# Speechless.... **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [January 14, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021 "2019-01-14T15:09:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/1 "2019-01-14T15:09:00Z")
Presented without comment: Reduced the minimum damage of the Gewehr 43 and Selbstlader 1916 to 33.5 from 35. Increased the damage for the Mk VI Revolver. Two-hit kill range is now 12 m (previously 7 m), three-hit kill range is 30 m (previously 12 m), four-hit kill range is 50 m (previously 30 m). Minimum damage is now 22 instead of 15. Damage dropped too steeply for the rate of fire and magazine capacity of this weapon. **WHO IS DESIGNING THESE CHANGES???** To be clear: The Gewehr is the best gun in the game and this change does nothing to it The revolver is the best pistol/is a shotgun and is now even more overpowered ---
**Author:** ![naitch44](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/naitch44/32/102913_2.png) [@naitch44](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/naitch44)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/2 "2019-01-14T15:12:00Z")
Got to love the added recoil to the 1907 as well. Hardly anyone uses it as it is, at least not that I’ve come across, so why nerf it? I think they pull their data out of their tbh. Meanwhile other weapons that desperately need attention go untouched… ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/3 "2019-01-14T15:15:00Z")
> [@naitch44](#): > > Got to love the added recoil to the 1907 as well. Hardly anyone uses it as it is, at least not that I’ve come across, so why nerf it? I think they pull their data out of their tbh. > > Meanwhile other weapons that desperately need attention go untouched… So they reduce the damage of the most overpowered weapon in the game by 1.5, still making it a 3 shot kill…??? Then they increase the damage of the most overpowered and therefore only viable pistol, one that already needed a NERF? ---
**Author:** ![TheSacar](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thesacar/32/104967_2.png) [@TheSacar](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/TheSacar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:18pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/4 "2019-01-14T15:18:00Z")
> [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > [@naitch44](#): > > > > Got to love the added recoil to the 1907 as well. Hardly anyone uses it as it is, at least not that I’ve come across, so why nerf it? I think they pull their data out of their tbh. > > > > Meanwhile other weapons that desperately need attention go untouched… > > So they reduce the damage of the most overpowered weapon in the game by 1.5, still making it a 3 shot kill…??? > > Then they increase the damage of the most overpowered and therefore only viable pistol, one that already needed a NERF? Wait? You are calling the Revolver Mk IV the only viable pistol AND claiming it needs a nerf? Or am I misunderstanding you? ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:22pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/5 "2019-01-14T15:22:00Z")
> [@TheSacar](#): > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > [@naitch44](#): > > > > > > Got to love the added recoil to the 1907 as well. Hardly anyone uses it as it is, at least not that I’ve come across, so why nerf it? I think they pull their data out of their tbh. > > > > > > Meanwhile other weapons that desperately need attention go untouched… > > > > So they reduce the damage of the most overpowered weapon in the game by 1.5, still making it a 3 shot kill…??? > > > > Then they increase the damage of the most overpowered and therefore only viable pistol, one that already needed a NERF? > > Wait? You are calling the Revolver Mk IV the only viable pistol AND claiming it needs a nerf? Or am I misunderstanding you? Yes, I am saying that the buff is a joke and that a one shot headshot or 2 shot body shot up close is also a joke. There is no reason to use another pistol before or after this patch if you can actually aim. ---
**Author:** ![Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jesus4000)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:23pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/6 "2019-01-14T15:23:00Z")
> [@0SiGHT0](#): > > Presented without comment: > > Reduced the minimum damage of the Gewehr 43 and Selbstlader 1916 to 33.5 from > 35. This is a much needed change, since the assault semi-autos are incredibly overpowered right now, outdamaging all recon weapons (which should be the long range weapons). > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > Increased the damage for the Mk VI Revolver. Two-hit kill range is now 12 m > (previously 7 m), three-hit kill range is 30 m (previously 12 m), four-hit kill range is 50 > m (previously 30 m). Minimum damage is now 22 instead of 15. Damage dropped too > steeply for the rate of fire and magazine capacity of this weapon. The damage drop-off of the revolver was insanely high, changing it was also much needed. However this change might be a bit over the top. > [@naitch44](#): > > Got to love the added recoil to the 1907 as well. Hardly anyone uses it as it is, at least not that I’ve come across, so why nerf it? It also got a buff: > [@](#): > > Removed the Extended Magazine Specialization for the M1907 SF and made the extended magazine equipped by default. Recoil Buffer has been added as a replacement. This weapon’s Specializations will be reset and the means for unlocking them will be refunded. The M1907 SF was not useful enough without the extended magazine upgrade, making the hipfire upgrades a bad choice. I think the changes to the M1907 SF are good, as this gun was unbeatable. It was a mistery to me why so few people used it. People are whining over changes they haven’t even tested themselves yet… ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:24pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/7 "2019-01-14T15:24:00Z")
> [@Jesus4000](#): > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > Presented without comment: > > > > Reduced the minimum damage of the Gewehr 43 and Selbstlader 1916 to 33.5 from > > 35. > > This is a much needed change, since the assault semi-autos are incredibly overpowered right now, outdamaging all recon weapons (which should be the long range weapons). > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > Increased the damage for the Mk VI Revolver. Two-hit kill range is now 12 m > > (previously 7 m), three-hit kill range is 30 m (previously 12 m), four-hit kill range is 50 > > m (previously 30 m). Minimum damage is now 22 instead of 15. Damage dropped too > > steeply for the rate of fire and magazine capacity of this weapon. > > The damage drop-off of the revolver was insanely high, changing it was also much needed. > However this change might be a bit over the top. > > > [@naitch44](#): > > > > Got to love the added recoil to the 1907 as well. Hardly anyone uses it as it is, at least not that I’ve come across, so why nerf it? > > It also got a buff: > > ```auto > `Removed the Extended Magazine Specialization for the M1907 SF and made the extended magazine equipped by default. Recoil Buffer has been added as a replacement. This weapon's Specializations will be reset and the means for unlocking them will be refunded. The M1907 SF was not useful enough without the extended magazine upgrade, making the hipfire upgrades a bad choice. > ` > > ``` > > I think the changes to the M1907 SF are good, as this gun was unbeatable. > It was a mistery to me why so few people used it. > > People are whining over changes they haven’t even tested themselves yet… The Gewehr was not nerfed hard enough. As far as I know 33.5\*3 is still over 100 damage which is still a 3 shot minimum damage kill. Please correct me if I’m wrong there, as there are no weapon data to go off of because DICE killed off it’s entire community. Whining? No, I actually know how to balance a game because I’m competent at it. ---
**Author:** ![Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jesus4000)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/8 "2019-01-14T15:31:00Z")
> [@0SiGHT0](#): > > The Gewehr was not nerfed hard enough. As far as I know 33.5\*3 is still over 100 damage which is still a 3 shot minimum damage kill. Please correct me if I’m wrong there, as there are no weapon data to go off of because DICE killed off it’s entire community. 33.5 \* 3 is 100.5 while 35 \* 3 is 105, while I agree that it is still a bit high, it’s a step in the right direction and can make a significant difference. Would you care to elaborate how DICE “killed off it’s entire community”?. > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > Whining? No, I actually know how to balance a game because I’m competent at it. Then why don’t you work for DICE, hm? Send a job application and see how that works out for you. ---
**Author:** ![EvilGoat\_51](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/evilgoat_51/32/106799_2.png) [@EvilGoat\_51](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/EvilGoat_51)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/9 "2019-01-14T15:32:00Z")
> [@naitch44](#): > > Got to love the added recoil to the 1907 as well. Hardly anyone uses it as it is, at least not that I’ve come across, so why nerf it? I think they pull their data out of their tbh. > > Meanwhile other weapons that desperately need attention go untouched… They also made the extended mag default and replaced the extended mag specialization with a recoil reduction specialization. Maybe the Recoil Buffer will offset the recoil increase? I’ve come across the 1907, and the people who use it right can really tear up with it. ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/10 "2019-01-14T15:33:00Z")
> [@Jesus4000](#): > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > The Gewehr was not nerfed hard enough. As far as I know 33.5\*3 is still over 100 damage which is still a 3 shot minimum damage kill. Please correct me if I’m wrong there, as there are no weapon data to go off of because DICE killed off it’s entire community. > > 33.5 \* 3 is 100.5 while 35 \* 3 is 105, while I agree that it is still a bit high, it’s a step in the right direction and can make a significant difference. > Would you care to elaborate how DICE “killed off it’s entire community”?. > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > Whining? No, I actually know how to balance a game because I’m competent at it. > > Then why don’t you work for DICE, hm? > Send a job application and see how that works out for you. You can read how I elaborated a couple years ago at my blog in my signature [http://relativepulse.blogspot.com](http://relativepulse.blogspot.com) DICE couldn’t come close to paying me enough ---
**Author:** ![Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jesus4000)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/11 "2019-01-14T15:41:00Z")
> [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > [@Jesus4000](#): > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > The Gewehr was not nerfed hard enough. As far as I know 33.5\*3 is still over 100 damage which is still a 3 shot minimum damage kill. Please correct me if I’m wrong there, as there are no weapon data to go off of because DICE killed off it’s entire community. > > > > 33.5 \* 3 is 100.5 while 35 \* 3 is 105, while I agree that it is still a bit high, it’s a step in the right direction and can make a significant difference. > > Would you care to elaborate how DICE “killed off it’s entire community”?. > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > Whining? No, I actually know how to balance a game because I’m competent at it. > > > > Then why don’t you work for DICE, hm? > > Send a job application and see how that works out for you. > > You can read how I elaborated a couple years ago at my blog in my signature [http://relativepulse.blogspot.com](http://relativepulse.blogspot.com) > > DICE couldn’t come close to paying me enough Your blogpost is incredibly redundant as Battlefield is not an esports title. It’s a game for filthy casuals to have fun and not a competetive esports environment. ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:43pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/12 "2019-01-14T15:43:00Z")
> [@Jesus4000](#): > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > [@Jesus4000](#): > > > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > > > The Gewehr was not nerfed hard enough. As far as I know 33.5\*3 is still over 100 damage which is still a 3 shot minimum damage kill. Please correct me if I’m wrong there, as there are no weapon data to go off of because DICE killed off it’s entire community. > > > > > > 33.5 \* 3 is 100.5 while 35 \* 3 is 105, while I agree that it is still a bit high, it’s a step in the right direction and can make a significant difference. > > > Would you care to elaborate how DICE “killed off it’s entire community”?. > > > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > > > Whining? No, I actually know how to balance a game because I’m competent at it. > > > > > > Then why don’t you work for DICE, hm? > > > Send a job application and see how that works out for you. > > > > You can read how I elaborated a couple years ago at my blog in my signature [http://relativepulse.blogspot.com](http://relativepulse.blogspot.com) > > > > DICE couldn’t come close to paying me enough > > Your blogpost is incredibly redundant as Battlefield is not an esports title. > It’s a game for filthy casuals to have fun and not a competetive esports environment. There’s 2 posts, but I can assume what you’re referring to. The point is how to get it to become one, which will enhance the player base and ultimately sales of the game. DICE has squandered any opportunity for that community to develop due to the elimination of basic features such as the game mode everyone played on and private servers themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Ragnarok-Drakkar](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/74df32/32.png) [@Ragnarok-Drakkar](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Ragnarok-Drakkar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/13 "2019-01-14T15:44:00Z")
Patch is joke, 0 netcode fixes, just kill camera changes… Thats what more than month of work worth? Useless devs… But its ok, we get new skins soon ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/14 "2019-01-14T15:45:00Z")
> [@Ragnarok-Drakkar](#): > > Patch is joke, 0 netcode fixes, just kill camera changes… Thats what more than month of work worth? Useless devs… > But its ok, we get new skins soon There is supposed to be another patch coming this month supposedly. Literally every update DICE has ever made in the past 5 years has only added additional problems to their games. Fix one thing, break two more. ---
**Author:** ![Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jesus4000)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:48pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/15 "2019-01-14T15:48:00Z")
> [@0SiGHT0](#): > > Fix one thing, break two more. Welcome to the world of software development… ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:49pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/16 "2019-01-14T15:49:00Z")
> [@Jesus4000](#): > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > Fix one thing, break two more. > > Welcome to the world of software development… And then you realize that this never used to happen to DICE’s older games: Bad Company 2 and earlier. ---
**Author:** ![EvilGoat\_51](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/evilgoat_51/32/106799_2.png) [@EvilGoat\_51](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/EvilGoat_51)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 3:58pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/17 "2019-01-14T15:58:00Z")
> [@Jesus4000](#): > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > [@Jesus4000](#): > > > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > > > The Gewehr was not nerfed hard enough. As far as I know 33.5\*3 is still over 100 damage which is still a 3 shot minimum damage kill. Please correct me if I’m wrong there, as there are no weapon data to go off of because DICE killed off it’s entire community. > > > > > > 33.5 \* 3 is 100.5 while 35 \* 3 is 105, while I agree that it is still a bit high, it’s a step in the right direction and can make a significant difference. > > > Would you care to elaborate how DICE “killed off it’s entire community”?. > > > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > > > Whining? No, I actually know how to balance a game because I’m competent at it. > > > > > > Then why don’t you work for DICE, hm? > > > Send a job application and see how that works out for you. > > > > You can read how I elaborated a couple years ago at my blog in my signature [http://relativepulse.blogspot.com](http://relativepulse.blogspot.com) > > > > DICE couldn’t come close to paying me enough > > Your blogpost is incredibly redundant as Battlefield is not an esports title. > It’s a game for filthy casuals to have fun and not a competetive esports environment. Filthy What? I’ll have you know I’m the sweatiest of the sweaty try hard players. Agreed, Battlefield is just not an esports game. @OP, Your post don’t discuss weapon balance, how does it provide any credibility here then? It’s also two post from two years ago regarding BF as a competitive title, how does that prove you know so much about game balance? Further more, if you know so much that DICE couldn’t pay you enough, why haven’t you continued posting? ---
**Author:** ![Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@Jesus4000](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jesus4000)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:21pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/18 "2019-01-14T16:21:00Z")
> [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > [@Jesus4000](#): > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > Fix one thing, break two more. > > > > Welcome to the world of software development… > > And then you realize that this never used to happen to DICE’s older games: Bad Company 2 and earlier. Just this post alone shows me that you have zero credibility. No one software project is like the other, and it does not matter if you use the same engine or a new one. Any change, even the most miniscule one, can have serious unforseen consequences. This video [![Video: Hal fixing a light bulb (from Malcolm in the Middle S03E06 - Health Scare)](https://battlefieldforum.co/uploads/default/original/3X/b/3/b388de5a8263bf85fdeef375755ce67d15aeaa72.jpeg "Hal fixing a light bulb (from Malcolm in the Middle S03E06 - Health Scare)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSehcT19u0) is the perfect analogy for that. ---
**Author:** ![wc138](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/wc138/32/104046_2.png) [@wc138](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/wc138)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/19 "2019-01-14T16:24:00Z")
> [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > [@Jesus4000](#): > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > Fix one thing, break two more. > > > > Welcome to the world of software development… > > And then you realize that this never used to happen to DICE’s older games: Bad Company 2 and earlier. It most certainly did. There were changes and patches to all those games that caused issues. It was just before the forums and twitter and all the banners flying where people complained about it. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/0sight0/32/101092_2.png) [@0SiGHT0](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/0SiGHT0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021/20 "2019-01-14T16:27:00Z")
> [@wc138](#): > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > [@Jesus4000](#): > > > > > > > [@0SiGHT0](#): > > > > > > > > Fix one thing, break two more. > > > > > > Welcome to the world of software development… > > > > And then you realize that this never used to happen to DICE’s older games: Bad Company 2 and earlier. > > It most certainly did. There were changes and patches to all those games that caused issues. It was just before the forums and twitter and all the banners flying where people complained about it. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The amount of issues as well as ones that severely deteriorated the gameplay were exponentially less than the issues with the recent ones. [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/speechless/254021.md?page=2)