On the Scattering of Game Bullets

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

Let's have a rational discussion about which type of weapon allows players to get started faster: laser guns or burst-fire guns. Without a doubt, it's the laser gun. At this point, some might say that the signature feature of Battlefield is its bullet spread, which encourages players to use single-shot or burst-fire.

However, for a game to build higher player retention, it needs to be easy to pick up while offering advanced techniques to practice later. I don’t believe increasing bullet spread makes the game more comfortable for new players. Spread affects everyone, not just the pros. Some might argue that being instantly killed in an open area is unhealthy gameplay, but Battlefield 6 maps are generally small with plenty of cover. Usually, when you’re engaging someone with controlled bursts in Battlefield 6, someone else will flank you from another direction. In contrast, previous Battlefield games had large open areas, so being killed in such spaces is more of a map design flaw.

1. **Different skill ceilings and floors**: Other FPS games are easier to pick up, with a low skill floor but also a respectable skill ceiling. Battlefield, on the other hand, requires a steep learning curve, forcing players to abandon traditional shooting mechanics. Its high skill floor comes with a limited ceiling—burst-fire simply doesn’t allow you to take down multiple enemies in two to three seconds. Some might say that getting kills with burst-fire is more satisfying, but for newcomers, killing more enemies is undoubtedly more rewarding.

   2. **Server issues**: EA’s servers occasionally suffer from hit registration problems and high latency, with ping sometimes at 50 and other times at 200. These regional disparities are almost impossible to fix. Rather than nerfing skilled players, improving the game’s servers should be the priority.

   3. **Nature of the game**: Other games offer not only large-scale battles but also entertainment, social features, and competitive elements, including ranked systems that Battlefield lacks. Battlefield’s entertainment value falls short compared to other FPS games, its competitiveness is on par, and its social aspects are virtually nonexistent. Unless friends invite me to play, I hardly touch Battlefield. Battlefield 6 might see changes in the future, but based on my current experience, this is how it is. So, when a complete newcomer to FPS encounters two options—one that’s simple and easy to pick up, and another that requires significant time and effort to master—which one are they more likely to choose? Unless they’re masochists, who would willingly become cannon fodder in the latter? Not all FPS players are beginners, but Battlefield players tend to have some prior FPS experience.

   4. **Uncertainty about past games**: I’m not entirely sure about the bullet spread in Battlefield 3 and 4, but if Battlefield 6’s burst-fire had high damage output, I’d agree with using or practicing short bursts. The problem is that Battlefield 6 is designed for close-quarters combat with short TTK (time to kill). Under these conditions, being picked off from a distance is relatively rare, as players don’t often need to traverse large open areas (with the exception of maps like Operation Metro). Given that assault rifles and SMGs typically take five shots to kill at any range,If scattering increases, it would be almost impossible to secure kills at medium to long distances.

   5. **Comparison to CS:GO**: Many people note that CS:GO also has bullet spread, but why isn’t it criticized as heavily? Because the payoff for mastering its weapons is greater.   

   6. **Player retention**: Some argue that the reason Battlefield has endured is because each installment retains its player base, but it’s often the same group of players. EA occasionally discounts the game to attract new players, but they leave shortly after. Can this really be called high player retention?

   7. **Market trends**: Given current mainstream preferences, I believe most players would choose laser guns. The firing pattern required for short bursts is different from most FPS games. In my view, the tracking needed for short bursts is essentially the same as the recoil control required for sustained fire. Both involve tracking—so why must the developers force players to use burst-fire?

   In a game like Battlefield, which lacks any meaningful reward system, retaining players is the biggest challenge. If EA wants to expand its audience, it should focus on optimizing the game rather than the players. Damage drop-off over distance could easily address these issues. Some claim that bullet spread isn’t the same as random bullet deviation, but I ask: how is it different? Beyond a certain point, isn’t it essentially the same? Whether it’s a coding difference or a fundamental logic difference, it all comes down to luck. I’d dare say that only veteran players enjoy burst-fire mechanics.

   EA could introduce both modes: one with the current mechanics and one with optimized mechanics, allowing players to choose which they prefer.

Let's have a rational discussion about which type of weapon allows players to get started faster: laser guns or burst-fire guns. Without a doubt, it's the laser gun. At this point, some might say that the signature feature of Battlefield is its bullet spread, which encourages players to use single-shot or burst-fire.

 However, for a game to build higher player retention, it needs to be easy to pick up while offering advanced techniques to practice later. I don’t believe increasing bullet spread makes the game more comfortable for new players. Spread affects everyone, not just the pros. Some might argue that being instantly killed in an open area is unhealthy gameplay, but Battlefield 6 maps are generally small with plenty of cover. Usually, when you’re engaging someone with controlled bursts in Battlefield 6, someone else will flank you from another direction. In contrast, previous Battlefield games had large open areas, so being killed in such spaces is more of a map design flaw.

1. Different skill ceilings and floors: Other FPS games are easier to pick up, with a low skill floor but also a respectable skill ceiling. Battlefield, on the other hand, requires a steep learning curve, forcing players to abandon traditional shooting mechanics. Its high skill floor comes with a limited ceiling—burst-fire simply doesn’t allow you to take down multiple enemies in two to three seconds. Some might say that getting kills with burst-fire is more satisfying, but for newcomers, killing more enemies is undoubtedly more rewarding.
2. Server issues: EA’s servers occasionally suffer from hit registration problems and high latency, with ping sometimes at 50 and other times at 200. These regional disparities are almost impossible to fix. Rather than nerfing skilled players, improving the game’s servers should be the priority.
3. Nature of the game: Other games offer not only large-scale battles but also entertainment, social features, and competitive elements, including ranked systems that Battlefield lacks. Battlefield’s entertainment value falls short compared to other FPS games, its competitiveness is on par, and its social aspects are virtually nonexistent. Unless friends invite me to play, I hardly touch Battlefield. Battlefield 6 might see changes in the future, but based on my current experience, this is how it is. So, when a complete newcomer to FPS encounters two options—one that’s simple and easy to pick up, and another that requires significant time and effort to master—which one are they more likely to choose? Unless they’re masochists, who would willingly become cannon fodder in the latter? Not all FPS players are beginners, but Battlefield players tend to have some prior FPS experience.
4.  Uncertainty about past games: I’m not entirely sure about the bullet spread in Battlefield 3 and 4, but if Battlefield 6’s burst-fire had high damage output, I’d agree with using or practicing short bursts. The problem is that Battlefield 6 is designed for close-quarters combat with short TTK (time to kill). Under these conditions, being picked off from a distance is relatively rare, as players don’t often need to traverse large open areas (with the exception of maps like Operation Metro). Given that assault rifles and SMGs typically take five shots to kill at any range,If scattering increases, it would be almost impossible to secure kills at medium to long distances.
5.  Comparison to CS:GO: Many people note that CS:GO also has bullet spread, but why isn’t it criticized as heavily? Because the payoff for mastering its weapons is greater.
6.  Player retention： Some argue that the reason Battlefield has endured is because each installment retains its player base, but it’s often the same group of players. EA occasionally discounts the game to attract new players, but they leave shortly after. Can this really be called high player retention?
7.  Market trends: Given current mainstream preferences, I believe most players would choose laser guns. The firing pattern required for short bursts is different from most FPS games. In my view, the tracking needed for short bursts is essentially the same as the recoil control required for sustained fire. Both involve tracking—so why must the developers force players to use burst-fire?
8. In a game like Battlefield, which lacks any meaningful reward system, retaining players is the biggest challenge. If EA wants to expand its audience, it should focus on optimizing the game rather than the players. Damage drop-off over distance could easily address these issues. Some claim that bullet spread isn’t the same as random bullet deviation, but I ask: how is it different? Beyond a certain point, isn’t it essentially the same? Whether it’s a coding difference or a fundamental logic difference, it all comes down to luck. I’d dare say that only veteran players enjoy burst-fire mechanics.
9. EA could introduce both modes: one with the current mechanics and one with optimized mechanics, allowing players to choose which they prefer.

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.