# You make new suggestion =/= You want military Sim **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [May 13, 2016, 1:24pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234 "2016-05-13T13:24:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:12am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/41 "2016-05-14T06:12:00Z")
Methinks you’re reading too much into text on the internet. I’m not being unfriendly to you - I don’t even know you. I explained how you misunderstood the guy’s example - that’s it. I didn’t call you any names, or say you were stupid, or say anything along those lines. It’s very hard to NOT accuse you of misunderstanding the guy’s example when your direct reply to it made you seem as if you 100% didn’t understand what he was talking about at all - and then your replies after that expounded upon that assumption. It honestly sounds like you’re calling me unfriendly, hostile, and awful because I’m not agreeing with you. Because so far, concerning your opinions in this thread, that’s literally all I’ve done - and there’s nothing wrong or “awful” about that. You’re obviously not going to change your mind no matter how many times I tell you that you’re reading too much in to responses and are just ASSUMING that I’m being unfriendly and hostile to you - so again, let’s leave it at that. No sense discussing it further if you’re just going to keep saying the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/bf1helicopter)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:21am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/42 "2016-05-14T06:21:00Z")
Your tone is awfully unfriendly. I just had to read the first sentence of your first post to know you may be lacking in friendship qualities. You are also delusional. I want the best for you so I hope you change as a person. Practice gaining friendship skill. Go to manner workshop. You could also research the benefits of a friendly personality. Good luck to you ---
**Author:** ![NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/898d66/32.png) [@NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/NatsuTerran)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:21am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/43 "2016-05-14T06:21:00Z")
I pretty much disagree with everything you said loqtrall, which doesn’t surprise me, because I disagreed with every single thing you said on the BF4 forums as well. You also completely misrepresented me saying CoD is EXACTLY the same as always. In fact, I actually said that it did add things, but that the innovation was not healthy for the game. You also are completely missing the point about the sprint thing. And now you can’t see how ridiculously over-the-top aggressive you are sounding? Seriously? You are the least pleasant person I have ever seen on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:36am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/44 "2016-05-14T06:36:00Z")
lol, whatever. It’s up to you how you personally interpret my “tone” through a few replies on a forum. That doesn’t make you objectively correct about it. If you won’t believe me when I repeatedly say I’m legitimately not trying to be unfriendly to you, then there’s literally nothing else I can do about it. But my (and Sir-Xer’s and Bohunk’s) argument still stands - Not being able to sprint in the game because it’s something that exists in real life and then would be considered a “simulation” of real-life sprinting wasn’t the point Bohunk was trying to make. He was trying to explain that there are people that use “realism” as an excuse for wanting a “realistic” feature added to the game, when this game has very few “realistic” aspects to it (I think you’re mistaking “realistic” with “authentic”, which are not synonyms) A legitimate example of why there should be no infinite sprint is “Because I want the game to be a little bit slower instead of everyone being able to sprint 100% of the time” And an illegitimate example of why there should be no infinite sprint is “Because you can’t really sprint infinitely in real life, and this game is supposed to be realistic”. One example is a legitimate criticism of the game - the person feels it’s too fast and they want it to be slower like past BF titles with sprint limits. The other is an illegitimate criticism of the game - the person feels infinite sprint should be removed because it makes the game less “realistic” - but Battlefield, in all, is not “realistic” at all, and never has been. THOSE are the game-change suggestions people make the “mil-sim” argument about. When someone wants to change the game to be more “realistic” because they BELIEVE Battlefield is a realistic game, when it’s not. Battlefield is and always will be an arcade shooter that portrays the grandiose (and entirely unrealistic) aspects of all out war. I literally can’t explain it any further than that - so this will be my main and last contribution to this thread. Have a good one. ---
**Author:** ![NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/898d66/32.png) [@NatsuTerran](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/NatsuTerran)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:05am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/45 "2016-05-14T07:05:00Z")
“wasn’t the point Bohunk was trying to make.” I’m not talking about his point, or yours, or Sir’s when it comes to the sprint thing. It amazes me that all of you are still completely missing the main idea here. ---
**Author:** ![bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/bf1helicopter)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:15am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/46 "2016-05-14T07:15:00Z")
You don’t have to try to be unfriendly if you’re an unfriendly person. If you have to repeat to someone you’re not trying to be unfriendly, you’re probably being unfriendly. For the record, I understand the difference between people wanting changes to improve gameplay and wanting changes to become more like real life. It did not go over my head. My post about sprinting had nothing to do with the sprinting OP was mentioning. OP mentioned people might not want it to become more realistic because they are afraid to lose something like infinite sprint. In my post I touched on sprint and how it’s a realistic part of the game already and why I believe this mil sim acusation logic is flawed. For example, the fact that we are humans shooting each other and not cartoon animals says that the developers were going for both realistic and authentic. When it comes to how weapons and vehicles work , this is a simulation. Believe it or not, arma and simulation are not synonyms either. You can have a more realistic simulation of something and less realistic simulation of something. But battlefield IS a simulation of a battlefield through an arcade lense. Its not meant to be an accurate or 100% authentic simulation or even similar to arma, It’s meant to be an authentic arcade shooter simulation. So you can define battlefield as: Authentic Realistic Unrealistic simulation And somewhat authentic simulation These people interchange arma and mil sim. So anytime someone has an idea to make the game behave like a somewhat authentic simulation of a battlefield, people say this isn’t arma which is ridiculous. My point about sprinting is that DICE added sprint because it is a somewhat authentic simulation of what a soldier could do. It is realistic because you can’t aim while sprinting (try it in real life, you have to slow down to stay on target). It’s authentic because we aren’t sprinting at the speed of sonic, but of a comparable speed of a human. These two things make it a simulation. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:18am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/47 "2016-05-14T07:18:00Z")
> [@NatsuTerran](#): > > “wasn’t the point Bohunk was trying to make.” > > I’m not talking about his point, or yours, or Sir’s when it comes to the sprint thing. It amazes me that all of you are still completely missing the main idea here. …If you’re talking about the point helicopter tried to argue: > [@Sir-xer21](#): > > that also isnt what he argued. he wasnt reminding us to fixate on why DICE placed sprint in the game. all he did was try to lampoon bohunk’s sprint logic without realizing that bohunk wasn’t arguing about WHY sprint was in the game or whether it should be. Bohunk was simply using FAKE sprint arguments to illustrate the difference between supporting your opinion with a real reason or just falling back to using realism as a crutch argument without mentioning how it impacts the gameplay. no one is arguing about sprint. it was merely an example. in turn, you missed Bohunk’s point too. > [@Sir-xer21](#): > > > [@bf1helicopter](#): > > > > I did not miss OP point. His first point was to encourage people not worry about other people calling their ideas mil sim ideas. > > > > I’m also encouraging people to do the same. I explained why these people’s mil sim logic is flawed. I went on to remind people that we are not playing a lasertag fps. We are playing a fps that “simulates” a battlefield with military weapons. We also have medkits, repair tools, and suppression effects. If we didn’t have these things in BF and someone on here proposed them; we would get this very same "this is not a mil sim reply. > > no, see, here’s the difference. medkits and repair tools have been a part of the game series since it’s inception. they helped create BF’s identity. > > but BF’s identity has long since been established. its an arcadey FPS with those gadgets serving as the basis of the class system. they also dont do anything to make it mil sim like anyways given how unrealistically they work, but hey. > > as for suppression effects…people already RIGHTFULLY opposed the concept on the gorund that it was pushing the game towards mil sim conceits. unfortunately, DICE didnt listen to them. soyou, you’re right, people would argue against it for that reason if we didnt have them. but they also alreayd argues in that vein since the concept was introduced. Suppression is also not a part of BF’s base identity. > > and as far as it’s executed, you cant use the mil sim argument, because its so unrealistic in it’s implementation that its a joke either way. but conceptually, there is nothing wrong with opposing it on philosophical grounds because the mil sim argument is about preserving the basic identity of the game. arguing for something on the basis of realism has no mention of the effects on gameplay. arguing against something in the effort to preserve the identity of the game as arcade implicitly suggests that the change would damage the identity of the game. > > and every FPS “simulates” a battlefield. you can play with words all you want, it doesnt change that “mil sim” describes a very specific sub genre of shooter that isnt even closely related to Bf. He (as well as you) didn’t even reply to that last quote - and I’m sure his response to Xer’s initial reply was “whatevs”. Solid logic to try and back up. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:29am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/48 "2016-05-14T07:29:00Z")
> [@bf1helicopter](#): > > You can have a more realistic simulation of something and less realistic simulation of something Like Xer said - you’re using simulation as a play on words, and ignoring the fact that “Mil-Sim” is not a subjective term, it’s an already established genre of video games. Call of Duty Black Ops 3 also “simulates” real life sprinting - but it’s not a MIL SIM. It’s an Arcade Shooter through and through. There are very few people that are arguing “That can’t be added because this isn’t a mil-sim” to suggestions that don’t make this game more “mil-sim”-like. The majority of the people using the “this isn’t a mil-sim” argument are people arguing against suggestions like Sniper Rifle OHKs to the chest at long ranges, putting gore into the game because “explosives blow people to pieces” while intentionally ignoring the already established revive system, arguing that nobody should just be able to parachute mid-air whenever they want because real soldiers don’t all carry parachutes, you shouldn’t be able to blow up a tank with two small blocks of C4 because that doesn’t happen in real life, stingers should one-shot helicopters because they do in real life, FLIR should be able to see through smoke because it can in real life, even though it creates a camping epidemic on tighter-quarters maps, etc, etc, etc. People who suggest sacrificing Battlefield’s CORE gameplay, that’s been established for over a decade, for something more “realistic”. There are an increasingly larger number of people that seem to think this game is closer to being PR and Arma than it is to an Arcade Shooter, and that’s not the case at all. In that regard - to keep Battlefield in it’s arcade shooter roots it’s had for 15 years - the “it’s not a mil-sim” argument is absolutely valid. “Mil-sim” and pure “simulation” are not the same thing. You’re mistaking a game genre for /actual/ simulation. Battlefield has never been a Mil-Sim. I’m willing to bet there are significantly more people in the community that agree with that than there are that will actually admit that they think this franchise is a mil-sim franchise, probably including some mods and devs. Simulating human sprinting in a video game =/= the video game being a Military Simulator game. Other than movement in this game - what else is even remotely realistic, more than it’s just authentic to real life? The shooting isn’t, the bullet velocity isn’t, the damage model isn’t, the way vehicles operate isn’t (one man tank army. woooo), the way helicopters fly and react to the environment around them isn’t, explosives aren’t, destruction isn’t, vehicle physics aren’t, collision physics aren’t, the revive system isn’t, the ammo refill system isn’t, the medkit system isn’t, the selection of weapons compared to the nations you’re playing as isn’t, etc, etc. Those are more “authentic” or even “semi-authentic” aspects, which includes the majority of aspects of this game. Please - name me things in this game that are purely realistic, rather than solely authentic in nature. ---
**Author:** ![bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/bf1helicopter)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:37am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/49 "2016-05-14T07:37:00Z")
I responded "whatevs"to sir-xer21 because he wasn’t worth my time, he already convinced himself I was having a different conversation. This was partly my fault because I didn’t fully explain, I gave my audience to much credit to know where I was going from the title of the post. But NatsuTerran didnt seem to have a problem understanding.. Probably because he is logical and also sees this flawed logic in this community. ---
**Author:** ![bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/bf1helicopter)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:56am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/50 "2016-05-14T07:56:00Z")
It’s not a play on words. Simulation is imatation. DiCE has even used the word in interviews. They looked at flight simulators, tank simulators, when making BF. They are trying to make an all around fun simulation. How do you make it fun and not arma? You give it liberties. This doesn’t take away from the fact that they are trying to simulate how these authentic things would really act. Sacrificing Core gameplay that’s been established for over a decade?? BF2 had limited sprint. That was realistic or anything right? Ofcourse it was to make the simulation feel like you were a real soldier and not a super hero. Mil sim is a military simulator. They are more realistic than arcade military shooters. Key word is “more” not “realistic” I am aware that battlefield is not considered a mil sim. At the same time I am aware that battlefield does try to simulate things on an arcade level. ---
**Author:** ![bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@bf1helicopter](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/bf1helicopter)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 8:11am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/51 "2016-05-14T08:11:00Z")
For example, in another thread, I wanted health to not regenerate unless you get a medpack. Someone inevitably said this isn’t a mil sim. Well this is exactly how it was in BF2. And to say something so unrealistic is mil sim is just stupid and truthfully annoying. How would touching a medpack and your health regenerates make the game so realistic that now its the same type of game as arma. This is the point of the thread- Just don’t even bother with people that bring up mil sim when you have an idea. ---
**Author:** ![GalaxyMix](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/df788c/32.png) [@GalaxyMix](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/GalaxyMix)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 8:32am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/52 "2016-05-14T08:32:00Z")
> [@bf1helicopter](#): > > This is the point of the thread- Just don’t even bother with people that bring up mil sim when you have an idea. Thank you , YES indeed this is the point of the thread. To shut down any suggestion, they accuse it of trying to be a mil sim. I recommend we respond with this “kindly stop using mil sim argument” and then don’t respond to anything they say. Make them feel this excuse will not work with us. ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 9:12am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234/53 "2016-05-14T09:12:00Z")
> [@NatsuTerran](#): > > “wasn’t the point Bohunk was trying to make.” > > I’m not talking about his point, or yours, or Sir’s when it comes to the sprint thing. It amazes me that all of you are still completely missing the main idea here. If you werent talking about his point, then why reference it? Oh, right, because you misunderstood what he was saying, and now you’re trying to backpedal. > [@GalaxyMix](#): > > > [@bf1helicopter](#): > > > > This is the point of the thread- Just don’t even bother with people that bring up mil sim when you have an idea. > > Thank you , YES indeed this is the point of the thread. To shut down any suggestion, they accuse it of trying to be a mil sim. > > I recommend we respond with this “kindly stop using mil sim argument” and then don’t respond to anything they say. Make them feel this excuse will not work with us. I dont think anyone’s made a “this is turning the game into a milsim” argument yet. probably because none of us are actually debating proposed game mechanics. we’re talking about how people frame the argument. Does anyone actually read these posts? Half the time im convinced NatsuTerran doesnt even read his own posts because he keeps changing his story. > [@bf1helicopter](#): > > It’s not a play on words. Simulation is imatation. in your words then, CoD and CS are mil sim’s to an extent. are you going to argue this? please do. > [@bf1helicopter](#): > > They looked at flight simulators, tank simulators, when making BF And? The Foo Fighters claim to be influenced by Celtic Frost, it doesnt make their music Black Metal. mil sims are a very particular type of game. its like the difference between Test Drive or Burnout and Gran Turismo or F1. all 4 are racing games, but Test Drive and Burnout are unabashedly arcade while F1 and Gran Turismo clearly are more sim based. they are not the same sub genre of game. there’s a clear delineation. > [@bf1helicopter](#): > > Sacrificing Core gameplay that’s been established for over a decade?? > > BF2 had limited sprint. That was realistic or anything right? Ofcourse it was to make the simulation feel like you were a real soldier and not a super hero. BF2 had limited sprint but the context is that previous games had no sprint, and it sped up the pace of the game. You can’t claim that its only purpose (if that was even the intent at all, neither of us know) when it clearly had other major effects on the game. you’re just assuming things. CoD has limited sprint. is that to be realistic, or is it to manage the pace of the game and balance player movement? > [@bf1helicopter](#): > > Mil sim is a military simulator. They are more realistic than arcade military shooters. Key word is “more” not “realistic” > > I am aware that battlefield is not considered a mil sim. At the same time I am aware that battlefield does try to simulate things on an arcade level. dude, just stop. you’re splitting hairs because you made a mistake and cant own it. just let it go. > [@bf1helicopter](#): > > I responded "whatevs"to sir-xer21 because he wasn’t worth my time, he already convinced himself I was having a different conversation. This was partly my fault because I didn’t fully explain, I gave my audience to much credit to know where I was going from the title of the post. But NatsuTerran didnt seem to have a problem understanding.. Probably because he is logical and also sees this flawed logic in this community. the whole “not worth my time argument” is pure bull­s­hit and you know it. classic case of you lacking a rebuttal. I wasn’t worth my time but you’ve spent this thread and others debating similar points. just man up and take the L. NatsuTerran missed the point of Bohunk’s post and tried to retreat from it. Of course you agree with him, both of you have big comprehension problems [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/you-make-new-suggestion-you-want-military-sim/101234.md?page=2)