An alternative to Sweet Spots

2»

Comments

  • ashar_saleem121
    1245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Albeit it depends on the rifles other stats (martini henry for instance might not apply) i think the best fix would have been 50% rediction in range of the sweet spot ( so if smle has a sweet spot of 35-65 it would instead be 42-57) and decrease of minimum damage 80 to 55

    As somebody who played recon only in previous titles the recon class was already made far too easy by increased velocity and increased minimum damage, generally speaking, sweet spot was never needed, but the above is a good compromise

    The minimum damage of 55 is way way too low. Thats the whole problem with the BFV model. Thats why I think they should just reduce max damage and keep min damage the same.

    I think @Sixclicks would agree with my proposal

    Why is 55 too low? Still a 2 shot skill and decreases the number of random instant kills for when you are only slightly injured

    It hinders more aggressive recon play. A two hit kill with the Enfield has a TTK of 833 ms (178% more than the STG). Thus your only chance at surviving such an encounter is swapping to your pistol to finish off the kill after hitting them once with your rifle. When your rifle only does a max damage of 60 and a min damage of 55, you'll need 2-5 more hits with your pistol to finish the kill depending on which pistol you're using (based on the ones we've seen thus far). By then you're well past dead. In BF1, this tactic was actually viable because it only took one or two more hits with your pistol to finish a kill. This method was still a little slower to kill in close quarters than automatic weapons, but it was at least a viable option.

    And before you say, "well bolt actions shouldn't be used in close range", the STG can kill you at max distance in 500 ms. That's also faster than the 2 hit TTK of the Enfield. Put it in semi-auto mode, and it's practically a laser beam DMR. Not to mention, weapons shouldn't be balanced around staying as far away from the objective as possible in a game that's centered on playing the objective.

    To add to this, you also lose assist as kill potential when you lower damage that much.
  • Major_Pungspark
    1488 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    28% still played sniper in the beta, as long as more than 1/4 of the players are sniping there is no need to buff sniper rifles...
  • Miles_Vappa
    264 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Albeit it depends on the rifles other stats (martini henry for instance might not apply) i think the best fix would have been 50% rediction in range of the sweet spot ( so if smle has a sweet spot of 35-65 it would instead be 42-57) and decrease of minimum damage 80 to 55

    As somebody who played recon only in previous titles the recon class was already made far too easy by increased velocity and increased minimum damage, generally speaking, sweet spot was never needed, but the above is a good compromise

    The minimum damage of 55 is way way too low. Thats the whole problem with the BFV model. Thats why I think they should just reduce max damage and keep min damage the same.

    I think @Sixclicks would agree with my proposal

    Why is 55 too low? Still a 2 shot skill and decreases the number of random instant kills for when you are only slightly injured

    It hinders more aggressive recon play. A two hit kill with the Enfield has a TTK of 833 ms (178% more than the STG). Thus your only chance at surviving such an encounter is swapping to your pistol to finish off the kill after hitting them once with your rifle. When your rifle only does a max damage of 60 and a min damage of 55, you'll need 2-5 more hits with your pistol to finish the kill depending on which pistol you're using (based on the ones we've seen thus far). By then you're well past dead. In BF1, this tactic was actually viable because it only took one or two more hits with your pistol to finish a kill. This method was still a little slower to kill in close quarters than automatic weapons, but it was at least a viable option.

    And before you say, "well bolt actions shouldn't be used in close range", the STG can kill you at max distance in 500 ms. That's also faster than the 2 hit TTK of the Enfield. Put it in semi-auto mode, and it's practically a laser beam DMR. Not to mention, weapons shouldn't be balanced around staying as far away from the objective as possible in a game that's centered on playing the objective.

    No offense dude, but you clearly didn’t read my post. I said nothing about changing the max damage, I spoke only of changing the min damage

    With the sweet spot this means that damage will increase from 80 until the sweet spot and then decrease until the minimum of 55, obviously this is going to be at a range where a quick pistol swap will not be effective.

    A.k.a. this with only decrease cheesy long range kills from hardly wounded soldiers, and prevent soldiers from being nicked to death after getting randomly one shotted

  • ashar_saleem121
    1245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Albeit it depends on the rifles other stats (martini henry for instance might not apply) i think the best fix would have been 50% rediction in range of the sweet spot ( so if smle has a sweet spot of 35-65 it would instead be 42-57) and decrease of minimum damage 80 to 55

    As somebody who played recon only in previous titles the recon class was already made far too easy by increased velocity and increased minimum damage, generally speaking, sweet spot was never needed, but the above is a good compromise

    The minimum damage of 55 is way way too low. Thats the whole problem with the BFV model. Thats why I think they should just reduce max damage and keep min damage the same.

    I think @Sixclicks would agree with my proposal

    Why is 55 too low? Still a 2 shot skill and decreases the number of random instant kills for when you are only slightly injured

    It hinders more aggressive recon play. A two hit kill with the Enfield has a TTK of 833 ms (178% more than the STG). Thus your only chance at surviving such an encounter is swapping to your pistol to finish off the kill after hitting them once with your rifle. When your rifle only does a max damage of 60 and a min damage of 55, you'll need 2-5 more hits with your pistol to finish the kill depending on which pistol you're using (based on the ones we've seen thus far). By then you're well past dead. In BF1, this tactic was actually viable because it only took one or two more hits with your pistol to finish a kill. This method was still a little slower to kill in close quarters than automatic weapons, but it was at least a viable option.

    And before you say, "well bolt actions shouldn't be used in close range", the STG can kill you at max distance in 500 ms. That's also faster than the 2 hit TTK of the Enfield. Put it in semi-auto mode, and it's practically a laser beam DMR. Not to mention, weapons shouldn't be balanced around staying as far away from the objective as possible in a game that's centered on playing the objective.

    No offense dude, but you clearly didn’t read my post. I said nothing about changing the max damage, I spoke only of changing the min damage

    With the sweet spot this means that damage will increase from 80 until the sweet spot and then decrease until the minimum of 55, obviously this is going to be at a range where a quick pistol swap will not be effective.

    A.k.a. this with only decrease cheesy long range kills from hardly wounded soldiers, and prevent soldiers from being nicked to death after getting randomly one shotted

    Why is a long distance kill on a wounded soldier cheesy? The guy didn't have full health and he landed the shot.

    So OHKs are bad at any range (except shotguns) and now kills on wounded enemies are also bad? Where does it end? How is the scout suppoed to get kills that is acceptable?
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    28% still played sniper in the beta, as long as more than 1/4 of the players are sniping there is no need to buff sniper rifles...

    Recon was the 3rd most played class. Confirmed in a DICE post. That infographic was referring to most "deployed class." Meaning most spawned class. 28% of deployments were recons despite it being played less than assault and medic.

    It was in one of the debriefings on Reddit:

    reddit_snipers.png
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Albeit it depends on the rifles other stats (martini henry for instance might not apply) i think the best fix would have been 50% rediction in range of the sweet spot ( so if smle has a sweet spot of 35-65 it would instead be 42-57) and decrease of minimum damage 80 to 55

    As somebody who played recon only in previous titles the recon class was already made far too easy by increased velocity and increased minimum damage, generally speaking, sweet spot was never needed, but the above is a good compromise

    The minimum damage of 55 is way way too low. Thats the whole problem with the BFV model. Thats why I think they should just reduce max damage and keep min damage the same.

    I think @Sixclicks would agree with my proposal

    Why is 55 too low? Still a 2 shot skill and decreases the number of random instant kills for when you are only slightly injured

    It hinders more aggressive recon play. A two hit kill with the Enfield has a TTK of 833 ms (178% more than the STG). Thus your only chance at surviving such an encounter is swapping to your pistol to finish off the kill after hitting them once with your rifle. When your rifle only does a max damage of 60 and a min damage of 55, you'll need 2-5 more hits with your pistol to finish the kill depending on which pistol you're using (based on the ones we've seen thus far). By then you're well past dead. In BF1, this tactic was actually viable because it only took one or two more hits with your pistol to finish a kill. This method was still a little slower to kill in close quarters than automatic weapons, but it was at least a viable option.

    And before you say, "well bolt actions shouldn't be used in close range", the STG can kill you at max distance in 500 ms. That's also faster than the 2 hit TTK of the Enfield. Put it in semi-auto mode, and it's practically a laser beam DMR. Not to mention, weapons shouldn't be balanced around staying as far away from the objective as possible in a game that's centered on playing the objective.

    No offense dude, but you clearly didn’t read my post. I said nothing about changing the max damage, I spoke only of changing the min damage

    With the sweet spot this means that damage will increase from 80 until the sweet spot and then decrease until the minimum of 55, obviously this is going to be at a range where a quick pistol swap will not be effective.

    A.k.a. this with only decrease cheesy long range kills from hardly wounded soldiers, and prevent soldiers from being nicked to death after getting randomly one shotted

    I didn't read your other comments. Just that question, "Why is 55 too low? Still a 2 shot skill and decreases the number of random instant kills for when you are only slightly injured." So I thought you were asking why is a hit of 55 damage too low in regards to how it is in BFV.
  • MarxistDictator
    4977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Why do we need to balance the CQB meta so scouts can compete where they aren't supposed to? If you want to get into the action as a scout use one of his kit weapons actually designed for that. Don't run a bolt action if you need to run CQB, or if you do accept the fact that classes with automatic guns will roll you more often than not. This is pretty simple but apparently we need to cry for there to be buffs made because the STG44 was overpowered in the beta.

    Notice how shotgun users don't complain about being useless over distance, while also accepting the fact that their guns aren't even the best suited for short distance? The answer is obvious, making shotguns not require aim (they already don't really but at least you need solid meatshots for OHK) would make the gameplay terrible. There would be no challenge in using one or any point in trying to take someone on in close range if they had one. A lot of guns would be basically invalidated just so one could feel more realistic or whatever dumpster reason it is.

    Snipers in other games also do not have maps and game mechanics that cater to them. They do not have massively wide open maps or areas that are out of bounds for one team to hide in. In fact the maps are totally built around the other guns in the game, so in order for the sniper to have a place they have to be broken weapons.

    This isn't the case in Battlefield because the same risk/reward is gone. There is no risk to playing as a sniper in these games. And the people who play extremely low risk play styles do not need to be given easy kills on top of that. Pretty simple.

    And yes I do think the snipers should change; there should be highly damaging maybe limited OHK with a slow fire rate, or fast velocity with a good fire rate. We don't need a repeat of BF1 where you get all of those upsides and no downsides to speak of. I just don't think there's much point crying to this degree when there alternative options for scout in the retail game to bolt actions and that none of the game balance is set in stone anyway.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Why do we need to balance the CQB meta so scouts can compete where they aren't supposed to? If you want to get into the action as a scout use one of his kit weapons actually designed for that. Don't run a bolt action if you need to run CQB, or if you do accept the fact that classes with automatic guns will roll you more often than not. This is pretty simple but apparently we need to cry for there to be buffs made because the STG44 was overpowered in the beta.

    Notice how shotgun users don't complain about being useless over distance, while also accepting the fact that their guns aren't even the best suited for short distance? The answer is obvious, making shotguns not require aim (they already don't really but at least you need solid meatshots for OHK) would make the gameplay terrible. There would be no challenge in using one or any point in trying to take someone on in close range if they had one. A lot of guns would be basically invalidated just so one could feel more realistic or whatever dumpster reason it is.

    Snipers in other games also do not have maps and game mechanics that cater to them. They do not have massively wide open maps or areas that are out of bounds for one team to hide in. In fact the maps are totally built around the other guns in the game, so in order for the sniper to have a place they have to be broken weapons.

    This isn't the case in Battlefield because the same risk/reward is gone. There is no risk to playing as a sniper in these games. And the people who play extremely low risk play styles do not need to be given easy kills on top of that. Pretty simple.

    And yes I do think the snipers should change; there should be highly damaging maybe limited OHK with a slow fire rate, or fast velocity with a good fire rate. We don't need a repeat of BF1 where you get all of those upsides and no downsides to speak of. I just don't think there's much point crying to this degree when there alternative options for scout in the retail game to bolt actions and that none of the game balance is set in stone anyway.

    The M30 drilling shotgun can fire a rifle round that can OHK headshot at any range. So shotgun users have no reason to complain about not being able to reach out to long ranges because they already can. In fact, that rifle round does more to the body than two of the bolt actions in the game.

    I only really want bolt actions in BFV to do more chest shot damage than they currently do. I don't need it to be a OHK, but their damage is too low in BFV. I'd actually like a bolt action with high close ranged damage at the tradeoff of low long ranged damage such as the Scout Elite in BF4 or something like the Russian Trench from BF1.

    And as you said, the STG was a problem. It was usable at practically any range. Especially since you can also put a medium scope on it.
  • MarxistDictator
    4977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The M30 Drilling is also exceedingly well balanced because it only has one rifle shot or 2 shotgun shells, and a long reload to replenish either. You get like 1/3 the fire rate of a bolt gun using the rifle only so it is balanced to do more damage. It is not a perfect weapon despite being versatile because no gunfights are ever just 1v1 totally cutoff from one's teammates.

    Its also the only versatile shotgun in any BF game since the slugs in BC2, shotguns still stink out loud at their only niche in BF1 while being useless outside it which was my main point. Yet we do not see people begging for more shotgun range like we do people demanding higher CQB damage/damage in general on snipers.

    And regardless of how people 'feel' about guns and realism, an assault rifle should be a middle of the road gun that is able to compete in every situation because that's what an assault rifle does. Whether they get that feeling right for every player is irrelevant since the issue was that it more of a master of all trades and not the all rounder it was supposed to be. The issue was not the fact that it can score kills over distance lol.
  • Miles_Vappa
    264 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Albeit it depends on the rifles other stats (martini henry for instance might not apply) i think the best fix would have been 50% rediction in range of the sweet spot ( so if smle has a sweet spot of 35-65 it would instead be 42-57) and decrease of minimum damage 80 to 55

    As somebody who played recon only in previous titles the recon class was already made far too easy by increased velocity and increased minimum damage, generally speaking, sweet spot was never needed, but the above is a good compromise

    The minimum damage of 55 is way way too low. Thats the whole problem with the BFV model. Thats why I think they should just reduce max damage and keep min damage the same.

    I think @Sixclicks would agree with my proposal

    Why is 55 too low? Still a 2 shot skill and decreases the number of random instant kills for when you are only slightly injured

    It hinders more aggressive recon play. A two hit kill with the Enfield has a TTK of 833 ms (178% more than the STG). Thus your only chance at surviving such an encounter is swapping to your pistol to finish off the kill after hitting them once with your rifle. When your rifle only does a max damage of 60 and a min damage of 55, you'll need 2-5 more hits with your pistol to finish the kill depending on which pistol you're using (based on the ones we've seen thus far). By then you're well past dead. In BF1, this tactic was actually viable because it only took one or two more hits with your pistol to finish a kill. This method was still a little slower to kill in close quarters than automatic weapons, but it was at least a viable option.

    And before you say, "well bolt actions shouldn't be used in close range", the STG can kill you at max distance in 500 ms. That's also faster than the 2 hit TTK of the Enfield. Put it in semi-auto mode, and it's practically a laser beam DMR. Not to mention, weapons shouldn't be balanced around staying as far away from the objective as possible in a game that's centered on playing the objective.

    No offense dude, but you clearly didn’t read my post. I said nothing about changing the max damage, I spoke only of changing the min damage

    With the sweet spot this means that damage will increase from 80 until the sweet spot and then decrease until the minimum of 55, obviously this is going to be at a range where a quick pistol swap will not be effective.

    A.k.a. this with only decrease cheesy long range kills from hardly wounded soldiers, and prevent soldiers from being nicked to death after getting randomly one shotted

    Why is a long distance kill on a wounded soldier cheesy? The guy didn't have full health and he landed the shot.

    So OHKs are bad at any range (except shotguns) and now kills on wounded enemies are also bad? Where does it end? How is the scout suppoed to get kills that is acceptable?

    The tldr is that sniper rifles in bf1 are far easier to use in every aspect compared to previous titles, plus they introduced a sweet spot making in even easier. Scout class will be just fine without a sweet spot and lower damage and lower muzzel velocity - it was my main class back in bf4

    Imo scout class needed only a slight nerf in this game, which it never got.

    I have mixed feelings about the sweet spot but generally speaking would have prefered it was never introduced but left the damage model and bullet velocity’s the same.

    Again, imo, getting killed by players instantly you are not engaged with is not good game design and should really only happen when a player is highly skilled, but i also understand that in bf1 the devs would never scrap it because it was a selling point.

    So i proposed the compromise above, but i also am 100% aware that nothing is changing in bf1 at this point- it was just my 2 cents.
  • ashar_saleem121
    1245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Albeit it depends on the rifles other stats (martini henry for instance might not apply) i think the best fix would have been 50% rediction in range of the sweet spot ( so if smle has a sweet spot of 35-65 it would instead be 42-57) and decrease of minimum damage 80 to 55

    As somebody who played recon only in previous titles the recon class was already made far too easy by increased velocity and increased minimum damage, generally speaking, sweet spot was never needed, but the above is a good compromise

    The minimum damage of 55 is way way too low. Thats the whole problem with the BFV model. Thats why I think they should just reduce max damage and keep min damage the same.

    I think @Sixclicks would agree with my proposal

    Why is 55 too low? Still a 2 shot skill and decreases the number of random instant kills for when you are only slightly injured

    It hinders more aggressive recon play. A two hit kill with the Enfield has a TTK of 833 ms (178% more than the STG). Thus your only chance at surviving such an encounter is swapping to your pistol to finish off the kill after hitting them once with your rifle. When your rifle only does a max damage of 60 and a min damage of 55, you'll need 2-5 more hits with your pistol to finish the kill depending on which pistol you're using (based on the ones we've seen thus far). By then you're well past dead. In BF1, this tactic was actually viable because it only took one or two more hits with your pistol to finish a kill. This method was still a little slower to kill in close quarters than automatic weapons, but it was at least a viable option.

    And before you say, "well bolt actions shouldn't be used in close range", the STG can kill you at max distance in 500 ms. That's also faster than the 2 hit TTK of the Enfield. Put it in semi-auto mode, and it's practically a laser beam DMR. Not to mention, weapons shouldn't be balanced around staying as far away from the objective as possible in a game that's centered on playing the objective.

    No offense dude, but you clearly didn’t read my post. I said nothing about changing the max damage, I spoke only of changing the min damage

    With the sweet spot this means that damage will increase from 80 until the sweet spot and then decrease until the minimum of 55, obviously this is going to be at a range where a quick pistol swap will not be effective.

    A.k.a. this with only decrease cheesy long range kills from hardly wounded soldiers, and prevent soldiers from being nicked to death after getting randomly one shotted

    Why is a long distance kill on a wounded soldier cheesy? The guy didn't have full health and he landed the shot.

    So OHKs are bad at any range (except shotguns) and now kills on wounded enemies are also bad? Where does it end? How is the scout suppoed to get kills that is acceptable?

    The tldr is that sniper rifles in bf1 are far easier to use in every aspect compared to previous titles, plus they introduced a sweet spot making in even easier. Scout class will be just fine without a sweet spot and lower damage and lower muzzel velocity - it was my main class back in bf4

    Imo scout class needed only a slight nerf in this game, which it never got.

    I have mixed feelings about the sweet spot but generally speaking would have prefered it was never introduced but left the damage model and bullet velocity’s the same.

    Again, imo, getting killed by players instantly you are not engaged with is not good game design and should really only happen when a player is highly skilled, but i also understand that in bf1 the devs would never scrap it because it was a selling point.

    So i proposed the compromise above, but i also am 100% aware that nothing is changing in bf1 at this point- it was just my 2 cents.

    Yes I agree getting insta killed by someone far away is not fun. But if you were already damaged then it's not a cheap kill if he lands the shot. I agree OHK from 100 are wrong, hence this entire post about lowering max damage from 100 to say 80, but the min damage should stay where it is
    Why do we need to balance the CQB meta so scouts can compete where they aren't supposed to? If you want to get into the action as a scout use one of his kit weapons actually designed for that. Don't run a bolt action if you need to run CQB, or if you do accept the fact that classes with automatic guns will roll you more often than not. This is pretty simple but apparently we need to cry for there to be buffs made because the STG44 was overpowered in the beta.

    Notice how shotgun users don't complain about being useless over distance, while also accepting the fact that their guns aren't even the best suited for short distance? The answer is obvious, making shotguns not require aim (they already don't really but at least you need solid meatshots for OHK) would make the gameplay terrible. There would be no challenge in using one or any point in trying to take someone on in close range if they had one. A lot of guns would be basically invalidated just so one could feel more realistic or whatever dumpster reason it is.

    Snipers in other games also do not have maps and game mechanics that cater to them. They do not have massively wide open maps or areas that are out of bounds for one team to hide in. In fact the maps are totally built around the other guns in the game, so in order for the sniper to have a place they have to be broken weapons.

    This isn't the case in Battlefield because the same risk/reward is gone. There is no risk to playing as a sniper in these games. And the people who play extremely low risk play styles do not need to be given easy kills on top of that. Pretty simple.

    And yes I do think the snipers should change; there should be highly damaging maybe limited OHK with a slow fire rate, or fast velocity with a good fire rate. We don't need a repeat of BF1 where you get all of those upsides and no downsides to speak of. I just don't think there's much point crying to this degree when there alternative options for scout in the retail game to bolt actions and that none of the game balance is set in stone anyway.

    So you complaining that snipers in BF1 were too over powered (they are, hence this entire thread) is not crying about it, but my suggesting a reasonable alternative is? Seems a little hypocritcal.

    If you think playing CQB scout in BF1 (more so on console) is "easy" for the general population with no downsides respective to other classes, then you might have a warped sense of what is easy and what isn't. I'm going to assume it's because you're a highly skilled player. The scout class was definitely more accessable to more players in BF1, but not to the point where it was easier playing that than say, assault. Especially with the AA nerf and TTK2.0 making other classes more lethal at all ranges.

    I'm not saying it shouldn't be high risk because it should. I'm just saying the reward should be above kolibri level. Playing aggressive scout in BF1 is already high risk without sweet spots. Adding sweet spots just put it in a realm where camping with long range guns became too easy which is why I'm suggesting the elimination of this mechanic while still not completely gutting the class.

    If scouts don't play on the objective at all, you have everyone complaining about how having any number of scouts on your team cost you the game and how all they do is camp a mile away etc etc. Between the two anti - scout camps, running a bolt action rifle (in a WW1 game mind you) should just be outawed. Shouldnt play CQB but also shouldnt play long range.

    The shotgun user isnt complaining about not being able to play long range because

    a) no one else is complaining that having shotguns on your team is ruining the game for everyone and

    b) it's much easier to avoid dying long range than it is to get mowed down in close range. Long range engagements you are more likely to be able to escape, where as in close ranges there will be a winner and loser usually or in other words, CQB is where most fights happen.
  • MarxistDictator
    4977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    There's the whole 'you can't help if you aren't 20m away from the enemy or less' strawman. If you legitimately believe that lol.

    And I don't think I ever once said scouts sticking to their effective range was a problem, I just said don't expect to be as effective in close range combat if you decide to run that vs classes designed for it. It is literally that simple.

    There is no stigma you need to overcome (all these inbuilt notions of what's fair need to gtfo) and you do not need to force the scout into close range to help your team playing it.

    If you want to play a class based game, you have to play within the design of that. That means not having as effective options for close range as the classes designed for that.

    But at the same time, their guns aren't perfect or well suited for long distances either.

    Its almost like they have different strengths and weaknesses or something.

    If you don't want any of that nonsense just go play a game with no classes, pretty basic no?
  • ashar_saleem121
    1245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    There's the whole 'you can't help if you aren't 20m away from the enemy or less' strawman. If you legitimately believe that lol.

    And I don't think I ever once said scouts sticking to their effective range was a problem, I just said don't expect to be as effective in close range combat if you decide to run that vs classes designed for it. It is literally that simple.

    There is no stigma you need to overcome (all these inbuilt notions of what's fair need to gtfo) and you do not need to force the scout into close range to help your team playing it.

    If you want to play a class based game, you have to play within the design of that. That means not having as effective options for close range as the classes designed for that.

    But at the same time, their guns aren't perfect or well suited for long distances either.

    Its almost like they have different strengths and weaknesses or something.

    If you don't want any of that nonsense just go play a game with no classes, pretty basic no?

    How about you get off your high horse and try to be a little less condescending, or don't comment on a thread about scouts when clearly you are biased against them. Pretty basic no?

    We're back at that absolute hypocrisy that the anti-scout camp has where "Scouts shouldnt play up close" and also "scouts are useless, all they do is camp far away". The same discussion I was trying to avoid because we have too many of those threads already.

    All this thread is about is a potential solution and whether that makes sense aa a happy medium for the two sides. You can comment on that or, as you so eloquently put it, GTFO.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm fine with the way scout plays in CQB in BF1 right now. It's not at an advantage over other classes, but it's still viable. A shotgun or SMG 08/18 or pretty much any SMG will still shut you down in close quarters if they're accurate. The fastest pistol swap TTK you can achieve is still 400 ms. Or you can just back up your rifle with a Bodeo, Obrez, or the Peacekeeper and use them in close quarters to achieve TTKs equal to or faster than SMGs since both the Obrez and Peackeeper can OHK.

    Which is why I don't like the low max damage of bolt actions in BFV. You can't really follow up with your pistol for a kill in any reasonable amount of time. Granted, that's based on the two pistols we've seen thus far. There are revolvers in the game as well, so I'm hoping they hit hard enough to make up for the low max damage of the bolt actions.
Sign In or Register to comment.