Suppresion needs a buff

12346»

Comments

  • DingoKillr
    3474 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It does not punish good players nor reward bad ones. It takes effect on who gets shot at first, obviously. If you are getting shot at first, you are not good.

    On a map like Hamada with wide open spaces great for distance kills and hard to traverse it would be nice to have another viable approach, other than spamming smoke, to advance. LMG and MMG users could lay down suppressing fire to throw off defenders aim and try to pin them down so advancing players could get closer, and then move up themselves, or die, and spawn on a teammate.

    If you're going to use the "rewards bad players" arguement, why not clamor for the removal of destructible environments? Why clear a room when a "bad player" could just blow it up?

    Your post basically confirmed my point.
    You think getting shot at first makes you a bad player. Okay so let’s say I’m a pro player who shoots first but completely miss every single shot. Than the bad player lines up a perfect headshot, and he now misses because the suppression effect makes his bullets become inaccurate.


    Sorry but you are wrong. Plain and simple.
    The good player is the accurate player.
    That’s how the game currently is, and if Battlefield ever wants a competitive scene, that is how it needs to remain.

    Also forget about your BF1 days and using suppression to disrupt snipers.
    MMGs are lazor accurate now, and can melt people at mid range.
    If you wanna compete with a Sniper, grab a sniper rifle, or SLR.
    Your pray and spray days are over lol.

    A pro player that shoots first and misses all their shots.... Not very professional. That's more user error than faulty mechanic. Then the bad player lines up a perfect headshot, while suppressed too, but misses because of said suppression? How does said player line up a perfect headshot while suppressed?
    Getting shot at first a lot implies you don't pay much attention to your surroundings. You just run in all noob fashion.
    Yer, must be a self called good player with accuracy like that. With such aim he is unlikely to even suppress what he calls bad players.
  • DingoKillr
    3474 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    None of you are thinking about the real question that needs discussing. Suppression in the context of BFV. Not how it used to be but how it will affect the current mechanics of this game.

    Any form of accuracy penalty from suppression will undoubtedly result in lost bullets. With so few available because of attrition anyway suppression would seriously hinder the gameplay and flow. It would be lopsided in favour of supports with infinite ammo and ruin the game for pretty much everyone else.

    If suppression comes in attrition needs to go for balance. Before the expected go to resupply Station comments a lot of the time that is not really an option especially when you're making a good push no one wants to turn around and resupply 100s of metres away.

    That is why I suggested elsewhere that suppression be only created by MMG only and the bullets damage be even lower at range. Making them effective long range suppression and not combat.

    The effects could be blurry edge with a tint increasing to a full colour edge and blurred full screen.

    No, attrition would not have to go to balance, we have had ammo attrition and suppression in three BF. In BFV you can pick up from the dead, ammo stations, squad supply drops and now grab from team mates. All that left is self-genrating ammo.
  • y_j_es_i
    1365 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 15
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    50 meters is still a bit too much for the player base IMO, I'd say cutting that distance in half if they were to implement it. The Boys AT (100 meters) doesn't seem well received and the ROF on that is abysmal + no ADS unless prone (still can be hipfired with success in CQ).

    The main reason the Boys is hated is because almost literally every user is a camper

    Seeing as the average engagement distance when ptfo is at around 5-60m, setting the cutting off at 25m would mean that at 25-60m bolt-actions would still need to land two rounds unless you get a headshot and at 25-60m any decent player will erase you before you can get a second shot off

    In terms of the Boys, camping + the OHK range, just like how people hate shotguns.

    This may be dependent on what platform the game is being played on, but giving Recon BA's a OHK non headshot out to 50m is just excessive. Youd end up with flares/the revolver (yes, all classes have access to it)/throwing knives + the headshot OHK at all ranges + the stickiness of aim slowdown on console.

    I’m on Xbox and creating a sweet spot at 10-40m and 10-70m depending on the BA’s damage would not be excessive. Proof that this wouldn’t be OP is in how few players actually ptfo with the Ross and SMLE in BFI. The Ross and SMLE in BFI are superior to every bolt-action in BFV as they actually have straight pull bolts and do more damage and have higher muzzle velocities and the SMLE carbine has a clear x2.5 sight that’s like a red dot and the Ross has x2 radium sights.
    If having a sweet spot at medium range was excessive then the Ross and SMLE would be abused and loads of players would use it and yet not only do I rarely see them used, I almost never see them used for playing the objective.
    Why?
    Because they’re not OP and the sweet spot is not excessive so even with a sweet spot most players would still rather use ARs, SLRs, SMGs and LMGs

    And seeing as SARs, ARs and LMGs are more accurate in BFV than they are in BFI BAs with sweet spots would be even less OP relatively in BFV than they were in BFI.
    At 10-70m SARs, LMGs and ARs can easily erase someone with a BA
  • y_j_es_i
    1365 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ^ to clarify, I’m taking about a sweet spot that’s only OHK to the head and torso
  • y_j_es_i
    1365 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    The amount of MMG’ers I’ve popped smoke on to close the gap then bop them in the head for an easy kill is a lot though.

    I’d be more interested in a punishment on actual hits than suppression though. If I hit you, you shouldn’t be able to maintain aim.

    In past BF suppression was higher when you got hit. In BF1 it took about 5 hits to be fully suppressed but it took 7+ near misses(about 5cm) around the head, even more if it was another hit zone or further away(i think up to 30cm) away.

    This was why comments like you are more likely to accidently die then be deliberately suppressed, was used in BF1.

    Just to note suppression in BF1 did not effect combat under 75m.

    Exactly. The people who actually got suppressed a lot were mostly just bad at being recons. I almost never get fully suppressed in BFI because at short-medium range I can usually roast the **** with a Molotov before he can actually suppress me and at longer ranges I can either disengage and flank them or if I have an SLR or Ba (which I probably would if they’re a long way) then I can easily dispatch the prone **** before he can fully suppress me.

    It’s also the case that at long range you can usually wait for support to arrive and help you deal with him. Sure he’d slow my advance but there’s nothing wrong with suppression slowing down an advance
  • dandop_oq7r7ppf
    207 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    50 meters is still a bit too much for the player base IMO, I'd say cutting that distance in half if they were to implement it. The Boys AT (100 meters) doesn't seem well received and the ROF on that is abysmal + no ADS unless prone (still can be hipfired with success in CQ).

    The main reason the Boys is hated is because almost literally every user is a camper

    Seeing as the average engagement distance when ptfo is at around 5-60m, setting the cutting off at 25m would mean that at 25-60m bolt-actions would still need to land two rounds unless you get a headshot and at 25-60m any decent player will erase you before you can get a second shot off

    In terms of the Boys, camping + the OHK range, just like how people hate shotguns.

    This may be dependent on what platform the game is being played on, but giving Recon BA's a OHK non headshot out to 50m is just excessive. Youd end up with flares/the revolver (yes, all classes have access to it)/throwing knives + the headshot OHK at all ranges + the stickiness of aim slowdown on console.

    I’m on Xbox and creating a sweet spot at 10-40m and 10-70m depending on the BA’s damage would not be excessive. Proof that this wouldn’t be OP is in how few players actually ptfo with the Ross and SMLE in BFI. The Ross and SMLE in BFI are superior to every bolt-action in BFV as they actually have straight pull bolts and do more damage and have higher muzzle velocities and the SMLE carbine has a clear x2.5 sight that’s like a red dot and the Ross has x2 radium sights.
    If having a sweet spot at medium range was excessive then the Ross and SMLE would be abused and loads of players would use it and yet not only do I rarely see them used, I almost never see them used for playing the objective.
    Why?
    Because they’re not OP and the sweet spot is not excessive so even with a sweet spot most players would still rather use ARs, SLRs, SMGs and LMGs

    And seeing as SARs, ARs and LMGs are more accurate in BFV than they are in BFI BAs with sweet spots would be even less OP relatively in BFV than they were in BFI.
    At 10-70m SARs, LMGs and ARs can easily erase someone with a BA

    I’m not a fan of the old sweet spot mechanic, but sometimes wonder with BFVs current TTK I find it strange that snipers are arguably at their weakest while every other gun is at their best.

    However on the flip side because there’s no suppression mechanic Snipers are very accurate, so maybe it already balances out.

    Honestly I’m open to any changes that brings Snipers closer to the objectives and MMGs out of the bushes.
  • StealthAria
    223 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    dandop_oq7r7ppf said:


    y_j_es_i wrote: »


    dandop_oq7r7ppf wrote: »


    filthmcnasty wrote: »


    dandop_oq7r7ppf wrote: »


    Trokey66 wrote: »


    dandop_oq7r7ppf wrote: »


    LINKERBLOX wrote: »


    dandop_oq7r7ppf wrote: »


    LINKERBLOX wrote: »


    dandop_oq7r7ppf wrote: »


    LINKERBLOX wrote: »
    A medic with a suomi killed me while i was suppresing the hell out of him with the MG42 and the suppresion perk, suppresion needs some sort of effect on accuracy



    Why do you need a game breaking mechanic to get kills?

    The whole concept of suppression effect is ridiculous.

    Yeah it’s supposed to replicate the “fear” of being shot, but this is a game. Not real life.

    The old suppression effect punished good player while rewarding bad players.



    I suggest you rely less on game breaking mechanics, and practice more on working on your aim.



    My aim is good, i hit him and he was fast enough to get into cover heal himself get out and HS me



    Well I don’t think wanting the developers to re-introduce a game breaking mechanic is the way to go.



    How is it game breaking



    Because if your aim is on target the suppression effect causes the shot to be inaccurate.

    So it punishes good players, and rewards bad players who simply pray and spray



    What exactly, is this 'reward' for bad aim?



    Lol seriously?

    Not sure if you’re being sarcastic.



    The “reward” for bad aim is surviving a gun fight by missing your target, and punishing the potential better player with suppression who would of otherwise headshot you.



    If this person would have "otherwise headshot you" that implies he was lining up a headshot when the incoming fire from the "bad player" was received. So did the "bad player" see this headshotter and put down suppressing fire to survive? I would call that smart because he used the games mechanics to stay alive and fight on. Are you gunna try and remove revives next? After all, those people did die





    This whole post is how that old suppression mechanic needs to return because too many bi-poders are dying to snipers.

    Sure using the current games mechanics is smart, but again the old system is too easy.



    Take this example with how the current system works in BFV.

    Bad player see a target, fires, and misses.

    Perhaps the bad player gets a hit marker, but misses 80% of his shots.

    The Good player hears the shots. Reacts. Turns around, lines up a head shot while under fire, and instantly kills the bad player.





    In BF1 that good player who was caught off guard can’t defend himself. His perfect aim would be rendered inaccurate due to a game mechanic.

    Yes there’s ways to counter act this, and yes, the good player could retreat, and find another angle.

    But that still doesn’t take away the fact that Suppression is low skilled, and any person can miss a shot, and be rewarded for it by surviving.



    And no I’m not saying all bi-ponders are bad, and Yes I know suppression is a real world tactic, but the Mechanic of suppression is too easily abused by bad players.

    Basically it lowers the skill level.

    The game currently rewards aim, and positioning. And if Battlefield is ever serious about a competitive scene, they would be smart to leave suppression mechanic behind.







    And no I don’t want revives removed....







    You’re exaggerating the effect suppression had. In BFI my favourite weapons are the Farquhar and the Ross and even when a support starts shooting first in a duel I usually win. Landing three rounds with the Farquhar when suppressed really isn’t a big deal unless they’re far away and at long range they couldn’t kill you in good time anyway. Landing a headshot on either the first or second attempt was pretty straight forward too



    No I’m not over exaggerating . I’m simply stating a typical scenario with how the old suppression system worked.



    Yes I overcame the old suppression mechanics too.

    I’m not saying it’s difficult, only that the old system was easily abused, and awards a low skill level player who can’t aim regardless of class or weapon.

    yes I’m aware that I also suppressed enemies.



    My favorite rifle is the Ross as well.

    So hold on, you fully admit that suppression can be overcome, but claim it somehow only benefits bad players and punishes the good.  Wouldn't a good player be able to overcome suppression to win against a bad player then?  You defeated your own argument.
    If a player has to use suppression a crutch, they should still lose the gunfight against a proper good player.  If the "good" player couldn't win against someone relying on suppression then they simply aren't a good a player as they claim.


    BF3's system was horrid, a Recon would end up losing any chance of hitting his target if so much as a single stray bullet went within 10m of him, and at full suppression you'd have bullets exiting your barrel at 90° angles.  That's the only suppression effect that ever actually punished good players and rewarded bad ones.


    That’s exactly what I said.
    Yes Any good player can overcome suppression.

    Any good player should be able to overcome what game mechanics the game uses.

    What I don’t like is how easy it is to suppress, and it lowers the skill level, by teaching people to pray and spray , it drags out a gun fight that should of ended quickly by causing bullet deviation.



    Perhaps in the next BF game there will be a new mechanic that everytime a grenade lands by your feet your controls become restricted, replicating a “Fear effect” and yes we could sit here defending that “fear effect”
    I’d argue it’s abused by grenade spamming newbs, you would defend it saying It’s a real tactic.


    Except only BF3's suppression caused deviation of any kind, every other title only had increased sight sway or recoil, that's what I was getting at with my second paragraph.  Any battlefield game with suppression other than 3, your entire team can be lobbing shots right over a sniper's head and as long as he can get the sights under control he can still pop heads with pinpoint precision.
  • dandop_oq7r7ppf
    207 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 15
    Except only BF3's suppression caused deviation of any kind, every other title only had increased sight sway or recoil, that's what I was getting at with my second paragraph.  Any battlefield game with suppression other than 3, your entire team can be lobbing shots right over a sniper's head and as long as he can get the sights under control he can still pop heads with pinpoint precision.[/quote]

    Regardless it was a mechanic that would handicap an opponent. I’m not a fan of it.

    I currently like what BFV offers in terms of gunplay. Accuracy matters, and not always who shot at who first.
    You can get shot at, react, and turn the tides in your favour.
    This applies to all classes.
    In the OPs original post it was a medic who outplayed the Support.

    That being said I’m open to adjustments. Especially if it will bring players to the objectives.

  • KMAsterisk
    204 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    50 meters is still a bit too much for the player base IMO, I'd say cutting that distance in half if they were to implement it. The Boys AT (100 meters) doesn't seem well received and the ROF on that is abysmal + no ADS unless prone (still can be hipfired with success in CQ).

    The main reason the Boys is hated is because almost literally every user is a camper

    Seeing as the average engagement distance when ptfo is at around 5-60m, setting the cutting off at 25m would mean that at 25-60m bolt-actions would still need to land two rounds unless you get a headshot and at 25-60m any decent player will erase you before you can get a second shot off

    In terms of the Boys, camping + the OHK range, just like how people hate shotguns.

    This may be dependent on what platform the game is being played on, but giving Recon BA's a OHK non headshot out to 50m is just excessive. Youd end up with flares/the revolver (yes, all classes have access to it)/throwing knives + the headshot OHK at all ranges + the stickiness of aim slowdown on console.

    I’m on Xbox and creating a sweet spot at 10-40m and 10-70m depending on the BA’s damage would not be excessive. Proof that this wouldn’t be OP is in how few players actually ptfo with the Ross and SMLE in BFI. The Ross and SMLE in BFI are superior to every bolt-action in BFV as they actually have straight pull bolts and do more damage and have higher muzzle velocities and the SMLE carbine has a clear x2.5 sight that’s like a red dot and the Ross has x2 radium sights.
    If having a sweet spot at medium range was excessive then the Ross and SMLE would be abused and loads of players would use it and yet not only do I rarely see them used, I almost never see them used for playing the objective.
    Why?
    Because they’re not OP and the sweet spot is not excessive so even with a sweet spot most players would still rather use ARs, SLRs, SMGs and LMGs

    And seeing as SARs, ARs and LMGs are more accurate in BFV than they are in BFI BAs with sweet spots would be even less OP relatively in BFV than they were in BFI.
    At 10-70m SARs, LMGs and ARs can easily erase someone with a BA

    With the Ross/SMLE you also had other weapons crossing in to that sweetspot range, not to mention the Martini Henry prior to its nerf. But sure, BF1s are hands down better (not to mention switching from primary to pistol was also faster). That's also a good part of the reason why the mechanic was removed for V I would imagine.

    10-40 would work I guess, but extending the ranges of OHK is touchy. IMO, the biggest issue is the range assaults weapons have, and I'd sooner see them addressed further than buff the other classes.

  • y_j_es_i
    1365 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 15
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    KMAsterisk wrote: »
    50 meters is still a bit too much for the player base IMO, I'd say cutting that distance in half if they were to implement it. The Boys AT (100 meters) doesn't seem well received and the ROF on that is abysmal + no ADS unless prone (still can be hipfired with success in CQ).

    The main reason the Boys is hated is because almost literally every user is a camper

    Seeing as the average engagement distance when ptfo is at around 5-60m, setting the cutting off at 25m would mean that at 25-60m bolt-actions would still need to land two rounds unless you get a headshot and at 25-60m any decent player will erase you before you can get a second shot off

    In terms of the Boys, camping + the OHK range, just like how people hate shotguns.

    This may be dependent on what platform the game is being played on, but giving Recon BA's a OHK non headshot out to 50m is just excessive. Youd end up with flares/the revolver (yes, all classes have access to it)/throwing knives + the headshot OHK at all ranges + the stickiness of aim slowdown on console.

    I’m on Xbox and creating a sweet spot at 10-40m and 10-70m depending on the BA’s damage would not be excessive. Proof that this wouldn’t be OP is in how few players actually ptfo with the Ross and SMLE in BFI. The Ross and SMLE in BFI are superior to every bolt-action in BFV as they actually have straight pull bolts and do more damage and have higher muzzle velocities and the SMLE carbine has a clear x2.5 sight that’s like a red dot and the Ross has x2 radium sights.
    If having a sweet spot at medium range was excessive then the Ross and SMLE would be abused and loads of players would use it and yet not only do I rarely see them used, I almost never see them used for playing the objective.
    Why?
    Because they’re not OP and the sweet spot is not excessive so even with a sweet spot most players would still rather use ARs, SLRs, SMGs and LMGs

    And seeing as SARs, ARs and LMGs are more accurate in BFV than they are in BFI BAs with sweet spots would be even less OP relatively in BFV than they were in BFI.
    At 10-70m SARs, LMGs and ARs can easily erase someone with a BA

    With the Ross/SMLE you also had other weapons crossing in to that sweetspot range, not to mention the Martini Henry prior to its nerf. But sure, BF1s are hands down better (not to mention switching from primary to pistol was also faster). That's also a good part of the reason why the mechanic was removed for V I would imagine.

    10-40 would work I guess, but extending the ranges of OHK is touchy. IMO, the biggest issue is the range assaults weapons have, and I'd sooner see them addressed further than buff the other classes.

    The reason why they made the SAR super accurate and have really low recoil at launch was because in BFI the only people who had a chance against some sniper who was camping 150m or even just 100m away were other snipers. By making SARs and LMGs more accurate, they made it so that assaults and supports could fight back against snipers, only they took it way too far and made SARs better than all the sniper rifles

    The issue with nerfing assault as opposed to buffing recons at short-medium range is that it’d just encourage recons to operate further away, outside the effective ranges of the SARs.
    On the other hand if we were to buff recons at short-medium range then more recons would be willing to ptfo and at the same time assaults and supports would still have a good chance against the campers who camp more than 100m away from the objectives
  • TheyHaveScissors
    565 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bran1986 said:
    If you lost to a Suomi with a mg42 at a range you think suppression is a viable tactic, you need to work on your aim.

    I dont think you understand what suppression is.
Sign In or Register to comment.