Battlefield is not realistic, nor should it try to be. If you want to convince me why flinch or suppression is good, then please explain from a gameplay perspective, what's so fun about having your aim thrown off every time you're in a firefight? The way a firefight works is fundamental to a first person shooter game. If you screw up those fundamentals, it's absolutely a game breaking problem.
If it wasn't realistic, we wouldn't have bullet drop to take into account over distances in the game. And having your aim thrown off by bullets snapping by you or hitting the cover right in front of you would be 100% normal. A bit of flinch would be alright, and more natural. I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying. I'm not saying just the bullets whizzing by shouldn't do it, but the ones hitting the cover as you're trying to aim definitely should...that's all part of a firefight.
You're making a flawed argument. Arcade games can have realistic elements, but they deliberately choose what to include and what to exclude.
Besides, the bullet drop in this game isn't even that realistic. It's not affected by wind, temperature, humidity, momentum and the air density is a static value. Do you perhaps think we have the coriolis effect to account for?
I understand precisely what you're saying and I'm saying that I'm not convinced that it's a good thing. I don't think it should be part of a firefight. I'd like firefights to be a competition between players using skill-based mechanics. Spread and recoil can be dealt with, but you can't exactly counteract flinching.
This is a very difficult balance for Dice, snipers are one-shot-kills (headshots/sweetspot) and that is fundamentally a problem, against weapons that needs 4-5 bullets to kill, It always feel bad to be on the receiving end, when getting one-shotted.
It's the same problem with shotguns, I understand the game-mechanics, but it still feels 'stupid' to be one-shotted.
I personally feel that suppression should not really affect aiming, but getting hit, should still have some penalties. Having the ability to one-shot-kill at any distance is a very strong ability, especially in BF6 where sniping has been made a lot easier than i earlier titles (at least since BF1).
I think there's certainly a discussion to be had about sniper rifle balance in this game.
The primary mistake people keep making is that they see suppression/flinching as something that's supposed to be a counter to snipers. The problem with that reasoning is that suppression/flinching not only affects snipers, but affects every type of engagement.
Not only that, but this idea to challenge a sniper at range is the same as challenging a shotgun at CQB. It's challenging somebody when they are at an advantage. It seems quite odd to me that people complain about their own mistake and then blame the game for not allowing that mistake to work in their favor.
I don't dispute that Battlefield 6 sniping is too strong, but I just think you need a solution that solves exactly the problem you seek to fix and doesn't just introduce all sorts of unintended side effects. People are laser focused on making the enemy feel some kind of aim penalty without exploring alternative solutions.
Besides, the bullet drop in this game isn't even that realistic. It's not affected by wind, temperature, humidity, momentum and the air density is a static value. Do you perhaps think we have the coriolis effect to account for?
Now you're just being obtuse and pedantic, it's not a good look. The reason there's no wind to account for is because that's a variable that won't transfer well to MMO firefights, distance w/ bullet drop does.
You're making a flawed argument.
No, no I'm not...suppression has always been a part of Battlefield, there's nothing flawed about it. You're exhibiting classic Dunning-Kruger here, overestimating the intelligence of your argument...
It's just that it affects health regeneration instead of introducing aim penalties.
Which in an of itself is backwards. It definitely should be your aim that has the penalty applied, not your health regen.
Now you're just being obtuse and pedantic, it's not a good look. The reason there's no wind to account for is because that's a variable that won't transfer well to MMO firefights, distance w/ bullet drop does.
Try engaging with the argument instead of resorting to personal attacks. You tried to make argument that the game is realistic because of bullet drop. That still doesn't make much sense to me, even if I'd grant you that wind simulation doesn't transfer all that well to MMO firefights.
No, no I'm not...suppression has always been a part of Battlefield, there's nothing flawed about it.
That's a lie. You copied that nonsense from r3pLaY81 and didn't bother to factcheck it. I'll challenge you to disprove me by telling me what kind of suppression mechanics Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 or Battlefield 2042 had.
You're exhibiting classic Dunning-Kruger here, overestimating the intelligence of your argument...
I'm perfectly fine with you telling me that I should reconsider my arguments. You can convince me to do that by presenting well written counter arguments that directly refute my arguments. Other than that, please don't bother with the personal attacks. It just derails your own credibility.
Which in an of itself is backwards. It definitely should be your aim that has the penalty applied, not your health regen.
That's your opinion. I think it does exactly what suppression should do, which is to make it a bigger risk to move forward while you're being shot at, without the need for aim penalties.
