Bolt action rifles nerf is stupid

145791073

Comments

  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs.

    Bingo
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2249 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    The sentiment is right, but in reality we know that too many snipers in a round really does mess things up. Snipers are fine, there just needs to be a way to limit their numbers. Now you either do that with a class limit - which i don't agree with, or you do it by making it either harder to use, or less attractive to use.
    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible? Tanks and certainly planes aren't necessarily easy to use, so why does it matter if it's harder to use a sniper rifle than an smg? Personally i think they play fine in BF1, just do away with OHK, and maybe add a little more sway when standing. If people can't OHK whilst hill humping then this will dissuade many hill humpers anyway, along with no full health regen and limited ammo, this would probably reduce the numbers of snipers in most rounds organically.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6338 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible? Tanks and certainly planes aren't necessarily easy to use, so why does it matter if it's harder to use a sniper rifle than an smg? Personally i think they play fine in BF1, just do away with OHK, and maybe add a little more sway when standing. If people can't OHK whilst hill humping then this will dissuade many hill humpers anyway, along with no full health regen and limited ammo, this would probably reduce the numbers of snipers in most rounds organically.

    Did you literally just compare one of the four primary infantry classes to limited Spawn vehicles in a game where anywhere between 80-90%+ players in any given match will be playing infantry?

    A tank is a stark power/force multiplier for your team - and your argument is seriously "if a tank isn't easy to use, why should a rifle be easy to use"?

    The real question should be "every other INFANTRY WEAPON TYPE is easy to use, why can't sniper rifles be just as easy to use?"

    Sorry, but it's absolute nonsense that in BF5 I'd be able to kill someone 150m away 10x faster and easier with an SLR than a rifle just because people are afraid of being headshot.

    There's a difference between rifles being TOO easy to use, and rifles being 10x harder to use than any other gun outside of extreme long range.
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?
    A reason class need to be balance it is the flow on effects to everything.

    It is strange if more efficacies is placed on Assault being easy and powerful compared to Scout we end up with 50% more, does that not mean vehicles would be useless? Thus Vehicle would need to be made stronger or Assault AT weapons would need to be nerf heavily either way upsetting players.

  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6338 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?
    A reason class need to be balance it is the flow on effects to everything.

    It is strange if more efficacies is placed on Assault being easy and powerful compared to Scout we end up with 50% more, does that not mean vehicles would be useless? Thus Vehicle would need to be made stronger or Assault AT weapons would need to be nerf heavily either way upsetting players.

    Vehicles are already weak in bfv comparing to previous games. Also most of your typical assaults don't do anything to enemy tanks, they just farm easy kills with automatic weapons and shotguns.
    In the end as I said Dice should make all classes require lots of skill to be effective or all of them have to be easy and accessible to anyone. Simple. Everything else is BS and makes zero sense.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    In the end as I said Dice should make all classes require lots of skill to be effective or all of them have to be easy and accessible to anyone. Simple. Everything else is BS and makes zero sense.

    Qft
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2249 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?

    Class balance is not to do with usage. Of course the most numerous class in a round should be assaults. They are the main anti infantry and anti vehicle class. Medic/Support/Scout all perform 'support' roles and their numbers should be accordingly. Class balance is about being good at some things, whilst limited in others and not having a powerful one man army type class. Assaults - great up close but poor at long range, Snipers being the polar opposite. Breaking that class balance would be giving the assault player a gun that is great at both long and short ranges (stg seemingly doing that) or allowing the sniper to have an uber powerful pistol or shotgun as a secondary. You do not need equal(ish) usage to make the classes work together, and having a dozen 'useless' assaults is less of an issue game play wise than having a dozen useless snipers as the assaults are more likely to be actively engaged than those useless snipers. As i have said, there is nothing wrong with having snipers and having 15 excellent hill humping or ptfo ing ones would be no problem, however that is not the case.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2249 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible? Tanks and certainly planes aren't necessarily easy to use, so why does it matter if it's harder to use a sniper rifle than an smg? Personally i think they play fine in BF1, just do away with OHK, and maybe add a little more sway when standing. If people can't OHK whilst hill humping then this will dissuade many hill humpers anyway, along with no full health regen and limited ammo, this would probably reduce the numbers of snipers in most rounds organically.

    Did you literally just compare one of the four primary infantry classes to limited Spawn vehicles in a game where anywhere between 80-90%+ players in any given match will be playing infantry?

    A tank is a stark power/force multiplier for your team - and your argument is seriously "if a tank isn't easy to use, why should a rifle be easy to use"?

    The real question should be "every other INFANTRY WEAPON TYPE is easy to use, why can't sniper rifles be just as easy to use?"

    Sorry, but it's absolute nonsense that in BF5 I'd be able to kill someone 150m away 10x faster and easier with an SLR than a rifle just because people are afraid of being headshot.

    There's a difference between rifles being TOO easy to use, and rifles being 10x harder to use than any other gun outside of extreme long range.

    Why does scout/sniper need to be a primary class? It's an option yes, but doesn't need to be as easy to use as other classes. Now, i would certainly go along with the fact that in BF1 some SLRs are effectively semi auto sniper rifles. Medic weapons should not have high magnification scopes to allow them to compete with sniper rifles. One of the 'balances' and advantages for snipers is their high power scopes. These should not be available to the Medic class weapons because sniping shouldnt be their thing.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2249 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?
    A reason class need to be balance it is the flow on effects to everything.

    It is strange if more efficacies is placed on Assault being easy and powerful compared to Scout we end up with 50% more, does that not mean vehicles would be useless? Thus Vehicle would need to be made stronger or Assault AT weapons would need to be nerf heavily either way upsetting players.

    Vehicles are already weak in bfv comparing to previous games. Also most of your typical assaults don't do anything to enemy tanks, they just farm easy kills with automatic weapons and shotguns.
    In the end as I said Dice should make all classes require lots of skill to be effective or all of them have to be easy and accessible to anyone. Simple. Everything else is BS and makes zero sense.

    Surely the whole point of the main anti infantry class is to "farm kills"!
  • Hawxxeye
    7943 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018

    The sentiment is right, but in reality we know that too many snipers in a round really does mess things up. Snipers are fine, there just needs to be a way to limit their numbers. Now you either do that with a class limit - which i don't agree with, or you do it by making it either harder to use, or less attractive to use.
    There is one main reason that too many snipers can hurt their team. Because the way the bolt action weapons are balanced is that they are incentivised to keep a large distance from their targets in order to be harder to find at be shot at by weapons with lower magnifications.

    The BFV Alpha meta pushes a typical scout to go even further away from the battle than in BF1 in order to have enough protection from ARs, SLRs and MGs.
    The people who will insist to use a bolt action rifle in BFV will be even more detrimental to their team due to less kills and greater distance from the objectives than they were in BF1.

    The rest of the people who ever used bolt action rifles in any BF game will quickly realize how abusable the 100% Accurate, glintless and spammable SLRs of the BFV medics are and they will still wreck people from distance.

  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6338 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?

    Class balance is not to do with usage. Of course the most numerous class in a round should be assaults. They are the main anti infantry and anti vehicle class. Medic/Support/Scout all perform 'support' roles and their numbers should be accordingly. Class balance is about being good at some things, whilst limited in others and not having a powerful one man army type class. Assaults - great up close but poor at long range, Snipers being the polar opposite. Breaking that class balance would be giving the assault player a gun that is great at both long and short ranges (stg seemingly doing that) or allowing the sniper to have an uber powerful pistol or shotgun as a secondary. You do not need equal(ish) usage to make the classes work together, and having a dozen 'useless' assaults is less of an issue game play wise than having a dozen useless snipers as the assaults are more likely to be actively engaged than those useless snipers. As i have said, there is nothing wrong with having snipers and having 15 excellent hill humping or ptfo ing ones would be no problem, however that is not the case.

    Not a argument as long as one specific class requires 0 skill to be played effectively while others have to compete with such power. But Dice keeps its eyes shut and doesn't want to make the lives of skilless kids harder by nerfing the hell out of that specific class. And the whole 'let's go back to alpha 1 ttk" just confirms that. The balance can't be achieved while 1 class>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone else. Impossible.
    Nobody is saying camping on the hill is good. But mindless spray'n'pray to get loads of kills is the different side of the same coin to me. If Dice really desires to make bfv more tactical and increase skill gap, players HAVE to learn each class and grow that skill to perform well instead of 'I press attack button and everyone on screen is dead".
    Or keep everyone on the same level of difficulty so nothing will be hard and challenging to anyone. Because currently it seems like Dice is desperately trying to sit on many chairs and it will probably lead to their goals being impossible to achieve.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2249 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »

    The sentiment is right, but in reality we know that too many snipers in a round really does mess things up. Snipers are fine, there just needs to be a way to limit their numbers. Now you either do that with a class limit - which i don't agree with, or you do it by making it either harder to use, or less attractive to use.
    There is one main reason that too many snipers can hurt their team. Because the way the bolt action weapons are balanced is that they are incentivised to keep a large distance from their targets in order to be harder to find at be shot at by weapons with lower magnifications.

    The BFV Alpha meta pushes a typical scout to go even further away from the battle than in BF1 in order to have enough protection from ARs, SLRs and MGs.
    The people who will insist to use a bolt action rifle in BFV will be even more detrimental to their team due to less kills and greater distance from the objectives than they were in BF1.

    The rest of the people who ever used bolt action rifles in any BF game will quickly realize how abusable the 100% Accurate, glintless and spammable SLRs of the BFV medics are and they will still wreck people from distance.

    Agree that at long ranges no other class should be able to easily kill all but the dumbest sniper. So if the problem is the SLRs and their high powered scopes, then would just doing away with all scopes above say 2.5x for anything other than bolt action rifles for the scout class help. In BFV isn't the archetypes system going to distinguish between a scout and a sniper? Sniper being your long range bolt action hill humper and scout your behind the lines up close guy?
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2249 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?

    Class balance is not to do with usage. Of course the most numerous class in a round should be assaults. They are the main anti infantry and anti vehicle class. Medic/Support/Scout all perform 'support' roles and their numbers should be accordingly. Class balance is about being good at some things, whilst limited in others and not having a powerful one man army type class. Assaults - great up close but poor at long range, Snipers being the polar opposite. Breaking that class balance would be giving the assault player a gun that is great at both long and short ranges (stg seemingly doing that) or allowing the sniper to have an uber powerful pistol or shotgun as a secondary. You do not need equal(ish) usage to make the classes work together, and having a dozen 'useless' assaults is less of an issue game play wise than having a dozen useless snipers as the assaults are more likely to be actively engaged than those useless snipers. As i have said, there is nothing wrong with having snipers and having 15 excellent hill humping or ptfo ing ones would be no problem, however that is not the case.

    Not a argument as long as one specific class requires 0 skill to be played effectively while others have to compete with such power. But Dice keeps its eyes shut and doesn't want to make the lives of skilless kids harder by nerfing the hell out of that specific class. And the whole 'let's go back to alpha 1 ttk" just confirms that. The balance can't be achieved while 1 class>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone else. Impossible.
    Nobody is saying camping on the hill is good. But mindless spray'n'pray to get loads of kills is the different side of the same coin to me. If Dice really desires to make bfv more tactical and increase skill gap, players HAVE to learn each class and grow that skill to perform well instead of 'I press attack button and everyone on screen is dead".
    Or keep everyone on the same level of difficulty so nothing will be hard and challenging to anyone. Because currently it seems like Dice is desperately trying to sit on many chairs and it will probably lead to their goals being impossible to achieve.

    It's always going to easier to use and smg at close ranges - assuming half decent reflexes than using a bolt action rifle to head shot someone - on console anyway. The trade off for the sniper is that if you miss you are generally a distance away that you wont be insta killed back, whereas if you miss as an assault you generally end up at the spawn screen.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6338 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?

    Class balance is not to do with usage. Of course the most numerous class in a round should be assaults. They are the main anti infantry and anti vehicle class. Medic/Support/Scout all perform 'support' roles and their numbers should be accordingly. Class balance is about being good at some things, whilst limited in others and not having a powerful one man army type class. Assaults - great up close but poor at long range, Snipers being the polar opposite. Breaking that class balance would be giving the assault player a gun that is great at both long and short ranges (stg seemingly doing that) or allowing the sniper to have an uber powerful pistol or shotgun as a secondary. You do not need equal(ish) usage to make the classes work together, and having a dozen 'useless' assaults is less of an issue game play wise than having a dozen useless snipers as the assaults are more likely to be actively engaged than those useless snipers. As i have said, there is nothing wrong with having snipers and having 15 excellent hill humping or ptfo ing ones would be no problem, however that is not the case.

    Not a argument as long as one specific class requires 0 skill to be played effectively while others have to compete with such power. But Dice keeps its eyes shut and doesn't want to make the lives of skilless kids harder by nerfing the hell out of that specific class. And the whole 'let's go back to alpha 1 ttk" just confirms that. The balance can't be achieved while 1 class>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone else. Impossible.
    Nobody is saying camping on the hill is good. But mindless spray'n'pray to get loads of kills is the different side of the same coin to me. If Dice really desires to make bfv more tactical and increase skill gap, players HAVE to learn each class and grow that skill to perform well instead of 'I press attack button and everyone on screen is dead".
    Or keep everyone on the same level of difficulty so nothing will be hard and challenging to anyone. Because currently it seems like Dice is desperately trying to sit on many chairs and it will probably lead to their goals being impossible to achieve.

    It's always going to easier to use and smg at close ranges - assuming half decent reflexes than using a bolt action rifle to head shot someone - on console anyway. The trade off for the sniper is that if you miss you are generally a distance away that you wont be insta killed back, whereas if you miss as an assault you generally end up at the spawn screen.

    Doesn't work in this game though because SLRs are vey accurate and powerful while ARs have ridiculous range and also accurate.
    What does sniper have? Unreliable ability to kill with headshot? Lmao.
    The question still stays: why one class should require skill to be effective while even the cluelest potato can decently perform as the other one?
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2249 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?

    Class balance is not to do with usage. Of course the most numerous class in a round should be assaults. They are the main anti infantry and anti vehicle class. Medic/Support/Scout all perform 'support' roles and their numbers should be accordingly. Class balance is about being good at some things, whilst limited in others and not having a powerful one man army type class. Assaults - great up close but poor at long range, Snipers being the polar opposite. Breaking that class balance would be giving the assault player a gun that is great at both long and short ranges (stg seemingly doing that) or allowing the sniper to have an uber powerful pistol or shotgun as a secondary. You do not need equal(ish) usage to make the classes work together, and having a dozen 'useless' assaults is less of an issue game play wise than having a dozen useless snipers as the assaults are more likely to be actively engaged than those useless snipers. As i have said, there is nothing wrong with having snipers and having 15 excellent hill humping or ptfo ing ones would be no problem, however that is not the case.

    Your logic goes against the entire system of having free choice among multiple classes. Your notions of class use border on the lines of games with class limits.

    The point you're missing is that despite having FEATURES of supporting roles, Medic and Support can BOTH be played as aggressively as assault, and both have a history in recent titles of including loadout options that allow them to not be run as support classes AT ALL - like running he nades and limpets on Support, or running rifle grenades on medic.

    That's not to mention that in past games the "Assault" class WAS the medic.

    Secondly, the assault is the one man army class in BF5. They're not terrible at range and single or tap firing is effective as hell, and you'd say things like "well you'd still need a Medic and support for health and resupply", but that's rendered false due to resupply points being littered throughout the maps because of attrition. They have ARs that perform effectively at a myriad of ranges, they have the capability to solo kill ground armor, and now have the ability to restore health and ammo by themselves via supply points. What more do they need?

    Lastly, there are worthless players of all classes. That does not negate the fact that every other weapon type aside from rifles perform on the same spectrum of ease of use, whereas rifles are alone in thier own world of overly difficult use. It's not like ARs are the only weapons killing at range and in cqb now - you can even burst fire and kill people with Smgs at a substantial distance in this game.

    The mere idea that it's easier for someone with an SMG to kill an enemy who is sniping at them from 100m away than it would be for the sniper to kill them is ludicrous. By default the weapon already requires more accuracy and fires slower - but now there's drag to account for on top of a low velocity, no sweet spot at all, as well as a minimum damage starting at HALF that distance that allows for a THREE SHOT KILL FROM A WEAPON WITH A 5 ROUND MAGAZINE with literally just 5 points of healing after the initial shot.

    This isn't about which classes you personally think should be used the most in a game that allows people to choose whatever class they want - this is about the primary weapon type of one of the four main infantry classes, a class featured in these games since 2002, being SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult to use than every other weapon type.

    Even in BF1 where sniping was purported to be the easiest in the history of BF, you can look at any given players stats and see they OBJECTIVELY perform better with other classes from a kills, score, and overall performance standpoint. Even I fall in to that category, as do you. That's in BF1, a game where all full or semi auto weapons suffer from RBD and inaccuracy when suppressed.

    Now take that knowledge and apply it to a game where snipers now have slower rounds, less damage, no sweet spots - going up against weapons that fire full auto and can be tap fired accuracy at 100+m, and where RBD and suppression don't even exist anymore.

    People want to see what "worthless hillhumper" REALLY means? This will be the BF title that shows them how thier complaints about worthless snipers in past games pale in comparison.


    I totally agree that DICE are trying to allow all classes to do all things to a greater or lesser degree and that this is a bad move. For example the rifle grenades for Medics and the BAR type LMGs for supports. Having not played the Alpha, will they not try and address this with the archetypes? But this also comes with players demanding more weapons. This inevitably leads to the blurring of class ranges and therefore balance.
    .
    Having not played the Alpha i haven't experienced that build's weapon balance or TTK and so certainly not agreeing with the way it plays.
    .
    So how do they get snipers/scouts with bolt actions in a good place? How do you weed out the problem of BF1 where you have at times too many passively sitting 'miles' and being useless when the aim of the game is to get up close and cap flags? Battlefield is not a long range shooting contest so we don't want/need 12 snipers per side on opposite ends of a map shooting at each other so numbers need to be organically (game play wise) limited, but not by class limits which would stop choice.

  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I totally agree that DICE are trying to allow all classes to do all things to a greater or lesser degree and that this is a bad move. For example the rifle grenades for Medics and the BAR type LMGs for supports. Having not played the Alpha, will they not try and address this with the archetypes? But this also comes with players demanding more weapons. This inevitably leads to the blurring of class ranges and therefore balance.
    .
    Having not played the Alpha i haven't experienced that build's weapon balance or TTK and so certainly not agreeing with the way it plays.
    .
    So how do they get snipers/scouts with bolt actions in a good place? How do you weed out the problem of BF1 where you have at times too many passively sitting 'miles' and being useless when the aim of the game is to get up close and cap flags? Battlefield is not a long range shooting contest so we don't want/need 12 snipers per side on opposite ends of a map shooting at each other so numbers need to be organically (game play wise) limited, but not by class limits which would stop choice.

    I don't think the choice to allow other classes branch out beyond solely support roles is a bad thing.

    Older BF games have proven time and time again that when you have one class based on killing, and others based solely on supporting every other class - 99% of players play that one class, and all the other classes are usually left barren and most people who still use the other classes don't even play thier roles. Resulting in a game where everyone's using the best weapon in the best class, and there's barely any healing, spotting, resupplying, etc going on.

    If you're going to create a game with a class such as that - like Assault in BF5 - at least make EVERY class just as useful in regards to gunfights, so we can actually see medics and scouts ON objectives helping the team, instead of camping 100m away from it because they're afraid of getting melted by ARs. So that people might actually be INCLINED to come to the front lines and heal, or snipers would actually be INCLINED to even TOUCH an objective instead of camping at the ONLY range they can compete.

    And again, you're sort of contradicting yourself - most people who snipe do so because it's the way they prefer to play. So regardless of how weapons are balanced they're going to do it. This thread is already proof that the rifle nerf alone will cause more snipers to quit rather than play a different class.

    In saying that, how does it make sense to support a nerf to rifles that makes them even more worthless when your stance on gameplay is that we already have enough worthless snipers? If snipers are going to snipe regardless - how is making rifles worse going to make snipers any more useful instead of a class entirely based around camping?

    The ENTIRE class contradicts itself - it has a primary that's worthless in cqb with a class role and gadgets that are SUPPOSED to be used ON objective points to help the team. They can't compete even at mid range, yet thier primary gadget - the spotting flare - can only be shot a severely limited distance, literally forcing Scouts with useless primaries into cqb in order to use flares effectively.

    Again, this all goes toward explaining the point that Scout is contradictory and significantly more difficult to use than any other class.

    I know it may be hard for someone to believe who feels every game has like half a team as snipers - but Scout/Recon hasn't been the most played class in any bf game. BF does not have an overpopulation problem with snipers despite what anyone claims, that's backed up by statistical evidence that proves medic and assault are the most played classes in BF1 despite it supposedly having the easiest sniping in any bf game.

    People just over-exaggerate and claim half of any team are snipers because they generally dislike the Scout class and half the people they see playing it don't help out. It doesn't actually happen, and if it does it doesn't happen nearly as frequently as people claim (some people even going so far as to claim that EVERY game consists of half snipers).

    The use of the Scout class doesn't have to be limited in any way. If we're using that logic, then if any class needs some form of limit it's the Assault class, as it's been the most played class and usually the community-proclaimed most effective and all-around class in SEVERAL BF titles over the course of a decade.

    Most of the supposed "issues" with snipers in this game stem from exaggeration and blind dislike for the class. I truly, truly wish that there was a statistic that shows the percentages of deaths via different weapon types for each player. I'd wager rifles would account for the lowest amount of deaths out of all primaries for the vast majority who play these games.

    It's just funny to me that people will get 0.80 kills per minute and 600spm with the Scout class, then get 1.5kpm and 1200spm with the Assault or Medic class, and then claim its the Scout class that's the easiest to play.

    I'd love to see people who support this nerf actually try to actively snipe and help thier team in the alpha. It'd probably contain a hilarious amount of failure.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    .
    Why do all 3 infantry classes NEED to be easily accessible?

    Because class balance HAS TO BE A THING. There is literally no reason to have 50% of the team camping hills but there is also no reason for 50% assault scrubs running around without any teamplay whatsoever. But with all the nerfs and changes Dice is fighting fire with fire replacing one solo class with another while support is still being the weakest and the least favorite class to play. Where is logic in this?

    Class balance is not to do with usage. Of course the most numerous class in a round should be assaults. They are the main anti infantry and anti vehicle class. Medic/Support/Scout all perform 'support' roles and their numbers should be accordingly. Class balance is about being good at some things, whilst limited in others and not having a powerful one man army type class. Assaults - great up close but poor at long range, Snipers being the polar opposite. Breaking that class balance would be giving the assault player a gun that is great at both long and short ranges (stg seemingly doing that) or allowing the sniper to have an uber powerful pistol or shotgun as a secondary. You do not need equal(ish) usage to make the classes work together, and having a dozen 'useless' assaults is less of an issue game play wise than having a dozen useless snipers as the assaults are more likely to be actively engaged than those useless snipers. As i have said, there is nothing wrong with having snipers and having 15 excellent hill humping or ptfo ing ones would be no problem, however that is not the case.

    Your logic goes against the entire system of having free choice among multiple classes. Your notions of class use border on the lines of games with class limits.

    The point you're missing is that despite having FEATURES of supporting roles, Medic and Support can BOTH be played as aggressively as assault, and both have a history in recent titles of including loadout options that allow them to not be run as support classes AT ALL - like running he nades and limpets on Support, or running rifle grenades on medic.

    That's not to mention that in past games the "Assault" class WAS the medic.

    Secondly, the assault is the one man army class in BF5. They're not terrible at range and single or tap firing is effective as hell, and you'd say things like "well you'd still need a Medic and support for health and resupply", but that's rendered false due to resupply points being littered throughout the maps because of attrition. They have ARs that perform effectively at a myriad of ranges, they have the capability to solo kill ground armor, and now have the ability to restore health and ammo by themselves via supply points. What more do they need?

    Lastly, there are worthless players of all classes. That does not negate the fact that every other weapon type aside from rifles perform on the same spectrum of ease of use, whereas rifles are alone in thier own world of overly difficult use. It's not like ARs are the only weapons killing at range and in cqb now - you can even burst fire and kill people with Smgs at a substantial distance in this game.

    The mere idea that it's easier for someone with an SMG to kill an enemy who is sniping at them from 100m away than it would be for the sniper to kill them is ludicrous. By default the weapon already requires more accuracy and fires slower - but now there's drag to account for on top of a low velocity, no sweet spot at all, as well as a minimum damage starting at HALF that distance that allows for a THREE SHOT KILL FROM A WEAPON WITH A 5 ROUND MAGAZINE with literally just 5 points of healing after the initial shot.

    This isn't about which classes you personally think should be used the most in a game that allows people to choose whatever class they want - this is about the primary weapon type of one of the four main infantry classes, a class featured in these games since 2002, being SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult to use than every other weapon type.

    Even in BF1 where sniping was purported to be the easiest in the history of BF, you can look at any given players stats and see they OBJECTIVELY perform better with other classes from a kills, score, and overall performance standpoint. Even I fall in to that category, as do you. That's in BF1, a game where all full or semi auto weapons suffer from RBD and inaccuracy when suppressed.

    Now take that knowledge and apply it to a game where snipers now have slower rounds, less damage, no sweet spots - going up against weapons that fire full auto and can be tap fired accuracy at 100+m, and where RBD and suppression don't even exist anymore.

    People want to see what "worthless hillhumper" REALLY means? This will be the BF title that shows them how thier complaints about worthless snipers in past games pale in comparison.


    I totally agree that DICE are trying to allow all classes to do all things to a greater or lesser degree and that this is a bad move. For example the rifle grenades for Medics and the BAR type LMGs for supports. Having not played the Alpha, will they not try and address this with the archetypes? But this also comes with players demanding more weapons. This inevitably leads to the blurring of class ranges and therefore balance.
    .
    Having not played the Alpha i haven't experienced that build's weapon balance or TTK and so certainly not agreeing with the way it plays.
    .
    So how do they get snipers/scouts with bolt actions in a good place? How do you weed out the problem of BF1 where you have at times too many passively sitting 'miles' and being useless when the aim of the game is to get up close and cap flags? Battlefield is not a long range shooting contest so we don't want/need 12 snipers per side on opposite ends of a map shooting at each other so numbers need to be organically (game play wise) limited, but not by class limits which would stop choice.

    Make sniper rifles with high magnification scopes either a battlefield pickup or a limited choice. This prevents too many super long ranged campers.

    Make bolt action rifles without high magnification scopes have high dropoff at range while returning BF4's ability to OHK within CQB ranges. That way they can be used in an aggressive manner while requiring a considerable amount of skill to be used effectively beyond objective ranges, thus discouraging their use beyond objective ranges.

    Something along those lines is what I'd suggest.

    As to your earlier comment about assault being the main infantry killing class - why should assault be both the main anti-infantry and main anti-vehicle class? Scouts are literally only anti-infantry. They can't do anything against vehicles. Thus they should be strong at their main role - killing infantry.

    For me personally, I like playing aggressively. I like pushing the objective as a scout. I don't like camping on a hill in the distance. However I find the "hold left mouse button to win" automatic weapons to be boring. In BF1 I could play that way due to the fast pistol swap times or rifles like the Vetterli with its relatively close 20-50 meter range sweetspot. The balancing factor for that gun being it's abysmal 440 m/s velocity with no scope options making it a poor choice for long ranged use. In BF4 I could also play that way because literally every rifle had a 0-12.5 meter 100 damage range.
  • Rufusw5
    138 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Am I the only person thinking.. YESSS!!!!! Finally!! An end to being one hit killed by a standing sniper every time I break cover!!!!!!

    I love an aggressive play style, so this is the main thing that stops me playing BF1 at the moment. I just can't be bothered with it.

    Personally, I would welcome anything to up the skill requirement of a sniper. In BF1 sniping is way too easy. I've tried it! I find it incredibly boring but unbelievably easy.

    I'm on the fence about buying BFV, if these changes are in the final game then I'm buying it.

    For the comments about BF4, I played it at a friend's house at launch, it was a total sniper fest. The game felt broken. I didn't buy that game until they fixed that problem (Especially since BF3 was a great game).

    If BFV has the same ridiculously easy sniping as BF1 then I doubt I'll buy it, I have absolutely no desire to play battlefield sniper edition any longer.

    How about no. If you want to increase the skill gap it should be done for every class. Or rather make all of them relatively easy to play. Because it makes no god damn sense when one class can spray you to death half across the map while another one won't be able to land a shot because of all the unnecessary nerfs. Class balance has to be a thing not something existing only on paper.

    Speaking of BF1, the assault rifles really struggle to do damage at range, and even at close range it's not an instant kill. I've been reaction killed by a decent shotgunner on many occasions. If you're trying to spray at a sniper from range all that happens is he shoots you dead, unless he's a terrible shot.

    The medic rifles at range mostly need 4 bullets, with the sniper variant usually the sniper has ran away before you land the last shot.

    With LMG's, it takes time to aim and the time to kill always feels slow, snipers who get into cover when bullets start flying have a good chance of survival in my experience.

    When they decreased TTK they didn't touch the scout class, thus acknowledging that they were overpowered to begin with.

    The thing is, I think they still are. It's just too easy to aim a scoped rifle accurately (esp while standing) and bullet speed / drop makes it so easy to land that one shot kill.

    I don't want another game like that, whether I'm right it wrong is another thing I guess, but I know I don't want it!
Sign In or Register to comment.