Sniping In Battlefield V

Comments

  • CatHasMyPipe
    23 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yes!! No stupid lens flare!! Thank God!

    I can accept lens flare if you’re actually facing the sun, but hell, in BF4 you could be playing on Metro down in the dark metro tunnel and there is lens flare? Stupid and unrealistic.

    I hope they never bring back lens flare in BFV unless it’s truly realistic to your surroundings and only when facing a light source.

    It's for balance, not realism. It's to warn players that a sniper is aiming at them. Realism should take a back seat in these discussions.
  • Lord_Beelzebub1
    240 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited September 2018
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.
  • Metal_Jockets
    247 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.

    Umm... I don't think suppression is in BFV..only last night no fewer that 4 snipers turned towards me while I was unloading a clip onto them only to one shot headshot me.. it frustrated the bee-geezers out of me !!
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.

    Umm... I don't think suppression is in BFV..only last night no fewer that 4 snipers turned towards me while I was unloading a clip onto them only to one shot headshot me.. it frustrated the bee-geezers out of me !!

    Neither is lens flare so your point being?
  • Metal_Jockets
    247 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.

    Umm... I don't think suppression is in BFV..only last night no fewer that 4 snipers turned towards me while I was unloading a clip onto them only to one shot headshot me.. it frustrated the bee-geezers out of me !!

    Neither is lens flare so your point being?

    Suppression in BFV..
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.

    Umm... I don't think suppression is in BFV..only last night no fewer that 4 snipers turned towards me while I was unloading a clip onto them only to one shot headshot me.. it frustrated the bee-geezers out of me !!

    Neither is lens flare so your point being?

    Suppression in BFV..

    You said lens flare was pointless because only snipers can kill snipers, sounds like you're talking about BF1 which had lens flare as an example or did you just make up a scenario that has never been tested?
  • Metal_Jockets
    247 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.

    Umm... I don't think suppression is in BFV..only last night no fewer that 4 snipers turned towards me while I was unloading a clip onto them only to one shot headshot me.. it frustrated the bee-geezers out of me !!

    Neither is lens flare so your point being?

    Suppression in BFV..

    You said lens flare was pointless because only snipers can kill snipers, sounds like you're talking about BF1 which had lens flare as an example or did you just make up a scenario that has never been tested?

    I suggest you re-read my post
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.

    Umm... I don't think suppression is in BFV..only last night no fewer that 4 snipers turned towards me while I was unloading a clip onto them only to one shot headshot me.. it frustrated the bee-geezers out of me !!

    Neither is lens flare so your point being?

    Suppression in BFV..

    You said lens flare was pointless because only snipers can kill snipers, sounds like you're talking about BF1 which had lens flare as an example or did you just make up a scenario that has never been tested?

    I suggest you re-read my post

    I did, should I be reading between the lines?
  • Metal_Jockets
    247 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    You don’t need lens flare on close quarter maps like Metro. On those kinds of maps, that’s not balance, that’s just stupidity.

    Even on big wide open maps, if you get hit by a sniper and you turn around and see lens flare at 300 yards away, you can’t do anything about it anyway, the accuracy of your shotgun, pistol, smg, lmg, you name it, shouldn’t be accurate enough to return fire and get a kill anyway. A good sniper knows not to camp in one spot for more than 2-3 kills for the sake of revenge kill, so how does lens flare really balance anything?

    If lens flare balances the game then why do 90% of people still complain snipers are always OP and “low risk, high reward”?

    DICE said lens flare was to bring “balance” to the game, but that’s BS. The only person who can kill a sniper that far away in a gun to gun battle is another sniper. Unless the sniper is dumb enough to never move from his spot and you can flank him and sneak up on him, otherwise, no. Lens flare was pointless.

    Support take out snipers well too, suppression throws the snipers aim and then just dump ammo down range till he dies, ball of damage is a plus here so said sniper doesn't have any time to react and move.

    Umm... I don't think suppression is in BFV..only last night no fewer that 4 snipers turned towards me while I was unloading a clip onto them only to one shot headshot me.. it frustrated the bee-geezers out of me !!

    Neither is lens flare so your point being?

    Suppression in BFV..

    You said lens flare was pointless because only snipers can kill snipers, sounds like you're talking about BF1 which had lens flare as an example or did you just make up a scenario that has never been tested?

    I suggest you re-read my post

    I did, should I be reading between the lines?

    Sure..if it makes you happy :smile:
  • Rufusw5
    138 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (...)

    Your last line is also ironic, bf1 isn't "roots". If you want to go to your roots, bf would go back to bf3 (and earlier) where snipers were a lot less deadly than in bf1. BF1 sniper rifles are the strongest and easiest to use of all bf titles. Nobody wants that, the community spoke up and the devs listened.

    No, was not weaker before BF 3. Only on BF3 snipers becomed weaker. See some Montages from Battlefield BAD COMPANY 2 and Battlefield 2 on youtube if you had't played.

    BFBC2 :
    - Can OHK up to 35m with mag ammo
    - Can pierce vehicles and One headshot or one hit kill the vehicle's armor(depending the distance)
    - Can damage light armored vehicles with Barrett M95
    - Can call an airstrike who is insane deadly(destroyed even a MBT with it)
    - Can switch to a pistol pretty fast
    - The OHK area is not only the upper torso
    - No suppression
    (...)

    On BF2 snipers are strong too. Only on BF3/BF4 snipers becomed pretty weak

    Instant kills with sweet spot that rewards camping at a set distance from where most of the action was happening (ie: an objective). Body shots should NEVER be a one-hit kill.

    The sniper who i have more KPM(kills per minute) is exactly the sniper without sweetspot.


    Complaining about bolt action rifles being viable on a WW1 game. Only on battlefield i hoppe that DICE remaster BFBC2. I can play but unfortunately console players can't play this game. But since BFBC2 is an old game, you don't need an amazing high end PC to play it. Even my potato notebook can run it.

    [/quote]

    BC2 was, and still is my favourite battlefield game. The snipers in BC2 used to have plenty of bullet drop and much slower muzzle velocity, so hitting a moving target was hard.

    You couldn't go prone either so at range they were easier to hit, and let's not forget that general long range accuracy of pretty much everything else was better in bad company 2.

    That slug shotgun, the nostro or whatever it was called could OHK at stupid range.

    They were never a one hit kill unless you scored the headshot, although I can't remember what body damage was.

    For the OP:

    Go watch jack frags sniping in battlefield V. That's a great sniper montage.

    When you play the Beta there are still at the very least a quarter of the players running around with snipers, so they're clearly working well enough even if they're different.

    It really annoys me when people refer to others expressing their opinion as crying. No one is crying, a lot of people were and still are very frustrated by the wide open maps and laser beam sniper rifles of BF1.

    No scope sway, even when standing it was minimal, very little bullet drop, sweet spot OHK body shot mechanic and high muzzle velocity. Sniping was easier than it's ever been, and when playing the objectives being constantly OHK'd by various different no hopers that are near the bottom of the scoreboard, lying on top of a mountain is annoying. They're playing the kd game..

    And people need to give up with the smoke argument. You can't traverse a desert with smoke grenades. If you do, all that happens is you draw even more attention to where you are and a bomber rains fire on you, or people start chucking grenades in.

    Smoke works best for tactical retreats into cover, cover to cover transfer or reviving fallen team mates, not advances. You're blind when advancing in smoke, and the enemy will just watch the cloud waiting you you to emerge, when you run out of smoke, then kill you before you get your bearings.

    Smoke is not an acceptable response to OHK body kills from bolt action rifle a, least in my opinion.

    If you don't agree with this please post a video, show me how to use smoke to get to G, F or E on Sinai desert.

    All I can say is BF1 won't be going offline anytime soon, and the way it's going BF1 is going to become a total sniper fest, as the disgruntled snipers revert to last known good configuration, and everyone else moves on to greener pastures.

    I've always said snipers in BF1 were ridiculously overpowered. They were the only class not to receive any buff in the TTK update and no one even noticed. They've had a massive body shot damage decrease and removal of the sweet spot crutch in BFV and scout still remains a very popular class.

    I think that says it all really.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    superteds wrote: »

    except that's bollocks because a kar 98 can one shot headshot, or two shot bodyshot and a stg can do neither of those.

    Except that one burst with STG 44 is faster than aiming with Kar98 and Kar 98 takes 654635654u64 years to do two shots.
    Ok I gotta stop some of you right now:
    1)Comparing with STG is bs. EVERYBODY knows STG needs a heavy nerf (both to it's TTK cuz it currently beats SMGs in cqc, and to it's long range accuracy as it beats stuff like Gewerh 43 and even sniper rifles and DMRs at medium/long range in terms of not only accuracy but, again, in terms of TTK).

    Compare with other AR or even LMG's
    Therefore, sniping from long range is a lot easier than it used to be in the sense that you will not be instantly spotted the moment you kill somebody or you shoot.

    Then compare with PTFO with snipers, not necessarly at CQB
    1)Non-headshot damage is low because of attrition aka most players you will be shooting at will be a lot less likely to be at full health than in previous titles.


    Compare With BF 2. NO HEALTH REGEN ON BF 2 AND M95 DEALS 95 PTS OF DAMAGE
    Fzcziiq.png

    source http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/M95
    superteds wrote: »
    The only thing that you can really complain legitimately about is the death of aggressive scout playstyle which is, sadly, a symptom of having all weapons with a really low TTK even at medium range. This makes it so playing as a scout and engaging at medium range or lower means a certain death sentence unless you pretty much always land headshots or you play against players with advanced cases of parkinson

    Not only this is the problem. The ridiculous wild west muzzle velocity was brought back, the logic MG 42 inside a vehicle can damage vehicles but an infantry MG 42 can't was brought back from bf3/4, the lack of good sidearms too.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I unfortnetly lost my awnser can't post "waiting approval" by no reason but if you can't have high damage thanks to lack of health regen, how explain BF2? On BF2 there are no health regen and... See the damage

    Fzcziiq.png

    superteds wrote: »
    The only thing that you can really complain legitimately about is the death of aggressive scout playstyle which is, sadly, a symptom of having all weapons with a really low TTK even at medium range. This makes it so playing as a scout and engaging at medium range or lower means a certain death sentence unless you pretty much always land headshots or you play against players with advanced cases of parkinson

    Not only this is the problem. The ridiculous wild west muzzle velocity was brought back, the logic MG 42 inside a vehicle can damage vehicles but an infantry MG 42 can't was brought back from bf3/4, the lack of good sidearms too.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    BC2 was, and still is my favourite battlefield game. The snipers in BC2 used to have plenty of bullet drop and much slower muzzle velocity, so hitting a moving target was hard.

    All bullets have slow speed on BFBC2 Is not just snipers, but 35m of OHK with mag ammo...
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    That slug shotgun, the nostro or whatever it was called could OHK at stupid range.

    They were never a one hit kill unless you scored the headshot, although I can't remember what body damage was.

    Slugs should be deadly. But at least aren't like on BF3 where shotgun + slugs are the unique viable sniper
    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    Go watch jack frags sniping in battlefield V. That's a great sniper montage.

    Watch my BFBC2 montage. I can't do most of this clips on BF V


    Rufusw5 wrote: »
    No one is crying, a lot of people were and still are very frustrated by the wide open maps and laser beam sniper rifles of BF1.

    No scope sway, even when standing it was minimal, very little bullet drop, sweet spot OHK body shot mechanic and high muzzle velocity. Sniping was easier than it's ever been, and when playing the objectives being constantly OHK'd by various different no hopers that are near the bottom of the scoreboard, lying on top of a mountain is annoying. They're playing the kd game..

    Snipers aren't laser beams on BF1. BF1 is just the first game with realistic muzzle speed.

    As for sweet spot, depends. I an not against it on Martini Henry for example, but snipers on BF1 fires very fast and have a greater OHK range(100 to 150m from springfield for eg) than BFBC2's M95. But even on BF1 who have the strongest snipers, i have no problems fighting against then using an Bar M1918 or a Scoped Mondragon. In reality, my KPM with this two rifles are greater than most of my snipers.

    But how to balance snipers on BF1 IMHO :

    1 - Remove sweetspot for any rifle that fires faster than 30 rounds per minute lowering his sweetspot damage by 5.
    2 - Adds an "heavy bolt variation" with the sweetspot but fires at half of the speed with increased sway
    3 - Get rid of random bullet deviation.
    4 - Buff the SLUGS shotgun performance to be something similar to BFBC2's slugs.

    That way, any class have will have a reilable counter snipers. Mondragon will be much better without the random bullet deviation. BAR M1918 too and shotgun + slugs will be a good counter for assault.
  • NoMoreChillies
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    played BF3 got sick of the dorritos
    gave BF4 and BF1 a miss for same reason

    Saw no Dorritos and played BFV. Loved sniping. Loved headshots. Loved only 51dmg for body shots it separates the good from the bad snipers. Gonna buy BFV because of this change.
  • Koolaide3
    52 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If they don't change the points values for spot/flare bonus etc in the live version, I don't see a problem with averaging 5-8k which would put you in the top 10 if not close (at least based on what I've seen in beta).

    ...and you can still be "aggressive" on the objective. You are justifiably going to be outgunned in close quarters, but it is definitely possible to stay close enough to the action to pop a flare and actually support an offensive / defensive situation.


    I don't want to repeat myself from earlier posts, but I think folks are underestimating the value that recons actually add to the team now and that includes sniping.
  • Venevek
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Member
    Wont respond to everything you said as I can't possibly remember all of it.
    I salute you for helping the team all the ways you can, I see many snipers who doesnt care much for the objectives.
    The thing with the scopes sucks, we can only hope they will make them better for the full release.
    You're saying they have nerfed the snipers in BF5, yet I do not agree with you, for one very big reason, they have made the hitbox for heads very VERY large, if you hit a soldier in the shoulders/upper torso it counts as a headshot. I have been headshotted way WAY too easily in BF5, for example, I suddenly pop out from cover where they could not possibly see me come from until i peak out, a sniper flings off a shot and instantly (about 90 % of the time) gets a headshot, some cus of skill, but a lot cus of the oversized head hitbox.

    As long as the snipers dont stay at the back of the map I'm happy, the way i think Recon should be played and the way I play it, is staying behind my team, like around 100m behind or so, spotting and taking out HVT on the enemy team.
    Also since they have removed Suppression from BF5 they have given free reign, as suppression WAS a great way to hold back snipers and others to help the team push up.
    Suppression was a way for Support to help the team either push up or retreat without being shot to peices.
    Now in BF5 I can sit and use a whole mag to suppress a sniper just to be instantly headshotted, without the sniper even taking more than half a second to aim.
    But they removed it... so dont tell me sniping was nerfed, Supports was just as much nerfed.

    Also, you cant compare the ranges sniped in real life to Battlefield 5, BF5 is a game, with need fun gameplay and balancing and such.
    Also you forgot to mention the fact that in real life a sniper could stay in a spot for DAYS before firing ONE bullet, are you prepeared for such gameplay in BF5? Wouldnt think so.

    Think that was all for now,
    please read through this OP and tell me your civil response.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    @Venevek. Suppression is a noob mechanic. Should't be on any BF. BF2 and BFBC2 have no suppression and works pretty well. Also, you should play BF2. Barrett M95 will let you with less than 10 hp and the sidearms can finish you even at medium range. Not mention that M95 can piercearmor and kill you behind cover or damage your vehicle.
  • Venevek
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Member
    It's great that the M95 was powerful it fires a 12,7mm roudn i think, but suppression is not a noob mechanic, those who doesnt know how to handle suppression is the noobs, if you get suppressed you duck behind cover wait for enemy to stop firing OR duck behind cover to relocate.
    Suppression is a tactical element used to keep enemies behind cover, if you keep firing when suppressed your not very clever.
    Sure some might find it annoying and i do agree that it havnt always been implemented in a great way, but removing it was very much the wrong choice.
    I do think snipers minimun dmg should be upped to 80 though.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Venevek wrote: »
    It's great that the M95 was powerful it fires a 12,7mm roudn i think, but suppression is not a noob mechanic, those who doesnt know how to handle suppression is the noobs, if you get suppressed you duck behind cover wait for enemy to stop firing OR duck behind cover to relocate.
    Suppression is a tactical element used to keep enemies behind cover, if you keep firing when suppressed your not very clever.
    Sure some might find it annoying and i do agree that it havnt always been implemented in a great way, but removing it was very much the wrong choice.
    I do think snipers minimun dmg should be upped to 80 though.

    1 - BF is a arcade game
    2 - It fires an 12,7mm round but the damage on BF2 is the same as other snipers(but only m95 can be used against armor) and on BFBC2, only the OHK range is a little greater but it fires very slowly and have mods ADS time
    3 - Suppression is used IRL because much times the enemy don't know where the shots are coming from and an single bullet can incapacitate/kill, not as a magical force that push your bullet making an perfectly aligned shot magically go to random locations
    4 - Suppression on more realistic games like Red Orchestra appears as increased sway, increased recoil, increased "breath-rate"(probably by the fear of being shoted), an magical magnetic field only appears on BF3

    If you look to Simo Häyhä, he managed to shot the enemy under fire in many occasions.
Sign In or Register to comment.