Give back suppression for support

Comments

  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    TheSacar wrote: »
    TheSacar wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    TheSacar wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    I think all classes should be able to suppress but the rate of suppression is dependent on their rounds’ size and their ROF

    So LMGs would suppress faster than bolt-actions, semi-autos, ARs and SMGs

    And then it becomes an unfair advantage. People with many bullets don't need to aim that much, cause more suppression and are suppressed less by those who have fewer bullets? And when they are suppressed and miss a couple of shot they still have plenty to kill their target whereas the sniper only has one bullet before he needs to rechamber a round.... Sounds fair.

    Did you know that snipers can kill full health supports with one shot and supports need to land four?
    By your logic that’s really unfair

    “Oh so you expect supports to land four shots with their relative very inaccurate MGs whilst suppressed against enemies that can kill them with one shot? That’s b***s***!”

    MGs are permitted to typically have large magazines because they’re immobile and have heavy recoil when not set up (I can’t find the word).
    The sniper rifles that can OHK are permitted to do so because they need to reADS after each shot and have small magazines.
    There are trade-offs for everything.
    That’s why they’re most nearly fair

    Guns that are deemed ‘unfair’/OP are outliers. E.g. the Gewehr 43 and KE7.
    No, I expect that supports stop engaging snipers at ranges beyond 50-75m and expect to win
    They aren't. They are hoping to suppress and maybe survive.
    Which is entirely absurd.
    No it's not. It's totally realistic. How many times do we have to say it? Suppression is a real and effective battlefield tactic. It's inclusion in a battlefield game is far far from absurd. There are so so many analogs to 'real' used in the game. Why is suppression absurd when a superimposed minimap is not? When being revived from burning to death is not?

    Being realistic is not a sole reason to make it a good mechanic, I know, but saying it's absurd is... absurd.
    TheSacar wrote: »
    Thats like saying I should be able to shoot my pistol at a medic so he can't kill me
    No, you keep taking this "reductio ad absurdum" or "strawman" standpoint. No one is asking for suppression to make it so an enemy CAN'T kill you. They are asking for it to be more than the nothing it is now.
    TheSacar wrote: »
    I absolutely reject any notion of a mechanic that impedes anyone's ability to fight back
    Why? The current vignetting 'impedes', just very very little. What about the flinch mechanic? What about the red haze when you are dying?
    TheSacar wrote: »
    I don't mind a slightly more noticable optical suppresion effect
    Wait, what? You've gone from "it's absurd" to "I don't mind more noticable suppression" in one post?
    TheSacar wrote: »
    but anything that affects the suppressed player's accuracy is unfair!
    And I (and others) have said we aren't asking for spread increase like in BF1 - that was indeed too much - we are asking for something more than the nothing we have now.

    So, it seems, we actually agree after all this argument? No spread, but more visual is fine? Excellent. DICE may now proceed with the change!
  • BATTL3FI3LDBULLY
    336 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The LMG can’t win a sniper fight. The game must be broken! Make them miss because I’m wildly spraying at them. I finally get it!
    *All* weapons should suppress. In BF1 snipers were the best at suppressing - it took one near miss. From what I'm hearing they are *still* the best at suppressing.

    The point is: the removal (and yes, a slight vignette is 'removal') of suppression is to the detriment of the game. It is an interesting tactic and a good addition to the game, done right. It's obvious that the only tactic some are interested in is KILL KILL KILL, but others prefer a more interesting and sophisticated game.

    An additional point is: yes, the LMG is a bit of a special case. Balancing the LMG *without* suppression is very difficult. You have to make the bullets like ping pong balls to not make LMGs OP, but then without suppression they are a bit of a joke.

    Another point is: not many here are asking for suppression just like it was in BF1 - the additional spread was acknowledged as being over-the-top - but it need more visual aspect than is currently in BF5.

    The final point is: suppression *is* in BF5, it is simply too weak an effect to make any impact whatsoever. It just needs some tweaking to make it a worthwhile mechanic. At the moment, it's pointless having it.

    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    Everyone seems to have never played or never learned the lesson from BF3. The suppression mechanic is a cluster****! They attempted to balance it in every subsequent game and they failed every single time. Finally, it’s fixed! And somehow you hardcore BF loving fans missed that. But, I didn’t because I’ve been on these forums debating the failure of the suppression mechanics since BF3. It has been a problem that the created because it’s a failed problem that the offered and magically people now think it belongs in every game. It doesn’t. It ruins the fairness from day one. The finally just nerfed it to oblivion and then the trolls show up trying to bring it back. But they won’t ever bring that nonsense back. They learned! Previous battlefield titles were clearly balanced well before suppression mechanics, bullet drop, holding breat. And they were great games!!!

    The reason people want the suppression mechanics in the game is it helps them out when they are inaccurate. The are killed by accurate shots.

    BFBC2’s medic had the LMG and it was formitable for both kills and suppression long before the mechanics for suppression was invented. Why? Because landing shots both kills and suppresses.
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Everyone seems to have never played or never learned the lesson from BF3. The suppression mechanic is a cluster****! They attempted to balance it in every subsequent game and they failed every single time. Finally, it’s fixed!
    Nope. In BF3 it was bad. In BF4 it was better, but still bad. In BF1 it was much better, but needed the spread increase removing.

    In BF5 they've effectively completely removed it.

    Doh! Too far... Add back some visual effect or may as well remove it completely.

    Yes, we get that some people would like it completely removed. Some competitive types won't be happy until the only battlefield tactic is: See someone first? You win.
    BFBC2’s medic had the LMG and it was formitable for both kills and suppression long before the mechanics for suppression was invented. Why? Because landing shots both kills and suppresses.
    Barely remember that far back, but perhaps BFBC2 LMGs did more damage? Did landing a shot really cause visual blurring/effects? I admit, I don't see why missing someone suppresses, but hitting them doesn't. Perhaps it's because actually damaging someone *is* enough to actually cause 'fear' even in a game.

    That doesn't remove the desire for a mechanic that produces an analog of 'fear' when you experience a near miss.
  • Major_Pungspark
    1599 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Everyone seems to have never played or never learned the lesson from BF3. The suppression mechanic is a cluster****! They attempted to balance it in every subsequent game and they failed every single time. Finally, it’s fixed!
    Nope. In BF3 it was bad. In BF4 it was better, but still bad. In BF1 it was much better, but needed the spread increase removing.

    In BF5 they've effectively completely removed it.

    Doh! Too far... Add back some visual effect or may as well remove it completely.

    Yes, we get that some people would like it completely removed. Some competitive types won't be happy until the only battlefield tactic is: See someone first? You win.
    BFBC2’s medic had the LMG and it was formitable for both kills and suppression long before the mechanics for suppression was invented. Why? Because landing shots both kills and suppresses.
    Barely remember that far back, but perhaps BFBC2 LMGs did more damage? Did landing a shot really cause visual blurring/effects? I admit, I don't see why missing someone suppresses, but hitting them doesn't. Perhaps it's because actually damaging someone *is* enough to actually cause 'fear' even in a game.

    That doesn't remove the desire for a mechanic that produces an analog of 'fear' when you experience a near miss.

    More damage, it probably was 6 hits at close and 8 at range if I remember the BFBC2 damage system, everyone was tanking heavy damage.
  • BATTL3FI3LDBULLY
    336 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Everyone seems to have never played or never learned the lesson from BF3. The suppression mechanic is a cluster****! They attempted to balance it in every subsequent game and they failed every single time. Finally, it’s fixed!
    Nope. In BF3 it was bad. In BF4 it was better, but still bad. In BF1 it was much better, but needed the spread increase removing.

    In BF5 they've effectively completely removed it.

    Doh! Too far... Add back some visual effect or may as well remove it completely.

    Yes, we get that some people would like it completely removed. Some competitive types won't be happy until the only battlefield tactic is: See someone first? You win.
    BFBC2’s medic had the LMG and it was formitable for both kills and suppression long before the mechanics for suppression was invented. Why? Because landing shots both kills and suppresses.
    Barely remember that far back, but perhaps BFBC2 LMGs did more damage? Did landing a shot really cause visual blurring/effects? I admit, I don't see why missing someone suppresses, but hitting them doesn't. Perhaps it's because actually damaging someone *is* enough to actually cause 'fear' even in a game.

    That doesn't remove the desire for a mechanic that produces an analog of 'fear' when you experience a near miss.

    I remember that far back. It doesn’t belong in the game. BF worked just fine without suppression. So the false narratives from this thread can never disprove that. Nobody complained about the lack of suppression at that time. The weapons were balanced. A mechanic that “simulates fear” is a crutch. Players like me want to go toe to toe and whoever deals the most damage by landing shots wins. That’s what you call an old fashioned a**whoppin’ and suppression is the equivalent of throwing dust in somebody’s eyes so you can win the fight. Then claiming the fight was fair. Yeah right!!!!
  • TheSacar
    1005 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    No it's not. It's totally realistic. How many times do we have to say it? Suppression is a real and effective battlefield tactic. It's inclusion in a battlefield game is far far from absurd. There are so so many analogs to 'real' used in the game. Why is suppression absurd when a superimposed minimap is not? When being revived from burning to death is not?

    You seem to have misread my post. You said that supports are hoping to suppress a sniper at longer ranges and thereby survive. And that is what I called absurd. Because it implies that the sniper cannot fight back due to the suppression. Why else would supports hope to survive a long range engagement with a sniper by simply suppressing him? And as I said I rehect any mechanic that impedes the ability to fight back.
    What I do not necessarily include is if I have some sort of visual effect when I am suppressed so long as that effect does not mean that I can't fight back. So a narrowing of vision would be ok, but not a visual scope sway or discoloration of the center of the scope. And most definitively no deviation in bullet flight paths.
    .
    So I did not go from absurd to ok in one post but I called one thing absurd and stated that a purely visual effect within reasonable doubts would be fine, which is an entirely different thing.

    No, you keep taking this "reductio ad absurdum" or "strawman" standpoint. No one is asking for suppression to make it so an enemy CAN'T kill you. They are asking for it to be more than the nothing it is now.

    Well actually a whole bunch of people in this thread and threads like it have complained that they were shooting their LMG/MMG at a sniper and the sniper managed to headshot them and stated that this should not be possible with suppression. I on the other hand argue, that under all circumstances, this should be quite possible. So yes, there may be those who just want a more noticable visual effect, but there are also many who want a suppression mechanic which makes it impossible for a sniper under fire to headshot someone.
    You may argue that they just want to make that harder. But that is exactly where I would draw the line. When missing someone makes it more likely that that someone also misses you, then that is a mechnic I reject.
    And I (and others) have said we aren't asking for spread increase like in BF1 - that was indeed too much - we are asking for something more than the nothing we have now.

    So, it seems, we actually agree after all this argument? No spread, but more visual is fine? Excellent. DICE may now proceed with the change!

    We don't entirely agree. Or at least I do not entirely agree with a large portion of the supporters of suppression. The reasons for that I gave above. Whatever optical effect suppression causes, it must be absolutely possible for a sniper or anyone else to return fire with accuracy. Anything else would take skill out of the equation.
  • fakemon64
    898 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2018
    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    thats not suppression, thats just shooting somebody and they took cover. Suppression is something you do after they have taken cover. theres a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to suppress. imo suppression, and more things like that in general, bring more depth and immersion into this game.
  • BATTL3FI3LDBULLY
    336 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member


    fakemon64 wrote: »
    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    thats not suppression, thats just shooting somebody and they took cover. Suppression is something you do after they have taken cover. theres a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to suppress. imo suppression, and more things like that in general, bring more depth and immersion into this game.

    Hahahahaha! What do you do after they take cover? Hahahahaha! Keep firing at anything so they never peek back? Hahahahaha! You guys are a riot lol
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    TheSacar wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    TheSacar wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    I think all classes should be able to suppress but the rate of suppression is dependent on their rounds’ size and their ROF

    So LMGs would suppress faster than bolt-actions, semi-autos, ARs and SMGs

    And then it becomes an unfair advantage. People with many bullets don't need to aim that much, cause more suppression and are suppressed less by those who have fewer bullets? And when they are suppressed and miss a couple of shot they still have plenty to kill their target whereas the sniper only has one bullet before he needs to rechamber a round.... Sounds fair.

    Did you know that snipers can kill full health supports with one shot and supports need to land four?
    By your logic that’s really unfair

    “Oh so you expect supports to land four shots with their relative very inaccurate MGs whilst suppressed against enemies that can kill them with one shot? That’s b***s***!”

    MGs are permitted to typically have large magazines because they’re immobile and have heavy recoil when not set up (I can’t find the word).
    The sniper rifles that can OHK are permitted to do so because they need to reADS after each shot and have small magazines.
    There are trade-offs for everything.
    That’s why they’re most nearly fair

    Guns that are deemed ‘unfair’/OP are outliers. E.g. the Gewehr 43 and KE7.
    No, I expect that supports stop engaging snipers at ranges beyond 50-75m and expect to win
    They aren't. They are hoping to suppress and maybe survive.

    So you want supports to be able to suppress snipers as a means of surviving an engagement range which recon is more suited to?

    So what extra machanic will I as a recon player get to help me survive when I run into a support player in CQB or even medium ranges where recon weapons don't really stand a chance?
  • dandop_oq7r7ppf
    313 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Today I was suppressed about 4 times in 2 rounds. Not to mention killed many times by a bipoded MMG with lazer accuracy.

    I’ve said it many times. Suppression exists as a realistic form of suppression. You don’t need a game mechanic to assist, especially since your weapons are very accurate. Having an enhanced suppression effect would only make your weapons more OP than they already are.

    If you’re upset cause you keep getting sniped. Than you have to play more strategically, and don’t just go prone in front of a group of snipers. That already have you in their sights on you.

    Support is the easiest class to play. Quite your crying, and actually work for your kills, and know when you should and shouldn’t Suppress, and don’t expect a cheap mechanic to help you anymore than the weapons you are carrying already do.....
  • Zviko0
    1718 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    fakemon64 wrote: »
    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    thats not suppression, thats just shooting somebody and they took cover. Suppression is something you do after they have taken cover. theres a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to suppress. imo suppression, and more things like that in general, bring more depth and immersion into this game.

    Hahahahaha! What do you do after they take cover? Hahahahaha! Keep firing at anything so they never peek back? Hahahahaha! You guys are a riot lol

    I mean, that's the definition of suppressive fire. Maybe you shouldn't contribute to the thread if you don't even know that...
  • UglyNoah
    1244 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I miss this too, but after bf1’s negative reaction I doubt they’ll go back to it.
  • BATTL3FI3LDBULLY
    336 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Zviko0 wrote: »

    fakemon64 wrote: »
    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    thats not suppression, thats just shooting somebody and they took cover. Suppression is something you do after they have taken cover. theres a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to suppress. imo suppression, and more things like that in general, bring more depth and immersion into this game.

    Hahahahaha! What do you do after they take cover? Hahahahaha! Keep firing at anything so they never peek back? Hahahahaha! You guys are a riot lol

    I mean, that's the definition of suppressive fire. Maybe you shouldn't contribute to the thread if you don't even know that...

    Hahahahaha! Don’t contribute eh? I don’t understand Lmaoooooo. Too funny.

    Guy hides behind rock. Support sees him go behind rock, keeps shooting in that general direction. Guys screen shakes and blurs up so he could never return fire accurately hahahahaha!

    Don’t mind him being able to peek, see clearly you’re not accurate or any threat because you’re shooting wildly, the blow your head off. Hahahahaha!

    I finally get it now. Hahahahaha 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭

    I’m kicked from thread now. Hahahaha! Thanks! 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2018
    TheSacar wrote: »
    No it's not. It's totally realistic. How many times do we have to say it? Suppression is a real and effective battlefield tactic. It's inclusion in a battlefield game is far far from absurd. There are so so many analogs to 'real' used in the game. Why is suppression absurd when a superimposed minimap is not? When being revived from burning to death is not?

    You seem to have misread my post. You said that supports are hoping to suppress a sniper at longer ranges and thereby survive. And that is what I called absurd. Because it implies that the sniper cannot fight back due to the suppression. Why else would supports hope to survive a long range engagement with a sniper by simply suppressing him? And as I said I rehect any mechanic that impedes the ability to fight back.
    What I do not necessarily include is if I have some sort of visual effect when I am suppressed so long as that effect does not mean that I can't fight back. So a narrowing of vision would be ok, but not a visual scope sway or discoloration of the center of the scope. And most definitively no deviation in bullet flight paths.
    .
    So I did not go from absurd to ok in one post but I called one thing absurd and stated that a purely visual effect within reasonable doubts would be fine, which is an entirely different thing.

    No, you keep taking this "reductio ad absurdum" or "strawman" standpoint. No one is asking for suppression to make it so an enemy CAN'T kill you. They are asking for it to be more than the nothing it is now.

    Well actually a whole bunch of people in this thread and threads like it have complained that they were shooting their LMG/MMG at a sniper and the sniper managed to headshot them and stated that this should not be possible with suppression. I on the other hand argue, that under all circumstances, this should be quite possible. So yes, there may be those who just want a more noticable visual effect, but there are also many who want a suppression mechanic which makes it impossible for a sniper under fire to headshot someone.
    You may argue that they just want to make that harder. But that is exactly where I would draw the line. When missing someone makes it more likely that that someone also misses you, then that is a mechnic I reject.
    And I (and others) have said we aren't asking for spread increase like in BF1 - that was indeed too much - we are asking for something more than the nothing we have now.

    So, it seems, we actually agree after all this argument? No spread, but more visual is fine? Excellent. DICE may now proceed with the change!

    We don't entirely agree. Or at least I do not entirely agree with a large portion of the supporters of suppression. The reasons for that I gave above. Whatever optical effect suppression causes, it must be absolutely possible for a sniper or anyone else to return fire with accuracy. Anything else would take skill out of the equation.

    Few people here want to make it so that snipers literally can’t hit MGs whilst suppressed.

    The vast majority, like me, just want suppression to be able to play a role which it can’t currently do as it’s a part of war.
    We agree that the suppressed must still be capable of killing the suppressor.
    A lot of these guys just voiced their frustrations and did a poor job at expressing what it is that they actually want.

    That said, you can’t argue that if suppression made it harder for the suppressed to hit you it can’t be in the game and not also advocate for the removal of flinch and the permanent absence of gas and flashbangs from Battlefield games.

    I think that increasing the magnitude of sway by like 20% in addition to adding a bit of tunnel vision would be fair

    This may surprise you but I rarely even purposefully suppress hostiles when playing as a support soldier
  • Zviko0
    1718 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Zviko0 wrote: »

    fakemon64 wrote: »
    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    thats not suppression, thats just shooting somebody and they took cover. Suppression is something you do after they have taken cover. theres a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to suppress. imo suppression, and more things like that in general, bring more depth and immersion into this game.

    Hahahahaha! What do you do after they take cover? Hahahahaha! Keep firing at anything so they never peek back? Hahahahaha! You guys are a riot lol

    I mean, that's the definition of suppressive fire. Maybe you shouldn't contribute to the thread if you don't even know that...

    Hahahahaha! Don’t contribute eh? I don’t understand Lmaoooooo. Too funny.

    Guy hides behind rock. Support sees him go behind rock, keeps shooting in that general direction. Guys screen shakes and blurs up so he could never return fire accurately hahahahaha!

    Don’t mind him being able to peek, see clearly you’re not accurate or any threat because you’re shooting wildly, the blow your head off. Hahahahaha!

    I finally get it now. Hahahahaha 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭

    I’m kicked from thread now. Hahahaha! Thanks! 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭

    I can see by your initial post that started this and everything since that you have no idea what this is about. Yes, what you said in your initial post is correct, that is suppression IRL but because of balancing, suppression in the game has to be "simulated". IRL, if you peek while being suppressed, you are dead - suppression prevents you to peek or move. In the game you can take a few hits AND fire back - "suppression mechanic" as it is, doesn't work.
  • Banhammer72
    416 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    lagorythms wrote: »
    No just NO. Its a stupid mechanic that gives an advantage to bad players who happen to shoot first.
    Cause if they lose supression, camping corner and ammo feeding a team is their only playstyle.
    Which is boring.

    How about you lift your [butt] from the ground, take an LMG and try to ptfo?

    "Support" is the PTFO.

    Typical hill humper comment!
  • BATTL3FI3LDBULLY
    336 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    Zviko0 wrote: »

    fakemon64 wrote: »
    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    thats not suppression, thats just shooting somebody and they took cover. Suppression is something you do after they have taken cover. theres a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to suppress. imo suppression, and more things like that in general, bring more depth and immersion into this game.

    Hahahahaha! What do you do after they take cover? Hahahahaha! Keep firing at anything so they never peek back? Hahahahaha! You guys are a riot lol

    I mean, that's the definition of suppressive fire. Maybe you shouldn't contribute to the thread if you don't even know that...

    Hahahahaha! Don’t contribute eh? I don’t understand Lmaoooooo. Too funny.

    Guy hides behind rock. Support sees him go behind rock, keeps shooting in that general direction. Guys screen shakes and blurs up so he could never return fire accurately hahahahaha!

    Don’t mind him being able to peek, see clearly you’re not accurate or any threat because you’re shooting wildly, the blow your head off. Hahahahaha!

    I finally get it now. Hahahahaha 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭

    I’m kicked from thread now. Hahahaha! Thanks! 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭

    I can see by your initial post that started this and everything since that you have no idea what this is about. Yes, what you said in your initial post is correct, that is suppression IRL but because of balancing, suppression in the game has to be "simulated". IRL, if you peek while being suppressed, you are dead - suppression prevents you to peek or move. In the game you can take a few hits AND fire back - "suppression mechanic" as it is, doesn't work.

    I’ve been a part of the suppression debate since 2011. And yet, I have no idea what’s going on. We have been arguing this nonsense mechanic since then. And guess what? The finally got it right after all these years. Check BF3 forums regarding suppression, I was there. They finally figured out the creation of the suppression system was the problem because there is no way to balance it. At best, you get “participation points” for trying. THAT’S IT! But anyway I was kicked out the convo for not knowing what i’m talking about. Smh!

  • barnesalmighty2
    1624 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    Zviko0 wrote: »

    fakemon64 wrote: »
    All weapons do suppress! If you shoot anyone accurately, and land the shot, they usually take cover. That’s suppression! Even if they peek shortly after and kill you, they were suppressed for that time. If they kill you, you have no excuses.

    thats not suppression, thats just shooting somebody and they took cover. Suppression is something you do after they have taken cover. theres a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to suppress. imo suppression, and more things like that in general, bring more depth and immersion into this game.

    Hahahahaha! What do you do after they take cover? Hahahahaha! Keep firing at anything so they never peek back? Hahahahaha! You guys are a riot lol

    I mean, that's the definition of suppressive fire. Maybe you shouldn't contribute to the thread if you don't even know that...

    Hahahahaha! Don’t contribute eh? I don’t understand Lmaoooooo. Too funny.

    Guy hides behind rock. Support sees him go behind rock, keeps shooting in that general direction. Guys screen shakes and blurs up so he could never return fire accurately hahahahaha!

    Don’t mind him being able to peek, see clearly you’re not accurate or any threat because you’re shooting wildly, the blow your head off. Hahahahaha!

    I finally get it now. Hahahahaha 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭

    I’m kicked from thread now. Hahahaha! Thanks! 🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭

    I can see by your initial post that started this and everything since that you have no idea what this is about. Yes, what you said in your initial post is correct, that is suppression IRL but because of balancing, suppression in the game has to be "simulated". IRL, if you peek while being suppressed, you are dead - suppression prevents you to peek or move. In the game you can take a few hits AND fire back - "suppression mechanic" as it is, doesn't work.

    I’ve been a part of the suppression debate since 2011. And yet, I have no idea what’s going on. We have been arguing this nonsense mechanic since then. And guess what? The finally got it right after all these years. Check BF3 forums regarding suppression, I was there. They finally figured out the creation of the suppression system was the problem because there is no way to balance it. At best, you get “participation points” for trying. THAT’S IT! But anyway I was kicked out the convo for not knowing what i’m talking about. Smh!

    I was about to say pretty much the same thing. It's crazy people want it back after years of posts asking for it to be removed.
    I'm glad it's gone, hopefully it'll stay gone forever.
  • Banhammer72
    416 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Here is the fun thing about Suppression in this game, Call of Duty now has a better suppression mechanic that Battlefield.
    Suppression was removed because Snipers was tired of being countered and they complained loud enough that EA/DICE removed it as a useful mechanic, so now we get games where 30/40 of teams each game are snipers who rarely, if every PTFO, yet DICE build a game around PTFO mechanics.
  • Zviko0
    1718 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So instead of having a mechanic to simulate a real life suppressive fire that would offer some more strategy to the game and actually use those LMGs and MMGs for what they were designed for, you'd rather have an Assault-like accurate and powerful MGs with infinite ammo?

    Where's the balance and logic in that?
Sign In or Register to comment.