#MakeSnipersGreatAgain - How to fix BF 5 scoped Air guns

Comments

  • GP-Caliber
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    von_Campenstein said:

    y_j_es_i said:


    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    DingoKillr wrote: »

    y_j_es_i said:











    One_Called_Kane wrote: »



    y_j_es_i said:















    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no















    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.































    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?















    I have literally never seen it.















    What does this mean?























    Absolutely nothing, as you are:















    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,







     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.































    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.























    Because you say so.































    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster























    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.







































    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.















    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?















    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs























    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has







    1. No squad system















    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics















    3. Completely different movement















    4. Completely different map sizes















    5. Completely different team sizes































    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43























    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.































    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do















    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.























    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.















    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?















    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.















    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either







    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.







    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 







    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 







    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.



    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away







    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too



    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  



    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 



    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.



     



    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.



    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 



    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 



    I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.

    Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.



    The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS



    If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS


    Noone I've talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.


    This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

    this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

    I very much doubt that. If they buffed the BFV enfield’s muzzle velocity to 800m/s but made it so headshots were 2HKs, no-one would use it. Why would they pick it over an SLR, let alone over an SAR?

    haha like that is even an argument. 2 headshog kill takes away the biggest advantage of the rifle. an smle without a sweetspot is still 1 hit kill in the head. removing the 1 hit kill potential in the head is alot bigger nerf than removing the stupid sweet spot mechanic good players dont even need.
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:


    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    One_Called_Kane wrote: »

    y_j_es_i said:







    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no







    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.















    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?







    I have literally never seen it.







    What does this mean?











    Absolutely nothing, as you are:







    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,



     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.















    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.











    Because you say so.















    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster











    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.



















    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.







    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?







    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs











    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has



    1. No squad system







    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics







    3. Completely different movement







    4. Completely different map sizes







    5. Completely different team sizes















    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43











    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.















    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do







    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.











    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.







    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?







    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.







    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either



    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.



    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 



    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 



    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.

    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away



    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too

    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  

    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 

    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

     

    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 

    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 

    I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.
    Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.

    The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS

    If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS

    Noone I've talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.
    This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

    I used the Martini-Henry for the sound and the added satisfaction of killing someone with a worse weapon. The G95 was way easier to use for a quick follow-up shot if needed, worth noting it does not have a sweetspot but it also had less of that something special the MH did.
  • kismo1980
    28 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Currently DICE hasn't even fixed the Krag 1 bullet reload bug.

    It's horrible that if I want to have a full load in case I plan to go aggressive, if I reload 1 bullet then I get the black screen when scoping....

    Also, they should consider at least speeding up the side-arm switching time. Way to slow! if I am a sniper and it takes so long to switch to Revolver, I get death sentence against another class.
  • Vulgar_cowboy
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bigmatt9486 said:
    Snipers were never great



    BF1, BFBC2, and hardcore mode of BF3/4 disagrees with you

    #makebattlefieldgreatagain
  • Kunstula
    473 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Half a year after launch and scout is still equipped with handicapped weapons to prevent them from being a competitive class of it's own, this cannot be anything but done intentionally. The joker in charge of gun balance must really hate the scout class, that much is obvious.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2019

    Noone I've talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.
    I generally selected based on sweetspot, but I didn't focus on staying within that sweetspot. I just chose the rifle most suited to the range I was planning to be playing at most. Which was generally the Martini-Henry Infantry, Arisaka Patrol (3x), Vetterli Carbine (1.5x), or SMLE Carbine (1.5x). If instead I was going for long ranged combat, I'd go with the G98 just because of the higher velocity (880 m) which made landing headshots easier.

    One of my favorite combos was the Vetterli plus the Bodeo since the Vetterli had the ability to one hit chest shot starting at 20 meters, and the Bodeo was a 2 hit kill up to 15 meters I think. Or you could really focus on one hit kills at close to mid range and swap the Bodeo for the Obrez instead. But that's a pretty high risk setup to run.

    All that said, before the TTK2 update, I generally picked the G95 Infantry which had no sweetspot, but had a very consistent damage profile from close to long range. Along with a faster rate of fire and a decent muzzle velocity. Backed by the Frommer Stop, you could be very aggressive with it. I stopped using it with TTK2 since the pistol swap combo was much less viable when almost every other gun would kill you around 25-50% faster than you could swap to your pistol.

    PS. The way these quotes work on these forums is so annoying now. Had to delete the parent quotes.
  • Killerplautze5XL
    166 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @Sixclicks I loved the Obrez, it was the only gun in Battlefield I completed 100 service stars with. It was a high risk - high reward weapon. I still remember the round when I completed my 100th service star on a round of Conquest on "Argonne Forest". In that game I took out 60 out of the 60 people I eliminated that round simply with that sidearm. That was one round I will always remember :) 
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    von_Campenstein said:

    y_j_es_i said:


    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    DingoKillr wrote: »

    y_j_es_i said:











    One_Called_Kane wrote: »



    y_j_es_i said:















    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no















    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.































    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?















    I have literally never seen it.















    What does this mean?























    Absolutely nothing, as you are:















    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,







     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.































    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.























    Because you say so.































    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster























    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.







































    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.















    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?















    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs























    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has







    1. No squad system















    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics















    3. Completely different movement















    4. Completely different map sizes















    5. Completely different team sizes































    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43























    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.































    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do















    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.























    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.















    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?















    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.















    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either







    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.







    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 







    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 







    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.



    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away







    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too



    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  



    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 



    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.



     



    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.



    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 



    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 



    I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.

    Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.



    The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS



    If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS


    Noone I've talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.


    This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

    this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

    I very much doubt that. If they buffed the BFV enfield’s muzzle velocity to 800m/s but made it so headshots were 2HKs, no-one would use it. Why would they pick it over an SLR, let alone over an SAR?

    haha like that is even an argument. 2 headshog kill takes away the biggest advantage of the rifle. an smle without a sweetspot is still 1 hit kill in the head. removing the 1 hit kill potential in the head is alot bigger nerf than removing the stupid sweet spot mechanic good players dont even need.

    🤦🏼‍♂️
    Most players would opt for a good sweet spot over 5 extra rounds per mag.
    It’d be interesting to see what the average kill distance is with SMLEs and I’d bet it’s in the sweet spot

    If you don’t ‘need’ a sweet spot then good for you dude, you’ve got an opener and something for your CV
  • GP-Caliber
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    von_Campenstein said:

    y_j_es_i said:


    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    DingoKillr wrote: »

    y_j_es_i said:











    One_Called_Kane wrote: »



    y_j_es_i said:















    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no















    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.































    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?















    I have literally never seen it.















    What does this mean?























    Absolutely nothing, as you are:















    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,







     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.































    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.























    Because you say so.































    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster























    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.







































    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.















    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?















    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs























    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has







    1. No squad system















    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics















    3. Completely different movement















    4. Completely different map sizes















    5. Completely different team sizes































    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43























    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.































    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do















    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.























    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.















    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?















    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.















    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either







    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.







    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 







    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 







    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.



    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away







    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too



    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  



    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 



    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.



     



    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.



    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 



    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 



    I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.

    Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.



    The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS



    If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS


    Noone I've talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.


    This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

    this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

    I very much doubt that. If they buffed the BFV enfield’s muzzle velocity to 800m/s but made it so headshots were 2HKs, no-one would use it. Why would they pick it over an SLR, let alone over an SAR?

    haha like that is even an argument. 2 headshog kill takes away the biggest advantage of the rifle. an smle without a sweetspot is still 1 hit kill in the head. removing the 1 hit kill potential in the head is alot bigger nerf than removing the stupid sweet spot mechanic good players dont even need.

    🤦🏼‍♂️
    Most players would opt for a good sweet spot over 5 extra rounds per mag.
    It’d be interesting to see what the average kill distance is with SMLEs and I’d bet it’s in the sweet spot

    If you don’t ‘need’ a sweet spot then good for you dude, you’ve got an opener and something for your CV

    most players maybe at the start. alot of players also picked the gewehr 95 wich has no sweet spot. sweet spot is situational at best and no effective way to play anyway. you are better off aiming for the head than aim for the sweet spot. It will make you a better player over time.

    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    von_Campenstein said:

    y_j_es_i said:


    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    DingoKillr wrote: »

    y_j_es_i said:











    One_Called_Kane wrote: »



    y_j_es_i said:















    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no















    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.































    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?















    I have literally never seen it.















    What does this mean?























    Absolutely nothing, as you are:















    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,







     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.































    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.























    Because you say so.































    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster























    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.







































    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.















    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?















    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs























    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has







    1. No squad system















    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics















    3. Completely different movement















    4. Completely different map sizes















    5. Completely different team sizes































    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43























    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.































    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do















    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.























    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.















    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?















    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.















    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either







    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.







    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 







    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 







    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.



    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away







    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too



    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  



    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 



    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.



     



    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.



    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 



    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 



    I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.

    Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.



    The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS



    If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS


    Noone I've talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.


    This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

    this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

    I very much doubt that. If they buffed the BFV enfield’s muzzle velocity to 800m/s but made it so headshots were 2HKs, no-one would use it. Why would they pick it over an SLR, let alone over an SAR?

    haha like that is even an argument. 2 headshog kill takes away the biggest advantage of the rifle. an smle without a sweetspot is still 1 hit kill in the head. removing the 1 hit kill potential in the head is alot bigger nerf than removing the stupid sweet spot mechanic good players dont even need.

    🤦🏼‍♂️
    Most players would opt for a good sweet spot over 5 extra rounds per mag.
    It’d be interesting to see what the average kill distance is with SMLEs and I’d bet it’s in the sweet spot

    If you don’t ‘need’ a sweet spot then good for you dude, you’ve got an opener and something for your CV

    most players maybe at the start. alot of players also picked the gewehr 95 wich has no sweet spot. sweet spot is situational at best and no effective way to play anyway. you are better off aiming for the head than aim for the sweet spot. It will make you a better player over time.

    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.

    Sixclick’s research says that only 6.3% of players used the G95 and tbh given it’s medium muzzle velocity and lack of a sweet spot, I get the feeling that most users treated it as a skill cannon. A glance at the stats suggests that it was arguably the worst BA in BFI so unless it had some unique perk I don’t see why someone would use it other than as a skill cannon.

    What platform are you on?

    From what I hear, being accurate and controlling recoil are quite a bit easier on PC than on consoles.
    I’m on Xbox and I’ve literally never seen anyone ptfo with a BA. Or at least I’ve never been killed by someone ptfo with a BA.

    At long range I fully agree with you that all BAs need is their real life muzzle velocities. At short-medium range tho (i.e. typical ptfo engagement distances), just increasing muzzle velocity and switch times won’t be enough imo (on consoles at least).
    Buffing muzzle velocities and switch times would make recon more capable at 0-25m engagements. However, at 25-60m (which is where most ptfo engagements are fought) they’d still stand little chance. At 25-60m most assaults and supports will erase you before you can chamber a second BA round or switch to your sidearm and then land 1-2 shots with it.

    So what I believe would happen is that for the vast majority of players buffing muzzle velocities and switch times would only serve to make them a bit less f***ed if they bump into someone in close quarters but they still wouldn’t be able to ptfo. I’m fine with below average players being unable to ptfo viably with BAs but I think the better third of players should be able to do so viably. I’m not saying well, just viably

    Sweet spots are situational but if you place all the sweet spots at 20-40m or 20-60m depending on the gun’s damage, you would make it so that in order to take advantage of the sweet spot you have to get close to have that situational perk
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member

    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.
    I agree, also adds better sidearms. Mars automatica for mid range, obrez pistol for ORH, frommer stop auto to ROF(...) Bf 1 has the most versatile sidearms

    I used the Martini-Henry for the sound and the added satisfaction of killing someone with a worse weapon. The G95 was way easier to use for a quick follow-up shot if needed, worth noting it does not have a sweetspot but it also had less of that something special the MH did.

    I don't think that Martini is worst. In fact, on very close quarters map, i do much better with Martini than with SMLE.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.
    I agree, also adds better sidearms. Mars automatica for mid range, obrez pistol for ORH, frommer stop auto to ROF(...) Bf 1 has the most versatile sidearms

    I used the Martini-Henry for the sound and the added satisfaction of killing someone with a worse weapon. The G95 was way easier to use for a quick follow-up shot if needed, worth noting it does not have a sweetspot but it also had less of that something special the MH did.

    I don't think that Martini is worst. In fact, on very close quarters map, i do much better with Martini than with SMLE.
    The special thing about the Martini Henry is its ability to one hit kill to the upper arms in its sweetspot. All other rifles with a sweetspot must hit the chest, not the upper arm. This is because it does 112 base damage in its sweetspot.
  • GP-Caliber
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    von_Campenstein said:

    y_j_es_i said:


    DingoKillr wrote: »
    y_j_es_i said:





    DingoKillr wrote: »

    y_j_es_i said:











    One_Called_Kane wrote: »



    y_j_es_i said:















    Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no















    Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you've pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.































    How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?















    I have literally never seen it.















    What does this mean?























    Absolutely nothing, as you are:















    1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,







     2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.































    It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.























    Because you say so.































    It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster























    Apples and oranges.  A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase.  To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.







































    I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.















    Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?















    It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs























    Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has







    1. No squad system















    2. Completely different gunplay mechanics















    3. Completely different movement















    4. Completely different map sizes















    5. Completely different team sizes































    So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43























    An individual's performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.































    Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do















    My suggestion is 100% about making BA's more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.























    You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.















    How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?















    Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.















    If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either







    DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.







    Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1. 







    P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That's another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility. 







    They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.



    The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away







    I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too



    Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.  



    You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach. 



    When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.



     



    Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.



    That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS. 



    Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult. 



    I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.

    Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.



    The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS



    If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS


    Noone I've talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.


    This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

    this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

    I very much doubt that. If they buffed the BFV enfield’s muzzle velocity to 800m/s but made it so headshots were 2HKs, no-one would use it. Why would they pick it over an SLR, let alone over an SAR?

    haha like that is even an argument. 2 headshog kill takes away the biggest advantage of the rifle. an smle without a sweetspot is still 1 hit kill in the head. removing the 1 hit kill potential in the head is alot bigger nerf than removing the stupid sweet spot mechanic good players dont even need.

    🤦🏼‍♂️
    Most players would opt for a good sweet spot over 5 extra rounds per mag.
    It’d be interesting to see what the average kill distance is with SMLEs and I’d bet it’s in the sweet spot

    If you don’t ‘need’ a sweet spot then good for you dude, you’ve got an opener and something for your CV

    most players maybe at the start. alot of players also picked the gewehr 95 wich has no sweet spot. sweet spot is situational at best and no effective way to play anyway. you are better off aiming for the head than aim for the sweet spot. It will make you a better player over time.

    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.

    Sixclick’s research says that only 6.3% of players used the G95 and tbh given it’s medium muzzle velocity and lack of a sweet spot, I get the feeling that most users treated it as a skill cannon. A glance at the stats suggests that it was arguably the worst BA in BFI so unless it had some unique perk I don’t see why someone would use it other than as a skill cannon.

    What platform are you on?

    From what I hear, being accurate and controlling recoil are quite a bit easier on PC than on consoles.
    I’m on Xbox and I’ve literally never seen anyone ptfo with a BA. Or at least I’ve never been killed by someone ptfo with a BA.

    At long range I fully agree with you that all BAs need is their real life muzzle velocities. At short-medium range tho (i.e. typical ptfo engagement distances), just increasing muzzle velocity and switch times won’t be enough imo (on consoles at least).
    Buffing muzzle velocities and switch times would make recon more capable at 0-25m engagements. However, at 25-60m (which is where most ptfo engagements are fought) they’d still stand little chance. At 25-60m most assaults and supports will erase you before you can chamber a second BA round or switch to your sidearm and then land 1-2 shots with it.

    So what I believe would happen is that for the vast majority of players buffing muzzle velocities and switch times would only serve to make them a bit less f***ed if they bump into someone in close quarters but they still wouldn’t be able to ptfo. I’m fine with below average players being unable to ptfo viably with BAs but I think the better third of players should be able to do so viably. I’m not saying well, just viably

    Sweet spots are situational but if you place all the sweet spots at 20-40m or 20-60m depending on the gun’s damage, you would make it so that in order to take advantage of the sweet spot you have to get close to have that situational perk

    reason people use the gewehr 95 is because of its rate of fire.

    the solution for people ptfo is not adding a 1hk potential, because we had it before and players still camped. all it will do is make the players that are very good even better and makes for frustrating gameplay.

    I play ps4 and have no problem playing the objective with the recon class. you have to use all the tools at your disposal to be effective. Use the spot flares, beacons. practice your drag shots and master the revolver. also the throwing knife is amazing for those clutch moments.
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member

    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.
    I agree, also adds better sidearms. Mars automatica for mid range, obrez pistol for ORH, frommer stop auto to ROF(...) Bf 1 has the most versatile sidearms

    I used the Martini-Henry for the sound and the added satisfaction of killing someone with a worse weapon. The G95 was way easier to use for a quick follow-up shot if needed, worth noting it does not have a sweetspot but it also had less of that something special the MH did.

    I don't think that Martini is worst. In fact, on very close quarters map, i do much better with Martini than with SMLE.

    Because you adjusted the playstyle around the 1 round in the chamber sure but the dive, dip, duck and dive required can be used against you if the enemy is a thinking man and knows what he's up against. It's the worse rifle in terms of the amount of times you risk getting caught out reloading.
  • GP-Caliber
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    -L-M3rc3n4ry said:

    GP-Caliber said:


    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.

    I agree, also adds better sidearms. Mars automatica for mid range, obrez pistol for ORH, frommer stop auto to ROF(...) Bf 1 has the most versatile sidearms


    von_Campenstein said:I used the Martini-Henry for the sound and the added satisfaction of killing someone with a worse weapon. The G95 was way easier to use for a quick follow-up shot if needed, worth noting it does not have a sweetspot but it also had less of that something special the MH did.



    I don't think that Martini is worst. In fact, on very close quarters map, i do much better with Martini than with SMLE.


    Because you adjusted the playstyle around the 1 round in the chamber sure but the dive, dip, duck and dive required can be used against you if the enemy is a thinking man and knows what he's up against. It's the worse rifle in terms of the amount of times you risk getting caught out reloading.

    I agree with you. because you fire so slowly the killing potential is so minimal. If you can aim for the head consistently the martini is the worst.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    -L-M3rc3n4ry said:

    GP-Caliber said:


    I think snipers dont need 1hk capability if they increase the velocity and time to switch sidearms.

    I agree, also adds better sidearms. Mars automatica for mid range, obrez pistol for ORH, frommer stop auto to ROF(...) Bf 1 has the most versatile sidearms


    von_Campenstein said:I used the Martini-Henry for the sound and the added satisfaction of killing someone with a worse weapon. The G95 was way easier to use for a quick follow-up shot if needed, worth noting it does not have a sweetspot but it also had less of that something special the MH did.



    I don't think that Martini is worst. In fact, on very close quarters map, i do much better with Martini than with SMLE.


    Because you adjusted the playstyle around the 1 round in the chamber sure but the dive, dip, duck and dive required can be used against you if the enemy is a thinking man and knows what he's up against. It's the worse rifle in terms of the amount of times you risk getting caught out reloading.

    I agree with you. because you fire so slowly the killing potential is so minimal. If you can aim for the head consistently the martini is the worst.
    Is not the question of "aim in the head", with M&K, hit on head is easy, if the target isn't moving. I always choose slow but deadly rifles on this games. My most used rifle on BFBC2 is Barrett M95, my most used rifle on heroes & generals is PTRD-1941 anti tank rifle(or anti everything rifle, good against all tanks minor heavies, light armored vehicles, planes, infantry, etc). On BF 5 and BF 3/4 i have no choice for such type of rifles... Hell, more PTRD's are produced than SGT 44 on WW2 and PTRD still used even today.
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Guys, sorry for bumping this thread, but looks like BF 5 received an anti tank rifle



    Is an battle pick up? If no, i an purchasing BF 5 now!!!
  • Kunstula
    473 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The new AT rifle isn't going to make the scout competitive with the other classes, it's usefulness is too restrictive for that.
    And even if it somehow did make the scout on par with the others, it would most likely be by mistake and they'd nerf it in no time.
  • DingoKillr
    4243 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Guys, sorry for bumping this thread, but looks like BF 5 received an anti tank rifle



    Is an battle pick up? If no, i an purchasing BF 5 now!!!
    It is not a pick up.

    It one shot body up to 100m
  • -L-M3rc3n4ry
    523 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Kunstula said:
    The new AT rifle isn't going to make the scout competitive with the other classes, it's usefulness is too restrictive for that.
    And even if it somehow did make the scout on par with the others, it would most likely be by mistake and they'd nerf it in no time.
    I an an HUGE fan of anti materiel rifles. Only managed to try once IRL(rented an ar-50a1 but never owned any gun), decided to wait and see if DICE will nerf or not the gun.
Sign In or Register to comment.