Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:36. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

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.

  • "Recon1337" started this thread

Posts: 62

Date of registration
: Jan 11th 2014

Platform: 360


Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message


Thursday, January 28th 2016, 1:04am

Should DMRs get a RPM buff?

While I dont have hardline (though I did have the beta and played the heck out of it), it occured to me that DMRs were much better than what they currently are like in BF4. Suppose DICE in BF5 (since their obviously not going to do it for BF4) made DMRs Recon-only again like in BF3, but instead buffed the RPM up to 300-360 like how they were in Hardlines beta? The damage model would be the same as it currently in in BF4.

Does anyone think thats a good idea or do some people think its too much? For the sake of balance I think its great because it makes DMRs useful again and personally, I think they should only be used on Recons. Not to mention it was fun having Recon divided into two sides, the more defensive one with bolt-actions and the more aggressive one with DMRs.

Posts: 4,259

Date of registration
: Apr 6th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: From the heart of Europe.


Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message


Thursday, January 28th 2016, 1:19am

I like it how you call weapons with a TTK of 466 ms or even better (+travel time) at range, without requiring headshots, useless.
[Aristocrat's Shoes]
Teamwork is where players function by themselves, but their effectiveness is multiplied when they work together. Not a checklist of "did we bring a healer so we can start playing?"

Posts: 895

Date of registration
: Dec 8th 2013

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message


Thursday, January 28th 2016, 1:27am

If you look here: BF4 shooting mechanics

At the current damage model, all DMRs at close range are 3 shots kill, while ~5.56mm Carbines, ARs and LMGs are 5 shots kill.

If you give any DMR 360RPM, according to the 30Hz table (which still a fair number of PC servers run on, especially 64 CQL servers, as well as all Console servers), you can shoot those 3 rounds and theoretically get a kill in 11 frames.

In the same 11 frames, those Carbines and ARs with listed RPM less than 680 cannot shoot 5 bullets, and thus those weapons would be out-TTKed by the DMR, even in point-blank range. That means you are introducing problems to the AK-12 in automatic, G36C, LSAT, QBB, QBZ, Type-95, RPK-12, SAR-21 and U-100.

I think 90% of my primary weapons kills are from DMRs, so that's my full disclosure. Even so, if you have a poll up, I'd vote NO. As all-kit weapons, BF4 DMRs are fine.


On a slight tangent, you can see that for the first 3 rounds the 333RPM perform the same as your suggested 360. There is already a DMR in BF4 that is programmed to shoot at 333RPM. It is the SKS, so use that if that is what you want.

Posts: 5

Date of registration
: Mar 3rd 2016

Platform: Xbox One


Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message


Thursday, March 3rd 2016, 9:55pm

The only thing I hope with DMR is they can have higher zoom QAQ

Posts: 341

Date of registration
: Jun 29th 2013

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message


Thursday, March 3rd 2016, 10:16pm

this is probably the most inflammatory post I've ever made on symthic but...

DMR's are perfectly fine as they are now.

They do not need more damage
They do not need more RPM
They do not need more zoom on their available optics

I seriously question why anyone STILL thinks they need anything these days. BF4 is how many years old? You haven't figured out the strengths and weaknesses of a DMR by now?

They are a versatile, all-class weapon on the scale towards longer other words, versatile in the opposite direction of the spectrum that carbines are. They are not meant to be an alternative to carbines. If you wanted a more aggressive DMR, then use one of the more aggressive options - RFB, SKS, etc.

DMRs are completely fine. Being able to snipe as an Engineer with Javelin is nearly overpowered in the appropriate situation/map. You can shut down (even if you miss, you suppress so heavily) anyone on foot long range, and then scare off vehicles with the Javelin.

C'mon people....quit trying to use the DMR's as an alternative and use them for what they were designed for.


Can't get a title


Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message


Friday, March 4th 2016, 8:24am

I think that you need to start using DMRs as a long range weapon and not a CQB weapon.

Also, why should DMRs be Recon exclusive?
something something Model 8 bestgun

How to ice an A-91

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:

Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Reload times are wash.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

I... I...



In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.


Sometimes I just get blinded by hate. And tears.


Posts: 1,414

Date of registration
: Jul 27th 2013

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message


Friday, March 4th 2016, 8:48am

Also, why should DMRs be Recon exclusive?

Because they were in BF3 and it obviously makes sense, duh.

Posts: 237

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2015

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message


Monday, March 7th 2016, 2:32am


To be fair, a good chunk of the weapon distribution makes little sense.

Such as Assault Rifles and PDWs being exclusive to a single class even though the entire REASON for their existence is universal assignment to general and non-combat troops.

Posts: 39

Date of registration
: Mar 16th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: Texas


Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message


Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 11:40am


I'm going to have to disagree, assault rifles and PDWs were both originally designed with a specific role in mind and ARs were only adopted as standard issue rifles later.

The PDW concept comes from a NATO development trial specifically with vehicle crews in mind. If you've ever been inside a military transport or attack vehicle, chances are if it's not a C130 then space is pretty limited. Cramming guys and gear inside does not leave much room, hence why you see so many "paratrooper" gun models that have folding stocks and other improvements to make them more compact. If they have to redesign nearly every rifle that they plan to throw out of a chopper with a guy hanging on, you can only imagine what the inside of a tank is like. A Lada Niva would probably seem luxurious in comparison. The fact is, there's no space to keep a full-size rifle and in the event that the vehicle crew must resort to small arms there is quite literally not enough room inside a tank to turn around with a carbine.
Submachineguns have been around since right around the end of the First World War. Their size is great for a vehicle crew, the problem is that SMGs fire pistol calibers. In today's world, even a lower tier "soft" vest can effectively stop any handgun round short of big-bore magnums. SMGs get a pretty substantial increase in muzzle velocity/energy over their pistol counterparts due to barrel length, but that still will not likely penetrate even low-grade police vests. Once you start talking modern military armor no pistol caliber is going to cut it. When you have ballistic hard plates designed to prevent up to a 7.62x51mm NATO armor piercing round from penetrating into your torso (they even might give you a chance of surviving the impact with only some broken ribs/vertebrae and only a few internal organ failures haha). The NATO trials essentially called for a weapon the size of an SMG with the ability to at least penetrate most military soft armor. Enter FN with that thing we now call the P90, and the PDW is born. PDWs make perfect sense to be engineer-only from a military perspective, they were designed pretty much exactly for vehicle crews.

ARs are a little different case. It is true that virtually every nation with a standing army now uses some form of assault rifle and the old "battle rifle" concept is long dead as a standard issue rifle. However, during WW2 when the Germans first started fielding their famous Sturmgewehr rifles with a shortened version of the 8mm Mauser cartridge, I don't know the guys designing it truly understood just how widely their idea would take over. Remember, at the time the broadly accepted philosophy was for precision full-powered rifles; they thought overall power and precise accuracy were the way to go. The M1 Garand in the west and Sturmgewehr in the east were proof that ROF was the name of the game now.
At that time, the STG was not intended as the new standard issue rifle for the German army. It was meant entirely for front-line assault troops, this would have been along the lines of seeing a SCAR or M416 in Iraq/Afghanistan today. They're out there being used by US troops, but they're a rare sight compared to standard M4 and M16 rifles. They're pretty much exclusive to SF, much like the STG was top-notch new gear primarily intended for elite assault units as opposed to standard infantry issue. The Soviets saw potential in the combination of both intermediate cartridges and widespread ROF increases, they saw it on a much broader scale than the Germans which is what have us the SKS then eventually the original AK47. So yes, most nations today have in fact adopted an assault rifle as standard issue, however neither ARs nor carbines were originally designed as universal weapons. It's definitely what the assault rifle quickly evolved into, just not the reason for its existence at first.
"We had defeated one disease after the next. Modern medicine had given us health and hope. A man's existence was no longer confined solely to his work, not that of women to childbearing. Science promised to deliver us heaven on earth, and we were happy to believe that. We had begun to live and our children were going to have it even better, this is something we were sure of.
............until the summer of 1914."
Are you ready for the trenches?

Posts: 237

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2015

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message


Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 12:24pm

It's not like vehicle crews have advanced firearm skills compared to front-line infantry. The point I'm trying to make is that any schmuck with basic training can use one effectively. Therefore, they shouldn't be restricted to one class.

As for the Stg44's early assignment to elite units, keep in mind there weren't many rifles to start with. When you have limited numbers, especially for a new weapon, you let the COMPETENT troops try it out so they can tell you what's wrong with it. You don't just give new guns concepts to the regular soldier who's only been trained on a bolt-action and maybe a SMG or machine gun.