We have pushed a fix to address the issue with Rank 20 rewards. If you are missing your rewards for Class Rank 20, please play a match to completion and the Rewards should drop into your Armory.

Thanks for sticking with us.

Stop ruining the TTK!

Comments

  • theONEFORCE
    2788 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
  • crabman169
    12659 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    See if that at least had a irons version of the kar98k it would sorta make sense or at least customise the magnification

    It feeks like a knee jerk reaction to the typical sniper/Scout/recon crying that has existed since 1942.

    I mean the ironic part is histroical wise the Scout still should be the most used class on the field yet those that preach "muh historical accuracy and mursion" are the ones both not playing the class and demanding nerfs/removal of it altogether


    ~

    That beta really needs to drop and let console sink its teeth and feedback into it. I mean for all we know the original ttk could suit console perfectly due to people generally not being accurate and jacked recoil control plus movement
  • plliadidas
    124 postsMember Member
    I hope they have normal gun customization in beta and not forced into certain builds like in alpha. I only use iron sights but I did like what they did in bf1 where they do auto mag even if you don’t use scope.
  • Mystriall
    496 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    See if that at least had a irons version of the kar98k it would sorta make sense or at least customise the magnification

    It feeks like a knee jerk reaction to the typical sniper/Scout/recon crying that has existed since 1942.

    I mean the ironic part is histroical wise the Scout still should be the most used class on the field yet those that preach "muh historical accuracy and mursion" are the ones both not playing the class and demanding nerfs/removal of it altogether

    I'm not sure i understand what you are saying here?

    The russian forces in during WW2 was between 6-12 mill. (6.8 mill when germany invaded). Now during WW2 428 335 individuals are believed to have recieved sniper training, of those, 9 534 obtained higher-level qualifications. at it's army's lowest count the amount of snipers (sniper class) would be 6.30% of the forces.

    Now i could dive into the other factions, but i doubt we will see anything significantly different, hence, scouts/snipers were not the most used class on the field during WW2.

    here's a good example of how it is for BF1 https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/5fgzvb/bf1please_stop_sniping/

    On the one team. 19 out of 31 players are snipers 61.3% of the team . on the other team 13 out of 32 players (not that bad) 40.63% of the team. But i'd rather see it be 10-13 in total for both teams on a 64player game.

    I prey we get a BFV where we don't have to see the majority of a team playing sniper.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    4141 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    crabman169 wrote: »
    See if that at least had a irons version of the kar98k it would sorta make sense or at least customise the magnification

    It feeks like a knee jerk reaction to the typical sniper/Scout/recon crying that has existed since 1942.

    I mean the ironic part is histroical wise the Scout still should be the most used class on the field yet those that preach "muh historical accuracy and mursion" are the ones both not playing the class and demanding nerfs/removal of it altogether

    I'm not sure i understand what you are saying here?

    The russian forces in during WW2 was between 6-12 mill. (6.8 mill when germany invaded). Now during WW2 428 335 individuals are believed to have recieved sniper training, of those, 9 534 obtained higher-level qualifications. at it's army's lowest count the amount of snipers (sniper class) would be 6.30% of the forces.

    Now i could dive into the other factions, but i doubt we will see anything significantly different, hence, scouts/snipers were not the most used class on the field during WW2.

    here's a good example of how it is for BF1 https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/5fgzvb/bf1please_stop_sniping/

    On the one team. 19 out of 31 players are snipers 61.3% of the team . on the other team 13 out of 32 players (not that bad) 40.63% of the team. But i'd rather see it be 10-13 in total for both teams on a 64player game.

    I prey we get a BFV where we don't have to see the majority of a team playing sniper.
    In bf1 and bfv (probably) there is no difference between sniper and rifleman (the guy with ironsights rifles) because they use the same type of weapon but with different attachments. And sniper is still using single action rifles which technically means he's also a rifleman. So again technically sniper IS the most used soldier type of ww1 and ww2 because SIR is the most common infantry weapon of those wars.
  • Sixclicks
    4420 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 10
    So far I'm not really seeing anyone that agrees the Kar98 nerf was necessary or even warranted. Usually pro-sniper comments on the Reddit get downvoted, but they're all upvoted on the original post so far.

    The change to it really just doesn't make any sense. Specifically reducing it's velocity back to BF4 levels. I mean, if we're going to go back to that, then at least give us back BF4's one hit kill range of 0 to 12 meters with chest shots. Otherwise the scout class will be worse than it was in BF4 where most scouts who actually wanted to PTFO and not camp 500 meters away just used other weapon types like carbines, DMRs, and shotguns instead.

    I already felt it was the weakest overall primary of the first alpha.

    I hope they at least revert this change before the beta. Otherwise I really can't see myself enjoying the game if it's gonna be all about spamming SLRs and tapfiring automatic weapons with hardly any recoil.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    4141 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    So far I'm not really seeing anyone that agrees the Kar98 nerf was necessary or even warranted. Usually pro-sniper comments on the Reddit get downvoted, but they're all upvoted on the original post so far.

    The change to it really just doesn't make any sense. Specifically reducing it's velocity back to BF4 levels. I mean, if we're going to go back to that, then at least give us back BF4's one hit kill range of 0 to 12 meters with chest shots. Otherwise the scout class will be worse than it was in BF4 where most scouts who actually wanted to PTFO and not camp 500 meters away just used other weapon types like carbines, DMRs, and shotguns instead.

    I already felt it was the weakest overall primary of the first alpha.

    I hope they at least revert this change before the beta. Otherwise I really can't see myself enjoying the game if it's gonna be all about spamming SLRs and tapfiring automatic weapons with hardly any recoil.

    Kar was fine in the 1st alpha. Not sure why did Dice come up with the nerf idea. I think overall the game should definitely have TTK increased to balance the fact that all weapons have their accuracy increased to laser levels. At least people will have some chances to react instead of instadropped by SLRs or ARs.
  • ANGRYCARROTT
    300 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 10
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    plliadidas wrote: »
    So why make a sniper rifle less effective for its intended combat scenario, long range? It's not like it got any more effective for close and medium range as a tradeoff.




    You've not seen the video of the last alpha with people being able to do cod-style quick scoping with it?

  • Sixclicks
    4420 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 10
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    So why make a sniper rifle less effective for its intended combat scenario, long range? It's not like it got any more effective for close and medium range as a tradeoff.




    You've not seen the video of the last alpha with people being able to do cod-style quick scoping with it?


    That's something you could do in pretty much any BF game. It's still nowhere near as effective as any other weapon type in close and medium ranges while also having been nerfed for long range range in this alpha.

    So what? He got a lucky quickscope headshot on the first shot, and the second guy would have easily gunned him down before he could of pulled off that pistol kill if he wasn't behind him.

    If quickscoping was the problem, then they could have made it so your rifle isn't accurate until it's fully scoped in. Reducing the muzzle velocity does nothing to prevent quickscoping. It only hurts scout in its intended range.
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    So far I'm not really seeing anyone that agrees the Kar98 nerf was necessary or even warranted. Usually pro-sniper comments on the Reddit get downvoted, but they're all upvoted on the original post so far.

    The change to it really just doesn't make any sense. Specifically reducing it's velocity back to BF4 levels. I mean, if we're going to go back to that, then at least give us back BF4's one hit kill range of 0 to 12 meters with chest shots. Otherwise the scout class will be worse than it was in BF4 where most scouts who actually wanted to PTFO and not camp 500 meters away just used other weapon types like carbines, DMRs, and shotguns instead.

    I already felt it was the weakest overall primary of the first alpha.

    I hope they at least revert this change before the beta. Otherwise I really can't see myself enjoying the game if it's gonna be all about spamming SLRs and tapfiring automatic weapons with hardly any recoil.

    Kar was fine in the 1st alpha. Not sure why did Dice come up with the nerf idea. I think overall the game should definitely have TTK increased to balance the fact that all weapons have their accuracy increased to laser levels. At least people will have some chances to react instead of instadropped by SLRs or ARs.

    I felt it was weak in comparison to the other primary weapons. Although with the changes to those weapons in this alpha, it might have been fine if it were left alone. I still think the STG 44 and G43 need to have more recoil though. Unless they already tweaked the recoil but didn't mention it. They at least need some horizontal recoil... in the first alpha, it was pretty much entirely vertical recoil. I don't know why DICE claims they want each weapon to have a unique recoil pattern that you can master when mastering it so far pretty much just means pull down on your mouse or hold down your analog stick.
  • Pelliy
    1044 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    So far I'm not really seeing anyone that agrees the Kar98 nerf was necessary or even warranted. Usually pro-sniper comments on the Reddit get downvoted, but they're all upvoted on the original post so far.

    The change to it really just doesn't make any sense. Specifically reducing it's velocity back to BF4 levels. I mean, if we're going to go back to that, then at least give us back BF4's one hit kill range of 0 to 12 meters with chest shots. Otherwise the scout class will be worse than it was in BF4 where most scouts who actually wanted to PTFO and not camp 500 meters away just used other weapon types like carbines, DMRs, and shotguns instead.

    I already felt it was the weakest overall primary of the first alpha.

    I hope they at least revert this change before the beta. Otherwise I really can't see myself enjoying the game if it's gonna be all about spamming SLRs and tapfiring automatic weapons with hardly any recoil.

    I don't mind the changes but I do agree with the take on chestshots. If you're going to do that, bring back the chest shots.
  • Mystriall
    496 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member

    [/quote]
    In bf1 and bfv (probably) there is no difference between sniper and rifleman (the guy with ironsights rifles) because they use the same type of weapon but with different attachments. And sniper is still using single action rifles which technically means he's also a rifleman. So again technically sniper IS the most used soldier type of ww1 and ww2 because SIR is the most common infantry weapon of those wars.
    [/quote]

    I believe there's a difference to weapons used and actual role in the art of war. so even though a rifleman and a sniper are using the same weapon, all be it with different attachments as you say, they have very distinct and different roles in a war. The Snipers role is as a marksman to keep visual contact with the enemy, and engage from a concealed position at a distance. They are not meant to be barging in the frontlines pushing forward.

    While the rifleman is more of a traditional infantry in that sense, and functions more as a lineman ment to secure and hold positions in the front lines as well as behind. ofcourse you can run around and rush with the sniper class if you want. I'm just opposed to there being too many of them. And the main reason for there being so many of them in BF1 is the sweetspot mechanic (my opinion).

    Not to mention that the team with 60% snipers is kind of disruptive. No medics to heal revive, supports to resupply. But ofcourse if both teams are snipers then it's all the same. But so many times have i lost games due to my team being purely snipers. And that's what my main issue is.

    It's Battlefield, not WW2 Sniperelite or something else.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    4141 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    And the main reason for there being so many of them in BF1 is the sweetspot mechanic (my opinion).

    Not to mention that the team with 60% snipers is kind of disruptive. No medics to heal revive, supports to resupply. But ofcourse if both teams are snipers then it's all the same. But so many times have i lost games due to my team being purely snipers. And that's what my main issue is.

    But that's wrong. Sniping in bf1 is easier comparing to previous games because of higher bullet velocity and lower bullet drop. Of course sweet spot exists but I'm 100% sure those camping potato snipers don't know where exactly is that spot for the rifle they use. Campers will camp with any weapon they want, it's just happens to be sniper rifle because the possibility to kill enemies faster. Good players never camp and they actually help the team because spotting flare is one of the most "powerful" and important gadgets in game.
    People tend to blame the class for everything while it's all about the playersbase.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    4141 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    So far I'm not really seeing anyone that agrees the Kar98 nerf was necessary or even warranted. Usually pro-sniper comments on the Reddit get downvoted, but they're all upvoted on the original post so far.

    The change to it really just doesn't make any sense. Specifically reducing it's velocity back to BF4 levels. I mean, if we're going to go back to that, then at least give us back BF4's one hit kill range of 0 to 12 meters with chest shots. Otherwise the scout class will be worse than it was in BF4 where most scouts who actually wanted to PTFO and not camp 500 meters away just used other weapon types like carbines, DMRs, and shotguns instead.

    I already felt it was the weakest overall primary of the first alpha.

    I hope they at least revert this change before the beta. Otherwise I really can't see myself enjoying the game if it's gonna be all about spamming SLRs and tapfiring automatic weapons with hardly any recoil.

    Kar was fine in the 1st alpha. Not sure why did Dice come up with the nerf idea. I think overall the game should definitely have TTK increased to balance the fact that all weapons have their accuracy increased to laser levels. At least people will have some chances to react instead of instadropped by SLRs or ARs.

    I felt it was weak in comparison to the other primary weapons. Although with the changes to those weapons in this alpha, it might have been fine if it were left alone. I still think the STG 44 and G43 need to have more recoil though. Unless they already tweaked the recoil but didn't mention it. They at least need some horizontal recoil... in the first alpha, it was pretty much entirely vertical recoil. I don't know why DICE claims they want each weapon to have a unique recoil pattern that you can master when mastering it so far pretty much just means pull down on your mouse or hold down your analog stick.

    If they add horizontal recoil weapons won't be as accurate as they currently are. And Dice insisted the bullet should go where you're currently aiming unless bullet drop is affecting it.
  • Mystriall
    496 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    then the BF1 playerbase mainly consists of campers. Because it is like that 90% of the time i play. Either way, given that SIR is the most common used weapon, then all clases probably will be getting variations of it, so then hopefully some of the campers can camp with a class that better compliments the team as a whole, rather than getting the majority-sniper-teams.

    And on the topic of campers, i don't mind people camping the objectives, that's called defending, it's those guys camping in the hillsides for 10 hours a day far away from pretty much everything that get me annoyed. Especially Tanks that do it, which could have otherwise helped the team advance. But then again that is what it always will be like i guess in public games.



  • llPhantom_Limbll
    4141 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    then the BF1 playerbase mainly consists of campers. Because it is like that 90% of the time i play. Either way, given that SIR is the most common used weapon, then all clases probably will be getting variations of it, so then hopefully some of the campers can camp with a class that better compliments the team as a whole, rather than getting the majority-sniper-teams.

    And on the topic of campers, i don't mind people camping the objectives, that's called defending, it's those guys camping in the hillsides for 10 hours a day far away from pretty much everything that get me annoyed. Especially Tanks that do it, which could have otherwise helped the team advance. But then again that is what it always will be like i guess in public games.



    Yes, the playerbase has lots of campers. Sniper campers, bipoded lmg campers, corner assault campers, mortar campers, mortar truck/landship campers, muromets pilots are campers to some extent and so on and on. As you see there are many options for that playstyle but it's always a sniper who's to blame literally for everything.
  • rainkloud
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    rainkloud wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    plliadidas wrote: »
    I think they are pretty spot on with those changes glad to see the buff for lmg

    Everything except the KAR98 change makes sense. They literally even said: "This is done to give a more individual character to each weapon and pushing them to excel in those combat scenarios that they are intended for" regarding the weapon balance changes. So why make a sniper rifle less effective for its intended combat scenario, long range? It's not like it got any more effective for close and medium range as a tradeoff.

    Having played with the velocities on the BF4 editor I can tell you that going from 700 to 600 exit velocity isn't going to be a huge deal, however that is with the caveat that Frostbite now uses a gravity modifier so I can't accurately say if that 100 drop is any more or less significant on account of that.

    Not including bullet drag since that's too complicated to factor in, a difference of 600 m/s velocity versus 700 m/s velocity is equivalent to 36.1% increased bullet drop and 16.67% increased time to target. That's based on a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2.

    BF1 had a gravitational acceleration of 12 m/s^2. I'm not sure exactly what BFV's will be, so I just used normal gravity.

    Relevant equations:
    Drop at x meters = y = - V_y0*t - 1/2*g*t^2, where V_y0 = 0

    Time to Target = t = x / V_x0

    Based on other comments and upvotes/downvotes on the Reddit page announcing these changes, I'm not the only one who thinks the nerf to the Kar98 is unwarranted.

    Getting killed by enemy snipers in the first alpha was way more rare than getting killed by any of the other classes.

    Using Miffyli's chart here: http://forum.symthic.com/battlefield-1-general-discussion/10562-first-approach-to-air-drag-model-in-bf1/#post317578

    At 150m there's about .05 seconds difference in time to target. At 100m it's less than .03 sec difference. It's really only going to begin to reveal itself to be a significant factor at more extreme ranges.

    You say that the bobblehead effects all weapons but you neglect to mention that it does not effect them all equally in the sense that the benefit to sniper rifles which can OHK is much more significant than say an smg. The sniper rifle, by far, derives the most benefit from this change. And there's a lot of videos I've seen of snipers doing extremely well so despite anyone's personal assessment to the contrary, excelling with the sniper rifle was quite possible.

    I would consider that DICE has access to a ton of stats on weapon performance and I reckon that they saw the typical engagement distance and the accompanying success rate was too high. Then they considered that if it is too high here, what happens on larger maps with less cover? Sniper rifles would be simply too dominant on those maps. Now that's not to say that they shouldn't perform well on those maps as that is their ideal environment but for balance reasons you need to make the other options at least plausible.

    In summary, I think you are greatly exaggerating the changes here. Although I do appreciate your caution as DICE historically hasn't had the best record when it comes to balancing snipers. I think in BFV though we're seeing a much better, much more comprehensive and thoughtful implementation of weapon balance.
  • rainkloud
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Sixclicks

    Using Miffyli's chart here: http://forum.symthic.com/battlefield-1-general-discussion/10562-first-approach-to-air-drag-model-in-bf1/#post317578

    At 150m there's about .05 seconds difference in time to target. At 100m it's less than .03 sec difference. It's really only going to begin to reveal itself to be a significant factor at more extreme ranges.

    You say that the bobblehead effects all weapons but you neglect to mention that it does not effect them all equally in the sense that the benefit to sniper rifles which can OHK is much more significant than say an smg. The sniper rifle, by far, derives the most benefit from this change. And there's a lot of videos I've seen of snipers doing extremely well so despite anyone's personal assessment to the contrary, excelling with the sniper rifle was quite possible.

    I would consider that DICE has access to a ton of stats on weapon performance and I reckon that they saw the typical engagement distance and the accompanying success rate was too high. Then they considered that if it is too high here, what happens on larger maps with less cover? Sniper rifles would be simply too dominant on those maps. Now that's not to say that they shouldn't perform well on those maps as that is their ideal environment but for balance reasons you need to make the other options at least plausible.

    In summary, I think you are greatly exaggerating the changes here. Although I do appreciate your caution as DICE historically hasn't had the best record when it comes to balancing snipers. I think in BFV though we're seeing a much better, much more comprehensive and thoughtful implementation of weapon balance.
  • bran1986
    4443 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    then the BF1 playerbase mainly consists of campers. Because it is like that 90% of the time i play. Either way, given that SIR is the most common used weapon, then all clases probably will be getting variations of it, so then hopefully some of the campers can camp with a class that better compliments the team as a whole, rather than getting the majority-sniper-teams.

    And on the topic of campers, i don't mind people camping the objectives, that's called defending, it's those guys camping in the hillsides for 10 hours a day far away from pretty much everything that get me annoyed. Especially Tanks that do it, which could have otherwise helped the team advance. But then again that is what it always will be like i guess in public games.



    Yes, the playerbase has lots of campers. Sniper campers, bipoded lmg campers, corner assault campers, mortar campers, mortar truck/landship campers, muromets pilots are campers to some extent and so on and on. As you see there are many options for that playstyle but it's always a sniper who's to blame literally for everything.

    Exactly. If you nerf snipers the hill humpers will just camp with another class or they will camp in vehicles. It is a player problem, DICE can only do so much to facilitate fun gameplay, but there will always be those who don't care about fun and engaging gameplay and will still sit a mile a way on their rock.
  • trip1ex
    3715 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Changes are fine. It feels like some have their own agendas and are only focused on a few numbers and not absorbing the changes as a whole across all the weapons. Nevermind no one has played the 2nd Alpha. There could be more changes to things like recoil or muzzle flash etc.

    Plus as everyone should know, even though it appears it is easy for some to forget, weapon balance is always in flux. Anyone that played BF1 knows almost 1 1/2 years after the game came out that they completely changed weapon balance. Nevermind every patch nerfs/buffs this or that weapon. It will be no different in BFV.
  • gpkgpk
    269 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Exactly. If you nerf snipers the hill humpers will just camp with another class or they will camp in vehicles. It is a player problem, DICE can only do so much to facilitate fun gameplay, but there will always be those who don't care about fun and engaging gameplay and will still sit a mile a way on their rock.

    Makes you miss VoteKick huh.
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Plus as everyone should know, even though it appears it is easy for some to forget, weapon balance is always in flux. Anyone that played BF1 knows almost 1 1/2 years after the game came out that they completely changed weapon balance. Never-mind every patch nerfs/buffs this or that weapon. It will be no different in BFV.
    Shouldn't the goal be to avoid fundamental changes late in the game that the large majority DISLIKE ?
    I'm ok w/ weapon balance being in flux but so far DICE's track record ain't great on that front: big overbuffs/overnerfs spaced far apart are not good for gameplay..

    As someone pointed out though, better to test stuff in Alpha/Beta rather than live where things go unfixed for months at a time.
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!