Some people think suppression effects are rewarding bad players who can’t aim, but the same can be said of a player who is poorly positioned yet can take 3-4-5 rounds yet still easily aim and shoot back. That is also dumb.
I cant aim plz buff
and it was a meme and one of the main complaints. or do you think that the overpowered sun in that game was an amazing idea just because the people liked the game overall?
or that everyone that liked bf3 had a blue tint fetish?
fair? What do you mean? are you one of those geniuses that believes that whoever starts to shoot first should be guaranteed to win the gunfight?
how are those equivalent in anyway?
Being suppressed isn’t a matter of having good/bad positioning, its just a matter of not getting shot and that happens in every gunfights
Huh, that’s new to me. 
battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654625217844068/
Was this ever fixed? I heard about one “nerf” that the M16 ever got. But never noticed any difference. The tryhards were still present.
Fixing the suppression was the “nerf”
Bolt action rifle is under powered for sure. on that note, one shot kill should be implemented, but only at really close range… and i mean only if it is like a few steps away. However, most people don’t seem to know the secret of the bolt action rifles. I will just say this… The key to playing these rifle is in using only iron sights at close range but practice being fast… really fast, and go for body shots unless your target is not moving. Only noobs play bolt action rifles from afar using scopes due to the glint.
I know a noob sniper when i see one. They usually have a scope glint.
The scariest sniper is the one with no glint, the one that you can’t really see, he’s fast, accurate, and most of the time, he is right by you.
They were just buffed in latest update
wtf are you even talking about? you asked for 3x magnification on iron sights and now you say players using 3x magnification are “noobs”. you just want the same magnification as all other players, but unlike them you don’t want to suffer the negative aspects that come with the magnification. i mean 3x magnification on an iron sight lmao. it seems like if anything, you are the noob.
You can run a 3x on any weapon without glint, as long as it isn’t a Scout weapon.
G43? No glint on the 3x.
STG44? No glint on the 3x.
Lewis Gun? No glint on the 3x.
Garand? No glint on the 3x.
Jungle Carbine? No glint on the 3x.
KE7? No glint on the 3x.
FG42? No glint on the 3x.
Agm/42? No glint on the 3x.
Turner SMLE? No glint on the 3x.
Lee-Enfield? Glint on the 3x.
Gewher M95/30? Glint on the 3x.
Trench Carbine? Glint on the 3x.
RSC? Glint on the 3x.
Model 8? Glint on the 3x.
Tell me, where’s the balance, when every gun is just as accurate at 600m as a BA, and maintain TtKs of less tha 1second at minimum damage, all except the ones that are actually intended for long range?
If you have the skill to snap to headshots at long range and actually land them with a BA, you’ll have a much better time and better stats if you use any other class instead.
“Only noobs play bolt action rifles from afar using scopes…”
You’re framing the entire balance problem as a matter personal skill, but proper gun balance has got nothing to do with skill.
Bolt action rifles were always “high risk/high reward” weapons, but in BF5 it’s more like “very high risk/moderate reward”.
Bolt action rifles in BF5 don’t do enough damage per shot, this combined with:
-the health mechanics that allow instant healing on demand, in the case of medic endless healing without cooldown. This makes it much more common to survive 2 body shots in a short amount of time, this was not at all common in previous BF’s.
-greatly increased accuracy of non-scout class weapons, now other classes can compete much better with the scout at much longer ranges than previous BF’s.
-momentumless soldier movement, this has been explained countless times, so I’m not going to bother explaining once again why this benefits high RoF weapons over low RoF weapons.
is the whole reason why competing as scout is much more difficult than before.
This. Is. Called. A. Balance. Issue.
Lol, balancing bolt action rifles does have to do with skill, because by design and dictated via how the weapon system functions, bolt action rifles are a high skill weapon with performance dictated by the skill level of the player who has one in their hands.
You’re seriously going to sit there and tell me this isn’t an issue of players general inability to aim and make follow up shots in the same thread were people are complaining about not being able to continue aiming down their sights to use a straight pull because it interrupts their aim?
Bolt action rifles are not objectively “bad”. There are countless players who do well with them in this game. Why? Because they can actually aim while using the weapon type that only fires one bullet per round cycled.
If you think competing as a Recon player is difficult now, I suggest you go play BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2, and 2142, where rifles were essentially balanced the same and you could literally crouch and HIPFIRE an assault rifle accurately at long range. Lol, go play BF4 where rifles had muzzle velocity so slow they may as well have been pellet guns, and the only advantage over BF5 that rifles had balance-wise was an OHK from 0-12m THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY NEGATED BY THE DEFAULT SQUAD PERK FOR EVERY CLASS THAT OUTRIGHT PREVENTED OHK BODY SHOTS, so it was completely random as to whether you’d run in CQB and actually OHK someone or not.
You’re not gonna sit there and act as if I haven’t been sniping regularly in these games since 2002 and like I don’t know what I’m talking about and don’t know how these rifles compare to past BF games or even rifles in other shooters. Sniping legitimately makes up most of time my time played in 17+ years across this franchise.
And the answer is the same EVERY TIME. Outside of BF1s sweet spot mechanic that was near universally lambasted by the community, every single BF game in this franchise saw the community calling rifles weak, regardless of how they were balanced, regardless of the attachments or magnification of scopes that they get, regardless of whether or not they could OHK in close range.
I’ve been an active member of this forum community alone for nearly a decade, through 5 different iterations of BF and two separate official forums - and the supposed “weakness” and “unbalance” of rifles has been brought up in regards to every single game. I’ve seen every complaint under the sun about how “weak” rifles are regardless of how they’re balanced.
So insisting to me that now you’re right in claiming rifles are “weak” because of healing mechanics and movement speed, it doesn’t change that fact. It doesn’t change the fact that I can grab my K98k, hop in a game or Conquest, and smack people down because I can aim and actually shoot for the head and actually try to better myself and my skill level to fit the weapon in question rather than incessantly whinging on the forums that the weapon should be catered to my lack of skill.
Please - explain to me how you think rifles should be balanced, and I’ll explain to you how a countless myriad of forum users in the past have already blown up over similar balanced used in the past.
We’ve already had 4 separate iterations of BF wherein the community consistently criticized their ability to OHK in close quarters and called them “OP Ghetto Shotguns” for years on end. We already got the sweet spot mechanic in BF1 that was almost whollistically lampooned and, as you can see, did not make it to the next game and probably won’t be used again.
What were you thinking of? They’re already the most accurate weapons in the game. They already have some of the fastest muzzle velocities in the game, they’re already capable of an OHK headshot at an infinite range, and they already take out over 50% of a players health per shot.
I’d love to hear your balancing ideas that you legitimately think the rest of the community wouldn’t ridicule and call overpowered.
I recommend not ever using any recon bolt action rifle unless you have a specialized mission to assassinate someone who can only be reached with a BA rifle such as a stationary gunner on the enemy spawn.
For anything else I recommend giving up on the OHK headshots and using the Model 7 SLR for objective play or the ZH for longer engagements.
.
BA rifles only work as intended if you have the aiming skills of someone who would get accused for aimboting most of the time or if the enemies are noobs who too often sit still and exposed.
.
Do yourselves a favor and use SLRs instead
I really don’t understand your point tbh. in this very thread you said this:
“In saying all that - before the muzzle velocity buff, BF5 had objectively some of the weakest rifles in the franchise, and all the buff did was make some rifles more worthwhile, they still don’t even do as much damage per shot as other non-OHK-capable rifles in older BF titles”.
and now you tell this guy that it was harder to compete in bf1942, Vietnam, bf2, 2142, even bf4?
like how can bolt actions be at one of their weakest stages but now after they made some of them simply “more worthwhile” they all of a sudden are better than in half the games of the franchise?
I do think the minimum damage model of the BA is still set for a time when attrition was more severe. Wasn’t the point made during the beta, that it was set to around 60 because lots and lot s of players would be running around on low health. However with health attrition nerf, and the short TTK, this is rarely the case. For the majority of time you are either at 100 health or dead. It’s rare to be running around with anything less than 100 health for more than 10secs (figure plucked from thin air, but you get the idea)
You actually pretty much nailed it