Re: Who thought that increasing scope glint was a good idea
the same people who add spread to ARs but leave SMGs, LMGs and DMRs out.... the best devs world
Forum Discussion
37 Replies
I think every tweak they've done in the last 6 months has been intended to reduce player count and further ruin this once good game. If you're too simple to play the game as it was intended, go play something more your speed. Instead we've lost C5, borked the railgun, upped bullet spread, made tanks easier to hide in, nerfed all the launchers, made mini grenades, overloaded the maps with cover, upped the glint, denied crossplay, every damn thing meant to reduce the skill to attract noobs.
This is moving further and further from being BF. It's literally the Final Fantasy Mystic Quest of the shooter genre.
- @X-Sunslayer-X Yeah LMGs are kind of the meta in 2042. Where in bf3 & bf4 it was assault rifles, bf1 it was SMGs, and bfv I felt everything was balanced across weapon categories, then 2042 came with it's LMGs with low recoil, low spread, big mags, and can effectively tap and burst fire or single fire like an AR or DMR. Then bipods add less recoil and spread (thank God it's not laser beam bipod like bf3/bf4/bf1). LMGs in 2042 are just ARs with big mags.
In bf4 trying doing with the M249 what we do with avancys/LCMG/RPT. You couldn't in bf4. Lmgs had massive recoil and spread in bf4, so you had to be stationary with a bipod and lay down support fire. Scope glint was bugged.
Like glint or not, without it the game would become a camping sniperfest. The game will become boring.
Snipers must be kept at a reasonable level, the objective is capping flags, not camping at distance and sniping people (what many "snipers" tend to do).
Being "stealthy" (no glint) and sniping from a distance, is a really annoying mechanic for people on the receiving end. Playing as recon, should have an element of risk.
You must use lower magnification and get closer to the action.
- @cso7777 It's unfortunate when people who don't understand the game try to make suggestions. Someone has to cap flags so the entire game isn't going to be snipers. They are effective to have. Stealth is a priority.
The 'risk' is the low rate of fire. This wasn't the case in BF games prior to BF3 (when "scope glint" was introduced) it was always a solution looking for a problem.
It's a lame mechanic and has been since its introduction and now in BF2042 they cranked up the "scope glint" to 11 so it's like having a 1 million lumen tactile light shining off the end of the dang rifle screaming "HERE I AM!"
A good recon/sniper can actually be pretty helpful spotting out enemy vehicles and infantry, snipers that do nothing but hang out on the edge of the map wasting ammo are always going to be a thing no matter what EA/Dice does.
BTW just to be clear I rarely snipe in any BF game (just not my playstyle) but I still think it's a dumb mechanic.
@cso7777I use the low magnifying scopes for when I'm ptfo with my sniper. When I use say the 10X though because of scope glint I have to stay way back or I get spray and prayed by AR, Lmg, or Smg. Things like the raven 4X (which was my favorite sight) is now worthless and the 5X and m11 6X are now going to be borderline useless. Long range will be only the 8, 10, and new 12X. The m22 3.5 (which is a nice sight on AR and Does) will be the new favorite short range sight for SRs. This is ok cause it does have a nice reticle, it's similar to how the PK-A 3.4X was so popular in bf3.
@Ironhead841I get that. Glint is a "bad" solution, but it is a solution to a real problem (IMHO).
Snipers can one-shot people at any distance and having no warning, or possibility to avoid it, is not fun. Getting sniped "out of nowhere" feels dumb/cheap.
They could perhaps tone down the glint, but the glint was still missing from some scopes and working on others, that needed to be fixed.I don't know, getting sniped doesn't ruin my day, I get that it really upsets some people, but it doesn't faze me that much, usually if it gets too annoying, I'll figure out a way to track them down and steal their tags and give them the obligatory T-bag.
I'd much rather have more precise ranging, wind deviation, bullet drop, scope sway after a second or so, there's so many better ways to address it than the giant spotlight effect.
- @cso7777 Getting maschine gunned out of nowhere because of the glint feels as dump and cheap.
But you are right, the glint need to be consistent. And the mechanics need to be bound to the scope used, and not to the gun its mounted on.
And it needs to apply to the premium versions you can buy with skins as well.
@SilentReavus wrote:Who thought that increasing scope glint was a good idea
Me.
I did.
I thought it was a good idea.
Good work DICE.
@cso7777 wrote:@Ironhead841I get that. Glint is a "bad" solution, but it is a solution to a real problem (IMHO).
Snipers can one-shot people at any distance and having no warning, or possibility to avoid it, is not fun. Getting sniped "out of nowhere" feels dumb/cheap.
They could perhaps tone down the glint, but the glint was still missing from some scopes and working on others, that needed to be fixed.The way the glint works is just wrong. It compromises the sniper before they have even fired a single shot.
This is why I said in the past that I would had liked if there was no glint if you have not shot for 30 to 60 seconds and it starts glinting after that until you stop shooting again for that time.
This way the sniper will have that once every while chance to surprise someone but as soon as they take that chance, then their location is compromised for a while.
If they do it my way, a sniper has the ability to do the thing we see in movies and series where they scope for enemies while waiting for a chance on a high value target.
@SCUBASTEVE120 wrote:
@X-Sunslayer-XYeah LMGs are kind of the meta in 2042. Where in bf3 & bf4 it was assault rifles, bf1 it was SMGs, and bfv I felt everything was balanced across weapon categories, then 2042 came with it's LMGs with low recoil, low spread, big mags, and can effectively tap and burst fire or single fire like an AR or DMR. Then bipods add less recoil and spread (thank God it's not laser beam bipod like bf3/bf4/bf1). LMGs in 2042 are just ARs with big mags.
In bf4 trying doing with the M249 what we do with avancys/LCMG/RPT. You couldn't in bf4. Lmgs had massive recoil and spread in bf4, so you had to be stationary with a bipod and lay down support fire.It really does feel like that. LMG's are good at close and medium range engagements. If I use the Plus System to switch to a scope I can sometimes kill a Sniper too. I feel like ammo types were meant to play a far bigger role in determining the distance at which to take engagements but it feels like ammo type is just a "useless thing", an inconvenience to switch between when you run out of ammo.
More discussion on this should be in a different post though, as it has nothing to do with Scope glint.
- @S3SSioN_SoL My anti-sniper lmg configuration usually utilizes a bipod, heavy ammo and long barrel. Usually the sniper gets killed by their own reload time.
- @kregora on which lmg?
- @UP_Hawxxeye In the past I used it on the LCMG. I have no idea if what I did is still an option. The LMGs got changed a couple of times since I reached T1 and apparently the next "fix" is incoming.
Glint with all the spotting in this game is ridiculous. also, if there needs to be glint it shouldn't be a damn mini sun and only show to the people directly in its line of site, not a spotlight for the whole world to see no matter where they are. The damn soflam is the same, would rather just have some binoculars
Instead of glints we have a powerful highbeam, supernova that makes all other lightning on a map looks like a shadow.
GG DICE!!!
- @cso7777 I am not talking about a bug. I am talking about the addition of glint to low mag scopes. You think that 4x is high zoom? Because that's what dice think.
- @59hushy6ywi8 ...once good game?
Is this some kind of bad joke? There's a reason most people considered it the worst Battlefield to ever release. Only now a year later is it finally getting to an acceptable state... But they still make ridiculous decisions like I mentioned. - @SilentReavus You're way off. It launched better than it is now. Trolls have been voting the game in the complete wrong direction. Guns nerfed, tools locked, unnecessary features added INSTEAD of new content. The old maps were fine, now we have practically nothing. 3 maps? Big friggin deal, BF3 and 4 would have that in one pack.
Hopefully the next game starts off where this was and sticks to their original vision. Something competent and decisive. @59hushy6ywi8
There was no vision for the launch state of 2042.Only a corporate checkbox list with the Battlefield brand placed on the title.
I loathe when artists want to flex their creative freedom while trying to reuse the past success of a brand that may not even have been of their own creation.
It is the same with how we get all these subpar reimaginings, remakes, sequels on cinema.
If they have a "vision" for something different, they should have the balls to start a new IP, just like Lars is doing right now with his new studio.
- @59hushy6ywi8 The playercount tells something different.
The game tanked shortly after launch. Only a small audience wanted what Dice delivered.
Their vision was flawed in any possible way and should never have been called Battlefield. - @UP_Hawxxeye Baloney. All the parts were there. The modes, the weapons and tools, the maps. It was easy to ignore the royale mode, not like anyone was active there.
All I can say is after the slow pace of the last 2 games I was eager for a return to gameplay like this. Far better than 1 and 5. But the trolls dug into 2042 and managed to ruin it. LOL yup, all the parts were there alright, everything except players....
Just because you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't make it true.
This game is in a FAR better state today than it was even a few months ago.
It doesn't sound to me like you EVER liked Battlefield and prefer the Arena shooters/COD/Apex style of gameplay.
- @Ironhead841 I didn't seem to have trouble finding games at the time. Point out where it's nonsense. It started off better than it is now, these are just the facts.
BF1/5 sucked. BF3/4, this was 2042 at launch and what I've been waiting for. Now it's some indecisive mess that prioritizes * on infantry.
Coming from UT/Quake, yeah the speed of BF3/4/2042 was better. CoD or Apex are trash. I did try Doom, Overwatch, and Pubg for a while. But that doesn't change the fact this game is sinking quick.
