Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "Katana67" started this thread

Posts: 140

Date of registration
: Apr 14th 2012

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

71

Wednesday, December 4th 2013, 7:24pm

This was in your first post:
"DISCLAIMER - "Realism" or "authenticity" is not my primary concern. I'm more concerned with the "gameplay" or "weapon balance" aspect in this particular case. However, I believe my argument is also supported by the "authenticity" angle as well, not that it matters. "
You specifically mention that you are concerned about weapon balance.

Let's address some of your further points though:

This is incoherent. You claim that you are not talking about imbalance, then claim that the imbalance lies in attachment distribution. The redundancy only amounts to "imbalance" if they significantly alter the effectiveness of the weapon. These sights don't. You can argue that the sights are pointless, but is that really a problem? Simply having more attachments does not, in itself, amount to imbalance.

If they don't affect weapon balance, what's the problem?
The disclaimer may have been poorly worded, but I intended it to dissuade people from focusing on the "realism"/"authenticity" angle and focus on the idea of bolt-actions being used in close range (regardless of whether one views it as "balanced" or not).

What you're not understanding is that I'm not talking about an IN-GAME or IN-MATCH imbalance, in terms of what advantages/disadvantages are offered by CQC optics toward bolt-actions or how the weapons perform. I'm commenting on the innate inclusion of attachments (specifically CQC) being redundant and irrelevant to the purposes of a bolt-action sniper rifle.

Yes, by literal definition, having more of something as compared to something else defines an imbalance in a very general sense. That is the sense in which I mean it. Likewise, I do not feel that CQC optics for bolt-actions offer anything which is not already covered by other weapons/classes. So yes, I am arguing as well that the sights are pointless in comparison to what is already available to the Recon class and that the weapon/attachment landscape has changed significantly from BC2-BF3-BF4 that creates a situation whereby CQC optics for bolt-actions are no longer necessary/warranted. Likewise, I'm arguing for a consistency in the treatment of individual weapon classes insofar as their parent "class" is concerned. In BF3, this was accomplished by a relative equality in optics (with other weapons having access to 6x optics) which allowed for a semi long-range capability for weapons to justify/counter the inclusion of CQC optics for bolt-actions. It is purely about, in my opinion, proper distribution of attachments which suit the roles of both the class and the weapon.


Your racism against sniping pleases me...

Posts: 430

Date of registration
: Jan 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

72

Wednesday, December 4th 2013, 7:36pm

In BF3 I usually used 4x and 3.4x scopes on bolts for a couple of reasons - I don't like glint giving me away, and I find the sway to be annoying. I also felt that my FOV with high power scopes was more limited than I liked, and you almost have to be further away. On occasion I would use even rds or holo on bolts just to have some fun.

I was usually well within 100 meters. Sure there are plenty of weapons that are more effective at that range, but that brings up some of the schizophrenia in this forum, e.g. in BF3 M16 was the consensus best AR, but at the same time no one was actually supposed to use it. So which is it? Should you use the best weapon at all times, or should you play with other weapons and even have fun with sub-optimal weapons and loadouts? I choose to do both - M16 was a top 10 weapon for me in BF3, but not top 5. The argument here seems to be have fun versus we must be optimized at all times.

I won't say I was particularly effective with an RDS bolt, but there were games I did real well. I had fun, which also meant I wasn't dying all the time.
Swyck
Platform: PC

Posts: 171

Date of registration
: Jun 11th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Manchester, UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

73

Wednesday, December 4th 2013, 7:36pm

I was going to post an actual rebuttal but there's no point. You're not going to listen to any reasoning because you think bolt actions shouldn't be able to operate effectively in CQC and that people should just use a different weapon, and this thread is now just 8 pages of people repeating the same damn thing over and over again.
BF3 stats

Spoiler Spoiler



Posts: 106

Date of registration
: Sep 23rd 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

74

Wednesday, December 4th 2013, 8:06pm


What you're not understanding is that I'm not talking about an IN-GAME or IN-MATCH imbalance, in terms of what advantages/disadvantages are offered by CQC optics toward bolt-actions or how the weapons perform. I'm commenting on the innate inclusion of attachments (specifically CQC) being redundant and irrelevant to the purposes of a bolt-action sniper rifle.

I understand this, but that isn't a significant imbalance at all. But let's put that aside.

Why does it matter if a set of sights are redundant for your idea of the use of a BA rifle? Why is that a PROBLEM? If it doesn't affect GAMEPLAY in a negative way, there's no problem here.

Quoted

Yes, by literal definition, having more of something as compared to something else defines an imbalance in a very general sense. That is the sense in which I mean it.

An arbitrary, insignificant imbalance. Not all imbalances are problematic. See question above.

Quoted

Likewise, I do not feel that CQC optics for bolt-actions offer anything which is not already covered by other weapons/classes.

Even if they are redundant, so what? Just having other weapons able to fight in close range better doesn't mean there's a problem with the sights.

Quoted

So yes, I am arguing as well that the sights are pointless in comparison to what is already available to the Recon class and that the weapon/attachment landscape has changed significantly from BC2-BF3-BF4 that creates a situation whereby CQC optics for bolt-actions are no longer necessary/warranted.

Necessary =/= warranted. You have made a lot of claims about why they are not NECESSARY (which I address below). Nothing you have said indicates why they are not warranted.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, I would echo Watcher-45's point. The BA rifles are designed for precise, 1 shot kills. NOT for ultra long range sniping. This WARRANTS the inclusion of mid/close range sights because they are the ONLY weapons that can 1 shot a person (with a properly placed headshot) at 50 meters.

I agree, however, that DMRs should have 6x scopes, to add range to other classes.

Posts: 222

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: New Zealand

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

75

Wednesday, December 4th 2013, 8:51pm

pointless topic tbh, lock it, he got his 15 min 8 pages of fame

TheMightyVoice

The Pantless Messiah Returns

(1,830)

Posts: 793

Date of registration
: May 22nd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Behind my M240B

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

76

Wednesday, December 4th 2013, 11:50pm

To your first point, I'd agree that bolt-actions are the logical choice for high-magnification optics. For the record, I wasn't the one advocating for across-the-board attachment equality. I support a more honed addition/subtraction of attachments to weapons, like was done in BF3. For instance giving a moderate optic upgrade to LMGs/DMRs/ARs (somewhere around 6-8x). This was not an issue in BF3. This also can be tempered by removing CQC optics (but leaving in Mid-Range optics for bolt-actions) in order to make the bolt-actions a more long-range weapon without sacrificing any real viability in terms of gameplay.

It's a balance issue, for me, of being able to have your cake and eat it too. You have a weapon which is supposed to be the king at range, yet there are optics present which make it viable in CQC (said optics now made redundant for the Recon class with the inclusion of a better "all-kit" lineup). This exists nowhere else in the weapon lineup.

And, again, I think there's a bit of dissonance between the class of Recon and the weapons which said class can use. I guess, ultimately what I'm saying, is that Recon's CQC capability should not be reliant or contingent on bolt-actions. Recon's long-range capability should be, but not its CQC capacity. This is now with BF4 provided for, by a robust "all-kit" lineup. It is no longer necessary to have CQC optics on bolt-actions to provide for a Recon to engage in CQC when he/she can just select a DMR or Carbine. So I guess there's a gap between making the Recon class itself viable in CQC versus making a class of weapons viable in CQC.

Succinctly, people seem to draw the line at the weapon rather than the weapons available to the class. I draw the line at the latter.

When you consider the class, Recon, which has weapons designed for CQC available to it... why then, is it appropriate to prioritize a weapon class over the other class-dependent weapon classes? I guess I still am not satisfied with your answer to my question "Why are bolt-actions special?". You say that "snipers cannot be effectively be used against competent enemies at short range". But why should they be in the first place is what I'm asking.

You think the inclusion of high-magnification optics is asinine on non bolt-actions for the very same reasons I think CQC optics are asinine on bolt-actions.

You keep saying that "I never supported this, I never advocated that", but you did.

Quoted from "Katana67"

The second is to remove sub-6x (or sub-4x/3.4x depending on who you ask) optics for bolt-actions to bring them in line with the rest of the weapons and allow Recons to make more use of the provided "all-kit" lineup. The third solution would be to include 6x and/or 8x optics for a select few weapon classes (like in BF3) so that the disparity between bolt-actions is less significant. I am more in favor of the second and third solutions, but to each their own.

By your logic in trying to say that BASRs have no place in close range, and should only be useful at long range, then hell, let's take it the whole nine yards.
Let's make LMGs do no damage at point blank range, I mean, they're not PDWs! Carbines shouldn't even be able to hurt people that are 100 meters away, they're not meant for those engagements! Why should pump actions even be able to touch people past 15 meters? The pellets should just disappear after a few meters! Oh, wait. This is Battlefield, not Call of Duty. My bad. But this all proves a point. It goes to show that you simply have no idea what you're talking about, and in all likelihood, are just one of the many thousands of people who are butthurt about getting killed by BASRs up close. The CQC optics make the BASRs SOMEWHAT viable in close range. They are nowhere near as viable as PDWs, Assault Rifles, LMGs, Carbines, or Shotguns in their respective ranges of dominance. They are a necessity to BASRs to make them viable in the least if one is going to use them outside of what you seem to think is their only place in the game - Sniping. If the only point of BASRs was sniping, which is to say, single precision killshots ONLY TAKEN FROM HIDDEN AND MOST LIKELY DISTANT LOCATIONS, why are they given often in excess of 50 bullets? That's a much higher ammo count per expected kill than any other class of weapon. Oh, maybe, just maybe, they aren't supposed to be firing only if they can secure the kill. Maybe, just maybe, high power rifles can have their use on the front lines, despite lacking a decent rate of fire. And maybe, just possibly, it would be stupid from a game development standpoint to make anyone who brings a BASR to help protect their squad from long distance fire permanently screwed in any engagement that isn't long range.

Quoted from "Katana67"

It's a balance issue, for me, of being able to have your cake and eat it too. You have a weapon which is supposed to be the king at range, yet there are optics present which make it viable in CQC (said optics now made redundant for the Recon class with the inclusion of a better "all-kit" lineup). This exists nowhere else in the weapon lineup.

And this, this is just ridiculous and frankly false. You mean to tell me you think an M240B with a 4x on a bipod can't be used to gib people at long ranges? With this setup, it won't be as good for aggressive playstyles, of course, but it will still be both better in close range engagements than the BASR, and inferior at distance engagements. You mean to tell me that you think the optic on the gun is the sole factor for making BASRs unfair compared to other weapon classes? I'm going to be very frank and say I really hope this is all a big fucking joke, or I question either your sanity or your intelligence. Perhaps both.

Quoted from "Katana67"

And, again, I think there's a bit of dissonance between the class of Recon and the weapons which said class can use. I guess, ultimately what I'm saying, is that Recon's CQC capability should not be reliant or contingent on bolt-actions. Recon's long-range capability should be, but not its CQC capacity. This is now with BF4 provided for, by a robust "all-kit" lineup. It is no longer necessary to have CQC optics on bolt-actions to provide for a Recon to engage in CQC when he/she can just select a DMR or Carbine. So I guess there's a gap between making the Recon class itself viable in CQC versus making a class of weapons viable in CQC.

There is no dissonance. There is not a massive imbalance. There is nothing of the sort. Carbines and shotguns are still more effective in their respective ranges by a long shot (Pun intended), but less effective at long range than Bolt Actions.

Quoted from "Katana67"

When you consider the class, Recon, which has weapons designed for CQC available to it... why then, is it appropriate to prioritize a weapon class over the other class-dependent weapon classes? I guess I still am not satisfied with your answer to my question "Why are bolt-actions special?". You say that "snipers cannot be effectively be used against competent enemies at short range". But why should they be in the first place is what I'm asking.

This has already been explained. It is not prioritizing bolt actions for use in close quarters. Shotguns and carbines are still dominant in those CQC only roles. The reason they need to at least be capable in close range is so that you're not totally committing suicide by having one in your hands when you push up with a squad. I don't know how many times this has to be repeated. BASRs are NOT as effective as shotguns and Carbines in close range. They won't ever be. Even with straight pull/holo/laser whatever yolostrats cqb sniper bullshit loadout that can be put on it.

Quoted from "Katana67"

You think the inclusion of high-magnification optics is asinine on non bolt-actions for the very same reasons I think CQC optics are asinine on bolt-actions.

No, I think high magnification optics on non-bolt actions is stupid because they're totally fucking unnecessary and do more to detract from the game than they do to add to the game. As near as I can tell, the reason you think CQC optics are asinine on bolt-actions is because you're just failing to adapt to the idea that Recon has the capacity to be a useful class.

Seeing as how the topic and original question at hand has been fully explained numerous times, I suggest the locking of this thread, seeing as it serves no further purpose whatsoever.



Now, if you'll excuse me...

Eat your heart out, Badger.

Spoiler Spoiler


<elementofprgress> yummm baby jesus
<elementofprgress> but i'd prefer jesus with ketchup

<cloon> women are allowed to play hockey?
<daddygreeenjeans> body checks are a fundamental part of women's suffrage

<Riesig> "... I'M GAY..."

steamboat28: the doctors at the ER found my nipples, too!
steamboat28: it just..y'know...took them a razor and two orderlies.

<Legion> And damn, now I really want some [redacted] penetrator measurements

<Rezal> peipin, why did you tell them you brought your phone?
<Pepin_the_Short> Because there’s like a one in five chance of getting searched on the way out
<Pepin_the_Short> And trying to sneak the fucker out is way worse than letting them look at Cloon’s dick pics.

17:52:08 <Rezal> Unfortunately, this video is not available in your country because it could contain music, for which we could not agree on conditions of use with GEMA.
17:52:15 <ToTheSun> lolgema
17:52:15 <TheMightyVoice> lolgema

<Legion> But I literally am Hitler right now
Somehow my bullets are magnetically attracted to popular Youtubers, but theirs rarely seem to hit me.

Sheepnub

I pity the wool

(2,326)

Posts: 3,234

Date of registration
: Sep 20th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Atlantis

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

77

Thursday, December 5th 2013, 12:12am

Why necessity is irrelevant:
Saying something has to be necessary in order to be done is a statement from the lazy. Yet we're playing a game of the manipulative. DICE doesn't care, and neither should anyone else, about whether or not it's necessary. Bombers aren't necessary, but they're cool as shit :> they go like BOOM and shit
The exact same thing can be said with the sights on bolt-actions: Sure, some of them are pointless..but cool for messing around. The same thing can be said about ACOG's on AR's, or the completely-destroyed HOLO. Nobody will, or should, ever use them. Yet dice keeps them in the game, in their pointless state. Because, well, they can.

Why it is balanced:
As a sight grows smaller, the size of the enemy's head grows smaller. It will become harder to land a headshot as the sight decreases in size (try getting a 50-meter headshot on a moving target with an RDS?). If anything, it makes it harder to use the rifle. It has ups, and it has downs. Mostly downs. With none of the options being gamebreakingly powerful or versatile: Balance

Why it's reasonable:
Because bolt-actions aren't the only ones that get stupid sights (4x sights for AR's, RDS for dmr, 3x('ish) FLIR sight for shotguns...)

I find it quite unappealing how this topic grew to be so big, while it's really a meaningless conversation. This isn't gamebreaking, and only there for the sake of diversity and "because we can".
"I put aside a few sceptics, the types of decency in the history of philosophy: the rest haven't the slightest conception of intellectual integrity."
Friedrich Nietzsche


Best of epic quotes :D

Spoiler Spoiler

Just realized it's 4/20 tomorrow


Thanks for the heads up!
*Logs out of Symthic in preparation*

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

>littlebird passanger, semi-auto frag rounds
>gunship OP

Meanwhile at DICE-headquarters during BF4's release:

I'm pretty sure there's a massive post-it on every desk "DON'T FUCKING TOUCH ANYTHING THAT IS ACTUALLY DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING"

UCAV:
"Hey guys remember how stupid prenerf mav was?"

"Lets add c4 to it."

The World Champion went to China once.

They called me a Gweilo.

So I kicked a big fucking hole in their wall and let all the Mongolians in.

just thought I'd share.


The thought of Assaults running out of ACE 23 rounds mid firefight, Engineers facing the rear of an unaware MBT with no rockets left, Recons unable to...Whatever the fuck they do. These are the things that keep me up at night ;(


About hunturk:
I don't know what's funnier, the video itself of the fact that an unlisted video has more views than most of your normal videos :P

...


You just live to hit people upside the noggin with a Math Bomb, don't you?

[context] Maybe it's the UK's overly aggressive porn filter at work. After all, it does have the word "monkey" in it and monkeys have been known to have sex so...


Previously, at DICE HQ:
"Ok guys, the password is "epic dream worlds"; everyone take a letter and do your best to turn it into into something random that we can put into a picture!"


I assume a functional game (BF4) also.

Aww!
*pinches cheeks*
So cute!


But but but

He's a Youtuber ;(

There's no way he doesn't know what he's talking about