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
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."
So what you are saying is they should make the game so even a chimp could pick it up and manage to get easy kills at any range using any weapon, that the game should toss its identity in the bin because people are too lazy to learn game mechanics, that modern gamers don't want to have to think about situations, they just want to see flashy numbers and get a well done sticker for turning up?
I'm sure there are players new to the series that are willing to adapt, to learn mechanics and try to improve without getting frustrated and quitting because it doesn't play like all the other generic shooters out there.
Not so extreme, but looking forward to resolving it in other ways。 As I mentioned earlier, you can try modifying the attenuation distance of damage and increasing recoil to achieve balance in the game without necessarily increasing the scattering range。 I hope to attract more players to join in this way. I believe that the number of players added will be much greater than the number of players added by maintaining the so-called expansion of scattering range, and the retention rate will also be higher in the next year。 As another person mentioned earlier, the current battlefield situation requires optimizing the game rather than optimizing the players。 Popular design is obviously more conducive to game development and revenue creation, at least in my opinion。
