[Suggestion] The Main Reason Infils Don't Work In PS2

Infiltration isn't "Near damn unarmed, with bare-min ability to kill, Near lack of tools to disrupt or kill, and useless against armor"
Infiltration Teams, certainly aren't considered "Rookie Scouts" barely packing a Pistol, hoping to distract by being Target practice.
Disruption certainty, isn't limited to annoying a target, for a second before they themselves die.

Combined-Arms: That Heavy-Assault has every tool needed, past providing itself with Ammo & Reviving itself.
It can kill near any target, certainly any Infantry unit.

Infiltration is apparently limited to Unarmed Recon.
Where actual Recon units aren't even as poorly equipped.
Disruption Units aren't casually dismissed either.

Infiltrators right now, infiltrate enemy holdings, disrupt their operations by their presence, killing high priority targets, destroying support equipment, scout positions, and provide fire-support.
That is quite literally their role.

They are designed, to infiltrate, which they do - They get in, they can deploy sensory equipment to further bank on it.
To disrupt the enemy, which they do, with death & destruction of support equipment.
They do exactly as they're meant to;
Infiltration is not limited to "Stand around, and hope no one finds you, while swinging a scanner"
They aren't replacing Front-line infantry: That's Heavy Assaults.
They aren't replacing Anti-Vehicle Infantry: Heavy Assaults & Light Assaults.
They aren't replacing Support Infantry: Medics & Engineers.
They aren't replacing Fortification Infantry: Engineers & Medics.
They provide Sensory Equipment: Which every Class can use half of.
They provide Single-target Elimination; Which is a form of Disruption, IE kill the medic.
They provide Disruption-Support: EMP blasts away Support Equipment, weakening the enemy.

What exactly are they doing, that others should be doing?
What exactly, are they required to do? They are the Infiltration Specialists, and they do their actual jobs.
As apparently, Infiltration means sit idly by, and be a moving Dart-Gun.

Why not tweak the rifles so they gain damage over range instead of giving them both the CQC ability and long range advantage. At least this would give their weapons an actual effective range like most weapons, when they currently can be used effectively at any range.

Also I'm a bit confused. You say the infiltrator doesn't kill fast enough to actually have an effect on a fight, but then say they excel at disrupting enemy formations?


I'm aware that not everyone has pinpoint accuracy. However we aren't comparing 2 heavy assaults with lmgs. Sniper rifles have high velocity, can be stabilized to aim (the invisibility cloak helps to do that), and have pretty good accuracy. Sure, you're not going to land every shot all the time, just like you won't on any other class, however you've got more tools to be accurate than others, and you're forced to do so because of the small magazine and refire rate.


I enjoy playing the light assault, and I'll tell you the effectiveness of C4ing tanks is based entirely on the "stupidity" of the operators as you say. Some put down spitfires, have proxy radar, even darts, and still fail to notice a good old light assault shoving 2 bricks of C4 up their rear, what's more, most even repeat this mistake a few moments later. The infiltrators thanks to their cloak would probably have some success too.


Also I'm not sure when's the last time you played in a tank (maybe it was before the CAI?), because they're pretty fragile. In fact, a dune buggy can tear through them pretty easily. Maybe you were thinking air vehicles?


Difference between tanks and sniper rifles: sniper rifles have 1hk potential, don't cost nanites to pull

Difference between shotguns and sniper rifles: sniper rifles don't fire randomly (are accurate) and conserve their 1hk potential past 8 metres.


Also we both seem to agree infiltrators aren't infiltrating. According to what you said, maybe change the class name to "disruptor"?

I'll start investing money into the game again the day I see an infil taking out a "high priority" target; I'll be on the look-out for that from now on.

1st Notion; I can roll with that - but I will explain a slight issue:
If it's tied to the max range of the Sniper Rifle, it means the hardest possible shot, with the highest gravity, is required in order to actually use the weapon, without being slower than any other weapon -- Chambering takes a bit.
Then you have VS's.

Disrupting the Enemy by killing Supports & Key Units - it doesn't force a dispersal.

• An EMP grenade, breaks their HUD, drains shields, leaving them exposed & panicked.
• Their Medic shot dead, removes their source of healing & Revives, given that Medic from the regular firefight might not be exposed to the enemy, but is to the nearby hills, this makes it even more practical.
• Engineer repairing the MAX? Shot dead. MAX without support is a less effective MAX, that won't live as long, and will become timid.
• Ambushing a couple of the Squad, and retreating? They're now hunting the Infiltrator. If they don't, it'll be hounding their flank, formation is now facing multiple directions of attack. Deploy some mines, and it gets even better.
• EMPing Beacons, Medic Fields, Spitfires, Land-Mines & Tank-Mines, can achieve quite a bit.
• Land Mine deployment behind the enemy line, is quite effective, during defense or offense.

Disruption comes in many forms.
They can't just straight hold down a Door, nor suppress the enemy with a rain of bullets, nor break their sunderers, but they can disrupt quite well.

However, it isn't killing fast, that's why the target matters. The time between kills is massive.
Their "Kill streak" takes minutes to get past 3, and if the target wasn't actually critical, the kill is meaningless; As its long enough for a respawn or medic, Trading Deaths is ineffective.
A Heavy-Assault or Light-Assault can achieve that count in 3 seconds, in the thick of it.

High Velocity, isn't as high as you think.
Gravity at the range means adjustment; The cloak is also needed, so that can be actually done, let alone a 2nd shot.
Not to mention; The price of a miss, is a now aware target, that has become even harder to hit, the re-chamber, and there isn't actually any tools to make the weapon more accurate; it's about lining it up proper.
The same accuracy if brought to other weapons or shorter-ranges, Can kill a hell of a lot faster.

Infiltrators don't have explosives, Don't have flight.
Flight allows the LA to get around very obvious terrain choke-points, and come from unconventional directions.
Add in, said LA also has a Rocket-Rifle, Elevation to leap onto the tank, and more effective HP, that Infiltrator is going to die.
As the Tank will move, as that Infil is likely 1 meter from the hull, alerting the Operator by trying the hack, and decloaked; So any spitfire will be armed - add in the Operators in said Vehicle can jump out, and end the Infiltrator's existence, their entire trick being that they need the Tank Crew to be total idiots, in range of the Cloak's duration, and some-how not be in-front of it..
Leaves them impractical as hell.
LA's, can at least take alternate paths; An Infil can not.
The LA also would be still fully armed with a Carbine.

An MBT being fragile to the BS that is a Harasser, is not it being fragile.
As well, Tanks have hella-high velocity rounds with an AOE Blast, on top of a quick reload, in an Armored-Chassis, with a secondary weapon, and faster-speed.
This makes the tank, with an high-damage long-range AOE weapon, with higher HP, Damage-Resistence & Weapon-Class Requirements, also have more speed to outrun their Infantry targets, or chase them down, Pretty lethal.
A Sniper, however, is actually fragile to every kind of weapon, has no AOE, no speed advantage, no secondary Gunner, nor passive radar built into their hull.

An MBT is durable.
The weapons attacking them, via other Vehicles, let alone Aircraft, are brutal.
It doesn't make them fragile however - Before CAI, it was AP-or-Go-Home.
Unless mass-farming infantry - CAI, made AI weapons not completely disarmed if an AV Tank came along.
It didn't make them fragile to Infantry, quite the Opposite.

Sniper Rifles, require a Head-shot, and aren't on a faster heavier chassis, that is immune to non-AV damage types.
Sniper Rifles also have no AOE blast - if you miss, you miss, hitting the ground isn't a way to still hit the target.
AP Rounds, would just One-shot on a body-shot previously; IE, an easier shot, at a further effective range, with more HP, Armor, and speed than the target. That's a lot better than a Sniper rifle.
Even more so, if you have 2 Shells.


Shotguns are a potential One-shot kill in their preferred range, assuming many variables line up in the one shot, and the user achieves decent accuracy at said range, with little-option to recover from a total miss.
Outside their range, they lose effectiveness sharply, more-so with RNG, with the Shotgun's Pellet count being very critical.

Sniper Rifles are a potential One-shot kill, on a specific surface, assuming many variables line up in the one shot, and the user achieves the required accuracy, Misses require a re-chambering process, which takes additional time, the less range available, the more likely, the enemy return-fire is, and the chance of it nailing the Sniper, scrambling aim, the further the distance, the more velocity & enemy motion matters.

Both are Specialist weapons, with a One-shot kill capability.
People use Carbines more often than Shotguns , yet the ability to score One-Shot kills with Shotguns was incredibly high at the same time, of this, as Pump-Action was a close-range (2-3 meter) One-shot kill quite easily in repeating cases.

Snipers are found quite Commonly on Hills, yet in the battles where this happens, the amount of kills actually achieved by these weapons is low; This is due to the requirements of hitting the target, let alone the head, increases the further the distance & motion of the target.

Formerly Rocket-Launchers had a One-Shot Kill capability with a Body-shot, easily achieved at close-range.
The term "Rocket Primary" came of this.
The ease of landing the shot, reduced with Distance, allowing quick application to terminate the target faster than any shotguns, at the price of a reloading time - This time being similar to a Sniper-Rifle.

Tanks have a One-Shot Kill with HESH.
These are found commonly in most large-battles, and reliably achieve kill-streaks, that rank up even between battles.
This shell achieves a decent velocity, allowing it to reliably hit a moving target with AOE Splash damage even if it hits the ground, transferring Misses into Partial-Hits. Of this, only these Shells & Rocket Launchers, both being explosives, do any brutal or fatal damage on Short, Medium & long-range misses.
While Shotguns deal partial damage at short-range Misses assuming it only missed the Head.
Sniper Rifles deal no damage on a miss, unless it is hit the body instead - Neither Snipers nor Shotguns have any proximity-Damage via AOE.

Also, I just told you what Infiltration was, and that Infils did it.
I also then told you what Disruption was; And what they did.
So no, we do not agree. I said they are Infiltrating, and doing their job, I even explained what I called infiltration.
Like ***** sake.

You never see an Infil kill a medic, an over-eager HA, an LA on a roof, or the Engineer behind a MAX?
Yet you see them so commonly?
Where the christ are you?

What I find does take the class ad absurdum is the CQC snipers, but that's the topic of another thread already. They are becomming quite frequent these days, but they are, imo, the only problematic piece with this class.
Actual "as intended" CQC Infils (means with SMGs or stalker) are either easily spotted on the move - especially in big fights - or need to be really picky about their target respectively. Means the only people who make a difference with them is those who have practiced playing this way and know what they're doing.
Long-range sniping also has its place, protecting from enemy snipers and long-range AV, as well as strategical target deletion. Just as well, "proper" snipers don't appear in big battles unless the base really favours it with elevated structures, and even then they are rarely the people tipping the scales. If I die 5 times to them while getting to the point, I might be a bit annoyed, but finally there. And merry times to them when the base is flipped and the location they're in turns hostile, because I capped that point.

Dead wrong here.

I'll pick this out in particular since this statement also applies to the CQC snipers you refer to as problematic, arguably to an even greater extent. It isn't like the CQC snipers are a weapon that just any redshirt can pick up and use effectively. Miss with a traditional sniper rifle and you shake your head and try again, miss with a CQC rifle and you probably die.

You generally get three types of players running around with CQC snipers:
1) The genuinely skilled few who know what they're doing,
2) The ones practicing to reach that level,
3) The ones who just watched an Elusive montage and think to themselves "I can do that"

Generally the first are the only category that sticks in your mind, since they are the only ones killing you.

I actually disagree with this. Long range sniping in the traditional sense doesn't really exist in this game, and the ones who try it typically end up as target practice for other snipers. There is almost never a reason to shoot at targets at maximum range other than personal accomplishment. The only ranges where sniping really has a place are much closer than that. In most cases the practical effective range for sniping is less than 200m, usually a lot less.

Get too far away and you start running into problems, like missing 'good' shots due to players moving/stopping/turning unexpectedly or not killing shielded Heavy Assaults. Most often your best results come from playing a little back from the "front line" where you are not only directly supporting your teammates by keeping the enemy's heads down but you can also keep them covered in motion spotters, directly see and target enemy medics and engies, throw EMP grenades at enemy clusters, etc.

That is absolutely true. But CQC bolters operate at a range where telling the cloak can sometimes still be a bit more difficult, and at that range they perform onehits. If - as I think referenced earlier - a cloaker came at me with a shotgun (same 1hk potential) it'd be way easier to see them. Because most likely they'd 1) sprint and 2) need to get pretty far up in my personal space (shotguns having the same effective range as a garden shovel for some reason). And both of those would make them easier to see. If they get me behind a corner, good work on their part. But CQC snipers can sit behind corners and kill people that are a solid distance awayv where you'd normally assume you are out of 1hk danger.

Also, I've recently dabbled in ambusher shotgun combo. Can be pretty mean and they close up fast, but they are clearly visible, unless something is obstructing view (in which case it likely also obstructs their path). Makes them a threat, but there's ALWAYS the chance to notice and potentially counter. If you die, then either because you failed to notice or failed to react fast and/or accurately enough. That ain't the case for CQC bolters. While there is a lot of skill involved on their part, it's about the most safe way to get onehits out, because with shotguns you only die if you made a mistake or weren't perceptive enough (obviously more difficult if the opponent knows what they're doing, rewarding their skill). With CQCs, there's almost no way to perceive and counter. Because their thing is to use the cloak&distance and usually a hidey-hole to make that about as impossible as they can. Sure, that positioning and asset use is a skill, but it removes the option to anticipate and react. And 1hks should imo ALWAYS leave a window for reaction, with the ONLY way to remove that being the attacker's skill alone in the form of a careful approach.

Haven't read all 6 pages so it might've been mentioned already but here are my 2 cents regarding infiltrators.

SMG and stalker infiltrators are fine, both in their pistol and power knife variants. Due to limited magazine capacities and rapid damage fall-off over range, these weapons require short range and good positional gameplay to be effective. Yes their killing potential there is huge but make one mistake and you're dead. Risk vs reward. Then there are bolters.

The uber-elite Elusive types don't bother me much. Yes, coming up against them in a fight results in absolute anus gameplay, but they are few in number and that playstyle is ridiculously skill intensive. What bothers me are long-range bolters and their effect on field fights. Let me elaborate:

Bolter infiltrators are why infantry fights in open fields don't exist. "But field fights do exist" I hear you say, yes they do, for about 10 minutes. Field fights rapidly degenerate into two blobs of infiltrators sitting behind a rock lobbing 1HK projectiles at each other. It is completely understandable too. A class with your average automatic is going to need 8-12 bullets to drop an infiltrator at 60 meters while dealing with recoil and cone of fire. Bolter buddy needs to click your head once, while easily lining up the shot due to being invisible.

Bit of a double standard here. In one breath you say you're fine dying to a Light Assault with a shotgun waiting around a corner as it's 'good work on their part', but in the next you cry foul on an Infiltrator's positioning 'removing the option to anticipate and react' and say a one hit kill must 'ALWAYS leave a window for reaction'?

This does not compute.

Moreover, how is an Infil getting into a position where you admittedly assume to be 'out of danger' to take their shot different from a 'careful approach' as a Light Assault with a shotgun? It's not as though there are no cues when an infil is about. There are absolutely loads of ways to make yourself harder to kill and you can see this in action when facing higher quality players. For example, it is significantly more difficult to snipe players from Recursion than it is when you're facing Average Andy and his Band of Blueberries, and it's not for no reason.

No, open field fights don't exist because there is no point fighting over an open field. Players don't fight in random corners of the map for kicks and giggles, they fight in places where there are things worth fighting over. When the base is taken, most either redeploy to a new front or catch a short Sunderer ride to the next base. Practically the only time you get 'open field' fights is when your vehicle blob runs into another vehicle blob in between two points, in which case the fight is generally conducted between vehicles and aircraft and the only infantry who factor in at all are Engies, Heavies and C4 fairies.

Do you never play on Indar during primetime or something?

Field fights absolutely do happen. Granted on some continents more than others, almost never on Esamir because terrain is flat and there's no cover for example, but there are always field fights happening on Amerish, Hossin and especially Indar.

Base is taken, blueberries hop on buses and head over to the next base but get bumped by an enemy along the way. What do you think happens next? Everyone disembarks and fights on foot because Sundy AV has been nerfed into the dirt.

Engies, heavies and LAs (MAXes too but we're talking vanilla infantry) are the primary combatants but there are always medics farming rezzez and of course the untouchable long range bolters. If no side has secured enough of an advantage during first contact to push through, a lot of the people who died during said contact will respawn as infiltrators because of how weak automatics are at range or to counter enemy infiltrators. More infiltrators leads to even more infiltrators and the fight stagnates into an invisible ninja OHK fest until another vehicle push is attempted. Also applies to bridge fights now that I think of it.

If you play by hopping bases via redeploy side and never encounter field fights that's your business, doesn't mean they don't happen.

Don't bother, you're arguing with something that knows little to nothing of what they are talking about, is arrogant, and is unable to read basic English.

The differences are the following:
1) Being visible vs invisible while approaching. In the case of Ambusher, also flying through the air with a pretty noticable sound. If your opponent misses that he's either occupied already (your good luck or judgement) or just unobservant. With the sniper you don't have to approach that far at all, and you are using a cloak that makes you hard to see and that only makes a sound only when cloaking and decloaking. Seriously, if you as a CQC bolter run up close and decloak and leave your opponent that window, props to you, but I've never encountered anyone who did this. Because it is absolutely not how this build plays.
2) Being detectable via recon devices while waiting behind a corner (admittedly this can be circumvented with implants as well for the LA).
3) Shotguns, even with careful aim, shoot their pellets habitually all over the place. So unless you are withing kicking distance there is virtually no guarantee you'll do more than inconvenience your opponent. I should not have to tell you that sniper rifles operate in a way that makes them lethal in just about any range. Yes, that requires more skill, but that part I've never disputed.
4) Result of the preceding two points: Having to wait for enemies vs peaking out, shooting and retreating, which thanks to clientside might not register at all to your designated target. While the shotgun behind the door can be spotted ahead by recon devices (see above), or seen while walking in before he shoots (again, clientside allows this; this window is in most cases even long enough to give you a tiny chance to act first). Also, no matter what weapon you use, when a shotgun is in effective range, you bet your weapon also is within a distance that it's able to function at.
5) Result of all of this: When you are shot by a CQC bolt, it often enogh comes "out of the blue". From somewhere around, f*ck alone knows (well, with the deathcam you as well now), and there was nothing you could do about it except running like a rabbit out of principle - which isn't even that effective against good shots. When downed by a shotgun you usually know what they did, whether it was getting close without anyone noticing, using the (quite audible and visible) jetpack to get into position, or waiting until you came into spitting distance.
There's probably more, but I'm not going to break my head trying to get every little scrap into written form.

The LA comes with a whole host of advantages on its own and I'd argue as a gap-closer + shotguns the class is unrivalled. The vertical element and being outright exceptional att outflanking/mobility is just as/much more effective than the cloak depending on situation. Both classes are good for ambushes. The audio queue from cloaking + its short duration (visual queues) should clue you in there's an infiltrator around. Then there's C4 and rocklet rifle which means it is an effective vehicle hunter too. They also have access to lots of great carbines (some of which have such low TTK you won't even be able to fire back). Many of my CQC carbines outperform the infiltrator weapons, for instance, like the GD-7F and VX6-7, and yes, that includes KDR too (apparently I have an average of 13.6 KDR on the GD-7F).

The best part of all this is you do not have to pick one. You can play both classes, even hop into a vehicle, to match the situation at hand. Maybe play a medic or HA too! Self-restrictions are on you (generally speaking), as is expecting to be competitive in every facet of the game while being baffled by the results.

I'm not a huge fan of OHK weapons though. I think it is one of the most boring ways to balance a game and would have much preferred a more horizontal method (abilities and tools). To that end I prefer the scout rifles since it is more fun and being able to de-cloak and double tap someone is both satisfying and fair (never ever gotten a rage tell either with semi-autos or full-auto scouts).

So on the one hand I can see the "just git gud" or make use of all the tools but on the other hand getting insta-gibbed is a s*** feeling/experience. I guess it depends on where you sit then, if you believe you should just suck it up or if we should try and make experience more "fun." I'm sort of in the middle, since I want the game to both punish bad plays and reward you with a fun and engaging experience.

I agree, eliminating 1hk weapons completely would likely be the best solution overall. But since I try to aurax shotguns currently, I can tell you one thing: If you don't get the first shot as a kill with one of the pump-actions, you're pretty likely to die before you get out the second one (against an experienced opponent at least). So those things either would have to be rebalanced severely or removed altogether. And that alone makes it unlikely that RPG will go and tackle that, unfortunately. Or they do tweak it and 2 weapons per faction just fall through the grid completely, which would make it a partial victory at best. Other thing is that you have to get so darn close, you'd better get a good reward out of it, since on your way you're likely enough to die a dozen different deaths.
Proposal: Remove all 1hk possibilities by tweaking damage numbers, make pump-action shotgun pellet spread more focused (operational range at peak performance 6 m at least would be nice, so they'd be the "long-range" shotgun option), give sniper rifles a x1.5 modifier on bodyshots (to mitigate the penalty of removing 1hk somewhat and helping new players in picking them up to a degree; taking any better suggestions on that one, doesn't sound particularly great, but was the best I currently have).

I honestly personally don't really care either, but if that's a mechanic that deters new players, I think we should draw a line. For the sake of consistency and the new player experience, the devs should have taken a look at resistances, and that includes tweaking/removing most 1hk weapons.

I don't like to see new players leave or try to pick up infils themselves just because the devs couldn't come up with more engaging ways to balance the game.

too bad the devs have other priorities than attracting and retaining players

I play on all continents wherever the fighting is happening. Usually prime time, usually with at least a semi-cohesive squad (and yes, sadly redeployside is absolutely how most coordinated platoons work). I occasionally see fights in between bases as you describe, but they never last more than a few minutes and they are almost always decided by vehicles. What I do not see are situations like this:

This quite specifically requires that everyone, in the middle of a fight between vehicles, not just on one but both sides decide "Nah, I'm going to use the one class in the game with no AV." To get this scenario you would need an absolutely perfect storm of passive players, no tank support, no aircraft support and no leadership. Not to say it never happens, but to suggest it is the norm is a bit of a stretch and would seem to have a lot more to do with the players themselves than whatever classes they're playing as.

Maybe it's a server-specific thing, maybe it's a small fight thing and I've just never encountered it, I don't know. Every time I've been in a similar situation to your example the fight has played out very differently.

This is a gross oversimplification. It doesn't matter if someone can see or hear you coming if you're moving too fast for them to react to, and that doesn't somehow make it more fair for them than if you are using camouflage to accomplish exactly the same thing only more slowly.

Getting close to enemies is the CQC snipers' shtick. That is why these weapons exist. They are typically within the effective range of whoever they are shooting simply because the players using them are operating with their team rather than on a hill somewhere.

More mundanely, they are also circumvented by crouching or standing still. Hardly the earmarks of a tactical genius. Also are we assuming every player has recon devices in this scenario?

This is the traditional difference between shotguns and sniper rifles, yes.
Also let's not exaggerate the RNG involved with shotguns. If you ADS dead-centered on your target the pellets land and you do good damage, if you don't ADS, or you are off-centered, you will do much less damage. This is the same in every FPS game, it's just a lot more apparent in this one because of how tanky the players are.

Your results are predicated on faulty logic, see 2). Clientside affects everyone in all situations, it isn't biased based on how you're playing or what weapon you're using. Ambusher Light Assaults in particular benefit from it at least as much as Infiltrators do.

As to your last point, it doesn't matter if you are technically in your weapon's effective range, you're in CQC against a shotgun. You're dead.

Please note that I do not have an issue with the Light Assault, Shotguns, etc. The problem I have is that your argument, either unintentionally or by design, takes every opportunity to downplay the advantages the Light Assault has, emphasizes all its disadvantages while doing exactly the opposite for the Infiltrator so you can claim there is a big difference between the two.
People get frustrated when things kill them in a way they couldn't react to, let's stop pretending that they get any less annoyed dying to a shotgun around a corner than they do to a sniper in a hallway. Either they are both fine to you or they both aren't.

Yes, I have used shotguns myself and PA aren't the meta anymore (well, for a long time now) since semi-autos and the baron is just better. My point was rather the LA versus Infil comparison. When making such comparisons I think it is extremely important to also distinguish the classes pros and cons.

When it comes to BASRs though I think it is more effective to reduce body shot damage and keep its OHK ability. However, also specialise existing BASRs (damage, re-chamber time, damage falloff). Because, sure, it might be frustrating to sometimes get OHK:ed by a CQC sniper but there aren't a whole of them out there (least not good enough) and reducing body shot damage means you cannot cheese it through levelling shot after shot down range. Since the vast majority of players would be required to acquire a headshot you're also indirectly increasing TTK through target acquisition time. With PA shotguns a similar method could be used to make them less frustrating to use.

This is also a more plausible action that RPG could conceivably take since they won't have to do a complete balance pass on multiple weapon/weapon classes. Especially since it is very difficult to use the data we have to show there's any kind of problem here. I mean, if we had CQC infils all over the place wrecking s*** it would be a different story but we don't. We're essentially talking game mechanics and gameplay philosophy here.

You can get a glimpse of the effect this would have by looking at the usage of the Daimyo vs the Ghost/TSAR/SAS-R. Despite the fact that the Daimyo on paper is a better option you are still more likely to see the ES rifles in use. If every sniper worked broadly like the Daimyo you probably would see less of them, although it's likely that the only ones you'd end up purging would be the ones you didn't notice anyways because they rarely killed anyone in the first place.

Removing OHKs from the game is a non-starter, after 7 years changes that drastic are another NGE in waiting only with 25% of the playerbase. Not to mention a huge slippery slope. Especially since as you said, there's not exactly a mountain of evidence that there's an issue in the first place outside of a vocal minority.

Since concerning the rest we only can respectfully agree to disagree, I'll take this one. And make it very subjective, since I'm not a psyker and can not read other players' minds (although I have asked around a little and people I know generally seem to gravitate to what I'll say now).
When I get killed by a shotgun, I know what got me into this situation in 98/100 situations. This can be someone who used the terrain, me not being careful enough, mass push into the room or simply the guys supposedly having my back not having it (for whatever reason). When I get killed by a CQC bolter, this does not apply. They killed me from somewhere ahead, behind, to the sides, wherever. One generally does not see them coming and it's naptime immediately. And that frustrates me (and as said most of the people I know and who have an opinion on the matter as well). The only good thing is that competent CQC snipers are not that common.