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

Comments

  • BadcuzTremysaid
    1350 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    IMO Glint should only show up when looking through the scope.
  • Shadowmane01
    209 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter Member
    edited July 2016
    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. Plus if you think glint was not at the very least in part because of the crying (there was more crying over snipers in that BF game than there has been crying over anything else in any BF game) then to use your own insult your an utter fool.

  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    IMO Glint should only show up when looking through the scope.

    Wish granted.

    Or do you mean when looking through your own scope at another sniper?

    The glint isn't there for snipers, its for everyone else.

    Remove glint through high powered scopes makes way more sense.
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    This glint argument is getting silly here. Serious lack of reason for removal.

    Time to get gud guys.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »

    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    i think if someone, know that the enemy can see him because of his glint, then i keep myself far, so enemy can kill me, so i think people camp more far than no glint, just for avoid to be killed.

    the enemy would see you regardless of glint if you decided to be in short or medium range so.......

    That is the point glint renders cover obsolete.

    With glint a player 400m can use cover, yet still be seen and has less worry about other. While at 100m they can not even use cover as the glint will give them away.

    Glint does not balance or stop camping and never has and never will. The only thing it encourages is using high power scope weapons with the one play style of quickscoping.


    how does it render cover obsolete?
    you are not invisible until you start to ADS.

    good snipers are able to fire and kill a target before they can even notice glint, because they know how to position themselves and understand how the mechanics works.
    only bad snipers who take forever to aim or cant hit their shots will give their position away by their glint.
    you should not even use a scope with glint if you want to have engagements at 100M tbh.

    also if you want to QS you are better off with an X4 scope or less rather then use a scope with glint......


    Yet, any player can use cover and ADS expect a Scout.

    Good Sniper is not quickscoping at short range.
    A Good Scout should be able to spot targets not just aim.
    you should not even use a scope with glint if you want to have engagements at 100M tbh.
    This required special attention as the weapon we talking about has a sweet spot max of 125m. This main DICE wants you to operate in that range even with glint.

    a good scout uses the equipment that comes with his class.
    in BF4 for instance if you want to spot targets you are better off using a PLD, MAV or Soflam which BTW can also help you laser designate or destroy enemy equipment.

    PLD can also tell you the distance to your target which would also make it so that you can ready your sniper rifle and get ready to pull the trigger the second you ADS.

    only bad snipers use their sniper rifle to spot targets and its no wonder those are the ones that hate glint.....

    Also it does not matter what weapon you have when you are in cover and ADS , if you miss your shots you will be seen and thus spotted if keep ADSing in the same spot......

    In BF1 we have none of those gadgets.

    That right it does not matter what weapon, if you miss you miss, however the target has no warning that a LMG user has been ADS him, but does form a scout user.

    Can an LMG one hit kill?

    Are you suggesting then that glint also be on all BA with or without high power scope.

    Nope, a skilled player at range can get an ohk with no glint.

    A skilled lmg player can kill with a lower relative ttk than his competition, because of better recoil control. Skill per gun is different.

    The no glint option is only usefully available if you are skilled, not all players should have that, and with this balance, we didn't have problems in bf4 or the alpha.

    Then why does high power scope need glint to balance?

    After all you just said a skilled player can use a non-glint option at range, but a high power scope still has glint when they get closer.

    250m=\=30m

    Is this really that confusing?

    he was using his sniper rifle to spot targets using a scope with glint rather then equipment specifically designed to do just that without being noticed.

    do you really need an answer to that question lel

    You are bigger fool then I thought. Tell me which of those gadgets are BF1 .

    tell me where i was talking about BF1 dumb ****.
    i explicitly mentioned BF4.
    pretty much common sense since nobody knows what all the equipment will be in BF1 so no point jumping to conclusions all ready.
    they could easily give us binoculars that could be the WW1 version of the PLD.( they actually where)
    you do realise that the telescope has been around since the 17th century right?
    then again seeing the amount of stupidity you are displaying , you most likely did not know this......

    I told you I was talking about BF1, but no your to thick to understand, instead you want to insult me instead.

    You do know that the PLD and SOFLAM both have laser light like scope glint.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    This glint argument is getting silly here. Serious lack of reason for removal.

    Time to get gud guys.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »

    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    i think if someone, know that the enemy can see him because of his glint, then i keep myself far, so enemy can kill me, so i think people camp more far than no glint, just for avoid to be killed.

    the enemy would see you regardless of glint if you decided to be in short or medium range so.......

    That is the point glint renders cover obsolete.

    With glint a player 400m can use cover, yet still be seen and has less worry about other. While at 100m they can not even use cover as the glint will give them away.

    Glint does not balance or stop camping and never has and never will. The only thing it encourages is using high power scope weapons with the one play style of quickscoping.


    how does it render cover obsolete?
    you are not invisible until you start to ADS.

    good snipers are able to fire and kill a target before they can even notice glint, because they know how to position themselves and understand how the mechanics works.
    only bad snipers who take forever to aim or cant hit their shots will give their position away by their glint.
    you should not even use a scope with glint if you want to have engagements at 100M tbh.

    also if you want to QS you are better off with an X4 scope or less rather then use a scope with glint......


    Yet, any player can use cover and ADS expect a Scout.

    Good Sniper is not quickscoping at short range.
    A Good Scout should be able to spot targets not just aim.
    you should not even use a scope with glint if you want to have engagements at 100M tbh.
    This required special attention as the weapon we talking about has a sweet spot max of 125m. This main DICE wants you to operate in that range even with glint.

    a good scout uses the equipment that comes with his class.
    in BF4 for instance if you want to spot targets you are better off using a PLD, MAV or Soflam which BTW can also help you laser designate or destroy enemy equipment.

    PLD can also tell you the distance to your target which would also make it so that you can ready your sniper rifle and get ready to pull the trigger the second you ADS.

    only bad snipers use their sniper rifle to spot targets and its no wonder those are the ones that hate glint.....

    Also it does not matter what weapon you have when you are in cover and ADS , if you miss your shots you will be seen and thus spotted if keep ADSing in the same spot......

    In BF1 we have none of those gadgets.

    That right it does not matter what weapon, if you miss you miss, however the target has no warning that a LMG user has been ADS him, but does form a scout user.

    Can an LMG one hit kill?

    Are you suggesting then that glint also be on all BA with or without high power scope.

    Nope, a skilled player at range can get an ohk with no glint.

    A skilled lmg player can kill with a lower relative ttk than his competition, because of better recoil control. Skill per gun is different.

    The no glint option is only usefully available if you are skilled, not all players should have that, and with this balance, we didn't have problems in bf4 or the alpha.

    Then why does high power scope need glint to balance?

    After all you just said a skilled player can use a non-glint option at range, but a high power scope still has glint when they get closer.

    250m=\=30m

    Is this really that confusing?

    he was using his sniper rifle to spot targets using a scope with glint rather then equipment specifically designed to do just that without being noticed.

    do you really need an answer to that question lel

    You are bigger fool then I thought. Tell me which of those gadgets are BF1 .

    tell me where i was talking about BF1 dumb ****.
    i explicitly mentioned BF4.
    pretty much common sense since nobody knows what all the equipment will be in BF1 so no point jumping to conclusions all ready.
    they could easily give us binoculars that could be the WW1 version of the PLD.( they actually where)
    you do realise that the telescope has been around since the 17th century right?
    then again seeing the amount of stupidity you are displaying , you most likely did not know this......

    I told you I was talking about BF1, but no your to thick to understand, instead you want to insult me instead.

    You do know that the PLD and SOFLAM both have laser light like scope glint.

    So where is the reason? Why was I quoted?
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    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.

    Lol, get gud?

    How are you having so many problems with glint?

    Are you a hardscoper?

    Are you staring at enemies in the face and not pulling the trigger?

    Realism is zero reason to remove a balance mechanic.

    Wow is that your best argument is get gud,.

    It is a broken balance mechanic, you have not provided one argument against that.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr 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.

    Lol, get gud?

    How are you having so many problems with glint?

    Are you a hardscoper?

    Are you staring at enemies in the face and not pulling the trigger?

    Realism is zero reason to remove a balance mechanic.

    Wow is that your best argument is get gud,.

    It is a broken balance mechanic, you have not provided one argument against that.

    It's broken because why? You get killed by better people online?

    That's why I'm chalking this up to getting good.

    Stop staring at people and not pulling the trigger, it's getting you killed.
  • BadcuzTremysaid
    1350 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    IMO Glint should only show up when looking through the scope.

    Wish granted.

    Or do you mean when looking through your own scope at another sniper?

    The glint isn't there for snipers, its for everyone else.

    Remove glint through high powered scopes makes way more sense.

    Looking through my own scope at anyone.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    IMO Glint should only show up when looking through the scope.

    Wish granted.

    Or do you mean when looking through your own scope at another sniper?

    The glint isn't there for snipers, its for everyone else.

    Remove glint through high powered scopes makes way more sense.

    Looking through my own scope at anyone.

    No, then it's a visual crutch for players with a visual magnification.

    That makes zero sense.
  • DingoKillr
    4356 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr 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.

    Lol, get gud?

    How are you having so many problems with glint?

    Are you a hardscoper?

    Are you staring at enemies in the face and not pulling the trigger?

    Realism is zero reason to remove a balance mechanic.

    Wow is that your best argument is get gud,.

    It is a broken balance mechanic, you have not provided one argument against that.

    It's broken because why? You get killed by better people online?

    That's why I'm chalking this up to getting good.

    Stop staring at people and not pulling the trigger, it's getting you killed.

    I have explained it already why it is broken but you wish to ignore it.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr 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.

    Lol, get gud?

    How are you having so many problems with glint?

    Are you a hardscoper?

    Are you staring at enemies in the face and not pulling the trigger?

    Realism is zero reason to remove a balance mechanic.

    Wow is that your best argument is get gud,.

    It is a broken balance mechanic, you have not provided one argument against that.

    It's broken because why? You get killed by better people online?

    That's why I'm chalking this up to getting good.

    Stop staring at people and not pulling the trigger, it's getting you killed.

    I have explained it already why it is broken but you wish to ignore it.

    No you haven't. You've presented your opinion.

    It's ridiculous to claim snipers wouldn't camp to high heaven without scope glint. Ridiculous, it's only your opinion, backed up by your opinion.
  • saddlebred12
    341 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Even with glint people just camp much farther away
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Even with glint people just camp much farther away

    And they are less effective and punished for missed shots, by.... the glint. Omg, balance. Remove glint, so snipers can be terrible campers with no negative reprecussions. Great idea /s
  • Shadowmane01
    209 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    DingoKillr 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.

    Lol, get gud?

    How are you having so many problems with glint?

    Are you a hardscoper?

    Are you staring at enemies in the face and not pulling the trigger?

    Realism is zero reason to remove a balance mechanic.

    Wow is that your best argument is get gud,.

    It is a broken balance mechanic, you have not provided one argument against that.

    It's broken because why? You get killed by better people online?

    That's why I'm chalking this up to getting good.

    Stop staring at people and not pulling the trigger, it's getting you killed.

    I have explained it already why it is broken but you wish to ignore it.

    No you haven't. You've presented your opinion.

    It's ridiculous to claim snipers wouldn't camp to high heaven without scope glint. Ridiculous, it's only your opinion, backed up by your opinion.

    You say that as if your sure glint was introduced as an anti camping measure can you point me to the dice press release that stats this to be the case if not then its just your opinion. Having said that common sense says that yes without glint there would be more camping snipers. I just feel that dice should of by now come up with something better than a bright light pinpointing a sniper and doing it even before they have taken a shot.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 2016
    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.
  • Turban_Legend80
    4753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited July 2016
    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.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 2016
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.