On the Scattering of Game Bullets
gunplayNot very acceptable. The bullets of a large number of weapons now scatter in long-range combat, making it impossible to hit the enemy。 This kind of consecutive shooting punishment is not suita...
Forum Discussion
I know the tap fire, technically you don't need to switch fire mode to make it work like full auto + you get the benefit of not recoil or bullet spread increasing but thats the problem cause guns like the DMR that are single fire lose completely on long range engagement when they should have better performance.
Which is why it needs making harder to hit at longer ranges with everything but dmr and snipers.
To be honest, due to the influence of previous Battlefield series games. I don't think there are many or a huge number of players in the current Battlefield. I believe the developers also hope to add some new players. If the scatter penalty continues to increase, it will significantly increase the difficulty for new players to get started. I don't think this can make our already small user group bigger or more hopeful。 If we still need to consider the issue of balance, please don't add scattering anymore. We would rather increase recoil or damage attenuation, otherwise it will be too difficult for new players. Moreover, not everyone likes semi-automatic shooting in the mainstream shooting games now. I don't think encouraging point shooting is a good idea。 Battlefield III has achieved great success in the past, but many of its views are only favored by veteran Battlefield players rather than truly widely accepted
Guns need to be situational.
Everyone that has played battlefield long enough had to learn this and when to tap fire and when to burst and when you can unload, positioning too, that's where alot of the skill in battlefield comes in, making correct decisions at the right time.
Only dmr and sniper rifles should perform well over medium to long range, other guns should require either precise tap fire shots or closing the distance, doesn't matter how you change the way spread/recoil works that has to be the ultimate goal.
Every game doesn't need to be for everyone either, I don't go over to the call of duty forums and moan if they made it like battlefield they would get loads of new players, do we just want a load of generic copy and paste shooters?
Great new players would be happy, at the expense of loyal fans.
I think this is a trade-off issue. As you believe, different firearms need to have different shooting effects in different situations. However, we believe that in order to achieve this possibility, we support achieving more damage attenuation or maximum recoil, giving people a better or simpler way to improve themselves. The so-called good feedback of shooting level。 As a brand new great work, Battlefield 6 inevitably represents the acceptance of new players besides traditional Battlefield players, which is also an important point for the production team to expand their profits. I don't think it's a very normal rule to only be loyal to old users when raising the threshold 。 The Battlefield series is already a very old series, and most of the so-called Battlefield players no longer come from Battlefield III and Battlefield IV, On the contrary, there are many players from Battlefield One and Battlefield Five These players are not interested in mechanisms such as random bullet scattering。 Most of these players are not proficient in ballistic scattering during shooting， Moreover, such a setting would give semi-automatic and sniper rifles a significant advantage on the battlefield, making the battlefield environment, which was already prone to evolving into a sniper confrontation, even worse。 Just as the skill of sliding shovel has been widely accepted in most FPS games, we can see that except for FPS games like CS Go 2, This type of game has very high shooting rewards and headshot damage, which is why high scattering is widely accepted. In addition, there are rarely cases of aiming with the scope in the original game mechanism. In other games, most firearms have very small walks. I think the feedback from players who can use suppression to hit long-range enemies is also very pleasing
"difficulty for new players to get started"....I think you just hit on exactly what the issue is with any Battlefield game. It doesn't matter whether you've been playing FPS's for decades or 10 minutes...when you first log on to the game as a new player, you are so far behind the curve that it's a grind to get caught up. I've played since Battlefield 1942 (actually even before that) and just recently started playing 5. I have about a 25% chance (at best) of killing a player that has been playing 5 for any extended amount of time.
In trying to determine why, I have come to the conclusion that it's 2 things: 1) it's the learning required for new maps, guns, etc. and 2) it's that those players who have been playing for awhile have perks (OP) that you don't have. I'm sure people will say that I should "get good", but it's more than just getting good. It's the attachments and guns that someone that has been playing for awhile get that a new player doesn't get. So, not only are you handicapped by trying to learn the maps and the guns, etc., you're handicapped by others have over-powered weaponry. It doesn't matter that the M16 has a knockdown ratio that's supremely high if it only has a 3 shot burst while an m4 has auto with virtually no recoil and 1/2 of the knockdown ratio (btw, I happen to love games that use the M16 because I'm pretty decent at keeping all 3 burst shots on target...it's truly a gun for a more seasoned player).
My case in point, to reiterate the above, is that I played the beta of 6 for the last couple of weekends and was able to hold my own on many occasions. Enough so that I didn't feel like a complete newb while playing. Did I always have a positive KDR? No. However, I was able to at least compete against others.
I truly wish EA would change this aspect of the game so that a seasoned gamer new to the game wouldn't be at such a disadvantage compared to someone who's been playing that game for awhile.
Thank you bro"I strongly agree with your perspective—this is precisely what I wanted to emphasize. My primary concern here is thatfurther increasing bullet spreadwould clearly be detrimental to attracting new players and even veterans from other Battlefield titles.We have more measured approaches to address issues like bullet dispersionthat could better align with mainstream gameplay.
Such changes would prevent frustrating scenarios wheremid-range engagements become luck-dependent(since high spread makes hits rely on fortune rather than actual recoil control or timely shots), or wherelong-range combat devolves into randomness. Crucially, expanding spread risks exacerbating the oppressive dominance ofsemi-automatic rifles and snipers.
Consider rifle users employing burst-fire against semi-auto weapons:burst-fire already has low odds of success; most players use it merely for suppression. If spread widens further, semi-autos and snipers could become overwhelmingly dominant. This might trigger severeplayer imbalance, with everyone shifting to sniper roles.Thatwould truly undermine Battlefield’s core excellence.
