Yes, because accuracy can be measured accurately in large scale battles in percentages.Baneat said:No thank you. If I'm 1% more accurate than you I'm better than you but you have a 2% better gun you will win more often despite me being a better shot.Dectomax said:No. No it does not. They have a gun, you have a gun. In a realistic shooter, the more accurate player will win the firefight. Everything else doesn't matter. Stop moaning and suck it up. You want the cool stuff, pre-order it. You want to complain? Complain all you want. But when you play the game, you'll see that in the large scale battles, it really won't affect gameplay much at all because, like in BFBC2 - You can have a more powerful gun and armour, yet still be killed by someone who is accurate.Baneat said:Choice where other people do not have a choice = advantage.ZeZZZZevy said:This. How does anyone know these guns give an advantage? Have you played the game yet? If so let me know, I'd love to play it ahead of time with all the balancing done and polished.Hiphophippo said:Do you have any idea what these new weapons do or is everyone just assuming they'll give an advantage?
This being the internet I'm tempted to go with the latter.
Stop complaining.
Additional external factors which affect balance. Pass on game.
One on one, there may be a weapon advantage, but that will be the case with ANY FUCKING WEAPON THE GAME GIVES YOU! I can't imagine the muzzle flash suppressor being any use when they're thirty feet away from you, and the armour piercing shotgun will hardly cause any harm from mid-long range. The advantages are more to do with the situation rather than the guns potentially slightly higher stats. And more than likely those advantages will also have a disadvantage, I can imagine the sniper will be less powerful with a suppressor.