Is the damage drop-off in this game more than other? I have no strong feelings either way on TTK but I do think some of those SMGs would become bigger jokes than they already are at distance.
Its certainly worth revisiting as far as everyone being used to attrition now.
As someone who thoroughly enjoys using SMGs, I'm still in the camp that a large part of the problem is the map design. Battlefield V's maps have minimal topographical variances, diminished cover, poor design pathing, and in particular how all of these things relate to the placement of capture points. They've gone for the open terrain sandbox-like approach and neglected to build maps with topographical complexities that force players to keep moving in order to push capture points and sight targets.
These large, open, flattish maps with poorly thought out capture point locations create a situation where ranged attackers, particularly snipers, have a tremendously wide view of multiple capture points and locations and often in 360 degrees. You can sight and begin attacking opponents from very, very far away from an enormous breadth of playspace on majority of the maps, and it's why there's an ongoing frustration with high powered rifles, assault weapons, and MMGs that can exploit range.
Aerodrome, Hamada, Narvik, and Twisted Steel have this problem. There's no sense of flow or accomplishment in moving through the maps because your potential target radius is almost always
fucking everywhere from any distance.
Rotterdam survives this somewhat because of its urban nature. Devastation is about the only map that does not have this problem because it's so cluttered and twisted and most of the capture points are in interiors.
Fjell has not quite the same problem, but still favours long range entaglements on a number of capture points.
Arras had potential to be a great map as its topographical variances and asset distribution make for really interesting capture point layouts, but it's so fucking small that none of this matters as there's again no sensation or thrill in moving up and capturing points since it takes all of 5 seconds to run to the next one.
Mercury has a similar problem to Arras but its bottleneck-like layout helps change this somewhat (basically flank around the coast or it's a fight for C).
Panzerstorm is the only map that survives this problem because it's so fucking large that the spacing between capture points is inherently challenging for long range sniping. It's still a map that greatly favours long range gunplay but with this focus it works well.
I love a lot about Battlefield V but I still feel the direction was totally mangled and noncommittal to any particular vision. Like it's this weird inbetween of hardcore military sim and classic arcade Battlefield, but because it can't find a comfortable middleground you end up with this chaotic arcade mess of shooting in maps that see you getting shot from miles away at every angle, and weapon balance that hugely favours extreme rate of fight and range. Because DICE backed out on attrition the value of teamwork in a push and the threat of running out of ammunition are non-existent; you'll NEVER see a team retreat back in favour of a successful push because they need to resupply, and you'll never see a clever squad managing ammunition to burn out another team's defence. You instead end up with walls of players playing shooty shooty bang bang from miles away as the rest of us try and push through.
Sometimes I think I'm talking shit with the map design criticism, but I go back and look at the roster of maps for Battlefield 3, 4, and 1 and for most part the problems weren't anywhere near as prevalent. And 1 had the easiest sniping in the series.