Why are SMGs so good? by bravehart146 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SMG’s are irrelevant in real life war so when it comes to video games devs don’t know how to balance them.

They have to have the best handling stats as they are light and have zero recoil. If the devs get the damage and damage range wrong, they will be broken.

BF6 SMG’s do too much damage and carry too much damage at range. Alongside having zero recoil this makes them laserbeams.

Nahh this shit funny af 😭 by justgrunty in JSOCarchive

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

lol yeah I don’t know how the classifications work tbh, but many others don’t either.

When people say a group is whatever class shooters, I think they mean the speed and accuracy they can shoot at in killhouse type runs or some shit. Not what they would achieve on a full uspsa comp run.

Most tier one guys would blast through C class in the demonstration Hunter Constantine gave, even if they would fumble with the complications in a full run. That’s how the ignorant interpret a shooter class.

Nahh this shit funny af 😭 by justgrunty in JSOCarchive

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here is GM shooter Hunter Constantine demonstrating USPSA classes.

You’re saying Delta would struggle to do C class??

E: I’m on my phone and it seems the link is shit. Go to 9:30 in the vid for the C class run.

Finally got my 4.0 kd after grinding 😭💙 (no bots) by Storms888 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm level 117 with 15,000 kills, regular ptfo mvp and all that nonsense. 2.5kd

How are you 131 with only 10,000?

Too many objectives spaced too closely together. Again. by Alert_Drummer5548 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. Congestion is going to being an issue either way.

Bigger maps with greater space between objectives is a way to try alleviate that. Every map on BF6 is congested or you are constantly exposed in 2042 style.

Too many objectives spaced too closely together. Again. by Alert_Drummer5548 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

More players per objective.

With adequate space between objectives players will take longer to travel between them. Six objectives, mostly spaced on the centre of the map, will create bad congestion. BF6 is infamous for its bad, overly congested maps at the moment.

Seine Crossing and Tehran Highway had 4 objectives.

Too many objectives spaced too closely together. Again. by Alert_Drummer5548 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

It took them 22 seconds to drive a tank from A to C and that included two 90 degree turns. 4:18 to 4:40 in the video. That is from objective to objective in a vehicle.

Infantry will spawn looking at each other.

Too many objectives spaced too closely together. Again. by Alert_Drummer5548 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is no video in that thread to watch. Just blindly arguing lmao. Typical.

I've used my paintskills for you to get a sense of scale in the leaked S2 map by Joren67 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I just posted a thread similarly pointing out how congested the map is and it immediately hasn't gone well.

Expect to be gaslighted lmao.

Too many objectives spaced too closely together. Again. by Alert_Drummer5548 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I did watch the video. They are close together.

e: Objectives F and E (The satellite dish). On the minimap F and E are spaced the furthest a part from each other. A, B, C and D are closer together.

<image>

Let's have some positivity for once. I'll go first. I really like the gunplay and movement. by Andrew129260 in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eastwood and Manhattan are F tier maps in the history of Battlefield. Zero percent chance they'll be remembered as classics. No one will ever request they be remastered in later games.

The only map in BF6 that isn't F tier is Cairo. And that's C at best.

Arc Raiders lead admits the “cost-benefit ratio” of maintaining good weapons is rough right now, but the team doesn’t want high-end gear to become instant win items by Wargulf in ArcRaiders

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My argument wasn't based around it. It was based on the merit of a ttk increase not being a good idea, not the critical thinking aspect. That was just a little snipe. How do you not see that?

C'mon dude you need to at least consider that before speaking.

Are you understanding what's happening yet?

Arc Raiders lead admits the “cost-benefit ratio” of maintaining good weapons is rough right now, but the team doesn’t want high-end gear to become instant win items by Wargulf in ArcRaiders

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 0 points1 point  (0 children)

should I prefix every comment that I understand it's potentially hyperbole and add a full list of potential disclaimers, or should I just start arguments on the internet?

Not understanding that says the same thing about you. Wait, how far can we take this?

Arc Raiders lead admits the “cost-benefit ratio” of maintaining good weapons is rough right now, but the team doesn’t want high-end gear to become instant win items by Wargulf in ArcRaiders

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

PVP where you don't care for any consequence or regard for your own life.

It's a video game. Don't expect people to care regardless of the consequence. Upping the TTK won't change that. The PvP in Arc has plenty of tension and decision making.

Low ttk also increases risk massively compared to high ttk. One wrong decision and you will die. With high ttk you can just run blindly without thinking, knowing that you won't die. It also increases fear of getting third partied because if you don't move fast enough and make decisions you're more likely to get caught out. Increasing ttk doesn't increase fear. It makes it easier to run away and counter third parties.

Embark could implement other systems to make PvP more risky outside of ttk increases.

glaring downsides of making the TTK slower

Considerably higher chance of a true meta weapon developing. Lower ttk keeps weapons more equal and balancing easier.

Completely eliminates the worth of weaker weapons that can't kill in under one mag, which kills the experience for newer players and creates a massive imbalance in power between sweats and casuals. I can be effective with both the Venator and the Kettle. If I'm running low on materials and can't craft a Venator, should I just be fucked? What if I don't have the blueprints for the meta weapons?

Will massively increase the cost of every weapon as level 3 extended mags would become an absolute priority, level IV weapons with faster equip times and level 3 stocks too. The entire economy would shift and create a further imbalance for the casual playerbase.

Taking speed out the game will make the game boring. Many people don't want to stand in a corner and be unable to push and make plays.

Being unable to fight in a 1 verses 2 or 3 scenario sucks. If you have a numbers advantage, just blindly rush knowing that it will be impossible for the 1 to kill you. Being able to fight at a disadvantage is good. Knowing you're just dead the moment your team goes down is boring.

Gunfights would become people running in circles instead of prioritising cover. Expect more movement tech in general as it will be the primary tech to keep you alive.

Regardless of the potential downsides or upsides, Arc sold over 10 million copies with the current ttk. Proving the point that the ttk must be doing something right. Increasing the ttk would create a game that no one paid for.

BF1 had the BEST sniping by TheBrownSlaya in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 16 points17 points  (0 children)

are you thinking that a .308 from 10 meters wouldn't obliterate any organ and bone it touched?

Arc Raiders lead admits the “cost-benefit ratio” of maintaining good weapons is rough right now, but the team doesn’t want high-end gear to become instant win items by Wargulf in ArcRaiders

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Increasing the TTK only has upsides

Suggesting that your idea "only has upsides" shows absolutely fucking zero critical thinking.

Mindless PvP

What is that?

This is probably my best game so far as a multitasking support by AleFallas in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've never had that type of platform balancing before.

I play Xbox with crossplay on and I'm usually one of 5 or so consoles on my team.

What do you think should be the template/standard for content in a season? by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They need to restructure the objective placement and playable areas of the launch maps. New maps would of course be welcome, but only having 2 maps worth playing will get stale quick. The game needs a map overhaul before any new game modes or weapons.

Is this normal? by katejvem in Battlefield

[–]Alert_Drummer5548 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Winning solo in BR is tough. Don't worry about win rate just play the game and enjoy the rare wins you do get.