Instead of the payer having 60% health, Hardcore mode has its own set of weapon damage.
would make it MUCH more balanced if done correctly!
I support this - I’d like to play classic, but almost no servers are online (BF4). And hardcore with 60% health is basically a sniper-campfest there 
Edit: Actually, I’d also prefer different stats between console and PC weapons. On PC the recoil in general should be a bit higher than on consoles imo so firefights last longer than 0.x seconds within 15m and skill comes more into play.
It would definitely be interesting but would require a lot more work for dice.
I dont follow? whats the difference between buffing a weapon or reducing the health?
Hardcore to me and ive been saying this for awhile should only remove the aids like spotting, radar etc and still keep health 100% for gunskill purposes/accuracy, hits on target etc
I dont think its harder at all, if anything its easier/cheaper to kill someone (you hardly need to hit them) especially vehicles, but i do understand geographic limitations for some in large countries like Australia. The West coast, far north have to connect to east coast servers where the majority live/server locations so in some cases there are legit reasons no doubt. But often i hear this and its hardly as bad as many make out (incredulous cries of i need to empty a whole clip just to kill someone!!) no…youre just a poor shot.
Hardcore is about realism.
http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Hardcore
With that take the M416 as an example. 60% HP 3/4 hits = kill. Now change the health model to 100% and adjust damage on the M416 to equate to irl ballistics and at most you’d still have a 3/4 hit kill.
What’s the friggin difference? Dice took the most cost effective route and simply lowered health to 60% vs doing separate preset damage models and stats per weapon and vehicle. Which I would’ve preferred they had done for absolutely other reasons.
BF4 HC hits to kill
- AR’s 3-4
- LMG’s 3-4
- PDW’s 4-5
- Pistols 3-5, except unica/deagle/rex 2-3
- DMR’s 2-3
- BASR 1-2, range dependent
- Nades including m320 variants usually 1, sometimes 2
- rpgs,c4,clays etc 1, lagged can require 2
Yeah i dont buy that realism argument about hardcore. Can you use health packs? be revived? yes you can. As a sniper do you set up for days, moving a few metres a day, check your wind direction, adjust accordingly. No you dont. Do you regulate your breathing and heartbeat, and take the shot only when you know youve got your best shot window or do you fire as soon as you see someone. Snipers can decimate entire enemy forces, they are deadly.
Realism pfft its a video game, sure you dont want arcadey either, so I know what youre saying, but tbh core plays fine.
Not sure where you get that info from, that looks more like core than hardcore better using symthic.com which lists hits to kill over ranges, bullet spread, velocity, rof, recoil and attachments, bullet pattern charts, headshot bonuses, ttk. I think they list hardcore as well.
I dunno each to their own i guess, i just think its cheaper gameplay, higher rewards for less.
As for my question, im not down with the vernacular/idea youre suggesting? why do seperate sets? its just math
25dmg upto 40m per bullet = 4 bullet kill x 0.6 = 3 bullets, 2 for headshot, then factor in rof, velocity for ttk which in core in most cases is pretty quick, feels right. Are you suggesting that with each weapon youd want that to be less?
So ARs 2 bullets, 1 for headshot (thats 50% health model only 10% less) dont you think the extra 10% would help with balancing so that most weapons arent 1-2 bullet kills?
Not playing funny buggers either bro, im just struggling to understand your gripe, what you think that list you posted should be for hardcore to feel right?
More realistic, nothing was said about being pure realism.
The 2 hit kill weapons come with a rof penalty in almost every situation. AR’s beat out dmr’s in their effective range and vise versa. PDW’s trump AR’s in CQB (0-20m) in most cases. It’s all player to player and having the proper tool for the job.
I don’t want or think the TTK, hits to kill should be any lower than what they already are. If they did go lower it would be paramount to UT IG or Quake rail hitscan. Which I do play quite well competitively. But it’s best left in those games. I play those games for that type of gp.
oh IRL = in real life, got ya…so you want 1-2 hit kills, aka 50% my question therefore is, is 10% diff really that big a deal, im assuming its 60% so that it wasnt the case.
The list I posted is current BF4 HC.
It should not be any lower than the current model.
the problem is is that they copied hardcore from CoD 4 and didnt realize that the only reason hardcore worked in CoD 4 is because the health was so low that there were only two choices for guns: OHK and 2HK. this basically just made a gross balancing over rate of fire possible because almost every other advantage or disadvantage didnt matter.
They should have had this from the start.
Well looking at ttk on symthic x 0.6 in many cases its exceptionally quick. I watched a youtube vid of PC player on Locker and his network/set up must have been tight. Using scar/h he was hardly shooting them/great hit rego, ttk quick as, headshots forget about it. With kbm set up could be extremely accurate so was like a laser. He went 76-0 with 3 revives which with that kinda ttk i was viewing he should be getting those amount of kills it was silly how easy it was and this was core.
Ability varies player to player and map to map. 76-0 pure infantry on any map outside locker/metro, normal tickets is damn near unheard of in BF4. Playing against absolute nubs you can do it.
ok, so now im confused or should i say still confused. You said at 60% its 3-4 hit kill, adjusting to real life ballistics at 100% health its still 3-4 hit kill. Thats the same result??
So im missing the point why is using lower health a bad model if youve created a full list of weapons for core balance that have dmg over range that takes rof/velocity into account, if suppressed, headshot and come up with a time to kill for each weapon that increases with range and is quite complex.
Why do they need their own sets when the ttk x 0.6 adjusts accordingly over range, surely this is the best and most accurate way to go as its using a percentage? and you agree that percentage shouldnt be lower?
60% health is fine for me, if you get caught out you are dead.
and vehicles are deadly the way they should be.
to be fair, a lot of this happens because Metro and Lockers progress slower. The map slog s in the middle so the burn slows. On an open map, if you got some guy going say…25-0, he’s probably not going to get a shot at 76-0 because more likely his team is dominating and are going to burn the tickets WAY faster.
With this dudes connection/hit rego/ttk youd give it a fair crack i tell ya haha was off its …i actually thought was HC they were dropping that quick
Considering that in HC health is set at 59%:
The difference in BTK is not uniform across all weapons. Some have they BTK reduced by half (like the SCAR-H), while others have only one bullet deducted from the initial BTK. In short, all weapons get “buffed”, but the buff isn’t applied evenly. Some become more powerful than others. Generally speaking, higher damaging weapons become MORE powerful, while less damaging weapons become more powerful in a smaller scale. Unless, of course, I’m very much mistaken.
A different damage model would ensure that weapons are still balanced among themselves even with the reduced HP. It would ensure that all of them remain equally viable, providing a more consistent experience.
my guess is it was LeadMachine, right?
instead of balancing the weapons for hard core they could just change the health to 100%.
it would be exactly the same in the end.