Bipods need to be immune to Suppression, otherwise trying to dish it out ends up being counter-productive.

Suppression in BF5 is 100% useless. Not a single Battlefield had a good suppression system, and I say this as a fan of suppression in games. Adding spread is a absolute no-go and the way it's done in, say BF1, is extremely inconsistent. Why does range matter? Why do only a couple of bullets cause flinching? Why is it on a timer?

The way to do it right in a game like BF is tunnel vision, weapon sway and flinching. The effect kicks in after a couple of shots to not "disturb" 1on1s, starts weak and gets stronger and stronger with each bullet passing by. Sniper rifles need extra tweaking (e.g. first shot = minor suppression, following shots ramp up)

Here's how it looks in Post Scriptum, which is good in the context of a game like Post Scriptum:

https://i.gyazo.com/6a2dcad854253bddc6edc162acc7686c.mp4

https://i.gyazo.com/91a7559a0c35dab7552476c6100e2ae8.mp4

Quoted from "ssssDE"

New gameplay is out and... the gunplay looks dumbed down. Where's the recoil? DICE, you can't just remove spread and give the guns no recoil.

Can someone tell me if I was right with this^ since I had no chance to play it myself? And are all weapons "effective" on all ranges again (unlike in BF1 where each weapon type had a distinct purpose)? It sure as hell looks like it.

It feels like the game designers don't know what they want. They want a more immersive but at the same time more competitive experience. They want to enforce squad play through attrition but at the same time reduce squad play with resupply crates around every corner... The list goes on.

If spread isn't added then of course you would need to go as overboard as Post Scriptum does. Helen Keller suppression only becomes necessary when you're not allowed to touch effective DPS.

Range is used as an extra tuning lever. In BF4 and BF1 it's used to make sure that weapons only Suppress when a target is outside your effective range. It just solidifies the mechanic as a way for you to contribute even if your effective DPS would be shit.

I'm not sure what you mean by timer. The flinching happens when a bullet with a particularly high amount of Suppression flies by according to what was compiled in BF4.

BF Suppression also scales with the amount of Suppression currently applied and also only kicks in after a requisite threshold is met. Tunnel vision effect is already present in BF1 (and BF4 I think) but is more subtle. BF3 used blur. Sway is present in all 3 games.



BF3 had a good Suppression system though you could argue BF4/1 were better in that there was an additional "counter" to it if you were looking for that.

I wouldn't agree with the Post Scriptum form of Suppression because it becomes entirely dependent on how well someone tolerates visual noise and its effect on their DPS becomes nebulous.

@ssssDE

That's really what I've love to see in BFV, it really needs to be that visually intrusive, and basically kill your audio to have the proper effect.

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

I wouldn't agree with the Post Scriptum form of Suppression because it becomes entirely dependent on how well someone tolerates visual noise and its effect on their DPS becomes nebulous.

It's almost as if games should be designed for humans, with human sensory inputs and psychology, and not for bots who rely entirely on hard values and numbers. Suppressive fire is a psychological tool, and its effects should be psychological. Being able to fight through it through superior human resistance to it is part of the idea.

Not separating the player from their character is a golden rule of video games, and current gunplay-affecting suppression does exactly that, to the worst possible mechanics for it to affect. Do not, unless absolutely necessary, create mechanics that tell the player that their character is not themselves. "You can't shoot accurately because your character is scared" simply does not work for people.

Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

@ssssDE

That's really what I've love to see in BFV, it really needs to be that visually intrusive, and basically kill your audio to have the proper effect.

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

I wouldn't agree with the Post Scriptum form of Suppression because it becomes entirely dependent on how well someone tolerates visual noise and its effect on their DPS becomes nebulous.

It's almost as if games should be designed for humans, with human sensory inputs and psychology, and not for bots who rely entirely on hard values and numbers. Suppressive fire is a psychological tool, and its effects should be psychological. Being able to fight through it through superior human resistance to it is part of the idea.

Not separating the player from their character is a golden rule of video games, and current gunplay-affecting suppression does exactly that, to the worst possible mechanics for it to affect. Do not, unless absolutely necessary, create mechanics that tell the player that their character is not themselves. "You can't shoot accurately because your character is scared" simply does not work for people.

What I am pointing out is that it becomes useful only against bad players and has no use against good players.

You are creating literally the opposite of a blue shell; this mechanic makes the poor poorer in place of something that affects all players of all skill levels.

If we're going to argue about the "should" of Suppression, I'm going to have to point out that suppressive fire is usually used to pin people down. The Battlefield mechanic doesn't reflect this at all nor would it be useful if it did. Pinning down a dude with a good headglitch spot is useless. He doesn't want to move anyways. Killing his DPS is more important.


The argument that games shouldn't distinguish between player and character only works if there is a player-insert. While Battlefield has this, mechanics that work depending on how good a player is basically ends up falling flat on its face for previous stated reason.

Yeah I absolutely agree with Noctyrne on suppression. If you want to do it, you need it to affect everyone in the same way and to the same extent. That is why the spread system of BF3 was the best in my book, and it did not even have that much of an effect on your accuracy, when you think about it.

I see the point when someone says that suppression should inflict psychological effects on the player, but I do not think this would work as the character is not the player. If suppression killed my audio, made my vision blur and my aim shake, to a "realistic" extent, I would be totally stressed out as a player, and that would kill the fun. It is a game after all, I do not want it to stress me. The real authentic way of suppression would actually be to restrict movement towards, or in the line of fire, but nobody naturally argues for that.

So I'd rather have suppression have a slight blur and an effect on spread, because that is not counterable. Audio is always tricky for me, since I think with headphones it is easier to overdo effects and create a very stressful gaming experience.

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

What I am pointing out is that it becomes useful only against bad players and has no use against good players.

You are creating literally the opposite of a blue shell; this mechanic makes the poor poorer in place of something that affects all players of all skill levels.

Not sure if you've realized yet, but "high skill gap" (TM) is kinda a big advertised feature in BFV. Weapons with learnable recoil patterns as opposed to relevant spread was a big selling point towards that end. DICE want good players to have more advantages over bad players.

"You can counter everything through skill" is a popular modern advertising claim that seems to work (CS:GO, R6S), regardless of whether that actually matters to the majority of players (Dunning-Kruger much?).

IIRC BF4 had added SIPS and recoil at some point, in addition to visual impairments (and the infamous flinch), which I found pretty optimal. Since SIPS is no longer a desired feature, I'd say just have suppression increase recoil by probably 50% at initial value and 100% at maximum (maybe more when suppressed by light/medium machine guns?). Snipers would probably really have to take a spread increase to prevent them from just thanking you with a headshot, or maybe just crazy, fast sight wobble and shake would be enough after all.

Let's also not forget that suppressing an enemy in BFV applies 3D spotting to them.

Quoted from "Zormau"

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

What I am pointing out is that it becomes useful only against bad players and has no use against good players.

You are creating literally the opposite of a blue shell; this mechanic makes the poor poorer in place of something that affects all players of all skill levels.

Not sure if you've realized yet, but "high skill gap" (TM) is kinda a big advertised feature in BFV. Weapons with learnable recoil patterns as opposed to relevant spread was a big selling point towards that end. DICE want good players to have more advantages over bad players.

"You can counter everything through skill" is a popular modern advertising claim that seems to work (CS:GO, R6S), regardless of whether that actually matters to the majority of players (Dunning-Kruger much?).

Yeah but if one thinks about it, it is a rather stupid argument that DICE makes and a clear situation of the players not really knowing what they want. People benefitting from this are the ones that have a very particular set of skill, and that is control over your mouse. Spread helped levelling the playing field a bit, but truthfully we are talking about miniscule differences in accuracy that was hugely exaggerated by the community, and used as a scapegoat for being killed. Truthfully I suppose the more accurate you are the more you miss because of suppression, but it still affected everyone slightly.
I do blame BF1 for the "removal" of spread, because this is the game where everybody actually noticed spread. That just forced DICE's hands I suppose.

The players also have a very narrow mindset of what they call skill in a game. Anything indirect is not deemed skill and neither are tactical decisions. Only mouse control counts. It is schizophrenic, because all the things like 3D spotting, minimap spotting, reviving, suppression, spread and indirect gadget were introduced to help every player by introducing other layers of skill, actual thinking that is.
Your enemy is behind cover in an advantageous position? Use a mortar or XM25. Pinned down by the enemy? The minimap and spotting might show you a route around it. Sniper harassing your team? Suppress them and he might miss. That is tactical thinking. Even choosing engagements in your very distinct effective range of BF1 is a tactical approach to a problem. Players only see what's happening in the middle of the screen and that is the real problem.

Also setting aside that "learnable" recoil patterns are rather stupid from an authentic POV, they of course work in the small environments of CS:GO and R6. When all your engagements happen at 20m and below, you do not need spread, you also do not need 3D spotting or suppression etc. because the scale of these games is ridiculously low compared to compared to a BF game, yet players do not see that either. They see a working system in one game and want to transition 100% to another game without thinking one step more.

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

Range is used as an extra tuning lever. In BF4 and BF1 it's used to make sure that weapons only Suppress when a target is outside your effective range. It just solidifies the mechanic as a way for you to contribute even if your effective DPS would be shit.

I'm not sure what you mean by timer. The flinching happens when a bullet with a particularly high amount of Suppression flies by according to what was compiled in BF4.

BF Suppression also scales with the amount of Suppression currently applied and also only kicks in after a requisite threshold is met. Tunnel vision effect is already present in BF1 (and BF4 I think) but is more subtle. BF3 used blur. Sway is present in all 3 games.



BF3 had a good Suppression system though you could argue BF4/1 were better in that there was an additional "counter" to it if you were looking for that.

I wouldn't agree with the Post Scriptum form of Suppression because it becomes entirely dependent on how well someone tolerates visual noise and its effect on their DPS becomes nebulous.

Timer: the suppression effect does not gradually reduce over time. Instead it goes from 100% to 0% almost instantly after a couple of seconds of not being fired at.

Flinching: Only the first couple of shots cause flinching.

Tunnel vision: Yes, any BF had tunnel vision, but it's so light it's practically useless.

Sway: I know.