BF1 doesn't have gearing and the devs already stated that they want to avoid creating damage models that have a huge gap between headshots and bodyshots.

I do not think they are very comparable.

A recoil-exclusive model has it's own problems, namely that there is no penalty for doing anything other than shooting and so you get nastier issues of all sorts of ADADA/jump spamming, etc.

For me an ideal model is one that has recoil and the spread is determined by player stance, movement AND mouse acceleration. I loved the old R6/Ghost Recon model where you had to smoothly and maneuver smoothly otherwise your aimed accuracy was shit. Just needed real recoil mechanics and ADS mechanics.

The random base spread stuff in BF is pretty meh to me.

PUBG has been my go-to game in the last month or two, and in general I do not have a problem with their gun mechanics. But one of the things that I do not like about PUBG is how high the TTK becomes when one have level 3 gear. Second, which is more aggravating personally, is the misalignment of sights and aim point. Do you guys remember the sight "recoil" in the early BF4 days? It is exactly that. In PUBG, it happens when you move, get shot, and shoot while ADS. While I think the sight movement while strafing is a good thing, I really hate the sight misalignment when getting shot and on recoil. I have to add a dot of Blu-tac on my screen, like the good ol' CS no-scope AWP days, to indicate where my aim point actually is.

It's generally not a good idea to try and emulate the success of another game. The Battlefield franchise isn't as big as PUBG is currently, but nothing else is either. Battlefield has maintained a solid, if not growing, playerbase over the years that continues to buy into the product. Obviously they're doing something right to those who keep buying the titles. As far as I am aware, the gun handling mechanics in PUBG, like many games, is not nearly as complex as is the system that Battlefield uses, so it's likely that the ability to emulate the feeling of combat in PUBG already exists in the engine, it's just not the direction that DICE wants the game to go in terms of what it feels like to play.

I believe Battlefield does as well as it does because it is unique enough to have its own identity. The FPS market is and has been saturated for a very long time, finding something unique is often a challenge when looking at new titles. PUBG doesn't really do anything unique really, it just does everything it does better than all of the other battle royale style games on the market.

A lot can be said for the longevity of a title, too. The Battlefield series has been around since 2002, making this its 15th year as a successful franchise. I very much believe that PUBG is a flavor of the month game, albeit a VERY popular one, and that it won't have the staying power that a lot of older Battlefield titles have. Whether one game is handling gunplay better than the other is completely subjective, so I don't think either one has a reason to take aspects from the other, they cater to different groups of players, and always will.

In an optimal game you would try to create a reasonable compromise between recoil, spread and aimpoint as well as TTK/damage. So that inconsistencies do not arise on a broader level. Both PUBG and BF1 struggle with that.

I second what sid-tai says here, the also very complex system of PUBG does lend to frustration in the same way as release BF1 did with it's crazily niche weapons and overcalculated stats. Now BF1 addressed parts of it, while PUBG also plays out very clunky due to "netcode" issues that the BF franchise has mostly figured out.

However what also plays a part and here BF1 struggles, are that engagements are not only defined by numbers but by structures around it as well. Cover, positioning, map design. The general frustration with BF1 is partly due to the gunplay and also their vision of balanced map design.
PUBG is so successful, because it focuses on a gameplay that is new and inherently fun as well as dynamic. It doe snot suffer from BF's feature or power creep, where every iteration needs to bring some nee half-assed modes alongside with the two big ones insread of polishing the ones that are actually played and throw non-working things away. This can obviously not work because you are creating maps that need to work decently on a dozen modes instead of only one or two. The audience is to blame for that as well, since they want innovation over perfection.So Frontlines is the hot shit, yet you still have Domination and TDM that also fill the same need for infantry heavy combat? Or Rush that is also objective based? Why not ditch the others and force people into a new really working mode.

With this you can again balance the gunplay mechanics accordingly to get the most out of your intended engagements. My ITNOTT experience is lmited to a round of Galitia which I found terribly fucked up as a map, and I do not really plan on picking it up any time soon, along with all my mates so there go 6 people that they lost because the gunplay does not work well with the gameplay.
Gunplay wise I daresay that BF4 had it pretty much spot on, while BF3 worked better if you include my argument with the maps/structural design.

Edit: To add to that, I always shake my head when a game focuses too much on hitting that head. I think there is more to a player's kill than just his ability to aim at small targets. Both games also suffer from other modifiers which lead to inconsistencies. You can need everythig from three to seven hits with an AR depending on gear, stance and movement of the enemy. If in these two games the target is running in a 90° angle to you are very likely to hit a body part that reduces damage significantly.

I haven't played PUBG, but I've heard that the shoulder-switch feature is kind of clunky/weird (you supposedly have to be ADS to do it). And watching gameplay, I see very few people actually make use of it. So, I'm led to believe that's true.

To me, that's a bit game-breaking for a third-person shooter. You either make shoulder-switch 100% seamless, or you omit it and go with an overhead aim. SOCOM has set this golden standard for third-person shooters 15 years ago, and since then, the vast majority of third-person shooters still seemingly get it wrong. This is why, as a third-person shooter, GTA V is a bit of joke compared to Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3, especially the latter. GTA V has a pretty huge balancing problem due to the fixed shoulder view.

Quoted from "tankmayvin"

For me an ideal model is one that has recoil and the spread is determined by player stance, movement AND mouse acceleration. I loved the old R6/Ghost Recon model where you had to smoothly and maneuver smoothly otherwise your aimed accuracy was shit. Just needed real recoil mechanics and ADS mechanics.

YES, YES, YES! I logged thousands of hours on MSN gaming zone playing R6: Rogue Spear. I think RS had one of the best shooting mechanics ever, the reticule system was great. I never liked how spread in BF is based on stance and movement, and doesn't have dynamics properties when you ADAD spam or what not, just base spread when moving. In RS, you needed to strafe, stop, strafe or the ret would bloom uncontrollably. Disciplined movement really matter in R6;if you didn't learned to transition smoothly when moving, it made it hard to aim.

Maybe, a bit unrelated to this thread, but I would love to play a game that incorporated reduced aimed accuracy when hurt; remember when you were hobbled in RS and you have increased base spread on your reticule and decreased movement speed. What a cool mechanism; I wish other games Incorporated mechanisms like that.

Quoted from "yugas42"

It's generally not a good idea to try and emulate the success of another game. The Battlefield franchise isn't as big as PUBG is currently, but nothing else is either. Battlefield has maintained a solid, if not growing, playerbase over the years that continues to buy into the product. Obviously they're doing something right to those who keep buying the titles. As far as I am aware, the gun handling mechanics in PUBG, like many games, is not nearly as complex as is the system that Battlefield uses, so it's likely that the ability to emulate the feeling of combat in PUBG already exists in the engine, it's just not the direction that DICE wants the game to go in terms of what it feels like to play.

I believe Battlefield does as well as it does because it is unique enough to have its own identity. The FPS market is and has been saturated for a very long time, finding something unique is often a challenge when looking at new titles. PUBG doesn't really do anything unique really, it just does everything it does better than all of the other battle royale style games on the market.

A lot can be said for the longevity of a title, too. The Battlefield series has been around since 2002, making this its 15th year as a successful franchise. I very much believe that PUBG is a flavor of the month game, albeit a VERY popular one, and that it won't have the staying power that a lot of older Battlefield titles have. Whether one game is handling gunplay better than the other is completely subjective, so I don't think either one has a reason to take aspects from the other, they cater to different groups of players, and always will.

I agree that BF and PUBG has completely different mechanics and neither should copy the other. Both types can be implemented well or shit. IMO, PUBG is on the good side of things and BF has been too before BF1 (not counting hardline I did not play it). Right now BF1 is definitely on the shit side for me, despite all of the nice features that PUBG does not have like USA, good netcode and nice framerates.