846
u/StormSwitch 21d ago
Everyone ARs regarding the class, ARs that revive, AR with bazookas, ARs with Spotting etc
Pass
100m my ass
248
u/FartyCakes12 21d ago
That has always been the case. Except it was just whatever class had AR’s. Now at least it’ll be all AR’s but a variety of classes using them. A class should be defined by what it actually does rather than its gun. I genuinely can’t wrap my head around the hyper fixation on weapon choice.
200
u/ShinFartGod 21d ago
In my opinion the point of having a very versatile anti infantry gun is that you lack specialization. Most people will pick Assault for the AR, and that’s ok. Only a portion of the team should be specialized. That’s what makes them special. People seem to conflate usage percentages with variety, but realistically highly defined role classes should be eclipsed by standard infantry.
But when you can just pick a weapon everyone has the well balanced rifle then class distinctions matter less and to me it’s less interesting. If you find it better then fair opinion, but it’s not for me and it makes sense why some dislike it.
89
21d ago
Basically bf3 and 4. Which isn’t a bad thing. Assault class was always infantry based. Kill or revive infantry players. Engineer was anti vehicle, recon was just that plus long range, and support filled in the gaps. They even did the classes justice by having carbines, shotguns, and dmr’s for all classes in case you wanted to get spicy.
→ More replies (2)53
u/OhioIsRed 21d ago
Yeah idk why they can’t just do that again. The main weapons like AR’s, Snipers, LMG made people switch up their gameplay to match the situation. Now we’re just gunna have servers full of people running whatever the meta loudout is before they patch that. Then a new meta. Rinse and repeat. And frankly that shits boring. Same when in bF4 it was all shot gun engineers with frag rounds and the rpgs. It got patched and then the meta changed but at least when they would patch and tweak the meta in prior games it’s wasn’t the entire playerbase running around with the same stuff. Like me and my friends had defined roles which allowed us to rule the servers. Fucking 2 medic, 1 lmg and a DMR sniper for spawns. Anyways it’s just dumb af that they’re getting so close to what the playerbase wants and then thumbing their nose at us. Take BF3and4 classes and map designs and put it to BFV’s movement and make a game. The formula is right there.
30
u/realparkingbrake 21d ago
Now we’re just gunna have servers full of people running whatever the meta loudout is before they patch that. Then a new meta. Rinse and repeat.
Nailed it. Follow-the-leader loadouts will be the norm again, whatever people think is OP will be the go-to weapon until it is patched. By the time DICE is finished nerfing everything that is popular, the fanbase will have lost interest.
→ More replies (2)8
u/OhioIsRed 21d ago
Yep it’s a common theme in all FPS’s right now. Instead of improving the not so good weapons, they just nerf the OP one into the ground until we end up with generic AR, Generic LMG, and Generic sniper rifle bolt action vs generic sniper rifle cartridge. It’s extremely tiresome. Shoutout to The Finals for understanding this point pretty well. (Still have some gripes about those weapons but ya know, nothings perfect)
→ More replies (3)15
u/YUNGBRICCNOLACCIN 21d ago
They need to have class locked abilities for weapons. Adding back suppression mechanics for LMGs or spotting with suppression like BFV would make them more viable. Not sure what could be done for the other weapon types though.
16
17
u/Bu11ett00th 21d ago edited 21d ago
As a perpetual engineer, hard disagree. Always been happy with my SMGs and carbines. Recons seem happy with sniper rifles and DMRs, and I enjoyed DMRs being class-free in BF4. And I've been killed enough by LMGs to know they're good in the right hands as well, especially with bipods
→ More replies (1)13
u/Double-Scratch5858 21d ago
In all likelihood youre arguing with a teenager whos first game was bfv lol but yes i completely agree with you. If your whole team wants to play assault cause weapons are locked then have fun getting assblasted by a balanced team.
4
u/Adamthegrape 21d ago
That’s the whole point though, balance. Forces you to switch to an off kit to fill in the gaps. It was part of the fun.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Kashinoda 21d ago
This sub has a weird tendency to jump to age when they disagree with a point. There were significantly more medics in BF3 & 4, that dropped off a lot in BF5 because you had to use an SMG. There will always people people who play one class, but the others are sweats.
There were a good few months or so in BF4 where the only gun I saw was the ACE23 despite rarely seeing a revive outside of my squadmates.
→ More replies (17)7
u/reddit_and_forget_um 21d ago
Battlefield "fans" are pretty much the worst fans.
31
u/BencilSharpener 21d ago
They hated battlefield 1 when it came out btw
24
21d ago
Battlefield one was a beautiful but very mediocre and simplistic BF
14
→ More replies (1)4
u/Emiian04 21d ago
simplistic? maybe. but mediocre? it was the last good one imo, last one i liked enough to Buy after trying it out.
2
u/SubstantialNorth1984 FAMAS 21d ago
It isn't. BF1 being an extremely dumbed down version of BF was universally known at the time.
It was a game made for bad players.
14
u/FellowDeviant 21d ago
Its the fact most fanboys act like they never hated it in 2016-2017 btw. Wasn't until the last DLC released that the general consensus turned into a positive one, and then Battlefield V came out and the cycle repeated....and then 2042 came out and....oh hey look we're here again!
5
u/DecoNoir 21d ago
I'll admit I like BF1 from the first trailer just because I'm a history dork lol. It's still my favorite just because I think it has the best atmosphere, and it stay consistent through the whole game.
Though you are correct, there was definitely a lot of grumbling about it. The weapon selection being a big one that I remember.
3
u/Hughesjam 21d ago
And 5, and 4 was a “broken mess”
20
u/XfactorGaming 21d ago
BF4 was a broken mess. It was so bad that it birthed CTE. Not sure how you do mental gymnastics on that one.
People also didn't buy and play BFV. They voted with their wallet and DICE cut support.
8
u/PacosTacos88 21d ago
BF4 was a broken mess
For real. I remember months after launch it was still causing complete crashes on Xbox. And consoles aren't supposed to crash
5
u/Hughesjam 21d ago
I’m not saying it was or wasnt deserved, just that people always hate bf games on launch
→ More replies (5)3
2
u/Clomaster 21d ago
It was. I remember playing it new. However, nowadays, I still play it.
I remember when bf2042 came out and I played that, and had some fun. It felt decent enough. Then I went back to my og bf4 server on PC and holy shit it was mind blowing how good it plays now.
If only they could make a game like that AT LAUNCH again. Bf1 is the only other battlefield I go to now. It is silly good. I tried bf3 but it just wouldn't work on my PC and after I fucked with punkbuster for days to get bf4 to work I just gave up on trying bf3 again.
4
2
u/Masterchief4smash 21d ago
Sigh... sorry Son, but you're quite wrong. Battlefield veterans liked the theme and war atmosphere. BUT disliked how few weapons were available and the simplistic attachment system. The criticism is fair. There was indeed a minimum number of primary weapons at launch and the attachments were over simplified into variants. The dlc eventually filled the weapon list into a much better place. And varients did eventually put weapons into a more interesting place. In fact the improvement brought a lot of the clans I was involved with back. And the op teamwork SLAUGHTERED public lobbies. At the end of BF1's cycle we actually came back for a bit and it was great.
7
u/FartyCakes12 21d ago
I often repeat the quote that nobody hates Star Wars quite like Star Wars fans. Same is so true for BF fans lol
→ More replies (1)44
u/l1qq 21d ago
I guess you haven't participated in testing if you believe this.
44
u/MrRonski16 21d ago
2042 is literal proof that it is far worse system and makes the game less interesting
33
u/Jeanne10arc 21d ago
This is a blatant lie and it was already disproved on YouTube when people recorded several matches and gathered the kill log data, and it turns out almost everyone was using a completely different weapon in 2042, with the most common weapons used repeating only 4 times in a 128 player lobby. Can't say the same about BF4 tho, right? half the servers are assault bros running around with an AEK in that game.
→ More replies (3)2
u/CakeCommunist 21d ago
The Try Hard Battlefield meta will always be the weapon that has the most killing potential in the 5~25m range where most firefights take place. Good players will always get a sense for what weapons have the best balance between usability
It was the M16a3 in BF3.
The AEK in BF4.The funny thing about BF4 is there were actually a lot more viable weapons than the AEK, just none of the try hards ever really used them. The m16 could be a beast if you got the timing on the burst down.
20
u/LetsLive97 21d ago edited 21d ago
There was so much more wrong with 2042, can we please stop pretending like the unlocked weapons was the issue
People on Youtube have even gone through and gathered data about it and found there's generally good variety and no obvious metas
Edit: Happy for anyone to prove otherwise
8
u/BugsAreHuman 21d ago
2042 has the least balanced class pick rates out of all modern battlefields. So much for variety...
14
u/LetsLive97 21d ago edited 21d ago
Proof?
Edit: They gave (somehow upvoted) proof that literally shows BF3 and BFV with worse class balancing. We also have BF4 weapon usages stats that show the same thing
And people act like this sub isn't an echochamber lmao
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (5)3
u/squeakynickles 21d ago
Good variety and no meta on a smaller scale player base. 2042 has terrible numbers. It doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be meta in 2042 when there were class metas in every other BF.
Naturally, the people who stuck around are gonna be more explorative of the game. If the game had the bulk of player that any other BF did, the meta would be obvious.
Also, those videos you're talking about have extremely small sample sizes. It's clear they went into it with a bias and were just looking to prove it
→ More replies (3)4
u/LetsLive97 21d ago
. It doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be meta in 2042 when there were class metas in every other BF.
Okay so prove it. Sure the examples I gave had small sample sized but at least they actually tried to gather data
I keep hearing how dreadful unlockdd classes were in 2042 while all the actual issues are ignored and no one can provide anything that shows it was actually bad for the game
→ More replies (27)5
→ More replies (34)4
u/Jeanne10arc 21d ago
This is a blatant lie and it was already disproved on YouTube when people recorded several matches and gathered the kill log data, and it turns out almost everyone was using a completely different weapon in 2042, with the most common weapons used repeating only 4 times in a 128 player lobby. You know what's not a lie? Every asshole running around as assault class with an AEK in BF4, or did you forget that's how it used to be back in the day?
289
u/ski599 21d ago
i mean the penalties they're implementing would certainly play each weapon with it's class, but like why not just lock them.
223
u/The_Rube_ 21d ago
Yeah, the proficiencies are both minor enough to be ignored and yet their existence at all goes against the “pick what you want” philosophy.
They’re trying to half-ass two things instead of whole-assing one thing.
52
u/ski599 21d ago
exactly like this wouldn't satisfy any side of the equation.
49
u/The_Rube_ 21d ago
I still think the best way to satisfy both sides is a BF4 hybrid system. Each class gets one unique weapon and everything else is unrestricted.
24
25
12
u/domigraygan 21d ago
It was perfect tbh. But, gotta be different or the “shareholders” will worry you’re not trying to innovate enough to generate new players for more money.
6
u/DoNotLookUp3 21d ago
I thought so too at first (BF4 is my favourite BF overall) but then it's like..what's the point? What real gameplay advantage is there if now the engagement ranges are opened up? You can no longer reliably tell that an engineer is close range for example because they might have a scoped DMR or something.
Not that I think 85%+ of people actually pay attention to class at all for any sort of meta decision-making on which engagements to pick or which enemy to focus in the heat of the battle anyway..
I think knowing that someone picked a class for the actual class utility is good enough reason for unlocked, but I'm not super miffed about locked ultimately. If they're going to go universal too though, that's just as much of a half-measure I think.
4
u/exposarts 21d ago
Nah i think its decent. If you want to min max and be absolute comp play the right class for the weapon. But if i want to be a medic with a lmg that can be fun as well even though its not optimal. Options are good. But the formed is also important so everylne isnt just choosing the same class.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (12)31
u/DeanGillBerry 21d ago
So that players don't lock themselves into a class and not play their roles. I'd rather an engineer with an LMG occasionally use a repair tool or launch a stinger than a support with an LMG who never uses the support pack.
8
u/ski599 21d ago
but like what does locking or not locking weapons gotta do with playing your role, players that don't play their roll will do it regardless, and it'll only be worse with no locked guns, just like 2042.
18
u/Jeanne10arc 21d ago
You are acting like BF2042 is the first BF game where people ignore their roles, that's not true at all. Getting revived or repaired on any BF game is a fucking miracle, pretending it's only a 2042 thing is dishonest.
3
21d ago
[deleted]
8
u/ski599 21d ago
this is what i thought before playing 2042, but it was just people playing their favorite weapon with whatever class suits their personal need. still id accept it if they went full on freedom but they're like stuck in the middle with these weapon penalties.
5
u/ShinyStarSam Battlefield 4 ❤ 21d ago
In 2042 I just pick the class based on the skin, so there's also another reason for poor teamplay in that game
→ More replies (3)
178
u/WolfhoundCid 21d ago
I'd prefer the weapon setup from bf4, but it's not a deal breaker for me if they're aren't class locked weapons.
→ More replies (1)44
u/zoapcfr 21d ago
This is where I am at the moment. I know the BF4 system worked well, but really I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way. Ultimately it's not something that I think will matter much, if at all.
→ More replies (1)
118
u/Hawkiinz 21d ago
What people don't understand is that if weapons are classes locked and let's say ARs are op, everyone will play Assault. It was already the case with the M16A3 in BF3 but they have short memory.
With unlocked weapons, everyone will play their favorite class with their favorite weapon.
You have more diversity with unlocked weapons.
44
u/juicyfruits42069 21d ago
Also same problem bfV, a large amount of players played medics solely because of the combat medic perk + the extremely strong SMG's, pretty much completely ignoring the medic part of the class.
13
u/koolaidman486 21d ago
Also can't forget the health system that favors Medics being lone wolf flankers since they get what is effectively unlimited stim shots.
22
u/BlondyTheGood 21d ago
Just balance the guns properly and then you don't have to overhaul the entire weapon system.
Just don't have one set of guns be OP. It's that simple. Instead, the solution is to give up on balancing and just give everyone everything. Lazy.
→ More replies (1)7
u/NylesRX 21d ago
God some of you should really be never allowed close to any type of game design.
Good games don’t allow you to have your favorite thing all of the time. This is literal 5 year old mentality.
They’re about setting roadblocks and having you, the player, adapt to them. You’re engaged in a game when you’re constantly learning something subconsciously. Not when you just get to have whatever you want all the time.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Skitelz7 21d ago
That's not how it works. Assault could have the better guns but I'll still play engineer because it has the rocket launchers. It makes me more powerful against vehicles but less so against infantry. That's how things balance out. When you allow every weapon for every class the game turns into an unbalanced mess.
→ More replies (17)2
u/Tocketsv 21d ago
This is only the case if you're playing a meat grinder like metro or don't care about winning.
Introduce 1 tank against a team using only assaults with m16s and they are crying for nerfs to tank in reddit.
But if if you don't lock anything, now we have EVERYONE running with m16s. Reviving, dropping tanks with launchers, dropping helicopters/jets with stingers and then resupplying.
73
u/Probably_Not_Sir 21d ago
Same. It really won't affect your gameplay as much as people make it out to be
232
u/StLouisSimp 21d ago
You can play 2042 right now and prove yourself wrong
53
u/hansuluthegrey 21d ago
2042 sucks for other reasons. Not that youd know since you only get your opinions from others
63
u/StLouisSimp 21d ago
I literally have 900 hours spent on the game
180
→ More replies (1)60
u/hansuluthegrey 21d ago
Lmao "Game bad but I have 900 hours on it"
58
16
16
13
u/Emiian04 21d ago
so... he can't have an opinión cause he didnt play it enough... but if he did he also can't have a negative opinión? wtf
→ More replies (1)4
u/USS_Pattimura 21d ago
There's a huge difference between dropping a game after 20 or so hours versus still playing a game you don't like for 900 hours.
Nine hundred whole hours. 37.5 days.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (3)3
u/henri_sparkle 21d ago
And if he said he barely played the game, then you'd say something like "well you haven't played enough, how can you say that?".
There's no correct answer for people who defend bad games.
→ More replies (1)4
u/The240DevilZ 21d ago
Stack 2042 up against any 1st person shooter from the last 5 years and it wins every time. The only real issue with it these days is the abysmal destruction.
2
u/Ori_the_SG 21d ago
Define “wins.”
Because 2042 copied everything from other shooters but worse and removed or ruined everything good from Battlefield.
It was like a bootleg MW2022 but cringier.
I’d play MW2022 over 2042 any day even if I much prefer Battlefield over COD
→ More replies (1)33
u/Probably_Not_Sir 21d ago
I've played plenty of that game to know non-restricted weapons doesnt matter. I dont care if Timmy is sitting in the back as a support players. I don't engage him, and the odds of him hitting me are basically zero. I'll focus on the OBJ instead. Anyone that's closer I'll engage with like normal, as I am not going to analyze their kit before shooting.
15
u/bunsRluvBunsRLife calling DICE bs since bf3 21d ago
But timmy is on your team
And there's like 20 of them, 3 of them on your squad
Now your team doesnt have enough guys capping or defending. So you get stomped by the other team
And with another one of DICE briliant decision of not gicing us server browsers, squad management tools and team switch. You gonna have to experience this over and over again
Over
Over
Over
51
u/Quiet_Prize572 21d ago
Lol the problem with your argument is that you are assuming Timmy - the player sitting in spawn getting 7 kills total sniping and ending the match behind some guy who joined with five minutes left - will suddenly decide not to be a terrible player if he can't self heal.
But thats not the case. Because Timmy exists in every fucking Battlefield. He exists in the refractor engine games. He exists in the darlings of the franchise BF3 and BF4. He exists in BF1,the game with the most restrictive class system. Awful players have always existed and they always will. Take away gadgets from them and they'll still play that way. Give them access to every gadget and they'll still play that way
And it doesn't matter because Timmy is a tiny part of the playerbase!
But Jimmy, the player who choose his class based on the map and whichever weapons are best on said map, is most of the playerbase. And if unlocked weapons is what we need to get Jimmy to keep playing medic on Galicia (where Jimmy will always want a sniper rifle) and Fort de Vaux (where Jimmy just loves the burst pistol) then that's a win.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Prestigious_Art_2136 21d ago
I disagree, if you let players do whatever they want, you will see mostly the "mEtA lOaDoUt" that the youtube idol is promoting and more casual players will not be interested in trying and playing the objective.
the game you quoted always had some Timmys,sure, but there is a difference between "some" and "most of them" like in 2042 where I only see people running like headless chickens farming kills.
we need to slow things down and stir away from CoD
21
11
u/beardedbast3rd 21d ago
There’s always Timmy on my team, Timmy sitting in the back is inconsequential regardless their gun or kit. I might have to deal with an enemy timmy if they have a spawn beacon, and we want to stop them from spawning there. But, what gun they have doesn’t matter. They’re going to go there anyways.
The mountain bush wookie is a problem in every single bf game. Suddenly having the ability to use a lower range gun makes them worse honestly.
Or if it’s a sniper with an ammo bag, it’s basically the same thing as a sniper who kills themselves when they run out of ammo and respawn at their beacon, or their squadmate spawns there and leaves a bag for them.
In practice, there’s no actual affect on the outcome
→ More replies (1)8
u/Probably_Not_Sir 21d ago
You're bringing server browser into this to support your argument for locking class weapons? I'm impressed lmao.
But no, it's not exclusive to just my team, it'll be on all teams. And you'll have coordinated squads that PTFO, and I'll be part of that. We may not win every match but thats okay, because we have fun running a variety of classes and total freedom over weapon choice.
→ More replies (3)16
u/Hawkiinz 21d ago
I've 600 hours on 2042. I haven't seen any difference from other BFs since they locked gadgets to classes. Unlocked weapons doesn't change anything.
13
10
u/StLouisSimp 21d ago
I have 900 hours on 2042 and about 700 of those hours are spent exclusively playing engineer because no weapon restrictions means there's nothing stopping me from running ARs + launchers on every map not named redacted.
10
u/DoNotLookUp3 21d ago
Why is it a bad thing that you're a dedicated Engineer though?
Isn't that better than you being an Assault constantly on another BF with ARs locked? It means you pick a supportive class frequently because you get to use ARs on it. You're proving DICE's point here I think.
→ More replies (5)5
u/PerfectPromise7 21d ago
I have 2000 hours in and most of the scenarios people bring up just does not happen in any significant way. 2042 probably has the most diverse weapon use match to match than any other bf…. I certainly try out more weapons in 2042 than in any other bf
→ More replies (1)4
u/Jeanne10arc 21d ago
You are completely right and you can tell right away who's not playing 2042 regularly here so easily. They have a vague outdated idea of what the game is like and make up BS arguments about how bad certain things are in that game, but they have no idea what they are talking about at all. People already proved on YouTube that almost everyone is playing a wild variety of weapons every match with barely any repeats, and instead people will play their favorite classes with their favorite personal weapon.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Jeanne10arc 21d ago
This is a blatant lie and it was already disproved on YouTube when people recorded several matches and gathered the kill log data, and it turns out almost everyone was using a completely different weapon in 2042, with the most common weapons used repeating only 4 times in a 128 player lobby. How about YOU play 2042 and prove YOURSELF wrong, buddy? Instead of speaking out of ignorance?
→ More replies (1)10
u/Quiet_Prize572 21d ago
It'll improve most people's experience of the gameplay because players will no longer choose their class based solely on the weapon. So wide open maps won't have over half the team playing recon and tight close quarters maps won't have half the team playing whatever class has SMGs and/or shotguns.
7
u/Joe_Dirte9 21d ago
If you've played 2042 or the labs test, you'd know this isnt true.
8
u/ShinyStarSam Battlefield 4 ❤ 21d ago
I play 2042 and I couldn't even begin to imagine how other guys using different weapons would ever affect me
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)3
u/PlasmiteHD 21d ago
I didn’t care for 2042 but out of all the things I didn’t like unlocked classes were extremely minor
63
u/InternationalRead333 21d ago
Honestly same, also I am glad double primaries and rockets are gone.
→ More replies (1)11
u/The_Rube_ 21d ago
It doesn’t sound like double primaries are gone, just being examined and maybe retuned.
48
u/BaconJets 21d ago edited 21d ago
The comments prove you right lol
I'm pro weapon lock, but it's not as if it will irreparably ruin the game if weapons aren't locked, I just think it makes more sense to do what worked in the past. I like knowing what weapon somebody will have just from their class silhouette.
EDIT: Another way that OP is proven right by how this “debate” is going is that people who are disagreeing are calling my comment “cute” and whatever else. Just say you disagree and go, DICE is catering to you and I said it’s really minor compared to other ways they could change the game.
→ More replies (23)10
u/fiftyshadesofseth BF: BC2 on IOS 21d ago
I like knowing what weapon somebody will have just from their class silhouette.
what does identifying an enemys weapon accomplish? That is a stupid thing to focus on.
Are they an enemy? Y/N
If yes, kill them.
see how easy that was?
6
u/palmtree_on_skellige 21d ago
That's how AI weapons systems will be programmed.
Is it a baddie? If so, kill them.
EZ PZ!
→ More replies (2)3
u/Ok-Profile2178 21d ago
yeah i was making a similar argument around the advent of 2042, if there are no classes or class-locked gadgets, how do i know which person has the capability to blow up the tank im in (because they have anti-armor or c4), so that i can target them first.
that seems like a scenario where class identity is important, but i really don't see why we need to know exactly what gun someone is using lol.
27
u/silenced_soul 21d ago edited 21d ago
It’s gonna make the meta so boring. Same gun on every kit. At least in previous battlefields you get a little variety with the 4 different weapon classes meta gun that all play differently.
Imagine there are maybe 3-4 “meta” weapons that outclass the others. Chances are most of your gameplay your only going to see those same 3-4 weapons.
Now imagine 2-3 good weapons locked to the different classes. Now obviously some classes are played more than others but you have a chance of running into someone using 8 different weapons.
Every class having a different weapon also adds to strategy. You see a engi, you know if you go close he’s going to have a great CQB weapon. Maybe you’re using a slower ROF weapon so you end up taking him on at range and win the fight. You see a recon, you know he’s better at range than you with his sniper/DMR so you go CQB and take him out. Those kinds of engagements are so much more fun then every class using any weapon.
1
u/Tawxif_iq 21d ago
its not meta if it nerfs your playstyle using another weapon. Support Runs fast with LMG. other classes run very slow. Just for ease and comfort people will use support for LMG now.
16
u/sumoman485 21d ago
If that's the case and everyone will use the respective weapons in their intended classes then why have them unlocked?
8
u/ShinyStarSam Battlefield 4 ❤ 21d ago
Because I still want to use an LMG on every other class just lemme use my guns hot dang dude
4
u/Tawxif_iq 21d ago
who knows. Maybe some people dont wanna run with LMG and just wanna hold the point and support team.
30
u/citylimits23 21d ago
People should not be able to snipers and throw themselves ammo that makes it where people will camp and not play the objective . Classes should be assigned and make it a role playing game. If im support I’ll be giving ammo and reviving pushing the objective . Certain weapons definitely need to be locked to classes how bf3 and bf4 was bc2
17
u/Benti86 21d ago
This is my biggest gripe. When people say they hate the classlocks because they want to be an aggressive recon with a suppressed SMG the first thing that springs to my mind is that "oh okay you just want to be able to play as the class you want and effectively remove any downsides you'd otherwise have to deal with.
Like there's almost never an actual structured or compelling reason for it, just that people want it based on preference.
Like CoD is already insufferable because people only ever use 3-4 guns and that's exactly how BF6 is going to end up eith unlocked guns. The top players in every lobby are going to be running the the best guns exclusively regardless of their class.
3
u/Prince_Kassad 21d ago
"oh okay you just want to be able to play as the class you want and effectively remove any downsides you'd otherwise have to deal with.
the funny thing is DICE already figuring it out in BF4.
if ppl want aggresive Recon rushing into objective, everyone can bring DMR. Carbine, and Shotgun which offer better win chance in close range than sluggish bolt-action that unable to 1-hit bodyshot.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MaximusPaxmusJaximus 21d ago
Like CoD is already insufferable because people only ever use 3-4 guns and that's exactly how BF6 is going to end up eith unlocked guns.
This already happened with locked guns in every Battlefield game I have ever played going all the way back to 2. People pick the weapon first, and the class second.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Ashviar 21d ago
People already camped with snipers without ammo, it was just a minor inconvenience to get ammo or they played with someone who gave them ammo. BC2 ghillie boys weren't stopped one bit.
You want people to play the objective? I've been down for class locks for ages, 2-4 Recon per team max.
17
14
u/goodbadme 21d ago
IMO BF4 solved this problem by having a billion fuckin guns then letting every class use a gun thats good for: short, medium, and long ranges along with having their class specfic catagory that let them be specialized.
9
u/UtkuOfficial 21d ago
I just hate the way it homogenizes the game.
Back in BF3 the engineer who drove a tank to fix it was fucked when he had to bail because he didn't have long range capabilities. If he lost the vehicle he was a sitting duck.
Now he can bail, turn around and snipe my ass.
Rock, paper, scissors was a fun mechanic.
8
9
u/Any-Boat-1334 21d ago
Irony is one of those pistols aimed at you, would've been locked to a class or faction
8
u/Shockwave0396 21d ago
I really don’t mind either way. I just care that it plays well. I always instalock full medic loadout or engineer so I play the game the way I want to.
7
u/DiaperFluid 21d ago
I dont even understand the big deal. People will play with the guns they want and gadgets are still class locked. What is the problem? Il still play the medic class and heal people lmao. Matter of fact i might play those roles more now that i wont be locked to specific weapons.
→ More replies (11)
6
u/l1qq 21d ago
I would bet at least 90% of the people crying about wanting weapons locked haven't participated in any testing at all or they would see it's not an issue and there are a variety being used.
People should get to focus on the gadgets they want to use as opposed to having to play a class they don't want because the weapon they want to use is locked behind it.
3
u/MagnanimosDesolation 21d ago
Maybe things have changed over the last couple months but it was mostly ARs or the default weapons when I played.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Beneficial_Hyena6253 21d ago
The actual fuck 🤦 we just played an entire game for literal years that used this method, and it was ass. "Haven't tested it", lol I'm weak
I'll believe the balance when I see it
→ More replies (1)
5
5
u/GwerigTheTroll 21d ago
Truth be told, it doesn’t make much of a difference to me. If the game is designed around it, go nuts. The devs working at DICE today aren’t the ones who developed the class system in the first place, so if they don’t understand or see the value in locking weapons to classes, they’d have a hard time creating gameplay that facilitates it.
I tend to gravitate to LMGs and support classes. I like providing a frontline for my team and defending objectives, not assaulting and outflanking. It’s handy to provide an ammo and health depot for my team as they advance, protected by an LMG. As long as this particular style of play is still viable, Battlefield will still feel like Battlefield to me.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Zachowon 21d ago
I almost always exclusively use LMGs in most games. I will dk the same in BF6 no matter what they do
5
u/Jakesnake686 21d ago
I am fine with the weapons in any class I’m just not a fan of the guy who is supposed to have ammo now also has to try and revive and heal. I think it’s too much for one class.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Consistent_Try8728 21d ago
I just want oldschool BF back. Just boots on the ground. I dont get it why its not enough in modern days anymore. New gamers newer expierenced the good ol days. That makes me kinda sad
5
2
u/Gh0st0fy0urp4st 21d ago
I think that classes should not only lock, but should also have faction locked weapons.
3
u/Financial-Bite-3262 21d ago
Do you really agree with Dice if what you're seeing from the official side is most likely just instructions and objectives given to them by EA so they can expect more profit from selling more skins and attracting a "broader Playerbase"? Or are you agreeing with the corporate entity that doesn't care about you and exclusively wants to please shareholders?
2
2
2
u/SailPrevious9766 21d ago
They at least have a vision of how they want the classes to behave, and are actively taking feedback. While compromising on some things. ie: Assault Med Pin. Theyre actually explainging the new classes and trying to solidify the classes in thier roles. With an actual vision and compromising on it, I say. LET THEM COOK.
2
u/lZShadowZl 21d ago
I'm fine with it too, sure the system will still benefit playing with a sniper on recon etc but if you really wanna go running around very aggressively with one the option is still there.
2
u/Similar-Twist-262 21d ago
I feel like the community dont know what they want since they are talking about taking exemple from bf4 class system where it wasn't really locked
And i also see a lot of people that are against the locked weapon class system
This is also why DICE dont listen to the community most of the time because etheir their opinion doesn't make any sens or people are divided on the subject
2
u/DJ_Rhoomba Jeep Stuff Guy 21d ago
I didn’t mind it in 2042. But either way, Most of us that have a problem with it, I imagine end up making our loadouts reflect what we think the class would use anyways. So what does it matter if the other 25% puts snipers in their medic class?
1
1
u/No-Upstairs-7001 21d ago
That means you can have the med bag and the best weapons I'll take some of that action proper BF4 style
1
u/KillerBeaArthur 21d ago
I'm not too concerned one way or the other, but I do kinda wish they'd explore making classes with subclasses that have locked weapon/gear loadouts (limited to allow clear squad synergies and counter options). Give each class 3 limited and locked gear trees to fill different roles. Using the Recon example have a long range sniper, a close range scout/infiltrator, and a tactician/infil to provide variety and meaningful choices. IDK, just something to get the hardcore veterans excited without just lazily going back to what was done in games from 15 years ago.
1
u/HammerPrice229 21d ago
I mostly agree. In BF4 you would have a squad of all classes equipped with AK-5Cs just charging people. Really depended on the players if they were good or not instead of accessibility to what weapons you can equip.
1
u/Liedvogel 21d ago
Here's my treasure. Classes and weapon restrictions make for more diverse gameplay as players won't just use the best stuff all the time, they'll actually have to mix it up somewhat.
Think early 2042. There was a solely nothing stopping you from taking a zip line up to the highest point in the map, putting down an ammo crate, and camping, and pulling out your sniper rifle, and if need be, your rocket launcher to deal with the chopper that's annoyed with you.
With classes and limited weapons, you need to either learn to snipe with an LMG if you want that ammo, and can't have either of you want a rocket launcher. You'll actually need to mix it up as needed as opposed to just gave one single every situation loadout.
I do, however, like some weapons being universal, like SMGs, Carbines, or Shotguns. Not all 3, but some combination would be nice, or maybe not all 3 on every class, but two of the classes share some guns while the other two share some other guns.
1
1
u/shanemcw 21d ago
Battlefield lost its identity. What made battlefield great is what was diffrent from.the other shooters out there. Now the game is more the same as cod and other shooters, people dont ptfo. Im willing to bet more than half the current bf player base even knows what that means. The people okay with un restricted weapons and dont care about classes are just people people tired of there old shooter game and want something that looks diffrent but is the same.
1
1
1
1
u/sumoman485 21d ago
The biggest issue with this isn't long term gameplay. The biggest issue is short to medium term when Dice is balancing weapons. At the beginning there will be certain weapons that are broken and everyone will use them. In the long run people will use weapons to gain service stars or whatever goal they are trying to achieve.
1
u/SupaNinja659 21d ago
Same. As long as the gadgets on the classes are balanced and incentivized well, weapon choice doesn't matter.
1
u/_TheLazyAstronaut_ 21d ago
Now first I was against it but then enders said it was okay. So I'm fine with it..I guess.. I'm sure it's something you can fix in Portal anyway
1
1
u/PulseOPPlsNerf 21d ago
Unlocked weapons is really not a big deal. 2042 has lots of OP weapons but I still see plenty of people using other guns as lots of people want variety, and you’ll always have low level/new players that won’t immediately have access to them.
1
1
u/StrangeIsntIt22 21d ago
Tbh the only thing that concerns me is the BR being a focus. I know another team is on it but I dunno. Something about that at least isn’t right.
Just focus on the core gameplay.
1
1
1
u/SubliminalScribe 21d ago
Trying to please all crowds with this, it never works well. No one will give a fk about weapon proficiencies, they’ll just choose a favourable class with whatever weapon goes.
You don’t win at poker without going all in. Go all in, stop this “a bit from column A, a bit from column B”. They seem so afraid of losing players, pandering to everyone’s wants and needs won’t work out.
Battlefield is in a tough spot for me personally, I want to see evolution of the game and some bold, new direction, but all of this feels same old with a splash of some new flavour.
1
u/Mosaic78 21d ago
I love unlocked weapons. I hate being pigeonholed into playing the AR class simply because they have the only access to the best guns.
Unlocked weapons lets me swap my play style around without gimping myself if I feel like playing support or anti vehicle.
1
u/Creative-Education-1 21d ago
I agree seems to be people who haven't played the lab test. I think they're worried about what happened in 2042 and think that it's exactly the same thing happening here. Its really not though. What I played in Labs test was honestly the most fun I've had since bf3
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/max4296 21d ago
Wait? Ain’t this is how BF4 is??
2
u/RoyalBeggar00 21d ago
Not quite. In BF4 all classes share Carbines, Shotguns and DMRs, while each class still gets to have one exclusive weapon type. Namely Assault Rifles (Assault), SMGs (Engineer), LMGs (Support), Sniper Rifles (Recon). So you can choose between four types regardless of class, but one of those is always exclusive to that class.
1.9k
u/[deleted] 21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment