I don't think people have realized how much that the much lauded and praised "plus system" mechanic has hamstrung development of different weapons in this game.I'm just going to focus on one firearm in BF2042, but the same arguments can be made for most of the other weapons in BF2042 as well.Let's take the M5A3 and break this down, First the different barrels available basically equate to different, entirely unique weapons themselves, CQB, Carbine and Full-length variants, so that right there is THREE separate unique weapons that aren't in game because they would be redundant due to the "plus system" See what I'm saying?So, now let's talk ammo types.I'm going to make a couple of assumptions here in regard to ammo types and I'm going to ignore the armor piercing rounds since they aren't really relative to this breakdown.I see them like this:"Standard" ammo (at last in the case of the M5A3) is probably 5.56x45 Nato cartridge, which would require the "Standard" barrel and all applicable lengths of said barrel."Close Combat" ammo is probably based on the 9mm cartridge which would require a barrel change and then you would have all applicable barrel lengths."High Power" ammo is probably based on the 7.62x51 Nato cartridge which again would require a barrel change and then you would have all applicable barrel lengths."Sub-sonic" ammo (at least in the case of the M5A3) is probably based on the .300 Blackout cartridge and again then you would have all applicable barrel lengths.So, there you go, twelve, count them TWELVE separate and unique weapons that aren't available in BF2042 due to the "plus-system" mechanic.Now I think it's a neat mechanic, and I'm not saying it needs removed in BF2042, but I hope if they are going use it in future Battlefield titles, they consider limiting it to a couple of different scopes, grips and suppressors, and save barrel lengths and ammo types for making more unique weapon types.Anyway, those are just my thoughts and opinions, feel free to share yours.

@ragnarok013 Great points, I actually hadn't thought of it from that perspective but you're right it does remove that layer of tactics with potentially every weapon platform being a "transformer" of sorts.The main thrust of my post was how I felt the "plus-system" inhibited development of multiple variants of all the AOW weapons, but you're right the one-size-fits-all mechanic of the "plus-system" may just not be the best option going forward.

Ironhead841

Hero

3 years ago

Solved

For all those "lack of weapons" complaints...

I don't think people have realized how much that the much lauded and praised "plus system" mechanic has hamstrung development of different weapons in this game.

I'm just going to focus on one firearm in BF2042, but the same arguments can be made for most of the other weapons in BF2042 as well.

Let's take the M5A3 and break this down,

First the different barrels available basically equate to different, entirely unique weapons themselves, CQB, Carbine and Full-length variants, so that right there is THREE separate unique weapons that aren't in game because they would be redundant due to the "plus system" See what I'm saying?

So, now let's talk ammo types.

I'm going to make a couple of assumptions here in regard to ammo types and I'm going to ignore the armor piercing rounds since they aren't really relative to this breakdown.

I see them like this:

"Standard" ammo (at last in the case of the M5A3) is probably 5.56x45 Nato cartridge, which would require the "Standard" barrel and all applicable lengths of said barrel.
"Close Combat" ammo is probably based on the 9mm cartridge which would require a barrel change and then you would have all applicable barrel lengths.
"High Power" ammo is probably based on the 7.62x51 Nato cartridge which again would require a barrel change and then you would have all applicable barrel lengths.
"Sub-sonic" ammo (at least in the case of the M5A3) is probably based on the .300 Blackout cartridge and again then you would have all applicable barrel lengths.

So, there you go, twelve, count them TWELVE separate and unique weapons that aren't available in BF2042 due to the "plus-system" mechanic.

Now I think it's a neat mechanic, and I'm not saying it needs removed in BF2042, but I hope if they are going use it in future Battlefield titles, they consider limiting it to a couple of different scopes, grips and suppressors, and save barrel lengths and ammo types for making more unique weapon types.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts and opinions, feel free to share yours.

discussion

Ironhead841
3 years ago
@ragnarok013
Great points, I actually hadn't thought of it from that perspective but you're right it does remove that layer of tactics with potentially every weapon platform being a "transformer" of sorts.
The main thrust of my post was how I felt the "plus-system" inhibited development of multiple variants of all the AOW weapons, but you're right the one-size-fits-all mechanic of the "plus-system" may just not be the best option going forward.

16 Replies

SCUBASTEVE120
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
@Ironhead841 You have a good point, even though I feel like grips, muzzle brakes, and compensators don't do anything (they need reworked) laser sight could also use a buff (go use lasers in BF3, it's a 50% hip fire spread reduction)

PS: you forgot armor piercing ammo ☺️
Ironhead841
Hero
3 years ago
@SCUBASTEVE120
I agree that the different attachments should have more of an impact on the weapon handling than they do right now.
I said in that post I was ignoring armor piercing ammo because it wasn't really relevant to the different ammo breakdowns.
"Armor piercing" refers to the actual characteristics of the bullet itself not the caliber of the cartridge.
ATFGunr
Legend
3 years ago
@Ironhead841 You make a great point, conversely it makes it easier to change weapon performance based on need in the moment. Don’t be telling Dice that 1 weapon is the same as 3 (Or 4) weapons so that we have 100 weapons in the game not the number we actually have 😃
AngrySquid270
3 years ago
While I agree that the Plus system allows just a handful of guns to cover nearly every niche I do not believe it was the reason why DICE went so light on the weapon count on BF2042.
We've seen overlap in past BF games - just look at some of the SMG's in BFV which had a similar, but less extensive 'specialization' system. I recall the MAB 38 and MP40 being pretty dang similar, same with many of the pistols. Limiting examples to 2042 I could point to the Huron/Hannibal and the M1/T28, though I acknowledge those are a bit outside the scope being vehicles.
It seems unlikely to me that DICE had the resources and initial desire to create additional weapons - but decided against it due to fears of overlap.
I suspect that if the majority of the Battlefield community had to pick between 1) less guns+no overlap 2) more guns+some overlap most people would choose #2. At least I would.
Ironhead841
Hero
3 years ago
@AngrySquid270
We can only speculate as to why we had so few weapons at launch, I was just pointing out how much harder they have made it on themselves by including ammo and barrel lengths into the "plus system" mechanic.
As I pointed out above by just "dissecting" one weapon, in one category, in this case the M4/M16 platform (which I believe is the inspiration for the M5A3) you end up with just one weapon when you potentially could have had twelve (or more) within that same platform.
Now multiply that "dissection" to include all of the various AOW weapon platforms and you can plainly see we could have had potentially so many more AOW weapon variants in this game, if the barrel lengths and ammo types weren't tied to the "plus-system"
That's why I'm suggesting that in future Battlefields the "plus-system" should be limited to scopes, grips, suppressors, muzzle devices etc. etc.
SCUBASTEVE120
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
@Ironhead841 oh. I accidentally skipped over that part 😔. Still though it potential turns a weapon into a flak gun, like the Burton with planes in bf1 (in a way).

They know we say this about attachments so I don't why they don't fix it. I wish the lwg grip worked like custom stock from Bf5 (it was great on snipers to make it accurately hit headshots while strafing back and fourth (but most ppl picked the other option not knowing how great it really was)
SCUBASTEVE120
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
@AngrySquid270 Sadly that was the case in bf4 vastly but we didn't care back then, more seems to always be better regardless of the overlap. In bfV there was alot of "overlap" but I checked, no two weapons were identical, maybe very similar, but there were always some subtle differences in some way. Many time with recoil, reload times, or ammo count (not so much in damage figures or rate of fire)
GrizzGolf
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
@SCUBASTEVE120 wrote:
@Ironhead841You have a good point, even though I feel like grips, muzzle brakes, and compensators don't do anything (they need reworked) laser sight could also use a buff (go use lasers in BF3, it's a 50% hip fire spread reduction)

PS: you forgot armor piercing ammo ☺️
Agree, I use the barrel to reduce vertical grip and I dont feel like it does anything.
Psubond
Legend
3 years ago
there are enough weapons now. they need to lock weapons into classes so people have to think a little harder about which class they choose
Adamonic
Legend
3 years ago
For weapons, they need to perform best in their designed environments, specifically with range. SMGs should not outperform LMGs or ARs beyond 50m, but in a lot of cases, they do.
Also, sights should matter. Try using a holo sight at a 100m or farther target. The sight is bigger than the target, yet there are a ton of headshots with holo or red dot from distances that should make them very rare.
Effective ranges should be felt more based on the weapon, sight, ammo, and barrel used. Right now that is just not the case because most encounters are within 50m.