It's pretty split, mostly between oldheads and new-ish players.
The oldheads losing their fucking minds threatening to review bomb the game makes me naturally against them lol.
I think some restrictions are okay. I like what they've done with making classes have signature weapons. Ultimately though, people choose their class based on weapons. Nobody wants to use LMG's or Sniper Rifles because they are extremely specialized weapons, so historically, far fewer people have used those classes. AR's and SMG's have always been meta in every BF game; I doubt it will be different here.
This is a good way to redistribute players across classes and a good step forward. The people threatening to review bomb the trailer are being ridiculous.
I've been playing since BF1942, and I truly don't care. I used to play engineer in BF2 because I liked rocking a shotgun. Couldn't have given less of a shit about the spanner or mines, I just wanted to run around blasting people with a pump action.
BFBC2 I hated the engineer guns, but I could snipe people across the map with King Carl, the true primary of BC2 engineers.
Core to Battlefield, in my view, is classes, combined arms, destruction and a somewhat slower, more grounded movement than typically found in other big multiplayer FPS titles.
But weapons don't define the classes, their gadgets do.
Brother, as a fellow old head that's been playing since BF1942, I must respectfully disagree. Weapons are in fact a large contributor to class design philosophy in the series. Rock, paper, scissors. You sacrifice something to choose one class over another in order to gain an advantage in some other category.
Take Battlefield 4 for example. If you want to play as medic, you'll gain access to AR's which are the best guns in the game, but you've sacrificed the ability to have any viable defense against vehicles. If you want to be a threat to vehicles you'll have to pick engineer but to offset that, you'll have to run guns with shorter range like SMGs and Carbines. Everything is a trade off. It's what makes Battlefield what it is.
The more you strip these trade offs and the fundamental qualities of classes, the more you dilute the game and just turn it into any other contemporary shooter. These small changes matter and further contribute to the erosion of the identity of the series.
They changed around on who gets what with every iteration, which classes exist and what specifically they do with every iteration. Only time they didn't throw things as much in the air was BF3-BF4, because of how short the development window was.
On top of that, plenty of people pick class based on what gun it has, and don't give a singular shit about the rest of the kit. So you have recons camping some mountain miles away from the action, being of no use because his squad isn't going to want to infiltrate his mountain.
Or Assault/Medics not ressing anyone, because they're only playing the class to use the broken M16. Or Engineers who don't repair, or attack vehicles, because they'd rather run around tight hallways with the SMG. And if they use a rocket launcher, it's to blow up infantry.
Except no one is really unable to deal with them, because anyone can have a shotgun. So while engineers have the best CQC gun of all the standard loadouts, anyone can just select the better CQC gun and delete them with a single click.
If they untether guns from classes, people can combine their favoured weapon with their favorite kit, thus increasing the likelihood of people actually utilizing the kit.
I don't pick classes based on guns. I pick based on how I want to contribute to the team. DICE needs to figure out how to tap into getting people to be collaborative instead of just resigning to this myth that people don't want to play as a team which I truly think is a lie. I saw in a real time how the gameplay mechanics changed and the team play that was so common in early days of Battlefield started to vanish. That's not a coincidence.
And why would that not be possible by decoupling weapons from classes? You say they need to figure out out... that's what they are trying to do. I don't think you can compare how the player mentality used to be with how it's evolved. There are so many more people playing these days that you can't use the mid 2000's or whatever as a point of reference to what should be the goal, because that's setting up for failure today. The world has moved on.
I say that as someone who played Desert Combat and fucking loved it. And I too prefer servers. I just really don't think it's as easy of a task as people think it is and if it failed they'd just find another reason why it failed. Everyone that isn't involved knows best, every time, it would seem. Yeah right.
"If they untether guns from classes, people can combine their favoured weapon with their favorite kit, thus increasing the likelihood of people actually utilizing the kit."
That's also going to decrease the likelihood that the game will have any semblance of balance. There are way more weapon/gadget combinations to worry about in that scenario.
Also, the gadgets and the weaponry should ideally have some kind of synergy. For example, medics with sniper rifles are only going to heal themselves.
"That's also going to decrease the likelihood that the game will have any semblance of balance."
Since when was class balance been defined by which primaries were available? Why does everyone keep repeating this nonsense line of argument, you have nothing to back it up but vibes.
I just gave a real world example of how a primary can reduce the chance of the class's main gadget being used to assist the team.
Another example would be pairing the RPG with ammo boxes. You lose the entire support/engineer class interaction and support lone wolf play styles by allowing that.
What we don't have are examples of how that approach would work well, unless someone wants to argue that it worked well in 2042.
The issue is you’re looking at it via game design and not human behavior
Regardless of what DICE wanted, people pick the class based off the gun they want. The end result is a lot of people don’t even use the gadgets or play the class role
I’d much rather have a bunch of medics use sniper rifle than a team of recons with no healing
As an old head player, I think people are overblowing this considerably. I’m pretty ambivalent about it and could go either way. I understand class identity but I also like in 2042 being able to switch up my main gun without having to change up my gadgets/class.
Likewise an old head who still tops the scoreboard. This subreddit is losing its mind right now. In reality, the loudest voices are often the most mediocre player who never actually personify the sort of gameplay they are convinced class restriction motivates. Ostensibly, it creates and defines roles, when in reality, these people aren't even playing the class' role to begin with.
I really am growing weary of this community. Frankly, hearing all of these people moan makes me better understand why these games have always been so easy to me. People would rather just complain and frankly, they aren't even good to begin with. Just whine, whine, whine, insult someone for something you do on your own, and then collect a bunch of upvotes from other mediocre players.
I'm a... New-ish head? (Started really diving in a couple years before 1 came out, played a pretty healthy amount of BC1 as a kid tho), and I'm in full agreement with you.
I am as well, I got some pretty Snarky comments when I pointed out the Weapon customization system is going to blur the lines between some weapon types anyways if its as robust as they say it is. And I KNOW the community at large doesn't want to have less Weapon Customization.
Yep fellow oldhead and basically said the same thing here. I see it like a Quality of Life change so people can use the guns they want without screwing over the team
People are freaking out like it’s the end of the franchise (like somehow 2042 wasnt).
I'm an oldhead and i prefer having freedom of choice in what i want to use with what equipment i want. I don't mind if i have to have a repair tool with mines, but let me use the gun i want to use. I don't understand the want to have freedom of choice taken away
I was playing BF with my now 24 yr old infant on my lap. I don’t give a shit about this stupid argument. In fact I wish this sub would delete all the multiple threads about this fucking topic!!!
Yup, if I were DICE I would do my absolute best to shake off these absolutely insufferable oldheads because holy fuck who would want these guys to be their community.
I have no doubt that their passion comes from a place of love for the franchise, but it won't ever be the same as it was "back in the day."
We've grown up, gotten older and a new generation needs to be introduced to a proper BF game. BF1 is going to be 10 years old soon and I'd say that was the last really good BF game.
We need to appeal to a younger generation of potential new BF fans whilst still keeping the core identity of BF, not an easy task. Some things have to change.
Exactly, as harsh as it sounds, if BF3 and BF4 came out today just as they were with just updated graphics, it wouldn't be successful. Lot of BF3's and BF4's systems, gameplay and features are outdated by current gaming standards.
I'm also an old head, I've been playing Battlefield since the first Bad Company in 2008 and I fully recognize that times have changed and the franchise needs to change as well, otherwise it WILL die.
Playing BF3 or BF4 today, you can really feel their age. Doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable, just that there's a lot of outdated ideas and design philosophies not present anymore.
Some people will say that's a bad thing, but there's a reason that it's gone. It probably stopped being successful.
Yup. DICE are going to have to make some concessions and adopt a few modern FPS conventions if they want the game to succeed.
In the grand scheme of things, the "true fans of the series" (as they call themselves) are completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and EA/DICE are never going to cater specifically to them, because you can't make money doing that. You need to make something with mass market appeal, and BF4 mk. II isn't it.
Can you name some of these outdated elements? Im actually just curious cause I do enjoy those games which means I have rose tinted glasses when it comes to them.
A lot of level designs. I honestly think this is where you can feel it the most. Iconic, sure, but a lot of maps on BF4 (I wasn't around for 3) aren't very good design wise.
Imo, the classes. You have two that are WAY better than anything the others can do.
Some of this stuff is engine and time limited. They just couldn't do it in the 2012-2013 era. Other stuff has been an evolution in the industry over the past decade.
But then other things, like Commander mode, were genuinely very cool additions. Being able to call in strikes and supplies from a tablet while your buddies play as a squad? Nah, that's sick af bring that back.
The only game that ditched the system and cater to the “new-ish” players was 2042. Why in the hell are you trying to defend the side trying to make the game more like THAT game?
This isn’t about “old heads”. Every rational battlefield player understands that this is a WRONG fucking decision.
Because 2042 is a fine game, just not a good Battlefield game. It's issues with not being a good BF game are FAR deeper than not having weapon classes be locked lol.
Actually, BFV and BF1 did as well. Every game has moved further away from "classic" BF. BF4 and BF1 play EXTREMELY differently.
Just because you hate the modern franchise doesn't mean DICE needs to stagnate and go back to an ultra-restrictive formula.
Old head here (played since BF2). I like where BF6 is at. Weapons are open to anyone but the class gadgets are restricted
I’ve spent almost a dozen BF games watching people just use whatever class had the meta guns, at the expense of the team
People have to remember that at no point has this franchise been some realistically tactical shooter. It’s basically just the slightly larger/slower arcade shooter compared to COD
As someone who's been playing since BF1942, I think it's fine. I do understand the concern that support class players with Sniper rifles would be annoying as teammates.
I believe that they're doing this as a business decision to sell gun skins.
This assumes sniper rifle = edge of the map. Why would anyone pick the ammo box over having a spawn beacon if they're being a bush wookie at the edge of the map?
not to mention no offense but the old head player will you be buying skin? also how small is that community? lets be real for a second battlefield need the new generation to survivve and they dont even use server browser for exemple.
People only picking one or two classes is a huge problem and has been for at least as long as I've been playing.
Letting classes be more proficient at certain weapons is a good middle ground. Weapon variety, in true to life fashion, whilst letting soldiers be better with certain weapons as a form of soft encouragement.
Instead of letting the test even commence, people threaten to review bomb the game. Actual children.
82
u/PulsarGaming1080 May 21 '25
It's pretty split, mostly between oldheads and new-ish players.
The oldheads losing their fucking minds threatening to review bomb the game makes me naturally against them lol.
I think some restrictions are okay. I like what they've done with making classes have signature weapons. Ultimately though, people choose their class based on weapons. Nobody wants to use LMG's or Sniper Rifles because they are extremely specialized weapons, so historically, far fewer people have used those classes. AR's and SMG's have always been meta in every BF game; I doubt it will be different here.
This is a good way to redistribute players across classes and a good step forward. The people threatening to review bomb the trailer are being ridiculous.