Lack of gun variety post-5.2

2»

Comments

  • fragnstein
    619 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    The funny thing is that weapons like the StG 44 and even the Type 2A aren't really all that great. They're just among the least awful. So many weapons are just zero fun to use now, and the core problem is the unbelievably stupid damage dropoff mechanics. A year's worth of balance thrown away to chase after players who don't want to play the game anyway.

    And it bears mentioning once more how godawful damage balance against vehicles is now. Earlier I was using a Valentine VIII with APCR rounds - dedicated anti-tank rounds - and doing 10 damage per hit to an enemy Tiger. 10 freaking damage with AT shells. (The standard HE shells actually do a whopping 13, which is still terrible but also really dumb.) On the Pacific tanks can deal okay damage to each other, but everywhere infantry AT weapons mostly suck. And nothing touches planes but high-level fighters now. Because vehicle-only players get mad and quit when other kids can break their toys.

    The only way forward is backward, i.e. reversion to 5.0. DICE shot themselves in the foot by saying they absolutely weren't going to revert this time, but they're going to. Not everyone loved 5.0, but mostly people liked it and it needed only minor tweaks for balance. Even the people who claimed the infantry guns were too lethal only ever stated this problem in terms of "Because I die too fast;" no one said they felt like they were killing other players too easily.
    .

    Games are meant to be fair and equal to all players. BFV 5.0 was far from that, and player numbers, data and feedback show that. A year of attempted balance did not improve anything, so more action was taken.


    How do we know what the feed back said? We will never know because for some reason its super top secret.  Just like I got a big ol ding-a-lling,  but you will never know because I wont show it.  You will just have to trust me
  • DingoKillr
    3922 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    1) There were constant complaints about spotting, auto rotation and previous TTK changes. Did that stop Dice from bringing them back? I think not.

    2)Previous games did just that. Added high recoil to the guns that were designed for close range engagements. AS VAL, Famas, AEK and others. Thats how you actually make make diverse weapon selection. You make guns that excel at something above others. Now we have every single gun that is useless beyond 30m mark. Let make some examples.

    FG42. High RPM, low mag, and....low damage MG? Why? Currently its absolutely useless because with 20 rounds and super low damage there is not much you can do. You will get destroyed by SMGs at close range because hipfire, and you will get destroyed by ARs and SARs at medium/long range because damage. Bren gun. Somewhat ok-ish medium range LMG. Still outclassed by STG/Ribeyrolles and SARs at medium range because of slow ROF. Now lets rebalance those 2 MGs.

    First off, FG42. Buff its hipfire so that it can be more reliable at close range. Also increase its reload speed AND increase its recoil. Move its damage value back to 4-6. Now, suddenly you have a very appealing option for close range fights. It won't allow you to laser people at 50m distance because of recoil, but it will allow you to fight against ARs and other LMGs with easy at close range/medium. 20 round mag makes sure that you will constantly have to rely on hit n' run playstyle.

    Now Bren Gun. This could be an amazing long range option. Move its damage to 3-5 (34-20 per shot), INCREASE its ADS speeds to put it at a disadvantage up close and give it some recoil for people to master at long range. Or drastically increasing its reload speed could also be an option to balance it at close range fights instead of increasing ADS. And there you have it. Perfect long range LMG for people who prefer to sit back a little and pick their targets over a distance.

    Whats so hard about going back to BF4 style of weapon damages is beyond me.

    I not disagreeing, some guns can be improved and can be done so in many ways. To often most just say recoil or BTK that want fix anything.

    FG42 and LS26 need to be better at close range both are heavily disadvantage by ROF and recoil but also have issues with reload, hipfire, draw time and ADS speed. So yes both will not compete with SMG or AR as is.

    Actual I would be happy making the Bren more long range but I don't think that damage would work as it would make it better then most at short range and far to go at long range. The Madsen is pretty good at range and it has 6 BTK and the same ROF.

    BF4 had spread, suppression and visual recoil to reduce longer ability of weapons but that had weapons that could hit targets over 1000m with ease, BFV projectile struggles above 600m.
  • GrizzGolf
    1205 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I agree. Some guns are trash after 5.2
  • DingoKillr
    3922 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 11
    fragnstein wrote: »
    (Quote)
    How do we know what the feed back said? We will never know because for some reason its super top secret.  Just like I got a big ol ding-a-lling,  but you will never know because I wont show it.  You will just have to trust me
    Well you could look at some of the feedback here over that year.

    How many threads called for nerf MMG as they can kill across the map. We had SMG are useless at short range and then 2 of high ROF are killing to easy up to 50m and the others are still useless. BA and SLR are useless and you need to camp far form the objective. We also had many thread on AR and SAR are to powerful all range weapons and we even had threads asking to nerf LMG as they OP and act more like AR then LMG.

    Many saying dying at range to quickly and to many campers.

    Even the tank v Assault thread DICE saw thread complaining about large number of Assaults with launchers and it was to easy to solo a tank.

    So the feedback is not secret just many did not want to see what DICE saw.

    Heres hoping the seen the feedback about planes and their dps.
  • PeaceWeaver
    200 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Since DICE is just going to disregard simple “revert 5.2” posts, here’s something meatier to sink your teeth into.

    After 5.2, the gun meta (which DICE ostensibly sought to eliminate) has been further narrowed down to a handful of weapons. As someone who used to use a wide variety of faction-specific weapons pre-5.2, this has made the game much less satisfying for me. I don’t study weapon stat graphs or anything like that, but I know what weapons feel good to use, and I know what I’m getting killed by the most. This is my experience post-5.2:

    SARs feel utterly terrible to use now, and are an inferior choice to the STG 44 in pretty much all engagement ranges. I used to hear Garand pings ALL the time on Pacific maps, which was very immersive, but that is no longer the case. If I get killed by an assault player, they’re almost always running the STG 44 now, even more so than before. There’s a small niche for the m1907 in CQC, but it’s increasingly rare to see any assault pick that gun over the STG 44. I expect SARs might still be viable on PC, where precision aiming is easier to achieve than on console, but can’t really speak to that since I’m on PS4.

    SMGs are a shadow of their former selves. Mid-range options are virtually non-existent now, which means that SMG medics are back to losing gun fights on most Conquest maps (which were designed in such a way as to encourage mid/long range gunplay). Iconic WW2 SMGs like the sten and the MP40 feel like a self-gimp when you use them, especially when you encounter an STG 44. The Jungle Carbine is a decent option for mid-range, true, but you’re still better off using the STG 44, so why bother? For CQC, there is one gun that is outshining the rest at the moment: the Type 2A. The Tommy and Suomi are still in use and still effective, but most medics are running the 2A now due to its quick reload and the server’s inability to keep up with the gun’s high ROF. Modes that encourage CQC like Breakthrough and Squad Conquest are dominated by this gun.

    LMGs. Whoo boy. I used to main support alongside medic, but I’ve barely touched the class since LMGs were butchered. The AR-type LMGs that are meant to be used at close/mid range are outgunned by the STG 44. Since attrition is even less of a factor now, you are literally putting yourself at a disadvantage if you’re trying to play support aggressively. Aggressive supports are just inferior assaults with ammo boxes that no one actually needs anymore. Of the mid/long range options, only the Lewis (and the Bren, to a lesser extent) remains viable, and is less effective than it was previously. As for MMGs, I literally cannot recall when last I was killed by one post-5.2. They’ve been replaced by the 2A on corridor-heavy CQC maps like Operation Underground. Shotguns remain a niche, barely used weapon outside of certain maps.

    As for recon, I barely play the class, so I can’t really comment. All I know is that aggressive recon is even harder to play now UNLESS you’re running something like the ZH/RSC and are able to get the jump on a single enemy or two. Objective areas are dominated by medics running the 2A and assaults running the STG 44, which will beat aggressive recon options every time. Aggressive recons were a rarity pre-5.2, and they’re practically non-existent now. I only use my recon when I need to spawn in on a team mate’s beacon to drop a beacon for my own squad. If I’m unable to pick up a better weapon from a fallen enemy, I just accept my inevitable death.

    Is this what you wanted, DICE? You complained previously that too many guns were “too effective” at multiple ranges, and that this led to people sticking with their favourite gun. While that may have been true, the old damage model meant that we felt like we COULD be effective with any gun, and that the gun you chose was a matter of aesthetic preference and play style. It also meant that people like me, who enjoy using faction-specific weapons for immersion, could actually use faction-specific weapons without gimping ourselves. 5.2 has completely messed with class balance to the point where people who care about their performance now choose what class they play based on the map and the game mode. Aggressive mid range? Assault and STG 44. Passive/defensive mid range? Support and Lewis (though you can achieve the same thing with assault and STG 44). Aggressive CQC? Medic and Type 2A. Passive long range? Recon and your preferred BA rifle. I know you tried to ensure that each class has weapons for each type of engagement range, but people will almost ALWAYS pick the most versatile class/weapon combo for the mode they’re playing. When so-called “mid-range” SMGs and SARs lose practically every time to the STG 44, who in their right mind will use those weapons over the STG 44? When “close range” LMGs, MMGs, shotguns, pistol carbines, and ARs lose practically every time to the Type 2A, who in their right mind would use those weapons over the Type 2A?

    It’s boring using the same weapons. It’s boring dying to the same weapons. Please revert 5.2 so we can go back to the weapon variety we previously enjoyed.

    Here your problem you want faction specific balance and DICE have not done that so your screwed. I bet you were happier playing axis in 5.0.

    I don't know what you doing but SAR should never have been a short range weapon. I think they are working better now.

    LMG have never been able to compete with STG at close to medium range. DICE thinks 2 should but not made enough changes for that. MMG are far more problematic the MG42 requires deployment which is slow and still has an overheat.

    Now medic have a gun that out class AR quick let's complain.

    So what are you saying about recon. That BA need improvement?

    Faction-specific options in 5.0 were all generally different in terms of their overall feel/recoil, but they were all still lethal. I could be effective using the sten, the MP40, the Tommy, the Type 100, the Bren, the FG-42, the BAR, any of the SARs, etc. I never felt like I HAD to use one weapon over another. That’s the point.

    Never said SARs were close range weapons? They’ve always been best at medium range... But they’re pea shooters now.

    And finally, I’m not saying recon needs BAs buffed. I’m saying their aggressive mid/close combat options are lacking. The ZH29/RSC still do reasonably well at taking out one or two guys at mid range if you get the jump on them, but that’s it. The Trench Carbine is extremely inferior to the T2A and STG 44. I don’t play recon much because I hate passive long range play, which is the box into which the class has been firmly placed after 5.2. Hats off to anyone who can still play an aggressive PTFO recon after 5.2. It was hard to pull off even before then...
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    2503 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Since DICE is just going to disregard simple “revert 5.2” posts, here’s something meatier to sink your teeth into.

    After 5.2, the gun meta (which DICE ostensibly sought to eliminate) has been further narrowed down to a handful of weapons. As someone who used to use a wide variety of faction-specific weapons pre-5.2, this has made the game much less satisfying for me. I don’t study weapon stat graphs or anything like that, but I know what weapons feel good to use, and I know what I’m getting killed by the most. This is my experience post-5.2:

    SARs feel utterly terrible to use now, and are an inferior choice to the STG 44 in pretty much all engagement ranges. I used to hear Garand pings ALL the time on Pacific maps, which was very immersive, but that is no longer the case. If I get killed by an assault player, they’re almost always running the STG 44 now, even more so than before. There’s a small niche for the m1907 in CQC, but it’s increasingly rare to see any assault pick that gun over the STG 44. I expect SARs might still be viable on PC, where precision aiming is easier to achieve than on console, but can’t really speak to that since I’m on PS4.

    SMGs are a shadow of their former selves. Mid-range options are virtually non-existent now, which means that SMG medics are back to losing gun fights on most Conquest maps (which were designed in such a way as to encourage mid/long range gunplay). Iconic WW2 SMGs like the sten and the MP40 feel like a self-gimp when you use them, especially when you encounter an STG 44. The Jungle Carbine is a decent option for mid-range, true, but you’re still better off using the STG 44, so why bother? For CQC, there is one gun that is outshining the rest at the moment: the Type 2A. The Tommy and Suomi are still in use and still effective, but most medics are running the 2A now due to its quick reload and the server’s inability to keep up with the gun’s high ROF. Modes that encourage CQC like Breakthrough and Squad Conquest are dominated by this gun.

    LMGs. Whoo boy. I used to main support alongside medic, but I’ve barely touched the class since LMGs were butchered. The AR-type LMGs that are meant to be used at close/mid range are outgunned by the STG 44. Since attrition is even less of a factor now, you are literally putting yourself at a disadvantage if you’re trying to play support aggressively. Aggressive supports are just inferior assaults with ammo boxes that no one actually needs anymore. Of the mid/long range options, only the Lewis (and the Bren, to a lesser extent) remains viable, and is less effective than it was previously. As for MMGs, I literally cannot recall when last I was killed by one post-5.2. They’ve been replaced by the 2A on corridor-heavy CQC maps like Operation Underground. Shotguns remain a niche, barely used weapon outside of certain maps.

    As for recon, I barely play the class, so I can’t really comment. All I know is that aggressive recon is even harder to play now UNLESS you’re running something like the ZH/RSC and are able to get the jump on a single enemy or two. Objective areas are dominated by medics running the 2A and assaults running the STG 44, which will beat aggressive recon options every time. Aggressive recons were a rarity pre-5.2, and they’re practically non-existent now. I only use my recon when I need to spawn in on a team mate’s beacon to drop a beacon for my own squad. If I’m unable to pick up a better weapon from a fallen enemy, I just accept my inevitable death.

    Is this what you wanted, DICE? You complained previously that too many guns were “too effective” at multiple ranges, and that this led to people sticking with their favourite gun. While that may have been true, the old damage model meant that we felt like we COULD be effective with any gun, and that the gun you chose was a matter of aesthetic preference and play style. It also meant that people like me, who enjoy using faction-specific weapons for immersion, could actually use faction-specific weapons without gimping ourselves. 5.2 has completely messed with class balance to the point where people who care about their performance now choose what class they play based on the map and the game mode. Aggressive mid range? Assault and STG 44. Passive/defensive mid range? Support and Lewis (though you can achieve the same thing with assault and STG 44). Aggressive CQC? Medic and Type 2A. Passive long range? Recon and your preferred BA rifle. I know you tried to ensure that each class has weapons for each type of engagement range, but people will almost ALWAYS pick the most versatile class/weapon combo for the mode they’re playing. When so-called “mid-range” SMGs and SARs lose practically every time to the STG 44, who in their right mind will use those weapons over the STG 44? When “close range” LMGs, MMGs, shotguns, pistol carbines, and ARs lose practically every time to the Type 2A, who in their right mind would use those weapons over the Type 2A?

    It’s boring using the same weapons. It’s boring dying to the same weapons. Please revert 5.2 so we can go back to the weapon variety we previously enjoyed.

    Here your problem you want faction specific balance and DICE have not done that so your screwed. I bet you were happier playing axis in 5.0.

    I don't know what you doing but SAR should never have been a short range weapon. I think they are working better now.

    LMG have never been able to compete with STG at close to medium range. DICE thinks 2 should but not made enough changes for that. MMG are far more problematic the MG42 requires deployment which is slow and still has an overheat.

    Now medic have a gun that out class AR quick let's complain.

    So what are you saying about recon. That BA need improvement?

    Faction-specific options in 5.0 were all generally different in terms of their overall feel/recoil, but they were all still lethal. I could be effective using the sten, the MP40, the Tommy, the Type 100, the Bren, the FG-42, the BAR, any of the SARs, etc. I never felt like I HAD to use one weapon over another. That’s the point.

    Never said SARs were close range weapons? They’ve always been best at medium range... But they’re pea shooters now.

    And finally, I’m not saying recon needs BAs buffed. I’m saying their aggressive mid/close combat options are lacking. The ZH29/RSC still do reasonably well at taking out one or two guys at mid range if you get the jump on them, but that’s it. The Trench Carbine is extremely inferior to the T2A and STG 44. I don’t play recon much because I hate passive long range play, which is the box into which the class has been firmly placed after 5.2. Hats off to anyone who can still play an aggressive PTFO recon after 5.2. It was hard to pull off even before then...

    I'm always aggressive recon.  But bad pings in servers can still get the best of me turning two shot killing self loading rifles to like 3 shots or so.  Also the flares are nerfed.



    Sometimes a one man wrecking crew.


  • jroggs
    1091 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    (Quote)
    I'm always aggressive recon.  But bad pings in servers can still get the best of me turning two shot killing self loading rifles to like 3 shots or so.  Also the flares are nerfed.
    https://xboxclips.com/GRAW2ROBZ/64b376e9-b8c3-4d37-b69a-67375e7b39b1
    https://xboxclips.com/GRAW2ROBZ/000c3b25-f3a5-47f8-b7d6-c04b291f264a
    Sometimes a one man wrecking crew.
    I loved semi-autos in BF1, but yeah, the performance issues of BFV made them fairly unappealing to me even before the 5.2 nerfs. (I also can't stand the small-mag/ slow-reload combination.)
  • IDazzlerazzle
    500 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    STG 1-5
    STG44
    Ribey

    Type 100
    ZK
    Nambu

    Lews

    Thats all you need to play now 


    Avoid everything that has 20 round magazine aka BAR FG-42


  • CT1924
    729 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Just wanted to give my 2 cents real quick. In my opinion Semi-Autos are pretty awful now. Assault Rifles and SMGs are strong, for Support the LMGs are still quite good, MMGs are absolutely atrocious and Sniper didn't change outside of getting rolled even harder at close range now, because everyone uses crazy strong 2A, Suomi or Stg44.

    Some of the absolute worst weapons I played recently were: MG42 which was just awful, M1A1 which feels like a BB gun at range and doesn't have the fire rate to compete with full autos up close, absolutely horrendous. MAS44 which takes 5(!) shots over 25m to kill someone, same for Garand which has a magazine of 8, that is just crazy.

    Best Guns for me at the moment: Type 2A, Suomi, Type100, 1-5 Sturmgewehr (full auto), Stg44, Bar

    I'll keep testing through all the guns and will probably post a list of my point of view, just wanted to drop what I experienced so far real quick.

    LMGs are trash compared to ARs though, except the Madsen and the KE7, which is just slightly worse. But damage models, control, and accuracy are the same. ARs just have a higher rof.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2063 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    Ok then why not just increase recoil for high DPS weapons that you've mentioned? Simple as that. Give SARs high recoil that would've made it impossible to spam them at max RPM over a long distance. Give fast ROF ARs such as 1-5 and SF actual recoil so that players wouldn't mag dump. Same applies to most LMGs.

    Whats that? Ooooh yeah, they've done that, twice. But what happened? Yeah, those low skill scrubs began crying even more because now high skilled players who mastered the recoil were now dominating even harder. So Dice did complete 180 and removed recoil AND damage from every weapon so that both noob with 10 hours and pro with 1000 hours are on 100% safe field in terms of skill ceiling.

    One thing Dice have forgotten is that skilled players still have reaction and knowledge on their side. And guess what can cure that? Suppression. This will bring back "shoot first, kill first" mechanic. Noobs who often cry "Oh mah gawd, I shot him in the back but he turned 180 and insta killed me, wawawawawawaw".

    Reaction time and map knowledge is the only place where player can apply skill. Picking the right fight and having better reaction time than the enemy. Suppression will get rid of "reaction" part in the near future, I'm 100% sure of it. They broke their promises about having lethal weapons, no 3D spotting. not touching TTK again and not having auto rotation on consoles. What is preventing them from adding suppression back into the mix?

    Because 1) DICE can't add spread due to the RBD complaints.2 ) you can reach a point where recoil also impacts short range gun performance. 3) at some point recoil becomes meaningless if you always max out when used and 4) recoil has more impact on console players.
    The increase range BTK and lower recoil does better than just high recoil.

    Suppression had nothing to do with short range reaction time, it only impacted players at range increasing the number of bullets needed. Spread and suppression are no go in BFV. Good players can still have put 4 into without reaction.

    Guess what you got a new skill judging if you can handle the weapons performance at range or do you need to get closer.

    I never saw any from DICE say they would not touch TTK.
    The RBD complaints in BF1 were due to single shot weapons, mainly snipers, randomly missing perfectly good shots under suppression. Spread on weapons is a rEal thing and should be applied to automatic weapons to help with the balance and not just use BTK which they basically are now
  • 19Romulus84
    83 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The friend  @PeaceWeaver talks well, then in patch 5.0 everyone can play their favorite weapon but people played with different weapons and died from different weapons and now they are playing the same. So that you wanted to believe well and it came out as usual. Good mate talks on team conquests 80% of players run with Type 2A and SOUMI seems to bother you. At that time, even half of people did not play SOUMI, which now plays with this Typ2A. Anyway, a lot to write and talk here and it all boils down to one simple thing, patch 5.2 and its amendment 5.2.2 spoiled the game's balance of weapons and diversity of use of weapons. This is not a thought, you must be able to admit the error and roll back patch 5.2.2 to version 5.0. No more no less.
Sign In or Register to comment.