Engineer and Support proficiency backwards?
Who else here agrees that they have the weapon proficiency of Engineer and Support backwards? Support should have LMG proficiency, while Engineer should have SMG/PDW proficiency.
Forum Discussion
I don't think so - for Irish maybe, but for Falck I need to be mobile (for revives) and SMG is a better choice (and I guess it's similar for Angel). The LMGs seems to fit the Engineers better at the moment (Boris camping near his useless turret and the other two doesn't need to be more mobile than other specialists).
I suppose, but honestly, they should go back to the way it was back in Battlefield 4: Assault was medic 'n grenadier; Engineer was anti-vehicle and EOD; Support was ammo, mortars, UAV, etc.; Recon was MAV, sensor, spawn beacon etc. I feel as though Battlefield needs to go back to these roots.
I guess making all these changes would take time, money, and require reworking some specialists, but it might make the game vastly better. I will at least say they made great improvements by somewhat going back to the class system and limiting certain gadgets to that class.
- @IDawgPhan Many agree classes were a terrible choice for this game, but if they're going to mess things up at least do it like they did in BF4, support gets C5 and LMG.
@IDawgPhanBF4 with its perks and choice of two gadgets allowed you to build your own specialist, like the anti-tank engineer with 7 rockets and 6 mines deployed on the field, or the infiltrator recon with t-ugs and motion sensors.
But BF2042 sticks with the specialists, locks them in a class concept that doesn't exactly fit.
Many people asked for classes *instead* of specialists, now we have classes with specialists, which in my opinion is the worst of both worlds.
Featured Places
