Battlefield 4 – These Popular Balancing Requests Are Being “Monitered”, But Not Changed

Battlefield 4 developers want you to know that they are listening when it comes to your feedback.

But while you may have your ideas about what weapons should be “nerfed” or what vehicles should be “buffed”, the studio wants you to consider that some things are the way they are for a reason.

In a recent Battlefield Blog update, DICE compiled a list of balancing items that are frequently questioned by the community when it comes to their effectiveness, but may not be seeing a change any time soon. Though the team is open to tweaking these popular items, it might be worth reading up on some of the reasonings behind why DICE believes they are working as designed.

“Right now, we are currently thinking of the items below as working as designed, but we are open to suggestions and comments,” the studio writes.

Check out the full list below:


1) Players have suggested that the TV missiles be allowed to 1 hit kill enemy aircraft. While we initially considered increasing their damage to 90% from 80%, we decided against this change. The TV missile is not intended to be an anti-aircraft weapon system, and while skilled players may currently be able to use it that way, we do not find its current damage level to be imbalanced.

2) Players have also suggested that Sniper Rifle and 12G SLUG rounds be allowed to penetrate body armor at close range. The purpose of body armor is to specifically counter these kinds of threats, and players with these weapons have received significant buffs to accuracy to allow them to achieve close range headshots with higher frequency. Finally, the goal of 12G SLUGS is a long range alternative for shotguns, players wishing to defeat body armor at close range with shotguns should utilize the 12G FLECHETTE rounds instead.

3) As a capable all around weapon, players have suggested the GALIL ACE 23 is over powered. Players of specific types, especially competitive players, will gravitate towards a weapon that can work in any situation. The ACE 23 is out performed at close range, long range, and has competitors at medium range. We see no need for a change at this time.

4) Below Radar has been a hot topic, asking why it was “removed” from BF4. Below Radar was never a part of the original design for BF4’s locking mechanics, and while we have discussed allowing a low altitude state to cause lock on to take longer, the added frustration of being unable to lock on to targets does not offset the added danger to helicopters at low altitude. Furthermore, having a low altitude state only affect PASSIVE or ACTIVE radar missiles would add additional confusion, as it did in BF3 when stingers still worked on Below Radar vehicles.

5) Long Range scopes for DMRs were tested extensively internally before release. We specifically removed these scopes from those weapons as we found any class being able to effectively snipe was detrimental to the overall pace and gameplay of BF4. We have no intentions of adding those scopes to DMRs for BF4.

6) As a guaranteed get out of jail free card, aircraft counter measures are only designed to allow a vehicle to escape distant danger, not to enable the aircraft to be immune to lock on weaponry. While this is a tricky balance, we’re currently happy with the reload times and amounts of counter measures carried by aircraft.

7) MAA is too powerful against the AC130 and other ground vehicles. The reduction to the range of the MAA cannons should address the issue of the AC130, and at this time we feel that the balance between MAA and other ground vehicles is appropriate.

8) Ground destruction makes vehicle driving difficult after significant combat. We’re happy that the dynamic aspect of BF4 has a direct impact on the gameplay, and at the moment do not think this is in need of any tweaks.

9) Some players have been disappointed in the rate of fire of the G36C carbine, citing it being different from BF3. We understand the feelings of fans when their favorite gun doesn’t work in the same way it was before, however BF4 is its own game, with its own balance, and all weapons received various changes and balance factors. We do not intend to change the rate of fire of the G36C.

10) Attack helicopter maneuverability is also a hot topic. We’re open to the idea that the Attack Helicopters could benefit from an increase in speed and maneuverability. At the moment, we’ve made tweaks to the primary threats for Attack Helicopters, and we want to see how that change affects the battlefield before we make additional changes blindly.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree, or do believe some of these items still require tweaks?

Thanks, Katana67!

  • dieger

    TL:DR? “screw you its our game we aint changing jack”

    • James Mulhall

      Thanks for that. :3

    • Katana67

      Duh! It’s working as intended! Therefore it was a good idea!

      • dieger

        i mean the G36 was SUPPOSE to be the biggest POS! it was intended

        • Katana67

          I actually like the G36 as it stands now, low ROF weapons are easy for us slow folks.

          Funny though!

          • dieger

            im all for low ROF guns but they have to have some damage to back up the low ROF…….i miss the G3A1 :C

            • Katana67


              They need more 7.62 carbines/ARs.

              And… they need to give them 6x scopes! I miss using the G3 or M16A4 with the 6x scopes. Was in absolutely no way overpowered or a brake to “pace”, and added an awesome weapon configuration.

            • dieger

              mmm G3 with bipod,suppressor, and 6x scope :3

            • What’s the point? They had em in BF3 and they just nerfed em to where they’re just as strong as 5.56mm ARs

              Here’s a bit of a comparison between 3 and 4
              BF4 SCAR-H – BF3 SCAR-H

              34 Max – 30 Max
              25 Min – 20 min

              620 rpm – 600 rpm

              More max damage, more minimum damage, higher rpm, less recoil?

              The SCAR in BF3 is the only 7.62 that did not get 34 damage, however, it’s all of a sudden a beast in BF4. I guess Engineers simply weren’t allowed to have that capable of a weapon then.

            • Katana67

              I like them more on principle than anything to do with their performance, they’re just badass.

              And, coupled with 6x optics and a bipod (the latter being an underused attachment on anything other than LMGs and bolt-actions) can make for a potent mid-range weapon.

    • ThatSpeakerOfTruth

      Perhaps this will sound apologist or contrarian, but I can assure you this is in line with my thoughts I’ve pondered over from either side of the gaming world.

      In competitive games, players have come to adopt a unique player-developer relationship unseen in most other games and possibly in a greater intensity than ever seen before. To me, it is the norm in which the developers see their products as being distinctly “their work”; that is, their game is not at the mercy of the gamers.

      Does that sound weird? You identify the people who will immediately stand up and say that they collectively are able to ruin a game that does not please the customer–indeed, the customer is always right. But in the end, this outrage is almost superficial. The customers trust the developers and designers of their favorite games to direct decisions, from subtle to influential, every step of the way throughout the game’s development but end that trust immediately with the upper level grievances they have with a game. That’s not to reverse the statement to say that the creator is always right; that is why developers tend to continue listen, often offer beta or alpha builds for feedback to the public or a select few, or gather criticisms early on.

      All this means, if you don’t yet understand, is that I strongly believe that developers of all kinds still reserve a right to see their game created in a way that represent their immediate vision, which may be much different from their initial vision or even popular player opinion. These are the people who are most intimate with the game, something I can sympathize with. You may think they know nothing about the game because they haven’t spent upwards to a thousand hours of playtime playing it like you, and to many extents that may be true in regards to meta-strategy, but it seems that most people reading this article did not keep in mind what I felt was really well put by the writer: “the studio wants you to consider that some things are the way they are for a reason.” It pains me to see that some here have intentionally made a mockery of the phrase “working as intended” as a clever yet insubstantial insinuation.

      What it looks to come down to is almost a loss of respect for the people who might not have the chance to be as invested in making their game a certain way as players do, but are by no means impassive either. Maybe “screw you, it’s our game we ain’t changing jack” might not be too far off but is it really more disgraceful than “oh yes, it’s your game and we’ll change everything that you don’t like”? Once you shed the competitive mindset, a confident and self-directed behavior from developers becomes more acceptable. Of course, this doesn’t excuse any game creator from nullifying player opinion even in the rare occurrences that its dismissals made for a clearly individualistic game. It is, of course, why an obsession with what their audience thinks is encouraged with developers of all size. It seems to me that they may be getting closer to striking a better balance between making the game they intended, right or not to you, and making a game the players like. As mentioned earlier by someone else, Battlefield 3 might have been guilty of taking to the other extreme that artificially destabilized the game and degraded its identity.

      So, I suppose it comes down to how you draw the line in “when is a product of entertainment a servant of public opinion and when is it the creator’s manifestation?” I don’t like or agree with many of the things they said, but this is an immensely healthy thing to initiate: a conversation. We now know a little bit more about how they believe their game should be and, if you want something changed, it shouldn’t be a through a disconnected conduit that larger commercial games have fallen victim to. They could just have easily made every change that the majority of players felt directly affected by or ignored them all in their behind-the-scenes efforts to balance the game. As with the first argument many will jump onto, I can assure you that developers are collectively as or more invested to make a game they and the audience are satisfied with for a variety of reasons. Because with the politics and deliberation of gaming and game making, the most I think any developer or player can really hope to be, in equilibrium, is satisfied.

      To end, I’ll just go ahead and put out there a reminder that this is still only a game. While this sounds pointless to say, it is something that recedes from anyone’s perspective without constant reinforcement. Sometimes, what happens to a video game can be taken too personally that it comes at the expense of empathy or unbiased reason.

  • Katana67

    Buckle up. BF rant inbound.

    This just confirms what I’ve come to suspect since BF3. DICE has absolutely no idea what’s good for their own game. They just don’t. I’m sorry. The fact that you categorically dismiss something that your community finds fault with sort of proves that.

    Working as intended? Sure. Working well? Not so much. I don’t care if it’s working as intended, it doesn’t therefore make that inclusion GOOD. My toilet flushes when I want it to, but it’s still full of crap. Simply because something is “working as intended” doesn’t mean that what you intended was right to begin with.

    The fact that you’re not even considering re-implementing Below Radar because it doesn’t fit into your locking mechanic tells me that there’s something wrong with your lock-ons and not the fact that (with Below Radar) you’re allowing the player to mediate between two types of equal risk. Likewise, I have never in all my life heard
    such a convoluted excuse (not in sports, politics, or religion). You’re not
    trying something because it’s too confusing for it to apply to Stingers and not
    other missiles? Well maybe then it should apply to all missiles when you’re
    Below Radar! Is that simple enough? Or because the “frustration” doesn’t
    justify the risk at low altitude? Are you joking? That’s not even a coherent

    Similarly, the fact that you’re not considering adding a MODEST 6x scope to the DMRs is laughable. ARs, LMGs, Shotguns, Carbines, and semi-automatic sniper rifles had 6x scopes in BF3 (8-12x with the latter). Likewise, it’s only TWO TIMES more magnification than the current ACOG. And it makes DMRs be… DMRs! Just because it’s all-kit doesn’t change the fact that it was a weapon configuration in BF3 that didn’t screw up the gameplay. If I want to use a class-specific weapon, I change to that class in a half-second. It’s not as if all-kit totally changes the dynamic of what a player can do in the end. Utterly ridiculous. Also, the fact that you “tested” it doesn’t mean that your criteria for judgment were correct in the first

    DICE gave us all a 3x scope for our heavy-hitting M1911 and for the .44 Magnum at the drop of a hat, changing the dynamics of how these weapons can be used. An all-kit weapon class, got a modest bump in optics to enhance its capabilities. Why is then out of order then for DMRs?

    And nevermind that these inclusions were in BF3 and worked just fine without ruining the “pace” of the game, as vague a term as that is.

    And the ground deformity creating what me and Coolio call “the slide, slide, slippity slide” is completely not a “working as intended” feature. A frag goes off on a concrete road and my tank is automatically put on ice. Makes sense. I clip through the map because someone detonated a mine ten minutes ago and my sights bounce all around the map. Working as intended? Please. It’s not that it makes vehicle travel DIFFICULT, it’s that it’s BUGGY.

    One thing that’ll get me riled up for sure is categorically dismissing something without considering the other competing factors.

    The other stuff seems well-reasoned enough. I don’t mind the G36, I actually think it’s pretty good. Same with the ACE. I guess my philosophy of “pick what looks cool and get good with it” doesn’t cause me to be as sensitive to weapons being weak/overpowered.

    The MAA vs. AC-130 though is a bit ridiculous. Waiting to see how it pans out, but the AC-130 is absolutely a fish in a barrel. It’s on a fixed path, carries three people, takes very little effort to bring down, most of the time when you bail you’re OOB and can’t get back in without killing yourself, and is always visible. It’s a death trap and how anyone could think it’s strong, much less overpowered, is absolutely beyond me. It’s fun for sure, until you get smacked by a jet flying in the built-in
    blind spot. Or can’t engage a target because the orbit is too steep (looking at
    you Golmud Railway, one of the most open maps has the tightest AC-130 orbit for
    some reason). Needs to be gutted and re-looked at by DICE, having the AC-130 on rails isn’t working. Again, a systemic problem with how it was EXECUTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    I get that it’s “their” product. But the second you start listening to the community is the second you become beholden to what they want, not what you’ve designed. Which isn’t a bad thing, but it comes with a certain logical protocol. There’s no play between “We’re listening to you, see?” and “This is our vision, sorry! Working as intended!”, it just becomes hypocrisy.

    Mind you, I’m not saying I have all the answers that DICE doesn’t. Far from it. What they’ve done in a variety of areas is awesome. But they just do not cope well with acknowledging systemic problems with their games.

    • dieger

      That is a big wall of text…..but a alot of good points the DMR scope issue is just blatant “We do care!”

    • Benjamin

      Perfect response. I agree completely. I’ve long given up on this game and it’s things like this that reinforce my decision to move on to other games.

      The one that gets me is below radar. What a load of bs. All lock on missiles should be affected by it, leaving heli’s open to RGP’s and grenade launchers, tanks etc. The fact that the stinger was excluded from it in BF3 was a huge mistake!

      There are so many glaring problems and I can’t be bothered to go on about them any more. It’s futile. I’ve lost all faith in DICE.

      • Katana67

        If they had a more well-reasoned explanation, I could at least see what they were getting at (although, I disagree with them and agree with you).

        But… I had to sit there and read that small paragraph about Below Radar for a solid ten minutes just to see if I was missing something.

        I wasn’t… I would love to know how “frustration” acts as a counterbalance to “danger”.

        • DerpSlayer

          I too am pretty steamed about the outright dismissal about BR, and the “rationale” for it. That it would “add additional confusion”? Wow. I dont remember seeing complaints in BF3 about people being “confused” that stingers worked against Heli’s at any altitude while vehicle based lockon missiles stopped locking below a certain altitude. These are cop-outs.

          The bigger takeaway is the outright dismissal of all 4 of the popular suggestions that come up again and again on Blog, Twit, Reddit – I mean why couldn’t they pick one and run it for a month and see how it goes, adjusting as needed? Obviously if there are that many suggestions for improving the currently weak state of the Attack Heli, it might just be indicative of a problem.

      • Jacob Hannah

        As for as the air to ground combat in concerned: Dice just basically said that helis (and jets for that matter) aircraft counter measures are (ONLY) designed to allow a vehicle to escape (DISTANT) danger, not for you to be flying all close and personal all up in people’s faces, pounding the s**t out of everyone while you just circle strafing the living hell out of everything BFBC2 style. That means that retards should not be flying anywhere near the combat zone, and if you do.. then you deserve to be shot down. Dice in other words is saying to fight and rain missiles (accurately) from a distance, then retreat your ass out of there. I have seen really good pilots (key words..really good pilots) stay within a 300 plus meter distance and rain real good missile barrages throughout a targeted/marked area, then retreat with their counter measures and be far away before they can be locked again by either the stinger or the igla. Then wait until their counter measures come back, then do it all again. But then again.. we are talking about really good BF4 pilots here, and not some people who think they are good wanting to be able to fly kinda or extremely close to the enemy, pound the living s**t out of the enemy. and have almost little to no fear because they want fast flares/ecm reload and/or want below radar to help them dominate the ground like in past games. Good pilots are actually good pilots in this game.

        • Katana67

          Again, keep the Stingers being able to one-hit disable. At the cost of not having INFALLIBLE lock-ups (i.e. Below Radar).

          ECMs don’t do jack against Stingers in BF4 anyhow. I pop them days before the Stinger gets launched and that thing still trucks on in and smacks me in the face.

          Helicopters need to be powerful. There’s only a few per team. Whereas everyone on the other team can choose to equip Stingers at a moment’s notice.

          Not ONE MAN who effortlessly locks up a massive, visible target, and can get a one-hit disable (death in BF4, because you take much more damage landing than in BF3, not to mention you’re spinning). Not to mention he gets a massive stockpile of quick-reloading Stingers which can be refilled by an ammo box. It takes absolutely ZERO skill to use a Stinger (skill is a vague term but I’m going to use it here anyway). It’s a fire-and-forget weapon. I mean, that’s sort of telling right there.

          Stingers are an imbalance because they allow one player to take down a helicopter, in one hit. That’s what they allow the player to do. Which is fine, but there needs to be an adequate measure of mitigation available to the pilot so that he/she can exploit that to best serve his/her team.

          Imagine for a moment that Engineers were given a lock-on rocket which could disable/destroy a tank in one hit. People would be singing a VERY different tune.

          I’m sure the Russians in Afghanistan thought Stingers were pretty OP as well… /joke

          Aircraft have too much stacked up against them because people can’t for some reason handle being killed by them.

        • Benjamin

          What a load of judgemental bullshit.

        • Tom Miller

          You are the exact piece of shit player crying that ruins this game. Judgmental bullshit is exactly right.

    • BroJ

      The AC 130 just needs to be removed. It is nothing but eye candy and a waste of graphical resources and game resources. Period.

      • Katana67

        That’s sort of what I was thinking, at least in terms of its removal. I don’t think it’s all that wasteful.

        But I’m not sure I’m ready to dismiss it entirely. It provides CAS, ineffectively, but it provides CAS. Which is something sorely missing in BF games as of late.

        If done properly, I think it could be great as a player-piloted vehicle. I remember seeing a BF2 mod a while back where this was done to great effect. As I recall it was a single pilot as well.

        But, there’s a whole can of worms that’s opened in making it player-piloted.

        • jj16802

          Reminds me of the days that bombers could be flown like regular planes in 1942… brings a tear to my eye. 🙂

    • TI_21

      Seems like I’m getting something completely else out of that statement.

      They are balancing with caution.

      They are willing to change these things as well, though they want to see how other changes to the game affect these portions before they make the same mistakes as in BF3 with the Air/Ground balance.
      (Still think they should be reducing the Stinger dmg to ~55 and give the heligunner an option to use extinguishers. Below Radar was imbalanced and I’m glad they acknowledge it. Also still mad that they just dropped any support after End Game which launched with quite a few new bugs while it’s become my favourite BF3 DLC.)

      • Katana67

        Well, not wanting to do something because it might not work out isn’t really a philosophy I endorse.

        Likewise, I never, in a million years thought that Below Radar was imbalanced (even without the ignorance of Stingers).

        You’re above the limit and folks can shoot you down with Stingers/Igla’s just as well. You’re below, you are liable to get smacked by rockets, sniper rounds, or any of the myriad of death-dealing items that BF has on the ground. Nevermind that the limit was insanely low regardless. Near suicidal for helicopters.

        You’re never out of danger, it’s just up to the player to mitigate the type of danger facing him/her in the moment.

        No one man should be able to thwack a helicopter out of the sky in one hit. That is what’s imbalanced for me. Helicopters need to be powerful, if one man can down one with no mitigating factors other than a short CM for the pilot, then I’m inclined to posit that Stingers themselves are overpowered. Below Radar mitigates some of their effectiveness.

        Stingers/Iglas for me, are an area denial weapon. Even with their ignorance of Below Radar, I rarely got killed/disabled by them. But they caused me to go off target numerous times. Which is the most important part, causing an aircraft to go off target so he/she isn’t killing your team.

        Curious though, I rarely get locked up by Stingers/Iglas in BF4. Probably because there’s more robust AA lying around.

        • Oblivion_Lost667

          “No one man should be able to thwack a helicopter out of the sky in one hit.” This is probably the biggest problem, it requires no teamwork to take out a helicopter unless you’ve got an engineer or two in your Scout heli, and then the attack helis are being shit on. It doesn’t help that the helis have to deal with MAA, AI controlled stationary AA close to bases, MBTs, IFVs, engineers, and SOFLAM stuff. If you stay up for longer than a few minutes at a time, you’re either extremely lucky, have people repairing you, or your team is kicking the shit out of the other team essentially at this point.

        • TI_21

          In theory that’s correct. But that’s not how it played out.
          With Below Radar we got countless of rounds without dying a single time because we could just dip below radar when being locked on.

          The guy with a stinger would feel shifted since he’s got the helo in his sights all the time and eventually gets killed by the gunner while a tank isn’t anywhere close by to deal some dmg or get it down in one shot.

          With that dmg reduction a helo v stinger fight would have run down like this:
          1st stinger shot – countered
          2nd stinger shot – hit (helo hiding briefly for new countermeasure
          3rd stinger shot – countered
          4th stinger shot – hit – helo disabled

          helo flees and get’s repaired – either midflight via extinguisher or repair tool to speed it up.

          To me that sounds like more fun than
          beep beep beep – below radar
          It just made a stinger unrewarding/pointless.

          • Katana67

            Which is why I’m in favor of implementing Below Radar the way it was patched in BF3, in which Stingers ignore it. As a compromise.

            I think having Stingers remain powerful, but counterable through clever management of Below Radar, is preferable to Stinger spam and having spongy helicopters. Similarly, if a pilot spends too much time Below Radar, he/she becomes more liable to other ground fire.

            It’s not my favorite line of argumentation, but if an Attack Helicopter is 20m above the deck tee-d up for everyone and your team CAN’T manage to take it out with rockets, tanks, LMG fire, sniper fire, etc. then that’s sort of their own fault. It’s vulnerable and they didn’t exploit that vulnerability. It’s every bit as anecdotal as your example. So there’s the other side of the coin.

            If I had to pick between getting one-hit disabled yet having skill/awareness based mitigation like Below Radar, and having the helicopters able to take multiple hits but have nothing more than CMs, I’d take the first one. It’s less forgiving, yet rewards those who can successfully manage risk.

            Which is why I disagree with the way DICE handles Stinger reloads and ammunition.

            It’s also good for helicopters to get the directional indicator of where they’re getting locked on, so there’s some progress there.

            There’s also the problem of helicopters being a finite resource (at any given time), whereas EVERY PLAYER can equip a Stinger if he/she chooses. They have that option, whereas only one or two players have the option to be in a helicopter. So why should they be on an even playing field?

            Or, another way of looking at it is to have Below Radar work in two different ways for helicopters versus jets. Jets in my opinion, if they’re flying close to the deck, should be immune from lock-ons. So, you could have Below Radar kick in at different altitudes for helicopters and jets respectively. Or you could have jets be immune from Stinger locks when Below Radar and helicopters not be. Or vice versa.

            • TI_21

              Well, I always try to keep both sides in mind, which as a vivid pilot myself isn’t that easy. 😉

              And just to be clear, I don’t have any first hand BF4 experience beyond the beta yet, so my rant was specifically about BF3. Though I can just imagine how much more complex BF4s balancing as whole has become (Especially due to some not so necessary additions…)

              So an unconsidered balance tweak really shouldn’t be done, just because the community demands it. I do think they are taking the right approach.

          • DerpSlayer

            Thats now how BR works, dullard. BR was never meant to counter Stingers, only existed that way for a brief time and was ultimately removed. Pilots are NOT asking for BR to counters MANPADs, this is not a hardthink concept.

            • TI_21

              Seriously, keep it civil.
              That was a wall of text about BF3 balancing, and a lot of pilots did, and do till this day, demand BR to work just like that again. Katana and I just slightly talked at cross purposes.

    • MegaMan3k

      Not to mention –

      1 – Get rid of Body Armor. Just get rid of it. Totally. Forever.

      And, it’s my personal belief, that their attempts at infantry balance and vehicle balance are great and all, but they do not peacefully coexist. It wants to be an infantry game and a vehicle game, but not an infantry game with vehicles.
      Of course, I felt this way about BF3 as well. Vehicles respawn way too fast and the vehicles/player ratio is way too high.

      • Katana67

        This is why I sort of want them to push beyond 64 players. It means bigger maps to accommodate more players. Now, of course it’s up to DICE how to balance the vehicle numbers.

        I think BF2 had a pretty good balance. Vehicles were powerful, but also had limited ammunition, and you could take one out if you really tried.

        I liked BF2’s whole vehicle/infantry dynamic.

        Couldn’t agree more about the spawns. I’d rather vehicles be more powerful but be on a longer spawn time. But on that end you have people waiting for vehicles to spawn. It’s a very fine line.

        • Oblivion_Lost667

          Even BC2 had fairly good vehicle balance, there weren’t nearly as many, but those vehicles were a powerhouse. Right now, it’s simply not working. The gunner on the LAVs/MBTs is very nerfed, especially in normal, barely doing any damage, it’s more for harassment than anything it seems right now, some people can do well with it, sure, but it’s nothing compared to BF3’s vehicles. It’d be interesting if they gave the gunners the heavy/.50 gun as an option to use though, trade off suppression for damage perhaps.

        • Oneil Martinez

          I think the ps3 version plays better then the ps4 because there are less people unless ps4 bumps up the size of the maps . With 64 man server it play more like a cod game very fast pase. you can’t hunt you can’t stalk yes there will be camper most of them are sniper or anti vehicle engineers . but when you pull that dog tag it feels so much better. People may disagree with me but a side from some O.P. Guns bf3 was balanced .

    • Oblivion_Lost667

      I understand their DMR bit, they’re trying to have every class have their own general range of expertise, DMRs getting scopes with higher optics can make the bolt actions a LOT less useful, unless you’re at 400 meters+ not helping the battle, and the scopes on the pistols are more novelty than anything, they’re practically useless. The G36c is also rather bad, I don’t mind the Ace 23, it’s the new M16, it’s easy to use but doesn’t particularly excel at any of those ranges, but a good player can use it to their advantage. The rest, I pretty much agree with.

      It really seems like DICE listened to the community TOO much in BF3 (The essentially completely re-did mechanics multiple times, nerfed guns like the FAMAS too much, or made guns too powerful, stuff like that.), but now they’re barely listening, they’re doing one extreme or the other, with no middle ground.

      • Katana67

        I really don’t see how Engineers with DMRs and Support with Carbines is hardening their range of expertise. Likewise, I don’t see how bolt-actions with sub-4x optics is within the general range of expertise of bolt-actions.

        If anything they’ve ACTIVELY TRIED to make each class have access to a variety of weapons to fulfill a variety of roles at a variety of ranges. Hence why we’ve got Shotguns (CQC), Carbines (CQC-Mid), and DMRs (Mid-Long) as all-kits.

        They’ve just arbitrarily chosen to draw the line at DMRs for some reason. If they’re going to do things like that, it has to be ubiquitous. Bolt-actions need not have CQC optics if they’re meant for long-range sniping.

        I get that the pistols w/ 3x aren’t particularly effective. But it’s largely because they’re situational.

        A DMR with a 6x is no less situational. You’re sacrificing A LOT. You’re not doing the same damage per shot as a bolt-action, you’re not having the same ROF as any other primary weapons, you’re adding scope glint, you’re forgoing peripheral vision, and ostensibly negating all CQC capability if one chooses not to use canted irons (which are a huge mistake on some weapons in my opinion).

        A scoped DMR is still a highly situational weapon. You can even get a sense of that with an ACOG. I wouldn’t dream of entering into CQC with it, so I hang back.

        And so long as you’re killing folks, you’re helping your team (less people on the field at one time = easier objectives). Nevermind that DICE has systemic issues which also contribute to a lack of objectives for long-range folks to advance, even though it’s an endorsed playstyle.

        • Oblivion_Lost667

          I’m not saying it wouldn’t be balanced, I just see it as they’re way of trying to keep bolt actions useful, at least in normal. For the most part, the DMRs in BF3 tended to win out in all situations outside of the most long range battles, between the added suppression from multiple bullets, to being able to line up a second shot long before the bolt-action rifle could, assuming you didn’t get that headshot. I agree less people on the field = easier objectives, but the people that can make more of a difference long range than in the battle with a class that’ll be resupplying/healing/taking out vehicles are few and far between, percentage wise, it’s simply more effective to be close to the battle.

          • Katana67

            I kind of agree with you.

            But for one, the problems with DMRs in BF3 was (like you said) more to do with how BF3 handled suppression. Which is no longer a massive factor in BF4. It’s still there, granted, but it’s not wholly debilitating. And it’s still there regardless of whether there’s 4x or 6x as the ceiling for optics.

            And, yeah, but classes shouldn’t be tailored to the LCD of players. If you’re good at range and can kill people, more power to you. I know I’m one of these people. But at the same time, if you’re bleeding tickets by dying all of the time trying to take an objective, you’re not really helping your team either. So it’s more about how good you are at what you play, rather than what you’re playing.

    • Nathan

      I agree with pretty much all of this. Also, my friends and I call it ‘The Battlefield Shake’.

  • MegaMan3k

    While I don’t agree with everything they said, I think this is perfect communication. It shows they’re listening, they’re thinking, and they’re sharing. That’s all I can fairly ask for. Excellent move. I hope to see more of this not just from DICE but from all developers.

  • DoctorKajita

    I understand DICE’s reasoning but hope that they don’t take too long evaluating and implementing enhancements.

  • Matthew

    So what’s the point of the g36c? The aku 12 has the same damage per second (higher if you count burst fire) with WAY better recoil.

    • jj16802

      I really have no clue why, but I do worse with the AKU-12 than with the G36C.

      • I have near everything unlocked with the G36c and have yet to touch the AKU-12. I’m a powerhouse on TDM with it. I make a strength, rather than rely on it.

  • Tank Buster

    I just play the game and don’t worry about all this stuff.

    • DerpSlayer

      Ignorance is bliss.

    • Yazzer

      Me too. I guess I’m a casual player. I’m having a ton of fun with BF4, along with about 10 of my friends who are still playing.

      I’m not good enough to notice much of a difference between 6x & 8x scopes. Also, I’m glad that helicopters aren’t flying around dominating the map like when I would play BF3 and could never hold a lock.

  • Ben August

    Hahahaha 1-9 were basically a big “F U, we don’t care what you think.” That’s not really a “wait and see” or “monitoring” approach…

  • Jamic

    I really hope they would reconsider 6X scope for DMRs… or 4X scope with 6X crosshair to give it that “precision scope” feeling.

    Also I dont care about G36Cs RPM, it just needs some buff like much less horizontal recoil or better accuracy.

    • Katana67

      This would be a good compromise. I like it.

      I’d rather them have 6x scopes as the top-bill scope for most weapons (as in BF3). But yeah, it’s less about the magnification for me and more about having a coherent mil-dot reticle.

      Also, why do all the Chinese scopes have the best reticles? Kind of annoying… They need to throw in a non-chevron ACOG.

      Elcan SpecterDR anyone? For that matter, why are new optics packs for weapons not features of DLC?

      • Oblivion_Lost667

        Don’t give them more ideas to milk us please. Although, the FN2000’s getting it’s own 1.6x optic.

        • Katana67

          Yeah but it’s only for the FN, and the 2000 has always had its own optic. I’d certainly pay for an optic pack or two, but yeah, no more money for them!

  • “Ground destruction makes vehicle driving difficult after significant combat. We’re happy that the dynamic aspect of BF4 has a direct impact on the gameplay, and at the moment do not think this is in need of any tweaks.”

    Didn’t people want this? More ground destruction? It’s what most of the community ripped BF3 for post beta/release. Now it’s too much?

  • Oneil Martinez

    I didn’t want a “BF4 is its own game, with its own balance” I wanted a biger bader bf3 sea quail . I’ve read some were that dice of L.A. Made this game and not the DICE that made bf3 I think this was the first mistake.

    • Chuckz28

      DICE Stockholm made the game. DICE LA made second assault.

  • Sheldon

    I agree with dice. Last time (Bf3) they needed everything because if the crybaby fans

  • Brandon Stern

    People are actually complaining about the ground deformation? I love this feature.

    • Katana67

      They’re complaining about getting thrown on ice-skates even though they’re in an Abrams. Or clipping through the map because a frag went off on a dirt road. Or sliding around when making a turn on uneven ground. Or having your reticle bug out and completely jump all over the place when in a tank (which supposedly has gyroscopic stability).

      The fact that the ground deforms is fine, and great. But people are complaining about how poorly executed and buggy it is, not its mere existence. DICE just doesn’t see that unfortunately.

  • Guest

    Battlefield has turned from a Great shooter that put an emphasis on teamwork, with a good learning curve to learn the maps, guns and how vehicles worked to an eye candy mainstreamed dumbed down generic shooter, Bring back below radar, I understand that in earlier titles Heli’s were very powerful but all you had to do was reduce splash damage for those games, I’m for lock on’s but when you add so much, it gets bad. No 6X scope for a DMR? ITS A DMR, you add dumb reflex sights to to bolt action rifles for that are meant for long range encounters, Dice just doesn’t make sense. “How do you get the threshold lower?” This is Dice’s mindset