and how they want to play. On Asylum I ran with them for trials and they ran Shotguns. On Burning shrines they ran a varity depending on who we were facing. No they don't need to keep changing the game. Nerfing is a horrible thing and making something harder to use just makes people use it less meaning something else will and does take it place. You do not have to run a sniper to be succesful. Not in the slightest. If you feel you do, you are causing your own problems.

Again missing the point entirely. If not about being globally successful with a weapon or loadout. It's about snipers being able to take gunfire while scoped and still be accurate. You are over exaggerating and over complicating the matter. Dont' bother replying as I'm done with you. You clearly don't read or comprehend what people are saying.