Yes let hope something fails while 100’s peoples jobs are on the line.Seems some of you kids don’t think of the consequences that can happen when stuff doesnt go right.
*Slaps OP.
But he doesn’t like the game…
you played this franchise 20 hours yet you whine and ¯_(ツ)/¯ about a game that you don’t like ? baddest troll i’ve seen in a while! btw 1 in 2 games you quit, you have no right to cry about this game and talk ¯_(ツ)/¯!
Your confusion stems from lack of understanding of what multiplayer means.
Thanks for that video, it is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.
BF4 was better than BF1 as it had no RNG 555
Symthic are not going to be able to detail stats like BF4 because of all the RNG 555
The best line I have over 1600hrs of BF4. 5555555
The BF4 spread figures on Symthic are cone size angles and bullets can fall anywhere inside that cone(RNG) all just like BF1.
you must be a fun person to hang with, wise…
Maybe he doesn’t like when people judge his arguments solely by his profile stats.
And what in your opinion, does multiplayer mean and bearing do my stats have on it?
which are so much better then all of the battlefield fanboys
You know when i write a short message like that then i want you to contemplate on it a bit so maybe, just maybe i won’t have to write a wall of text.
_
Multiplayer and especially a competitive like fps involves you and the opponent. By saying that making gun’s more precise one make’s it easier to play because it’s easier to aim you fail to realize that the same is true for the enemy. Thus, you can’t analyze it in such a simplified manner. If by shooting in enemy’s general direction you land 50% of bullets (example by exaggeration) you take out the skill factor, it all boils down to who saw whom first. By making gun’s pinpoint precise you tie it to players aiming, tracing, recoil control and movement coordination skills. I recall a very similar situation when CPM physics first came to Quake 3 Arena. A mod designed to push skill dependency to the extreme allowing (that was the plan) to ascend competitive play into sports realm. Many had doubts and complaints regarding in-jump direction control and felt it catered to pubs taking away from strafing finesse. In practice they same changes allowed pro players for far more advanced tactics and pushed the limits of craziness in map design in regards to aerial control while strafing (especially on mods like defrag) to the point some more casuals players didn’t even manage to play on those maps (without getting shredded).
Getting back to out Battlefield - spread is a complicated topic, i do see the allure and effectiveness of using it as range limiter that forces a tactical play. But, playing with spread is playing with fire. Nowadays i don’t care that much but i used to be pretty decent at fps and i know randomness especially in regards to spread can lead to cancer. Impact on feedback player gets from the game cumulatively with synchronisation errors can heavily impact one’s learning and getting better preventing player from performing well and forcing him to employ casual spam over skill tactics. And it’s especially dangerous at it leads to CoD Casino Machine dumbified gameplay that DICE may find financially beneficial with the current surge of CoD refugees, destroying the franchise as we know it. That and then there’s the point that i feel enforcing more spread over recoil control may be an attempt to balance maps between consoles and PCs that i’ve talked about somewhere else and if you feel like it then feel free to dig through my old posts i’m not going to.
_
At the end of the day i’m but a hillhumper. If i can have a small solar mass attached to my head then you can have your cancerous spread, if you like it then i guess… it’s all the better for me. (Tho will see if we’ll have snipers still or will they change it to a cross of marksman and CoD quickscoper).
Oh dear…
Any mechanic is applicable to you and your opponent. If you both have pin point accurate laser beams, the one with worse aim will probably miss but if a ‘bad player’ can’t aim, random spread is just as likely to make more of his bullets miss than hit.
It could be argued that predictable, ‘easier’ gun mechanics help the ‘bad player’ more.
A truly ‘good player’ should be able to understand any game mechanic and use it to his advantage, minimise its affects or avoid it. Forcing more tactical play is what makes Battlefield well, Battlefield!
Any ‘competitive’ activity you can think of will have some degree of randomness involved.
Liking a mechanic and accepting it and adapting to it are to different things…
^^ well said.
Thank you good Sir…
World War 1 was boring. Mostly just trench warfare and men being sent to their inevitable death to capture 100 metres of land. If that’s what you want then this series (nor any other game series or game I can think of) isn’t for you.
I know i sound like i d*** but that won’t render what a say false, and there’s no other way to respond directly.
Just because you make a post that looks like an argument doesn’t mean it addressees what i’ve said.
By trying to dissect an example with points i’ve already covered makes me think you either read only the beginning of my post or fell asleep half way through.
Also the no true scotsman eristic doesn’t make it any better, neither does the omittance of the majority of player base - the average joe. If a bad player can’t aim then overdone spread (and i hope i won’t have to make another wall of text why it’s a thin line, besides i’ve already made a point towards it) can level the playing field closing the skill gap pulling the better player down by a lot. And then there are other point’s like learning feedback and… and oh just read what i wrote.
Maybe you should dig into some history books mate, all the guns in BF 1, even the automatic ones where actually manufactured during the first world war and deployed on the battlefield at one point.
And that is a historical fact, can’t get more authentic than that.
And don’t argue the stupid point of “Most of those guns only saw limited use on the battlefield or where experimental” because that’s a farce.
All previous in your eyes good battlefield games had an arsenal of weapons you could choose from, ranging from various different militaries all over the world and even civilian weapons that have never been used by military personel.
You don’t like BF1, go play chess, it’s less fun, but it’s REAL! 
Essentially you are saying learning the predictable is more skillful than adapting to the unpredictable.
I am simply saying that because the mechanic is applicable to both players, the better player should generally come out on top.
What you say is false, and I’ll prove it. To do so, let’s breakdown a couple of different scenarios between a good player and a bad player.
A Close-Quarters Scenario (10m Gunfight)
Both the good player and the bad player see each other in the exact same frame, are using the exact same SMG, have the same reaction time, and they are both stationary while firing.
The good player is able to accurately aim at the bad player’s chest, guaranteeing his first bullet to hit. The bad player does not aim accurately at the player, guaranteeing that the first bullet will not hit. The good player has already won the gunfight at this point, requiring for him to fire 3 more bullets into the player’s chest. As the bad player is getting hurt, he must attempt to aim again at the target, potentially firing one bullet into the good player. In this situation, spread was a non-factor, the good player still won.
A Long-Range Scenario (50m Gunfight)
Once again, both the good player and the bad player see each other in the exact same frame, are using the exact same SMG, have the same reaction time, and they are both stationary while firing.
The good player is able to accurately aim at the bad player’s chest, guaranteeing his first bullet to hit. The good player knows that tap-firing at 300 rpm will result in all of his bullets hitting his target, so he continues to do so throughout the gunfight. The bad player does not aim accurately at the player, guaranteeing that the first bullet will not hit. The good player has already won the gunfight at this point, requiring for him to fire 6 more bullets into the player’s chest. The bad player goes full-auto and sprays missing most, if not all of his shots fired towards the good player, while the good player accurately lands all of his shots. In this situation, spread was a non-factor, the good player still won.
The Moral**
The player that aims accurately first and remains the most accurate throughout the gunfight will be the winner. Of course, my scenarios omit other factors which lead to success in Battlefield, such as strafing, various types of awareness, etc., which were omitted to only showcase the effects of spread on a gunfight. The player who aims accurately and is able to control their spread by burst or tap-firing is the player who will win the gunfight. Controlling spread is a skill, and it will always be better than going full-auto at 50m.
I don’t think artillery gameplay would be all that great, have you played with the artillery truck and mortars in BF4 … it’s extremely boring and as for the trench warfare, we’ve only seen one playable map so far, probably a bit early to assume there’s no trench warfare.
i want it to flop too, and i feel like it’s going to be like hardline. all this hype for the game will die out. i hope it will flop so they get started on making a new game as soon as possible.