Two things I wish EA/Dice would have done (kind of long)

[WolfAlmighty]

#1

One thing that's always peeved me about this game is that the carbines are more accurate than the assault rifles, which is completely backwards from how it should be. Carbines are often weaker (which they got right) than ARs, but are also less accurate and have less range because of the shorter barrel. As it stands now, in a medium-long range fight and beyond, the Spec Ops has a good chance of beating an assault trooper, which just isn't right IMO. Since each class has its specialty (Spec ops - C4, AT - rockets, Medic - heal/revive, Engineer - mines/wrench, Support - ammo, Sniper - long range kills), the Assault's specialty should be killing infantry, plain and simple. The only places he should be at a disadvantage is at super-long range where snipers take control, and in-your-face CQB where the shotguns are superior. In all other areas he should be able to beat any class. Yet I find myself out-sniped by G36Cs and M4s at ranges I don't think I should be.

So what they should have done is (I know I'm gonna catch hell for saying this ) take away the nade launcher and instead give them the assault rifles only, but make the assault rifles more accurate, so that they would be the best overall guns in the game. Then, give the medics the carbines, which would now be less accurate (more realistic, although I hesitate to put it that way on a forum dedicated to BF ), same as the Spec Ops. That way, Assault's main strength would be the rifle, as they'd have the most versatile gun in the game and it'd pack the biggest punch, except for the PKM and M95 of course. People would then have to choose whether they wanted a better gun and armour, or the ability to heal and revive. Spec Ops already have C4 and a long sprint, I don't see why they need one of the best guns in the game as well, and as it stands now that's what the carbines are.

Okay, now for #2

Since a lot of people complain that the support guns are horribly inaccurate even while prone and therefore the support gets cheated out of a lot of kills, what they should have done is give the option to use a bipod/tripod. What it would do is allow the support player to deploy his weapon as a stationary "vehicle" (it could even count as a Ground Defense). It would act much like the mortars in BF:Vietnam where they had a given amount of health and a given amount of ammo. They could take a while to deploy - like maybe even 5 seconds or so - and once they're deployed anyone can use them, friend or foe. Their accuracy would be equivalent to that of one of the mounted MGs, but they wouldn't have unlimited ammo. They'd have only as much ammo as was left in the support's LMG when it was deployed, and once it's out it has to be picked back up again to be refilled (and only the support player that deployed it could pick it up) so as not to be abused by having unlimited ammo. While it's out, the Support trooper is without his machine gun so he'd have to think twice before leaving it behind or letting it get destroyed. After the support gunner died and the gun ran out of ammo, it would blow up after a while or maybe even just disappear, so as not to clutter up the battlefield. This would give Support a bit of a boost and would allow them to set up a hasty defense for their squad if none was available.

Just a few things I think EA/Dice could have improved upon.

~Wolfgang

[mlkmnz]

Re: Two things I wish EA/Dice would have done (kind of long)

And co-op, and more game modes, and regular new maps and weapons, could go on and one. We stuck with what we got unfortunately. Id love to see the bipod inclusion on support weapons (then maybe I'd use them), but I dont think enough noise will be made about if for DICE to care.

[Yezo]

Re: Two things I wish EA/Dice would have done (kind of long)

#1

One thing that's always peeved me about this game is that the carbines are more accurate than the assault rifles, which is completely backwards from how it should be. Carbines are often weaker (which they got right) than ARs, but are also less accurate and have less range because of the shorter barrel. As it stands now, in a medium-long range fight and beyond, the Spec Ops has a good chance of beating an assault trooper, which just isn't right IMO. Since each class has its specialty (Spec ops - C4, AT - rockets, Medic - heal/revive, Engineer - mines/wrench, Support - ammo, Sniper - long range kills), the Assault's specialty should be killing infantry, plain and simple. The only places he should be at a disadvantage is at super-long range where snipers take control, and in-your-face CQB where the shotguns are superior. In all other areas he should be able to beat any class. Yet I find myself out-sniped by G36Cs and M4s at ranges I don't think I should be.

So what they should have done is (I know I'm gonna catch hell for saying this ) take away the nade launcher and instead give them the assault rifles only, but make the assault rifles more accurate, so that they would be the best overall guns in the game. Then, give the medics the carbines, which would now be less accurate (more realistic, although I hesitate to put it that way on a forum dedicated to BF ), same as the Spec Ops. That way, Assault's main strength would be the rifle, as they'd have the most versatile gun in the game and it'd pack the biggest punch, except for the PKM and M95 of course. People would then have to choose whether they wanted a better gun and armour, or the ability to heal and revive. Spec Ops already have C4 and a long sprint, I don't see why they need one of the best guns in the game as well, and as it stands now that's what the carbines are.

Okay, now for #2

Since a lot of people complain that the support guns are horribly inaccurate even while prone and therefore the support gets cheated out of a lot of kills, what they should have done is give the option to use a bipod/tripod. What it would do is allow the support player to deploy his weapon as a stationary "vehicle" (it could even count as a Ground Defense). It would act much like the mortars in BF:Vietnam where they had a given amount of health and a given amount of ammo. They could take a while to deploy - like maybe even 5 seconds or so - and once they're deployed anyone can use them, friend or foe. Their accuracy would be equivalent to that of one of the mounted MGs, but they wouldn't have unlimited ammo. They'd have only as much ammo as was left in the support's LMG when it was deployed, and once it's out it has to be picked back up again to be refilled (and only the support player that deployed it could pick it up) so as not to be abused by having unlimited ammo. While it's out, the Support trooper is without his machine gun so he'd have to think twice before leaving it behind or letting it get destroyed. After the support gunner died and the gun ran out of ammo, it would blow up after a while or maybe even just disappear, so as not to clutter up the battlefield. This would give Support a bit of a boost and would allow them to set up a hasty defense for their squad if none was available.

Just a few things I think EA/Dice could have improved upon.

~Wolfgang

#2 I would agree to.

But for #1 all I have to say is your simply horrrible at aiming. Carbines are weaker than Assault Rifles, and they both have the SAME accuracy and deviations. The only thing is Assault Rifles have more recoil than any other gun besides the Shotguns.

You can shoot a sniper with a G3 or G36C it doesn't matter. But at any time Assault Rifles will NEVER have less recoil than a carbine. Thus why it can make it seemingly inaccurate when infact it is.

Fact is the G36C can be considered more accurate because its recoil is almost nothing letting you fire 5 or 6 shots at literally the same place.

And any bullet in real life flys in a linear motion except shotguns. A pistol can be as accurate as a sniper rifle except for range. Barrel length doesn't matter except for adjusting velocity.