#MakeSnipersGreatAgain - How to fix BF 5 scoped Air guns

[mf_shro0m]

@DingoKillr

y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »
y_j_es_i said:

One_Called_Kane wrote: »

y_j_es_i said:

Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no

Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you’ve pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.

How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?

I have literally never seen it.

What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing, as you are:

1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,

2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.

It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.

Because you say so.

It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster

Apples and oranges. A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase. To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.

Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?

It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs

Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has

1. No squad system

2. Completely different gunplay mechanics

3. Completely different movement

4. Completely different map sizes

5. Completely different team sizes

So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43

An individual’s performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.

Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do

My suggestion is 100% about making BA’s more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.

You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1.

P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That’s another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility.

They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.

The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away

I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too

Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.

You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach.

When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS.

Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult.

I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.
Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.

The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS

If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS

[Sixclicks]

@StealthAria

Kunstula said:

Sixclicks said:
The damage of bolt actions was balanced around players running around with low health after being in a firefight. You were expected to relatively often get one hit kill body shots as a result of the initial plans for attrition.

So there we have the real cause of the bolt action rifles lacking damage. They balanced all other weapon classes around full health players, but bolt action rifles around wounded players. What an utter ridiculous case of double standards.

They’ve been balanced the same since at least bf3, the only difference is they dropped max damage because people didn’t like getting 1-shot when they tried to knife a Recon, the minimum damage has remained largely unchanged.

BF1 had the best balanced rifles in a long while, most realistic too.

The minimum is lower too when you consider we now have half the range compared to previous BF games. You didn’t drop to minimum damage in BF4 until around 150 meters. In BFV you reach the minimum around 60-80 meters.

They’re not balanced the same as previous BF games at all. BF3 and BF4 also didn’t have drag which slows your bullet as it travels through the air. In BF3 and BF4 your bullet never slowed down until it hit something.

[L-M3rc3n4ry]

@y_j_es_i

My issue with the BFI system is that it’s sweet spot system encouraged some players to operate 100-150m from their targets, which facilitates camping.
My proposition is that the sweet spot for BAs should be at 10-30m or 10-60m for the lower damage and higher damage BAs respectively as this would encourage players with BAs to operate 10-30m or 10-60m from hostiles, I.e. about where they would be if they were sticking with their squad and/or ptfo

The unique sniper with 100-150m sweetspot is the springfield that is not the most used. SMLE and MArtini are.

[Sixclicks]

TLDR: There’s close to a 50/50 distribution in usage of close to mid-close range suited rifles and mid-long to long range suited rifles in BF1.

If we combine variants, the top 5 for “Time Spent” are (as of April 25):

1. SMLE - 24.1% (40 - 75 sweetspot)
2. M1903 - 13.4% (100 - 150 sweetspot)
3. Martini Henry - 12.7% (30 - 80 sweetspot)
4. Russian 1895 - 12.6% (60 - 100 sweetspot)
5. Gewehr 98 - 12.6% (80 - 125 sweetspot)

So a mid ranged weapon that’s also pretty decent for aggressive play due to its 10 round magazine is the top weapon by quite a large margin.

If you add the SMLE and Martini Henry since they’re both good for aggressive or semi-aggressive gameplay, you get 36.8%.

If you add the other three rifles since they’re all best suited to longer ranges, you get 38.6%.

Which I guess you could take to mean the distribution of players who are playing relatively close to the enemy and those who would rather sit back and snipe is pretty close to even. At least with the top 5 weapons. Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.

The rest of the list would be:
6. Gewehr M.95 - 6.3%
7. Lebel - 5.2%
8. Ross - 3.7%
9. M1917 - 3.4%
10. Arisaka - 2.9%
11. Mosin - 1.6%
12. Vetterli - 0.7%
13. Carcano - 0.4%

Combining the M.95, Ross, Arisaka, Vetterli, and Carcano give you 14%. Combining the rest gives you 10.2%

So the grand total is:
50.8% rifles suited to close the mid-close range.
48.8% rifles suited to mid-long to long range.

The remaining is likely due to decimal rounding.

[mf_shro0m]

I’ve heard that guns on average were less accurate in BFI than they are in BFV. This would mean that hitting targets who are further away (say 50m+) would’ve been more difficult in BFI. Additionally, due to the game’s balancing SMGs followed by LMGs (which had the BFI recoil system) were the most used weapons.

Against hostiles 40-75m away (so SMLE users in their sweet spot), SMG users wouldn’t have stood a chance.
LMG users, due to the BFI recoil, system, would’ve had to contend with long average TTKs as the first few rounds would’ve been very inaccurate.
This means that even against the BA with the second closest sweet spot, most players would’ve stood little chance fighting back.
Against all the other BAs except for the Martini, the situation would’ve been even worse the majority of the time.
Barely standing a chance when fighting back is always frustrating, especially if it’s a systemic issue.

In BFV weapons are typically more accurate and SARs and ARs, which are naturally better suited to engagements at 40-75m than SMGs and guns with the BFI LMG recoil system, are the most used weapons.
If a sweet spot were to be placed at 10-60m then players using SARs, ARs and LMGs would stand a good chance in engagements within the sweet spot. Hence, players would be able to fight back and they’d stand a very good chance.
10-60m is also a good distance for assault and support AP explosives and so using the sweet spot would put recons in danger of getting blown up

[GP-Caliber]

@y_j_es_i

I’ve heard that guns on average were less accurate in BFI than they are in BFV. This would mean that hitting targets who are further away (say 50m+) would’ve been more difficult in BFI. Additionally, due to the game’s balancing SMGs followed by LMGs (which had the BFI recoil system) were the most used weapons.

Against hostiles 40-75m away (so SMLE users in their sweet spot), SMG users wouldn’t have stood a chance.
LMG users, due to the BFI recoil, system, would’ve had to contend with long average TTKs as the first few rounds would’ve been very inaccurate.
This means that even against the BA with the second closest sweet spot, most players would’ve stood little chance fighting back.
Against all the other BAs except for the Martini, the situation would’ve been even worse the majority of the time.
Barely standing a chance when fighting back is always frustrating, especially if it’s a systemic issue.

In BFV weapons are typically more accurate and SARs and ARs, which are naturally better suited to engagements at 40-75m than SMGs and guns with the BFI LMG recoil system, are the most used weapons.
If a sweet spot were to be placed at 10-60m then players using SARs, ARs and LMGs would stand a good chance in engagements within the sweet spot. Hence, players would be able to fight back and they’d stand a very good chance.
10-60m is also a good distance for assault and support AP explosives and so using the sweet spot would put recons in danger of getting blown up

sweet spot sucks. the rifles problem is not the sweet spot or damage its the velocity. up the velocities and snipers are fine.

[Killerplautze5XL]

Actually for the bolt-actions I would also increase the bullet velocity. I would probably give rifles like the Kar98 and the Krag the bullet velocity of 920 m/s which some of the assault’s semi-automatic rifles have got. At the same time I would allocate those semi-automatic rifles the currently fastest bullet velocity of any bolt-action rifle which is 700 m/s.

Moreover I would definitely bump up the damage model a little. I think that the Krag and Kar98 should obtain a maximum damage of 85 up to 60-70 meters and then slowly dropp off to a minimum value of maybe 65-70 at ranges beyond. Rifles like the Lee-Enfield should definitely be buffed in terms of bullet velocity since 500 m/s is even slower than those of some SMGs. However for those rifles that can repeat quicker I would not buff the damage model to the level of the slower ones. I would probably give the Lee-Enfield a maximum damage of 75 up to ranges of 60-70 meters which then drops down to a minimum of 55 which is the current maximum.

Additionally I would reduce the time it takes to scope in with 3x and 6x scopes and the time it takes to switch to your sidearm. Bolt-action rifles should be a viable option for aggressively playing the objective again in my opinion. In the current state of the game however nobody fears those rifles at all. If I see an enemy scout looking at me I just moce unpredictably without even paying that player too much attention. In most cases he will not be able to eliminate you anyways.

By the way I also advocate a removal of 3x scopes for some of the assault’s and support’s weapons.

[DingoKillr]

@Sixclicks

TLDR: There’s close to a 50/50 distribution in usage of close to mid-close range suited rifles and mid-long to long range suited rifles in BF1.

If we combine variants, the top 5 for “Time Spent” are (as of April 25):

1. SMLE - 24.1% (40 - 75 sweetspot)
2. M1903 - 13.4% (100 - 150 sweetspot)
3. Martini Henry - 12.7% (30 - 80 sweetspot)
4. Russian 1895 - 12.6% (60 - 100 sweetspot)
5. Gewehr 98 - 12.6% (80 - 125 sweetspot)

So a mid ranged weapon that’s also pretty decent for aggressive play due to its 10 round magazine is the top weapon by quite a large margin.

If you add the SMLE and Martini Henry since they’re both good for aggressive or semi-aggressive gameplay, you get 36.8%.

If you add the other three rifles since they’re all best suited to longer ranges, you get 38.6%.

Which I guess you could take to mean the distribution of players who are playing relatively close to the enemy and those who would rather sit back and snipe is pretty close to even. At least with the top 5 weapons. Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.

The rest of the list would be:
6. Gewehr M.95 - 6.3%
7. Lebel - 5.2%
8. Ross - 3.7%
9. M1917 - 3.4%
10. Arisaka - 2.9%
11. Mosin - 1.6%
12. Vetterli - 0.7%
13. Carcano - 0.4%

Combining the M.95, Ross, Arisaka, Vetterli, and Carcano give you 14%. Combining the rest gives you 10.2%

So the grand total is:
50.8% rifles suited to close the mid-close range.
48.8% rifles suited to mid-long to long range.

The remaining is likely due to decimal rounding.

That is what people preferred but does not mean the range which players actual operated. Remember BF1 had variants with fixed scopes so weapons even with a long range sweet spot might have been used at short range.

[Noodlesocks]

Also, 1x iron sights or some sort of 1x sight would be greatly appreciated.

[mf_shro0m]

@DingoKillr

Sixclicks said:
TLDR: There’s close to a 50/50 distribution in usage of close to mid-close range suited rifles and mid-long to long range suited rifles in BF1.

If we combine variants, the top 5 for “Time Spent” are (as of April 25):

1. SMLE - 24.1% (40 - 75 sweetspot)
2. M1903 - 13.4% (100 - 150 sweetspot)
3. Martini Henry - 12.7% (30 - 80 sweetspot)
4. Russian 1895 - 12.6% (60 - 100 sweetspot)
5. Gewehr 98 - 12.6% (80 - 125 sweetspot)

So a mid ranged weapon that’s also pretty decent for aggressive play due to its 10 round magazine is the top weapon by quite a large margin.

If you add the SMLE and Martini Henry since they’re both good for aggressive or semi-aggressive gameplay, you get 36.8%.

If you add the other three rifles since they’re all best suited to longer ranges, you get 38.6%.

Which I guess you could take to mean the distribution of players who are playing relatively close to the enemy and those who would rather sit back and snipe is pretty close to even. At least with the top 5 weapons. Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.

The rest of the list would be:
6. Gewehr M.95 - 6.3%
7. Lebel - 5.2%
8. Ross - 3.7%
9. M1917 - 3.4%
10. Arisaka - 2.9%
11. Mosin - 1.6%
12. Vetterli - 0.7%
13. Carcano - 0.4%

Combining the M.95, Ross, Arisaka, Vetterli, and Carcano give you 14%. Combining the rest gives you 10.2%

So the grand total is:
50.8% rifles suited to close the mid-close range.
48.8% rifles suited to mid-long to long range.

The remaining is likely due to decimal rounding.

That is what people preferred but does not mean the range which players actual operated. Remember BF1 had variants with fixed scopes so weapons even with a long range sweet spot might have been used at short range.

And whilst a few outliers would’ve did that, why would most players operate the sweet spot of their rifle? It’s illogical

[DingoKillr]

@y_j_es_i

@DingoKillr

Sixclicks said:
TLDR: There’s close to a 50/50 distribution in usage of close to mid-close range suited rifles and mid-long to long range suited rifles in BF1.

If we combine variants, the top 5 for “Time Spent” are (as of April 25):

1. SMLE - 24.1% (40 - 75 sweetspot)
2. M1903 - 13.4% (100 - 150 sweetspot)
3. Martini Henry - 12.7% (30 - 80 sweetspot)
4. Russian 1895 - 12.6% (60 - 100 sweetspot)
5. Gewehr 98 - 12.6% (80 - 125 sweetspot)

So a mid ranged weapon that’s also pretty decent for aggressive play due to its 10 round magazine is the top weapon by quite a large margin.

If you add the SMLE and Martini Henry since they’re both good for aggressive or semi-aggressive gameplay, you get 36.8%.

If you add the other three rifles since they’re all best suited to longer ranges, you get 38.6%.

Which I guess you could take to mean the distribution of players who are playing relatively close to the enemy and those who would rather sit back and snipe is pretty close to even. At least with the top 5 weapons. Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.

The rest of the list would be:
6. Gewehr M.95 - 6.3%
7. Lebel - 5.2%
8. Ross - 3.7%
9. M1917 - 3.4%
10. Arisaka - 2.9%
11. Mosin - 1.6%
12. Vetterli - 0.7%
13. Carcano - 0.4%

Combining the M.95, Ross, Arisaka, Vetterli, and Carcano give you 14%. Combining the rest gives you 10.2%

So the grand total is:
50.8% rifles suited to close the mid-close range.
48.8% rifles suited to mid-long to long range.

The remaining is likely due to decimal rounding.

That is what people preferred but does not mean the range which players actual operated. Remember BF1 had variants with fixed scopes so weapons even with a long range sweet spot might have been used at short range.

And whilst a few outliers would’ve did that, why would most players operate the sweet spot of their rifle? It’s illogical

Did I say most? no.
It is not illogical the Gewehr 98 had a Iron Sight variant, some mode required you to use and with Aim Assist up to 100m allowed you to play aggressive and still being effective at range.

[Sixclicks]

@DingoKillr

Sixclicks said:
TLDR: There’s close to a 50/50 distribution in usage of close to mid-close range suited rifles and mid-long to long range suited rifles in BF1.

If we combine variants, the top 5 for “Time Spent” are (as of April 25):

1. SMLE - 24.1% (40 - 75 sweetspot)
2. M1903 - 13.4% (100 - 150 sweetspot)
3. Martini Henry - 12.7% (30 - 80 sweetspot)
4. Russian 1895 - 12.6% (60 - 100 sweetspot)
5. Gewehr 98 - 12.6% (80 - 125 sweetspot)

So a mid ranged weapon that’s also pretty decent for aggressive play due to its 10 round magazine is the top weapon by quite a large margin.

If you add the SMLE and Martini Henry since they’re both good for aggressive or semi-aggressive gameplay, you get 36.8%.

If you add the other three rifles since they’re all best suited to longer ranges, you get 38.6%.

Which I guess you could take to mean the distribution of players who are playing relatively close to the enemy and those who would rather sit back and snipe is pretty close to even. At least with the top 5 weapons. Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.

The rest of the list would be:
6. Gewehr M.95 - 6.3%
7. Lebel - 5.2%
8. Ross - 3.7%
9. M1917 - 3.4%
10. Arisaka - 2.9%
11. Mosin - 1.6%
12. Vetterli - 0.7%
13. Carcano - 0.4%

Combining the M.95, Ross, Arisaka, Vetterli, and Carcano give you 14%. Combining the rest gives you 10.2%

So the grand total is:
50.8% rifles suited to close the mid-close range.
48.8% rifles suited to mid-long to long range.

The remaining is likely due to decimal rounding.

That is what people preferred but does not mean the range which players actual operated. Remember BF1 had variants with fixed scopes so weapons even with a long range sweet spot might have been used at short range.

That’s what I said here:

“Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.”

6th paragraph.

[DingoKillr]

@Sixclicks

@DingoKillr

Sixclicks said:
TLDR: There’s close to a 50/50 distribution in usage of close to mid-close range suited rifles and mid-long to long range suited rifles in BF1.

If we combine variants, the top 5 for “Time Spent” are (as of April 25):

1. SMLE - 24.1% (40 - 75 sweetspot)
2. M1903 - 13.4% (100 - 150 sweetspot)
3. Martini Henry - 12.7% (30 - 80 sweetspot)
4. Russian 1895 - 12.6% (60 - 100 sweetspot)
5. Gewehr 98 - 12.6% (80 - 125 sweetspot)

So a mid ranged weapon that’s also pretty decent for aggressive play due to its 10 round magazine is the top weapon by quite a large margin.

If you add the SMLE and Martini Henry since they’re both good for aggressive or semi-aggressive gameplay, you get 36.8%.

If you add the other three rifles since they’re all best suited to longer ranges, you get 38.6%.

Which I guess you could take to mean the distribution of players who are playing relatively close to the enemy and those who would rather sit back and snipe is pretty close to even. At least with the top 5 weapons. Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.

The rest of the list would be:
6. Gewehr M.95 - 6.3%
7. Lebel - 5.2%
8. Ross - 3.7%
9. M1917 - 3.4%
10. Arisaka - 2.9%
11. Mosin - 1.6%
12. Vetterli - 0.7%
13. Carcano - 0.4%

Combining the M.95, Ross, Arisaka, Vetterli, and Carcano give you 14%. Combining the rest gives you 10.2%

So the grand total is:
50.8% rifles suited to close the mid-close range.
48.8% rifles suited to mid-long to long range.

The remaining is likely due to decimal rounding.

That is what people preferred but does not mean the range which players actual operated. Remember BF1 had variants with fixed scopes so weapons even with a long range sweet spot might have been used at short range.

That’s what I said here:

“Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.”

6th paragraph.

Sorry, I missed that.

[mf_shro0m]

@DingoKillr

y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »
Sixclicks said:

TLDR: There’s close to a 50/50 distribution in usage of close to mid-close range suited rifles and mid-long to long range suited rifles in BF1.

If we combine variants, the top 5 for “Time Spent” are (as of April 25):

1. SMLE - 24.1% (40 - 75 sweetspot)

2. M1903 - 13.4% (100 - 150 sweetspot)

3. Martini Henry - 12.7% (30 - 80 sweetspot)

4. Russian 1895 - 12.6% (60 - 100 sweetspot)

5. Gewehr 98 - 12.6% (80 - 125 sweetspot)

So a mid ranged weapon that’s also pretty decent for aggressive play due to its 10 round magazine is the top weapon by quite a large margin.

If you add the SMLE and Martini Henry since they’re both good for aggressive or semi-aggressive gameplay, you get 36.8%.

If you add the other three rifles since they’re all best suited to longer ranges, you get 38.6%.

Which I guess you could take to mean the distribution of players who are playing relatively close to the enemy and those who would rather sit back and snipe is pretty close to even. At least with the top 5 weapons. Although that’s not necessarily true since players could be using long ranged suited rifles at close range or close ranged suited rifles at long range.

The rest of the list would be:

6. Gewehr M.95 - 6.3%

7. Lebel - 5.2%

8. Ross - 3.7%

9. M1917 - 3.4%

10. Arisaka - 2.9%

11. Mosin - 1.6%

12. Vetterli - 0.7%

13. Carcano - 0.4%

Combining the M.95, Ross, Arisaka, Vetterli, and Carcano give you 14%. Combining the rest gives you 10.2%

So the grand total is:

50.8% rifles suited to close the mid-close range.

48.8% rifles suited to mid-long to long range.

The remaining is likely due to decimal rounding.

That is what people preferred but does not mean the range which players actual operated. Remember BF1 had variants with fixed scopes so weapons even with a long range sweet spot might have been used at short range.

And whilst a few outliers would’ve did that, why would most players operate the sweet spot of their rifle? It’s illogical

Did I say most? no.
It is not illogical the Gewehr 98 had a Iron Sight variant, some mode required you to use and with Aim Assist up to 100m allowed you to play aggressive and still being effective at range.

Just sayin that in such a scenario it would’ve been logical to switch to the SMLE. Given how obvious that is the proportion of players who would’ve insisted on using a G95 for aggressive play or to use with iron sights would’ve been small

[mf_shro0m]

@GP-Caliber

@y_j_es_i

I’ve heard that guns on average were less accurate in BFI than they are in BFV. This would mean that hitting targets who are further away (say 50m+) would’ve been more difficult in BFI. Additionally, due to the game’s balancing SMGs followed by LMGs (which had the BFI recoil system) were the most used weapons.

Against hostiles 40-75m away (so SMLE users in their sweet spot), SMG users wouldn’t have stood a chance.
LMG users, due to the BFI recoil, system, would’ve had to contend with long average TTKs as the first few rounds would’ve been very inaccurate.
This means that even against the BA with the second closest sweet spot, most players would’ve stood little chance fighting back.
Against all the other BAs except for the Martini, the situation would’ve been even worse the majority of the time.
Barely standing a chance when fighting back is always frustrating, especially if it’s a systemic issue.

In BFV weapons are typically more accurate and SARs and ARs, which are naturally better suited to engagements at 40-75m than SMGs and guns with the BFI LMG recoil system, are the most used weapons.
If a sweet spot were to be placed at 10-60m then players using SARs, ARs and LMGs would stand a good chance in engagements within the sweet spot. Hence, players would be able to fight back and they’d stand a very good chance.
10-60m is also a good distance for assault and support AP explosives and so using the sweet spot would put recons in danger of getting blown up

sweet spot sucks. the rifles problem is not the sweet spot or damage its the velocity. up the velocities and snipers are fine.

at long range yes it is. But at short range a 15% boost to bullet velocity isn’t gonna mean much and as we explored earlier, even if damage were increased up to 60m at 30-60m recons would always either have to land two rounds or land 2 or 3 follow up pistol rounds if they don’t land a headshot first time. That is a death sentence.
Seeing as average combat distances in this game are at something like 20-80m if you’re not holding an SMG or shotgun, that means that recons would still be too hard pressed to ptfo because at 30-80m the vast majority wont stand a chance.

At the end of the day, the objective is to make better recons (not just the top 5%) able to ptfo, and not to make it so recons start trying to clear buildings (<30m engagement distances)

[von_Campenstein]

@y_j_es_i

@DingoKillr

y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »
y_j_es_i said:

One_Called_Kane wrote: »

y_j_es_i said:

Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no

Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you’ve pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.

How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?

I have literally never seen it.

What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing, as you are:

1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,

2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.

It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.

Because you say so.

It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster

Apples and oranges. A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase. To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.

Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?

It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs

Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has

1. No squad system

2. Completely different gunplay mechanics

3. Completely different movement

4. Completely different map sizes

5. Completely different team sizes

So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43

An individual’s performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.

Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do

My suggestion is 100% about making BA’s more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.

You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1.

P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That’s another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility.

They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.

The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away

I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too

Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.

You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach.

When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS.

Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult.

I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.
Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.

The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS

If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS

Noone I’ve talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.

[L-M3rc3n4ry]

@von_Campenstein

@y_j_es_i

@DingoKillr

y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »
y_j_es_i said:

One_Called_Kane wrote: »

y_j_es_i said:

Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no

Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you’ve pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.

How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?

I have literally never seen it.

What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing, as you are:

1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,

2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.

It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.

Because you say so.

It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster

Apples and oranges. A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase. To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.

Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?

It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs

Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has

1. No squad system

2. Completely different gunplay mechanics

3. Completely different movement

4. Completely different map sizes

5. Completely different team sizes

So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43

An individual’s performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.

Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do

My suggestion is 100% about making BA’s more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.

You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1.

P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That’s another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility.

They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.

The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away

I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too

Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.

You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach.

When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS.

Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult.

I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.
Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.

The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS

If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS

Noone I’ve talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.

This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

[GP-Caliber]

@-L-M3rc3n4ry

von_Campenstein said:

y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »
y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »

y_j_es_i said:

One_Called_Kane wrote: »

y_j_es_i said:

Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no

Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you’ve pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.

How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?

I have literally never seen it.

What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing, as you are:

1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,

2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.

It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.

Because you say so.

It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster

Apples and oranges. A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase. To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.

Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?

It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs

Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has

1. No squad system

2. Completely different gunplay mechanics

3. Completely different movement

4. Completely different map sizes

5. Completely different team sizes

So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43

An individual’s performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.

Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do

My suggestion is 100% about making BA’s more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.

You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1.

P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That’s another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility.

They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.

The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away

I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too

Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.

You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach.

When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS.

Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult.

I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.

Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.

The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS

If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS

Noone I’ve talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.

This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

[L-M3rc3n4ry]

@GP-Caliber

this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

Martini is only used by sweetspot and Gw 95 is faster than SMLE but not used as much. Sweetspot helps a lot. An “area” to get OHK 2 times greater…

[mf_shro0m]

@GP-Caliber

@-L-M3rc3n4ry

von_Campenstein said:

y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »
y_j_es_i said:

DingoKillr wrote: »

y_j_es_i said:

One_Called_Kane wrote: »

y_j_es_i said:

Let’s revisit the fact that the G95 does 80 damage up to 25m and the Kar does 75 damage up to 25m. This means that within 25m, following up a shot from any of the assault guns or LMGs and MMGs with a G95 or Kar round would result in a kill. Is this any different to if G95s did 95 damage? In 99% of engagements, no

Actually yes, it would as I and several others in this thread have told you already. You seem bound and determined to believe that this 2% number you’ve pulled from your posterior is valid. 95 damage within 25m is significant. The fact that you continue to refuse to see this absolutely blows my mind. That means that an enemy who has been brushed by a grenade, or grazed by a bullet, or sneezed at by a vehicle, or simply stubbed their little toe jumping out of a window is now a one shot kill. And the curve starting at 95 instead of 80 means that the dropoff gets pushed further back, meaning pistols with poor damage output but fast draw speeds can be used for that last hit.

How often do you see recons with G95s or Kars sticking with their squads to make the most of this?

I have literally never seen it.

What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing, as you are:

1. Not necessarily looking for the situation you are listing in the first place, making your statements on the subject uncertain at best. Even if you were,

2. You are a single player in a population of tens of thousands, making your personal experiences at best a small drop in the bucket and at worst tainted by confirmation bias.

It means that increasing their damage to 95 at close range won’t actually make a noticeable difference.

Because you say so.

It’d be like giving the medic guns at launch an extra 1m of range to silence the chatter about how EA f***ed up the balancing. It’s like trying to close a deep gash in your leg with a plaster

Apples and oranges. A 1m range increase is not comparable to a 15% damage increase. To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

I think it’s funny how confident you seem to be seeing as only 2% of players stuck with their squads on the larger maps in CoD whilst holding BAs, and some of those BAs are OHK to everything but the enemy’s hands and feet.

Can’t you figure out why players doing that are so few and far between?

It’s because the vast majority can still do better with ARs, LMGs and SARs

Ignoring the magic 2% number you seem so fond of quoting, this statement is so completely divergent from the topic you may as well be supporting yourself with statistics from Counterstrike (or maybe not). Call of Duty has

1. No squad system

2. Completely different gunplay mechanics

3. Completely different movement

4. Completely different map sizes

5. Completely different team sizes

So what if there’s a few more recons in this world who can roll around wrecking havoc, there are some assaults and supports doing that every round. I saw a game where this dude who wasn’t camping went 200+:2 in a game of GO with a G43

An individual’s performance in an unranked public lobby counts for exactly zip and zilch where weapon balance is concerned. For every one guy like that I can point out entire teams of people going negative using the same gun.

Whilst you may not care about getting more recons to ptfo as opposed to hill humping or about making using BAs feasible for ptfo in the hands of good players, a lot of people do

My suggestion is 100% about making BA’s more feasible to PTFO for good players. Your suggestion is tantamount to taking the top 40% of bolt action users and making them as effective as the top 10%. I care about improving the gameplay for Recon players, but not at the expense of balance.

You’re enlarging the effect of increasing damage to 95 with your own confirmation bias.

How often have you seen people complain about the SMLE MKIII being OP in BFI?

Introducing a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m would essentially make the BAs in BFV feel like the SMLE did in BFI. The only differences would be that the sweet spot is shifted 20m closer and all the BAs but the Enfield will have 5-6 rounds per mag as opposed to 10.

If the MKIII wasn’t considered OP in BFI then adding a sweet spot at 10-30m and 10-60m won’t be considered OP either

DICE must have thought plenty of complaints as they added glint to every Recon scope and gave the target a rainbow every time scoped looked at them in sweet spot range.

Even with such a sweet spot BFV weapons will not feel like BF1.

P.S. Every 3x scope already has slower ADS times than Iron Sights. That’s another problem with zoom, scopes and sights visibility.

They added scope glint to make camping harder. Scope glint doesn’t really affect you at close-medium because they’re gonna know exactly where you are anyway.

The reason x6 scopes have more glint than x3 scopes is to discourage the use of x6 and thus discourage players from sniping from 200+m away

I know that every x3 scopes already ADSes slower than iron sights but I think they should make the difference in ADS speeds bigger. Not only would this encourage recons to use iron sights but it’ll encourage assaults and supports too

Camping harder, really high power scopes had glint from the start low power Recon scopes only got it so they could get rainbow glint when you see them in the sweet spot.

You clearly believe the myth that glint discourages campers. If I choice the x6 scope knowning it has a strong glint at which distance with the current weapon spec am I going to stay at? Close to medium where the glint can be easily seen making me a easy target for any or long range where if it is seen few can not easily reach.

When glint was added to the lower power scopes in BF1 I saw more switch to Medic or high power scopes on BA then Iron Sight BA. The only big IS BA users was Aim Assist users which does not exist in that form in BFV.

Making ADS speeds slower might move more to IS but it will be even more annoying and kills a meta balance. You are not making guns with scopes better giving them a major disadvantage at medium range, effectively buffing IS. Those that use scopes will stop using even low power scopes/sights too and more will move to either x3 or IS. Moving to x3 will push them further out to over come the slow ADS.

That is not what should happen, IS should not be the go to sight for close to medium range. Even not increasing ADS times on lower power scopes/sights now gives them the advantage so players will switch those instead of IS.

Players will either take the easiest path for high rewards or will continue to play their style no matter how diffcult.

I mean increase the ADS speed incrementally in line with their magnification.

Dude, only something like 5% of players even use aperture sights because they suck.

The reason why players didn’t really start using IS in BFI is because the sweet spots were mostly at 60-100m, with some at 100-150m. So if you want to use the sweet spot, it’s better to move away and switch to a BA with a sweet spot that’s further away, because 60-100m is tough with IS

If however all the sweet spots were at closer than 60m then people would have to choose between having no sweet spot and staying/moving further away and moving closer to <60m which is optimal for using IS

Noone I’ve talked to who used bolt actions in BF1 selected them based on their sweetspot, they opted for a good clear iron sight, clip size, reload time was also a factor but rarely if ever was the sweetspot brought up in the equation.

This is partially truth. For most rifles, yes, But Martini for eg is only used by his sweetspot. Worst muzzle speed, worst clip size, long reload time, but the best sweetspot. The SMLE has a lot of advantages for aggressive play, teh sweetspot is just one more advantage.

this. the main reason people use the smle is because of its versatility and 10 round clip. if the smle did not have a sweet spot it would still be the best rifle in the game.

I very much doubt that. If they buffed the BFV enfield’s muzzle velocity to 800m/s but made it so headshots were 2HKs, no-one would use it. Why would they pick it over an SLR, let alone over an SAR?