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
"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。
After discussing it so many times, I believe that in reality, my viewpoint now is"I am not advocating for transforming the current spread mechanics into laser-like precision, as that would undermine game balance. Rather, I propose maintaining the existing spread level without introducing additional sustained-fire penalties. Currently, only one out of four maps distinctly favors snipers, while rifle/sniper distribution remains well-balanced on others.
If adjustments are necessary, redirecting balance efforts toward alternatives beyond increasing spread—rather than further expanding dispersion—would be more reasonable. This does not demand absolute precision.
Observe mainstream shooters: most feature flat, predictable trajectories (e.g., EA’s own Apex Legends even Call of Duty). While Battlefield and COD differ fundamentally, reality dictates that most FPS players are influenced by these dominant titles. The majority possess moderate skill and patience, prioritizing immediate enjoyment over mechanical mastery. Thus, satisfying kill feedback outweighs 'skill improvement' gratification, and streamlined lethality better bridges the skill gap between casual and seasoned players.
I fully acknowledge Battlefield’s intent behind spread mechanics: to prevent 'do-it-all' weapons or frustrating deaths at extreme ranges (e.g., rifles/SMGs achieving unreasonable kills). However, Battlefield 6 needs broader appeal. Its maps are generally smaller—arguably the franchise’s most visually chaotic combat scenes—with abundant urban cover that naturally limits long-range engagements. The beta’s current balance is already excellent.
We should avoid increasing—if not reduce—ballistic spread to attract newcomers and improve retention. This approach grants us greater accessibility than COD and cultivates a healthier player ecosystem."
The Battlefield series can no longer withstand failure。 Do you understand ？bro…
Putting aside emotional expressions, your argument has several fundamental flaws in logic.
You did not directly address the core claim of the original text—"opposing a one-size-fits-all approach and advocating for more intelligent solutions." Instead, you attacked a "straw man" through a series of extreme and distorted generalizations.
Your reasoning presupposes a false binary choice: a game must either retain its "identity" of being "high-difficulty and high-threshold" or devolve into a "mindless, simplistic" "generic shooter."
This completely ignores the countless possible middle-ground design solutions. The "weapon differentiation" proposed in the original text is an excellent example: far from simplifying the game, it actually increases the game’s depth and complexity. It requires players to have more knowledge of weapons, stronger tactical decision-making abilities (choosing weapons based on battle situations), and better situational judgment—this demands far more "thinking" than "uniformly practicing recoil control." Therefore, in my view, your argument is hard to sustain.
Furthermore, you labeled us as "modern players" who are "too lazy," "unwilling to learn," "unwilling to think," and "only want flashy numbers and participation trophies." This constitutes a personal attack. You attempted to discredit our argument by demeaning our character and motives, rather than discussing the game design itself on its merits. Descriptions like "well done sticker for turning up" are filled with emotional sarcasm, not rational reasoning.
As a result, your entire counterargument is built on misinterpreting my stance, fabricating a "straw man," and launching personal attacks. It fails to truly engage with the core claim of "opposing a one-size-fits-all approach and advocating for more intelligent solutions." When you cannot discuss the issue on its own terms, resorting to insults and emotional language only proves the collapse of your own logic. This discussion has lost its meaning.
A genuine discussion about game design should focus on how to create richer, fairer, and more strategic experiences—not linger on personal attacks and false dichotomies. I hope that in the future, we can engage in discussions based on such a consensus.
