Many propose that increasing the DMR bloom would make it more balanced, but I don’t understand this concept. At closer ranges, firing more frequently and allowing the reticle to get larger would be better, because the target would be easier to hit. Similarly, firing at a long range target would require more accuracy and would require more pacing to ensure a smaller reticle. Wouldn’t this mean that the DMR would be better at closer ranges, and worse at longer ranges?
It also confuses me that the BR, which has no bloom, was chosen to be the close range counterpart to the DMR. The BR’s accuracy is not effected by rate of fire, so everyone fires at essentially the same pace, and the kill time is determined by accuracy alone. To me, having a locked kill time would make sense for a longer range weapon.
The only way I see the long range/close range precision weapon concept working logically is a reversal of the roles of the BR and DMR, or at least their characteristics. A weapon such as the BR with no bloom should have a longer kill time and a longer RRR range. This way, the kill time can be long enough to ensure that less accurate weapons prevail at close range while getting defeated at close range. The DMR should have even more bloom than it currently has to ensure that people would have to pace their shots at long range, ensuring that the accurate BR user would kill them first. Let’s say that the long range weapon without bloom would always have a kill time of 1.5 seconds. The weapon with bloom could have an optimal fire rate with a 1.6 second kill time at long range, and a 1.4 second kill time at close range. This would put each weapon into its’ proper place.
tl;dr: The close range precision weapon should have bloom so that pacing would be required at long range and the long range precision weapon with a slower kill time could only win at long range.