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
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
"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.
Then you close the gap to a distance where your weapon is more effective.
I remember the first time I played battlefield and I couldn't hit a thing at more than 100m, I just played my class and gradually got used to when to engage and when not, if I thought I could kill someone or not, I learned that in situations I needed to keep my head down and find a way to get closer.
That's where teamplay comes into battlefield too, support for example could help by giving you that window to close the gap.
Battlefield isn't just about running around trying to zap everyone, you can get just as much satisfaction playing your role well.
"The class system is a vital manifestation of Battlefield's unique identity, though this is not inherently tied to whether firing modes must adhere to specific conditions. Both the satisfaction from excelling in a role—whether through scoring points or team synergy—and the thrill of eliminating enemies are essential; neither should be compromised. Many players would vastly prefer a system akin to Battlefield V, where relatively high recoil induces aim sway/blur, allowing them to attribute missed shots to personal skill deficiencies. Conversely, they find it far less acceptable to maintain precise aim—or even fire first—only to fail due to 'bullet spread' mechanics, which generates immense frustration."
