96 réponses à ce sujet

[Teabaggin Krogan]

^^^^^^^ thats one of the main problems i am having transitioning into  PvP..is the way players / people move... I am so used to how the cpu reacts in every game that I play..that I find myself, just lost...struggling to pick up targets and shoot at them.....people move so differently, that often, I find myself, that I am the one standing still and getting killed..my kill to death ratio is ridiculously laughable.....but for right now, I love being a scout sniper..calling out targets....i got 60 in a game last night...and occasionally getting 3-4 sniper kills is really satisfying for me...especially if I nail them across the entire map...  .... these damn guns with their having to aim over, to the right of the targets to hit them..as opposed to a widow / black widows spot on in your face targeting system.....  

 

I had a hard time adjusting to the battlefield environment and gameplay and that was coming from a good killzone 3 background. I even used to run a lot of thermal optics since it was so hard to identify enemy players from the environment at first. But you'll get better at identifying people over time and adjust to the system. I also prefer the battlefield sniping system to that of ME, it's more fun and challenging than just point and click Imo.

 

My K/d was absolute crap too at first because I wasn't used to the very large maps and vehicle and aerial combat. That and I was silly for playing really stupid setups just for the kick of it. I got better once I started to get the hang of it and it's now around 1 with 240 hours played.

 

If you want my recommendation, go for the assault or engineer class when you start out. Assault can heal themselves and revive others, have the assault rifle and got more grenades. The engineer has the little pdw guns which are amazing for close range, access to mines and rockets so you aren't helpless against vehicles. Scouting's nice and all but it's not gonna make you a better player yourself tbh. 

[TheN7Penguin]

DMRs basically function a little like the Sabre from ME3. They are less damaging than sniper rifles, but are more suitable for medium-long range. On a big map like Siege of Shanghai, take a sniper rifle for sure. But DMRs are better, imo, for maps where you're not going to be shooting a long distance most of the time. I'd also take one if the tower was under attack on Siege of Shanghai, because I could switch between shooting enemies at close range and then going back to shooting people long distance without having to suicide and respawn. It might just be me liking ineffective things though.

[Arkhne]

DMRs basically function a little like the Sabre from ME3. They are less damaging than sniper rifles, but are more suitable for medium-long range. On a big map like Siege of Shanghai, take a sniper rifle for sure. But DMRs are better, imo, for maps where you're not going to be shooting a long distance most of the time. I'd also take one if the tower was under attack on Siege of Shanghai, because I could switch between shooting enemies at close range and then going back to shooting people long distance without having to suicide and respawn. It might just be me liking ineffective things though.

 

Hahahaha. patience, grasshopper.

I am pretty sure you will find that if you did a BSN poll on which of use likes the most "ineffective" things, I would win.

[TheN7Penguin]

I'm not so sure. I think I'd be a pretty strong contender.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

DMRs basically function a little like the Sabre from ME3. They are less damaging than sniper rifles, but are more suitable for medium-long range. On a big map like Siege of Shanghai, take a sniper rifle for sure. But DMRs are better, imo, for maps where you're not going to be shooting a long distance most of the time. I'd also take one if the tower was under attack on Siege of Shanghai, because I could switch between shooting enemies at close range and then going back to shooting people long distance without having to suicide and respawn. It might just be me liking ineffective things though.

 

Yes but a sniper rifle can do both those things better if you have some decent reflexes. I use them mostly in close to mid range when I'm playing and like I said it's usually a one shot kill if you can land the shot, a two shot kill at max if you hit an arm or if they have armor. I also have a pistol and pistols are seriously underrated in BF4. DMRs are definitely more consistent than snipers though and if you like them and can make them work, it doesn't really matter does it?

 

 

Hahahaha. patience, grasshopper.

I am pretty sure you will find that if you did a BSN poll on which of use likes the most "ineffective" things, I would win.

But Arkhne, weren't you arguing that going all melee for the warlord was ineffective?

 

Besides, it's not ineffective if you can make it work for you. Non optimal perhaps but not ineffective. 

[Arkhne]

 

But Arkhne, weren't you arguing that going all melee for the warlord was ineffective?

 

Besides, it's not ineffective if you can make it work for you. Non optimal perhaps but not ineffective. 

 

I was arguing that the difference between Shields and Melee on the Warlord (Assuming both take Martial Artist) is so small that the ACTUAL TTK vs most enemies doesn't change at all. But lets not start THAT topic up again.

[Cryos_Feron]

the Geth Engineer can snipe with every weapon

atm I am sniping with the Wraith. one shot strips Mook shields completely and primes for an ammo detonation. Mook gone. and his friends are hurt badly

[Arkhne]

the Geth Engineer can sniper with every weapon

atm I am sniping with the Wraith. one shot strips Mook shields completely and primes for an ammo detonation. Mook gone. and his friends are hurt badly

 

True story. I was sniping with the Argus on the GE today. GE is one of the best weapons platforms in the entire game.

[TheShadyEngineer]

Saber is the best sniper rifle on the GE.

Nailed it!

If you're too stuck up on it technically being an assault rifle, slap a scope on it or something for maximum immersion. Saber GE in the hands of a good shooter is insanely powerful.

 

But seriously OT, the Indra is the only SR I can justify using on the GE because otherwise some of the best perks of hunter mode are wasted if you pick a single shot rifle. I mean sure, you can get extra power damage for your overload, but GE's overload is powerful enough as is to crack through most of the infantry units' shields with one hit, and when it comes to bosses, multiple overloads will be required anyway.

 

Some off topic stuff for ya Battlefield dorks-

Guy's, you have not seen sniping the way I have recently... I just got really into playing Battlefield 4... mother of the lord, our god....you have not seen sniping until you play rush mode where it is basically 7 vs 7 snipers.

PEE TEE EFF OOOH! 

 

I personally though DMRs sucked, a sniper rifle could one shot most people in close to mid range engagements unless they're running the body armor perk. Even otherwise, I always instinctively switched to a pistol to finish off people in case they survived that sniper round. Carbines are also much better over DMRs Imo if bolt action isn't to your preference. 

 

Edit: A dmr is a designated marksman rifle, those single shot rifles you unlock later on along with carbines and shotguns. 

DMRs were doomed to suck when DICE decided to make them universal weapons in BF4. In BF3, DMRs in general and the M417 ( ) in particular was my go-to gun for squadplay recon. The damage model allowed for a 2 shot kill in CQC, or an instagib if headshot, and a 3 shot kill at range, making it competitive at all ranges if the operator has a good enough aim and trigger discipline to make the most out of it. And it was balanced because it was recon exclusive and required a lot of skill to get good with. 

 

Now when they made DMRs universal in 4, they couldn't use the same damage model from 3 because that would mean engineers and assault players could now have carbine or AR TTK in CQC and huge mid-long range potential in the same weapon. So they nerfed its' close quarters instagib potential and overall CQC effectiveness thus dooming them into the 'meh' state they've been existing in since launch.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

..

DMRs were doomed to suck when DICE decided to make them universal weapons in BF4. In BF3, DMRs in general and the M417 ( ) in particular was my go-to gun for squadplay recon. The damage model allowed for a 2 shot kill in CQC, or an instagib if headshot, and a 3 shot kill at range, making it competitive at all ranges if the operator has a good enough aim and trigger discipline to make the most out of it. And it was balanced because it was recon exclusive and required a lot of skill to get good with. 

 

Now when they made DMRs universal in 4, they couldn't use the same damage model from 3 because that would mean engineers and assault players could now have carbine or AR TTK in CQC and huge mid-long range potential in the same weapon. So they nerfed its' close quarters instagib potential and overall CQC effectiveness thus dooming them into the 'meh' state they've been existing in since launch.

 

Oh I would've been happy if they'd been 2 shot kill semi auto weapons but as you said, unfortunately they take around 3 to 4 shots to kill someone at mid range as I remember. As it is, DMRs are completely outclassed by pistols in Cqc and sniper rifles in mid to long ranges. A glock 17 or the compact 45 blows most DMRs out of the water at short range while they aren't even comparable to the M98b or the Srr 61 at mid to long ranges. Hell the Desert eagle is more of an actual DMR than the actual ones in game.

 

I think it's wasted potential myself because DMRs are rather versatile in concept and could've fulfilled a niche role between sniper and carbine. 

[Arkhne]

^I don't even understand half of that.

However, as a concept/idea, I like the sound of DMRs. Would that be like a Saber? Because accurate, semi auto weapons with above average punch are my kind of gun. Something that rewards player accuracy and discipline, without locking them into a set range/distance.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

^I don't even understand half of that.

However, as a concept/idea, I like the sound of DMRs. Would that be like a Saber? Because accurate, semi auto weapons with above average punch are my kind of gun. Something that rewards player accuracy and discipline, without locking them into a set range/distance.

 

Yup exactly or like the mattock from ME 2 . Good damage, great range and semi auto. 

 

I was mostly giving comparisons to specific gun types in Battlefield 4 like the first two names(g17 and C45) are pistols and the next two names (m98 and srr) are names of sniper rifles. But surely you know of the Desert eagle, the high lord of pistols!

[TheShadyEngineer]

Oh I would've been happy if they'd been 2 shot kill semi auto weapons but as you said, unfortunately they take around 3 to 4 shots to kill someone at mid range as I remember. As it is, DMRs are completely outclassed by pistols in Cqc and sniper rifles in mid to long ranges. A glock 17 or the compact 45 blows most DMRs out of the water at short range while they aren't even comparable to the M98b or the Srr 61 at mid to long ranges. Hell the Desert eagle is more of an actual DMR than the actual ones in game.

 

I think it's wasted potential myself because DMRs are rather versatile in concept and could've fulfilled a niche role between sniper and carbine. 

When I stopped playing 4 which was about a couple months after launch since I got tired of dealing with the clusterfk that was BF4's launch, DMRs were a flat 3 hit kill across all ranges even if the enemy was wearing body armor. If they nerfed it to 4 shot kills at range.. Yeah... Must be the BF4 equivalent of a Krysae.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

When I stopped playing 4 which was about a couple months after launch since I got tired of dealing with the clusterfk that was BF4's launch, DMRs were a flat 3 hit kill across all ranges even if the enemy was wearing body armor. If they nerfed it to 4 shot kills at range.. Yeah... Must be the BF4 equivalent of a Krysae.

 

No I think you're right, I checked the wiki and the damages are around 45 for most DMRs so it should most always be a 3 shot kill. But I haven't played in while either and they did get a big buff in patch during one of the latest updates so I'm not too sure. Never got a favorable impression of them myself although that might be subject to personal tastes. 

[Quarian Master Race]

When I stopped playing 4 which was about a couple months after launch since I got tired of dealing with the clusterfk that was BF4's launch, DMRs were a flat 3 hit kill across all ranges even if the enemy was wearing body armor. If they nerfed it to 4 shot kills at range.. Yeah... Must be the BF4 equivalent of a Krysae.

Most of them are 3 hit kills to the body at any range. The SKS and QBU-88 drop to 4 hits at long ranges if the enemy is wearing body armor (Defensive spec), but they have higher fire rates to compensate.

They've received significant buffs in the spread cone (they're now much more accurate over successive shots or on the move), and in damage over range, while automatics got nerfed across the board in a big update last year. 5.56/5.45mm autos are now 5-8 hit kills, and 7.62s are 4-6, and the game plays a bit more like BC2 did with its higher TTKs. In the current meta, DMR's are actually very capable weapons at mid-long range due to this. They were all pretty garbage at launch, though, save the SKS which was always decent due to spammability.

I agree with you that the BF3 versions were more fun. They did more damage and usually had smaller magazines, encouraging you to be more accurate with your shots.

Oh I would've been happy if they'd been 2 shot kill semi auto weapons but as you said, unfortunately they take around 3 to 4 shots to kill someone at mid range as I remember. As it is, DMRs are completely outclassed by pistols in Cqc and sniper rifles in mid to long ranges. A glock 17 or the compact 45 blows most DMRs out of the water at short range while they aren't even comparable to the M98b or the Srr 61 at mid to long ranges. Hell the Desert eagle is more of an actual DMR than the actual ones in game.

 

I think it's wasted potential myself because DMRs are rather versatile in concept and could've fulfilled a niche role between sniper and carbine. 

I don't know about that. Most of the DMR's have comparable TTK to the typical pistols in close range (machine pistols and magnum instakill headshots being the only outliers), and destroy them at any other range. At this point, I'd say they're actually equal to or better than the bolt snipers at range in practical gameplay (i.e. not at shooting across the entire map instead of playing the goddamn objective), because you can get out 3 rounds to kill with them much faster than 2 with a bolt gun

The advantages the snipers have is access to higher level optics and OHK headshots, but anything greater than a 4x is pretty unnecessary in gameplay unless you're a useless crane humping bushwookie.

I actually find the bolt actions more useful as ghetto shotguns due to the OHK to the body within 12m. Scout Elite with 4x is my favourite of the bunch due to high ROF, and I don't care about damage over 100m because it's useless in a 1v1 me quickscope situation.

[Arkhne]

Yup exactly or like the mattock from ME 2 . Good damage, great range and semi auto. 

 

I was mostly giving comparisons to specific gun types in Battlefield 4 like the first two names(g17 and C45) are pistols and the next two names (m98 and srr) are names of sniper rifles. But surely you know of the Desert eagle, the high lord of pistols!

 

I've played a little CoD (offline, mostly spec ops), and the campaign of Battlefield 3, the latter really didn't impress me enough to try the MP, am I particularly missing out (Being a mostly pve kind of guy)?

I'd have to say, one of my favourite gun setups in CoD was an Intervention with an ACOG scope (to make the scope less bleh). Which let me act as a mobile Sniper, since I hated camping. Most of the ARs were just meh (I swear they were almost entirely outclassed by the LSW and RPD).

I am pretty sure my taste in guns in those games would also be in the minority.

[TheN7Penguin]

I liked the Battlefield 3 campaign. It was simple, but effective. I didn't give a crap about what happened or the people involved, but there were some good moments (HALO jumping from a plane, destroying the building with the SMAW, jumping on top of the train). That's the only reason why I liked it I suppose XD

 

FYI, Battlefield 3 - Operation Metro. Take your scope off your sniper and run around with iron sights. It's what the pros do.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

....

I don't know about that. Most of the DMR's have comparable TTK to the typical pistols in close range (machine pistols and magnum instakill headshots being the only outliers), and destroy them at any other range. At this point, I'd say they're actually equal to better than the bolt snipers at range in practical gameplay (i.e. not at shooting across the entire map instead of playing the goddamn objective), because you can get out 3 rounds to kill with them much faster than 2 with a bolt gun

The advantages the snipers have is access to higher level optics and OHK headshots, but anything greater than a 4x is pretty unnecessary in gameplay unless you're a useless crane humping bushwookie.

I actually find the bolt actions more useful as ghetto shotguns due to the OHK to the body within 12m. Scout Elite with 4x is my favourite of the bunch due to high ROF, and I don't care about damage over 100m because it's useless in a 1v1 me quickscope situation.

 

The 44 magnum, Rex and the dlc revolvers as well as the Desert eagle are a two shot kill at close range, OHK if headshot. The G17 is for all intents a chainsaw and the 45 cal pistols are also 3 shot kills in cqc. Sure DMRs destroy pistols at further ranges but the only reason I might be using a pistol for non cqc purposes would be to finish off someone after a sniper shot or if I need to reload mid firefight. 

 

With the bolt action I don't ever go for two shots with the sniper itself, rather given that I've got a hit with the first shot and they have survived that shot, I always switch to a pistol for the finish which is faster and more efficient.It became such a force of habit that I automatically switched to the pistol even when I got the kill with the first shot! I find the 8x scope perfect for my needs though, partly because I'm used to it and because it has a good balance between long and short range.

 

I run bolt actions as mostly glorified shotguns myself but I hate the scout elite personally. Did they buff it btw? I remember it doing 80 damage when I played but the wiki say it's hundred now. My preference though is for the M98b, M40a5 and the L96. The M98 in particular was godly against moving targets and that was before the patch buff. 

 

I've played a little CoD (offline, mostly spec ops), and the campaign of Battlefield 3, the latter really didn't impress me enough to try the MP, am I particularly missing out (Being a mostly pve kind of guy)?

I'd have to say, one of my favourite gun setups in CoD was an Intervention with an ACOG scope (to make the scope less bleh). Which let me act as a mobile Sniper, since I hated camping. Most of the ARs were just meh (I swear they were almost entirely outclassed by the LSW and RPD).

I am pretty sure my taste in guns in those games would also be in the minority.

 

Well the Mp is fun, it's not so tryhardy and it's pretty fun once you get the hang of it. And I'm sure your tastes in guns aren't all that uncommon, you wouldn't believe the number of guys who bring a knife to a gun fight!

[TheShadyEngineer]

Most of them are 3 hit kills to the body at any range. The SKS and QBU-88 drop to 4 hits at long ranges if the enemy is wearing body armor (Defensive spec), but they have higher fire rates to compensate.

They've received significant buffs in the spread cone (they're now much more accurate over successive shots or on the move), and in damage over range, while automatics got nerfed across the board in a big update last year. 5.56/5.45mm autos are now 5-8 hit kills, and 7.62s are 4-6. In the current meta, DMR's are actually very capable weapons at mid-long range due to this. They were all pretty garbage at launch, though, save the SKS which was always decent due to spammability.

I agree with you that the BF3 versions were more fun. They did more damage and usually had smaller magazines, encouraging you to be more accurate with your shots.

Good to know they found a niche. Bringing DMRs up instead of bringing automatics down would be preferable methinks, but at least it's something. Or was the extra bullet to kill for automatics put there to compensate for the still dodgy netcode with DMR buffs being collateral? 

 

 

I've played a little CoD (offline, mostly spec ops), and the campaign of Battlefield 3, the latter really didn't impress me enough to try the MP, am I particularly missing out (Being a mostly pve kind of guy)?

I'd have to say, one of my favourite gun setups in CoD was an Intervention with an ACOG scope (to make the scope less bleh). Which let me act as a mobile Sniper, since I hated camping. Most of the ARs were just meh (I swear they were almost entirely outclassed by the LSW and RPD).

I am pretty sure my taste in guns in those games would also be in the minority.

Ehh kind of a hard question. Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer first. Even for the more heavily singleplayer rich Bad Company series, multiplayer was the selling point, so it's kind of hard to tell if you will like the multiplayer if you're mainly a pve player.

 

Compared to other shooters, BF3 has larger maps (which are well balanced), way better visuals, a nice variety of weapons and customization without going overboard, weapon handling that is both user friendly but still skill oriented, good variety of team oriented objective based game modes, destructible environments, nicely balanced vehicles both compared to each other and against infantry and also larger player counts with a maximum of 64 (32v32) per server. Overall a pretty unique package compared to the competition.

 

Problem with starting to play BF3 now is that the game is almost 5 years old and the only people still playing it are either fellow newbies or people who have been playing since launch, and from what I've seen.. Teams do get stacked. One team consisting of vets who are experts with every weapon and vehicle and have the maps memorized while the other team has people who are still debating which side of the weapon bullets come out of. That's PC though, might be different on console.

 

I'd say give it a shot. BF3 lasted me for 400 something hours and I enjoyed every minute of it. Heck, I still jump in for a couple rounds of BF3 every now and then when Planetside 2 gets too clusterfky and I get an itch for a balanced combined arms sandbox shooter. 

 

Oh yeah, Battlefield 3 has a co-op mode. And a pretty fun one too!

[capn233]

FM was right: in order to fully exploit the kit, you need points in everything and have a CM. If I do that, I'm going to run out of CM's soon, so I tried to compromise. Geth Turret was the one I found the most expendable, HM and Overload are too important to spec out any of their evolutions. Networked AI 6 can be missed, too, it is not essential (but really helpful). So this is what I thought the best non-CM OS Sniper GE, the last points can be spent either to Turret 5B, Networked AI 6A, 6B or Hardware 5B, whichever seems to be the best for the user.

 

Turret ranks past 3 are of questionable benefit even with a cyclonic IMO.  Without a CM, it makes sense to get at least Advanced Hardware 5 and then you can use stockpiled Shield Power Cells for 55% shield regen bonus.  If you want even more regen and some more shields you can even slap Stronghold in the gear slot.

 

edit:  Also noticed that Overload had Recharge at Rank 5, but Neural Shock is drastically better given that it doubles the multiplier against organics.

[Arkhne]

 

edit:  Also noticed that Overload had Recharge at Rank 5, but Neural Shock is drastically better given that it doubles the multiplier against organics.

 

I hate Neural Shock so much. The double damage against organics makes it impossible to skip, yet the incapacitate is annoying as hell, I prefer the standard stun that Geth and Shielded enemies suffer. If it didn't provide the damage bonus, I could happily skip it every time

This is why Overload makes me sad when not fighting Geth.

[Bud Halen]

I hate Neural Shock so much. The double damage against organics makes it impossible to skip, yet the incapacitate is annoying as hell, I prefer the standard stun that Geth and Shielded enemies suffer. If it didn't provide the damage bonus, I could happily skip it every time

This is why Overload makes me sad when not fighting Geth.

 

I wish neural shock functioned like it does in ME2.  They'll still fall, but it takes a couple seconds of stunlock first.