5.2 TTK change [Megathread]

Comments

  • DingoKillr
    4343 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    How can you defend a machine gun being better than that at 50m ... ?

    At mid and long range rifles should be better ... and with anything lower than 10 bullets a machine gun would still beat a rifle with its RoF ... like the suomi, thompson and Lewis gun are right now.

    I don't care if they "balance" things out with more recoil or more bullets, as long as it is balanced, the whole idea behind all the changes in 5.2, more balance.

    I think the problem was DICE pushed the recoil balance as far as they could without making unusable guns. But it did not work high ROF still controlled distance, where SLR and BA(C+R) should be better.

    With low BTK you don't have room to adjust(easily) TTK, now they are giving themselves that room where even velocity could have a greater impact.
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    The community outcry is bordering on insanity. From people being so arrogant as to think a 25% increase in BTK will mean their TTK increases also by that amount ( I guess hit-rate doesn't exist, right?!) to people thinking that acquisition icons when targeted are the same thing as the spotting mechanic (like honestly, how dumb do you need to be?) it's a wonder the devs even bother interacting with this community at all.

    And no, you shouldn't be able to sit in a bush and be hidden in an arcade shooter. That's the whole point of the icons. 

    Hopefully this actually makes the game playable without being insta-killed at 80m by someone so fundamentally skill-less they wouldn't get a kill in any other FPS game in a million years.
    It isn't just the changes to TTK. They're literally changing the fundamentals of how the game operates without even seemingly considering their core community. However, it's difficult to tell what exactly the majority wants at this point. Yes arcade acquisition icons aid with visibility, but too much of that crutches a player's ability to search for enemies with their own eyes. I personally would rather search for them without the icons than with, and I think some can agree.

    What with the TTK, I don't see a signifiant reason to change it. There isn't a huge balance issue in the game, and playing a simple one bullet increase to TTK about a year ago, this seems drastically more. Some guns are getting a 2 bullet increase AT THE 0M MARK. That makes a huge difference.

    Yes, we'll have to wait to see how they play out. Supposedly gun play will be changed, I imagine less recoil, more ammo, and faster ROF to counter the longer TTK. The guns are already easy to control, so even less recoil would be frowned upon by me, more ammo is meh. Could be good or bad. A faster ROF is also in that grey area. Could be good or bad.

    Then comes the potential range issue. Yes, guns should operate in their intended ranges well, but they also shouldn't be useless outside of that range. Take Hamada for example. It's not uncommon for.a Thompson to engage in a gunfight at or over 30m. (Difficulty measuring statistics about kill ranges vs engagement ranges aside.) It being useless at and above that range will severely hinder a medic's capabilities on larger maps. Even one, two, or in this case, several more bullets could make a drastic impact.

    Then comes the next question, why? Why are these changes being implemented? Was there really such a large issue with the current setup? I haven't seen a large number of issue reports or comments from anyone really aside from an article here and there. They did this last year unexpectedly at around the same time, which still begs the question why. I personally wonder if a higher management power is pulling strings here, but obviously that means very little without facts.

    Overall though, I don't think it's arrogance or ignorance that is driving the outrage. Yes, there are users who post their emotions without properly referring to the article, but I do think there is a logical opposition to the changes. I personally disagree with them, but as I said before, I'll have to try them out to really see how it's going to work.

    Also, please don't close your mind to another side of a topic without even considering it. I personally think that drives ignorance into a dark corner much more so than a simple overlook of info.
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    How can you defend a machine gun being better than that at 50m ... ?

    At mid and long range rifles should be better ... and with anything lower than 10 bullets a machine gun would still beat a rifle with its RoF ... like the suomi, thompson and Lewis gun are right now.

    I don't care if they "balance" things out with more recoil or more bullets, as long as it is balanced, the whole idea behind all the changes in 5.2, more balance.

    I think the problem was DICE pushed the recoil balance as far as they could without making unusable guns. But it did not work high ROF still controlled distance, where SLR and BA(C+R) should be better.

    With low BTK you don't have room to adjust(easily) TTK, now they are giving themselves that room where even velocity could have a greater impact.

    What’re you on about??

    SLRs should be better and they could and should simply reduce their recoil and slightly up their RoF. Atm the big difference between the SARs, generally accepted as the best weapons in the game, and the SLRs is down to the SARs having much lower recoil and faster TTKs

    The problem with the BRs could be solved by giving them their real life muzzle velocities so that SARs and MMGs no longer possess the highest muzzle velocities in the game, making them OHK to the torso at 10-40m or 10-70m (ranges within the lethal ranges of ARs, SARs and MGs) depending on the gun’s damage so more recons who want to ptfo can, and reintroducing player momentum to nerf ADAD spamming

    They could then make the weapon balance and the class balance better by extending the 4HK range of the ARs to 30m (currently at 10m), the LMGs to 40m and those of the low RoF and high RoF SMGs to 20m and 25m respectively so that the ARs and SMGs will no longer be on par with SARs at short-medium range anymore because they should be more dominant there. The high RoF SMGs should also be given more realistic recoil (buffs) to make them a better match against ARs which inexplicably actually have better recoil
  • SmileAsTheyDie
    502 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m said:

    We’ve been over this god knows how many times, in the polls that got TTK2.0 reverted the vast majority of players voted in favour of TTK1.0.
    Some of the people who want slower TTKs have been spinning this narrative that the majority of players want slower TTKs when it’s been proven that the majority of players prefer TTK1 to TTK2 and TTK 5.2 is even slower than TTK2 and so will be even more hated.
    Stop ignoring the facts to fit your narrative

    Regarding the latter paragraph in your post, the problem with posts like them is that they just say ‘look at what made past games great’ and either leave it there or spout gibberish

    Want to look at the TTKs in past games? Ok

    BFI’s TTK2 which was preferred to its TTK1 by the community was fast and more like BFV’s TTK1 than 2 or 5.2

    BF4’s TTK’s fast and is more like BFV’s TTK1 than 2 or 5.2

    BF3’s TTK was fast and is more like BFV’s TTK1 than 2 or 5.2

    BFBC2 and BFBC’s TTKs were fast and more like BFV’s TTK1 than 2 or 5.2

    Done

    Polls conducted by a small subset of people that participate on online boards and actually discuss the game. There are many people who just play the game and don't discuss the game online or respond to a poll put on a subreddit or the twitter of a content creator. Its also worth considering all the very vocal people against the change who cried about it before it released. Unknowingly cried about it saying they tried it and it sucked and ruined the game hours before it actually went live and people who went on "strike" and refused to play it all while saying it sucked.

    So it hasn't been proven but you also have the element of implementation being relevant. The initial TTK change last december was done in a very lazy simple way of just changing the body multiplier and not actually rebalancing the guns which is necessary for a change like this. This time it seems they are actually going to be re balancing things which can make all the difference.

    BF1's TTK change was made even later in its lifecycle and again there is no way to speak for the entire of the community based on the the small subsets of people polled that you might reference for these things. Its also worth considering that while BF1 TTK2 on paper is close to BFV TTK1 in practice with the spread model in that game most people were having effective TTKs likely closer to BFV TTK2

    Also worth nothing that BFBCs TTK was not fast at all and was much closer to BFV TTK 5.2, AR's in that game could take as much 7BTK up close
  • IDazzlerazzle
    541 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Crashing
    no auto balance
    stuttering
    disconnections
    bugs since launch
    dying 2 seconds behind a corner 
    ADAD spam 
    Strafing spam and general lack of player model heaviness 
    player models with headshot hitmarkers size of a beach ball 

    NOPE !

    TTK
    dorito mode that they don't call dorito 

    YES ! 


  • DingoKillr
    4343 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    How can you defend a machine gun being better than that at 50m ... ?

    At mid and long range rifles should be better ... and with anything lower than 10 bullets a machine gun would still beat a rifle with its RoF ... like the suomi, thompson and Lewis gun are right now.

    I don't care if they "balance" things out with more recoil or more bullets, as long as it is balanced, the whole idea behind all the changes in 5.2, more balance.

    I think the problem was DICE pushed the recoil balance as far as they could without making unusable guns. But it did not work high ROF still controlled distance, where SLR and BA(C+R) should be better.

    With low BTK you don't have room to adjust(easily) TTK, now they are giving themselves that room where even velocity could have a greater impact.

    What’re you on about??

    SLRs should be better and they could and should simply reduce their recoil and slightly up their RoF. Atm the big difference between the SARs, generally accepted as the best weapons in the game, and the SLRs is down to the SARs having much lower recoil and faster TTKs

    The problem with the BRs could be solved by giving them their real life muzzle velocities so that SARs and MMGs no longer possess the highest muzzle velocities in the game, making them OHK to the torso at 10-40m or 10-70m (ranges within the lethal ranges of ARs, SARs and MGs) depending on the gun’s damage so more recons who want to ptfo can, and reintroducing player momentum to nerf ADAD spamming

    They could then make the weapon balance and the class balance better by extending the 4HK range of the ARs to 30m (currently at 10m), the LMGs to 40m and those of the low RoF and high RoF SMGs to 20m and 25m respectively so that the ARs and SMGs will no longer be on par with SARs at short-medium range anymore because they should be more dominant there. The high RoF SMGs should also be given more realistic recoil (buffs) to make them a better match against ARs which inexplicably actually have better recoil

    You are not balancing you are fiddling at the edges and miss my point. As I said giving more recoil pushes the high ROF to uselessness at short range.
    DICE is looking to reduce the range of high ROF without making the guns useless at short range.
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    How can you defend a machine gun being better than that at 50m ... ?

    At mid and long range rifles should be better ... and with anything lower than 10 bullets a machine gun would still beat a rifle with its RoF ... like the suomi, thompson and Lewis gun are right now.

    I don't care if they "balance" things out with more recoil or more bullets, as long as it is balanced, the whole idea behind all the changes in 5.2, more balance.

    I think the problem was DICE pushed the recoil balance as far as they could without making unusable guns. But it did not work high ROF still controlled distance, where SLR and BA(C+R) should be better.

    With low BTK you don't have room to adjust(easily) TTK, now they are giving themselves that room where even velocity could have a greater impact.

    What’re you on about??

    SLRs should be better and they could and should simply reduce their recoil and slightly up their RoF. Atm the big difference between the SARs, generally accepted as the best weapons in the game, and the SLRs is down to the SARs having much lower recoil and faster TTKs

    The problem with the BRs could be solved by giving them their real life muzzle velocities so that SARs and MMGs no longer possess the highest muzzle velocities in the game, making them OHK to the torso at 10-40m or 10-70m (ranges within the lethal ranges of ARs, SARs and MGs) depending on the gun’s damage so more recons who want to ptfo can, and reintroducing player momentum to nerf ADAD spamming

    They could then make the weapon balance and the class balance better by extending the 4HK range of the ARs to 30m (currently at 10m), the LMGs to 40m and those of the low RoF and high RoF SMGs to 20m and 25m respectively so that the ARs and SMGs will no longer be on par with SARs at short-medium range anymore because they should be more dominant there. The high RoF SMGs should also be given more realistic recoil (buffs) to make them a better match against ARs which inexplicably actually have better recoil

    You are not balancing you are fiddling at the edges and miss my point. As I said giving more recoil pushes the high ROF to uselessness at short range.
    DICE is looking to reduce the range of high ROF without making the guns useless at short range.

    I agree that you can only increase recoil by so much without making the guns unusable, what I highlighted was that there are other better ways of balancing the games. Some of the ways involve looking at things from the other side like for example buffing BAs and SLRs as opposed to nerfing this or that, or giving the lower RoF SMGs Buffs that the higher RoF ones don’t get.
    I only listed a few of the changes I believe the game needs, one of which is better overall map design which is something that we’ve seen in the new Pacific maps. Also the changes certainly aren’t sledgehammers but I think that’s a good thing. I’ve been having fun in the Pacific and so what the game needs in terms of gunplay is some refining with a chisel as opposed to some smashes of a sledgehammer

    The changes to BTK and damage drop off Dice has proposed for patch 5.2 will make guns feel more restricted, something which is already a problem when comparing SMGs, ARs and BAs to the SARs
  • Texator
    184 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    If i understood right the changes are ment to make players play closer to objectives.
    If so then this changes are beyond stupid.
    The guys who are prone with a MMG somewhere in the bushes are not on the server to play the objective, they like to farm kills.
    What will they do after the changes to keep their playstyle. They will be prone in the bushes with a sniper rifle. sniper rifles are even buffed with this changes because the options to fight back are nerfed.
    This planned changes will change nothing when it comes to play the objective all it changes is the number of active players because those who like the weapons now will maybe take a break or leave BF for good.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    How can you defend a machine gun being better than that at 50m ... ?

    At mid and long range rifles should be better ... and with anything lower than 10 bullets a machine gun would still beat a rifle with its RoF ... like the suomi, thompson and Lewis gun are right now.

    I don't care if they "balance" things out with more recoil or more bullets, as long as it is balanced, the whole idea behind all the changes in 5.2, more balance.

    I think the problem was DICE pushed the recoil balance as far as they could without making unusable guns. But it did not work high ROF still controlled distance, where SLR and BA(C+R) should be better.

    With low BTK you don't have room to adjust(easily) TTK, now they are giving themselves that room where even velocity could have a greater impact.

    What’re you on about??

    SLRs should be better and they could and should simply reduce their recoil and slightly up their RoF. Atm the big difference between the SARs, generally accepted as the best weapons in the game, and the SLRs is down to the SARs having much lower recoil and faster TTKs

    The problem with the BRs could be solved by giving them their real life muzzle velocities so that SARs and MMGs no longer possess the highest muzzle velocities in the game, making them OHK to the torso at 10-40m or 10-70m (ranges within the lethal ranges of ARs, SARs and MGs) depending on the gun’s damage so more recons who want to ptfo can, and reintroducing player momentum to nerf ADAD spamming

    They could then make the weapon balance and the class balance better by extending the 4HK range of the ARs to 30m (currently at 10m), the LMGs to 40m and those of the low RoF and high RoF SMGs to 20m and 25m respectively so that the ARs and SMGs will no longer be on par with SARs at short-medium range anymore because they should be more dominant there. The high RoF SMGs should also be given more realistic recoil (buffs) to make them a better match against ARs which inexplicably actually have better recoil

    You are not balancing you are fiddling at the edges and miss my point. As I said giving more recoil pushes the high ROF to uselessness at short range.
    DICE is looking to reduce the range of high ROF without making the guns useless at short range.
    How useful is a Tommy right now at 40m and beyond? https://imgur.com/jAfhBLT https://imgur.com/ypkQQSb Look at the estimated FTK up top between the MAB and the Tommy. Beyond a certain point the MAB clearly wins, and this weapon is the usual all-rounder SMG. They already have a niche. People act like having a high ROF weapon is somehow guaranteeing a kill at any range with minimal effort.
    Yes, they want to limit the usefulness of certain weapons, but that is whole weapon classes. You think the Sten or MAB will get a new damage model? You think it will not take 5-14 bullets to kill? They are telling you that you should simply not engage at distances that go beyond 30m, which is stupid, as 22m-50m is still a very relevant engagement range.



  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    (Quote)
    Polls conducted by a small subset of people that participate on online boards and actually discuss the game. There are many people who just play the game and don't discuss the game online or respond to a poll put on a subreddit or the twitter of a content creator. Its also worth considering all the very vocal people against the change who cried about it before it released. Unknowingly cried about it saying they tried it and it sucked and ruined the game hours before it actually went live and people who went on "strike" and refused to play it all while saying it sucked.

    So it hasn't been proven but you also have the element of implementation being relevant. The initial TTK change last december was done in a very lazy simple way of just changing the body multiplier and not actually rebalancing the guns which is necessary for a change like this. This time it seems they are actually going to be re balancing things which can make all the difference.

    BF1's TTK change was made even later in its lifecycle and again there is no way to speak for the entire of the community based on the the small subsets of people polled that you might reference for these things. Its also worth considering that while BF1 TTK2 on paper is close to BFV TTK1 in practice with the spread model in that game most people were having effective TTKs likely closer to BFV TTK2

    Also worth nothing that BFBCs TTK was not fast at all and was much closer to BFV TTK 5.2, AR's in that game could take as much 7BTK up close

    Some of the polls involved more than 5000 players which isn’t exactly a small sample and in a sample of 5000 a 100%+ difference between the number of people voting for each option is statistically significant

    You talk about that the likelihood that a much larger portion of the voters than of the broader player base actually discuss the game as if it were a bad thing which is just silly. People who discuss the game are probably more educated about it on average than the average player and it’s a good thing when the people who’re better educated and informed on a topic are more vocal about it than the poorly informed and uneducated

    Whilst there’s evidence to support the notion that the community as a whole prefers TtKs closer to TTK1 than to TTK2 or TTK5.2, there is zero evidence to suggest that most players prefer TTK2 or TtK5.2 to TTK1. All the people who claim that the majority of players prefer TTKs slower than TTK1 are basing it on nothing but their gut feeling meaning it’s baseless.
    Rejecting the evidence that suggests that most players prefer TTK1 when you have nothing to support your contrarian claims is just ridiculous

    Most of the people who were against TTK2 before it went live played BF1 at launch and based their opinion on how horrendous BF1’s gunplay was at launch.
    And please, some people have gone on strike about BFV’s current TTK and some others have been complaining about it this entire time

    The maps in BFI on average are more congested than BFV’s are on average meaning that average engagement distances were shorter. Not only this but BFV’s recoil also has an extra layer to it which makes it more complex. Together these factors outweigh the impact spread had on BFI’s gunplay. I’ve played BFV significantly more than I’ve played BFI and yet my KDs are pretty similar
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    Let’s not bother fixing ridiculous netcode and burry heads in the sand!

    Literally the worst netcode I have ever come across by a long long way!


    Honestly Battlefield has some of the best in FPS. It's been tested. New COD has way worse Net Code then Battlefield.

    So why does COD’s feel better?

    Then there also BFI
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Texator wrote: »
    If i understood right the changes are ment to make players play closer to objectives.If so then this changes are beyond stupid.The guys who are prone with a MMG somewhere in the bushes are not on the server to play the objective, they like to farm kills.What will they do after the changes to keep their playstyle. They will be prone in the bushes with a sniper rifle. sniper rifles are even buffed with this changes because the options to fight back are nerfed.This planned changes will change nothing when it comes to play the objective all it changes is the number of active players because those who like the weapons now will maybe take a break or leave BF for good.

    Not only that but the people still camp with MMGs won’t feel a thing because they usually operate at distances where the other gun classes are also getting nerfs. The result will be that the changes mostly cancel each other out
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    How useful is a Tommy right now at 40m and beyond? https://imgur.com/jAfhBLT https://imgur.com/ypkQQSb Look at the estimated FTK up top between the MAB and the Tommy. Beyond a certain point the MAB clearly wins, and this weapon is the usual all-rounder SMG. They already have a niche. People act like having a high ROF weapon is somehow guaranteeing a kill at any range with minimal effort.
    Yes, they want to limit the usefulness of certain weapons, but that is whole weapon classes. You think the Sten or MAB will get a new damage model? You think it will not take 5-14 bullets to kill? They are telling you that you should simply not engage at distances that go beyond 30m, which is stupid, as 22m-50m is still a very relevant engagement range.

    Some eople suck at the game and can’t beat Tommys at 50m when they have an SAR or an AR but don’t want to accept the fact that they just suck at the game and so blame balancing and game mechanical. Those selfish dunces are the ones misguiding Dice into breaking BFs
    Post edited by mf_shro0m on
  • menaceuk
    54 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why are dice hellbent on destroying their userbase? Nobody asked for TTK changes and the reaction they got last time was biblical.

    I don't get how a company in this age of forums and social media can be so clueless. I think they want to be hated.

    I said when they tried first time that in a year they will try again. I'm saying now that no matter the reaction, no matter the backlash, they wont revert these TTK changes this time.
  • SmileAsTheyDie
    502 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m said:

    Some of the polls involved more than 5000 players which isn’t exactly a small sample and in a sample of 5000 a 100%+ difference between the number of people voting for each option is statistically significant

    You talk about that the likelihood that a much larger portion of the voters than of the broader player base actually discuss the game as if it were a bad thing which is just silly. People who discuss the game are probably more educated about it on average than the average player and it’s a good thing when the people who’re better educated and informed on a topic are more vocal about it than the poorly informed and uneducated

    Whilst there’s evidence to support the notion that the community as a whole prefers TtKs closer to TTK1 than to TTK2 or TTK5.2, there is zero evidence to suggest that most players prefer TTK2 or TtK5.2 to TTK1. All the people who claim that the majority of players prefer TTKs slower than TTK1 are basing it on nothing but their gut feeling meaning it’s baseless.
    Rejecting the evidence that suggests that most players prefer TTK1 when you have nothing to support your contrarian claims is just ridiculous

    Most of the people who were against TTK2 before it went live played BF1 at launch and based their opinion on how horrendous BF1’s gunplay was at launch.
    And please, some people have gone on strike about BFV’s current TTK and some others have been complaining about it this entire time

    The maps in BFI on average are more congested than BFV’s are on average meaning that average engagement distances were shorter. Not only this but BFV’s recoil also has an extra layer to it which makes it more complex. Together these factors outweigh the impact spread had on BFI’s gunplay. I’ve played BFV significantly more than I’ve played BFI and yet my KDs are pretty similar

    The issue is who is being polled. I can poll 1 million trump supporters asking them if they think trump should get impeached but I can't then use the results of that poll to prove how the entire country feels on the issue.

    I do think people who are educated and have a deeper understanding of the game should have more of a say, more so than probably most people here that might share the same view but wouldn't be considered under the "educated enough on the game" umbrella to be considered under my view. I do not make claims though that my view on what should be changed is overwhelmingly agreed on by the playerbase unlike a certain side in this whole debacle. The only data that could come close to determining where most people stand on this (if that is important to you) is the internal DICE data based on their surveys and telemetry.

    I have seen a fraction of the people say they are going on strike over the current TTK since the TTK2 debacle that I did say they were going on strike over TTK2. If there is any comparable amount of people going on strike now they are whisper quiet compared to the very loud crying last time around (and I'm sure thats to be repeated).

    BFV's recoil has "an extra layer" which is spread being converted to recoil, its just spread has been heavily neutered (as it would probablly become unbearable the amount of recoil with this conversion with any beefy numbers). You have SLRs in BF1 where you had to contest with VRec, HRec, and spread increase while in BFV with the semi autos you have no HRec to deal with, no spread increase to deal with, just VRec and base spread. The impact spread had on BF1's gunplay is far more prevalent hence all the people that couldn't handle it and complained about how awful it was and praised BFV for having skillful gunplay because it was easy with little to no learning curve.
  • wiazabi
    545 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TheNoobPolice 

    It is a massive change if they have to make all weapons viable instead of doing the exact same mistake they did first try, neglecting the low rof slow ttk weapons and just add a flat +1 btk at the ranges they think will work.

    Like how will this be worked out for recon slrs ( remember 3 btk slrs ? ), what about madsen that is already 5 btk at close range and suppose to be longer range weapon but might get same nerf as other lmgs?

    If we need more bullets pr kill at certain ranges meaning it favours those guns with larger magazines will they make reloading faster to compensate the difference ? 

    Also seems strange if they wanna keep the cqb btk but change it at longer ranges if you have a gun like Type 100 doing 0-10m at 5 btk then suddenly its 7. 


    I am just worried to be honest as their track record on this is not good and i really hope they do proper testing on ALL weapons not just say Suomi / Thompson / zk and then apply the same nerf they did those 3 to rest of the smg's.
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    How can you defend a machine gun being better than that at 50m ... ?

    At mid and long range rifles should be better ... and with anything lower than 10 bullets a machine gun would still beat a rifle with its RoF ... like the suomi, thompson and Lewis gun are right now.

    I don't care if they "balance" things out with more recoil or more bullets, as long as it is balanced, the whole idea behind all the changes in 5.2, more balance.

    What are you on about??? Jesus Christ

    - 10 bullets to kill for a machine gun at 50m is a joke
    - No, because accuracy. Landing 10 bullets at 50m with a Suomi takes so much longer than landing 6 with an SAR does . Hell you could probably land 10 bullets with an SAR faster than you can land 10 with a suomi

    The idea behind 5.2 is to balance things better but it’s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and will make things worse
  • MisguidedWarrior
    6 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    I play on PC and for me I have not had a problem with visibility or a TTK that is too fast in current game state. I will say though that it's a bit irritating when a assault player kills you quickly with an assault rifle from longer ranges, so I would suggest that they make the recoil patterns for automatic weapons larger.

    I agree with Jackfrags in this video
  • Rusty5p00n
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Game doesn't need any changes to TTK, it shouldn't take a whole clip to down someone, Game seems to be in a good place now, would be silly to change things now.

    There is a reason why I prefer BF over Modern Warfare, lets not ruin a good thing.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m said:

    What are you on about??? Jesus Christ

    - 10 bullets to kill for a machine gun at 50m is a joke
    - No, because accuracy. Landing 10 bullets at 50m with a Suomi takes so much longer than landing 6 with an SAR does . Hell you could probably land 10 bullets with an SAR faster than you can land 10 with a suomi

    The idea behind 5.2 is to balance things better but it’s **** and will make things worse
    If you want to fight at a longer distance: use the weapons that are in the game for that, don't expect you can fight everyone at every distance with one weapon, use the weapon for what it was made for or die.

    Right now SMG's (and LMG's with 3x scope and not lying prone) dominate at a distance they should not, this needs to be rebalanced.
This discussion has been closed.