I’m glad sweet spot is going but I’m worried about scout effectiveness

Comments

  • Loqtrall
    11159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited July 10
    @Loqtrall Slugs OHK to chest and upper arms within 12 meters in BF1. They are not the beasts you make them out to be. I have 4k kills of experience between them, just enough accuracy to use them, and still mostly die to high RPM weapons outside CQC. They might be more viable on console, but on PC you play them if you want to challenge yourself.

    My mistake, symthic wasnt drawing up lines for normal, I'll edit my original post(on top of taking like 45 seconds to load the main site, not sure what's going on there), but they definitely do OHK hs up to 50m, and their OHK range is equal to that of rifles in past games, while still maintaining a substantially faster fire rate and a larger mag than most rifles.

    I don't see how a rifle that OHKs in the same range, but has a slower rof and lower mag size would be more powerful than a slug shotgun, or would be worthy of complaints more than slug shotguns. That's the point. People complain about one gun doing the exact same thing as another that they don't say squat about.

    Let me put it this way - if a person that practices and plays with slugs in this game for dozens of hours started using a NON-OHK rifle from BF5 in the same manner they used the shotgun - they'd get stomped, despite both weapons functioning in-game essentially the same way.

  • bran1986
    4157 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 10
    They are lowering the health regen from the alpha and they are also talking about removing some healing/ammo stations as well, both of these things would help scouts. I'm just not sure what else can be done to balance bolt actions. Removing spread and "randomness" was always going to lead to crazy accurate weapons. When you have a weapon like the STG44 where it is almost all vertical recoil until you reach the end of the magazine, on PC that gun is going to have almost no recoil due to how you can negate the recoil with a mouse. Giving scouts a ohk range in cqb is the only real thing I can think of to help them honestly. This doesn't even take into account the much faster ttk which makes it that much harder to balance weapons among the classes and to make each weapon class fill certain roles goes out the window as well.
  • von_Campenstein
    5699 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited July 10
    bran1986 wrote: »
    They are lowering the health regen from the alpha and they are also talking about removing some healing/ammo stations as well, both of these things would help scouts. I'm just not sure what else can be done to balance bolt actions. Removing spread and "randomness" was always going to lead to crazy accurate weapons. When you have a weapon like the STG44 where it is almost all vertical recoil until you reach the end of the magazine, on PC that gun is going to have almost no recoil due to how you can negate the recoil with a mouse. Giving scouts a ohk range in cqb is the only real thing I can think of to help them honestly. This doesn't even take into account the much faster ttk which makes it that much harder to balance weapons among the classes and to make each weapon class fill certain roles goes out the window as well.

    Maybe they should've included stamina then to balance the laser aim, been moving a lot, sprinting especially or carrying a big load of equipment add a cooldown till your pulse is perfect for shooting.

    It might come across as random bullet deviation and suppression by any other name but this is highly controllable on your end.

    Suggested graphics a thin bar at the bottom right, similar to a ECG but the difference being that when you flatline on this you're all zen and ready to shoot with perfect accuracy.
  • bran1986
    4157 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 10
    bran1986 wrote: »
    They are lowering the health regen from the alpha and they are also talking about removing some healing/ammo stations as well, both of these things would help scouts. I'm just not sure what else can be done to balance bolt actions. Removing spread and "randomness" was always going to lead to crazy accurate weapons. When you have a weapon like the STG44 where it is almost all vertical recoil until you reach the end of the magazine, on PC that gun is going to have almost no recoil due to how you can negate the recoil with a mouse. Giving scouts a ohk range in cqb is the only real thing I can think of to help them honestly. This doesn't even take into account the much faster ttk which makes it that much harder to balance weapons among the classes and to make each weapon class fill certain roles goes out the window as well.

    Maybe they should've included stamina then to balance the laser aim, been moving a lot, sprinting especially or carrying a big load of equipment add a cooldown till your pulse is perfect for shooting.

    It might come across as random bullet deviation and suppression by any other name but this is highly controllable on your end.

    Suggested graphics a thin bar at the bottom right, similar to a ECG but the difference being that when you flatline on this you're all zen and ready to shoot with perfect accuracy.

    I think this is what they are doing in Post Scriptum. You have a stamina bar and to refill it you need to drink water out of your canteen, the lower your stamina the worse your aim is. There has to be something to make gunplay more than shooting laser beams across the map. Then again I'm the idiot that likes spread and believes needing to control it is more skillful than tapping the mouse button really fast.
  • Hortey
    201 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited July 10
    So many 2 page paper responses, I can't even quote them to respond to in good concience.

    While there are many way to die in one hit in battlefield, that doesn't mean that getting chest shot by a sniper at 30m should be one of them. The scout weapons are super powerful if you hit to the head, and the reason they are longer range weapons are because you need the distance to take multiple shots toward the head (or just shoot them twice in the torso, hoping that they are below 100 already for an easy kill). Also, people just tend to die when spotted and hit in the chest because the next thing that hits them will kill them, this will be especially true without auto regen.

    If scout rifles get an upgrade to be gibby, I want every other weapon in the game able to kill at scout rifle ranges, even the extreme ones. If scouts get to fight outside their optimum ranges, I want to be able to counter snipe with any class in the game and any weapon I choose. I should be able to counter snipe someone who is less accurate than me with my pistol at 300m.

    EDIT: How about, if scout rifles are given CQC instant gibs, we just remove damage degradation on distance from the game entirely? Why should it take 2 bullets to the head to kill with an assault rifle at close range, but 3 to 4 at long range? Make recoil and accuracy the only reason guns get less effective at range. Meaning shotgun spread is effective out to 100m but the pellets are so spread out they can't do any good single target damage and automatic weapons are only limited by your inability to control the recoil.

    Or maybe just remove the degradation when they are toggled to semi auto?


    Post edited by Hortey on
  • Loqtrall
    11159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Hortey wrote: »
    So many 2 page paper responses, I can't even quote them to respond to in good concience.

    While there are many way to die in one hit in battlefield, that doesn't mean that getting chest shot by a sniper at 30m should be one of them. The scout weapons are super powerful if you hit to the head, and the reason they are longer range weapons are because you need the distance to take multiple shots toward the head (or just shoot them twice in the torso, hoping that they are below 100 already for an easy kill). Also, people just tend to die when spotted and hit in the chest because the next thing that hits them will kill them, this will be especially true without auto regen.

    If scout rifles get an upgrade to be gibby, I want every other weapon in the game able to kill at scout rifle ranges, even the extreme ones. If scouts get to fight outside their optimum ranges, I want to be able to counter snipe with any class in the game and any weapon I choose. I should be able to counter snipe someone who is less accurate than me with my pistol at 300m.

    Who said anything about chest shot OHKs at 30m?

    I proposed (and always have) the OHK range for rifles that was featured in BC2, BF3, BF4, and BFH. Which is 0-12m, the same as slug shotguns.

    And news flash, every other weapon can be effective at sniper ranges, or hundreds of meters away. There's no more random bullet deviation, and for the first time in a LONG time suppression now has no effect on weapon accuracy - so you can literally tap fire any weapon, and the mantra seems to be "where you're aiming is where the shot goes". The only thing you have to control is recoil, which at this point looks solely vertical.

    Lastly, counter snipe at 300m with your pistol? Are you actually comparing that to being able to OHK with the slowest firing, most accuracy-demanding weapons in the game from 0m to 12m?
  • Hortey
    201 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I use bolt actions often, and I have used them moving with my squad the whole time except for some very odd circumstances where I did try that long distance stuff with 12x optics in older games... I completely disagree with what you are trying to paint them as.

    Slowest firing most accuracy demanding weapon in the game? Oh woe is you, you make it sound like you should get a medal for just equiping the thing.

    They are accurate, extremely powerful weapons even when they don't instantly gib people from full hp. The cycle animation is the only thing balancing how super powerful these rail guns are! You barely even need to worry about aiming for anything but center mass when your squad gunner is killing it, usually he tags whoever he spots for me at least once meaning all I have to do is tag someone, at 40m with a powerful optic.... it's not even shooting fish in a barrel when the person you are shooting takes up 1/3rd of your rifle scope or more.

    And this is talking about before the "sweet spot" stuff, playing around 2k hours of bf3 and 4 fighting through heavy suppression and no gibs unless I'm close enough to stab them.
  • Sixclicks
    4099 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 11
    Hortey wrote: »
    I use bolt actions often, and I have used them moving with my squad the whole time except for some very odd circumstances where I did try that long distance stuff with 12x optics in older games... I completely disagree with what you are trying to paint them as.

    Slowest firing most accuracy demanding weapon in the game? Oh woe is you, you make it sound like you should get a medal for just equiping the thing.

    They are accurate, extremely powerful weapons even when they don't instantly gib people from full hp. The cycle animation is the only thing balancing how super powerful these rail guns are! You barely even need to worry about aiming for anything but center mass when your squad gunner is killing it, usually he tags whoever he spots for me at least once meaning all I have to do is tag someone, at 40m with a powerful optic.... it's not even shooting fish in a barrel when the person you are shooting takes up 1/3rd of your rifle scope or more.

    And this is talking about before the "sweet spot" stuff, playing around 2k hours of bf3 and 4 fighting through heavy suppression and no gibs unless I'm close enough to stab them.

    Why should I have to rely on teammates tagging the enemy first for me when I can just straight up kill the enemy completely by myself in 3 very quick taps with the Gewehr 43 at literally any range? Like I said earlier, I spent time literally sniping as a medic up on a hill just like a scout would, and it was significantly easier and more effective than using a scout rifle on any enemy except for enemies that stood still and made a headshot easy.

    And even if you're good at getting headshots, the Gewehr 43 is a quick 2 tap kill then. Getting headshot and then body shot by an SLR is nearly the same as being insta-killed by a headshot from a bolt action rifle. You're dead before you know what has happened. Plus you've also got a lot more room for error since you can fire so rapidly, you've still got strong close and medium ranged performance, and you can literally shoot enemies in the leg 3 times and get a kill at any range.

    Scout rifles now are a lot like slugs without the ability to one hit kill at very close ranges up to 55 meters now. They both do just over 50 damage to the body at range. They no longer do 70-90 damage at any range like in BF1.

    As a side note, it seemed like the Gewehr 43 didn't even have any noticeable bullet drop, unlike bolt actions.

    Sniping with the Gewehr 43:



    Sniping with the STG 44:



    Both required a lot less effort than attempting to line up a headshot with a scout rifle. I actually got a few headshots without even trying to in both of those clips. The Gewehr 43 one shows how much more forgiving it is too since missing really wasn't a problem because I could easily follow up each shot with another very quickly. In the STG 44 one, I was strafing back and forth while shooting without it affecting my accuracy. Scouts cannot do that. Also, in the STG 44 one, the enemy scout barely missed my head and didn't cause any suppression. Even if he did, suppression is only visual blurring around the edges of your screen. Meanwhile, I'm sure he was flinching from my rapid body shots.

    So the point then is: why is medic and assault allowed to be effective at such long ranges if it's such a problem for scout to be somewhat effective in CQB?
  • ninjapenquinuk
    914 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Sniper rifles only doing 50 damage does sound poor. Do you reckon that is down to the developers thinking there will be a lot more players running around with really low health now? If it was as high as 70 damage, would sniper rifles not effectively be OHK on body shots a lot of the time due to the no health regen and a large number of players running around who have at least be tagged once by a stray round? Does that bare out in reality?
  • Sixclicks
    4099 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 11
    Sniper rifles only doing 50 damage does sound poor. Do you reckon that is down to the developers thinking there will be a lot more players running around with really low health now? If it was as high as 70 damage, would sniper rifles not effectively be OHK on body shots a lot of the time due to the no health regen and a large number of players running around who have at least be tagged once by a stray round? Does that bare out in reality?

    That's exactly why I think they only do 55 to 75 damage (only at close ranges) to the chest now. The thing is, you can regenerate 40 health. So if you get hit, you can take cover until that 40 health regen kicks in and suddenly you're able to take a second body shot from a sniper's rifle without dying. On top of that, there's plenty of health stations and medics running around to keep yourself healed. Unless you just got out of a firefight, you're likely not going to be injured enough to die from a body shot.

    Which is why, as I've said, I don't think bolt action rifles are too effective right now unless you're constantly landing headshots.

    The Gewehr 43 was doing 36 damage on body shots and 63 damage on headshots at the end of its damage dropoff. So it's not like it can't very rapidly finish off a heavily injured enemy too.

    The STG at least lacks that ability with body shots at long range since it only does 17 damage at the end of its damage dropoff. Although headshots still do 32 damage at max dropoff.

    I didn't play support enough to know its damage numbers. The class just felt bad to play unless you love sitting around with the bipod deployed.

    The one saving grace here for scouts is an "assist counts as kill" only requires you to do 60 damage. So you get plenty of those to make it look like you got more kills than you actually did if a teammate finishes the enemy off shortly after you hit them.
    Post edited by Sixclicks on
  • Loqtrall
    11159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Hortey wrote: »
    I use bolt actions often, and I have used them moving with my squad the whole time except for some very odd circumstances where I did try that long distance stuff with 12x optics in older games... I completely disagree with what you are trying to paint them as.

    Slowest firing most accuracy demanding weapon in the game? Oh woe is you, you make it sound like you should get a medal for just equiping the thing.

    They are accurate, extremely powerful weapons even when they don't instantly gib people from full hp. The cycle animation is the only thing balancing how super powerful these rail guns are! You barely even need to worry about aiming for anything but center mass when your squad gunner is killing it, usually he tags whoever he spots for me at least once meaning all I have to do is tag someone, at 40m with a powerful optic.... it's not even shooting fish in a barrel when the person you are shooting takes up 1/3rd of your rifle scope or more.

    And this is talking about before the "sweet spot" stuff, playing around 2k hours of bf3 and 4 fighting through heavy suppression and no gibs unless I'm close enough to stab them.

    Well first off, looking at your stats pages for both BF3, BF4, and BF1 - on top of seeing not really an abundant use of rifles, you don't really perform as great with them as you're implying their ease of use (for you) is.

    That's not a stat bash, that's just an observation of someone claiming the exact opposite experience as me, being that aggro sniping and actively contributing to objective play isn't hard.

    I'm not going to stand here and act like someone is the authority on sniping when I have blatantly more use with them in these games, and probably substantially more use with them within 0-20m of enemy players.

    Secondly, the accuracy of rifles doesn't matter in BF5 - otherwise known as the game we're discussing.

    Because, FOR THE FOURTH TIME, RBD is gone, and for the first time since like BC2 suppression doesn't effect weapon accuracy AT ALL. That means, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WEAPON YOU USE, it's going to be accurate and fire where you're aiming. Whether you're suppressed or not.

    So the fact rifles are "super accurate", is completely moot. EVERY weapon is going to be super accurate. You WILL be getting outgunned at 120m by a guy using an STG44 whether you're using a rifle or not.

    To add to that, the "slow firing, most accuracy required weapon in the game" bit was to address that EVEN IN CQB, the weapon still requires more accuracy than ANY other weapon type (solely because you can't sustain fire) on top of firing SUBSTANTIALLY SLOWER than any other weapon. Because that combination of attributes means that if you MISS ONE SHOT in the short OHK zone, you're more than likely going to die.

    Now imagine trying to do anything but camp long range with a rifle with NO OHK capability in a game where NOBODY gets suppressed, EVERYONE'S bullets go right where they're aiming, the TTK is faster, and when even other Scouts you run into could be using an SMG.

    It was already the hardest objective-based infantry playstyle in the game when they had the capability to OHK from 0 to 12m, now it's going to be like aggro sniping in BF1 except everything is just as accurate at all ranges and kills even faster than in BF1.
  • b2tchwood
    1042 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    As stated a few times here the TTK is increased as it stands so for those who do t like OHK, this game is going to be full of insta deaths from these laser beam guns. There’s basically a more HC approach to this game. I personally still see the 12.5m 1.5 multiplier the best balance scenario to date but saying that I would still rather see a HS no revive mechanic to make sure sniping has its role and that will separate the good snipers from the bad ones. Combine them and the class will be very effective without being OP unless you are an excellent sniper and there are not many about.
  • trip1ex
    3530 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Sniper was fine. It was the best long distance option. Does the balance in the Alpha perhaps need a few small tweaks? Maybe, but let's not pretend like it was so off either. It was in the ballpark at worst.





  • Lykosia
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    It's even more mind-numbing when you consider the fact people complain about snipers that OHK in close range, but don't say a WORD about Slug shotguns that do the exact same thing, fire faster, and have larger mags. Or don't say a WORD about shotguns which do the same thing while firing faster, having larger ammo counts, and requiring SUBSTANTIALLY less accuracy to be effective.

    I don't think you can compare shotguns to snipers. Shotguns still aren't effective on long range. If a shotgun guy and a sniper guy meet on a battlefield, if it's long range, shotgun guy has to close the distance before he has any chance to defeat the sniper, but if it's CQB a sniper can still win if he shoots first and hits. In CQB a sniper still has a decent chance to win when a shotgun guy has no chance to win in long range encounter.

    Slugs give a little bit more range to shotguns, but still snipers are much better at range.

  • vulpesveritas
    114 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Lykosia wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    It's even more mind-numbing when you consider the fact people complain about snipers that OHK in close range, but don't say a WORD about Slug shotguns that do the exact same thing, fire faster, and have larger mags. Or don't say a WORD about shotguns which do the same thing while firing faster, having larger ammo counts, and requiring SUBSTANTIALLY less accuracy to be effective.

    I don't think you can compare shotguns to snipers. Shotguns still aren't effective on long range. If a shotgun guy and a sniper guy meet on a battlefield, if it's long range, shotgun guy has to close the distance before he has any chance to defeat the sniper, but if it's CQB a sniper can still win if he shoots first and hits. In CQB a sniper still has a decent chance to win when a shotgun guy has no chance to win in long range encounter.

    Slugs give a little bit more range to shotguns, but still snipers are much better at range.

    Conversely, a slug shotgun is far better than a sniper at close range, while being superior in mid-range combat.
  • GrizzGolf
    546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Bush Wookies will still be popping headshots
  • Loqtrall
    11159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Lykosia wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    It's even more mind-numbing when you consider the fact people complain about snipers that OHK in close range, but don't say a WORD about Slug shotguns that do the exact same thing, fire faster, and have larger mags. Or don't say a WORD about shotguns which do the same thing while firing faster, having larger ammo counts, and requiring SUBSTANTIALLY less accuracy to be effective.

    I don't think you can compare shotguns to snipers. Shotguns still aren't effective on long range. If a shotgun guy and a sniper guy meet on a battlefield, if it's long range, shotgun guy has to close the distance before he has any chance to defeat the sniper, but if it's CQB a sniper can still win if he shoots first and hits. In CQB a sniper still has a decent chance to win when a shotgun guy has no chance to win in long range encounter.

    Slugs give a little bit more range to shotguns, but still snipers are much better at range.

    Yes, they can be directly compared, because we're speaking about two weapon types capable of OHK in EXTREME close range, and rifles being the more difficult to use out of them both despite still retaining the ability to OHK.

    The reasoning behind this is slug shotguns not only OHK in cqb, but they shoot a single projectile just like rifles, but do so at a noticeably faster rate of fire and whole maintaining more ammo per mag than said rifle.

    Slug shotguns DO NOT need to get close to snipers further than their OHK range. Slug shotguns 2hk JUST like rifles up to 55m, that's a nice span of distance. It's a 3hk at ANY distance after that, there's no more damage drop off. That's not to mention it's capability of OHKing with a headshot up to 50m, which no other weapon aside from rifles is capable of - sounds pretty comparable.

    Of course rifles are easier to use at those ranges, but not equally as easily as slugs are to able to be used in CQB in comparison to a rifle. You can still 2hk someone 55m away with slugs, but you can't OHK someone 12m away with a rifle.

    It's completely contradictory to complain about one and not the other.

    Slugs are essentially a semi-auto aggro sniper rifle that nobody says anything about - but if you give the same attributes to a rifle that fires slower and has less rounds, for whatever reason people freak out and call it OP as people with slugs do the exact same thing.
  • Lykosia
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member

    Conversely, a slug shotgun is far better than a sniper at close range, while being superior in mid-range combat.

    Depends on a game, in BF1 most snipers excel at mid-range: Ross, SMLE, Arisaka, Russian Trench, MH, VV, Carcano, G95. I would take Russian Trench over any slug shotgun in BF1 for that role. Slugs have spread even when standing still and I none of the shotguns have good sights for accurate shooting.

  • theONEFORCE
    2705 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member

    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Lykosia wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    It's even more mind-numbing when you consider the fact people complain about snipers that OHK in close range, but don't say a WORD about Slug shotguns that do the exact same thing, fire faster, and have larger mags. Or don't say a WORD about shotguns which do the same thing while firing faster, having larger ammo counts, and requiring SUBSTANTIALLY less accuracy to be effective.

    I don't think you can compare shotguns to snipers. Shotguns still aren't effective on long range. If a shotgun guy and a sniper guy meet on a battlefield, if it's long range, shotgun guy has to close the distance before he has any chance to defeat the sniper, but if it's CQB a sniper can still win if he shoots first and hits. In CQB a sniper still has a decent chance to win when a shotgun guy has no chance to win in long range encounter.

    Slugs give a little bit more range to shotguns, but still snipers are much better at range.

    Yes, they can be directly compared, because we're speaking about two weapon types capable of OHK in EXTREME close range, and rifles being the more difficult to use out of them both despite still retaining the ability to OHK.

    The reasoning behind this is slug shotguns not only OHK in cqb, but they shoot a single projectile just like rifles, but do so at a noticeably faster rate of fire and whole maintaining more ammo per mag than said rifle.

    Slug shotguns DO NOT need to get close to snipers further than their OHK range. Slug shotguns 2hk JUST like rifles up to 55m, that's a nice span of distance. It's a 3hk at ANY distance after that, there's no more damage drop off. That's not to mention it's capability of OHKing with a headshot up to 50m, which no other weapon aside from rifles is capable of - sounds pretty comparable.

    Of course rifles are easier to use at those ranges, but not equally as easily as slugs are to able to be used in CQB in comparison to a rifle. You can still 2hk someone 55m away with slugs, but you can't OHK someone 12m away with a rifle.

    It's completely contradictory to complain about one and not the other.

    Slugs are essentially a semi-auto aggro sniper rifle that nobody says anything about - but if you give the same attributes to a rifle that fires slower and has less rounds, for whatever reason people freak out and call it OP as people with slugs do the exact same thing.

    Not all shotguns OHK at close range. With that in mind, it makes even less sense that scout rifles should be able to.
  • DonSharkito
    770 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Lykosia wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    It's even more mind-numbing when you consider the fact people complain about snipers that OHK in close range, but don't say a WORD about Slug shotguns that do the exact same thing, fire faster, and have larger mags. Or don't say a WORD about shotguns which do the same thing while firing faster, having larger ammo counts, and requiring SUBSTANTIALLY less accuracy to be effective.

    I don't think you can compare shotguns to snipers. Shotguns still aren't effective on long range. If a shotgun guy and a sniper guy meet on a battlefield, if it's long range, shotgun guy has to close the distance before he has any chance to defeat the sniper, but if it's CQB a sniper can still win if he shoots first and hits. In CQB a sniper still has a decent chance to win when a shotgun guy has no chance to win in long range encounter.

    Slugs give a little bit more range to shotguns, but still snipers are much better at range.

    Yes, they can be directly compared, because we're speaking about two weapon types capable of OHK in EXTREME close range, and rifles being the more difficult to use out of them both despite still retaining the ability to OHK.

    The reasoning behind this is slug shotguns not only OHK in cqb, but they shoot a single projectile just like rifles, but do so at a noticeably faster rate of fire and whole maintaining more ammo per mag than said rifle.

    Slug shotguns DO NOT need to get close to snipers further than their OHK range. Slug shotguns 2hk JUST like rifles up to 55m, that's a nice span of distance. It's a 3hk at ANY distance after that, there's no more damage drop off. That's not to mention it's capability of OHKing with a headshot up to 50m, which no other weapon aside from rifles is capable of - sounds pretty comparable.

    Of course rifles are easier to use at those ranges, but not equally as easily as slugs are to able to be used in CQB in comparison to a rifle. You can still 2hk someone 55m away with slugs, but you can't OHK someone 12m away with a rifle.

    It's completely contradictory to complain about one and not the other.

    Slugs are essentially a semi-auto aggro sniper rifle that nobody says anything about - but if you give the same attributes to a rifle that fires slower and has less rounds, for whatever reason people freak out and call it OP as people with slugs do the exact same thing.

    Yes you can compare them but that doesn't mean your comparison is good imho.

    I think you haven't played enough with them (slugs) or not at all given the way you compare them to rifles and how you say it is easy to use them.

    No one complains about slug shotguns because they are very difficult to use for the average BF player and lost a lot of their efficiency after TTK 2.0. There is a reason why they are a very niche weapon and almost not used at all compared to scout rifles.

    Yes they can OHK with a body shot up to c.12m (if I remember well), but one thing you would know if you had spent enough time with them, is that because of the specific limb multipliers for this guns in BF1, you won't get CQB OHKs as often as you would like to. Meaning that often you will be dead before being able to switch to your sidearm or lining up a second shot. Sounds very similar to the scout rifles, no?

    Secondly, their bullet velocity is so low compared to most of the scout rifles that getting a HS becomes very difficult on moving targets at any range. Meaning that you will need the vast majority of the time at least 2 bodyshots to down your target past 12m. Given it's damage model, bullet velocity and fire rate, at mid-range you will often struggle against most of the other weapons unless you are very skilled user who can HS consistently.

    So in summary imo slugs are balanced by these clear limitations in CQC and at mid-long range and require a very skilled user to be consistently successful with it.

    In the end I don't see how you can justify a OHK for scout rifles at close range just based on the fact that shotgun slugs exists. As outlined above, slugs have their limitations, and just because they can OHK at close range doesn't mean that scout rifles should have the same ability. Otherwise you are just combining the best of both worlds and offering it to the scout class, which is not a good way to balance things imo.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!