Yeh there’s no reason for the x3 scopes on BAs to have glint when the x3 scopes of other weapons don’t
I also think it’d be a good idea to give using x3 scopes some advantage over using x6 as this would incentivise players to use x3 scopes and operate closer to their targets so there’d be fewer useless hill humpers on the edges of maps. The flip side would be that at shorter distances ARs and LMGs are more lethal so it wouldn’t be unbalanced.
Scope glint/glare is the worst balance methodology you could possibly add. It’s not realistic, especially when you arent even facing the sun.
If you want to balance long range scoped rifles then add more scope sway and require a longer time of holding your breath to stay on target.
Battlefield is turning into a child’s care bear game of pillow fighting, not a true battle simulator / man’s game.
Here is the sad part controllers on PC have an advantage of aim assist when using iron sights. This gives the false impression that BA are easy.
A mouse user gain no advantage on many BA switching to iron sights.
Perfect use of memes.
So glare would make sense, but…
You have to go for the head. Snipers like the White Death and others used irons to negate glint in bright environments, but aimed for the much larger torso. Given that this is not viable with anything but an AT rifle in BFV, scope glint is excessive. Indeed, even if this was the case, there is often glint when it is not needed.
You do not even need to kill someone irl to make them unable to fight due to excruciating pain and terror, that is also a thing that does not apply in the game
bUt tHeRe ShOulDnT eB aNyThiNg thAt CaN kILL mE beFoRe I hAve tIme tO tUrN AroUnd anD ADAD sPaM my WaY uP To ThEm AnD mAGdUmP tHeM bEcaUsE iT hUrTs my FeeLiNGS. tHeRe sHoulDnT be aNytHing tHaT cAN kILL mE bEcaUsE iT hUrtS mY feELiNgS
If you ask me, there should be much less weapons have access to scopes, especially on higher magnification, except sniper rifles of course. But even for snipers there needs to be some regulations.
The overcustomization of everything, especially guns, got ridiculous over the years, just for the sake to make the weapon look tacticool.
Sometimes less is more. I’d like to see that in the future. 
Less but meaningful also means there is a better chance that it will be possible to balance each thing and to give each its own niche.
I did like BF1 different range rifles. BFV tired that with bipod and bayonet but how the weapons handled meant differences was actual very small. Enfield v KarK should have had much clearier handling differences.
I hope we don’t end up like BFV, we could have a simple short range rifle with bayonet, low velocity, high damage, straight pull and no moving penalty, while long range rifle with bipod, high velocity, medium damage and moving penalty.
Mind you I would also make short range rifle 1HK HS limited range
I agree. Ive Never understood why 3X scopes are on ARs, SARs, and LMGs in this game. Recon should be the only one with access to those. “But i cant see”..“visibility” blah blah.
Iron sights on the very most weapons are actually fine how they are. The only ones I would say are bad are weapons with on top magazines like Bren, Madsen and Type 97.
All the previous titles (even BF1) had scopes on lmgs and SLRs. In BF4 you could put scopes on any gun (except handguns/shotguns).
It has been like this for the last 10 years…
Yep scopes were availabe for those guns. But why people were using holos and red dots on those guns anyway? Answer is simple.
Scopes on bf3 and Bf4 had tunnel vision. In bf5 there is no disadvantage for using 3x scope.
Yep and never been much of a fan of them other than the farquhar optical in bf1 for the red dot without dof. These scopes just promote distance play, hence the assault G43/g1-5/turner gameplay.
In a defense of scopes, the iron sights are usually implemented very poorly in these games
Theres reflex and nydar sights
Not on Recon Bolt action.
Do you even read?
