Suppression needs changed
The current state of suppression is both useless and inconsistent. I completed the challenge to get 300 suppressed targets but it was a nightmare. I had to purposefully miss my targets in order to at...
Forum Discussion
I had to purposefully miss my targets in order to attempt to suppress them,
This is why suppression is a fundamentally flawed mechanic in an arcade game. This may work in real life, but in-game there's no fear of death as you can just respawn almost instantly. It works way better in games where the death penalty is more significant. Battlefield is not that kind of game though.
There seems to be a minimum range to suppression, and maybe an internal cooldown on the application per target?
That seems quite plausible. You don't want suppression to kick in when you're in a CQB firefight after all.
There should be an actual impact on accuracy and ability to aim at a target when suppressed.
Disagreed. It was terrible in Battlefield 3. It didn't achieve what is was meant to achieve. So they chose to reduce it in Battlefield 4, but then it just became an annoying gimmick that added nothing to the game. So why try to force something that has proven itself to be a flawed mechanic?
The idea that you shoot back at a sniper that's hundreds of meters away from you is flawed to begin with. The logical action you take when somebody has a weapon that is better suited to the engagement distance is to disengage. Because even if you have suppression that affects weapon behavior, you still don't know whether you've successfully managed to suppress the sniper. In essence you're just doing something that is likely to get you shot in the head. It actively entices you to play in a way that gets you killed.
Besides, why should you ever be rewarded for missing your shots? Let's say you consider snipers to be an issue, then why would you solve it by using suppression to begin with? There are many other solutions that would provide a much more believable experience, such as the ability to call in mortar/artillery on a certain location. An alternative solution is to flank and to close the engagement distance, to the point where your weapon has the advantage.
In Battlefield 6, suppression stops health regeneration. It's essentially telling you that the purpose of suppression isn't to counter snipers, but to prevent the enemy from being able to push ahead effectively.
Appreciate the response, and in essence I agree that suppression in fundamentally flawed, this is why I say it needs changed. I disagree with a couple points though.
That seems quite plausible. You don't want suppression to kick in when you're in a CQB firefight after all.
The minimum range for suppression to kick in is simply too far. I can understand the CQB argument, but with most of the maps being the size they are, we are within 30 meters of an enemy WAY more frequently in this Battlefield than any other. If they want suppression to be a mechanic then it needs to function in these new smaller maps, and in the larger maps with tight corridors. 15 meters minimum is more reasonable.
The idea that you shoot back at a sniper that's hundreds of meters away from you is flawed to begin with.
In VERY few scenarios would you ever be shooting at anyone beyond 100-120 meters max. I have almost 40 hours ingame since release and my longest longshot with an LMG is around 140 and it was dumb luck spraying because I had no immediate goals. This game considers 70 meters to be a longshot. The "hundreds of meters away from you" is implausible in this game to begin with, even with a sniper in most scenarios unless you're on top of a mountain on Firestorm shooting at another sniper on the opposite spawn. This doesn't apply to LMGs.
-Besides, why should you ever be rewarded for missing your shots? Let's say you consider snipers to be an issue, then why would you solve it by using suppression to begin with?
-This may work in real life, but in-game there's no fear of death as you can just respawn almost instantly. It works way better in games where the death penalty is more significant. Battlefield is not that kind of game though.
LMG's whole gimmick is high magazine, slow reload, slow movement for the purpose of having the ability to law down fire at a target. Laying down hundreds of rounds of LMG fire, as a game mechanic since you brought up that this game isn't realistic, should have an appreciable benefit to your team. You say that you don't actually know when someone is suppressed, that's the same as the health suppression effect we have now. I don't see any issue with it applying an aiming detriment so that LMGs are a reasonable card to play against snipers sitting in a nest, as long as it's not "hundreds of meters away"
The minimum range for suppression to kick in is simply too far.
Before we can judge whether it's too far, we first have to know how it's triggered and at what distance it's triggered. Right now it's all just speculation. All we currently know is that you're struggling to trigger it, which means that at the very least it's not very intuitive when you might expect to use suppression.
In VERY few scenarios would you ever be shooting at anyone beyond 100-120 meters max.
The point here isn't the exact distance. I was simply drawing a scenario where the engagement distance of a sniper rifle clearly exceeds that of an LMG. That doesn't change the fact that a sniper should have an advantage when they are at their intended engagement distance.
Laying down hundreds of rounds of LMG fire, as a game mechanic since you brought up that this game isn't realistic, should have an appreciable benefit to your team.
This is logic sounds a little odd to me. The benefit a weapon gives you is related to its ability to kill enemies within the intended engagement range. The LMG does not need suppression to exercise that benefit. It already has the advantage of being able to sustain fire for much longer than any other weapon class can.
If you catch an entire group of enemies off guard, you can maybe shoot 2 or 3 people with an assault rifle and you must then temporarily retreat to safely reload. In the mean time, the enemy has time to adjust to the situation. A machine gun on the other hand can keep firing until all the enemies are dead and then still have left to spare. Giving the enemy players little time to regroup and respond.
I don't see any issue with it applying an aiming detriment so that LMGs are a reasonable card to play against snipers sitting in a nest, as long as it's not "hundreds of meters away"
Suppression is not a mechanic that only affects sniper rifles. That's why you can logically conclude that the purpose isn't (just) to counter snipers. There are broader consequences that you must keep in mind, before you can properly evaluate whether it's a good idea. There's this common presupposition that snipers need a counter, without first exploring why they need the counter to begin with.
It would make more sense to first evaluate the effectiveness of the already available counters and the effectiveness of sniper rifles. There's no need to introduce additional counters, if you can either improve the effectiveness of available counters, or reduce the effectiveness of sniper rifles.
Featured Places
