Lack of gun variety post-5.2

«1
PeaceWeaver
210 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
Since DICE is just going to disregard simple “revert 5.2” posts, here’s something meatier to sink your teeth into.

After 5.2, the gun meta (which DICE ostensibly sought to eliminate) has been further narrowed down to a handful of weapons. As someone who used to use a wide variety of faction-specific weapons pre-5.2, this has made the game much less satisfying for me. I don’t study weapon stat graphs or anything like that, but I know what weapons feel good to use, and I know what I’m getting killed by the most. This is my experience post-5.2:

SARs feel utterly terrible to use now, and are an inferior choice to the STG 44 in pretty much all engagement ranges. I used to hear Garand pings ALL the time on Pacific maps, which was very immersive, but that is no longer the case. If I get killed by an assault player, they’re almost always running the STG 44 now, even more so than before. There’s a small niche for the m1907 in CQC, but it’s increasingly rare to see any assault pick that gun over the STG 44. I expect SARs might still be viable on PC, where precision aiming is easier to achieve than on console, but can’t really speak to that since I’m on PS4.

SMGs are a shadow of their former selves. Mid-range options are virtually non-existent now, which means that SMG medics are back to losing gun fights on most Conquest maps (which were designed in such a way as to encourage mid/long range gunplay). Iconic WW2 SMGs like the sten and the MP40 feel like a self-gimp when you use them, especially when you encounter an STG 44. The Jungle Carbine is a decent option for mid-range, true, but you’re still better off using the STG 44, so why bother? For CQC, there is one gun that is outshining the rest at the moment: the Type 2A. The Tommy and Suomi are still in use and still effective, but most medics are running the 2A now due to its quick reload and the server’s inability to keep up with the gun’s high ROF. Modes that encourage CQC like Breakthrough and Squad Conquest are dominated by this gun.

LMGs. Whoo boy. I used to main support alongside medic, but I’ve barely touched the class since LMGs were butchered. The AR-type LMGs that are meant to be used at close/mid range are outgunned by the STG 44. Since attrition is even less of a factor now, you are literally putting yourself at a disadvantage if you’re trying to play support aggressively. Aggressive supports are just inferior assaults with ammo boxes that no one actually needs anymore. Of the mid/long range options, only the Lewis (and the Bren, to a lesser extent) remains viable, and is less effective than it was previously. As for MMGs, I literally cannot recall when last I was killed by one post-5.2. They’ve been replaced by the 2A on corridor-heavy CQC maps like Operation Underground. Shotguns remain a niche, barely used weapon outside of certain maps.

As for recon, I barely play the class, so I can’t really comment. All I know is that aggressive recon is even harder to play now UNLESS you’re running something like the ZH/RSC and are able to get the jump on a single enemy or two. Objective areas are dominated by medics running the 2A and assaults running the STG 44, which will beat aggressive recon options every time. Aggressive recons were a rarity pre-5.2, and they’re practically non-existent now. I only use my recon when I need to spawn in on a team mate’s beacon to drop a beacon for my own squad. If I’m unable to pick up a better weapon from a fallen enemy, I just accept my inevitable death.

Is this what you wanted, DICE? You complained previously that too many guns were “too effective” at multiple ranges, and that this led to people sticking with their favourite gun. While that may have been true, the old damage model meant that we felt like we COULD be effective with any gun, and that the gun you chose was a matter of aesthetic preference and play style. It also meant that people like me, who enjoy using faction-specific weapons for immersion, could actually use faction-specific weapons without gimping ourselves. 5.2 has completely messed with class balance to the point where people who care about their performance now choose what class they play based on the map and the game mode. Aggressive mid range? Assault and STG 44. Passive/defensive mid range? Support and Lewis (though you can achieve the same thing with assault and STG 44). Aggressive CQC? Medic and Type 2A. Passive long range? Recon and your preferred BA rifle. I know you tried to ensure that each class has weapons for each type of engagement range, but people will almost ALWAYS pick the most versatile class/weapon combo for the mode they’re playing. When so-called “mid-range” SMGs and SARs lose practically every time to the STG 44, who in their right mind will use those weapons over the STG 44? When “close range” LMGs, MMGs, shotguns, pistol carbines, and ARs lose practically every time to the Type 2A, who in their right mind would use those weapons over the Type 2A?

It’s boring using the same weapons. It’s boring dying to the same weapons. Please revert 5.2 so we can go back to the weapon variety we previously enjoyed.

Comments

  • CT1924
    1354 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Agreed
  • PeaceWeaver
    210 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It still kind of boggles my mind that almost every patch notes had a line about "gave SMGs better drop-off or lower recoil to keep them viable at mid-range" and then they just turn around and give them all drop-off ranges of water guns in 5.2.

    Pre-5.2 seemed like changes introduced by someone who understood how the game played, but 5.2 seemed like some dumb decision by a higher up that just ruined everything. "Make the game easier for new people!" instead of "Hey, balance this mess and keep introducing new content to keep the players we have and get new ones hooked."

    Exactly. It took TIME for SMGs to become what they were in 5.0. I remember when SMGs were completely useless at anything other than extreme CQC, and people begged for buffs. Medics eventually got those buffs. For a while, SMGs were in a really good place for mid-range gameplay, and could compete with SARs. Now we’re basically almost back to square one, with ARs dominating mid-range.

    A big part of the problem, IMO, is DICE’s definition of “mid-range” versus “long-range.” You can really see it in my video below. I completed the mastery assignment that requires kills beyond 30m with the Type 2A. All of DICE’s “ranged” weapons in the 5.2 patch notes are most effective at distances of “>20m.” The “balanced” weapons (i.e. those that are supposed to excel at mid-range) are most effective at “10-30m.” It can be hard to accurately gauge those distances in game, but assignments make it easier. So here’s that video:



    By DICE’s damage definitions, that assignment is one in which “ranged” weapons would excel. In other words, it is necessary to get kills beyond “mid-range” to complete the assignment. I completed that assignment in this video... HOW ON EARTH IS 30M CONSIDERED “RANGED”? Are you effing kidding me? If I can very clearly see an enemy on my screen without a scope, it is NOT RANGED. These “ranged” kills are what most of us would consider the lower end of “mid-range.” This is why most “close range” SMGs with extreme damage drop off after 15m feel so trash right now.

  • RamFrog
    121 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It still kind of boggles my mind that almost every patch notes had a line about "gave SMGs better drop-off or lower recoil to keep them viable at mid-range" and then they just turn around and give them all drop-off ranges of water guns in 5.2.

    Pre-5.2 seemed like changes introduced by someone who understood how the game played, but 5.2 seemed like some dumb decision by a higher up that just ruined everything. "Make the game easier for new people!" instead of "Hey, balance this mess and keep introducing new content to keep the players we have and get new ones hooked."

    Exactly. It took TIME for SMGs to become what they were in 5.0. I remember when SMGs were completely useless at anything other than extreme CQC, and people begged for buffs. Medics eventually got those buffs. For a while, SMGs were in a really good place for mid-range gameplay, and could compete with SARs. Now we’re basically almost back to square one, with ARs dominating mid-range.

    A big part of the problem, IMO, is DICE’s definition of “mid-range” versus “long-range.” You can really see it in my video below. I completed the mastery assignment that requires kills beyond 30m with the Type 2A. All of DICE’s “ranged” weapons in the 5.2 patch notes are most effective at distances of “>20m.” The “balanced” weapons (i.e. those that are supposed to excel at mid-range) are most effective at “10-30m.” It can be hard to accurately gauge those distances in game, but assignments make it easier. So here’s that video:

    image

    By DICE’s damage definitions, that assignment is one in which “ranged” weapons would excel. In other words, it is necessary to get kills beyond “mid-range” to complete the assignment. I completed that assignment in this video... HOW ON EARTH IS 30M CONSIDERED “RANGED”? Are you effing kidding me? If I can very clearly see an enemy on my screen without a scope, it is NOT RANGED. These “ranged” kills are what most of us would consider the lower end of “mid-range.” This is why most “close range” SMGs with extreme damage drop off after 15m feel so trash right now.

    For me all those kills on video were made at close combat distances. In video games the perception of range is skewed, so it is understandable to not to make guns too realistic. Still 30 meters should not be "mid range" and average encagement range should not be zeroed on 22 meters.

    Aeroplanes, tanks, armoured transports, soft skinned vehicles, big maps with sight lines of over 800 meters and gunplay is designed based on "long range" of 40 meters. Even the gadgets are nerfed to oblivion. That's just ridicilous. Unfortunately there are no alternatives on console, so I just don't have any big scale FPS shooters to play at the moment.
  • PeaceWeaver
    210 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    RamFrog wrote: »
    (Quote)
    For me all those kills on video were made at close combat distances. In video games the perception of range is skewed, so it is understandable to not to make guns too realistic. Still 30 meters should not be "mid range" and average encagement range should not be zeroed on 22 meters.

    Aeroplanes, tanks, armoured transports, soft skinned vehicles, big maps with sight lines of over 800 meters and gunplay is designed based on "long range" of 40 meters. Even the gadgets are nerfed to oblivion. That's just ridicilous. Unfortunately there are no alternatives on console, so I just don't have any big scale FPS shooters to play at the moment.

    Fully agreed. I was being VERY generous when I called the kills that contributed towards the assignment “the lower end of mid-range.” It is actually crazy to me that those were kills obtained at a range intended for “long range” LMGs, by DICE’s damage definitions.

    Map design 100% does not match DICE’s “intended” 5.2 engagement ranges. The damage models might make some amount of sense for small modes like Squad Conquest, but the devs need to wake up and realize that most people play larger scale modes where these damage models are ridiculous. The worst thing about 5.2 (and 5.2.2) is that it pushes a CoD-like run-and-gun CQC damage model onto large scale maps that don’t actually support that model.
  • RamFrog
    121 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, I got the "CoD-like run-and-gun CQC" feeling too after the 5.2 patch. 
  • YourLocalPIumber
    3239 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    My biggest fear now is that instead of buffing other weapons to make them viable, Dice will nerf popular guns into the ground. Whoever is after weapon balance at Dice is out of his mind. So I wouldn't be surprised to see StG44 damage reduced to 6-13 and Type 2A stats across the board lowered into nothing.
  • CT1924
    1354 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    My biggest fear now is that instead of buffing other weapons to make them viable, Dice will nerf popular guns into the ground. Whoever is after weapon balance at Dice is out of his mind. So I wouldn't be surprised to see StG44 damage reduced to 6-13 and Type 2A stats across the board lowered into nothing.

    Proboly true. Sadly.
  • RamFrog
    121 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2020
    My biggest fear now is that instead of buffing other weapons to make them viable, Dice will nerf popular guns into the ground. Whoever is after weapon balance at Dice is out of his mind. So I wouldn't be surprised to see StG44 damage reduced to 6-13 and Type 2A stats across the board lowered into nothing.
    Counter a nerf with a nerf, that's the formula the developement team is using, so your fears might come true.
  • CnConrad
    1195 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't it matters that you gave dice a well thought out consistent and concise non ranting or rambling post. It likely will never be read or responded to.

    It really is a shame, because they simply don't want to hear what their player base is trying to tell them.

    At this point I really don't know if I will buy another dice product. Because, even if it looks good and seems like my kind of game dice will likely completely change it after I buy it.
  • AvocadoPablo
    113 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    assault - stg44
    medic - 2a
    support - lewis gun
    scout - zh29
  • PeaceWeaver
    210 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2020
    CnConrad wrote: »
    I don't it matters that you gave dice a well thought out consistent and concise non ranting or rambling post. It likely will never be read or responded to.

    It really is a shame, because they simply don't want to hear what their player base is trying to tell them.

    At this point I really don't know if I will buy another dice product. Because, even if it looks good and seems like my kind of game dice will likely completely change it after I buy it.

    While this may ultimately end up being true, we can at least say we tried and that we held up our end of the bargain. If DICE’s CMs claim they only want constructive feedback and that they’re not going to pay attention to any simple requests/demands for a revert of 5.2, then I’m going to give them exactly what they’re asking for — even if it ends up being a waste of time. The onus is on the developers to listen to their paying customers, and they won’t have any excuse if we make it harder for them to ignore us. I’m sure they LOVE the angry, incoherent responses to 5.2 because they can easily dismiss them as the abusive, unjustified rants of “entitled” gamers.
    assault - stg44
    medic - 2a
    support - lewis gun
    scout - zh29

    The tl;dr version of my OP, haha. :D

  • jroggs
    1227 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The funny thing is that weapons like the StG 44 and even the Type 2A aren't really all that great. They're just among the least awful. So many weapons are just zero fun to use now, and the core problem is the unbelievably stupid damage dropoff mechanics. A year's worth of balance thrown away to chase after players who don't want to play the game anyway.

    And it bears mentioning once more how godawful damage balance against vehicles is now. Earlier I was using a Valentine VIII with APCR rounds - dedicated anti-tank rounds - and doing 10 damage per hit to an enemy Tiger. 10 freaking damage with AT shells. (The standard HE shells actually do a whopping 13, which is still terrible but also really dumb.) On the Pacific tanks can deal okay damage to each other, but everywhere infantry AT weapons mostly suck. And nothing touches planes but high-level fighters now. Because vehicle-only players get mad and quit when other kids can break their toys.

    The only way forward is backward, i.e. reversion to 5.0. DICE shot themselves in the foot by saying they absolutely weren't going to revert this time, but they're going to. Not everyone loved 5.0, but mostly people liked it and it needed only minor tweaks for balance. Even the people who claimed the infantry guns were too lethal only ever stated this problem in terms of "Because I die too fast;" no one said they felt like they were killing other players too easily.
  • MogwaiWarrior
    971 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    There’s been a lack of gun variety since launch IMO. Worst selection of weapons I have seen in a BF game.
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    The funny thing is that weapons like the StG 44 and even the Type 2A aren't really all that great. They're just among the least awful. So many weapons are just zero fun to use now, and the core problem is the unbelievably stupid damage dropoff mechanics. A year's worth of balance thrown away to chase after players who don't want to play the game anyway.

    And it bears mentioning once more how godawful damage balance against vehicles is now. Earlier I was using a Valentine VIII with APCR rounds - dedicated anti-tank rounds - and doing 10 damage per hit to an enemy Tiger. 10 freaking damage with AT shells. (The standard HE shells actually do a whopping 13, which is still terrible but also really dumb.) On the Pacific tanks can deal okay damage to each other, but everywhere infantry AT weapons mostly suck. And nothing touches planes but high-level fighters now. Because vehicle-only players get mad and quit when other kids can break their toys.

    The only way forward is backward, i.e. reversion to 5.0. DICE shot themselves in the foot by saying they absolutely weren't going to revert this time, but they're going to. Not everyone loved 5.0, but mostly people liked it and it needed only minor tweaks for balance. Even the people who claimed the infantry guns were too lethal only ever stated this problem in terms of "Because I die too fast;" no one said they felt like they were killing other players too easily.

    Every player wants to kill others fast at all ranges just like all players don't want to die quickly at all ranges. If this was not the case, people would not complain about cheaters killing quickly. Finding the balance in how long it should take to kill/die.

    Games are meant to be fair and equal to all players. BFV 5.0 was far from that, and player numbers, data and feedback show that. A year of attempted balance did not improve anything, so more action was taken.

    5.0 show guns with low recoil, high ROF and slow drop off or high dps across many ranges are going to be the preferred guns. Hello SA and AR.Then 5.2 people whinged that their favourite gun got nerf and never bothered to check others. 5.2.2 highlights that when babies cry EA game changers they get what they want rather then look at something new.

    No the panzerfaust should never have done any where near the damage of Piat. The panzerfaust we have now is what it should have been at launch.

    Is tank v tank battles to long maybe but it should not be tank v tank only.

    Plane are what is completely out of whack. High dps, high health and fast respawn utter BS even attempts if stupid balance attempts like panzerfaust 1HK or tank 1HK are balance but gimmicks. No plane repeat no plane should be able to take out a tank in 1 pass. Just like everything else it should be 2 or more players.
  • YourLocalPIumber
    3239 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    The funny thing is that weapons like the StG 44 and even the Type 2A aren't really all that great. They're just among the least awful. So many weapons are just zero fun to use now, and the core problem is the unbelievably stupid damage dropoff mechanics. A year's worth of balance thrown away to chase after players who don't want to play the game anyway.

    And it bears mentioning once more how godawful damage balance against vehicles is now. Earlier I was using a Valentine VIII with APCR rounds - dedicated anti-tank rounds - and doing 10 damage per hit to an enemy Tiger. 10 freaking damage with AT shells. (The standard HE shells actually do a whopping 13, which is still terrible but also really dumb.) On the Pacific tanks can deal okay damage to each other, but everywhere infantry AT weapons mostly suck. And nothing touches planes but high-level fighters now. Because vehicle-only players get mad and quit when other kids can break their toys.

    The only way forward is backward, i.e. reversion to 5.0. DICE shot themselves in the foot by saying they absolutely weren't going to revert this time, but they're going to. Not everyone loved 5.0, but mostly people liked it and it needed only minor tweaks for balance. Even the people who claimed the infantry guns were too lethal only ever stated this problem in terms of "Because I die too fast;" no one said they felt like they were killing other players too easily.


    5.0 show guns with low recoil, high ROF and slow drop off or high dps across many ranges are going to be the preferred guns. Hello SA and AR.Then 5.2 people whinged that their favourite gun got nerf and never bothered to check others. 5.2.2 highlights that when babies cry EA game changers they get what they want rather then look at something new.


    Ok then why not just increase recoil for high DPS weapons that you've mentioned? Simple as that. Give SARs high recoil that would've made it impossible to spam them at max RPM over a long distance. Give fast ROF ARs such as 1-5 and SF actual recoil so that players wouldn't mag dump. Same applies to most LMGs.

    Whats that? Ooooh yeah, they've done that, twice. But what happened? Yeah, those low skill scrubs began crying even more because now high skilled players who mastered the recoil were now dominating even harder. So Dice did complete 180 and removed recoil AND damage from every weapon so that both noob with 10 hours and pro with 1000 hours are on 100% safe field in terms of skill ceiling.

    One thing Dice have forgotten is that skilled players still have reaction and knowledge on their side. And guess what can cure that? Suppression. This will bring back "shoot first, kill first" mechanic. Noobs who often cry "Oh mah gawd, I shot him in the back but he turned 180 and insta killed me, wawawawawawaw".

    Reaction time and map knowledge is the only place where player can apply skill. Picking the right fight and having better reaction time than the enemy. Suppression will get rid of "reaction" part in the near future, I'm 100% sure of it. They broke their promises about having lethal weapons, no 3D spotting. not touching TTK again and not having auto rotation on consoles. What is preventing them from adding suppression back into the mix?
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Since DICE is just going to disregard simple “revert 5.2” posts, here’s something meatier to sink your teeth into.

    After 5.2, the gun meta (which DICE ostensibly sought to eliminate) has been further narrowed down to a handful of weapons. As someone who used to use a wide variety of faction-specific weapons pre-5.2, this has made the game much less satisfying for me. I don’t study weapon stat graphs or anything like that, but I know what weapons feel good to use, and I know what I’m getting killed by the most. This is my experience post-5.2:

    SARs feel utterly terrible to use now, and are an inferior choice to the STG 44 in pretty much all engagement ranges. I used to hear Garand pings ALL the time on Pacific maps, which was very immersive, but that is no longer the case. If I get killed by an assault player, they’re almost always running the STG 44 now, even more so than before. There’s a small niche for the m1907 in CQC, but it’s increasingly rare to see any assault pick that gun over the STG 44. I expect SARs might still be viable on PC, where precision aiming is easier to achieve than on console, but can’t really speak to that since I’m on PS4.

    SMGs are a shadow of their former selves. Mid-range options are virtually non-existent now, which means that SMG medics are back to losing gun fights on most Conquest maps (which were designed in such a way as to encourage mid/long range gunplay). Iconic WW2 SMGs like the sten and the MP40 feel like a self-gimp when you use them, especially when you encounter an STG 44. The Jungle Carbine is a decent option for mid-range, true, but you’re still better off using the STG 44, so why bother? For CQC, there is one gun that is outshining the rest at the moment: the Type 2A. The Tommy and Suomi are still in use and still effective, but most medics are running the 2A now due to its quick reload and the server’s inability to keep up with the gun’s high ROF. Modes that encourage CQC like Breakthrough and Squad Conquest are dominated by this gun.

    LMGs. Whoo boy. I used to main support alongside medic, but I’ve barely touched the class since LMGs were butchered. The AR-type LMGs that are meant to be used at close/mid range are outgunned by the STG 44. Since attrition is even less of a factor now, you are literally putting yourself at a disadvantage if you’re trying to play support aggressively. Aggressive supports are just inferior assaults with ammo boxes that no one actually needs anymore. Of the mid/long range options, only the Lewis (and the Bren, to a lesser extent) remains viable, and is less effective than it was previously. As for MMGs, I literally cannot recall when last I was killed by one post-5.2. They’ve been replaced by the 2A on corridor-heavy CQC maps like Operation Underground. Shotguns remain a niche, barely used weapon outside of certain maps.

    As for recon, I barely play the class, so I can’t really comment. All I know is that aggressive recon is even harder to play now UNLESS you’re running something like the ZH/RSC and are able to get the jump on a single enemy or two. Objective areas are dominated by medics running the 2A and assaults running the STG 44, which will beat aggressive recon options every time. Aggressive recons were a rarity pre-5.2, and they’re practically non-existent now. I only use my recon when I need to spawn in on a team mate’s beacon to drop a beacon for my own squad. If I’m unable to pick up a better weapon from a fallen enemy, I just accept my inevitable death.

    Is this what you wanted, DICE? You complained previously that too many guns were “too effective” at multiple ranges, and that this led to people sticking with their favourite gun. While that may have been true, the old damage model meant that we felt like we COULD be effective with any gun, and that the gun you chose was a matter of aesthetic preference and play style. It also meant that people like me, who enjoy using faction-specific weapons for immersion, could actually use faction-specific weapons without gimping ourselves. 5.2 has completely messed with class balance to the point where people who care about their performance now choose what class they play based on the map and the game mode. Aggressive mid range? Assault and STG 44. Passive/defensive mid range? Support and Lewis (though you can achieve the same thing with assault and STG 44). Aggressive CQC? Medic and Type 2A. Passive long range? Recon and your preferred BA rifle. I know you tried to ensure that each class has weapons for each type of engagement range, but people will almost ALWAYS pick the most versatile class/weapon combo for the mode they’re playing. When so-called “mid-range” SMGs and SARs lose practically every time to the STG 44, who in their right mind will use those weapons over the STG 44? When “close range” LMGs, MMGs, shotguns, pistol carbines, and ARs lose practically every time to the Type 2A, who in their right mind would use those weapons over the Type 2A?

    It’s boring using the same weapons. It’s boring dying to the same weapons. Please revert 5.2 so we can go back to the weapon variety we previously enjoyed.

    Here your problem you want faction specific balance and DICE have not done that so your screwed. I bet you were happier playing axis in 5.0.

    I don't know what you doing but SAR should never have been a short range weapon. I think they are working better now.

    LMG have never been able to compete with STG at close to medium range. DICE thinks 2 should but not made enough changes for that. MMG are far more problematic the MG42 requires deployment which is slow and still has an overheat.

    Now medic have a gun that out class AR quick let's complain.

    So what are you saying about recon. That BA need improvement?
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    Ok then why not just increase recoil for high DPS weapons that you've mentioned? Simple as that. Give SARs high recoil that would've made it impossible to spam them at max RPM over a long distance. Give fast ROF ARs such as 1-5 and SF actual recoil so that players wouldn't mag dump. Same applies to most LMGs.

    Whats that? Ooooh yeah, they've done that, twice. But what happened? Yeah, those low skill scrubs began crying even more because now high skilled players who mastered the recoil were now dominating even harder. So Dice did complete 180 and removed recoil AND damage from every weapon so that both noob with 10 hours and pro with 1000 hours are on 100% safe field in terms of skill ceiling.

    One thing Dice have forgotten is that skilled players still have reaction and knowledge on their side. And guess what can cure that? Suppression. This will bring back "shoot first, kill first" mechanic. Noobs who often cry "Oh mah gawd, I shot him in the back but he turned 180 and insta killed me, wawawawawawaw".

    Reaction time and map knowledge is the only place where player can apply skill. Picking the right fight and having better reaction time than the enemy. Suppression will get rid of "reaction" part in the near future, I'm 100% sure of it. They broke their promises about having lethal weapons, no 3D spotting. not touching TTK again and not having auto rotation on consoles. What is preventing them from adding suppression back into the mix?

    Because 1) DICE can't add spread due to the RBD complaints.2 ) you can reach a point where recoil also impacts short range gun performance. 3) at some point recoil becomes meaningless if you always max out when used and 4) recoil has more impact on console players.
    The increase range BTK and lower recoil does better than just high recoil.

    Suppression had nothing to do with short range reaction time, it only impacted players at range increasing the number of bullets needed. Spread and suppression are no go in BFV. Good players can still have put 4 into without reaction.

    Guess what you got a new skill judging if you can handle the weapons performance at range or do you need to get closer.

    I never saw any from DICE say they would not touch TTK.
  • YourLocalPIumber
    3239 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    Ok then why not just increase recoil for high DPS weapons that you've mentioned? Simple as that. Give SARs high recoil that would've made it impossible to spam them at max RPM over a long distance. Give fast ROF ARs such as 1-5 and SF actual recoil so that players wouldn't mag dump. Same applies to most LMGs.

    Whats that? Ooooh yeah, they've done that, twice. But what happened? Yeah, those low skill scrubs began crying even more because now high skilled players who mastered the recoil were now dominating even harder. So Dice did complete 180 and removed recoil AND damage from every weapon so that both noob with 10 hours and pro with 1000 hours are on 100% safe field in terms of skill ceiling.

    One thing Dice have forgotten is that skilled players still have reaction and knowledge on their side. And guess what can cure that? Suppression. This will bring back "shoot first, kill first" mechanic. Noobs who often cry "Oh mah gawd, I shot him in the back but he turned 180 and insta killed me, wawawawawawaw".

    Reaction time and map knowledge is the only place where player can apply skill. Picking the right fight and having better reaction time than the enemy. Suppression will get rid of "reaction" part in the near future, I'm 100% sure of it. They broke their promises about having lethal weapons, no 3D spotting. not touching TTK again and not having auto rotation on consoles. What is preventing them from adding suppression back into the mix?

    Because 1) DICE can't add spread due to the RBD complaints.2 ) you can reach a point where recoil also impacts short range gun performance. 3) at some point recoil becomes meaningless if you always max out when used and 4) recoil has more impact on console players.
    The increase range BTK and lower recoil does better than just high recoil.

    Suppression had nothing to do with short range reaction time, it only impacted players at range increasing the number of bullets needed. Spread and suppression are no go in BFV. Good players can still have put 4 into without reaction.

    Guess what you got a new skill judging if you can handle the weapons performance at range or do you need to get closer.

    I never saw any from DICE say they would not touch TTK.
    1) There were constant complaints about spotting, auto rotation and previous TTK changes. Did that stop Dice from bringing them back? I think not.

    2)Previous games did just that. Added high recoil to the guns that were designed for close range engagements. AS VAL, Famas, AEK and others. Thats how you actually make make diverse weapon selection. You make guns that excel at something above others. Now we have every single gun that is useless beyond 30m mark. Let make some examples.

    FG42. High RPM, low mag, and....low damage MG? Why? Currently its absolutely useless because with 20 rounds and super low damage there is not much you can do. You will get destroyed by SMGs at close range because hipfire, and you will get destroyed by ARs and SARs at medium/long range because damage. Bren gun. Somewhat ok-ish medium range LMG. Still outclassed by STG/Ribeyrolles and SARs at medium range because of slow ROF. Now lets rebalance those 2 MGs.

    First off, FG42. Buff its hipfire so that it can be more reliable at close range. Also increase its reload speed AND increase its recoil. Move its damage value back to 4-6. Now, suddenly you have a very appealing option for close range fights. It won't allow you to laser people at 50m distance because of recoil, but it will allow you to fight against ARs and other LMGs with easy at close range/medium. 20 round mag makes sure that you will constantly have to rely on hit n' run playstyle.

    Now Bren Gun. This could be an amazing long range option. Move its damage to 3-5 (34-20 per shot), INCREASE its ADS speeds to put it at a disadvantage up close and give it some recoil for people to master at long range. Or drastically increasing its reload speed could also be an option to balance it at close range fights instead of increasing ADS. And there you have it. Perfect long range LMG for people who prefer to sit back a little and pick their targets over a distance.

    Whats so hard about going back to BF4 style of weapon damages is beyond me.
  • McHanginballs
    74 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Just wanted to give my 2 cents real quick. In my opinion Semi-Autos are pretty awful now. Assault Rifles and SMGs are strong, for Support the LMGs are still quite good, MMGs are absolutely atrocious and Sniper didn't change outside of getting rolled even harder at close range now, because everyone uses crazy strong 2A, Suomi or Stg44.

    Some of the absolute worst weapons I played recently were: MG42 which was just awful, M1A1 which feels like a BB gun at range and doesn't have the fire rate to compete with full autos up close, absolutely horrendous. MAS44 which takes 5(!) shots over 25m to kill someone, same for Garand which has a magazine of 8, that is just crazy.

    Best Guns for me at the moment: Type 2A, Suomi, Type100, 1-5 Sturmgewehr (full auto), Stg44, Bar

    I'll keep testing through all the guns and will probably post a list of my point of view, just wanted to drop what I experienced so far real quick.
Sign In or Register to comment.