In other games it was 2x or more. In BF6 it's like 1.3 or something which is ridiculously low. There was zero need to change it. Without a high headshot multiplier it basically makes assault rifles useless at anything except close range as tap fire headshots was the main way you take out snipers at long range.
80 meters isn't long range.
I'm not saying 80 meters is long range. I'm saying it's medium-to-long range. It's an intermediate category in between medium range and long range. I'm approximating these values based on the accuracy and average damage drop off of a weapon category, combined with the overlap between weapon categories. It's not about the exact numbers though. The point I was trying to make, is that you falsely presented close-range and long-range as a dichotomy, while it's clearly a much wider spectrum.
it just makes them usable to some degree as opposed to completely useless,
You have a really odd idea of what it means for a weapon to be useless. Are all weapons that can't shoot at snipers from a long distance useless? What exactly is the issue if you just get closer to your enemy?
essentially completely removes long-range firefights from the game except for snipers and DMRs
Indeed, that's exactly my point. Assault rifles shouldn't compete in long range fights. The hierarchy should be roughly like this: Shotgun > SMG > Carbine > Assault Rifle > LMG > DMR > Sniper rifle.
There's nothing wrong with an assault rifle that's specifically balanced to be more effective at longer ranges than its counterparts, but on average assault rifles shouldn't be effective at those ranges. Similarly there may also be relatively accurate LMGs that should be able to tap fire at those ranges, especially when using a bipod. Similarly, there may be attachment choices, that also allow for that flexibility.
At the end of the day it's about making the player choose their advantages and disadvantages. You can't and shouldn't have it all.
In real life assault rifles have an effective range of at least 300 meters.
Real life is not relevant here. It's a game and Battlefield has never tried to be realistic. If this were real life, you'd get properly shredded by buckshot at 50 meters, possibly even vastly exceeding that range.
ere are more categories than point blank range and long range. Whether it's CQB range, close-range, close-to-medium range, medium range, medium-to-long range, long-range, extreme long-range. Each weapon can have their own categories in which they excel at.
Assault rifles are generally best at anywhere in between close-to-medium range and medium-to-long range (roughly in between 20 to 80 meters). They aren't even all that bad below 20 meters either. So why exactly should they be good at 80+ meters as well?
80 meters isn't long range. It's medium range at best. Giving assault rifles a 3 headshot kill doesn't even make them "good" at long range, it just makes them usable to some degree as opposed to completely useless, trying to headshot someone 4-5 times is a waste of time and essentially completely removes long-range firefights from the game except for snipers and DMRs. In real life assault rifles have an effective range of at least 300 meters. Weapon range was severely nerfed going from BC2 to BF3 so nerfing them even more in a game that has large maps is just stupid. It's not realistic and it's not good for gameplay.
Assault rifles are supposed to be versatile and good at all ranges.
Assault rifles are already far more versatile than other weapon types. That doesn't mean they are supposed to be good at all ranges though. If a gun is versatile, it does not mean it has to do everything well. It just means that it's effective at a relatively larger spectrum of distance than other weapon types. Even that should have limits though.
Having large maps and guns that can't kill anyone outside of point blank range is stupid.
There are more categories than point blank range and long range. Whether it's CQB range, close-range, close-to-medium range, medium range, medium-to-long range, long-range, extreme long-range. Each weapon can have their own categories in which they excel at.
Assault rifles are generally best at anywhere in between close-to-medium range and medium-to-long range (roughly in between 20 to 80 meters). They aren't even all that bad below 20 meters either. So why exactly should they be good at 80+ meters as well?
And no you shouldn't have to use attachments just to get normal headshot damage.
If they decided that every assault rifle in Battlefield had a 1.3x headshot multiplier, then that'd be "normal".
Assault rifles are supposed to be versatile and good at all ranges. Having large maps and guns that can't kill anyone outside of point blank range is stupid. And no you shouldn't have to use attachments just to get normal headshot damage.
Assault Rifles aren't supposed to compete with sniper rifles at long range. Besides, there's Soft Point ammo in Battlefield 6 that bumps up the headshot multiplier on some assault rifles to 1.7x, the Synthetic Tip ammo even raises this to 2.1x.
