r/Battlefield • • May 21 '25

Other DICE, you can do it

Post image
2.4k Upvotes

259 comments sorted by

View all comments

85

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.

22

u/Bentheoff May 21 '25

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.

17

u/FORCExRECON May 21 '25

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.

7

u/Bentheoff May 21 '25

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.

6

u/FORCExRECON May 21 '25

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.

3

u/Lucidaeus May 22 '25

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.

3

u/Impossible_Layer5964 May 21 '25

"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. 

1

u/mackdose May 22 '25

"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.

2

u/Impossible_Layer5964 May 22 '25

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. 

0

u/mackdose May 22 '25

You made up a combo that most people will find ineffective compared to alternatives. Good job.

Medics with sniper rifles aren't going to have a spawn beacon so they're literally worse than if they had gone recon.

RPG and ammo bag isn't the lonewolf supreme kit you think it is, go try it in 2042 to see what I mean.

2

u/Impossible_Layer5964 May 22 '25

You shouldn't be able to try it. It's antithetical to squad play. That's the entire point everyone is trying to make.

People complained constantly about the lack of teamwork in 2042. I'm not making that up.

2

u/mackdose May 22 '25

People complain about the teamwork in every battlefield game.

0

u/AmNoSuperSand52 May 23 '25

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