On the Scattering of Game Bullets

Maybe……

I've reviewed my recorded gameplay footage from those sessions, and I didn't encounter any players who appeared to be using cheats. Even if we acknowledge that there are issues with pro players and rampant cheating, the current one-size-fits-all solution remains unfair and inefficient.

Typically, I maintain a relatively high kill count and my scores are above average, yet I genuinely haven’t run into any players who land every shot as a headshot. I can’t achieve that level of precision myself, but I’m still forced to bear the negative impacts of these low-probability events.

If I ever find myself in a situation where I simply cannot win, the logical move should be to leave the match and queue again. If you can’t win, you retreat—that’s the most fundamental rule of survival. However, for the health of the game, if a large number of players frequently quit because they feel completely outmatched, their frustration will ultimately lead to them leaving the game altogether.

Given that encountering a pro player or cheater is such a low-probability occurrence for players like me, I believe overhauling the gunplay feel for the entire player base is unjustified. The idea that a slight "sacrifice" in overall gameplay feel can "suppress" issues at the highest level of play and combat cheating—thereby preserving the experience for more players, especially those in the mid-to-lower skill brackets—may hold merit on a macro level.

But is this "sacrifice" truly worth it? Is this "transfer" of burden fair?
For a mid-to-high performer like myself, the answer is likely "no" on both counts.

We are not the source of the problem—we are neither cheaters nor top-tier pros destabilizing the ecosystem—yet we are forced to shoulder the primary cost of the solution. It feels like "the good are being punished for the actions of the bad."

Instead of universally increasing recoil or spread, it would be far better to sharpen weapon identity. For example, some guns could be laser-accurate but low-damage, while others could pack immense power but be extremely difficult to control. This would create a gameplay loop centered around weapon counterplay and tactical choice, enriching the strategic depth and pace of the game, rather than simply raising the skill floor uniformly.

Perhaps in the future, EA will implement a more sophisticated solution. For now, working within the current constraints is one approach—but that doesn’t make it the right one.

I am not rejecting change outright; I am advocating for a higher-level solution, one that the entire community hopes to see.

I’ll say it again: Game developers should focus on optimizing the game, not optimizing the players.

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.