Bf3 scope glint, bf4 scope glint, bfh scope glint and bf1 scope glint!!

Battlefield 1 General Discussion
61

This is an adult discussion :stuck_out_tongue:
Scope glint, made for spotting the sniper, so, the sniper have move around abit, than camping like a rat in one place :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t like the sniper “class”, way to boring, and camp? No action? No, BF1 are intense at inf battle, and i love the music when the timer are almost out,
you get this awesome rush that you have to find someone and kill em :stuck_out_tongue:

Scope glint! Yes please!! (Honestly, they should make the glint where the sun shine: Behind the sun, no glint ← logic? :stuck_out_tongue:

62

i dindt have doubts about u like glint, aftr u said u hate sniper lol, i played alpha and i played sniper class just for few minutes, its so annoying play with that class , averytime u aim a rain of bullets fall on me, anyway the problem is : it glint with sun back, with clouds, indoor and in the shadow. I can accept the glint but it must be logic and also not a costant light but just a flash.

63

Got any proof?

64

I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

65

the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
nothing more and nothing less.

66

they put glint after many complains, so now players can avoid snipers, itisnt for balance, balance is when there is a limit of numeber of snipers.

67

My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

68

Just a few minutes?

Lol lol

I played as a sniper ~10hrs. They are fine.

69

Well I don’t need to prove it because I’m not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.

What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That’s my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what’s the evidence you have that says I’m wrong ?.

70

Result of crying, or result of it being too good.

Bf4 assault got split up in bf1, was that because of crying? Or because everyone used it as a Swiss army class, capable of doing anything.

In the end, balance is key. That might mean a higher level of skill is required to compete in a similar way.

71

Well yes there was an element of that the whookie suit plus no glint and no sway and a OKH in normal yeah recon in that game was somewhat overpowered. Then in BF3 recon had no OHK in normal sway was added glint was added and no option to use a whookie suit. While I agree with most of the changes made I didn’t and still don’t like glint and I’m someone who hardly ever plays recon.

72

So yeah. Balance happens.

If you like the old unbalanced recon, go play the old game.

73

Can you point out where I said I liked it ?.

74

You don’t like glint? You speak of the wookie suit fondly.

I see no reason to unbalance the game for someone who “hardly ever plays recon”.

75

Although I wouldn’t use your language that is exactly my circumstantial evidence.

I see it more as DICE recognising with improved graphics, there would be an imbalance so took steps to fix it.

Circumstantial evidence will only secure conviction if there is enough to put the charge beyond reasonable doubt. As can be seen in this case, both the prosecution and defence can use it to prove their case therefore it should be inadmissible.

If you want to liken this discussion to a court of law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution (remove scope glint) to prove why their case is just. The defence (the is nothing wrong with it) has discredited most if not all, of the prosecution’s evidence.

Next witness please…

76

That doesn’t look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

I’ve seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

If it did, we’d see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i’m using tears per minute here).

77

This glint argument is getting silly here. Serious lack of reason for removal.

Time to get gud guys.

78

i really don’t follow the argument for why glint should be removed

79

So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

80

It’s just absurd and unreal as f*ck right now. Your scope shouldn’t be lit up like a sun on the sky. Especially on night maps. Sun needs to be in front of you to make it happen. If it’s in your rear 180, it won’t. In real life, if you suspect glint is gonna cause you problems, there’s a cover you can attach to your scope (can’t remember the name of it in english), to prevent it from happening. But I suspect there’s more money in pleasing all the people crying about snipers so whatever. Just remove them all together and don’t trick people.