#MakeSnipersGreatAgain - How to fix BF 5 scoped Air guns

13468911

Comments

  • Kunstula
    448 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    slappy323 said:
    Try aiming for the head. It gets me great results.
    Kunstula said:
    Balancing all weapons around body hits, but just 1 weapon class around headshots is never going to be balanced, which is exactly what the problem is now.

    Rehashing a beaten argument? Try following this discussion. It may get you better one.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    No scope glint, sensor ball, mortar strike. I'm kinda miss Bad Company 2.

    Even the recticle for some scopes are horrible to actually aim in BFV.

    I did not play BC2 but the recon of BF4 was really nice. They could opt out of slow long range weapons and grab full auto carbines or shotguns as well as TUGs/MAV/Sensor ball/SUV and freaking C4 explosives.
    The class had true versatility and did not felt like only a class that exists for spotting and sniping.
    Sniping on BF 4 is weaker than BFBC2. Barrett M95 can OHK up to 35m, don't require an upper chest shot to OHK, can damage vehicles, the time to switch to the sidearm is almost non existent,you have mortal strike to use against heavy armored targets, that your B. m95 can't pierce the armro. Still remember an epic scene where i protected the MCOM from being disarmed destroying a main battle tank and 11 players ho tried to defuse it on HC.

    On BF 4, a 7,62 MG in a vehicle can damage even ground attack helicopters while a .408 CT can't damage an unarmored jeep. That makes no sense.

    On normal mode, just use M39 EBR, on hardcore you can use sniper.

    The way the De Isle carbine works the bolt is how the Enfield is supposed to look. Doesn't make you lose sight of the iron sights, taking full advantage of the faster rate of fire.
    OMG. NEver used Enfield, but is true that not only has BB gun muzzle speed but also take an eternity to aim and deals soo little damage that needs 3 HK?

    Anyway, the best medium range """sniper""" is the underbarel rifle in the shotgun and the long range, the MG 42. Ker98 is a bb gun compared to this weapons
    I've had a situation where it took 4 shots to kill with the Enfield. I assume it's intended to be an aggressive rifle but every time you work the bolt, the animation moves the gun away so you lose sight of your reticles. The Enfield was designed specifically so the user wouldn't have to move the gun away from the face to work the bolt. This is one of the reasons that the gun could be fired so rapidly.
     
    Having been using the De Lisle, being able to keep your sights on target between shots has been a massive improvement over the Enfield in close range engagements.
    OMG... Even a revolver will require less bullets to kill... How someone can think that the damage is balanced?
  • xKusagamix
    1033 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 19
    Hawxxeye said:
    No scope glint, sensor ball, mortar strike. I'm kinda miss Bad Company 2.

    Even the recticle for some scopes are horrible to actually aim in BFV.

    I did not play BC2 but the recon of BF4 was really nice. They could opt out of slow long range weapons and grab full auto carbines or shotguns as well as TUGs/MAV/Sensor ball/SUV and freaking C4 explosives.
    The class had true versatility and did not felt like only a class that exists for spotting and sniping.
    Recon in Bad Company 2 can be both effective at long or close range or whatever range they want to be.
    Combination of BARs, Fully automatic SRs like the VSS/SVU, or all kit weapons like, M1A1 Thompson, Shotguns and DMRs (M14, M1 Garand). They come pre-equiped with the Sensor ball that's more effective than BF3/4 and you can't change that gadget, same as Medic/Support are pre-equiped with Health/Ammo box. BARs can one shot body kill at close range, faster scope in time, faster time to switch between Primary and Secondary weapons, no stupid recoil so you can actually see where your bullet land and make the 2nd shot count if you miss the 1st one.
    If you want to stay at longe range with the M95 and 12x scope, you still have the Mortar strike with its basically the same as "Artillery barrage" in BFV but with smaller radius and last quicker to be able to deal with Vehicle or help your teammate clearing the area. And if you want to be in the frontline then there are DMRs for mid range, SMG/Shotguns for close range, combine with the sensor ball and C4. There's no scope glint but the Recon class with the bush wookie outfit, they're easy to identify.

    It's even far more effective than Recon in BF1.

    Although i enjoy playing BFV but i do miss the time when Battlefield is actually fun. And the sound effect in Bad Company 2 is just top notch, it's loud and powerful. I don't know why they keep making sound in BF3/4/1/V keep lower for each game. 50% sound volume in BC2 is much louder than BFV with 100% sound volume, it's just dumb.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Kunstula said:
    y_j_es_i said:
    Even if BAs dealt 95 they still wouldn’t be able to ptfo. If a dude with a BA runs in multiple hostiles he won’t stand a chance. What’s he gonna do, shoot one round with the BA and then try to finish both off with a pistol?

    In any case the damage drop off for pistols starts at like 8m and so whilst it’d be viable at super close range, what about at 30-60? A dude with a BA would either need to land two follow up shots with a pistol after switching to it, or land two BA rounds (so the same as now).

    So what would end up happening if BAs dealt 95 at super close range is that some more BA holding dudes will try to engage at super close range, practically CQC distance (which is really annoying regardless of which side you’re on), and the rest will still have to stay away because it’ll just be the same old thing at distances past 20m

    So basically BAs would either have the fight where medics currently fight or stay away like they do now. It’s really not helpful
    Higher damage will make the scout more useful when he only managed to land 1 body hit. If targets get away with 10 to 20 health instead of 45, then they need more time to heal and are easier to finish off.  55 damage is too low, as this will leave targets who've been hit once with just +10 health to heal before they can take another body hit and survive. That situation is not rare, because you always start with 1 medic pouch plus you can heal immediately after taking damage plus healing is pretty fast and medic crates are also available in plenty of places.

    Balancing all weapons around body hits, but just 1 weapon class around headshots is never going to be balanced, which is exactly what the problem is now.

    It's only a problem for players who think they are entitled to some sort of Twilight Zone equality with the classes using other weapons in all situations, as if they have a right to outduel a guy with an SMG at very short range, or a right to be able to take down LMG gunners at medium range.  Actually some Recons often can do those things, but apparently the less skilled ones think they're entitled to do it too.  I remember when Recon lost C4 a few titles back, some thought that was a real crime because they couldn't take out vehicles anymore--so of course DICE caved and gave C4 back to the Recon class.  I almost expected them to then demand AA weapons as well.

    The classes should be different, we do not need a return to the BF4 policy of everybody gets (almost) everything.  Recons who want to play in close can use semi-autos, even I have had some success doing that and I'm the worst sniper ever.  I'd be okay with OHK upper torso shots at very close range, but if there are multiple opponents, yes, you're going to die even if you get the first one--they is no way to "fix" that without making the game into even more of a cartoon.

    DICE has always made us choose, e.g. one attachment providing better accuracy in aimed fire, or one providing better hipfire, but not both at the same time.  A Recon can have a spawn beacon or a Bouncing Betty, but not both.  A tanker can go with ammo with better armor-piercing capability or more effect on infantry, but not both.  This is no different.  If you want to play aggressive Recon then use a semi-auto and double-tap, if you want to sit back then go with the BAR but know that at close range you're in trouble.

    These demands are always based on the same thing--buff me, nerf the other guy.  Folks who will play two or three classes in one round tend not to care much about this stuff, it's the specialists who only want to snipe or fly or ride a tank who have this sense of entitlement.  These are the last people DICE should listen to, because what they want invariable results in poor balance.

    If it were up to me then OHK with BARs at very close range would be fine, as would higher bullet velocities for BARs, I thought toning down scope glare was appropriate too.  But the full-time snipers who also want scope glare totally removed, and OHK for every shot, and ghillie suits providing invisibility and so on--these are not players with the slightest concern for balance, all they care about is their scores, and DICE should ignore them now an forever.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    parkingbrake said:

     Twilight Zone equality with the classes using other weapons in all situations

    Look to current """"ballance""""
    Snipers lose to everything at CQB
    Snipers lose to everything at medium range
    Snipers lose to everything except shotguns/SMG's at long range and even shotguns, they lose to the shotgun with underbarel rifle



    parkingbrake said:
    I remember when Recon lost C4 a few titles back, some thought that was a real crime because they couldn't take out vehicles anymore

    Was not only the C4 that was lost.
    BARRETT M95, Mortar Strike and C4. Recon lost EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN USE AGAINST VEHICLES;

    And on BF 4, an vehicle 7,62 MG can damage armored vehicles, but a .408 CT can't damage unarmored vehicles. How it is fair? .408 CT is a much stronger ammo that punches much more armor.

    parkingbrake said:
     If you want to play aggressive Recon then use a semi-auto and double-tap, if you want to sit back then go with the BAR but know that at close range you're in trouble.

    No, if you wanna sit back, pick an MG 42. 
    parkingbrake said:
     I thought toning down scope glare was appropriate too.  But the full-time snipers who also want scope glare totally removed, and OHK for every shot, and ghillie suits providing invisibility 

    Who asked OHK for every shot? I saw nobody asking for it.
  • Kunstula
    448 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    If it were up to me then OHK with BARs at very close range would be fine, as would higher bullet velocities for BARs, I thought toning down scope glare was appropriate too.  But the full-time snipers who also want scope glare totally removed, and OHK for every shot, and ghillie suits providing invisibility and so on--these are not players with the slightest concern for balance, all they care about is their scores, and DICE should ignore them now an forever.
    I agree, that wouldn't be balanced, but I have not seen anyone asking for all those buffs combined.
    So if they would just buff them with higher max and min damage, highest muzzle velocity of all weapon classes and slower damage drop off, then bolt action rifles would be properly balanced.
  • Hawxxeye
    6394 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Kunstula said:
    y_j_es_i said:
    Even if BAs dealt 95 they still wouldn’t be able to ptfo. If a dude with a BA runs in multiple hostiles he won’t stand a chance. What’s he gonna do, shoot one round with the BA and then try to finish both off with a pistol?

    In any case the damage drop off for pistols starts at like 8m and so whilst it’d be viable at super close range, what about at 30-60? A dude with a BA would either need to land two follow up shots with a pistol after switching to it, or land two BA rounds (so the same as now).

    So what would end up happening if BAs dealt 95 at super close range is that some more BA holding dudes will try to engage at super close range, practically CQC distance (which is really annoying regardless of which side you’re on), and the rest will still have to stay away because it’ll just be the same old thing at distances past 20m

    So basically BAs would either have the fight where medics currently fight or stay away like they do now. It’s really not helpful
    Higher damage will make the scout more useful when he only managed to land 1 body hit. If targets get away with 10 to 20 health instead of 45, then they need more time to heal and are easier to finish off.  55 damage is too low, as this will leave targets who've been hit once with just +10 health to heal before they can take another body hit and survive. That situation is not rare, because you always start with 1 medic pouch plus you can heal immediately after taking damage plus healing is pretty fast and medic crates are also available in plenty of places.

    Balancing all weapons around body hits, but just 1 weapon class around headshots is never going to be balanced, which is exactly what the problem is now.

    It's only a problem for players who think they are entitled to some sort of Twilight Zone equality with the classes using other weapons in all situations, as if they have a right to outduel a guy with an SMG at very short range, or a right to be able to take down LMG gunners at medium range.  Actually some Recons often can do those things, but apparently the less skilled ones think they're entitled to do it too.  I remember when Recon lost C4 a few titles back, some thought that was a real crime because they couldn't take out vehicles anymore--so of course DICE caved and gave C4 back to the Recon class.  I almost expected them to then demand AA weapons as well.


    Now please tell me why one man army class aka assault exists then? He can do EVERYTHING mentioned above and even better than that. There is no such thing as class balance in this game when we have 1 god-like class, 1 decent class and 2 underpowered ones. The same goes for weapon types. Obviously  people ask for some parity you know.

    And somehow footage from godly players doing very well with the underpowered classes is often thrown as an argument that they are fine in spite of evidence that those players do even better with assault/support
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 20
    y_j_es_i said:
    y_j_es_i said:


    Even if BAs dealt 95 they still wouldn’t be able to ptfo. If a dude with a BA runs in multiple hostiles he won’t stand a chance. What’s he gonna do, shoot one round with the BA and then try to finish both off with a pistol?



    In any case the damage drop off for pistols starts at like 8m and so whilst it’d be viable at super close range, what about at 30-60? A dude with a BA would either need to land two follow up shots with a pistol after switching to it, or land two BA rounds (so the same as now).



    So what would end up happening if BAs dealt 95 at super close range is that some more BA holding dudes will try to engage at super close range, practically CQC distance (which is really annoying regardless of which side you’re on), and the rest will still have to stay away because it’ll just be the same old thing at distances past 20m



    So basically BAs would either have the fight where medics currently fight or stay away like they do now. It’s really not helpful

    Being at a disadvantage running into multiple hostiles is not a situation unique to the Scout class. If a dude with a G43 runs into multiple hostiles he doesn't stand much of a chance either. Improved bodyshot damage and pistol swap speed makes it so Scouts have a way to defend themselves against a single enemy that doesn't depend on that enemy missing shots.

    I think you're missing the point, this isn't about making the bolt actions viable at <30m. Snipers shouldn't be a short range class. Even with a 95 damage model the bodyshot-pistol combo isn't a sure thing. If you aren't a part of that top 5% skill bracket, if you want to get stuck in as Recon use an SLR (these need their own balance pass, but that's another can of worms). The higher damage model is there to make your BTK more consistent at all ranges while possibly helping you at close quarters in a pinch. It's not so you can seek out targets at point blank with your scoped shotgun.
    To be perfectly honest, not every weapon is viable on every map. If you choose to run around with a shotgun on Hamada or Pzstorm you accept that you are going to be at a disadvantage in the majority of your engagements. Bolt action rifles are no different, and if you insist on using a sniper rifle in a match where you are constantly getting into CQC you need to understand that you are deliberately choosing to handicap yourself.

    @-L-M3rc3n4ry
    So the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m, meaning that you can kill hostiles up to like 20-30m with one G95 round and a follow up shot with your pistol. So this the same scenario as if BAs did 95 damage up to 12m right?
    But, how many people with G95s have you seen stick with their squads?
    Literally the only person I’ve seen do that is Stoedeh and the G95 has other characteristics such as being clip loaded and having a decent ROF and 600m/s muzzle velocity that make it relatively well suited to sticking with your squad.

    So what does this case study tell us?

    This tells us that even if most/all BAs did 95 damage up close, no-one who isn’t in the elite 0.0001% would stick with their squads whilst using a BA because it’s not viable

    Making it so that most BAs did 95 damage up close wouldn’t encourage players to stick with their squads. It’s biggest impact would be that recons who get snuck up on stand a better chance. Would this help gameplay?
    No it wouldn’t
    Even with the higher max damage of the G95 at close range, it's still not a viable playstyle due to the slow pistol swap relative to the TTK of every other weapon type. Also, 80 damage is nowhere near as nice as 95. 80 damage means the damage dropoff from my pistol won't finish the enemy in one more shot except at extremely close ranges. The fastest drawing pistol, as far as I know, is the Ruby, but it barely hits for 20 damage. 95 damage on the other hand would mean it wouldn't matter what pistol you were using (in terms of damage). And you'd have quite a lot more range before the one shot with your rifle, one with your pistol combo didn't work. That's quite a difference.

    A higher chest damage curve also means you'd get more kill credit for assists instead of being a 60 damage assist hero as one of the assault hoard hit your target once or twice more before you can chamber and fire a second round. Then they get full kill credit, and you get a measly assist.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Sixclicks said:
    y_j_es_i said:
    y_j_es_i said:


    Even if BAs dealt 95 they still wouldn’t be able to ptfo. If a dude with a BA runs in multiple hostiles he won’t stand a chance. What’s he gonna do, shoot one round with the BA and then try to finish both off with a pistol?



    In any case the damage drop off for pistols starts at like 8m and so whilst it’d be viable at super close range, what about at 30-60? A dude with a BA would either need to land two follow up shots with a pistol after switching to it, or land two BA rounds (so the same as now).



    So what would end up happening if BAs dealt 95 at super close range is that some more BA holding dudes will try to engage at super close range, practically CQC distance (which is really annoying regardless of which side you’re on), and the rest will still have to stay away because it’ll just be the same old thing at distances past 20m



    So basically BAs would either have the fight where medics currently fight or stay away like they do now. It’s really not helpful

    Being at a disadvantage running into multiple hostiles is not a situation unique to the Scout class. If a dude with a G43 runs into multiple hostiles he doesn't stand much of a chance either. Improved bodyshot damage and pistol swap speed makes it so Scouts have a way to defend themselves against a single enemy that doesn't depend on that enemy missing shots.

    I think you're missing the point, this isn't about making the bolt actions viable at <30m. Snipers shouldn't be a short range class. Even with a 95 damage model the bodyshot-pistol combo isn't a sure thing. If you aren't a part of that top 5% skill bracket, if you want to get stuck in as Recon use an SLR (these need their own balance pass, but that's another can of worms). The higher damage model is there to make your BTK more consistent at all ranges while possibly helping you at close quarters in a pinch. It's not so you can seek out targets at point blank with your scoped shotgun.
    To be perfectly honest, not every weapon is viable on every map. If you choose to run around with a shotgun on Hamada or Pzstorm you accept that you are going to be at a disadvantage in the majority of your engagements. Bolt action rifles are no different, and if you insist on using a sniper rifle in a match where you are constantly getting into CQC you need to understand that you are deliberately choosing to handicap yourself.

    @-L-M3rc3n4ry
    So the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m, meaning that you can kill hostiles up to like 20-30m with one G95 round and a follow up shot with your pistol. So this the same scenario as if BAs did 95 damage up to 12m right?
    But, how many people with G95s have you seen stick with their squads?
    Literally the only person I’ve seen do that is Stoedeh and the G95 has other characteristics such as being clip loaded and having a decent ROF and 600m/s muzzle velocity that make it relatively well suited to sticking with your squad.

    So what does this case study tell us?

    This tells us that even if most/all BAs did 95 damage up close, no-one who isn’t in the elite 0.0001% would stick with their squads whilst using a BA because it’s not viable

    Making it so that most BAs did 95 damage up close wouldn’t encourage players to stick with their squads. It’s biggest impact would be that recons who get snuck up on stand a better chance. Would this help gameplay?
    No it wouldn’t
    Even with the higher max damage of the G95 at close range, it's still not a viable playstyle due to the slow pistol swap relative to the TTK of every other weapon type. Also, 80 damage is nowhere near as nice as 95. 80 damage means the damage dropoff from my pistol won't finish the enemy in one more shot except at extremely close ranges. The fastest drawing pistol, as far as I know, is the Ruby, but it barely hits for 20 damage. 95 damage on the other hand would mean it wouldn't matter what pistol you were using (in terms of damage). And you'd have quite a lot more range before the one shot with your rifle, one with your pistol combo didn't work. That's quite a difference.

    A higher chest damage curve also means you'd get more kill credit for assists instead of being a 60 damage assist hero as one of the assault hoard hit your target once or twice more before you can chamber and fire a second round. Then they get full kill credit, and you get a measly assist.
    Fun fact. An shotgun with underbarrel rifle can get assist count as kill but an sniper rifle at the same distance can't.

    About speed, the barrel lenght impacts a lot of projectile velocity, here is an interesting video showing examples


  • mf_shro0m
    1885 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:


    One_Called_Kane wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    Even if BAs dealt 95 they still wouldn’t be able to ptfo. If a dude with a BA runs in multiple hostiles he won’t stand a chance. What’s he gonna do, shoot one round with the BA and then try to finish both off with a pistol?







    In any case the damage drop off for pistols starts at like 8m and so whilst it’d be viable at super close range, what about at 30-60? A dude with a BA would either need to land two follow up shots with a pistol after switching to it, or land two BA rounds (so the same as now).







    So what would end up happening if BAs dealt 95 at super close range is that some more BA holding dudes will try to engage at super close range, practically CQC distance (which is really annoying regardless of which side you’re on), and the rest will still have to stay away because it’ll just be the same old thing at distances past 20m







    So basically BAs would either have the fight where medics currently fight or stay away like they do now. It’s really not helpful



    Being at a disadvantage running into multiple hostiles is not a situation unique to the Scout class. If a dude with a G43 runs into multiple hostiles he doesn't stand much of a chance either. Improved bodyshot damage and pistol swap speed makes it so Scouts have a way to defend themselves against a single enemy that doesn't depend on that enemy missing shots.



    I think you're missing the point, this isn't about making the bolt actions viable at <30m. Snipers shouldn't be a short range class. Even with a 95 damage model the bodyshot-pistol combo isn't a sure thing. If you aren't a part of that top 5% skill bracket, if you want to get stuck in as Recon use an SLR (these need their own balance pass, but that's another can of worms). The higher damage model is there to make your BTK more consistent at all ranges while possibly helping you at close quarters in a pinch. It's not so you can seek out targets at point blank with your scoped shotgun.

    To be perfectly honest, not every weapon is viable on every map. If you choose to run around with a shotgun on Hamada or Pzstorm you accept that you are going to be at a disadvantage in the majority of your engagements. Bolt action rifles are no different, and if you insist on using a sniper rifle in a match where you are constantly getting into CQC you need to understand that you are deliberately choosing to handicap yourself.



    @-L-M3rc3n4ry
    So the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m, meaning that you can kill hostiles up to like 20-30m with one G95 round and a follow up shot with your pistol. So this the same scenario as if BAs did 95 damage up to 12m right?

    But, how many people with G95s have you seen stick with their squads?

    Literally the only person I’ve seen do that is Stoedeh and the G95 has other characteristics such as being clip loaded and having a decent ROF and 600m/s muzzle velocity that make it relatively well suited to sticking with your squad.



    So what does this case study tell us?



    This tells us that even if most/all BAs did 95 damage up close, no-one who isn’t in the elite 0.0001% would stick with their squads whilst using a BA because it’s not viable



    Making it so that most BAs did 95 damage up close wouldn’t encourage players to stick with their squads. It’s biggest impact would be that recons who get snuck up on stand a better chance. Would this help gameplay?

    No it wouldn’t


    Even with the higher max damage of the G95 at close range, it's still not a viable playstyle due to the slow pistol swap relative to the TTK of every other weapon type. Also, 80 damage is nowhere near as nice as 95. 80 damage means the damage dropoff from my pistol won't finish the enemy in one more shot except at extremely close ranges. The fastest drawing pistol, as far as I know, is the Ruby, but it barely hits for 20 damage. 95 damage on the other hand would mean it wouldn't matter what pistol you were using (in terms of damage). And you'd have quite a lot more range before the one shot with your rifle, one with your pistol combo didn't work. That's quite a difference.

    A higher chest damage curve also means you'd get more kill credit for assists instead of being a 60 damage assist hero as one of the assault hoard hit your target once or twice more before you can chamber and fire a second round. Then they get full kill credit, and you get a measly assist.

    Two things

    1. Even if you could kill with a single follow up shot with any pistol at distances up to 20m, ptfo with BAs would still be most unfeasible due to the average distance of engagement in BFV. Coupled with much faster switching times, it would greatly increase the odds of recons who pump into hostiles in houses but is that our greatest concern?
    The vast majority of the time whilst ptfo engagement distances are greater than 20m and they’re more like 20m-60m. In such situation what are recons meant to do?

    2. If most recons got a kill every time they assist from within like 50m that’d be ridiculous and people would not be happy. If you get an assist but you’re dead having made an effort to ptfo, that’s inadequate consolation and ultimately won’t be sufficient for the vast majority of players to keep doing it.

    I don’t think that that’d be enough to make decent recons able to ptfo. That would just improve their odds in CQC when they inadvertently run into someone and give them a few assists, which means jack**** to the majority of players.
    I think assists is an important stat that should be displayed alongside kills on leaderboards but would I greatly increase my number of deaths for some assists? Lol no, and just because dying’s frustrating because you spawn a couple hundred metres away from where you died and not because of KD
  • mf_shro0m
    1885 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ultimately, what would you like to encourage, recons operating within 20m of hostiles I.e. right at the front with medics and assaults, or recons sticking with their squads but not clearing houses I.e. like 20m to 60m from the hostiles with the supports?

    I would definitely opt for the second option. The first one sounds ridiculous
  • Hawxxeye
    6394 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 21
    y_j_es_i said:
    Ultimately, what would you like to encourage, recons operating within 20m of hostiles I.e. right at the front with medics and assaults, or recons sticking with their squads but not clearing houses I.e. like 20m to 60m from the hostiles with the supports?

    I would definitely opt for the second option. The first one sounds ridiculous

    the maps rarely has the places from which the recons can maintain a realistic overwatch over their squads
    More often than not they have to work with a lot of obstacles with  those 20m long gaps where their guns are at serious distadvantage
    And if you manage to get an overwatch position the muzzle velocity vs the strafing speed of the enemies remain unless they are  staying still for some reason
  • mf_shro0m
    1885 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Note : one of my posts is still pending approval
  • mf_shro0m
    1885 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:
    Ultimately, what would you like to encourage, recons operating within 20m of hostiles I.e. right at the front with medics and assaults, or recons sticking with their squads but not clearing houses I.e. like 20m to 60m from the hostiles with the supports?



    I would definitely opt for the second option. The first one sounds ridiculous


    the maps rarely has the places from which the recons can maintain a realistic overwatch over their squadsMore often than not they have to work with a lot of obstacles with  those 20m long gaps where their guns are at serious distadvantageAnd if you manage to get an overwatch position the muzzle velocity vs the strafing speed of the enemies remain unless they are  staying still for some reason

    That’s true.

    If you look at COD which uses hitscan and where some BAs are OHK to the whole body minus the hands and feet, even on the most open maps only like 1 in 50 players roll around with BAs because it’s so difficult to almost guarantee that you’ll land your first shot when you’re not over 50m away. This is something that most people who’ve always stuck to BF don’t appreciate

    This is part of the reason why I think that between 10-30m the lower damage BAs should be OHK to the head and chest whilst the higher damage ones are OHK to the head and torso (or chest), whilst between 30-50m the higher damage BAs should be OHK to the head and chest.
    Few players would be able to ptfo and maintain a positive KD. Even fewer would opt to use BAs over SAs, SARs and LMGs.
    But nonetheless, it’d allow good players to ptfo with BAs.

    Like I said before, players using BAs who camp on the edges of maps wouldn’t get any benefit from this.

    Additionally, with damage drop-off occurring below 10m and beyond 30/50m, at super close range BAs would be doing higher base damage than they do now and so would satiate the requests of a few people here
  • mf_shro0m
    1885 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Another benefit to operating in the 10-30m and 10-50m windows would be that BA wielders could use irons or x2 sights and thus not have any scope glint

    It would be the perfect recipe for allowing and encouraging better players to ptfo with BAs
  • MacTurdy
    134 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Measures that could increase the effectiveness of scouts:

    - higher maximum and minimum damage (maybe around 90 maximum damage and 70 minimum damage)
    - Sweet-spot mechanic (actually it would suit that game better than it did Battlefield 1 due to the low TTK in general)
    - no scope glint 
    - higher muzzle velocity 
    - nerf of the ADAD spam and in general more predictable movement 
    - faster switch to sidearms 

    Maybe I still forgot about some other possibilities but those were the ones that got in my mind quickly. At the moment this game is a mess - it is simply inappropriate that classes like the assault or support take so much less skill to play than playing effectively as an aggressive scout. In my opinion all the classes should be balanced to an extent where the skill level that is required to be effective is quite similar. In this game however even a far less skilled player is able to kill you without even making an effort. Even at range you will hardly win a 1 vs 1 against an assault if both of you are outside cover. While the assault spams countless bullets in your direction with a very high accuracy while ADAD-spamming you must hope to land that one lucky headshot on that guy. If I am playing as a scout enemy scouts are those players that worry me the least since they are harmless usually. 
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    1. Even if you could kill with a single follow up shot with any pistol at distances up to 20m, ptfo with BAs would still be most unfeasible due to the average distance of engagement in BFV. Coupled with much faster switching times, it would greatly increase the odds of recons who pump into hostiles in houses but is that our greatest concern?
    The vast majority of the time whilst ptfo engagement distances are greater than 20m and they’re more like 20m-60m. In such situation what are recons meant to do?
    At 20-60, they will get assist = kill if they can't switch to pistol, also, the "combo" bolt action shot + Mars automatica on BF 1 worked pretty well on this distances. Looks like you din't played previous BF games.

    y_j_es_i said:
    2. If most recons got a kill every time they assist from within like 50m that’d be ridiculous and people would not be happy. If you get an assist but you’re dead having made an effort to ptfo, that’s inadequate consolation and ultimately won’t be sufficient for the vast majority of players to keep doing it.

    Yes, only those who play with shotgun + underbarrel rifle should get assists at this distance /sarcasm

    PS : If sniper receive an underbarrel shotgun, i can bet. People will complain "it is op" due an anti sniper bias.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 21
    y_j_es_i said:
    Ultimately, what would you like to encourage, recons operating within 20m of hostiles I.e. right at the front with medics and assaults, or recons sticking with their squads but not clearing houses I.e. like 20m to 60m from the hostiles with the supports?

    I would definitely opt for the second option. The first one sounds ridiculous
    I just want aggressive recon to be viable like it was in BF1 (with non-one hit kill weapons). I don't think it would make all recon players start playing that way, but it should at least be an option for those who do want to be more helpful to their team and don't mind that they'll still have a harder time than other classes more specifically designed for that range. BFV makes most non super highly skilled recon players feel like they have to sit back and be a useless hillhumper to be effective at all.

    That's how it was in both BF1 and BF4. Recon wasn't better than assault, support, or medic in CQB, but they were still reasonably able to compete with fast reflexes, accuracy, and good positioning. It's something that takes more skill than just holding down the trigger. And sure, your KDR wouldn't be as great as some scout laying on a hill a mile away, but that's not really super important to a lot of us that prefer that playstyle. That's not to say you can't still have good stats playing that way. I think I started BF1 around a 1.5 and ended up at a 3.2 before I stopped playing.

    I personally loved the scout class in BF1. It was actually really fun to play aggressively. It's what made me stick with the game so long. I also enjoyed it a lot in BF4. However, I mostly played hardcore in BF4. Still, bolt actions were able to one hit kill up to 12.5 meters in BF4 in non hardcore. I feel like recon got better and better, for the most part, since BF2 (the first BF game I played). BFV however is a massive step backwards. And sorry, but I don't get a lot of enjoyment out of using spammable weapons. I get bored of that pretty quickly. That's not to say I don't use them. Clearly I do if you've seen my weapon stats. They just don't keep me interested for long periods of time like scout in BF1 with the M.95 Infantry, Martini-Henry Infantry, Vetterli Carbine, Arisaka Patrol, and the SMLE Carbine backed up by a Frommer Stop, Bodeo, or MARS.
  • mf_shro0m
    1885 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    1. Even if you could kill with a single follow up shot with any pistol at distances up to 20m, ptfo with BAs would still be most unfeasible due to the average distance of engagement in BFV. Coupled with much faster switching times, it would greatly increase the odds of recons who pump into hostiles in houses but is that our greatest concern?
    The vast majority of the time whilst ptfo engagement distances are greater than 20m and they’re more like 20m-60m. In such situation what are recons meant to do?
    At 20-60, they will get assist = kill if they can't switch to pistol, also, the "combo" bolt action shot + Mars automatica on BF 1 worked pretty well on this distances. Looks like you din't played previous BF games.

    y_j_es_i said:
    2. If most recons got a kill every time they assist from within like 50m that’d be ridiculous and people would not be happy. If you get an assist but you’re dead having made an effort to ptfo, that’s inadequate consolation and ultimately won’t be sufficient for the vast majority of players to keep doing it.

    Yes, only those who play with shotgun + underbarrel rifle should get assists at this distance /sarcasm

    PS : If sniper receive an underbarrel shotgun, i can bet. People will complain "it is op" due an anti sniper bias.

    I didn’t play any older BFs except hardline because I didn’t have a console for a long time before hardline and the TTKs in BFI just ruined the firefights for me.

    All in all I’m against the idea of finishing people off with your pistol being th standard past like 20m coz it just looks ridiculous

    Shotguns in BFV can’t get assist=kill last 20m unless you get a headshot with a slug and even then you probably can’t past 30m
Sign In or Register to comment.