#MakeSnipersGreatAgain - How to fix BF 5 scoped Air guns

Comments

  • One_Called_Kane
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:

    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no
    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.
    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?
    I have literally never seen it.
    What does this mean?
    Absolutely nothing, as you are:
    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,
     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.
    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.
    Because you say so.
    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster
    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.
    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?
    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs
    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has 1. No squad system
    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics
    3. Completely different movement
    4. Completely different map sizes
    5. Completely different team sizes
    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43
    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.
    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do
    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 22
    They literally only have to give us either the BF4 bolt action damage model or the BF1 damage model without sweetspots. Maybe make the pistol swap slightly faster than in BF1 to match the new faster TTK of BFV. Velocities should match BF1.

    The damage model we're stuck with now is a result of attrition. Back in the first alpha there was no bandages. The damage of bolt actions was balanced around players running around with low health after being in a firefight. You were expected to relatively often get one hit kill body shots as a result of the initial plans for attrition. That's simply not anywhere near as often the case now that everyone spawns in with bandages to self heal. The bolt action damage model was never updated to reflect the addition of self healing on any class.
  • Snookray83
    22 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I highly doubt we will see any changes to the recon class we are stuck with what we currently have unfortunately. The soldier movement/animations annoy me more than anything when it comes to sniping.
  • Hawxxeye
    6332 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I highly doubt we will see any changes to the recon class we are stuck with what we currently have unfortunately. The soldier movement/animations annoy me more than anything when it comes to sniping.
    Unless the offspring of a high ranked dev/executive decides to say to them:
    "Daddy, why's this happening? I can be a decent Sniper in BF4 and BF1 but why am I so weak in BFV?
    He/she will look at them being unable to understand it and make them agree that he she is right and that it is not okay.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    (...)
    Yeah OHK up to 60m on bodyshots would get stupid fast.
    That said the damage does need to go somewhere much closer to 100 without reaching 100.
    I don't think that 60m OHK will be necessarily bad IF sniping has massive scope sway, very slow ROF, etc to balance out and the head hitbox is smaller. 

    On Heroes & Generals, i can mod my springfield/mosin/k98 to OHK at even 200m, using heavy bolt, the heaviest ammo, etc; but the weapon becomes too slow and unstable that doesn't worth. You increase the OHK area by 2x but makes hit in that area 5x times harder and honestly, even in prone position, the sway is higher than standing on any BF game.
  • Hawxxeye
    6332 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    (...)
    Yeah OHK up to 60m on bodyshots would get stupid fast.
    That said the damage does need to go somewhere much closer to 100 without reaching 100.
    I don't think that 60m OHK will be necessarily bad IF sniping has massive scope sway, very slow ROF, etc to balance out and the head hitbox is smaller. 

    On Heroes & Generals, i can mod my springfield/mosin/k98 to OHK at even 200m, using heavy bolt, the heaviest ammo, etc; but the weapon becomes too slow and unstable that doesn't worth. You increase the OHK area by 2x but makes hit in that area 5x times harder and honestly, even in prone position, the sway is higher than standing on any BF game.
    Well I was talking based on the sway of BFV. If one is to remake the mechanics from the ground up then anything goes I guess.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    Hawxxeye said:
    (...)
    Yeah OHK up to 60m on bodyshots would get stupid fast.
    That said the damage does need to go somewhere much closer to 100 without reaching 100.
    I don't think that 60m OHK will be necessarily bad IF sniping has massive scope sway, very slow ROF, etc to balance out and the head hitbox is smaller. 

    On Heroes & Generals, i can mod my springfield/mosin/k98 to OHK at even 200m, using heavy bolt, the heaviest ammo, etc; but the weapon becomes too slow and unstable that doesn't worth. You increase the OHK area by 2x but makes hit in that area 5x times harder and honestly, even in prone position, the sway is higher than standing on any BF game.
    Well I was talking based on the sway of BFV. If one is to remake the mechanics from the ground up then anything goes I guess.
    Yes, i agree. BFs aren't balanced around the idea of OHK snipers. To make OHK at long ranges, needs to do not just small buffs, but an complete overall not only from weapons, but for the maps and gadgets(smoke should lasts more), so in other words, change completely the game.
  • Kunstula
    444 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks said:
    The damage of bolt actions was balanced around players running around with low health after being in a firefight. You were expected to relatively often get one hit kill body shots as a result of the initial plans for attrition.
    So there we have the real cause of the bolt action rifles lacking damage. They balanced all other weapon classes around full health players, but bolt action rifles around wounded players. What an utter ridiculous case of double standards.
  • StealthAria
    350 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Kunstula said:
    Sixclicks said:
    The damage of bolt actions was balanced around players running around with low health after being in a firefight. You were expected to relatively often get one hit kill body shots as a result of the initial plans for attrition.
    So there we have the real cause of the bolt action rifles lacking damage. They balanced all other weapon classes around full health players, but bolt action rifles around wounded players. What an utter ridiculous case of double standards.
    They've been balanced the same since at least bf3, the only difference is they dropped max damage because people didn't like getting 1-shot when they tried to knife a Recon, the minimum damage has remained largely unchanged.

    BF1 had the best balanced rifles in a long while, most realistic too.
  • mf_shro0m
    1862 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 23
    Hawxxeye said:

    (...)

    Yeah OHK up to 60m on bodyshots would get stupid fast.That said the damage does need to go somewhere much closer to 100 without reaching 100.


    I don't think that 60m OHK will be necessarily bad IF sniping has massive scope sway, very slow ROF, etc to balance out and the head hitbox is smaller. 

    On Heroes & Generals, i can mod my springfield/mosin/k98 to OHK at even 200m, using heavy bolt, the heaviest ammo, etc; but the weapon becomes too slow and unstable that doesn't worth. You increase the OHK area by 2x but makes hit in that area 5x times harder and honestly, even in prone position, the sway is higher than standing on any BF game.
    Hawxxeye said:

    -L-M3rc3n4ry said:

    Hawxxeye said:

    (...)

    Yeah OHK up to 60m on bodyshots would get stupid fast.That said the damage does need to go somewhere much closer to 100 without reaching 100.


    I don't think that 60m OHK will be necessarily bad IF sniping has massive scope sway, very slow ROF, etc to balance out and the head hitbox is smaller. 

    On Heroes & Generals, i can mod my springfield/mosin/k98 to OHK at even 200m, using heavy bolt, the heaviest ammo, etc; but the weapon becomes too slow and unstable that doesn't worth. You increase the OHK area by 2x but makes hit in that area 5x times harder and honestly, even in prone position, the sway is higher than standing on any BF game.

    Well I was talking based on the sway of BFV. If one is to remake the mechanics from the ground up then anything goes I guess.


    Yes, i agree. BFs aren't balanced around the idea of OHK snipers. To make OHK at long ranges, needs to do not just small buffs, but an complete overall not only from weapons, but for the maps and gadgets(smoke should lasts more), so in other words, change completely the game.

    Not necessarily. I think that if you lengthened the ADS time and increased the sway of scoped weapons then it’d be pretty fair. Essentially what that would do is make it so that BA riflemen have greater incentive to run their weapon with iron sights and get closer. Running their BA with iron sights would inherently create a trade off of greatly reducing their ease of use at longer ranges (exacerbated by BA bullet drop and the inability to hold your breath with iron sights equipped) whilst allowing them to better compete at closer ranges.

    If the increased ADS times of scoped weapons was also applied to the assault and support classes then more assaults would start running iron sights as opposed to x3 scopes which I think would be a very good thing
  • mf_shro0m
    1862 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Kunstula said:

    Sixclicks said:
    The damage of bolt actions was balanced around players running around with low health after being in a firefight. You were expected to relatively often get one hit kill body shots as a result of the initial plans for attrition.

    So there we have the real cause of the bolt action rifles lacking damage. They balanced all other weapon classes around full health players, but bolt action rifles around wounded players. What an utter ridiculous case of double standards.


    They've been balanced the same since at least bf3, the only difference is they dropped max damage because people didn't like getting 1-shot when they tried to knife a Recon, the minimum damage has remained largely unchanged.

    BF1 had the best balanced rifles in a long while, most realistic too.

    Getting one shot in CQC is really goddamn frustrating and is why I think that the OHK to chest/torso sweet spot should start at 10m, meaning that people can’t quickscope someone from a metre or two away. This would also mean the BAs can’t effectively be used a shotguns
  • mf_shro0m
    1862 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 23
    Kunstula said:

    Sixclicks said:
    The damage of bolt actions was balanced around players running around with low health after being in a firefight. You were expected to relatively often get one hit kill body shots as a result of the initial plans for attrition.

    So there we have the real cause of the bolt action rifles lacking damage. They balanced all other weapon classes around full health players, but bolt action rifles around wounded players. What an utter ridiculous case of double standards.


    They've been balanced the same since at least bf3, the only difference is they dropped max damage because people didn't like getting 1-shot when they tried to knife a Recon, the minimum damage has remained largely unchanged.

    BF1 had the best balanced rifles in a long while, most realistic too.

    My issue with the BFI system is that it’s sweet spot system encouraged some players to operate 100-150m from their targets, which facilitates camping.
    My proposition is that the sweet spot for BAs should be at 10-30m or 10-60m for the lower damage and higher damage BAs respectively as this would encourage players with BAs to operate 10-30m or 10-60m from hostiles, I.e. about where they would be if they were sticking with their squad and/or ptfo
  • StealthAria
    350 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    Kunstula said:

    Sixclicks said:
    The damage of bolt actions was balanced around players running around with low health after being in a firefight. You were expected to relatively often get one hit kill body shots as a result of the initial plans for attrition.

    So there we have the real cause of the bolt action rifles lacking damage. They balanced all other weapon classes around full health players, but bolt action rifles around wounded players. What an utter ridiculous case of double standards.


    They've been balanced the same since at least bf3, the only difference is they dropped max damage because people didn't like getting 1-shot when they tried to knife a Recon, the minimum damage has remained largely unchanged.

    BF1 had the best balanced rifles in a long while, most realistic too.

    My issue with the BFI system is that it’s sweet spot system encouraged some players to operate 100-150m from their targets, which facilitates camping.
    My proposition is that the sweet spot for BAs should be at 10-30m or 10-60m for the lower damage and higher damage BAs respectively as this would encourage players with BAs to operate 10-30m or 10-60m from hostiles, I.e. about where they would be if they were sticking with their squad and/or ptfo
    The only rifle with a sweet spot going past 100m was the 1903 Springfield, went from 110-150.  It was by far the least used rifle because right up until its sweet spot it had slower bullets than the Gewher M98 and the Gewher was still only barely slower by the end of it, making it niche rifle specifically for extreme long range sniping.
    The most commonly used rifles all had sweet spots in the range of 30-80, with each only having a sweet spot 40m long or less. (Martini-Henry was only at max damage for 25m) 
  • mf_shro0m
    1862 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:

    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no

    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.



    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?

    I have literally never seen it.

    What does this mean?


    Absolutely nothing, as you are:

    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,
     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.



    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.


    Because you say so.



    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster


    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.




    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.

    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?

    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs


    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has
    1. No squad system

    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics

    3. Completely different movement

    4. Completely different map sizes

    5. Completely different team sizes



    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43


    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.



    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do

    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.

    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either
  • DingoKillr
    3738 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    y_j_es_i said:

    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no

    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.



    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?

    I have literally never seen it.

    What does this mean?


    Absolutely nothing, as you are:

    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,
     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.



    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.


    Because you say so.



    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster


    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.




    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.

    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?

    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs


    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has
    1. No squad system

    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics

    3. Completely different movement

    4. Completely different map sizes

    5. Completely different team sizes



    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43


    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.



    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do

    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.

    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either
    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 

    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 
  • mf_shro0m
    1862 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 23
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:


    One_Called_Kane wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:



    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no



    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.







    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?



    I have literally never seen it.



    What does this mean?





    Absolutely nothing, as you are:



    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,

     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.







    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.





    Because you say so.







    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster





    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.









    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.



    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?



    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs





    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has

    1. No squad system



    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics



    3. Completely different movement



    4. Completely different map sizes



    5. Completely different team sizes







    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43





    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.







    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do



    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.





    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.



    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?



    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.



    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 

    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 

    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.
    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away

    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too
  • One_Called_Kane
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:

    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either
    No this is practical experience. That is precisely how snipers worked in Battlefield 2, which had probably one of the best balanced class setups out of all their titles.

    I clocked precious few hours into BF1, so you could tell me the Smiley was a literal Martian Heat Ray and I wouldn't know any differently. I have seen no shortage of people complaining that the entire **** mechanic in general was OP, though. Even the majority of Recon players on this forum aren't pushing for its return.

    I personally feel that a faster sidearm swap speed, drag reduction to emphasize the increased range performance vs. semi-auto rifles and LMGs like the Bren combined with a damage boost to a level that allows for a comfortable TTK cushion in case of a missed headshot will be sufficient. I think this will bring Recon players to a level where they not only have an improved chance to defend themselves in close quarters, but more importantly will place them firmly in the top spot for ranged combat instead of barely edging it out.

    Perhaps this won't be enough. I rather doubt it, but even so it's not like something can only be tweaked once. I'd much prefer small buffs until balance is achieved over time to a seesaw of over-buffs and nerfs until everyone is frustrated.
  • DingoKillr
    3738 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:


    One_Called_Kane wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:



    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no



    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.







    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?



    I have literally never seen it.



    What does this mean?





    Absolutely nothing, as you are:



    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,

     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.







    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.





    Because you say so.







    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster





    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.









    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.



    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?



    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs





    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has

    1. No squad system



    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics



    3. Completely different movement



    4. Completely different map sizes



    5. Completely different team sizes







    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43





    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.







    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do



    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.





    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.



    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?



    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.



    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 

    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 

    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.
    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away

    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too
    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  

    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 

    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

     

    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 

    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 
  • mf_shro0m
    1862 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 24
    y_j_es_i said:


    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.



    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?



    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

    No this is practical experience. That is precisely how snipers worked in Battlefield 2, which had probably one of the best balanced class setups out of all their titles.
    I clocked precious few hours into BF1, so you could tell me the Smiley was a literal Martian Heat Ray and I wouldn't know any differently. I have seen no shortage of people complaining that the entire **** mechanic in general was OP, though. Even the majority of Recon players on this forum aren't pushing for its return.

    I personally feel that a faster sidearm swap speed, drag reduction to emphasize the increased range performance vs. semi-auto rifles and LMGs like the Bren combined with a damage boost to a level that allows for a comfortable TTK cushion in case of a missed headshot will be sufficient. I think this will bring Recon players to a level where they not only have an improved chance to defend themselves in close quarters, but more importantly will place them firmly in the top spot for ranged combat instead of barely edging it out.

    Perhaps this won't be enough. I rather doubt it, but even so it's not like something can only be tweaked once. I'd much prefer small buffs until balance is achieved over time to a seesaw of over-buffs and nerfs until everyone is frustrated.

    Perhaps the Goldilocks zone is a system that they haven’t tried yet

    Btw, I’m advocating for reducing drag and increasing the BAs’ bullet speeds to their real life values too. I think that at long range, that’s all the BAs need, hence why I’m against the BFI system where people could OHK at up to 150m.
    I can see why Dice wanted to make it so that assaults and supports stood a chance against snipers camping on the edges of maps, especially given the anger towards snipers following BFI. Of course, Dice did overdo it and assaults are currently too good against snipers at long range.

    As for why there was so much anger towards recons in BFI, I mean from what I’ve seen there’s almost just as much anger towards recons in the general BFV community in spite of recons having been heavily nerfed since BFI. I believe that this illustrates that the anger isn’t so much to do with the sweet spot system and really is predominantly towards the sheer number of recons camping on the edges of maps and not contributing to the game.

    The reason why I see a difference between having a sweet spot at 10-60m and having one at 100-150m, is that if recons want to utilise a sweet spot at 10-60m then they’ll need to operate at a distance where assaults and supports can comfortably erase them and medics can easily close the gap. Hence, it’ll be a nearly even fight, with most recons at a small disadvantage.
    Whereas, if the sweet spot were at 100-150m then I can see why supports, medics and some assaults would complain. I mean none of the support guns other than the Bren (the slowest firing MG) are accurate past 100m, medics would struggle to cover 100m even with two canisters of smoke and the ARs just aren’t made for combat at 100m+ (except the Ribey, but even then it has a ~500rpm and you’d need to be set up, making you an easy target for headshots). So with a sweet spot at 100-150m, that becomes a golden zone for recons where the other classes don’t stand a chance, which isn’t fair.
    This is why I believe such a system would be a lot more fair than BFI’s.

    If damage and velocity were increased and drag reduced then sure, recons would stand a better chance in CQC and at long range but 30/40m-100m would be a distance recons avoid which means that there wouldn’t be a partial migration of recons from long range to ptfo. Given the size of BFV’s maps and average engagement distances, 30/40-100m is an important distance for ptfo. You might, but I saw your stats and you’re evidently in the top 10%. The fact that you’re on PC also means that you overestimate how easy it is to get headshots in a flash on consoles.
    The issue with this option, is that it just wouldn’t encourage the vast, vast majority of players to ptfo as opposed to camping in the distance and being of no help which is what the bulk of the community wants to happen. I’ve entered quite a few games of breakthrough(?) on aerodrome where my team’s ‘defending’ but most of my team will be camped outside the objective area. It’s just astonishing.
    That’s why I never play aerodrome anymore

    I get what you mean about preferring small increments but I fear that if they did that then people would just settle for something that’s familiar and better than what we have now and we’ll never get to search for the Goldilocks zone. I’d rather they tried to find a better solutions and got it wrong than if they never tried at all
  • mf_shro0m
    1862 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:


    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    One_Called_Kane wrote: »

    y_j_es_i said:







    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no







    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.















    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?







    I have literally never seen it.







    What does this mean?











    Absolutely nothing, as you are:







    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,



     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.















    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.











    Because you say so.















    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster











    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.



















    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.







    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?







    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs











    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has



    1. No squad system







    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics







    3. Completely different movement







    4. Completely different map sizes







    5. Completely different team sizes















    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43











    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.















    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do







    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.











    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.







    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?







    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.







    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either



    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.



    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 



    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 



    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.

    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away



    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too

    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  

    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 

    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

     

    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 

    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 

    I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.
    Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.

    The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS

    If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS
Sign In or Register to comment.