Why are we praising BF3/4's class balance now?

Comments

  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @mf_shro0m Yeah I lumped you two together, as my posts get longer and longer. :smiley: I am also not against changes in gadgets and specifically not against changing ammo count accordingly. What I don't see, and that is mostly an opinion, is that the Assault is just too good at everything. While I agree that SARs are the best weapon class and some are too strong due to gun mechanics, I do not interpret it in the same way as you or others and I assume many here, including you two, know the weapon stats equally well. So just different interpretations of the numbers.
    .
    BFV just started flawed in many respects and I do not think it is fixable unless a complete overhaul of vehicles, infantry, gun mechanics and specifically map design etc. happen, which I find not likely. So we are rather stuck with the current system and can only tune it.
  • Sapelogue
    106 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    Sapelogue said:
    Unpopular opinion : I rly like the class balance in BFV (except huge flares), I don't like the gun balance (SLRs > SMGs > shotguns > MMGs > DMRs > LMGs/ARs > sniper rifles)

    EZ way to make the balance better and the game less frustrating :
    -reduce the head-hitbox (way too big, get random hs)
    -more recoil for EVERY weapon (even +10 or +20% will make a huge difference)
    Hehe, like medic weapons are not weak enough. Everyone might have noticed the medic players going together in the close maps with infinite fast revives and heals, but their weapons are not that great. An increase in recoil would not make much difference in close range but they would suck even more at range. I dont even know why some players use the slower rof smg:s, they have two advantages fast rof (But really the damage per bullit sucks.) and hipfire, and not even having the extra rof just makes them horrible, you still se players do good with slower rof smg:s but they are just good players...
    Medic weapons are very powerful : almost no recoil, fast bullet velocity and the medic can heal himself every second. The SMGs balance was great at launch but wasn't enough for crybabies.

    That is nonsense, you just have to check at robenter.com to see that SMGs have the lowest bullet velocity (as expected) and also feature the same amount of recoil (Hrec and Vrec) as the other automatics. On top of that your claim that more recoil would bring balance is nonsense, as we have other factors at play as well. We also have recoil patterns on all automatics and spread to recoil conversion on SMGs and ARs. So there is a ton of recoil, not comparable to any other BF gamed.
    This is where the imbalances stem from. Some dude thought that removing three of four recoil mechanics on them would be a good idea. They only have Vrec to battle, which makes them incredibly easy to use compared to the rest. You can always pull down.
    However more recoil is meaningless in CQ engagements, which is the most relevant range, you will only favour SMGs as recoil has no relevance there.
    The main issue for me is clear, they overexaggerated spread in BF1 while telling noone how gun mechanics actually worked, so everybody noticed it and everybody played subpar leading to great inconsistencies. BF4 spread synergized with recoil, so you would start to miss when your recoil was also getting unbearable leading to the more authentic tapfiring, which was also very intuitive, yet naturally offered other balance issues. Now spread does not matter so everybody is magdumping anyway, since the MilSim crowd wanted exactly that.
    "Ton of recoil" he said

    "ton of recoil" i'm ded
    Suomi: ROF 770, Hrec 0.8, Vrec 0.576. + Spread to recoil conversion + Recoil pattern. That is with recoil buffer
    PDW-R ROF 750, Hrec 0.5, Vrec 0.26 + 2x FSM. That is without any attachments that could decrease any recoil.
    Annihilator Trench: ROF 830 Vrec 0.55 Hrec 0.9 + 3x FSM, base variant, no modifiers.
    BF3 P90: ROF 900: Hrec 0.8, Vrec 0.18 2x FSM No attachments

    Yes, any weapon in BFV game has more recoil per shot than comparable weapons in ANY of the other battlefield games of the last years. Educate yourself, or clarify your statements if you want to bring a claim forward.
    "Educate yourself"

    STEN : ROF 539 Hrec 0.24 Vrec 0.48
    ZK : ROF 720 Hrec 0.75 Vrec 0.56
    MP34 : ROF 599 Hrec 0.32 Vrec 0.5

    And almost no spread :) recoil patterns are so EZ to control, just compare to CSGO and laugh (or cry) big time

    I feel kinda sorry for you, thinking BFV is a demanding shooter.

    If you want to compare to Counterstrike then make that clear in your post. Also you are comparing apples and pears mate. If I assume correctly CS is almost exclusively hipfire with spread and a set pattern, right? So, with practice, counterable. Also at tendencially closer ranges, I assume?
    In BFV you have hipfire and ADS, in ADS on automatics you have: Vrec/Hrec/recoil pattern/Spread as recoil conversion. Two of them are not counterable, the pattern is not learnable as there are three other recoil system working simultaneously, some of them random. Added to that you have increased recoil through the scope zoom levels and depending on your FOV setting.
    I never said the gunplay is demanding. I stated that the amount of recoil has never been higher in a BF game of the last 8 years. If you want to compare gunplay systems you need to post some numbers and tell others about the gunplay you are looking at, otherwise the contribution has no added value, mate.
    Even the three SMGs you posted have more recoil than comparable counterparts of previous games. And you still forget the spread to recoil and recoil patterns. The notion that more recoil means deeper or "better" gameplay is pretty awful, as is transferring a gumplay system that works in one game to another and believing this would suddenly work.
    0.24 Hrec never been higher. OMEGALUL

    Maybe YOU can't compensate, but I can. Actually not a suprise when I see i'm more accurate than you, playin with a controller aim assist off (I assume you play with mouse and keyboard)

    You mean the 0.7% that you are more accurate on average with a deviation of -1,5% to +1,5%? Yeah that sure is statistical relevance. Mate you can't control crap. Everyone and their mother has accuracies ranging from 15-25% on automatics. Why is that? Because DICE designed the gun mechanics in that way. Your aim is average just like mine and everyone else's you can check here.
    Just look at your OMEGALUL Sten that is so controllable and easy to compensate with no spread and a low ROF. Must be a laser: My accuracy: 19.04%, Your accuracy: 20.17% From this very thread: Trokey66: 16,59% MF_Shroom 19.61% TalhaONE 20.92%
    And yeah it is nice that you are using a controller on PC, what you are missing there is that you also have an 0.75 recoil multiplier, the moment you plug it in. So even with that -25% recoil applied you hit one bullet in five. Must be because of overshoot, low bullet velocity, god's will, you name it.
    Yeah yeah recoil is different once you plug a controller :) Not my fault if you're less accurate than me with mouse bro. Git gud

    Naturally it is, since it is an inferior input device for aiming. I assume the issue is mostly turning fast. Hence they have stuff like aim assist in the first place. This was just talked about on symthic this weekend: It is in the files, working on PC and the consensu is, as soon as you touch the mouse it is deactivated. Either way, you have the exact amount of recoil to battle as every console user, claim to have easy control and still have average accuracy. So you are wrong. You have no telemetry to back up your claim, you have no numbers, you are proven wrong.
    As for "gitgud". Maybe get good by using the better input device when playing as infantry on PC? Or would this be unfair to everyone else since your superior recoil control would suddenly make your accuracy skyrocket into above average?
    It's not to me to prove the recoil is different with a controller (aim assist off) compared to mouse. You pretend it is, prove it, send links, otherwise it's just a sad excuse.

    And I've just unloaded a STEN magazine on a wall, once with mouse, the 2nd time with controller : not a single difference.

    So yeah git dud, you're les accurate than a console pea...  <3
  • LOLGotYerTags
    14670 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @Sapelogue
    Dont bait others.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    Sapelogue said:
    Unpopular opinion : I rly like the class balance in BFV (except huge flares), I don't like the gun balance (SLRs > SMGs > shotguns > MMGs > DMRs > LMGs/ARs > sniper rifles)

    EZ way to make the balance better and the game less frustrating :
    -reduce the head-hitbox (way too big, get random hs)
    -more recoil for EVERY weapon (even +10 or +20% will make a huge difference)
    Hehe, like medic weapons are not weak enough. Everyone might have noticed the medic players going together in the close maps with infinite fast revives and heals, but their weapons are not that great. An increase in recoil would not make much difference in close range but they would suck even more at range. I dont even know why some players use the slower rof smg:s, they have two advantages fast rof (But really the damage per bullit sucks.) and hipfire, and not even having the extra rof just makes them horrible, you still se players do good with slower rof smg:s but they are just good players...
    Medic weapons are very powerful : almost no recoil, fast bullet velocity and the medic can heal himself every second. The SMGs balance was great at launch but wasn't enough for crybabies.

    That is nonsense, you just have to check at robenter.com to see that SMGs have the lowest bullet velocity (as expected) and also feature the same amount of recoil (Hrec and Vrec) as the other automatics. On top of that your claim that more recoil would bring balance is nonsense, as we have other factors at play as well. We also have recoil patterns on all automatics and spread to recoil conversion on SMGs and ARs. So there is a ton of recoil, not comparable to any other BF gamed.
    This is where the imbalances stem from. Some dude thought that removing three of four recoil mechanics on them would be a good idea. They only have Vrec to battle, which makes them incredibly easy to use compared to the rest. You can always pull down.
    However more recoil is meaningless in CQ engagements, which is the most relevant range, you will only favour SMGs as recoil has no relevance there.
    The main issue for me is clear, they overexaggerated spread in BF1 while telling noone how gun mechanics actually worked, so everybody noticed it and everybody played subpar leading to great inconsistencies. BF4 spread synergized with recoil, so you would start to miss when your recoil was also getting unbearable leading to the more authentic tapfiring, which was also very intuitive, yet naturally offered other balance issues. Now spread does not matter so everybody is magdumping anyway, since the MilSim crowd wanted exactly that.
    "Ton of recoil" he said

    "ton of recoil" i'm ded
    Suomi: ROF 770, Hrec 0.8, Vrec 0.576. + Spread to recoil conversion + Recoil pattern. That is with recoil buffer
    PDW-R ROF 750, Hrec 0.5, Vrec 0.26 + 2x FSM. That is without any attachments that could decrease any recoil.
    Annihilator Trench: ROF 830 Vrec 0.55 Hrec 0.9 + 3x FSM, base variant, no modifiers.
    BF3 P90: ROF 900: Hrec 0.8, Vrec 0.18 2x FSM No attachments

    Yes, any weapon in BFV game has more recoil per shot than comparable weapons in ANY of the other battlefield games of the last years. Educate yourself, or clarify your statements if you want to bring a claim forward.
    "Educate yourself"

    STEN : ROF 539 Hrec 0.24 Vrec 0.48
    ZK : ROF 720 Hrec 0.75 Vrec 0.56
    MP34 : ROF 599 Hrec 0.32 Vrec 0.5

    And almost no spread :) recoil patterns are so EZ to control, just compare to CSGO and laugh (or cry) big time

    I feel kinda sorry for you, thinking BFV is a demanding shooter.

    If you want to compare to Counterstrike then make that clear in your post. Also you are comparing apples and pears mate. If I assume correctly CS is almost exclusively hipfire with spread and a set pattern, right? So, with practice, counterable. Also at tendencially closer ranges, I assume?
    In BFV you have hipfire and ADS, in ADS on automatics you have: Vrec/Hrec/recoil pattern/Spread as recoil conversion. Two of them are not counterable, the pattern is not learnable as there are three other recoil system working simultaneously, some of them random. Added to that you have increased recoil through the scope zoom levels and depending on your FOV setting.
    I never said the gunplay is demanding. I stated that the amount of recoil has never been higher in a BF game of the last 8 years. If you want to compare gunplay systems you need to post some numbers and tell others about the gunplay you are looking at, otherwise the contribution has no added value, mate.
    Even the three SMGs you posted have more recoil than comparable counterparts of previous games. And you still forget the spread to recoil and recoil patterns. The notion that more recoil means deeper or "better" gameplay is pretty awful, as is transferring a gumplay system that works in one game to another and believing this would suddenly work.
    0.24 Hrec never been higher. OMEGALUL

    Maybe YOU can't compensate, but I can. Actually not a suprise when I see i'm more accurate than you, playin with a controller aim assist off (I assume you play with mouse and keyboard)

    You mean the 0.7% that you are more accurate on average with a deviation of -1,5% to +1,5%? Yeah that sure is statistical relevance. Mate you can't control crap. Everyone and their mother has accuracies ranging from 15-25% on automatics. Why is that? Because DICE designed the gun mechanics in that way. Your aim is average just like mine and everyone else's you can check here.
    Just look at your OMEGALUL Sten that is so controllable and easy to compensate with no spread and a low ROF. Must be a laser: My accuracy: 19.04%, Your accuracy: 20.17% From this very thread: Trokey66: 16,59% MF_Shroom 19.61% TalhaONE 20.92%
    And yeah it is nice that you are using a controller on PC, what you are missing there is that you also have an 0.75 recoil multiplier, the moment you plug it in. So even with that -25% recoil applied you hit one bullet in five. Must be because of overshoot, low bullet velocity, god's will, you name it.
    Yeah yeah recoil is different once you plug a controller :) Not my fault if you're less accurate than me with mouse bro. Git gud

    Naturally it is, since it is an inferior input device for aiming. I assume the issue is mostly turning fast. Hence they have stuff like aim assist in the first place. This was just talked about on symthic this weekend: It is in the files, working on PC and the consensu is, as soon as you touch the mouse it is deactivated. Either way, you have the exact amount of recoil to battle as every console user, claim to have easy control and still have average accuracy. So you are wrong. You have no telemetry to back up your claim, you have no numbers, you are proven wrong.
    As for "gitgud". Maybe get good by using the better input device when playing as infantry on PC? Or would this be unfair to everyone else since your superior recoil control would suddenly make your accuracy skyrocket into above average?
    It's not to me to prove the recoil is different with a controller (aim assist off) compared to mouse. You pretend it is, prove it, send links, otherwise it's just a sad excuse.

    And I've just unloaded a STEN magazine on a wall, once with mouse, the 2nd time with controller : not a single difference.

    So yeah git dud, you're les accurate than a console pea...  <3

    Excuse for what, mate? I said the recoil is higher than in any other BF game we have the stats on. That is a proven fact. The recoil modifier is there as well, it is in the files, we can check the data browser. Your claim was that you have no problems to compensate for the easy-peasy, yet you do, as everyone else, as proven by the numbers I provided. Everybody sits at 15-25% accuracy with automatic weapons. You and me are both average at accuracy, which means we are average at controlling the recoil.
    I never made a claim that I am more accurate or that I am in any way a better player. You claim that you are the hot manure in aiming and it simply is not the case. Not for PC not for console. You are simply an average player, and there is nothing wrong with that.
    What is wrong is that you make baseless claims and ignore everything that is contrary to your belief.
    That is the dialogue for the reduced console/controller modifier on symthic from last week: https://imgur.com/a/l8ZxeJy By the way it is less recoil and less "yaw" which is how the pattern is called in the files.


  • Blazcowitz43
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    As for BF4's class system, I at first thought it was a good idea that they included so many all kit weapons (DMR's, shotguns and Carbines). But overtime I changed my views on this because in my experience what this did was encourage people to play their class outside of their intended roles. You had recons running around with shotguns and supports running around with DMR's, not using their LMG's to provide suppressing fire. I get that the idea was to provide each class with some versatility but in the end I think it was not the best implemented system. 

    Now Battlefield Hardline (yes, that game everyone craps one when it really doesn't deserve it) I think had a very interesting way to balance the classes. The steup was largely the same as as Bf4 (except when they decided to make LMG's and RPG's pickup weapons rather than class items) but initially there were no all kit weapons, which encouraged people to play in their intended role. Eventually they added a handful of them but only a handful of all kit weapons to mix things up a bit. All these weapons were suppressed versions of weapons locked to each class (Ro933 for Assault, MP5 for Mechanic and SV98 for Recon).

    Basically these were slightly nerfed versions of these guns already in the game, but it added a little bit of versatility without allowing every class to become a pseudo assault player like the huge number of all kit weapons did in BF4.

    As for BFV, what we need to remember is that this game originally had a very different class setup. We were supposed to get  "Archetypes" which basically decided each class into separate roles within the same class.

    The following I have copied from Temporyal on Reddit so all credit to him for the Archetype info;  https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/b1rh4n/battlefield_v_history_all_10_archetypes_sub/ )


    "The following list and details were taken straight from the game files and show what DICE had in mind for the class system in Battlefield V till mid 2018. You would start with a base version of your class and then unlock additional archetypes by progressing your class rank (similar to the unlocking process of combat roles we have today - the replacement for of this system)."

    Assault


    BASE: One weapon (unclear what they meant here)

    Gadgets: none


    LIGHT INFANTRY: Assault Rifles & Semi-Auto Rifles

    "Assault the objective and don't abort when you run into resistance, thanks to your superior physique and the uncanny ability to find more ammo on dead enemies."

    Gadgets: Grenade Rifle & Sticky Dynamite


    ANTI TANK: No Primary Weapons, only Carbines, Machine Pistols

    "Anti Tank does not have any primary weapons. Instead it have rocket launchers, find a tank and blow it up."

    Gadgets: Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, PIAT or Fliegerfaust, AT Shaped Charge or Sticky Dynamite


    RIFLEMAN: Semi Auto Rifles, Pistols

    "Rifleman have access to Semi Autos. It is specialized for mid range combat"

    Gadgets: Adrenaline Syrette, Flamethrower Pistol


    Medic


    BASE: Semi Auto Rifles, Bandages


    COMBAT MEDIC: SMGs, Pistols

    "Offensive medic, Have access to SMGs, Fire grenade, health buff syrette and bandages"

    Gadgets: Adrenaline Syrette, Bandages


    FIELD MEDIC: SMGs

    "A crucial squad member, the Field Medic can engage enemies with confidence, but thrives on healing and reviving teammates to keep them in the fight."

    Gadgets: Bandages & Grenade Rifle


    Support


    BASE: LMGs

    Gadgets: Ammo Pouch


    MACHINE GUNNER: MMGs

    "Make it rain with this heavy support. Lay down suppressive fire to lead your squad behind enemy lines."

    Gadgets: Ammo Crate & Flare Gun


    ENGINEER: LMGs & Shotguns

    "An excellent defender, the Support Engineer can lay down heavy fire as well as repair vehicles and quickly build Fortifications and heavy weapons."

    Gadgets: Ammo Pouch & Anti-Tank Mines


    Recon


    BASE: Sniper Rifle (not really clear)

    Gadgets: none


    PARATROOPER: Suppressed SMGs

    "This archetype is stealthy. It's using suppressed weapons and can throw knifes."

    Gadgets: Garotte, Flare Gun


    RECON: Self-Loading Rifles

    "Mid Range recon. Great at spotting enemies and gather intelligence for it's teammates."

    Gadgets: Spyglass, Tripwire Mine, Sniper Decoy or Flare Gun


    SNIPER: Bolt Action Rifles & Self-Loading Rifles

    "The Sniper is trained to engage with high precision from a distance, and is well versed in tracking enemy targets and relaying intel to teammates."

    Gadgets: Spotting Scope & Betty Bomb




    But what we got instead were "Combat Roles" because of backlash from the community that they did not want weapons to be locked behind individual archetypes and could not be used across a whole class. Personally I agree with that, but I think a system closer to what they had originally would have been better overall.  Given that this was such a late change, this probably helps explain the way classes are in BFV. 

    For assault I think something a simple as taking away TNT and giving it to support would help to reduce the dominance of assault. I also think they could learn from Hardline and implement a few unique all kit weapons to mix things up a bit. For example have a separate version of M1 Carbine, one which cannot accept anything but iron sights and have its specializations disabled. For an extra visual difference give it a full wooden stock instead of the collapsible stock on the current assault version.

    Or heres an idea. DICE say they are currently working on implementing the weapons which were originally only going to be in the cancelled 5vs5 mode. Why not as a treat make these weapons all kit weapons? Wouldn't that be a nice surprise and mix things up a bit?   









      
  • ragnarok013
    3948 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    JediMastaWyn said:
    They've shrunk the old school 6 classes to 4. And given most of the good stuff to the assault! 
     
    Assault has become at least 3 classes in one now Assault (Assault rifles and DMR's)/Special op (C4/dynamite) and Anti Tank (Mines RPG) 

    Medic is a medic but then any team member can revive. No medic vehicle bonus from what I can see. 

    Support can build and has big guns but no mortar 

    Recon pretty much the same 


    JediMastaWyn Don't forget that we had 7 classes after the Special Forces class came out!
     



  • Sapelogue
    106 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    VincentNZ said:
    Sapelogue said:
    Sapelogue said:
    Unpopular opinion : I rly like the class balance in BFV (except huge flares), I don't like the gun balance (SLRs > SMGs > shotguns > MMGs > DMRs > LMGs/ARs > sniper rifles)

    EZ way to make the balance better and the game less frustrating :
    -reduce the head-hitbox (way too big, get random hs)
    -more recoil for EVERY weapon (even +10 or +20% will make a huge difference)
    Hehe, like medic weapons are not weak enough. Everyone might have noticed the medic players going together in the close maps with infinite fast revives and heals, but their weapons are not that great. An increase in recoil would not make much difference in close range but they would suck even more at range. I dont even know why some players use the slower rof smg:s, they have two advantages fast rof (But really the damage per bullit sucks.) and hipfire, and not even having the extra rof just makes them horrible, you still se players do good with slower rof smg:s but they are just good players...
    Medic weapons are very powerful : almost no recoil, fast bullet velocity and the medic can heal himself every second. The SMGs balance was great at launch but wasn't enough for crybabies.

    That is nonsense, you just have to check at robenter.com to see that SMGs have the lowest bullet velocity (as expected) and also feature the same amount of recoil (Hrec and Vrec) as the other automatics. On top of that your claim that more recoil would bring balance is nonsense, as we have other factors at play as well. We also have recoil patterns on all automatics and spread to recoil conversion on SMGs and ARs. So there is a ton of recoil, not comparable to any other BF gamed.
    This is where the imbalances stem from. Some dude thought that removing three of four recoil mechanics on them would be a good idea. They only have Vrec to battle, which makes them incredibly easy to use compared to the rest. You can always pull down.
    However more recoil is meaningless in CQ engagements, which is the most relevant range, you will only favour SMGs as recoil has no relevance there.
    The main issue for me is clear, they overexaggerated spread in BF1 while telling noone how gun mechanics actually worked, so everybody noticed it and everybody played subpar leading to great inconsistencies. BF4 spread synergized with recoil, so you would start to miss when your recoil was also getting unbearable leading to the more authentic tapfiring, which was also very intuitive, yet naturally offered other balance issues. Now spread does not matter so everybody is magdumping anyway, since the MilSim crowd wanted exactly that.
    "Ton of recoil" he said

    "ton of recoil" i'm ded
    Suomi: ROF 770, Hrec 0.8, Vrec 0.576. + Spread to recoil conversion + Recoil pattern. That is with recoil buffer
    PDW-R ROF 750, Hrec 0.5, Vrec 0.26 + 2x FSM. That is without any attachments that could decrease any recoil.
    Annihilator Trench: ROF 830 Vrec 0.55 Hrec 0.9 + 3x FSM, base variant, no modifiers.
    BF3 P90: ROF 900: Hrec 0.8, Vrec 0.18 2x FSM No attachments

    Yes, any weapon in BFV game has more recoil per shot than comparable weapons in ANY of the other battlefield games of the last years. Educate yourself, or clarify your statements if you want to bring a claim forward.
    "Educate yourself"

    STEN : ROF 539 Hrec 0.24 Vrec 0.48
    ZK : ROF 720 Hrec 0.75 Vrec 0.56
    MP34 : ROF 599 Hrec 0.32 Vrec 0.5

    And almost no spread :) recoil patterns are so EZ to control, just compare to CSGO and laugh (or cry) big time

    I feel kinda sorry for you, thinking BFV is a demanding shooter.

    If you want to compare to Counterstrike then make that clear in your post. Also you are comparing apples and pears mate. If I assume correctly CS is almost exclusively hipfire with spread and a set pattern, right? So, with practice, counterable. Also at tendencially closer ranges, I assume?
    In BFV you have hipfire and ADS, in ADS on automatics you have: Vrec/Hrec/recoil pattern/Spread as recoil conversion. Two of them are not counterable, the pattern is not learnable as there are three other recoil system working simultaneously, some of them random. Added to that you have increased recoil through the scope zoom levels and depending on your FOV setting.
    I never said the gunplay is demanding. I stated that the amount of recoil has never been higher in a BF game of the last 8 years. If you want to compare gunplay systems you need to post some numbers and tell others about the gunplay you are looking at, otherwise the contribution has no added value, mate.
    Even the three SMGs you posted have more recoil than comparable counterparts of previous games. And you still forget the spread to recoil and recoil patterns. The notion that more recoil means deeper or "better" gameplay is pretty awful, as is transferring a gumplay system that works in one game to another and believing this would suddenly work.
    0.24 Hrec never been higher. OMEGALUL

    Maybe YOU can't compensate, but I can. Actually not a suprise when I see i'm more accurate than you, playin with a controller aim assist off (I assume you play with mouse and keyboard)

    You mean the 0.7% that you are more accurate on average with a deviation of -1,5% to +1,5%? Yeah that sure is statistical relevance. Mate you can't control crap. Everyone and their mother has accuracies ranging from 15-25% on automatics. Why is that? Because DICE designed the gun mechanics in that way. Your aim is average just like mine and everyone else's you can check here.
    Just look at your OMEGALUL Sten that is so controllable and easy to compensate with no spread and a low ROF. Must be a laser: My accuracy: 19.04%, Your accuracy: 20.17% From this very thread: Trokey66: 16,59% MF_Shroom 19.61% TalhaONE 20.92%
    And yeah it is nice that you are using a controller on PC, what you are missing there is that you also have an 0.75 recoil multiplier, the moment you plug it in. So even with that -25% recoil applied you hit one bullet in five. Must be because of overshoot, low bullet velocity, god's will, you name it.
    Yeah yeah recoil is different once you plug a controller :) Not my fault if you're less accurate than me with mouse bro. Git gud

    Naturally it is, since it is an inferior input device for aiming. I assume the issue is mostly turning fast. Hence they have stuff like aim assist in the first place. This was just talked about on symthic this weekend: It is in the files, working on PC and the consensu is, as soon as you touch the mouse it is deactivated. Either way, you have the exact amount of recoil to battle as every console user, claim to have easy control and still have average accuracy. So you are wrong. You have no telemetry to back up your claim, you have no numbers, you are proven wrong.
    As for "gitgud". Maybe get good by using the better input device when playing as infantry on PC? Or would this be unfair to everyone else since your superior recoil control would suddenly make your accuracy skyrocket into above average?
    It's not to me to prove the recoil is different with a controller (aim assist off) compared to mouse. You pretend it is, prove it, send links, otherwise it's just a sad excuse.

    And I've just unloaded a STEN magazine on a wall, once with mouse, the 2nd time with controller : not a single difference.

    So yeah git dud, you're les accurate than a console pea...  <3

    Excuse for what, mate? I said the recoil is higher than in any other BF game we have the stats on. That is a proven fact. The recoil modifier is there as well, it is in the files, we can check the data browser. Your claim was that you have no problems to compensate for the easy-peasy, yet you do, as everyone else, as proven by the numbers I provided. Everybody sits at 15-25% accuracy with automatic weapons. You and me are both average at accuracy, which means we are average at controlling the recoil.
    I never made a claim that I am more accurate or that I am in any way a better player. You claim that you are the hot manure in aiming and it simply is not the case. Not for PC not for console. You are simply an average player, and there is nothing wrong with that.
    What is wrong is that you make baseless claims and ignore everything that is contrary to your belief.
    That is the dialogue for the reduced console/controller modifier on symthic from last week: https://imgur.com/a/l8ZxeJy By the way it is less recoil and less "yaw" which is how the pattern is called in the files.


    Excuse for bein less accurate than me with a mouse.
    Proven fact with 0.24 Hrec when it's actually one of the lowest recoil in whole BF history ?
    So DICE holds your hand when you're shooting and makes you miss ? I know top players with 30+% accuracy with automatics and they laughed HARD when I said "someone told me medic guns are weak and recoil is impossible to control"
    So discord conversation screen saying "not sure" "I assume" is a strong proof now ?
    I think it's the last time I answer to you, it's a stronger facepalm everytime
  • M_Rat13
    1505 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    How the heck can you lump BF1 in with BF5 in this or any way?  It's nothing like BF5.  BF5 is more like BF4 than BF1.

    This comment made my day. What a burn! And it's true of course......
  • disposalist
    8994 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    How the heck can you lump BF1 in with BF5 in this or any way?  It's nothing like BF5.  BF5 is more like BF4 than BF1.
    This comment made my day. What a burn! And it's true of course......
    I'm also confused by the DICE Sweden vs DICE LA comments that seem to get made with the BF4 vs BF5 vs BF1 comments.

    DICE LA fixed BF4.  Yes.  They were given the job of fixing the netcode.  It took them months to do it.  Well done, but to hold them up as the saviours of BF4?  Meh. Also *nothing* to do with making a game good from scratch or balancing one on-going.  Whether they continued to improve BF4 is up for debate imho.  Twitch tap-tap all weapon tactics, infra-red, heat-seekers and scanners for the win?  Hmm.  I loved BF4.  It was the best that there was, but to treat DICE LA like heroes? *shrug*

    DICE Sweden produced BF1 and made a truly *excellent* job of it.  The most successful and, imo, the best BF.  I've loved them all, but BF1 was truly another level.  a near-perfect compromise of fun and challenge with a real heart.  Yes, it was a step backwards losing Battlelog and custom servers, but the core game was just fantastic.  DICE LA then made it more campy with TTK2 in an attempt to make it more like BF4 that no one asked for...

    DICE Sweden produce BF5 which is just horrible.  Has all the bad UI ideas from BF1 made worse and is a buggy, frustrating combo of hardcore, competitive, battle royale and infantry bias.  People are expecting DICE LA to save it somehow.  They won't and can't.

    What is clear to me is DICE have undergone fundamental changes and EA business practices and models are not helping.
    The DICE Sweden team that made BF5 are not the team that made BF1.  Putting a competitive CoD player at the top might not have helped.
    The DICE LA team that tried to ruin BF1 may well be well placed to fix BF5's technical problems and may well be aligned with its questionable design choices, but to imply they are going to put right what DICE Sweden did is weird.

    As I said up top, I am confused, so I might have got some of the facts wrong there... but I know some others are definitely getting it wrong too and none of us know what is really going on inside DICE.
  • mf_shro0m
    2362 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    @mf_shro0m Yeah I lumped you two together, as my posts get longer and longer. :smiley: I am also not against changes in gadgets and specifically not against changing ammo count accordingly. What I don't see, and that is mostly an opinion, is that the Assault is just too good at everything. While I agree that SARs are the best weapon class and some are too strong due to gun mechanics, I do not interpret it in the same way as you or others and I assume many here, including you two, know the weapon stats equally well. So just different interpretations of the numbers..BFV just started flawed in many respects and I do not think it is fixable unless a complete overhaul of vehicles, infantry, gun mechanics and specifically map design etc. happen, which I find not likely. So we are rather stuck with the current system and can only tune it.

    Tbf given how BFI received an LMGs overhaul with a game-wide TTK overhaul and a bunch of other changes I think there is some hope that BFV will receive the tweaks it needs. I mean figuring out what needs to be done is most of the work seeing as the rest of it is predominantly just copy & pasting and changing some numbers
  • mf_shro0m
    2362 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2019
    (Quote)
    I'm also confused by the DICE Sweden vs DICE LA comments that seem to get made with the BF4 vs BF5 vs BF1 comments.

    DICE LA fixed BF4.  Yes.  They were given the job of fixing the netcode.  It took them months to do it.  Well done, but to hold them up as the saviours of BF4?  Meh. Also *nothing* to do with making a game good from scratch or balancing one on-going.  Whether they continued to improve BF4 is up for debate imho.  Twitch tap-tap all weapon tactics, infra-red, heat-seekers and scanners for the win?  Hmm.  I loved BF4.  It was the best that there was, but to treat DICE LA like heroes? *shrug*

    DICE Sweden produced BF1 and made a truly *excellent* job of it.  The most successful and, imo, the best BF.  I've loved them all, but BF1 was truly another level.  a near-perfect compromise of fun and challenge with a real heart.  Yes, it was a step backwards losing Battlelog and custom servers, but the core game was just fantastic.  DICE LA then made it more campy with TTK2 in an attempt to make it more like BF4 that no one asked for...

    DICE Sweden produce BF5 which is just horrible.  Has all the bad UI ideas from BF1 made worse and is a buggy, frustrating combo of hardcore, competitive, battle royale and infantry bias.  People are expecting DICE LA to save it somehow.  They won't and can't.

    What is clear to me is DICE have undergone fundamental changes and EA business practices and models are not helping.
    The DICE Sweden team that made BF5 are not the team that made BF1.  Putting a competitive CoD player at the top might not have helped.
    The DICE LA team that tried to ruin BF1 may well be well placed to fix BF5's technical problems and may well be aligned with its questionable design choices, but to imply they are going to put right what DICE Sweden did is weird.

    As I said up top, I am confused, so I might have got some of the facts wrong there... but I know some others are definitely getting it wrong too and none of us know what is really going on inside DICE.

    When the polls for BFV’s TTK1 vs TTK2 were going round they all came back showing that the playerbase had a significant preference for TTK1. BFV’s TTK1 is faster than even BFI’s TTK2 which suggests that the players as a whole preferred BFI’s TTK2 over its TTK1 because that was even slower than BFV’s TTK2

    Tbh it really looks like there’s just a vocal few who keep going on about wanting TTK2 when the evidence we have suggests that most players prefer having a faster TTK

    At this stage seeing as both Dice teams have been decimated over the years I don’t think it’s fair to judge either team solely by their past record
  • Bamsmacked
    117 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2019
    WetIaM wrote: »
    definitely better balance than BFV

    Not that much better. Certainly not enough to warrant going back to such a system.
    It was much better because every class could be countered. You think assault was OP back then? Vehicles were the counter to assaults because assaults had no explosives other than grenades and launcher attachments which BTW sucked against vehicles, and vehicles in BF3/BF4 were much more powerful, and more dynamic than they are now and had a much bigger impact on the game and infantry shred.

    Assault in BF5 literally counters everything. You have the best guns in the game, you have all the explosives which means you can deal with armor as well and did I mention tanks are a joke in this game? It's easy AF for assaults to deal with armor. All the other classes don't hold a candle to the Assault class in BF5, in earlier titles classes had their roles and purposes and their respective strengths and could be countered quite easily.

    BF3/BF4 definitely had their flaws but in the grand scheme of things class balance was much better and I never experienced such a class balance gap in a BF game until BF5. I remember playing all the classes in those titles and never felt under powered, or out of balance I felt that each class had it's place and it's purpose. 
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m said:

    When the polls for BFV’s TTK1 vs TTK2 were going round they all came back showing that the playerbase had a significant preference for TTK1. BFV’s TTK1 is faster than even BFI’s TTK2 which suggests that the players as a whole preferred BFI’s TTK2 over its TTK1 because that was even slower than BFV’s TTK2

    Tbh it really looks like there’s just a vocal few who keep going on about wanting TTK2 when the evidence we have suggests that most players prefer having a faster TTK

    At this stage seeing as both Dice teams have been decimated over the years I don’t think it’s fair to judge either team solely by their past record
    The problem is that we those polls are not representative of the entire playerbase. We may have had thousands of complaints, but this game sold 8 million copies at launch. The vast majority of BF players don't use forums or social media to interact with the rest of the BF community, so you only get to hear the concerns of a vocal minority. In fact, this issue has plagued many of DICE's decisions over the years.

    If low TTK was so universally preferred, we would not have had a nearly endless debate on the BF1 forums about TTK 2.0. People still have debates about BFV's low TTK on these forums and on Reddit.

    When BFV came out, it was interesting to see Black Ops 4 release with a very high TTK, and people within the BLOPS community were saying that FPS gamers actually prefer higher TTKs as a whole. Honestly, there doesn't seem to be enough consensus to say which is better or not, and that's not considering the fact that our preference for a TTK is based on opinions rather than objective facts.
  • Hawxxeye
    7960 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m said:

    When the polls for BFV’s TTK1 vs TTK2 were going round they all came back showing that the playerbase had a significant preference for TTK1. BFV’s TTK1 is faster than even BFI’s TTK2 which suggests that the players as a whole preferred BFI’s TTK2 over its TTK1 because that was even slower than BFV’s TTK2

    Tbh it really looks like there’s just a vocal few who keep going on about wanting TTK2 when the evidence we have suggests that most players prefer having a faster TTK

    At this stage seeing as both Dice teams have been decimated over the years I don’t think it’s fair to judge either team solely by their past record
    The problem is that we those polls are not representative of the entire playerbase. We may have had thousands of complaints, but this game sold 8 million copies at launch. The vast majority of BF players don't use forums or social media to interact with the rest of the BF community, so you only get to hear the concerns of a vocal minority. In fact, this issue has plagued many of DICE's decisions over the years.

    If low TTK was so universally preferred, we would not have had a nearly endless debate on the BF1 forums about TTK 2.0. People still have debates about BFV's low TTK on these forums and on Reddit.

    When BFV came out, it was interesting to see Black Ops 4 release with a very high TTK, and people within the BLOPS community were saying that FPS gamers actually prefer higher TTKs as a whole. Honestly, there doesn't seem to be enough consensus to say which is better or not, and that's not considering the fact that our preference for a TTK is based on opinions rather than objective facts.
    IMHO a thing that DICE messes up when it comes to TTK is that they do not adjust the mag sizes to accommodate higher TTKs and instead stick to the real life capacities of weapons who could OHK in reality but not ingame.
    .
    The game would had probably been better with higher TTK and less fast soldier movement.
  • M_Rat13
    1505 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It was much better because every class could be countered. You think assault was OP back then? Vehicles were the counter to assaults because assaults had no explosives other than grenades and launcher attachments which BTW sucked against vehicles, and vehicles in BF3/BF4 were much more powerful, and more dynamic than they are now and had a much bigger impact on the game and infantry shred.

    Assault in BF5 literally counters everything. You have the best guns in the game, you have all the explosives which means you can deal with armor as well and did I mention tanks are a joke in this game? It's easy AF for assaults to deal with armor. All the other classes don't hold a candle to the Assault class in BF5, in earlier titles classes had their roles and purposes and their respective strengths and could be countered quite easily.

    BF3/BF4 definitely had their flaws but in the grand scheme of things class balance was much better and I never experienced such a class balance gap in a BF game until BF5. I remember playing all the classes in those titles and never felt under powered, or out of balance I felt that each class had it's place and it's purpose. 

    That class balance in BF4 only works with 3 classes. Assaults kill infantry, vehicles kill Assault, Engineers kill vehicles. Support would only be involved in resupply, and Recon not at all (with the way spotting worked). That's not balance. Plus of course, the only people who I think like BF4 sniping, are either people who just want to see them at the bottom of the pile, or people who also like Dark Souls. I'm of course not saying I prefer BFV, that's somehow worse lol. Squad revives and resupply stations means one OP class doesn't need others to support it. Now BF1, that was the most balanced recent Battlefield. Maps had places for all classes, and weapons all had some kind of niche. Even the Kolibri could kill someone. Tanks where strong, yes, but big and slow, and only really deadly when full, which makes sense. A squad in a tank would need an infantry squad to be taken down. Plus again, maps made flanking them possible.
  • Hawxxeye
    7960 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2019
    M_Rat13 said:
    It was much better because every class could be countered. You think assault was OP back then? Vehicles were the counter to assaults because assaults had no explosives other than grenades and launcher attachments which BTW sucked against vehicles, and vehicles in BF3/BF4 were much more powerful, and more dynamic than they are now and had a much bigger impact on the game and infantry shred.

    Assault in BF5 literally counters everything. You have the best guns in the game, you have all the explosives which means you can deal with armor as well and did I mention tanks are a joke in this game? It's easy AF for assaults to deal with armor. All the other classes don't hold a candle to the Assault class in BF5, in earlier titles classes had their roles and purposes and their respective strengths and could be countered quite easily.

    BF3/BF4 definitely had their flaws but in the grand scheme of things class balance was much better and I never experienced such a class balance gap in a BF game until BF5. I remember playing all the classes in those titles and never felt under powered, or out of balance I felt that each class had it's place and it's purpose. 

    That class balance in BF4 only works with 3 classes. Assaults kill infantry, vehicles kill Assault, Engineers kill vehicles. Support would only be involved in resupply, and Recon not at all (with the way spotting worked). That's not balance. Plus of course, the only people who I think like BF4 sniping, are either people who just want to see them at the bottom of the pile, or people who also like Dark Souls. I'm of course not saying I prefer BFV, that's somehow worse lol. Squad revives and resupply stations means one OP class doesn't need others to support it. Now BF1, that was the most balanced recent Battlefield. Maps had places for all classes, and weapons all had some kind of niche. Even the Kolibri could kill someone. Tanks where strong, yes, but big and slow, and only really deadly when full, which makes sense. A squad in a tank would need an infantry squad to be taken down. Plus again, maps made flanking them possible.
    The way to recon in BF4 was not with a sniper rifle but an ACE 52 CQB or AK 5C carbine while using the spotting gadgets to get the drop on everyone else and/or the c4 explosives to blow up a tank.
    BF4 was when a Recon was a proper class with several options instead of just an annoying sniper noob
  • X_Sunslayer_X
    1568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    It was much better because every class could be countered. You think assault was OP back then? Vehicles were the counter to assaults because assaults had no explosives other than grenades and launcher attachments which BTW sucked against vehicles, and vehicles in BF3/BF4 were much more powerful, and more dynamic than they are now and had a much bigger impact on the game and infantry shred.

    Assault in BF5 literally counters everything. You have the best guns in the game, you have all the explosives which means you can deal with armor as well and did I mention tanks are a joke in this game? It's easy AF for assaults to deal with armor. All the other classes don't hold a candle to the Assault class in BF5, in earlier titles classes had their roles and purposes and their respective strengths and could be countered quite easily.

    BF3/BF4 definitely had their flaws but in the grand scheme of things class balance was much better and I never experienced such a class balance gap in a BF game until BF5. I remember playing all the classes in those titles and never felt under powered, or out of balance I felt that each class had it's place and it's purpose. 

    That class balance in BF4 only works with 3 classes. Assaults kill infantry, vehicles kill Assault, Engineers kill vehicles. Support would only be involved in resupply, and Recon not at all (with the way spotting worked). That's not balance. Plus of course, the only people who I think like BF4 sniping, are either people who just want to see them at the bottom of the pile, or people who also like Dark Souls. I'm of course not saying I prefer BFV, that's somehow worse lol. Squad revives and resupply stations means one OP class doesn't need others to support it. Now BF1, that was the most balanced recent Battlefield. Maps had places for all classes, and weapons all had some kind of niche. Even the Kolibri could kill someone. Tanks where strong, yes, but big and slow, and only really deadly when full, which makes sense. A squad in a tank would need an infantry squad to be taken down. Plus again, maps made flanking them possible.

    also every class had a versatile weapon roster in BF1.
    medic had CQC weapons as well as longer range
    assault had mid-range options in slug shotguns or the Ribeyrolles after 6 months
    support had great CQC LMGs and some that were well capable enough beyond mid-range on top of their better suppression
    recon had with the sweet-spot and some really good CQC weapons as well
    now given they were not up to snuff compared to dedicated weaponry but at least you had multiple  options to choose from at least.
    BFV does not have that in the slightest for medic its the worst assault and support are stupidly stacked in comparison. recon now has at least some more options but i doubt DICE will give any more in the future the game is almost done and dusted for the devs anyways and i very much doubt anything will come after the pacific other then a few weapons for action-man and robin.
    i wouldn't even be surprised if DICE instead of bringing back CTE (as some hope) will double down and use the entire game as one big CTE to test the waters for implementations for BF2020
  • M_Rat13
    1505 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    M_Rat13 said:
    It was much better because every class could be countered. You think assault was OP back then? Vehicles were the counter to assaults because assaults had no explosives other than grenades and launcher attachments which BTW sucked against vehicles, and vehicles in BF3/BF4 were much more powerful, and more dynamic than they are now and had a much bigger impact on the game and infantry shred.

    Assault in BF5 literally counters everything. You have the best guns in the game, you have all the explosives which means you can deal with armor as well and did I mention tanks are a joke in this game? It's easy AF for assaults to deal with armor. All the other classes don't hold a candle to the Assault class in BF5, in earlier titles classes had their roles and purposes and their respective strengths and could be countered quite easily.

    BF3/BF4 definitely had their flaws but in the grand scheme of things class balance was much better and I never experienced such a class balance gap in a BF game until BF5. I remember playing all the classes in those titles and never felt under powered, or out of balance I felt that each class had it's place and it's purpose. 

    That class balance in BF4 only works with 3 classes. Assaults kill infantry, vehicles kill Assault, Engineers kill vehicles. Support would only be involved in resupply, and Recon not at all (with the way spotting worked). That's not balance. Plus of course, the only people who I think like BF4 sniping, are either people who just want to see them at the bottom of the pile, or people who also like Dark Souls. I'm of course not saying I prefer BFV, that's somehow worse lol. Squad revives and resupply stations means one OP class doesn't need others to support it. Now BF1, that was the most balanced recent Battlefield. Maps had places for all classes, and weapons all had some kind of niche. Even the Kolibri could kill someone. Tanks where strong, yes, but big and slow, and only really deadly when full, which makes sense. A squad in a tank would need an infantry squad to be taken down. Plus again, maps made flanking them possible.
    The way to recon in BF4 was not with a sniper rifle but an ACE 52 CQB or AK 5C carbine while using the spotting gadgets to get the drop on everyone else and/or the c4 explosives to blow up a tank.
    BF4 was when a Recon was a proper class with several options instead of just an annoying sniper noob

    Barely ever saw a recon play the way you describe. All I heard was sniper bullets constantly missing me, or I'd shoot at them with a DMR/AR and wreck them. Supports I did see with Carbines, and only Carbines. The class that had big a$$ LMGs chose to play with budget ARs. Doesn't that tell you anything? All class weapons aren't balance, they just try to hide imbalance. Why would you ever play Recon with a Carbine, when an AR is still flat out better on Assualt, and everyone is perma-spotted anyway because most players never use silenced weapons, especially because silencers made weapons so bad with bullets you could literally dodge, they were that slow.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    The way to recon in BF4 was not with a sniper rifle but an ACE 52 CQB or AK 5C carbine while using the spotting gadgets to get the drop on everyone else and/or the c4 explosives to blow up a tank.
    BF4 was when a Recon was a proper class with several options instead of just an annoying sniper noob
    That actually highlighted a problem ... the 'traditional' sniper gameplay was at it's hardest in BF4, so you saw far more people camping. If you wanted to be useful on the front line as a Recon, the only way you could do so was by using a carbine or shotgun. That about sums up the duality of Recons in BF4 ... you either have camping snipers sitting light years away from the base flag, or hyper-aggressive shotgunners/carbine users running all over the place.

    Sure, I vastly preferred having aggressive shotgun/carbine Recons on my team, but I knew that if anyone picked up a sniper rifle in BF4, it would be highly likely that they would be completely awful.
  • Hawxxeye
    7960 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    The way to recon in BF4 was not with a sniper rifle but an ACE 52 CQB or AK 5C carbine while using the spotting gadgets to get the drop on everyone else and/or the c4 explosives to blow up a tank.
    BF4 was when a Recon was a proper class with several options instead of just an annoying sniper noob
    That actually highlighted a problem ... the 'traditional' sniper gameplay was at it's hardest in BF4, so you saw far more people camping. If you wanted to be useful on the front line as a Recon, the only way you could do so was by using a carbine or shotgun. That about sums up the duality of Recons in BF4 ... you either have camping snipers sitting light years away from the base flag, or hyper-aggressive shotgunners/carbine users running all over the place.

    Sure, I vastly preferred having aggressive shotgun/carbine Recons on my team, but I knew that if anyone picked up a sniper rifle in BF4, it would be highly likely that they would be completely awful.
    You can blame the Assault Nerf Herders for crying their eyes over the chance they can die without being able to 360 turn and kill the one who shot them
Sign In or Register to comment.