Why is skill frowned upon in the battlefield community?

Comments

  • NLBartmaN
    485 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    I

    I am happy we have 2 very aggressive statwhores in my platoon and they are happy they have PTFO fix the rest of the game and do what is needed players in their squad so they can focus on killing.

    So just lets be happy when you have both kind of players in your squad.

    Let's be honest, when you refer to stat whores in this context, what your really mean is people that kill lots more than you. Any you use a derogatory phrase, like stat ****.

    You know what I prefer as the make up of my squad. A bunch of people that are 'stat whores' i.e. really good at killing AND can PTFO.

    You see the problem with your debate is that you somehow assume they are mutually exclusive. They are not. Players like Berg, Exor, Wetfish are equally capable of throwing an ammo pack or sitting on a flag as me. You know why? There is no real skill in those tasks.

    No in this case I refer to two players that ONLY focus on killing near spawns and flags and move on once there are no "easy" kills left.
    If their KPM, SPM or KD ratio is in danger, they will just move out and move to a "easier" spot and let the rest of the platoon fix it.

    They will NOT change their gameplay (class / kit or focus) if the situation asks for it, they will not come to help to destroy a plane or other vehicle that is keeping us from winning and any other supportive task, they ask us because we are "skilled" in that part of the game.

    But me and the rest of our platoon don't mind, because while they are keeping the enemy busy at flags and spawns, the rest of the platoon do all the other supportive tasks that makes that possible (destroy vehicles, covering them with vehicles, get the flags, healing them, resupplying them, keeping them save with spots and sniping threats) and together we win the game.

    But they are bad or medium at best in any other part of BF1 except for being a statwhore and most of the time have no idea of what is keeping us from the win.

    But as I said: I "respect" that kind of "skill" and I am glad we have them in our platoon, we need them, but it doesn't make them more "skilled" in BF1 than the rest of us.
  • 1heSpartan
    153 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited April 16
    I missed your reply to @HuwJarz
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    If their KPM, SPM or KD ratio is in danger, they will just move out and move to a "easier" spot and let the rest of the platoon fix it.

    They will NOT change their gameplay (class / kit or focus) if the situation asks for it, they will not come to help to destroy a plane or other vehicle that is keeping us from winning and any other supportive task, they ask us because we are "skilled" in that part of the game.

    You're contradicting yourself somewhat against what I previously said about static Artillery padders, you're defending them and making ludicrous fabricated statements that I've apparently said yet in the same breath in the next post you're belittling these types of players... Odd to say the least.

  • NLBartmaN
    485 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited April 16
    1heSpartan wrote: »
    and it would take a monumental effort to reach them.

    And that is were "skilled" players that are not obsessed with stats come in .. if that arty truck is keeping a team form winning, it must be destroyed .. at all costs (like lower stats)
    1heSpartan wrote: »

    You're contradicting yourself somewhat against what I previously said about static Artillery padders, you're defending them and making ludicrous fabricated statements that I've apparently said yet in the same breath in the next post you're belittling these types of players... Odd to say the least.

    I didn't defend statistic vehicle players, i defended vehicle players in general.
    For me, the way you talked about them felt like you see infantry players as superior to vehicle players, but I could be wrong.

    And for me statpadding with spawnkilling at a flag with infantry is nothing else than static vehicle play from a distance, both easy kills for the stats.

    But as stated, both can be needed and can be usefull depending on how the game develops.

    But lets get back on topic: skill is frowned upon simple because we (all players) will never agree upon what "skill" in BF1 is and we all want attention and respect for our vision and way of playing the game.

    Besides that: there are way too many varibles in BF1 that have a serious influence on how a game develops and on if your solo gameplay pays of in succes (winning the game) and the numbers that come with it.

    For me overall BF1 "skill" (something totally different than being skilled with a certain class/weapon/gamestyle) is a player that contantly changes to what is needed to get a better position in/win the game and is also at some level (specialist who mostly play with a certain kit will be better) capable of doing that.

    Someone with high stats can be a player that does that, but having high stats doesn't at all says that player is doing that and vice versa.

    If I see my teams succesfull efforts to change the game in different ways (vehicles, kits, strategies) being identified and countered/stopped mostly by the same player that has a "normal" ping then i usually think: wow that is a skilled player.
    Post edited by NLBartmaN on
  • GerocK-
    556 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 16
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    1heSpartan wrote: »
    and it would take a monumental effort to reach them.

    And that is were "skilled" players that are not obsessed with stats come in .. if that arty truck is keeping a team form winning, it must be destroyed .. at all costs (like lower stats)
    1heSpartan wrote: »

    You're contradicting yourself somewhat against what I previously said about static Artillery padders, you're defending them and making ludicrous fabricated statements that I've apparently said yet in the same breath in the next post you're belittling these types of players... Odd to say the least.

    I didn't defend statistic vehicle players, i defended vehicle players in general.
    For me, the way you talked about them felt like you see infantry players as superior to vehicle players, but I could be wrong.

    And for me statpadding with spawnkilling at a flag with infantry is nothing else than static vehicle play from a distance, both easy kills for the stats.

    But as stated, both can be needed and can be usefull depending on how the game develops.

    But lets get back on topic: skill is frowned upon simple because we (all players) will never agree upon what "skill" in BF1 is and we all want attention and respect for our vision and way of playing the game.

    Besides that: there are way to many varibles in BF1 that have a serious influence on how a game develops and on if your solo gameplay pays of in succes (winning the game) and the numbers that come with it.

    For me overall BF1 "skill" (something totally different than being skilled with a certain class/weapon/gamestyle) is a player that contantly changes to what is needed to get a better position in/win the game and is also at some level (specialist who mostly play with a certain kit will be better) capable of doing that.

    Someone with high stats can be a player that does that, but having high stats doesn't at all says that player is doing that and vice versa.

    If I see my teams succesfull efforts to change the game in different ways (vehicles, kits, strategies) being identified and countered/stopped mostly by the same player that has a "normal" ping then i usually think: wow that is a skilled player.

    But your definition means a player is only considered skilled if he does everything on his own. That would mean a player can't be skilled in a game where the enemy team is beating your team on more than 1 area at the same time. Because according to your definition he has to stop the enemy on all those areas to be considered skilled, because that's what needed to win.

    I don't think a player always has to change to what is needed the most. If for example a Scout or a Medic is dominating his role, it would be silly if he has to change to Assault just because the other 31 players in his team can't manage to destroy a tank.

    Stats aren't everything, I think everyone agrees on that. A player with low stats can still be an asset for his team, but a player who scores high on multiple meaningful stats is always an asset to his team and a skilled player.
  • RobDMaggot
    33 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 16
    Glad there are players within the rubble of complainers that have an understanding of how war is magnificently simulated in a game like Battlefield.

    If the Battlefield series were to abolish its tactical side effects, we'd have more Snipers with great aim disguised as trees, being the root of our problems!

    I use my LMG for its suppressive capabilities the same way a mage-class would use a cold spell to reduce mobility. To hinder the enemy!

    A roguish sniper complaining about suppression is someone who doesn't like being burned after taking fire.
    Come to think of it, they're a plant-based sub-class, no wonder they hate taking fire!
    Post edited by RobDMaggot on
  • Loqtrall
    9359 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    RobDMaggot wrote: »
    an understanding of how war is magnificently simulated in a game like Battlefield.

    Lolwut

    I wouldn't say that. Maybe a portrayal or, if I'm pushing it, an emulation. But BF has definitely never been a simulation of war. There's an actual genre of games for that.

    And in defense of the "rogue snipers", suppression is a joke of a mechanic in this series. I don't know why anyone would equate using suppression to their advantage to an act of skill. It's a mechanic that literally rewards players for being inaccurate, and punishes the enemy for not being hit by the guy shooting at him.
  • RobDMaggot
    33 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 16
    That was actually an argument a sniper in my squad was making yesterday when he was doing poorly. So I came to help him by suppressing the targets he was having trouble with. He complimented me with both his rifle's accuracy and power, and I shielded him with my suppressive fire. But instead of thanking me, he was more busy bragging about his own "skill".
  • 1heSpartan
    153 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Hate to constantly requote but feel it's needed in order to black & white what's been said as you're replying to statements that you've manipulated in your own head.
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    And that is were "skilled" players that are not obsessed with stats come in .. if that arty truck is keeping a team form winning, it must be destroyed .. at all costs (like lower stats)

    Regardless of whether a team of skilled players attempt to engage in the Arty truck or not, I've yet to see a team with the Arty truck padder winning and this general conception is seen by most players that have some sense so they choose to ignore it for the most part. Regardless of game mode, if the Arty truck is in it's own spawn you realise the opposing team has to fight through the entire map to get to it, hence why the majority of people just don't bother focusing on it as it's not easily accessible to engage in combat with.
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    I didn't defend statistic vehicle players, i defended vehicle players in general.
    For me, the way you talked about them felt like you see infantry players as superior to vehicle players, but I could be wrong.

    ** STATIC ** , you had no need to defend vehicle players in general, my comments were never generalised, only targeted to Arty truck padders. If you mistook this (not sure how) then I should have worded it even clearer than I assumed would be necessary.
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    And for me statpadding with spawnkilling at a flag with infantry is nothing else than static vehicle play from a distance, both easy kills for the stats.

    Don't really see the correlation between the two myself.... that would only be an infantry player defending the flag and playing objectively to maintain flag control. An arty truck sitting in it's own spawn is neither playing objectively nor is it contributing to it's team in an effective way when they could have used that spawn for a Heavy / Light Tank that objectively helps the team push / capture ?
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    For me overall BF1 "skill" (something totally different than being skilled with a certain class/weapon/gamestyle) is a player that contantly changes to what is needed to get a better position in/win the game and is also at some level (specialist who mostly play with a certain kit will be better) capable of doing that.

    That most would agree upon including myself and I've never said anything to the contrary, merely stated that 99.9999% of Artillery truck padders do so because it's one of the few mechanics in the game that allow you to achieve high kill feeds with little opposition or skill requirement (hence why they do it) , due to their ability to be able to sit in their own spawn and still be in range to nuke and if you check their stats (example) they'd resemble something similar to that.
  • Trokey66
    5307 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    68Keif wrote: »
    K/d is everything. That’s why I don’t play no more. Mines bad so I can’t brag :/

    That's where I disagree. Its not everything but like all stats, the higher something is, the better it is. Just saw some jerk go 141-1 on stream with an artillery truck. His team got no where because he didn't get a tank to push the objectives. He was just being a kill ****

    Validating the point that the ONLY way to get the true measure of a player is to play with or against them (or watching this case).

    Not really. I just look at his stats see his overall K/D, SPM and infy K/D and draw the obvious conclusion that I am looking at the stats of a vehicle ****. I don't need to play with him to see that.

    But is he a good one?
  • theONEFORCE
    2187 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member

    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    I

    I am happy we have 2 very aggressive statwhores in my platoon and they are happy they have PTFO fix the rest of the game and do what is needed players in their squad so they can focus on killing.

    So just lets be happy when you have both kind of players in your squad.

    Let's be honest, when you refer to stat whores in this context, what your really mean is people that kill lots more than you. Any you use a derogatory phrase, like stat ****.

    You know what I prefer as the make up of my squad. A bunch of people that are 'stat whores' i.e. really good at killing AND can PTFO.

    You see the problem with your debate is that you somehow assume they are mutually exclusive. They are not. Players like Berg, Exor, Wetfish are equally capable of throwing an ammo pack or sitting on a flag as me. You know why? There is no real skill in those tasks.

    No in this case I refer to two players that ONLY focus on killing near spawns and flags and move on once there are no "easy" kills left.
    If their KPM, SPM or KD ratio is in danger, they will just move out and move to a "easier" spot and let the rest of the platoon fix it.

    They will NOT change their gameplay (class / kit or focus) if the situation asks for it, they will not come to help to destroy a plane or other vehicle that is keeping us from winning and any other supportive task, they ask us because we are "skilled" in that part of the game.

    But me and the rest of our platoon don't mind, because while they are keeping the enemy busy at flags and spawns, the rest of the platoon do all the other supportive tasks that makes that possible (destroy vehicles, covering them with vehicles, get the flags, healing them, resupplying them, keeping them save with spots and sniping threats) and together we win the game.

    But they are bad or medium at best in any other part of BF1 except for being a statwhore and most of the time have no idea of what is keeping us from the win.

    But as I said: I "respect" that kind of "skill" and I am glad we have them in our platoon, we need them, but it doesn't make them more "skilled" in BF1 than the rest of us.

    If they can already kill more and die less than you then I can guarantee they could add more PTFO into their gameplay much easier than you could start killing more and dying less. Therefore they are more skilled than you
  • Loqtrall
    9359 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    And in defense of the "rogue snipers", suppression is a joke of a mechanic in this series. I don't know why anyone would equate using suppression to their advantage to an act of skill. It's a mechanic that literally rewards players for being inaccurate, and punishes the enemy for not being hit by the guy shooting at him.

    Some guns are inaccurate regardless of the player using it. Specifically LMGs. Which coincidentally are the best weapons for causing suppression. Suppression is a built-in mechanic that allows LMGs and their natural inaccuracy to be on-par with SLRs and their inherently high accuracy.

    Utilizing suppression to your advantage isn't a skill. It's a viable tactic to reduce the effectiveness of your enemy, and a natural result of the inherent inaccuracy of automatic weapons like LMGs.

    You forgot the part where suppression has been in multiple BF games, not just the ONE title where LMGs are inaccurate at range from the hip (bipod, anybody?).

    Suppression was not only present in games where lmgs were perfectly fine at range, but it was even worse in those older games. Suppression has been a part of this franchise regardless of how automatic weapons are balanced.

    I play BF1 with a forum member here who does fine taking down enemies at range with LMGs (support being his favorite and most played class). He just uses his bipod and doesn't spray.

    We've been through this, and there's nothing you can claim that'd change my mind about suppression. It's a cheesy mechanic that punishes people for getting shot at - not getting hit, getting shot at.

    It's about as ridiculous as the mechanic that auto-spotted people on the map when they shot their gun in a shooting game, which thankfully DICE ditched in BF1. Wherein, it inherently punishes players for performing an action that regularly happens in this game the majority of the time you're playing it. Where audio spotting punishes people for shooting, suppression punishes people for getting shot at - again, in an fps game where shooting at and getting shot at by people is nearly the entire point of the game.
  • NLBartmaN
    485 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member


    If they can already kill more and die less than you then I can guarantee they could add more PTFO into their gameplay much easier than you could start killing more and dying less. Therefore they are more skilled than you

    If you think easy spawnkilling is a "skill" than I can see your point .. but than it is still your opinion, not mine .. :wink:
  • Sixclicks
    2552 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    And in defense of the "rogue snipers", suppression is a joke of a mechanic in this series. I don't know why anyone would equate using suppression to their advantage to an act of skill. It's a mechanic that literally rewards players for being inaccurate, and punishes the enemy for not being hit by the guy shooting at him.

    Some guns are inaccurate regardless of the player using it. Specifically LMGs. Which coincidentally are the best weapons for causing suppression. Suppression is a built-in mechanic that allows LMGs and their natural inaccuracy to be on-par with SLRs and their inherently high accuracy.

    Utilizing suppression to your advantage isn't a skill. It's a viable tactic to reduce the effectiveness of your enemy, and a natural result of the inherent inaccuracy of automatic weapons like LMGs.

    You forgot the part where suppression has been in multiple BF games, not just the ONE title where LMGs are inaccurate at range from the hip (bipod, anybody?).

    Suppression was not only present in games where lmgs were perfectly fine at range, but it was even worse in those older games. Suppression has been a part of this franchise regardless of how automatic weapons are balanced.

    I play BF1 with a forum member here who does fine taking down enemies at range with LMGs (support being his favorite and most played class). He just uses his bipod and doesn't spray.

    We've been through this, and there's nothing you can claim that'd change my mind about suppression. It's a cheesy mechanic that punishes people for getting shot at - not getting hit, getting shot at.

    It's about as ridiculous as the mechanic that auto-spotted people on the map when they shot their gun in a shooting game, which thankfully DICE ditched in BF1. Wherein, it inherently punishes players for performing an action that regularly happens in this game the majority of the time you're playing it. Where audio spotting punishes people for shooting, suppression punishes people for getting shot at - again, in an fps game where shooting at and getting shot at by people is nearly the entire point of the game.

    Like I've said before in these arguments, unless they remove the negative spread and make LMGs shoot exactly where you're pointing them, then suppression remains a necessary mechanic to keep that particular class balanced. Yes, you can use the bipod, but how does that compare to an SLR user who can fire with near laser beam accuracy while standing? Both are meant to be medium range dominant classes? Why should one require you to be playing passively or take additional time to dive into prone, while also leaving your head open as an easy target? Not only that, the LMG user also has to deal with a slower ADS time on top of their inherent inaccuracy. The two classes nearly perfectly counter each other as they are, and suppression helps to keep it that way.

    Suppression in previous games isn't really relevant to this game. I'd even agree it didn't really belong in previous BF titles where guns actually shot where you pointed them if you tapfired or used controlled bursts.
  • Loqtrall
    9359 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited April 16
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    And in defense of the "rogue snipers", suppression is a joke of a mechanic in this series. I don't know why anyone would equate using suppression to their advantage to an act of skill. It's a mechanic that literally rewards players for being inaccurate, and punishes the enemy for not being hit by the guy shooting at him.

    Some guns are inaccurate regardless of the player using it. Specifically LMGs. Which coincidentally are the best weapons for causing suppression. Suppression is a built-in mechanic that allows LMGs and their natural inaccuracy to be on-par with SLRs and their inherently high accuracy.

    Utilizing suppression to your advantage isn't a skill. It's a viable tactic to reduce the effectiveness of your enemy, and a natural result of the inherent inaccuracy of automatic weapons like LMGs.

    You forgot the part where suppression has been in multiple BF games, not just the ONE title where LMGs are inaccurate at range from the hip (bipod, anybody?).

    Suppression was not only present in games where lmgs were perfectly fine at range, but it was even worse in those older games. Suppression has been a part of this franchise regardless of how automatic weapons are balanced.

    I play BF1 with a forum member here who does fine taking down enemies at range with LMGs (support being his favorite and most played class). He just uses his bipod and doesn't spray.

    We've been through this, and there's nothing you can claim that'd change my mind about suppression. It's a cheesy mechanic that punishes people for getting shot at - not getting hit, getting shot at.

    It's about as ridiculous as the mechanic that auto-spotted people on the map when they shot their gun in a shooting game, which thankfully DICE ditched in BF1. Wherein, it inherently punishes players for performing an action that regularly happens in this game the majority of the time you're playing it. Where audio spotting punishes people for shooting, suppression punishes people for getting shot at - again, in an fps game where shooting at and getting shot at by people is nearly the entire point of the game.

    Like I've said before in these arguments, unless they remove the negative spread and make LMGs shoot exactly where you're pointing them, then suppression remains a necessary mechanic to keep that particular class balanced. Yes, you can use the bipod, but how does that compare to an SLR user who can fire with near laser beam accuracy while standing? Both are meant to be medium range dominant classes? Why should one require you to be playing passively or take additional time to dive into prone, while also leaving your head open as an easy target? Not only that, the LMG user also has to deal with a slower ADS time on top of their inherent inaccuracy. The two classes nearly perfectly counter each other as they are, and suppression helps to keep it that way.

    Suppression in previous games isn't really relevant to this game. I'd even agree it didn't really belong in previous BF titles where guns actually shot where you pointed them if you tapfired or used controlled bursts.

    Lol you act like suppression is only happening to Medics or like LMGs are the only guns that suppress people.

    Your sole reason as to how its a legit mechanic is interactions between people using two specific weapon types at a specific set range in ONE BF game. Even though the mechanic effects people of all classes at nearly every range aside from cqb. And you don't even bring up the fact that suppression against support players make their weapons even less accurate, to the point you have to use certain specializations to circumvent it. That's not to mention you refrain from bringing up the mag size and RoF differences in balancing between slrs and lmgs, and how lmgs with lower rof andag sizes are accurate at mid range without their bipod, just not to the extent of slrs (which are, technically, the weapon type that's supposed to dominate mid range - the design of lmgs alone make them better to use at closer ranges).

    This thread is about why skill is looked down in in this community, not just in BF1. From that standpoint, if argue suppression is one of the least skillful mechanics that has ever plagued this franchise, and earns that spot right alongside things like audio spotting and thermal optics.
  • theONEFORCE
    2187 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »


    If they can already kill more and die less than you then I can guarantee they could add more PTFO into their gameplay much easier than you could start killing more and dying less. Therefore they are more skilled than you

    If you think easy spawnkilling is a "skill" than I can see your point .. but than it is still your opinion, not mine .. :wink:

    The reality is that they are probably not spawn killing. That is your justification for how someone can be getting so many kills but you really don't have any real way of knowing.
  • SirTerrible
    459 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The game plays itself once suppression kicks in. Not my idea of fun. DICE has desperately wanted to jam some sim elements into an arcade game like Battlefield since BF3 for some reason. Suppression works really well in games like Red Orchestra where positioning and tactics are are pretty close to 50/50 in terms of importance along with player skill but I don't think it meshes with Battlefield very well. IMO
  • lllPeligrolll
    211 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    68Keif wrote: »
    K/d is everything. That’s why I don’t play no more. Mines bad so I can’t brag :/

    That's where I disagree. Its not everything but like all stats, the higher something is, the better it is. Just saw some jerk go 141-1 on stream with an artillery truck. His team got no where because he didn't get a tank to push the objectives. He was just being a kill ****

    Validating the point that the ONLY way to get the true measure of a player is to play with or against them (or watching this case).

    Exactly.
  • Sixclicks
    2552 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 16
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    And in defense of the "rogue snipers", suppression is a joke of a mechanic in this series. I don't know why anyone would equate using suppression to their advantage to an act of skill. It's a mechanic that literally rewards players for being inaccurate, and punishes the enemy for not being hit by the guy shooting at him.

    Some guns are inaccurate regardless of the player using it. Specifically LMGs. Which coincidentally are the best weapons for causing suppression. Suppression is a built-in mechanic that allows LMGs and their natural inaccuracy to be on-par with SLRs and their inherently high accuracy.

    Utilizing suppression to your advantage isn't a skill. It's a viable tactic to reduce the effectiveness of your enemy, and a natural result of the inherent inaccuracy of automatic weapons like LMGs.

    You forgot the part where suppression has been in multiple BF games, not just the ONE title where LMGs are inaccurate at range from the hip (bipod, anybody?).

    Suppression was not only present in games where lmgs were perfectly fine at range, but it was even worse in those older games. Suppression has been a part of this franchise regardless of how automatic weapons are balanced.

    I play BF1 with a forum member here who does fine taking down enemies at range with LMGs (support being his favorite and most played class). He just uses his bipod and doesn't spray.

    We've been through this, and there's nothing you can claim that'd change my mind about suppression. It's a cheesy mechanic that punishes people for getting shot at - not getting hit, getting shot at.

    It's about as ridiculous as the mechanic that auto-spotted people on the map when they shot their gun in a shooting game, which thankfully DICE ditched in BF1. Wherein, it inherently punishes players for performing an action that regularly happens in this game the majority of the time you're playing it. Where audio spotting punishes people for shooting, suppression punishes people for getting shot at - again, in an fps game where shooting at and getting shot at by people is nearly the entire point of the game.

    Like I've said before in these arguments, unless they remove the negative spread and make LMGs shoot exactly where you're pointing them, then suppression remains a necessary mechanic to keep that particular class balanced. Yes, you can use the bipod, but how does that compare to an SLR user who can fire with near laser beam accuracy while standing? Both are meant to be medium range dominant classes? Why should one require you to be playing passively or take additional time to dive into prone, while also leaving your head open as an easy target? Not only that, the LMG user also has to deal with a slower ADS time on top of their inherent inaccuracy. The two classes nearly perfectly counter each other as they are, and suppression helps to keep it that way.

    Suppression in previous games isn't really relevant to this game. I'd even agree it didn't really belong in previous BF titles where guns actually shot where you pointed them if you tapfired or used controlled bursts.

    Lol you act like suppression is only happening to Medics or like LMGs are the only guns that suppress people.

    Your sole reason as to how its a legit mechanic is interactions between people using two specific weapon types at a specific set range in ONE BF game. Even though the mechanic effects people of all classes at nearly every range aside from cqb. And you don't even bring up the fact that suppression against support players make their weapons even less accurate, to the point you have to use certain specializations to circumvent it. That's not to mention you refrain from bringing up the mag size and RoF differences in balancing between slrs and lmgs, and how lmgs with lower rof andag sizes are accurate at mid range without their bipod, just not to the extent of slrs (which are, technically, the weapon type that's supposed to dominate mid range - the design of lmgs alone make them better to use at closer ranges).

    This thread is about why skill is looked down in in this community, not just in BF1. From that standpoint, if argue suppression is one of the least skillful mechanics that has ever plagued this franchise, and earns that spot right alongside things like audio spotting and thermal optics.

    Probably because I think suppression is most important for the medic vs support interaction. Although it's also very useful for making it out of situations where your gun simply cannot compete at the range of which you are receiving enemy sniper fire from. I don't think it needs to go for the other classes, but I wouldn't care too much if it did. I would however if they took it away from support while keeping this BS negative spread mechanic.

    SLRs and LMGs have similar raw TTKs, but LMGs have a significantly higher practical TTK, when not using the bipod, because of their inherent inaccuracy and slower ADS time. So I don't really see how fire rate is relevant other than giving LMGs a little more room for error. Plus there are SLRs that have large enough mags for more than enough kills per reload while also not taking forever to reload.

    And as I said, I don't really care for suppression in the other games. I'm talking about BF1 since this is the game we're currently playing, and explaining why I think its necessary in this game as it currently stands. If they change up the whole spread mechanic back to the way it was in previous BF games for the next game, I'll be fine with suppression being removed. I doubt we'll ever agree on this topic though.

    Until the next game, I'll just keep on suppressing salty medics who'll probably just kill me anyway because landing 2 or 3 shots with near pinpoint accuracy and hardly any ADS time isn't too difficult. Edit: Scouts too.
Sign In or Register to comment.