Please stop using stepped damage decay curves

It depends, if the target is at a full health, there is no difference in TTK. If the weapon has 25 damage at zero distance and 20 damage at 30 meters, you will need 4 body hits below the 30m and 5 hits above the 30m. When the target is for example at 35m distance, the only difference is that he had something like 90 health before the fifth bullet hit (linear) versus 80 health before the fifth bullet hit (stepped). Of course, the target may not be always at full health and in such cases the linear damage falloff may provide faster TTK, depending what health the target had. But the target's health is always so random factor that it doesn't matter that much if the damage falloff is linear or not in my opinion. I would also prefer to have the linear falloff as it was, but I do not consider the stepped falloff as a big deal.

Thanks for your reply. In my opinion, Battlefield 6 uses both random scatter and crosshair beating, coupled with a stepped damage decay curve, which leads to a huge difference in the TTK experience at critical range. Taking the M443 as an example, only 4 shots are needed to kill within 20 meters, but 5 shots are needed to kill at 21 meters. However, the simultaneous existence of random scatter and crosshair beating means that for a difference of only one meter, you may need more bullets to make up for the extra shot. This is why I think the gunplay experience is very fragmented, and I think re-adopting a linear damage decay curve will help improve this part of the experience.

I ain’t no mathematician but I can definitely attest to certain guns having an exaggerated damage drop off at medium - long range.  

Well, the bullet spread/scatter doesn't matter in regard of damage, assuming the distance is still the same between you and the target, for body shots - either the bullet will hit or not. Naturally, there may be a very specific distance where a straight bullet will be still before the distance threshold and a not-so-straight bullet over the threshold as it will need to pass a longer distance to hit a more distant body part or so, but that requires so specific conditions and may not even happen due to a limited calculations precision or that the distance is calculated from the object origin/center mass and not the surface that it's not worth a consideration.
If the target is running away from you and so it will pass the threshold (so you will suddenly do 20 damage instead of 25 damage for the stepped falloff and you will need 5 hits for 21m instead of 4 for 20m), the linear progression will actually make it even worse for the very same distances, because you will need 5 hits instead of 4 with damage like 21 even before the 20m (assuming that in both cases the weapon does 20 damage at 21 meters). But the linear progression may get an advantage of a higher damage in other cases for other distances, of course, depending how it's set (the distance thresholds aren't always exactly comparable).

But, if we are speaking about the bullets-to-kill against a full-health target, the effect is still the same - after some distance you will need an extra bullet to kill the target, regardless the falloff is linear or stepped. What that distance is only depends how the linear or stepped progression is set for each weapon. In the game reality, for BF2042 and BF6, I didn't notice any major difference with the stepped falloff approach, so I don't mind having it this way. :)

Why are there numerous videos calling the M433 op? It has a high fire rate and the shots you say you need are pouring out of the weapon, hit one more. To me it sounds like you are trying to engage too far away and lose to harder hitting weapons and think that means they should change it. I don't know why so many people think weapon A should have the same ttk as weapon B. If you want faster TTK,  try to take fights at closer range.