Scope glare/glint or what else it is called

2»

Comments

  • ragnarok013
    3820 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Carbonic said:
    Carbonic said:
    Yes yes yes, but the balance between realism and gameplay has to be maintained. I guess you could make the MG42 über realistic but then you would need to add a longer setup time and a quite low MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) rate to the weapon and then have people whine that their gun is slow to set up and failed at critical moments ruining their fun.

    In short, it can't all be realistic but when it can without ruining the fun then why not :)



    Carbonic said:
    Seems pretty consistent with how the weapon worked in WW2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Infrared_sight_versions

    So its ok to be realistic when it fits your needs...but not others.
    The needs of the game not me, but yes.
    So DICE uses the "we balance it this way for realism" when it suits their needs, but then "does not balance for realism" when that also suits their needs. 

    This explains in great detail why BFV is in such shambles. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. 

    Dr_Steamfur DICE has consistently stated over the past decade that balancing for player fun always trumps balancing for realism in terms of game play mechanics. In BF5 they pursued more realism and players didn't seem to care for that much.
  • fragnstein
    817 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    So DICE uses the "we balance it this way for realism" when it suits their needs, but then "does not balance for realism" when that also suits their needs. 

    This explains in great detail why BFV is in such shambles. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. 

    That is exactly it. It happens everywhere in the corporate world today. Many companies will say"we did x because we listen" but only if it aligns with what they were going to do anyways. it sucks, but what can you do?
  • Carbonic
    1900 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator

    (Quote)
    So DICE uses the "we balance it this way for realism" when it suits their needs, but then "does not balance for realism" when that also suits their needs. 

    This explains in great detail why BFV is in such shambles. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. 

    That is exactly it. It happens everywhere in the corporate world today. Many companies will say"we did x because we listen" but only if it aligns with what they were going to do anyways. it sucks, but what can you do?

    I don't think that's fair or what is happening in this case at all. There is quite the difference in what you can do with a weapon depending on when the weapons became available in the game. The weapons that were there at release had to set the baseline, they had to be in the basic base weapon pool, that works in every map, without any quirky mechanics or anything that was too far out there. Later in a games lifecycle, when the bases are covered, then you can add weapons like a DMR with a thermal scope and have them have quirky realistic features that make them harder to master with limited use cases.

    Trying to tie this into how things work in the "corporate world" is just silly. There are many things you can blame "the corporate world" but I think you are overreaching in this case.
  • MarxistDictator
    5234 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    People only apply the realism argument towards MGs despite the fact that other weapons benefit far more from the lack of realism. The M1 Carbine outdamages all automatics despite firing a smaller bullet than any MG. The STG44 not only works with 30 rounds in a magazine jam-free but doesn’t suffer from overheating despite being a design that would overheat in less than 100 rounds. Most of the longer rifle pattern weapons are insanely mobile and have good hip fire. Why is asking for an MG to not be completely useless even in the one situation it is not completely useless asking the moon and totally unrealistic then?
  • Hawxxeye
    7587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 4
    Carbonic said:
    Yes yes yes, but the balance between realism and gameplay has to be maintained. I guess you could make the MG42 über realistic but then you would need to add a longer setup time and a quite low MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) rate to the weapon and then have people whine that their gun is slow to set up and failed at critical moments ruining their fun.

    In short, it can't all be realistic but when it can without ruining the fun then why not :)
    The attempts to apply realism in BFV has in several cases damaged both the fun factor and the balance factor.
    .
    One can ask any tank user if they enjoy the ultra limited turret turn and angle as well as all the other tank problems.
    No pilot enjoys the heat haze effect on the desert maps that make the visibilty even worse.
    .
    How many people actually enjoy how limited the MMGs are?
    .
    I can bet that most people dislike the M3 scope. I tried that the other day on some dude at like 50m away or a bit more and that guy would not show up at all at this range and instead I saw a black area at that distance, but I could still see his 3d marker above him because I had damaged him randomly. This is just awful
  • MOSSAD-RECRUITER
    409 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Outgoing reflections should be relative to other incoming lights, if any lights. With DXR, it should not be difficult. When all other lights can be shown that way. Even without DXR today.
    But I guess snipers are not popular, especially when camping. Now, even if they spot someone, the spotted ones are warned. If snipers are that annoying, limit the number of snipers instead.
  • MrCamp121
    1100 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    Actually yes, when someone comes around the corner, the MG 42 should win 90% of the time. This is the balance for not being able to "run and gun", the balance for being a free kill due to ZERO defense abilities. 

    Do you comprehend the idea of a glass cannon...because ALL PRONE guns are glass, but in the case of MMGs, no cannon. 

    The proof is in the game play. When I have a sniper at 20 meters AD strafe, aim and get his head shot before I can kill him...then yes there is a problem.

    But secondly, you are also leaving out the bit of how latency affects still targets vs moving targets. I assume you leave this out because you do not understand how it works. Its simple. A moving object on the playfield IS NOT located at the position the still object sees it at. However, a moving object DOES see exactly where the still object is at all times, simply there is no need for data to "catch up". This gives the moving player an advantage over the stationary player.

    Because there is no way to solve this problem, balance decisions (that dice did not make) should have taken place to counter this. For example. One thing that can be done is to make prone weapons immune to spotting, or prone players in general. Going prone leaves the player defenseless, literally. The upside should be a stronger attack. 

    This is basic game philosophy 101. 


    Ohh also, the MG 42 has an extremely wide bullet pattern. I once shot an AP mine at my foot, at 1200 RPM expended 50 rounds and did not hit the AP mine. True story.

    Lol..if you cant kill a sniper at 20m before he headshots you, thats on you and nobody else. Also, its your decision to play with your face in the dirt, making you the easy headshot. The mmg user tears on this forum are epic
  • Hawxxeye
    7587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 7
    MrCamp121 said:
    (Quote)
    Actually yes, when someone comes around the corner, the MG 42 should win 90% of the time. This is the balance for not being able to "run and gun", the balance for being a free kill due to ZERO defense abilities. 

    Do you comprehend the idea of a glass cannon...because ALL PRONE guns are glass, but in the case of MMGs, no cannon. 

    The proof is in the game play. When I have a sniper at 20 meters AD strafe, aim and get his head shot before I can kill him...then yes there is a problem.

    But secondly, you are also leaving out the bit of how latency affects still targets vs moving targets. I assume you leave this out because you do not understand how it works. Its simple. A moving object on the playfield IS NOT located at the position the still object sees it at. However, a moving object DOES see exactly where the still object is at all times, simply there is no need for data to "catch up". This gives the moving player an advantage over the stationary player.

    Because there is no way to solve this problem, balance decisions (that dice did not make) should have taken place to counter this. For example. One thing that can be done is to make prone weapons immune to spotting, or prone players in general. Going prone leaves the player defenseless, literally. The upside should be a stronger attack. 

    This is basic game philosophy 101. 


    Ohh also, the MG 42 has an extremely wide bullet pattern. I once shot an AP mine at my foot, at 1200 RPM expended 50 rounds and did not hit the AP mine. True story.

    Lol..if you cant kill a sniper at 20m before he headshots you, thats on you and nobody else. Also, its your decision to play with your face in the dirt, making you the easy headshot. The mmg user tears on this forum are epic
    Why that? Only noobs die a lot to mmgs now.
    Most people die once and then they know where to go for revenge at.
  • Carbonic
    1900 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Don't think of any perceived class or weapon imbalances as negative things, think of it as difficulty levels, people love difficulty levels - I mean, look at Dark Souls, people love that stuff. ;)
  • Hawxxeye
    7587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Don't think of any perceived class or weapon imbalances as negative things, think of it as difficulty levels, people love difficulty levels - I mean, look at Dark Souls, people love that stuff. ;)
    Yeah this works in single player games.
    In Shooters when someone is using Dark Souls Sniper rifles and MMGs while others in the enemy team are using the hello Kitty adventures 2A, Karabin , STG44 etc, only bad things happen
  • MrCamp121
    1100 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Why that? Only noobs die a lot to mmgs now.Most people die once and then they know where to go for revenge at.

    Huh? What did your reply have to do with my comment? Kekw
  • Trokey66
    9046 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 7
    Realism should always be applied where ever practicable but balance should always trump realism.

    Unfortunately, 'realism' had been applied to often in BFV which, in my opinion anyway, has negatively affected balance.

    Ironically, in an attempt to introduce balance in some places, 'realism' has been totally and utterly been thrown out the window for balance but has had the same affects as above.

    MMGs are a prime example of this.

    REALISM - Must be prone to be 'fully effective' but leaves the user vulnreable.

    ANTI REALISM - When hip firing, bullets can literally go anywhere on the screen.

    I do wonder what MMGs would have been like had archetypes made it into the game but the 'community' whinged and they were removed before release so we'll never know........
  • Hawxxeye
    7587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    MrCamp121 said:
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Why that? Only noobs die a lot to mmgs now.Most people die once and then they know where to go for revenge at.

    Huh? What did your reply have to do with my comment? Kekw
    I thought you were too harsh on the mmgs considering how many drawbacks they have had in BFV. Being mobile was always the meta. I do not think they deserve to much scorn for wanting something other than shooting while strafing to be a viable playstyle
  • Callisto90
    65 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Another reason why BC2 was such a good game. Snipers could actually be concealed. Should never have been added.
    I stopped sniping as much when they added the glint in bf3. Everyone knew where you were.

    Which was funny because you could see the tracers in BC2 so it wasn't like they were invisible.
    But now it's like "hey i'm over here everyone shoot at the bright star"

    Another implementation to make the game easier for the casuals.

  • Hawxxeye
    7587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 8
    Another reason why BC2 was such a good game. Snipers could actually be concealed. Should never have been added.
    I stopped sniping as much when they added the glint in bf3. Everyone knew where you were.

    Which was funny because you could see the tracers in BC2 so it wasn't like they were invisible.
    But now it's like "hey i'm over here everyone shoot at the bright star"

    Another implementation to make the game easier for the casuals.

    I do not think it is about casuals.
    It is about MLG pro overachievers who hate anything breaking their killstreak with that assault rifle/SMG by killing them in a way that gets the jump on them before they can shoot back with their mechanical reflexes.
    This is also the reason that the shotguns are also reviled by the same groups
  • Trokey66
    9046 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)

    I do not think it is about casuals.It is about MLG pro overachievers who hate anything breaking their killstreak with that assault rifle/SMG by killing them in a way that gets the jump on them before they can shoot back with their mechanical reflexes.
    This is also the reason that the shotguns are also reviled by the same groups

    QFT!
Sign In or Register to comment.