Bf3 scope glint, bf4 scope glint, bfh scope glint and bf1 scope glint!!

Comments

  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I hope they listen this thread and remove glint.

    If they 'listen' to this thread, they'll see all the people who want glint removed unable to come up with any valid reason, so it wont be removed.


    You should hope they dont listen to this thread.

    1) broken distance balance mechanic - as it impact players that are closer more then those further away.
    2) broken implementation - is visible when a player is inside and current highly visiable. Still trying to confirm if still visiable thru smoke and gas like BF4.
    3) we have not seen the weapons customization only weapons variants. So based on what we have that means at least 2 variants are not going to be used.
    4) drag and sweet spot encourage players to be at around 100m and no further then 400m. 100m is a range at which every weapon in BF1 can operate at.


    So what was you valid reason to keep?



    Even having passive 3D spotting any players that is more then 500m is a better anti-camping then glint.

    @DingoKillr

    1. It allows players to quickly visualize the point of danger, at 40m or 400m. Allowing them to retreat, not take you out. (You cited your opinion, not facts)

    2. Hiding in a house, shouldn't make you invisible, the implementation works as it does, because it would be abused, resulting in ranged campers with no negative impact for being terrible. (This was your opinion, not fact). Smoke should be fixed.

    3. There will be customization, nice strawman argument. (Your opinion that no customization would happen).

    4. No, it functions similar to drop, this is due to increased bullet velocity. (This was your incorrect opinion).

    Valid reason to keep? There is no valid argument against it. Maybe go learn what a fact is before you make another condescend list.

    555, Valid reason to keep? none after all what valid facts have you presented.

    1. Funny how you stated to like using 1895-TR up to 200m, why is that? So you do not give a warning to your target when you ADS but you are fine giving unfair treatment to those that use 1 scope type.

    2. You call it a opinion but it is fact it is fact that glint works inside a house and highly visible, YYHU6Ky.png It is your opinion that only 1 scope type on the BA should be visible from inside a house while all other scopes on BA and other weapons can remain invisible.

    3. Prove it. Vehicles are going to have variants and appear to have no customization.

    4. I don't know what you think you are answering but has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Glint does not encourage players to move forward drag and sweet spot do.

  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    You do not have as much evidence as I do BF forums pre BF3 during the time of BFBC 2 where chocablock with people crying about snipers. There was much more crying over that then there has been crying over anything else. If you think the amount of crying over it did not contribute to the addition of glint in BF3 then its you that is the fool. my point is that dice should of and could of come up with something better by now.

    Why does it matter?

    Glint is a good addition.

    Its not horrible it just seems a little daft to me snipers are supposed to be unseen that's there job whacking a big light on um seems wrong. I would prefer dice made sniping more challenging by things such as more sway when using a high powered scope add wind effect to sniper bullets that kind of thing.

    It's not about making sniping hard or easy, it's about closing the distance so other players can react. I see you glint, I know where to take cover.
  • Shadowmane01
    209 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I hope they listen this thread and remove glint.

    If they 'listen' to this thread, they'll see all the people who want glint removed unable to come up with any valid reason, so it wont be removed.


    You should hope they dont listen to this thread.

    1) broken distance balance mechanic - as it impact players that are closer more then those further away.
    2) broken implementation - is visible when a player is inside and current highly visiable. Still trying to confirm if still visiable thru smoke and gas like BF4.
    3) we have not seen the weapons customization only weapons variants. So based on what we have that means at least 2 variants are not going to be used.
    4) drag and sweet spot encourage players to be at around 100m and no further then 400m. 100m is a range at which every weapon in BF1 can operate at.


    So what was you valid reason to keep?



    Even having passive 3D spotting any players that is more then 500m is a better anti-camping then glint.

    @DingoKillr

    1. It allows players to quickly visualize the point of danger, at 40m or 400m. Allowing them to retreat, not take you out. (You cited your opinion, not facts)

    2. Hiding in a house, shouldn't make you invisible, the implementation works as it does, because it would be abused, resulting in ranged campers with no negative impact for being terrible. (This was your opinion, not fact). Smoke should be fixed.

    3. There will be customization, nice strawman argument. (Your opinion that no customization would happen).

    4. No, it functions similar to drop, this is due to increased bullet velocity. (This was your incorrect opinion).

    Valid reason to keep? There is no valid argument against it. Maybe go learn what a fact is before you make another condescend list.

    555, Valid reason to keep? none after all what valid facts have you presented.

    1. Funny how you stated to like using 1895-TR up to 200m, why is that? So you do not give a warning to your target when you ADS but you are fine giving unfair treatment to those that use 1 scope type.

    2. You call it a opinion but it is fact it is fact that glint works inside a house and highly visible, YYHU6Ky.png It is your opinion that only 1 scope type on the BA should be visible from inside a house while all other scopes on BA and other weapons can remain invisible.

    3. Prove it. Vehicles are going to have variants and appear to have no customization.

    4. I don't know what you think you are answering but has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Glint does not encourage players to move forward drag and sweet spot do.

    lol this is the point that here I am light on a sniper who's job it is to remain unseen is frankly ridiculous.
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    You do not have as much evidence as I do BF forums pre BF3 during the time of BFBC 2 where chocablock with people crying about snipers. There was much more crying over that then there has been crying over anything else. If you think the amount of crying over it did not contribute to the addition of glint in BF3 then its you that is the fool. my point is that dice should of and could of come up with something better by now.

    Why does it matter?

    Glint is a good addition.

    Its not horrible it just seems a little daft to me snipers are supposed to be unseen that's there job whacking a big light on um seems wrong. I would prefer dice made sniping more challenging by things such as more sway when using a high powered scope add wind effect to sniper bullets that kind of thing.

    It's not about making sniping hard or easy, it's about closing the distance so other players can react. I see you glint, I know where to take cover.

    Then it should be on every scope and every weapon.
  • Turban_Legend80
    4753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    You do not have as much evidence as I do BF forums pre BF3 during the time of BFBC 2 where chocablock with people crying about snipers. There was much more crying over that then there has been crying over anything else. If you think the amount of crying over it did not contribute to the addition of glint in BF3 then its you that is the fool. my point is that dice should of and could of come up with something better by now.

    Show me where I said that nobody cried.

    Again, people crying is not evidence for reasons of change.
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    Semantics doesn't mean you are behaving positively.

    Calling someone a fool in a round about way isn't much different than stating they are a fool.

    Typical that you didn't get a response to your question.

    Wtf? I basically said that his line of thought is stupid. How could I say that in a positive way? I explained my reasons for thinking that like I do. It wasn't just a "you're a fool" post.

    Out of the two of us, i'm the one actually backing up my views with reasons for thinking that way.

    And maybe if every anti glint crybaby in this thread wasnt labelling every pro glint poster as "sniper hater" they would have a slightly more friendly response from me.


    I'm still yet to see anybody post a legit reason why removing glint would not give snipers little reason to move.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 2016
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I hope they listen this thread and remove glint.

    If they 'listen' to this thread, they'll see all the people who want glint removed unable to come up with any valid reason, so it wont be removed.


    You should hope they dont listen to this thread.

    1) broken distance balance mechanic - as it impact players that are closer more then those further away.
    2) broken implementation - is visible when a player is inside and current highly visiable. Still trying to confirm if still visiable thru smoke and gas like BF4.
    3) we have not seen the weapons customization only weapons variants. So based on what we have that means at least 2 variants are not going to be used.
    4) drag and sweet spot encourage players to be at around 100m and no further then 400m. 100m is a range at which every weapon in BF1 can operate at.


    So what was you valid reason to keep?



    Even having passive 3D spotting any players that is more then 500m is a better anti-camping then glint.

    @DingoKillr

    1. It allows players to quickly visualize the point of danger, at 40m or 400m. Allowing them to retreat, not take you out. (You cited your opinion, not facts)

    2. Hiding in a house, shouldn't make you invisible, the implementation works as it does, because it would be abused, resulting in ranged campers with no negative impact for being terrible. (This was your opinion, not fact). Smoke should be fixed.

    3. There will be customization, nice strawman argument. (Your opinion that no customization would happen).

    4. No, it functions similar to drop, this is due to increased bullet velocity. (This was your incorrect opinion).

    Valid reason to keep? There is no valid argument against it. Maybe go learn what a fact is before you make another condescend list.

    555, Valid reason to keep? none after all what valid facts have you presented.

    1. Funny how you stated to like using 1895-TR up to 200m, why is that? So you do not give a warning to your target when you ADS but you are fine giving unfair treatment to those that use 1 scope type.

    2. You call it a opinion but it is fact it is fact that glint works inside a house and highly visible, YYHU6Ky.png It is your opinion that only 1 scope type on the BA should be visible from inside a house while all other scopes on BA and other weapons can remain invisible.

    3. Prove it. Vehicles are going to have variants and appear to have no customization.

    4. I don't know what you think you are answering but has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Glint does not encourage players to move forward drag and sweet spot do.

    1. If you are really good. You can be a stealthy recon, I like this balance, if that's the role you want, get gud.

    2. It works in houses for the same reason it works at 400m, in the shade and in good hiding spots. You are supposed to be seen, that's the whole point.

    3. Can't prove it 100% just yet, but you can't prove we wont. A YouTuber said devs said customization wasn't ready for the alpha, and there was a customization tab that was blocked in the alpha.

    4. Glint punishes poor play at long range, incentivizing close range, by suggestion, not by force. If you miss, better players will hunt you down.

    Sorry you can't understand fact from opinion. You arguments are not getting better, I still see vague complaints with no basis.
  • rock1obsta
    3819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    i really don't follow the argument for why glint should be removed

    It seems like the snipers want to be invisible, immune, and invulnerable to being seen and killed. Basically the ability to camp without any repercussions, even though every other class is out and about, running around and destroying vehicles and people, this class should have Predator level invisibility IN ADDITION to the most powerful weapons in the game.
    Seems legit.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    You do not have as much evidence as I do BF forums pre BF3 during the time of BFBC 2 where chocablock with people crying about snipers. There was much more crying over that then there has been crying over anything else. If you think the amount of crying over it did not contribute to the addition of glint in BF3 then its you that is the fool. my point is that dice should of and could of come up with something better by now.

    Show me where I said that nobody cried.

    Again, people crying is not evidence for reasons of change.
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    Semantics doesn't mean you are behaving positively.

    Calling someone a fool in a round about way isn't much different than stating they are a fool.

    Typical that you didn't get a response to your question.

    Wtf? I basically said that his line of thought is stupid. How could I say that in a positive way? I explained my reasons for thinking that like I do. It wasn't just a "you're a fool" post.

    Out of the two of us, i'm the one actually backing up my views with reasons for thinking that way.

    And maybe if every anti glint crybaby in this thread wasnt labelling every pro glint poster as "sniper hater" they would have a slightly more friendly response from me.


    I'm still yet to see anybody post a legit reason why removing glint would not give snipers little reason to move.

    That's fine, you don't have to call them stupid, or find a "nice" way to insult them.

    Your discussion points should hold themselves up, without insults.
  • Shadowmane01
    209 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter Member
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    You do not have as much evidence as I do BF forums pre BF3 during the time of BFBC 2 where chocablock with people crying about snipers. There was much more crying over that then there has been crying over anything else. If you think the amount of crying over it did not contribute to the addition of glint in BF3 then its you that is the fool. my point is that dice should of and could of come up with something better by now.

    Show me where I said that nobody cried.

    Again, people crying is not evidence for reasons of change.
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    Semantics doesn't mean you are behaving positively.

    Calling someone a fool in a round about way isn't much different than stating they are a fool.

    Typical that you didn't get a response to your question.

    Wtf? I basically said that his line of thought is stupid. How could I say that in a positive way? I explained my reasons for thinking that like I do. It wasn't just a "you're a fool" post.

    Out of the two of us, i'm the one actually backing up my views with reasons for thinking that way.

    And maybe if every anti glint crybaby in this thread wasnt labelling every pro glint poster as "sniper hater" they would have a slightly more friendly response from me.


    I'm still yet to see anybody post a legit reason why removing glint would not give snipers little reason to move.

    I didn't say you claimed no one cried about it I am saying you have zero evidence circumstantial or otherwise that it did not contribute to the addition of glint. Common sense tells us it was a contributing factor. As for a legit reason as to why removing it would not increase camping how do you know it was introduced in order to prevent camping ?. It introduction was simply a way of allowing players to know when a sniper was aiming at them it has nothing to do with camping. Yes that's my opinion but that's all any of us have unless you have a direct line to dice or can quote from an official press release then anything and everything any of us say is just opinion. At least that's true when discussing something along the lines of why we have glint and weather or not it should be removed.

    What you are doing is being slightly aggressive in your responses by saying that a view point is stupid or that I'm a fool . That kind of response is generally a characteristic response of someone who is losing a debate.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    You do not have as much evidence as I do BF forums pre BF3 during the time of BFBC 2 where chocablock with people crying about snipers. There was much more crying over that then there has been crying over anything else. If you think the amount of crying over it did not contribute to the addition of glint in BF3 then its you that is the fool. my point is that dice should of and could of come up with something better by now.

    Show me where I said that nobody cried.

    Again, people crying is not evidence for reasons of change.
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    Semantics doesn't mean you are behaving positively.

    Calling someone a fool in a round about way isn't much different than stating they are a fool.

    Typical that you didn't get a response to your question.

    Wtf? I basically said that his line of thought is stupid. How could I say that in a positive way? I explained my reasons for thinking that like I do. It wasn't just a "you're a fool" post.

    Out of the two of us, i'm the one actually backing up my views with reasons for thinking that way.

    And maybe if every anti glint crybaby in this thread wasnt labelling every pro glint poster as "sniper hater" they would have a slightly more friendly response from me.


    I'm still yet to see anybody post a legit reason why removing glint would not give snipers little reason to move.

    I didn't say you claimed no one cried about it I am saying you have zero evidence circumstantial or otherwise that it did not contribute to the addition of glint. Common sense tells us it was a contributing factor. As for a legit reason as to why removing it would not increase camping how do you know it was introduced in order to prevent camping ?. It introduction was simply a way of allowing players to know when a sniper was aiming at them it has nothing to do with camping. Yes that's my opinion but that's all any of us have unless you have a direct line to dice or can quote from an official press release then anything and everything any of us say is just opinion. At least that's true when discussing something along the lines of why we have glint and weather or not it should be removed.

    What you are doing is being slightly aggressive in your responses by saying that a view point is stupid or that I'm a fool . That kind of response is generally a characteristic response of someone who is losing a debate.

    We can't look at bc2 vs bf3? Didn't the sniping issue and camping become less of an issue?
  • Rotank
    981 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    If you are against 3D spotting, you are a hypocrite if you are in favor of scope glint the way it is presented in BF4. I will reserve judgement on BF1 until I've played it.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Rotank wrote: »
    If you are against 3D spotting, you are a hypocrite if you are in favor of scope glint the way it is presented in BF4. I will reserve judgement on BF1 until I've played it.

    That's me, not a hypocrit.

    These mechanics are in place for separate reasons.
  • Shadowmane01
    209 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter Member
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    You do not have as much evidence as I do BF forums pre BF3 during the time of BFBC 2 where chocablock with people crying about snipers. There was much more crying over that then there has been crying over anything else. If you think the amount of crying over it did not contribute to the addition of glint in BF3 then its you that is the fool. my point is that dice should of and could of come up with something better by now.

    Show me where I said that nobody cried.

    Again, people crying is not evidence for reasons of change.
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    the fact that you only have circumstantial evidence is all the proof he needs.

    unless you can proof without reasonable doubt that glint was being added as a direct result of people crying, it simply remains an assumption on your part.
    nothing more and nothing less.

    Well I don't need to prove it because I'm not that bothered weather he you or anyone else believes it or not . That and you do realise that circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law direct proof is better. However in the absence of direct proof circumstantial can and is used as proof to convict people. I also have an ability to use common sense to anyone that has even a small amount of it its obvious why they added glint.
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    it was introduced in BF3 as a direct result of all the crying about snipers in BFBC 2.

    Got any proof?

    I have circumstantial evidence do you have any proof or evidence that I am incorrect ?.

    My circumstantial evidence says yours is incorrect, prove me wrong.

    What is your evidence then ? . Mine is that BFBC 2 had OHK sniper rifles no sway no glint and the amount of crying over snipers was immense. Then in BF3 we get no OHK sway is added and so is glint. That's my evidence that glint was added as a result of crying so what's the evidence you have that says I'm wrong ?.

    That doesn't look like evidence to me. It looks like clutching at straws. It looks like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a lemon.

    Nothing gets nerfed or buffed because of people crying. Changes happen through obvious imbalance and/or well constructed posts and videos explaining balance issues or other ideas.

    People will cry about anything. If you really think devs change their game because of a bunch of crybabies then you are an utter fool.

    I've seen so many crying posts that dont result in any changes whatsoever to convince me its got nothing to do with crying.

    If it did, we'd see glint removed for the beta, because the amount of tears over the glint is higher than any other subject (i'm using tears per minute here).

    So you just as I thought you have no evidence and have resorted to insults.

    I have as much evidence as you do.

    I said if you think it was changed because of people crying you are a fool. That's not resorting to insults, thats giving an honest opinion on your opinion.

    So instead of trying to debate my post, you cry about somebody calling you a fool.

    Typical.

    If you cried less and instead actually debated, perhaps you might get the changes you so hope for.

    Semantics doesn't mean you are behaving positively.

    Calling someone a fool in a round about way isn't much different than stating they are a fool.

    Typical that you didn't get a response to your question.

    Wtf? I basically said that his line of thought is stupid. How could I say that in a positive way? I explained my reasons for thinking that like I do. It wasn't just a "you're a fool" post.

    Out of the two of us, i'm the one actually backing up my views with reasons for thinking that way.

    And maybe if every anti glint crybaby in this thread wasnt labelling every pro glint poster as "sniper hater" they would have a slightly more friendly response from me.


    I'm still yet to see anybody post a legit reason why removing glint would not give snipers little reason to move.

    I didn't say you claimed no one cried about it I am saying you have zero evidence circumstantial or otherwise that it did not contribute to the addition of glint. Common sense tells us it was a contributing factor. As for a legit reason as to why removing it would not increase camping how do you know it was introduced in order to prevent camping ?. It introduction was simply a way of allowing players to know when a sniper was aiming at them it has nothing to do with camping. Yes that's my opinion but that's all any of us have unless you have a direct line to dice or can quote from an official press release then anything and everything any of us say is just opinion. At least that's true when discussing something along the lines of why we have glint and weather or not it should be removed.

    What you are doing is being slightly aggressive in your responses by saying that a view point is stupid or that I'm a fool . That kind of response is generally a characteristic response of someone who is losing a debate.

    We can't look at bc2 vs bf3? Didn't the sniping issue and camping become less of an issue?

    Yes it did become less of an issue that's true and glint played a part in that I'm not disagreeing there. I just feel that there must be better ways than sticking a big light on a class who's job it is to remain unseen. If you look at the glint in the screenshot in the post above that glare is obviously a bullet magnet and completely ridiculous is that really acceptable of a AAA title ?. I understand its use in BF3 but we have since had BF4/ BFHL and now BF1 is that not enough time to come up with a better solution ?.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member


    I've got some ideas. :)

    Glint is as bright as it is currently immediately after ads/aiming movement.

    A still scoped ads sniper would still produce a glint, but much smaller and fainter.

    I also belive the Glint should rotate, similar to how reflections move relative to your eyes in real life. This would make the scope more subtle, but still give a counter to those being shot
  • Turban_Legend80
    4753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    @Shadowmane01 - and having to post that you have won the argument is a telltale sign that somebody has nothing left to add to his already weak statements.
    I dont need to prove glint is there to prevent campers, because clearly i've already stated I believe it was added for balance reasons. The reason I want it to stay is because removing it would give the sniper little reason to move - I dont see how that is beneficial to a game that has included major changes to promote teamwork.

    @KingTolapsium - I see your point, but in this case my "insult", as you call it, was part of what I was discussing.

    I can admit saying "that's a bad idea because...." is perhaps a better way of saying what I said.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @Shadowmane01 - and having to post that you have won the argument is a telltale sign that somebody has nothing left to add to his already weak statements.
    I dont need to prove glint is there to prevent campers, because clearly i've already stated I believe it was added for balance reasons. The reason I want it to stay is because removing it would give the sniper little reason to move - I dont see how that is beneficial to a game that has included major changes to promote teamwork.

    @KingTolapsium - I see your point, but in this case my "insult", as you call it, was part of what I was discussing.

    I can admit saying "that's a bad idea because...." is perhaps a better way of saying what I said.

    Lol, it's hard to keep things polite. :)
  • Turban_Legend80
    4753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    @Shadowmane01 - and having to post that you have won the argument is a telltale sign that somebody has nothing left to add to his already weak statements.
    I dont need to prove glint is there to prevent campers, because clearly i've already stated I believe it was added for balance reasons. The reason I want it to stay is because removing it would give the sniper little reason to move - I dont see how that is beneficial to a game that has included major changes to promote teamwork.

    @KingTolapsium - I see your point, but in this case my "insult", as you call it, was part of what I was discussing.

    I can admit saying "that's a bad idea because...." is perhaps a better way of saying what I said.

    Lol, it's hard to keep things polite. :)

    Indeed :D
  • FromXbox_w_Love
    528 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited July 2016
    A1G1U1 wrote: »
    It's just absurd and unreal as f*ck right now. Your scope shouldn't be lit up like a sun on the sky. Especially on night maps. Sun needs to be in front of you to make it happen. If it's in your rear 180, it won't. In real life, if you suspect glint is gonna cause you problems, there's a cover you can attach to your scope (can't remember the name of it in english), to prevent it from happening. But I suspect there's more money in pleasing all the people crying about snipers so whatever. Just remove them all together and don't trick people.
    Are you a hardscoper

    The exact opposite.

    It's just stupid.
    I remember when I came back to Bf after a while and saw somebody halfway accross the map and thought like "damn, why are these dumb people using tactical light". Then I realized it's a camping sh*thead with a sniper rifle in his hands. Just voiced my opinion. If anything, I think they could take it down a little bit so it wouldn't be so laughable.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    A1G1U1 wrote: »
    A1G1U1 wrote: »
    It's just absurd and unreal as f*ck right now. Your scope shouldn't be lit up like a sun on the sky. Especially on night maps. Sun needs to be in front of you to make it happen. If it's in your rear 180, it won't. In real life, if you suspect glint is gonna cause you problems, there's a cover you can attach to your scope (can't remember the name of it in english), to prevent it from happening. But I suspect there's more money in pleasing all the people crying about snipers so whatever. Just remove them all together and don't trick people.
    Are you a hardscoper

    The exact opposite.

    It's just stupid.
    I remember when I came back to Bf after a while and saw somebody halfway accross the map and thought like "damn, why are these dumb people using tactical light". Then I realized it's a camping sh*thead with a sniper rifle in his hands. Just voiced my opinion. If anything, I think they could take it down a little bit so it wouldn't be so laughable.

    I agree it could be balanced better, I was curious to your playstyle, thanks for the response.
  • SLAYER_Of_PIGS
    685 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    I hope they listen this thread and remove glint.

    If they 'listen' to this thread, they'll see all the people who want glint removed unable to come up with any valid reason, so it wont be removed.


    You should hope they dont listen to this thread.

    1) broken distance balance mechanic - as it impact players that are closer more then those further away.
    2) broken implementation - is visible when a player is inside and current highly visiable. Still trying to confirm if still visiable thru smoke and gas like BF4.
    3) we have not seen the weapons customization only weapons variants. So based on what we have that means at least 2 variants are not going to be used.
    4) drag and sweet spot encourage players to be at around 100m and no further then 400m. 100m is a range at which every weapon in BF1 can operate at.


    So what was you valid reason to keep?



    Even having passive 3D spotting any players that is more then 500m is a better anti-camping then glint.

    @DingoKillr

    1. It allows players to quickly visualize the point of danger, at 40m or 400m. Allowing them to retreat, not take you out. (You cited your opinion, not facts)

    2. Hiding in a house, shouldn't make you invisible, the implementation works as it does, because it would be abused, resulting in ranged campers with no negative impact for being terrible. (This was your opinion, not fact). Smoke should be fixed.

    3. There will be customization, nice strawman argument. (Your opinion that no customization would happen).

    4. No, it functions similar to drop, this is due to increased bullet velocity. (This was your incorrect opinion).

    Valid reason to keep? There is no valid argument against it. Maybe go learn what a fact is before you make another condescend list.

    555, Valid reason to keep? none after all what valid facts have you presented.

    1. Funny how you stated to like using 1895-TR up to 200m, why is that? So you do not give a warning to your target when you ADS but you are fine giving unfair treatment to those that use 1 scope type.

    2. You call it a opinion but it is fact it is fact that glint works inside a house and highly visible, YYHU6Ky.png It is your opinion that only 1 scope type on the BA should be visible from inside a house while all other scopes on BA and other weapons can remain invisible.

    3. Prove it. Vehicles are going to have variants and appear to have no customization.

    4. I don't know what you think you are answering but has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Glint does not encourage players to move forward drag and sweet spot do.

    I agree
This discussion has been closed.