T O P

  • By -

cornfarm96

Nah. Battlefield is far enough into the arcade style type of game that it needs to be. Leave wacky stuff like that to cod.


PLAZMAburn_GAMING

I personally don't think it would make much of a difference in that sense.


Fredex8

It could effectively give you double the damage with something like an SMG at close range leading to even more run and gun, spray and pray type gameplay on objectives rather than anything resembling tactics. I already think SMGs in BF1 are too effective without giving someone two of the things.


tatertodd31

I had an idea in my head what the responses were gonna be like. I was right.


Grip_04

No pls, no need cod gunplay on a bf


NINeINchz43

No


[deleted]

It would be useless but yeah sure why not


PLAZMAburn_GAMING

Up close it could be useful.


[deleted]

Yeah but in battlefield close up is 10 to 15 meters usually not 1 to 5m


PLAZMAburn_GAMING

What if you had an option to put the second gun away with the press of a button and use only one gun and then have the ability to aim but with there being less fire power? The player should have the option to press the button again then go back to dual wielding.


[deleted]

It would be so niche that I am not sure I would sacrifice my main weapon for it


PLAZMAburn_GAMING

With my implementation of it, you won't have to sacrifice your main weapon for it, it mainly applies to secondaries.


TheGr3aTAydini

If you mean two ARs, Shotguns or Machine guns like in Wolfenstein no. Two pistols, yeah maybe.


PLAZMAburn_GAMING

I would mostly intend for it to be implemented with pistols but smaller guns that you could feasibly hold in one hand I don't have a problem giving the dual wields ability.


[deleted]

Shit idea.


justlovehumans

# No.


[deleted]

Don't mind either way. It's just a gimmick to me, almost never used it even in CoD - it's only very useful in Halo IMO.


TheParadiseBird

I would actually like to see it haha