Re: [Discussion Thread] Core Feedback - Specialists

 And, @Prof3ss0r_M1k3, as I pointed out, angel being able to use his own call-in loadout station to switch between a class with rockets and a class with antiaircraft.

I'm not going to feel as inspired to put down a crate near my team and enemy vehicles in particular if I can't attack the vehicles too.

---

@Straatford87 wrote:

What we've seen in the past is that locking weapons behind Classes means that players become locked to a Class that they might not want to play, just for a specific weapon. Our current thinking is return to Classes via Class Equipment and Gadgets while keeping weaponry available for all.

---

I don't know how to say this gently, so...people need to get over it and you guys need to stop relying so much on analytics on this one. If you free up weapons for all classes then you'll just have a handful of "meta" guns that everybody uses no matter what. Forcing guns into a specific class furthers the role of that class (such as suppressing fire from support LMGs) and forces the dev team to balance the weapons in such a way where different kinds of weapons are viable in specific scenarios. 

If somebody only wants to play with an M16 and plays assault only...then so what? Let them do that. You don't need to overhaul a staple of your franchise just to appease to the complainers. Stick to what made the game popular in the first place. You struck the perfect balance in BF4 (I think) where the Carbines were available to all classes. They were just below the assault rifles in capability and any class could run with an M4, for example.

The solution isn't letting everybody pick whatever they want, the solution is making every gun class viable and having a particular category of weapons that all classes have access to. Battlefield is a game of knowing and playing your role, so stop listening and catering to the players who don't understand the core premise of Battlefield.

@Natetendo83The people that have always complained about weapons being locked to certain classes are also the ones that just want ridiculously overpowered loadouts. I also in my entire time of playing BF have never played a class specifically for the primary weapon outside of Recon when I want to snipe.

With BF4's system with cross class weapons too it makes it almost a moot point. You want range? DMR, you want CQ? Shotgun SMG. You want to larp as an assault? Carbines. That system was more than generous to satisfy people upset about primary selection.

To me you pick a class because of the role it plays in the game, and that role is determined by your gadget loadout. 2042 totally killed that because there is literally only 1 gadget slot, and it's not even specialized. Plus the whole specialist trait + gadget system gives even less freedom. Like maybe I want the wingsuit but not the weird * grenades? Not to mention limiting those mobility options to only 2 characters. Idk how the specialist system ever got past QA aside from DICE straight up ignoring their whole QA department.

The only reason I'd still be in favor of any weapon any class in the game in it's current state is because there are literally not enough weapons. Imagine being support and only having 2 guns to pick from lol.

@PartWeIsh One additional thought on individual Specialists:

Rao is not a recon, he's an engineer because he hacks vehicles with his anti-vehicle ability and his kit meshes well with an AT or AA rocket. Rao should be in the engineer category.

Boris should be assault not engineer as his kit is damage oriented and his turret doesn't damage vehicles so he makes no sense to be in the engineer category. I guess we could say Boris might fit in recon since his turret spots enemies if you really want to keep even class numbers (which isn't necessary).

@ragnarok013good points there. Also as i posted in my feedback comment a few pages back, they should swap Mackay with Paik. Mackay should be recon with his hook to get to sniper advantage locations, and Paik should be pushing the front line with the help of her wallhacks and storming enemy holds

---

@Spinner1981 wrote:

@ragnarok013good points there. Also as i posted in my feedback comment a few pages back, they should swap Mackay with Paik. Mackay should be recon with his hook to get to sniper advantage locations, and Paik should be pushing the front line with the help of her wallhacks and storming enemy holds

---

@Spinner1981 at first I toyed with Sundance as a recon but didn't add her to that category specifically because of her mobility. Half the reason we feel like we're getting shot at from all directions is because Sundance and McKay can go almost anywhere so giving either of them a sniper rifle would be a monumentally bad idea IMO. 

@ragnarok013yeah thats the problem with specialists having these traits/abilities, it can throws stuff off course which makes it harder to categorize. I mean whats worse, Mackay getting good vantage points as a sniper, or Mackay getting good vantage points as Assault in the middle of it all and raining down lead?

We all know what happened to Anakin!

@Prof3ss0r_M1k3 @Straatford87 

Agreed Professor. Rao needs to be able to use the AA missle (FXM-33). The power balance with stealth heli is still out of whack. While I appreciate the effort to try and promote teamplay, it remains that most of the playerbase doesn't cooperate, nor communicate effectively. I often find myself the only player on a team who is putting any pressure on the stealth heli. If you take away Rao's ability to use AA missle, its going to make that power balance even worse.

Unfortunately, the lack of voice communication at launch, combined with the focus on specialists has really changed the mindset of the current playerbase. Not to mention how horrible the game is at maintaining social cohesion. The constant changing of instanced servers with matchmaking, complete removal of squad management functionality, lack of XP for squad orders, and inability to mutiny an inactive squad leader have all led to a very individual focused gameplay for a bulk of the active playerbase.

Trying to turn this ship around a year later might be a too big of an ask.

---

@Spinner1981 wrote:

@ragnarok013yeah thats the problem with specialists having these traits/abilities, it can throws stuff off course which makes it harder to categorize. I mean whats worse, Mackay getting good vantage points as a sniper, or Mackay getting good vantage points as Assault in the middle of it all and raining down lead?

We all know what happened to Anakin!

---

@Spinner1981 Specialist gadgets being unbalanced is one of many reasons I objected to the inclusion of Specialists when they were first announced. I didn't like BF1 Elites for the same reason, it throws a monkey wrench into the rock/paper/scissors balancing of Battlefield and the end result if always worse.

@ragnarok013 

BF1 Elites were supposed to be crazy good and unique though - That intimidation factor is what made them so special to fight as/with/against.

I don't know how a sentry gun or sentinal would work, but a random spawn wingsuit or hacker suit upgrade (in similar fashion to the railgun and other special weapons) might have been better recieved than dedicated specialists available for both sides

---

@Natetendo83 wrote:

---

@Straatford87 wrote:

What we've seen in the past is that locking weapons behind Classes means that players become locked to a Class that they might not want to play, just for a specific weapon. Our current thinking is return to Classes via Class Equipment and Gadgets while keeping weaponry available for all.

---

I don't know how to say this gently, so...people need to get over it and you guys need to stop relying so much on analytics on this one. If you free up weapons for all classes then you'll just have a handful of "meta" guns that everybody uses no matter what. Forcing guns into a specific class furthers the role of that class (such as suppressing fire from support LMGs) and forces the dev team to balance the weapons in such a way where different kinds of weapons are viable in specific scenarios. 

If somebody only wants to play with an M16 and plays assault only...then so what? Let them do that. You don't need to overhaul a staple of your franchise just to appease to the complainers. Stick to what made the game popular in the first place. You struck the perfect balance in BF4 (I think) where the Carbines were available to all classes. They were just below the assault rifles in capability and any class could run with an M4, for example.

The solution isn't letting everybody pick whatever they want, the solution is making every gun class viable and having a particular category of weapons that all classes have access to. Battlefield is a game of knowing and playing your role, so stop listening and catering to the players who don't understand the core premise of Battlefield.

---

BFV and BF1 achieved this perfectly.

Each class had access to weapons that their class excelled at.

In BF1 when I saw an assault player approaching I knew that as a support with my long range lmg, I had the advantage, and they knew they had to try and flank me to get close enough to where they would have the advantage.

And in a squad I would cover flags from a distance while my squad mates approached to battle it out in close quarters.

Such a simple concept but it worked.

Each class knew their strengths and weaknesses and played accordingly.

Unrestricted weapons destroys all of that.

---

@LargeSphynx wrote:

@Natetendo83The people that have always complained about weapons being locked to certain classes are also the ones that just want ridiculously overpowered loadouts. I also in my entire time of playing BF have never played a class specifically for the primary weapon outside of Recon when I want to snipe.

With BF4's system with cross class weapons too it makes it almost a moot point. You want range? DMR, you want CQ? Shotgun SMG. You want to larp as an assault? Carbines. That system was more than generous to satisfy people upset about primary selection.

To me you pick a class because of the role it plays in the game, and that role is determined by your gadget loadout. 2042 totally killed that because there is literally only 1 gadget slot, and it's not even specialized. Plus the whole specialist trait + gadget system gives even less freedom. Like maybe I want the wingsuit but not the weird * grenades? Not to mention limiting those mobility options to only 2 characters. Idk how the specialist system ever got past QA aside from DICE straight up ignoring their whole QA department.

The only reason I'd still be in favor of any weapon any class in the game in it's current state is because there are literally not enough weapons. Imagine being support and only having 2 guns to pick from lol.

---

Rao with a stinger is ridiculously op?  Irish with ammo is ridiculously op?

What specialist/gadget combo are you referring to being ridiculously op?

---

@TTZ_Dipsy wrote:

@ragnarok013 

BF1 Elites were supposed to be crazy good and unique though - That intimidation factor is what made them so special to fight as/with/against.

I don't know how a sentry gun or sentinal would work, but a random spawn wingsuit or hacker suit upgrade (in similar fashion to the railgun and other special weapons) might have been better recieved than dedicated specialists available for both sides

---

@TTZ_Dipsy That is part of my issue with Elites, Elites shouldn't tip the balance because this is Battlefield not Star Wars Battlefront. The balance should be tipped solely by skill and tactics not because you got lucky with a class pickup.

I like where you're going on the Battlepickup for a wing suit or sentinel though since it's more akin to BF4's balanced Battle pickups that were powerful but not balance breaking.

@CantGetRight Again you're totally wrong. Adding Class Structure is a core-staple gameplay foundations that makes Battlefield game it's own Identity and is more balanced, increase teamplay and the most important provides game readability, removing it in the first place is like adding Class System in Call of Duty, We play Battlefield and expect it to be like Battlefield not Call of Apex. Don't insist on making Battlefield a different game, let Battlefield be a Battlefield game.

Hey @Straatford87 

When we see the "World of 2042", including the videos, we all notice the soldiers that work together with specialists.

Now, you might have noticed that AI soldiers are yet not really good and not welcomed as an replacement for actual players. However, a lot of players feel that we want to be a soldier again. Probably not everyone though. 

We saw how you implemented BF3 classes in Portal and it would work for AOW including specialists. 

We need to have back fractions and we know DICE want to have back all the players that don't play BF2042 because it will never remove specialists. 

As always,  sometimes you need to find a compromise. Something that is actually possible to implement within a reasonable amount of time and work.

Fractions of US / RU:

Bf2042 Specialists (50% or 100%)

BF2042 Classes (Assault, Support, Engineer, Recon)

The best idea to fix specialists in a fixed fraction.  This will help the lore and reasonably fix the situation that specialists fight themselves. Based on lore, at any map, they can only join one side. But depending on map you might change that if needed.

Option 1: Split to fractions 

The 50÷ Variant split specialists into fractions. 

Example for US:

Assault: Sundance, McKay, BF2042 Assault

Support: Falk, Angel, BF2042 Support

Engineer: Irish, BF2042 Engineer Soldier

Recon: Paik, BF2042 Recon Soldier

Example for RU:

Assault: Dozer,  BF2042 Assault

Support: Charlie, BF2042 Support

Engineer: Boris, Lis, BF2042 Engineer Soldier

Recon: Rao, Casper, BF2042 Recon Soldier

The soldiers might not have any special trait, but some passive advantages similar to BF3 classes. 

Option 2: Remain Specialists fractionless

If the team does not agree to split Specialists to fractions, it would be still possible choose the 100% variant, allowing all specialists for both sides.

Option 3: Specialists fractioned 

Compromise, create new specialists with new story and face with same speciality. 

Fraction split Hacking specialist:

Rao, India, hacking tool (RU fraction)

Jack, US, hacking tool (US fraction).

Important: Keep SAME body and skins. Different face and background story are needed.

Summary:

Important for me are having the possibility to play soldiers even if these are worse or having less abilities compared to Specialists. Thats totally fine. At least we can choose!

This will also make it possible that people don't like specialists to create a non-specialist server in Portal. I do believe that will bring back many players,  even if it remains outside of AOW. (But I hope you make an AOW playlist).

My prefered option is No3. They let us finally have real fractions. I know it's a lot of work, but I made three options so you can choose. 

@Straatford87 @PartWeIsh 

I really hope you have a look at these ideas. Would be great if you let the team see them.

@