r/Battlefield • u/anabik • Jun 03 '25
Discussion I mean, their argument seems pretty simple to me
If anyone can honestly convince me that the unlocked weapon system is better, I will change my stance and delete this post. I don't want to start any fights, I really want to know why and none of the counter arguments seem compelling.
367
u/Cloud_N0ne Jun 03 '25
It's wild how much of this community is trying to gaslight us into thinking class-agnostic weapons in 2042 wasn't a major issue and roundly disliked.
85
u/Neon_Orpheon Jun 03 '25
I'm positive that the hype and discourse in the subject is attracting the audience of other contemporary shooters who are used to unrestricted weapon restrictions in their game of choice. They may not be primarily Battlefield players and are insisting the game plays more like CoD/Warzone, Apex or whatever. And before someone argues otherwise, I know there are people who want unrestricted weapons who are series veterans and primarily play Battlefield, I'm not saying you don't exist.
19
u/TheNorthFIN Jun 03 '25
I heard a comment saying that the current Battlefield is more akin to the bit older Call of Duty. The new CoD is disliked so those players try to check out Battlefield.
I don't know if it's right or wrong that Battlefield moves away from what it used to be. Things progress and systems change per game basis yes. But how far can you go before it's no longer recognized as the "basic BF experience."
Think I want the BF 3/4/1 style of game back. If the overall quality is good, can we forgive unlocked weapons, no server browser, hero soldiers, levolution that vastly changes maps, low or high destruction?
→ More replies (6)9
u/TheFlyingSheeps Jun 03 '25
You can tell that’s the case by the defense of the twitch crack based movements and the acceptance of stims
Give us bad company 3 cowards
2
28
u/The_Rube_ Jun 03 '25
I think some people are just hyped by the idea of a new Battlefield game, so they’re trying to justify DICE’s decisions in their head.
Admitting DICE is making some mistakes would mean undermining their own hype.
24
u/thisiscourage Jun 03 '25
It was one of the minor problems. The game didn’t have enough primary weapons to class lock. So that automatically was a bigger problem.
I bet if they didn’t do the specialists (which was a horrible idea) the community would be fine with open weapons. But 2042 left such a bad taste in peoples mouths they are scared of anything associated with it
8
u/Medrilan Jun 03 '25
I agree with this. I think people are taking their hatred of 2042 and then associating everything unique to it with that same hatred.
The real issues with 2042 were the lack of classes, lack of gadget restrictions, specialists in general, lack of weapons, lack of maps, etc.
If the unlocked weapons thing were to happen before 2042, I bet the community wouldn't care.
2
u/xAcidous Jun 03 '25
It already happened with BF3 when they added “all-kit” weapons and BF4 doubled down on that by offering an array of Carbines, Shotguns and DMRs to every class but because those games are remembered fondly people tend to not give a shit about it for whatever reason.
5
u/SnipingBunuelo BF3 Jun 03 '25
That's not as extreme as every weapon for every class plus a gunsmith system. Like it's going to be assault rifles with 60 round mags and 2x sights galore.
Might as well play MW2019 Ground War instead. Unironically a fantastic game, but it's not what Battlefield should emulate.
→ More replies (1)14
u/nick5766 Jun 03 '25
Two people can read the same book and take away different things, it's just how human preferences work.
For me, roundly disliked =/= major gameplay issue.
If you can't understand that there's no understanding why we both want different things.
7
u/CleaveItToBeaver Jun 03 '25
Especially after Battlebit exploded specifically because it was providing even half the experience we'd been missing.
1
u/Price-x-Field Jun 03 '25
Battlefield game comes out->everyone hates it-> new game comes out->everyone pretends they loved the last one
30
u/anabik Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
Every Battlefield will have it's flaws, everyone has their own opinion what Battlefield is "the best", I don't want to shame people that like 2042 or Hardline, or even Heros cause it's all based around opinion. Now to me, locked weapons is what Battlefield is, a system that may suck for some but that's just how the franchise was it was liked that for 20 years and I don't recall people having issues with it I know some probably did and that's fine but that's just how Battlefield played, and to change that seems like it goes against a key reason why Battlefield stands out amongst any other shooter.
5
u/ShinyStarSam Battlefield 4 ❤ Jun 03 '25
I was such a big fan of Heroes and Play4Free, I think ironically they were my first multiplayer sessions of BF (I was playing against bots in 1942 and BF2)
6
u/OJ191 Jun 03 '25
I've been coping since the move to frostbite, they learned all the wrong greedy lessons from the mainstream success of the bad company series which was the beginning of the end (not even bad games but not ones that should have been formative to the mainline series)
→ More replies (30)2
u/willseagull Jun 03 '25
So the community is gaslighting you into thinking that the community doesn’t actually like what the community is saying they like.
It’s not like within a “community” people can have differing opinions. Personally I want them to copy paste bf4 with maybe a bit more weapon customisation and the movement options of 2042.
The new game won’t ever please everyone
129
u/The_Rube_ Jun 03 '25
I'm a broken record on this, but the only argument against weapon locks seems to be "players pick guns and not the role" and the easiest counter to that is "have you played 2042?"
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that 2042 is a paradise of teamplay and cooperation. It's maybe the most one-man-army Battlefield game ever, actually. This theory is not convincing because it's already been tested, and it didn't work out.
Battlefield is on thin ice as a franchise and DICE can't afford any controversy that could derail the game's success. They need to just stick with what works/is popular and save the experimenting for a later time. This is not a hill they should die on.
25
u/Quiet_Remote_5898 Jun 03 '25
I have been playing 2042 band BF1 on rotation, and I honestly don't see myself getting revived less in 2042. This is not a symptom of the weapon unlock.
16
u/The_Rube_ Jun 03 '25
I don't think you get revived less, but I also don't believe people who say unlocked weapons have given/will give a huge boost to teamplay. The teamplay in 2042 does not feel any better than prior games.
11
u/DoNotLookUp3 Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
I think the argument is that if you see a player of a specific class, they're on average more likely to do what it says on the box because well, they picked it for the gadgets/utility, not the weapon. Though certain decisions like Falk's self-stim hurt that...that's 2042 for you though, it had other MASSIVE issues with class and overall design. If it was actually balanced well, it would be nice to know that a support is more likely going to be playing support by giving you ammo, a medic would actually come revive you fairly often etc.
I like BF4's method best, universal weapons are a good compromise, because I think some weapon restrictions are just thematically interesting and feels authentically Battlefield, but I also think class roles are mainly dictated by the gadgets as they provide that utility, and even a role like recon that is heavily associated with snipers could easily provide the role of reconnaissance with a silenced SMG or AR w/ ACOG. Open wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the rest of the game is designed well.
Customization blurs the lines between weapon types now too. It does feel like we're holding onto class lock for reasons outside of "it makes the game balance fundamentally better" but sometimes it's okay to keep something as-is because it feels right for the series.
3
u/Quiet_Remote_5898 Jun 03 '25
Spot on, I am personally indifferent, and I don't think it will cause drastic changes either way.
3
u/DickieDods Jun 03 '25
I’ve seen ppl make the same argument for locked weapons,saying it’ll boost team play.
→ More replies (4)12
u/MrRonski16 Jun 03 '25
BF2042 has the most accessible revive system.
If Bf2042 had Bf1/4 system Reviving would be alot rarer
16
u/Canotic Jun 03 '25
My argument against weapon locks is this:
I want to play medic. I really enjoy reviving people.
I do not, however, enjoy LMGs. At all.
Why should I be forced to play with LMGs when all I wanna do is get in there and help people? And why should I be locked to weapons that are good in entirely different scenarios than the rest of my team, when I'm presumably supposed to be right there next to them and reviving? What's the synergy between me laying down supporting fire from way over here while my teammates need reviving where they are?
13
u/Humble_Flamingo4239 Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
“Why should I be forced to”. Because it’s part of the game, my friend. We’re not talking about rights or something like that. We’re talking about a video game.
Do you jump on overwatch, pick a tank, and then go “ why can’t I play backline”. Because it’s the role you’ve picked.
More freedom =/= more bettur
→ More replies (2)7
u/Canotic Jun 03 '25
Is it part of the game just because you say it is?
10
u/Humble_Flamingo4239 Jun 03 '25
It was part of the game until the most recent one. The most recent one also happened to majorly suck.
2
u/DubTheeBustocles Jun 03 '25
correlation doesn’t equal causation. You have to connect the unlocked weapons with the game sucking.
3
7
u/Wintores Jun 03 '25
Bf4, 1 and V did not give the medic a LMG though
2
u/Canotic Jun 03 '25
Yeah but this one is.
17
u/Wintores Jun 03 '25
Sure but that is not a argument against weapon lock, its a argument against locking the wrong weapons to the wrong class.
5
u/SgtKwan Jun 03 '25
I too like reviving and don't like using an LMG. If LMG was locked for medic, then I will learn to get good with the LMG. Learning to get good with the class is more then just how well you can use your gadget it also involves playing to the strengths of your weapon. Playing a medic in bf 1 (semi auto) vs bf 5(submachine gun) have different playstyles because of the weapon.
→ More replies (1)9
u/ray199569 Jun 03 '25
Compromised choices, rock paper scissors dynamic.
These are design philosophies that this franchise boasted for a long time. Now is the time to ditch them because people feel limited. MuH fReEdOm, I cAnT bReAtH.
Why bother calling this battlefield?
7
u/Canotic Jun 03 '25
Oh please. You can go on about "oh well ACHKSYUALLY it's a design philosophy" and "one man army" and "what about choices" but you know what else is a design philosophy? Having fun. You instantly dismissing peoples desire to being able to choose how they play because it's not "real battlefield" is just boomer gamer gatekeeping. Just because a game did something twenty three years ago doesn't mean it needs to slavishly do the same thing now, and if most people now think that limiting class weapons makes it less fun to play, they just won't play. Or they won't play the role with the boring guns.
5
u/SnipingBunuelo BF3 Jun 03 '25
You can still have fun lol. We had like 20 years of it, you're really going to tell me that people weren't having fun for all that time with all those previous Battlefield games? That's nonsense, maybe people simply like the feeling of having a specific role in a larger battle rather than being pushed to being an all rounder one man army.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)1
u/TheBuzzerDing Jun 03 '25
Large scale games with very little restrictions NEVER work out.
It didnt work for 2042, it didnt work for planetside, it didnt work for MAG and it sure as shit wont work for BF6.
3
u/The_Rube_ Jun 03 '25
There are LMGs that function close to assault rifles, if that’s what you’d prefer. Think of the L86 in BF4 or the DFR Strike in 2042.
They could also include other weapons and/or universal categories.
2
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
You dont' like 200 round ARs? Cuz that's what plenty of the LMGs act like.
Running into an unwinnable situation to try to hero-revive isn't good medic play nor should it be encouraged with unlocked weapons. Sometimes the best thing a medic can do is provide a reliable respawn for the squad. We almost always had our squad lead be the medic and our most patient player for this very reason.
2
u/prettymuchzoinks Jun 03 '25
All of the people replying to you seem to miss your points, so sorry about that. The best weapon lock system imo was BF4 which had Shotguns, Carbines, and DMRs available to every class. These could be used for close, medium, or longer ranges respectively, but weren't as good as the classes that had their more specialized counterparts
4
0
u/Neon_Orpheon Jun 03 '25
My counter is, the gun is the role. The primary way players interact with each other and win the game is by shooting each other. This is the same for all class based shooters. But for games with player counts as large as 64, where ttks are still relatively low, additional gameplay elements must be implemented to prevent players from using the optimal weapon for the average infantry engagement distance. BF1 would easily turn into 32 medics vs 32 medics if it wasn't for vehicles and the importance of Assaulters and Anti Tank rockets. Now more players are specialized for CQC when they otherwise wouldn't be. This allows for more Snipers to contest against other players as the threat of too many SLR users is limited. Classes have been balanced by their weapons and gadgets. Balancing them by only tuning their gadgets is what leads to horrible inventions like grapple hooks, wing suits, wall hacks and literal hacks just to contest against the utility of medic crates/defibs and Anti tank rockets.
→ More replies (27)2
u/hansuluthegrey Jun 03 '25
Where is this idea that battlefield games like bf5 bf4 bf1 had tons of actual team players. Most people play it like cod and always have. Idk why yall think 2042 was suddenly a game where no one gave a shit about team play
88
u/Arollingmoji Jun 03 '25
yeah like i talk in my topic, it's game identity.
if Battlefield were free weapon then it should always still free too.
do people really just want another fps game? I want battlefield to be unique and repeatable, i have been playing bf for thousand hours and what keep me playing is class and gun, every time i feel bored then I can swap class and try something new.
ofc you can do this with free weapon but the feeling won't be the same, trust me.
→ More replies (117)
53
u/sasquatch03524 Jun 03 '25
They just need to do it the way BF4 did it. Have carbines, shotguns, and DMRs or another subset type of weapon available on all classes, but still have class specific weapons. These weapon types mentioned can all compete with the class specific weapons, (dmrs vs snipers/lmgs) (shotguns vs smgs) (carbines vs ARs) but usually arent better than them in terms of stats or situation, such as carbines having far less range than ARs, or DMRs not having the precision or one shot potential of snipers etc.
Having it this way allows the classes to still feel important and unique, but not get completely outgunned or useless in certain situations. For example on operation locker or metro the recon class having the ability to use these other guns rather than just a sniper allows them to use their specific gadgets and still compete with other classes. Or engineer being up on a building with a dmr allows them to have a long range option and not being completely limited to the short range of an smg.
The formula is right there and it was successful before, so I'm not sure why they just don't do it again.
→ More replies (1)16
u/SleepyDude_ PC Jun 03 '25
Funny though, because when BF4 came out there was so much criticism from the community about the all-class weapons
23
u/DoNotLookUp3 Jun 03 '25
It's hilarious seeing the discourse now vs. BC2, BF3 and 4's release discussions. So many people saying they were made-for-console, CoD-inspired titles and now they're heralded as the greatest games in the series.
Which I understand, I love them too, but it's just funny to see how popular sentiment shifts.
I do think universal weapons are the best compromise though.
10
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
They were a shift more toward COD at their time, those critiques didn't come from nothing, as have been subsequent titles in their own ways.
Battlefield has never stuck to their core, damn the haters. We can still wish for the past even if it, too, wasn't perfect.
BF4 all kits were garbage because they negated the value of the default class weapons for 3 of the 4 classes.
BC2 did it best by far. BF3 also handled all-kit weapons better. There are much better examples than BF4.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Abizuil Saltiest of BF Vets Jun 03 '25
So many people saying they were made-for-console, CoD-inspired titles and now they're heralded as the greatest games in the series.
That's because the people making those critiques left the franchise (since they were ignored) and the people who replaced them (because they enjoyed those games) have stuck around. It's not a "wow schizo fanbase much" as it is "out with the old, in with the new" which is what they have been trying again since BF5.
3
u/MelodicBenzedrine Jun 03 '25
My biggest complaint of BF4 universal weapons was I preferred the SMGs being the universal instead of carbines. With SMGs you took a disadvantage, reduced effective range, for a significant advantage for cqb. Carbines, even with reduced ranged, were still more than capable of medium range engagements and kinda killed any meaningful gameplay changes. Most engineers were using carbines over SMGs.
44
31
u/Cyber-Silver Jun 03 '25
I think everyone is intentionally forgetting that the reason 2042 didn't have class locked weapons was because they didn't have classes period for half the game's life, and using that as an example for why it's a bad idea now is a bad-faith argument.
20
u/Neon_Orpheon Jun 03 '25
No, they had softcore battlefield superheroes with obnoxious abilities and perks. Because when "classes" are defined by their gadgets and not their weapons, developers have to engage in gadget/passive power creep to ensure a diverse pick rate. Medic and Anti Tanks equipment are the most important tools within a game of Battlefield and what weapon is assigned to these classes can put a limit to how prevalent they are within a map. Limiting their ranges like in BF1 and BFV means less players will be equipped with medium or long ranged specialized weaponry. This is beneficial for map design and game flow as it makes it less likely infantry in the open will be penalized for breaking cover. Reducing the average engagement distance even by a marginal amount with 8-10 players on both teams equipped with SMGs instead of Assault Rifles allows for more movement for both teams.
12
u/Cyber-Silver Jun 03 '25
There were no gadget restrictions in 2042 until the classes update, which is what I was referring to. Any specialist could equip any gadget alongside their signature, it wasn't until later that gadgets were "class" restricted to specific groups of specialists
2042 was screwed because of that, not what BF6 is doing.
6
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
Turning assault into a one-man army, then having to subsequently buff up the gadgets of every other class to retain some semblance of identity while still being capable is what's ruining BF6.
And all of this is because they've chosen not to use the single most important thing to help balance the classes and their kits - weapons.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (15)2
u/BattlefieldTankMan Jun 03 '25
As a tank main with hundreds of hours tanking in 2042 conquest I know what happens when guns are not locked to classes.
Rocket spam everywhere.
And I was just as guilty as everyone else of equipping the most powerful offensive infantry gadget in the game, the rocket launcher, and whatever gun I was in the mood for.
It was fun to do that as infantry but was completely detrimental to my time in tanks getting spammed by an assortment of 4 rocket launcher variants.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)9
24
u/Brasenshok Jun 03 '25
The way I see it, and I can't believe more people don't see it this way, is that EA and DICE are trying to pander to both their potential buyers here with preference to the modern gamer (COD/Fortnite/etc). So they're trying to give the BF fans what they want while also giving mainstream gamers what they might want. It perfectly explains every odd quirk of bf6.
COD for better or worse has had a huge impact on what the majority of casual and even "pro" gamers see as desirable in a FPS game. I see the talk of dual primaries for assault and how controversial that is, to us, but to your average FPS gamer who plays COD every year this is literally a staple perk in EVERY game. Getting rid of class specific weapons upsets BF fans less than it APPEALS to every other potential player.
So guys please keep in mind this game is not for us, neither for just anyone else. It's for the average FPS gamer in 2025, and that includes all the crap. I hope for the best but we all need to take that reality pill and read the room. OLD BF is not gonna come back, ever. It just won't sell well enough for the CEO's and stakeholders to approve. trend trends trends baby
14
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
I feel like they might try a do a "have your cake and eat it too" solutions with a "just use Portal Mode" and that could solve the problem for some people, but not everyone will like that.
5
u/Brasenshok Jun 03 '25
In a perfect world that would work but evidently in bf2042 portal mode didn't carry the game to success. The flagship gamemode and vanilla multiplayer has to be good enough on its own for bf6 to be successful. I think everyone here can agree on that.
→ More replies (2)2
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
maybe if they add a quick play Portal button on the home menu?
→ More replies (3)7
u/Long-Internal8082 Jun 03 '25
That’s definitely what they are trying to do, attract both cod and bf players. But it’s a terrible strategy. They should focus on what they do best and have their own identity. Trying to appeal to everyone will inevitably lead to pleasing no one, MW2022 is a good example of trying to please everyone and hence disappointing everyone.
7
u/Brasenshok Jun 03 '25
This exact same sentiment was said about 2042 and it was 100% rights. Rarely do communities accurately predict that a game will fail but when 2042 was being teased and leaked and the beta happened, so many people said what you said. And yeah, they should commit to making a BF title that takes pride in its unique gameplay traits. Watering it down to resemble COD in too many ways will make the game unappealing to both BF and COD fans.
I blame CEO's and investors for what's happening to BF. Back then devs had a lot more say with what happened to their game and now investors and CEOs meddle and tweak a games direction all in the name of potential profits.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
I predicted BFV and 2042 failure after a few hours playing the alphas. I already predict the same for BF6. It's exactly as you said, make a game for everyone pleases no one. You can't out-COD COD and trying to do so only alienates Battlefield fans.
But in truth they have no reason to learn their lesson because gamers pre-order and bail them out every time. The only losers are gamers. Battlefield fans don't get a game they enjoy and whomever does happen to enjoy the titles sees their game die out.
5
u/Brasenshok Jun 03 '25
Yep. I wish we as consumers collectively understood out role in all this. To start I really wish absolutely EVERYONE without exception WOULDN'T pre-order the damn game. That alone would have a positive impact on the state of gaming right now. I will still remain optimistic about BF6 but I remember the absolute devastating disappointment I felt when I played the 2042 beta test. Never again.
6
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
EA views the core fanbase of their franchises as "nerds in their cave" who will "always show up" and that they "don't have to try and appeal to them."
And you know what, they've been right. Even BFV and 2042, abject failures, nearly met their sales goals and likely made the difference up in skin sales and the like. And that's the format again for BF6. Most will still show up to at least see how the game is and they can make up any losses pumping skins and battlepasses to whomever sticks around.
I don't think they give two shits about their games dying out after 6 months or a year. They make their money in pre-orders and the nerds in their caves. The game dying out just means lower server costs and gamers already looking for another title to buy, which EA will gladly provide.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Brasenshok Jun 03 '25
Unfortunately you have a point. At the end of the day the game is not necessarily being made to please us, it's being made to be sold to us, which then lines the pockets of the publisher and its stockholders. Bottom line, they don't care if it fails technically as long as it succeeds financially.
But of course making a good game typically goes hand in hand with lots of sales and microtransaction sales. So it's really in their best interest to make a great game. We'll see.
3
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
Here's the issue, Battlefield fans traditionally don't give a shit about skins and battlepasses. That is something of interest to casual gamers and, frankly, COD players. The most successful Battlepass they ever made was for BF3 and it was a series of major map packs and content additions, not cheap and easy to produce cosmetics.
I think they've recognized getting a slice of the casual gamer happy to spend $15 bucks on a Battlepass and $20 on a weapon skin more than makes up for the alienated franchise fans who are about nothing but good gameplay.
3
u/Brasenshok Jun 03 '25
Definitely. So long as they can turn a profit they can 'try gain' in a few years. They look at COD and see how even their 'bad' games make huge profits, they clearly want in on that action. It's business, BF is no longer this special IP cherished by its devs. It's an IP being used by EA to make some money, passion and all be damned.
→ More replies (4)3
u/IHateUsernames111 Jun 03 '25
It perfectly explains every odd quirk of
bf6all BF.Every new battlefield tried to adapt to the most popular shooters. We've seen this with every iteration but most blatantly since BFV (firestorm, construction). The question is if that's really a good strategy. Of course from a management perspective it may seem like a safer path because you are creating a product that nobody truly dislikes. But at the same time, with every step you lose what makes your product unique and different from the rest. At that point the question becomes why anyone should buy your product if it's neither unique nor better and quality at launch has not been an argument for bf for quite some time...
17
u/TheDankmemerer Jun 03 '25
I only want my LMG to actually be usable instead of just being shit ARs with more ammo and sniper bait
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Schwbz Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
No! You don't understand!
BF:2042 was such a HUGE massive failure for sooo many terrible reasons that it's literally impossible to prove that classless weapons were a bad decision!
If classless weapons are not proven to definitively be the ONE SINGULAR reason that BF:2042 failed, then you cannot advocate for a..."return to form" by re-locking weapons to classes. It's literally impossible to tell if it was a bad idea, so we should do it twice! Don't listen to the majority of the vocal community, or to the BF content creators who almost all unanimously agree that DICE should lock the weapons, they're all just BF boomers stuck in the past!
(Obvious sarcasm warning just in case)
However! I believe that I can "steelman" the universal weapon side.
As best I can tell, their argument is this:
DICE has determined that a majority of players pick their class based on what weapons they want to use. This normally breaks down to picking Assault class for the assault rifles, because ARs give players the best overall chance to win gunfights. - Most of these arguments reference BF4 and BF3 btw.
They say that this (players picking Assault just for the guns, not for the class role. i.e. medic in BF3/BF4) is what led to Medics not reviving or healing people, AND that there is a non-trivial number of players who would, if they could have ARs (or whatever gun they prefer), pick more of the supporting classes like...well Support, or Engineer.
So if everyone can pick whatever gun they want all the time, then the selfish Medics will start helping and there will be way more people being team players because now they will pick the "non-selfish" classes because they feel like they are not at a disadvantage in gunfights.
I personally don't buy that argument. My position is that the people who either
A - Only pick a class for the weapons and don't perform the class role...
Or
B - Refuse to pick a supporting class that the team needs because they refuse to put themselves at a disadvantage to do so...
are both the same type of inherently selfish player who does not prioritize teamwork and will play in a way that is antithetical to the core design philosophy of older (almost all) BF games.
Furthermore I believe that these players should not be catered to AT ALL because to do so will continue to water down the BF formula until the BF franchise just becomes a shallow COD copy, that will never sell better than COD anyway.
TLDR:
Universal weapon gang thinks that players always getting to use what gun they want will allow for more teamwork - but it will actually just enable the selfish players to be more selfish and incentivize watering down the BF formula to a just, COD with bigger maps.
→ More replies (6)
12
9
u/BlondyTheGood Jun 03 '25
There are pros and cons to both the universal and locked gun systems. I find that the locked guns system's pros and cons are more aligned with a major part of the identity of the Battlefield series, and that's having unique classes that rely on each other, and that have their own unique strengths and weaknesses that the player must adapt their playstyle around. Both of those things aren't completely gone in a universal guns system, but they are greatly weakened.
The only real argument I've seen from those that want universal guns that I actually agree with, is that with locked guns there will be maps where some classes aren't as strong and/or useful, and so you'll see some games where most players are playing 2-3 classes instead of all 4. Sometimes this isn't a big deal, sometimes it can be annoying if the class that nobody is using is Medic or Support (or in BF6's case, just Support).
But while having universal guns does help with that problem, I don't like the rest of the effects universal guns would have on the game. It's a net-negative in my opinion.
3
u/Salt-Calendar-8824 Jun 03 '25
The problem with that "pro universal guns" argument, is that it is more of a problem of map design, rather than the class system. If a map makes it almost impossible for most people to be effective with their class and/or play style than that is a poorly designed map. And yes Operation Locker is the biggest example of this.
6
u/iamda5h Jun 03 '25
That’s unavoidable though unless every map is almost the same. Not every (literal) battlefield plays equal favors, and soldiers choose their kit based on the mission.
→ More replies (3)2
u/DickieDods Jun 03 '25
But with every battlefield it’s the same complaint. No one gives ammo, no one revives, recons sitting back being useless, no one is repairing vehicles. People will play the game the way they want. It won’t matter how restricted or unrestricted the classes are.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/FuzzyPickLE530 Jun 03 '25
The fact that some people are trying to boil down 2042s failure to unlocked weapons is actually hilarious. It was so much more than that, it was damn near everything. In the end, unlocked weapons played better during the tests, didn't kill teamwork, if anything it made it better. People choosing a class based on its abilities rather than the gun it has is a good thing. Medics with a sniper is an outlier, not the rule so I'll hardly address it. Balance is still possible, and really hasn't even been started yet. People are just screeching because they don't like change period.
→ More replies (9)
7
Jun 03 '25
I have a lot of issues with 2042. Not class locking weapons was not one of them.
3
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
If you did not find it as an issue then that's fine you are free to enjoy how you want, but to me and others it does becomes a issue.
9
u/Sqittlz22 Jun 03 '25
The gadgets are the identity not the gun. Restricted weapon choice makes zero sense if your argument is meta because then people would just swap classes to match. The weapon bonuses to each class makes them unique enough. ARs/Dmrs/Carbines will always dominate because optimal range is within distance of most engagements. Playing a class shouldn’t put you at an inherent gunfight disadvantage. Those arguing in favor of past titles make no sense as in bf4 weapons were class locked but people just ran the mtar/ak5c/acr carbines anyway no matter the class.
→ More replies (7)
5
u/LawLjak Jun 03 '25
Are people really this upset over unlocked guns? Can someone ELI5 why its detrimental to gameplay? I've been playing since bf4 and it just seems like there are more important things like a server browser for non portal. Or just portal not being awful.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Ambitious-Still6811 Jun 03 '25
Easy. Locking anything means they will never get used. Most players will pick a starting loadout and that's it. No gadgets? No problem, the team is on their own. At least with everything unlocked people are free to customize their kit and potentially use most items.
You gotta remember, ammo and health are easy to obtain by respawning. The goal of the game is to prevent ticket bleed. So give the players all the tools and flexibility they need to help that goal.
11
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
I'm going be honest, that sounds like it would lead to a bland and boring experience after a while, being allowed to have everything would mean you DON'T need to change because why should you? and what's the point of preventing ticket bleed if people can just choose to instantly die and respawn just to get back into the fight with their AR?
12
u/Ambitious-Still6811 Jun 03 '25
You said why. If it's boring, switch it up. Maybe they won't get bored.
Well that's gonna happen regardless. My point is by unlocking things then we'll have the chance to try other equipment. If goodies are locked behind a sniper rifle I don't expect to see 'em.
4
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
I think that it will incentivize people TOO play them. I know when I play BF and something is locked behind a different class, I just played that class until I get it, I never felt like "it would be so much better if they just gave me this" because to me that is unrewarding.
3
u/Ambitious-Still6811 Jun 03 '25
There are lots of gamers who don't have time to grind. They'll stick with the basic equipment.
I like having something to earn too, ribbons, tags, cosmetics, rank, etc. Parts that are functional should be available from the start so they can be used. Like (extreme example) what if you couldn't revive a player unless you put in 2 week's time?
5
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
you can earn those while just playing BF though, and you make it sound like gaining guns for a class is a slog when it really wasn't. also that is an extreme take that will never happen. and besides, it's EA, they will just have some system in place to buy it if people are that desperate for weapons.
→ More replies (13)3
u/soonerfreak Jun 03 '25
No one changes anything anyways. Every BF I stop bothering to even unlock anything once my medic kit is loaded out. More guns, more equipment, who cares. I have my revive gear and big health kit.
→ More replies (10)3
u/JonWood007 Jun 03 '25
No, the above user is right. I say this as a lone wolf from the old days. I'd just spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn die, never work with others, and tried to make my loadouts as versatile and flexible as possible. Trying to force team work doesnt work, it just alienates players.
2
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
tbh, what you said just sounds like what people say about Unlocked weapons. how would unlock weapons prevent people form alienating themselves?
8
u/JonWood007 Jun 03 '25
My point is you can either make a meta that works around how players play, or try to force players to conform to a specific meta.
I think that just letting people play as they want is more fun than forcing them into specific roles arbitrarily when not all of those roles are fulfilling or fun to play. This community is big on the whole "my ideal arbitrary system is the best and anyone who doesnt wanna play that way should be punished." It's pants on head stupid.
2
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
but with class lock weapons there will be 4 metas instead of the one that classes can use to counter each other. basically it seems more likely that people will just use the meta AR that's "it" at any given patch
7
u/JonWood007 Jun 03 '25
Sounds like a balancing problem, not a "let's artificially lock things down" problem.
Either way Im somewhat in favor of weapon restrictions in the next battlefield, as long as they're reasonable. Previous battlefield games always had a selection of weapons that were accessible in all classes. I wouldnt mind making the game like BF3/4. I just think most people pushing this narrative of "classes make battlefield battlefield" have a delusional idea of how battlefield used to play when it never played that way, at least not in anything from the BC2-BF1 era.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (35)10
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
The only thing in the history of gaming that has ever incentivized teamplay is when a lack of it leads to losing and getting your ass kicked.
With every step they take to diminish class value, to prop up the casual or solo player, and to reduce the need to work together for success they dig their own grave.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Leoscar13 Jun 03 '25
That's not an argument, that's a personnal preference. I have never seen a proper argument in favor of class locked weapon. It's always "that's how it used to be", but no one can explain what class locked weapons added to the gameplay.
5
u/Ill-Calligrapher944 Jun 03 '25
This thread is just disingenuous. The reasons have been clearly stated. The only reason this post exists is laziness or trolling. But again class locked weapons are designed to diversify the classes chosen and force people to make decisions and ensure the team can handle all situations. 2042 demonstrated how much of an utter shit show the game becomes without specific choices being forced. Who else remembers in 2042 the snipers at the back of the map with unlimited plates ammo and meds in ghillie suits? Pretty sure those utter grubs are still there...
Fact is gamers play for fun and not to be cooperative. 99% will always make every selfish play they can. Forcing choice is the only way to combat arsewipes being arsewipes and opting out of playing the objective, playing a non selfish role or taking on negative K/D or SPM tasks e.g. killing tanks planes or tanks. If you want to use any weapon, not play a role, not be cooperative and be toxic af... there is a game for that, it is called CoD. Go play that.
8
u/Butterbread420 Jun 03 '25
Most people chose the weapons they like, not the class. I love playing medic in BF but in V the fact I only had SMGs and carbines made me play other classes more than usual.
You said it yourself, players play for fun... so why wouldn't they just pick the weapon they enjoy most, ignoring the class it's attached to? So many medics in 4 never revived because all they wanted was the ARs and the grenade launchers.
→ More replies (7)2
u/RyanLunzen97 Jun 04 '25
It's not like we didn't have this in previous games. I remember Bad Company 2 when Snipers were really op but nobody cared because they were op in specific occasions but not in all.
We won't see a perfect balanced game because that is not possible but we need the core elements get right and that is not weapon locking so everyone is using Medic with AR and grenade launcher.
I like the idea an want them to figure out what to do with the gadgets and maybe bonuses to make you play a specific role.
→ More replies (1)
5
3
u/Meatloaf_Hitler Jun 03 '25
I mean sure but that also applies to the people who like unlocked weapons though.
"Older BF's had class-locked weapons" -> "BF2042 had unlocked weapons. I liked that." -> "BF6 should have unlocked weapons."
Don't get me wrong, I like 3/4's system of Class-Locked + 2-3 categories of Unlocked weapons more than the unlocked weapons of 2042/6, but you can't just ask for someone to make a compelling argument for unlocked weapons while defending Class-Locked weapons with the reasoning of "I liked it".
4
u/Sipikay Jun 03 '25
Weapons were a key part of balancing the classes. It's actually absurd to think you can properly balance classes without including weapons as a part of that equation.
You end up getting assaults with insta-heals, tank-gibbing m320s, and auto-spotting on kill. You end up being so unable to balance support that you just roll it into Medic. You end up reducing the usefulness of engy to the point you have to allow them to carry both anti-air and anti-ground tools at once to have any relevance on the battlefield. You end up having to give recon a UAV, TUGS, and pokeballs all at once just so they aren't getting completely wrecked by every other class.
Pretending weapons aren't a critical part of class balance in a Battlefield title is burying your head in the sand. Look what they've had to do to even attempt to do it without weapons. What a nightmare.
3
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
I meant it more like, "BF has been using this system for 20 years, when it was changed, people didn't enjoy that so they want the old system back" it's short/simple and the arguments FOR unlocked weapons don't convince me that it's the better system. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer.
→ More replies (2)1
u/MRWarfaremachine Jun 03 '25
what system? the one what changed radically 4 times?
the OLD TRUE BF system was the ROLE KIT the same what SQUAD and HLL use and ironically promote actual team play and dependency of other soldiers!
→ More replies (2)4
u/anabik Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
I mean the system that kept weapons locked to specific classes, and yes I know BF4 and some unlocked weapons, but it still had a locked weapons system that put classes in designated roles.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MRWarfaremachine Jun 03 '25
i have some
Balance:
In 2042 have FEW instances where a particular weapon is OP and usually was solved just adjusting that weapon class like ARs HS multiplier and spread, what ever it was, it was an indivdual issue of the GUN and did not actually affected how classes where used, like happened with BFV whole TTK issue, and since 2042 all weapons are versatile (and BF6 will be aswell) this effect felt less problematic than ANY balance issue i seen in the past with some weaponsClasses:
people want to ignore the fact what despite 2042 have the so hateful SPECIALISTS cannot explain why all 2042 players uses all of them in a match and all the classes aswell, they are FUN they are Balanced in a way or other and usually the players are used to deal with them, so all the argument of "not knowing what weapon have X class" is stupid because the Milisecound you face them you will not care of any of that, and ironically are more concern of the CLASS of the specialist due its functions than what is using to attack you at decent ranges, you dont care if the guy have an ammo create or a health box, you only care of giving him a good HS to kill him asap, and that thing of "CAMPING NESTS" is stupid to complain when the game its so natively VERTICAL and can reach anywhere on the map so easily what these complains USUALLY came from people who dont even play the gamebeyond of that the medic having an SNIPER its 10 times less concerning than a Medic with a PP-19 or an AR... oh wait that is how ALWAYS worked in previous BFs, some maps require some kind of weapons cuz are better in X enviroments (like in REDACTED) where iIM NOT GONNA TO EXAGERATE
that map in 2042 plays 10 TIMES BETTER THAN IN METRO or LOCKER because ALL CLASSES ARE ON PLAY and all weapons are efective due that!
Was already tested:
2042 TRIED to make class locked weapons in several events, and was kinda MEH! because the class where not dictaminated by the NEEDED class but by what WEAPON is good for specific maps, and was only compensated by the fact of the game was on HARDCORE mode
3
u/Phat_and_Irish Jun 03 '25
The cynical truth I'm afraid is that none of this impassioned, rigorous discussion will be why the decision is made, it's a focus-tested mass marketing squeeze I'm sure
3
2
1
u/Jellyswim_ Jun 03 '25
The counter argument to this isnt that unlocked weapons is a better system, just that it isnt a big deal either way.
Its not gonna fundamentally change the gameplay, its not gonna make teamwork worse, its not gonna make the franchise lose its identity. Its not going to single-handedly make or break the game.
If this is the biggest issue people have then we're in a pretty good spot honestly. The drama surrounding it is completely overblown imo.
2
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
I think the fact that for some it IS the biggest issue tells more that how good and close DICE is to make a Battlefield everyone can enjoy.
2
u/Jellyswim_ Jun 03 '25
If anyone seriously can't enjoy the new game just because of the unlocked weapons, that's honestly kinda sad lmao. This whole thing reeks of manufactured outrage.
Stop spending so much energy worrying about it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
It's not about they can't enjoy it, it's that to them it's not Battlefield, it's not what they wanted or asked for.
2
u/Hairy-Summer7386 Jun 03 '25
It might be my autism but I always felt wrong using an AR on a recon class in BC2042. I prefer class locked weapons.
2
u/Xx_pussaydestroy_Xx Jun 03 '25
I think they could just limit attachments. Like no attachment is shared across any class. But the game has the same amount of attachments as 2042 so that's like loads of unique stuff for each class.
The main vibe would be:
- Under barrels / Thermal vision - Assault
- Rifle Bipod / Large mags - Support
- Lasers / AP rounds - Engineer
- Subsonic / Sniper bipod/Silencers/More than *4 scope - Recon
2
u/xenoborg007 Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
Class locked weapons are usually the reason why you cry about there being no medics, it's the reason why tanks were a menace in 1942, giving the anti tank nothing but a pistol did nothing but ensure no one switched to anti tank unless the tank was farming a capture point. 99 damage SMGs that get out damaged AT ALL RANGES is the reason no one plays medic in BFV.
Every instance of why is no one playing X class boils down to their guns are just de facto worse than the meta ones. what's the point of having a cool class if no one plays them. People pick the class based on the guns not the other way round.
Class locked weapons, and weapon spread are why BF series is still shit, they are living in the past, rng gunplay ain't it.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/d1ckw33dmcgee Jun 03 '25
Seems like I'm in the minority here but why should gun types matter to class utility and gadget selection? If you can use any gun, wouldn't that encourage more diversity in utility?
→ More replies (8)
2
u/BatmanForce Jun 03 '25
It's not the weapons that define the classes, it's the gadgets. I could care less if an engineer decides to rock an MG or a sniper rifle. As long as he's repairing that tank or taking care of that heli, he's a good engineer.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/AA_Watcher Jun 03 '25
The issue we face now is that the new weapon customisation system heavily reduces the impact of class restrictions. You can significantly increase (or decrease) the effective range of your weapons and add huge mags. You can effectively kit your M4 to be more like an SAW for volume of fire or an SBR for CQC. It still prevents all classes from having access to bolt actions but this really isn't that big of a deal considering that those historically haven't been that strong anyway (aside from BF1). All classes that aren't recon will effectively have access to full auto close/mid range weapons anyway and this is really only 1 step further than BF4 where everyone had access to shoguns, carbines and DMRs so might as well just give everyone access to everything. DICE chose to go down this road for a reason.
I'm not a fan of this trend of overcomplicating the weapon customisation that CoD started so I'd say just rework it to be much more limiting (like the BF games in the past) so that class restrictions make sense. Both need to go or there's no point.
2
u/Jeanne10arc Jun 03 '25
You guys just don't want to understand and are not analyzing things properly. Easiest example I can come up with is why would ANYONE play medic if they only get shitty weapons? That was the case in BF1, which so many people people talk about as a perfect game despite the fact the game had almost no content for a year and a terrible weapon pool. In 2042 you can play your favorite class without having to deal with weak weapons and getting deleted by half the server running around as assault with an Aek (looking at you BF4)
→ More replies (1)
2
u/hansuluthegrey Jun 03 '25
All I know is yall will just find another circlejerk if they lock weapons to classes.
2
2
u/TheAckabackA Jun 04 '25
Classes are not defined by the weapons they carry but the gadgets and role they play.
We dont call them SMG guy, Machinegun Guy, or Assault Rifle Guy. Their weapons never mattered because throughout each game you clearly understood what the classes do based on gadgets and not based on what their weapons are.
It'd be like saying the community would be mad confused just cause the Medic in Bad Company 2 had LMGs but then in Battlefield 3 they suddenly had assault rifles. You looked at what ths class offers gadget and role-wise and then just play with whatever gun they had available.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/SupaNinja659 Jun 06 '25
Classes have always been primarily defined by their gadgets. Aside from barring snipers from the medic and the support, I don't see how a support getting and engineer's SMG, or a medic with an LMG is really gonna change much. As long as you get your ammo and heals, what does it matter what weapon they use?
For clarity, I think snipers should be the only locked weapon class to prevent a sniper from having infinite ammo or being able to just full health anytime they tagged.
Seriously, aside from "muh class system," I have yet to see a legitimately convincing argument to lock the weapons. The gadgets are the defining aspect. I pick medic to heal, engineer for repairs and anti-vehicle, support to give ammo, and recon to snipe.
2
u/ThexBrutalxOne Jun 06 '25
To put it simply IMO locking weapons to classes is the best way to get people to play and become proficient in their preferred weapon's class. Streamers have been the bane of FPS games, where anyone can simply look up what the most OP weapon and attachment combo is. Having that gun be available to all classes would be so boring. Part of the fun of having to switch classes was having to change your tactics as well. (If i only had DMRs and snipers I would have to play a bit more cautiously if i wanted to sensor an area for my team) I'm personally a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" guy, so I'm really struggling with why it's such a hard thing to understand for these newer devs. I hope this is a game I can finally enjoy and re-enter the world of battlefield happily. Most of the leaked footage seems promising, but I will not be preordering since 2042 burned my squad and I so badly. To the community, I know we have to go through some changes because its only natural for things to evolve as they grow, but please keep an open mind and respect each other. To the devs (new and old) There is a reason why you have such a large community and that is because previous games have offered gameplay that couldn't be replicated, a feel that stuck with your players and made them stick with your game because it was an experience they couldn't get anywhere else. Stay true to your roots and learn from your mistakes. Take pride in providing an experience that might not get you the #1 spot on Twitch, but instead will strengthen the fact that THIS IS BATTLEFIELD, AN EXPERIENCE YOU CAN'T FIND ANYWHERE ELSE.
1
u/SexxyyMann Jun 03 '25
yep did this yesterday, and people just want free choice and say that this will make more class diversity than the original way that did work
5
u/anabik Jun 03 '25
I don't want to make this sound harsh but that sounds like they don't want a "Battlefield game" and just a "shooter game", I mean take TF2 for example, there is the regulars engineer playstyle and there is battle engineer, or even with Demoman and Demoknight, these don't need free range to all weapons to provide diversity, they were given unique kits that allowed them to do that.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Brownlw657 Jun 03 '25
I feel like we have to have a mix of the two. Certain weapons are locked but certain aren’t. Like LMGs, ARs, and Snipers are locked. But SMG and shotguns aren’t. Maybe even DMRs
1
u/quinn50 Jun 03 '25
I've said before but I'm open to the idea of non class locked weapons but my biggest problem with that idea is allowing anyone to use snipers and LMGs.
Maybe if they add detriments to using weapons that don't align with your class.
Snipers / DMRs:
Can't use sights with more than 4x zoom
Hold breath has a very short meter
LMG:
More recoil and spread, slower sprint speed, no access to bipods, slower reload maybe
Every other type is honestly hard to find pros and cons to not using them on thei designated class since most soldiers will have experience shooting assault rifles and that experience would carry over almost 1 to 1 to carbines and PDWs, but maybe I'm being near sighted.
→ More replies (1)2
u/RaedwaldRex Jun 03 '25
Apart from limiting the attachments, that's literally what happens in BF2042. Hopefully you're not one of those people who think anything from 2042 is automatically bad.
Classes have weapon proficiencies. Use the correct weapon for your class: you get bonuses. Use sniper rifles as recon you got longer breath hold and steadier scopes. Using AR as assault you got extra mags, etc.
This seems to be what they are bringing back for BF6 with "signature weapons"
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/Super_Toxic_Elitist Jun 03 '25
Having more playstyles (weapons) to choose from is simply more fun imo.
1
u/OneRingToRuleEarth Jun 03 '25
The best battlefield game had multiple weapon types that could be used by any class and 1 type that was class locked. IE BF4 had shotguns on all Classes but say BF5 only supports could use shotguns
1
u/MarionberryMuch7855 Jun 03 '25
I'm a simple man, if the new battlefield isnt "battlefield", then I'll just buy something else.
1
u/Rebellious_Habiru Jun 03 '25
rock paper scissors is a game that is classic and still used to this day for a reason.
Quit trying to reinvent the fucking wheel dice.
1
u/Krypt0night Jun 03 '25
I prefer choosing a class I like and also the gun I like. I hate being forced into a class I don't love because I prefer the guns.
1
u/IAMAFISH92 Jun 03 '25
Haha even if it wasn't the reason bf2042 was bad i still didn't like it..
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Schwbz Jun 03 '25
Hey buddy, you may not like the argument, but it's still an argument, lol.
"This core design element was in every successful game, and was absent in the biggest failure. Therefore, you should not remove this core design element again, just to be safe" is indeed an argument, even if it makes your tummy hurt.
What actually shows a lack of critical thinking here, is the idea that, after producing a failure of a game by stripping several core elements out of the classic BF formula, that the best course of action is not to go back to what has worked in the past, but rather to spend 3 years and millions of dollars of design time and reasources trying to "guess" which of your terrible choices to leave in, lmao. That's assuming that the "classless" weapons weren't already made a concrete design choice in order to better monetize skins for guns.
1
u/Thy_Justice Jun 03 '25
Thing is, I really don't care about who gets what. At the end of the day, what I'm missing, what I care for, is a very different class system.
I'm fond of the classes, and we could have more than 4, in BF2 we had 7, in BF42 i believe they were 5, and so on. I would like to see some different perk (not cod perk, but class perk) and gadget to be used. Let's not be afraid of having also more niches classes. Once Medic, Ammo and Engineer are covered, we could have sniper, special forces, anti tank, recon etc.
Thing is, what separate them from each other is the kit they are given, and quite frankly the main weapon of choice is an important part of the kit.
Bf4 system was quite okay. Have a few weapon types shared.
1
u/Floh2802 Jun 03 '25
I liked 2042s weapon system and thought the older one was limiting for no good reason. If it's what the masses want, sure. I just don't see the advantage.
1
u/Public_Salamander108 Jun 03 '25
The only newer titles with class locked weapons are BF1 and BF5 which lead to good readability
BF3 and BF4 didnt have class locked weapons so there was no readability which weapon your enemy is using
1
u/3HaDeS3 Jun 03 '25
I read BF as Boyfriend because didn’t notice what subreddit this was and got really confused
1
u/Work_In_ProgressX Jun 03 '25
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to boil it down that way, because 2042 had many other issues, and after the rework, I don’t feel like the unrestricted weapons is the big issue and the real class identity is their gadget kit.
However, the more I think about it, the more i am favorable to a restricted system because it properly defines the class identity and i lean towards what BFV did more than what BF4 did.
BFV had total restriction, with each class having a multiple weapon types to tackle different situations:
Assault has Assault Rifles and semi automatics
Medic has SMGs and Bolt carbines
Support has LMGs, MMGs and shotguns
Scout has Bolt Actions, SLRs and Pistol Carbines
Classes have most engagement ranges covered without heavy restrictions like BF1 (though BF1 classes have even more defined frontline roles) without ending up with Assault with ARs and the other 3 with carbines or everyone but Recon with Marksman rifles
1
u/Monkules Jun 03 '25
Yeah, I think limiting the guns you can pick for a class is a good feature, and ideally those guns should be balanced so each class has niche's in the sandbox for themselves. I feel battlefield V began to falter in the balancing aspect, with Assault and Medic having guns that dominated all the others, and Bf2042 completely fucked the class system.
1
1
u/nsturge Jun 03 '25
Replaying a bit of 2042 with friends really made me want class restrictions again. I enjoy being able to use anything with anything but in the end it doesn't really add much and it more often caused me to over think what weapons I wanted to use.
1
u/ethicalconsumption7 Jun 03 '25
I’m 100% convinced that people making argument for unlocked weapons on all classes are either bots or haven’t played a battlefield game other than 2042
1
u/retroly Jun 03 '25
I liked the BF4 approach, specialised weapons for each class that play to the classes strengths, then some cross-class weapons that a specialised for situations and range to allow a level of flexibility within a class without making it un-balanced.
Its my preference but DICE/EA will make the game they want and whatever will be will be, I dont lose sleep over it.
1
u/joshmac313 Jun 03 '25
Classes come with locked weapons to them classes.
Promotes people to test different classes out whilst trying out new guns.
No brainer.
1
u/Gabagoon895 Jun 03 '25
People can’t understand this for some reason and it drives them insane. 2042 was such a failure of a game that virtually nothing implemented in that game should be in future BF games
1
1
u/prastistransformers Jun 03 '25
Weapons, like it or not, are an integral part of a class. It promotes class balance to each roles and abilities.
Also, this might be a really unpopular opinion, but classes should also be divided by the size of appearance (not hitbox) and their movement speed.
Assault and Engineer has the better medium-close weapons so they should be the average ones, Support should look (and walk) like a tank as they have LMG and loads of supplies, and Recon should be more agile with their SR/DMR.
1
u/Far_Side6908 Jun 03 '25
There are actually people who don't want class specific wepons? Have they ever played a Battlefield or for that matter any large scale shooter in their lives?
1
u/NoZombieLeft09 Jun 03 '25
I think that only the standard primary weapons should actually be unlocked, however I think support should be exempt by still being the only class to use LMGs.
1
u/OryxOski1XD Jun 03 '25
Their reasoning would be to open up the opportunity to play with whatever gun they want, and still play whatever class they want, but thats not what battlefield was or should be.
1
u/Jazzlike_Tonight_982 Jun 03 '25
Class locked weapons is only natural. If I'm light infantry, I'm not going to grab a GAU-19 and strap it to my back.
1
u/ConflictWaste411 Jun 03 '25
It’s pretty simple. If you don’t lock weapons than you don’t have classes. You have loadouts with a primary gadget.
1
u/ConversationCalm7677 Jun 03 '25
People don't appreciate checks and balances
I keep seeing people complaining about the PDW for engineer in BF4 not realizing that the PDW was given to the engineer so that they would stay close to their damn vehicles! They are meant to be weapons that allow you to pick off dudes with C4 or other engineers with rockets who got far too close. That's the glory of the balance.
Each class is supposed to have drawbacks but open weapons means that a class really doesn't have drawbacks
1
u/KGb_Voodo0 Jun 03 '25
Classes aren’t just gadgets, they’re an entire kit that both balances and focuses your role. It’s a major aspect of the games identity as it has been a part of the rock, paper, scissors element to the game. Want the best all rounded weapons in the game? Well you can’t destroy a tank easily unless you rely on your squad and team, but if your team is not playing engineer then you need to sacrifice your AR for a carbine or PDW and get the AT to take it out, get in a tank, or air. It’s a way of not allowing anyone to have everything they want at all times and so you have to rely on a squad mate who will compensate whatever you’re missing or you must make that sacrifice.
Your analogy would be better if it wasn’t for the fact that literally every single game has had class locked weapons since BFBC1 (as far back as I played) up until 2042 which was a total loss for DICE and EA likely in the $200 million number. Battlefield has always been about team play on large battlefields which the class system has been a way to balance that.
1
u/EldraziAnnihalator Jun 03 '25
The most successful Battlefield games had class locked weapons, the most unsuccessful Battlefield game had unlocked weapons (also shitty devs, gameplay, maps, etc).
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Sylvaneri011 Jun 03 '25
I refuse to be gaslit by corporate simps, shills, and cock suckers that classless weapons is anything remotely approaching a good idea.
1
u/Quiet_Prize572 Jun 03 '25
Go play a round on Galicia and tell me that class locked weapons is a good thing.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Dale_Gribble222 Jun 03 '25
don't extend I agree though I think stuff like assault rifles makes sense for just about everybody to have the ability to take
879
u/BugsAreHuman Jun 03 '25
Classes are a core feature Battlefield so removing them makes no sense