# Make Unscoped Bolt-action rifles available to the medic class. **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [June 16, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163 "2016-06-16T16:08:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fran05paco](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/fran05paco/32/101995_2.png) [@Fran05paco](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Fran05paco)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/1 "2016-06-16T16:08:00Z")
In the released gameplay livestream, we could all see that bolt-action rifles were only cappable to be used by the scout class, but in a war where 80% of the guns were bolt actions, its kind of strange that only one class designed for reconnaissance could use them. We arent asking to nerf the guns, we aren’t asking to change the weapon design of the game, we are just asking to let it available to the medic class just as DMRs, Carbines and Shotguns were in the previous game. It could be a unscoped version just with bayonet to fill that role. It would attract all the public that is complaining about bolt-actions in this game and wouldn’t make it less fun either. ---
**Author:** ![MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MartinBabl)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/2 "2016-06-16T16:24:00Z")
I would go to the point of only giving the Medic a iron sighted bolt action rifle. The scout will get a scoped bolt action rifle. This Semi-Auto rifles are ridiculous. I wonder who makes such decisions at DICE. I had enough people running around with DMRs in Battlefield 4. I do not need that treatment in Battlefield 1. The worst was when it was Hardcore server. The DMRs were two shot rifles with almost no recoil. ---
**Author:** ![JUWPAKABRA1632](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/258eb7/32.png) [@JUWPAKABRA1632](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JUWPAKABRA1632)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/3 "2016-06-16T16:58:00Z")
Im a fan of battlefield but for ones I wish to see something not arcade, REALISM my friend Im talking about realism, unbalanced realism, where maxim machine gun can pin down and annihilate entire squad, where one bullet to chest or head kill, where you can bleed to death, where as you said 80% of players should have bolt action rifles, vehicles should have original speed but it would be compensated by firepower (as i said before one bullet kills, etc.) where there is realistic aiming not this arcade s any more please. I BEG YOU DICE MAKE A REALISM MODE FOR US!!! ---
**Author:** ![Ameeba37](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/ameeba37/32/101194_2.png) [@Ameeba37](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Ameeba37)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/4 "2016-06-16T17:04:00Z")
IMO classes should have clear roles with no all-class weapons. Also, realism mode would be complete garbage. ---
**Author:** ![MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MartinBabl)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/5 "2016-06-16T17:08:00Z")
> [@Ameeba37](#): > > IMO classes should have clear roles with no all-class weapons. > > Also, realism mode would be complete garbage. It will make it easier for the new comers to Battlefield. There could be a small tutorial that explains each classes role on the Battlefield. Just like Valve did with Team Fortress 2. Classes have their specific roles and weapons. If you want realism then you can play Verdun. @JUWPAKABRA1632 ---
**Author:** ![JUWPAKABRA1632](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/258eb7/32.png) [@JUWPAKABRA1632](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JUWPAKABRA1632)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/6 "2016-06-16T18:06:00Z")
Verdun is not realistic is shiiit and its not on frostbite engine!!! jesus… ---
**Author:** ![jmz959](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/jmz959/32/102407_2.png) [@jmz959](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/jmz959)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/7 "2016-06-16T19:40:00Z")
I agree that medic should have some bolt action rifles minus magnified optics, since they fit into the classes primary engagement range ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:10pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/8 "2016-06-16T20:10:00Z")
Dear God. I wonder when these threads are going to stop. This has to be the 4,000,000th thread about “bolt-actions should be available to multiple classes” BS based entirely on the fact that “realistically” the war had the majority of people using bolt-actions. Stop trying to force realism into a game franchise that has never been and will never been “realistic”. ---
**Author:** ![wildcardx](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/e19adc/32.png) [@wildcardx](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/wildcardx)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/9 "2016-06-16T20:51:00Z")
We are not trying to force bolt action rifles because we want realism. We are doing it because its a WW1 shooter. We wanted that bolt action gameplay. If almost every player is going to be running around with semi/full auto why even make a WW1 era shooter. We already have BF3/4 for that. I would have been ok if they did a (steam punk fictional greatwar 1930s) setting. They could have done a lot with that. I was excited for a WW1 shooter but I don’t think that is what they are actually making. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/10 "2016-06-16T21:08:00Z")
> [@wildcardx](#): > > We are not trying to force bolt action rifles because we want realism. We are doing it because its a WW1 shooter. We wanted that bolt action gameplay. If almost every player is going to be running around with semi/full auto why even make a WW1 era shooter. We already have BF3/4 for that. I would have been ok if they did a (steam punk fictional greatwar 1930s) setting. They could have done a lot with that. I was excited for a WW1 shooter but I don’t think that is what they are actually making. It’s not a WW1 shooter - it’s a Battlefield game set in WW1. That takes priority. It’s supposed to feel like a Battlefield game, their mantra is literally “All out warfare” - not slowed down, monotonous, campy nearly-all-bolt-action gameplay. If BF2 through BF4 (with the exception of 2142) are all modern warfare games that all feature playerbases that nearly all use automatic weapons, what’s the point of making sequels to them? Why not just settle with Battlefield 2 and keep it that way? - Your logic. Every iteration of battlefield is a vastly exaggerrated and alternate version of the actual era of warfare represented in the games. Most people in WWII ran around with M1 Garands in the US military - but in BF1942 most people ran around with Thompsons and BARs, or MP40’s and STG44s. In a modern military era of warfare, most US soldiers are required to use a standard issue US miltary M4A1 - whereas in Battlefield 4 I can run around as a US soldier with a German PDW, a Russian pistol, a stinger, an EOD bot, and a . Liberties are taken with this franchise to make gameplay FUN, not to make it as similar to real-life conflicts of those eras of warfare as possible. They’re not making a WW1 shooter - they’re making a Battlefield game set in WW1, for Battlefield fans. ---
**Author:** ![NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/898d66/32.png) [@NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/NatsuTerran)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/11 "2016-06-16T21:27:00Z")
“It’s not a WW1 shooter - it’s a Battlefield game set in WW1. That takes priority.” This is precisely the reasoning that led to CoD recycling its tired format year after year in different settings. I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly want a Battlefield game copy and pasted into a WW1 setting. I mean, do what BC2 did with the Vietnam expansion, sure. But to make a whole new game? No, most of us were expecting a WW1 shooter that borrows Battlefield’s core mechanics like the squad system, classes, vehicle spawns, etc., and all of that would be bent to fit in a WW1 era, not vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/12 "2016-06-16T21:32:00Z")
> [@NatsuTerran](#): > > “It’s not a WW1 shooter - it’s a Battlefield game set in WW1. That takes priority.” > This is precisely the reasoning that led to CoD recycling its tired format year after year in different settings. I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly want a Battlefield game copy and pasted into a WW1 setting. I mean, do what BC2 did with the Vietnam expansion, sure. But to make a whole new game? No, most of us were expecting a WW1 shooter that borrows Battlefield’s core mechanics like the squad system, classes, vehicle spawns, etc., and all of that would be bent to fit in a WW1 era, not vice versa. What do you think literally every other AAA FPS franchise does? That’s about as logical as looking at a Baseball team and saying “Man, I thought when you guys got new players and started a new season, that you’d choose new team colors and a new logo, not just rehash the same old same old that makes your team what it is” DICE just applied the key aspects of this game that took it from a PC-only, limited fanbase shooter, to one of the top 3 shooters in the gaming industry, which is the way it’s been for the past four main DICE BF titles, and applied it to a WW1 setting. I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that you’re in a minority, seeing as most BF fans are dead excited for this game and aren’t complaining about the pacing or the weapons used. I’m also going to go out on a limb and assume that the majority of Battlefield fans want a Battlefield game - not an entirely different game with SOME “key elements” of Battlefield molded around it. That happened with Hardline, and everyone hated it and after just 1 year of life the game is nearly dead on several platforms. ---
**Author:** ![poisonstrudel](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@poisonstrudel](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/poisonstrudel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/13 "2016-06-16T21:35:00Z")
^What Natsu said, if I’m buying a sequel to a game I wan’t it to be more than just a texture pack and roster update. If I wanted that I’d buy Madden ---
**Author:** ![NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/898d66/32.png) [@NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/NatsuTerran)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/14 "2016-06-16T21:35:00Z")
Hardline is literally what YOU are arguing for, holy you are completely stupid. That is literally just a Battlefield game in a cops n’ robbers environment. They did not change the nature of Battlefield fundamentally; it was copy/paste. Environment changes that do not offer major gameplay changes should be expansions or large DLC, like BC2 Vietnam or BF4 Final Stand. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:48pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/15 "2016-06-16T21:48:00Z")
It’s just a copy and paste? Then tell me why less than 10% of players just a month after launch were using the “Support” class because it was so bad? Or why the TTK was nearly doubled? Or why there were no planes, tanks, etc? Or why there were entire gametypes set around driving cars in circles? Or why it was nearly FOCUSED entirely on infantry combat? Or why HC featured 100% health instead of 60% like the past three BF titles? Or maybe the fact that it was made and balanced by an entirely different developer? Trying to act like Hardline wasn’t a VASTLY different experience compared to core BF games is a losing battle. There’s a reason a huge majority of the Battlefield playerbase disliked the game greatly, which would not be the case it was literally a re-skinned BF4, which literally has 100,000+ daily players nearly 3 years after release. By your logic, Battlefield 4 should have been a DLC for Battlefield 3, because aside from the size of the arsenal, they were essentially the same game, even featured maps from BF3 in BF4. There were literally hundreds of people at BF4’s release saying it was just a reskin of BF3, and that they should have made 2143 or 1944. The gameplay doesn’t need to be VASTLY different every time a sequel comes out - you shouldn’t change things the majority of players love about the franchise just to make the game different - that’s a way to make your game crash and burn from a business’ point of view (just like what happened to Hardline). I think the Battlefield community’s reaction to Hardline and Battlefront speak LOADS about what people want in a Battlefield game and how they appreciate mass “changes” being made, because in comparison to past BF titles, they thought both the games sucked something fierce. Hell, before gameplay was revealed, EVERYONE and their mom were trouncing around the forum spewing “Ugh, BF1 is going to turn out exactly like Hardline and Battlefront”, which is obviously a negative connotation to vastly changing the franchise. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/16 "2016-06-16T21:49:00Z")
> [@poisonstrudel](#): > > ^What Natsu said, if I’m buying a sequel to a game I wan’t it to be more than just a texture pack and roster update. If I wanted that I’d buy Madden And if that’s honestly what you think Battlefield 1 is just because it features similar (not even “re-skinned”) gunplay, you seriously need to take a break from videogames and look at the broader picture. This game will be LOADS different from BF4, it just won’t abandon the overall gameplay of the Battlefield franchise in favor of something “more similar to ACTUAL WW1”. Go play Verdun. ---
**Author:** ![poisonstrudel](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@poisonstrudel](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/poisonstrudel)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 12:31am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/17 "2016-06-17T00:31:00Z")
I love how “Go play Verdun” is an argument. Yes, I play Verdun for a semi realistic WW1 game. I wanted Battlefield 1 to be a MODERATELY historically accurate game that I could have big, dumb fun in (Not realistic, historically accurate). I get that they need a variety of weapons for gameplays sake, but in a war where 98% used bolt action rifles you’d think more people would have those over unicorn guns. ---
**Author:** ![Fran05paco](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/fran05paco/32/101995_2.png) [@Fran05paco](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Fran05paco)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 12:40am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/18 "2016-06-17T00:40:00Z")
Realistic isn’t historically accurate. When you take a time period, like WW1, you expect minimum historical accuracy, but not realism. There is no point of using a historic period to make a fictional setting game. When they announced Battlefield, they announced that it was going to be a rooted-in-history game. They didn’t announced it as a realistic game. However, we can all see from the livestream that it isn’t at all. And also, if ‘‘go play verdun’’ is your only argument, stop discussing, since this isnt going to add nothing to the discussion ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/19 "2016-06-17T00:43:00Z")
> [@poisonstrudel](#): > > I love how “Go play Verdun” is an argument. Yes, I play Verdun for a semi realistic WW1 game. I wanted Battlefield 1 to be a MODERATELY historically accurate game that I could have big, dumb fun in (Not realistic, historically accurate). I get that they need a variety of weapons for gameplays sake, but in a war where 98% used bolt action rifles you’d think more people would have those over unicorn guns. And I’m sure they tested out BF1 with huge amounts of people running around with bolt-action rifles and it wasn’t the experience they were going for. As someone who, in these games, literally ONLY uses bolt-action rifles, that doesn’t sound like a fun experience at all. As an aggro sniper myself, I can personally say that there are already enough bolt-action campers in the franchise as it is. Everything in BF1 is historically accurate - just because 98% of players aren’t running around with bolt-action rifles, it doesn’t change that fact. There may be liberties taken with the era’s weaponry ratios strictly to make gameplay more “fun” for the overall BF playerbase, but that doesn’t mean what they’re including in the game isn’t authentic. The argument “Go Play Verdun” is used because it’s the game you (and a HELL of a lot of other players) are suggesting, not a game that plays or feels anything like what millions of fans have come to know as the “Battlefield experience”. It sounds like you guys essentially want a “Big Verdun” or “Verdun Sr.” more than you want a Battlefield game set in WW1 - which is what BF1 is. Battlefield has always been an arcade shooter that takes liberties with and vastly EXAGGERATES warfare in order to make it a more enjoyable experience for gamers compared to that of milsims or even semi-milsims. Classes in this game have role-specific weaponry for a reason - they’re balanced around doing good within THAT range. All giving Medics bolt-actions would do is cause almost nobody to want to play the Scout class anymore because the medic can health themselves, as well as revive players and repair vehicles. Not only that, but it would spread bolt-action camping to another completely different class, which would in turn increase the amount of people that complain about camping bolt-action users (of which there are already THOUSANDS on here), and would increase the amount of people claiming bolt-actions aren’t good enough in mid-to-close range because that’s where most of the Medic’s class roles are fulfilled. ---
**Author:** ![NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/898d66/32.png) [@NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/NatsuTerran)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163/20 "2016-06-17T14:35:00Z")
Yes, Hardline absolutely is a copy/paste. You are trying to look at finer details that are so utterly irrelevant instead of the bigger picture. Who cares about what class was most prominent? That has nothing to do with your “The Battlefield Experience™.” Bad Company 2 had vastly different class balance. And that game also had a vastly different TTK and bullet damage, even accuracy. There absolutely is not a “Battlefield Experience” that must carry over from game to game. The games should just be as authentic and immersive as possible, that’s the number one thing that people look at and see in Battlefield. And weapon historic accuracy has nothing to do with realism. It’s entirely realistic for an entire army to be using British Stens. What’s unrealistic about many people using an SMG? Nothing. But it’s inauthentic in the confines of the game for that proportion of this gun to be used. [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/make-unscoped-bolt-action-rifles-available-to-the-medic-class/102163.md?page=2)