Re: the new update is a complete disgrace

---

@mimi0xi wrote:

@PsubondYou say 1 year from launch, ok let's switch this around then.

We had the class system since the first Battlefield in 2002, so removing this staple feature of every Battlefield to date was the radical change.

Not the fact that they brought it back after 1 year, it's the fact they removed it after 20 years is what's radical here.

---

wrong.  this is a different game and this game released with specialists and full freedom of loadouts.  we saw what the game was in the beta and you knew what you were buying.  was it a change?  yes, but we knew that from the start and chose to purchase the game anyway.  this update isn't the class system from the old games anyway. this is a bait and switch over half way through the life cycle of the game.

this is a bad attempt at shoehorning specialists into a class system and screwing up the playstyle that people have been playing from launch and it is a bait and switch on the players who bought one game then it got swapped into another game.  and all of that was done  over a year after launch.  you like classes?  fine, but don't pretend you got them with this update because we both know you didn't.  we all got screwed on this update.  you didn't get proper classes and those of us who like freedom of loadouts got royally screwed.  the only people who are happy are the ones who have a narcissistic need to force a specific playstyle on others (usually for a selfish reason) 

and to your 2002 argument, each game changed the classes a bit from game to game.  by your logic, explain hardline and the changes in that game.  the class system from 2002 isn't the one that was present throughout to BF1 (i didn't play 5, sonderlund said don't like it don't buy it so i didn't) so don't pretend there has been consistency through the years because there hasn't.  gadgets and weapons changed many times.

---

@mimi0xi wrote:
@PsubondChanges within the class system and complete removal of class system are two very different things. Every title brought some changes to the system, but it still existed and that's what's important.

Class system has consistently been up there with the server browser as some of the most requested features in 2042.

---

so you think it's ok to fundamentally change a game over a year after release?  i don't.  changes from game to game before a game is released are one thing.  changing them a year AFTER release are quite another

class system has also been consistently argued against in regards to forcing it into this game.  many people have been very vocal about it.

and you didn't get your class system, all you succeded in was haphazardly shoehorning specialists into a quasi class system without locking weapons to classes

---

@mimi0xi wrote:

@murdocklawlessWe don't play reality, we play a game, one that needs to be balanced so everyone can have equal fun and opportunity. 

---

you mention that if an infantry encountered an armoured vehicle, it should be wiped by vehicle and I agreed with this. isn't this reality?

---

@Psubond wrote:

---

@mimi0xi wrote:
@PsubondChanges within the class system and complete removal of class system are two very different things. Every title brought some changes to the system, but it still existed and that's what's important.

Class system has consistently been up there with the server browser as some of the most requested features in 2042.

---

so you think it's ok to fundamentally change a game over a year after release?  i don't.  changes from game to game before a game is released are one thing.  changing them a year AFTER release are quite another

class system has also been consistently argued against in regards to forcing it into this game.  many people have been very vocal about it.

and you didn't get your class system, all you succeded in was haphazardly shoehorning specialists into a quasi class system without locking weapons to classes

---

@Psubond You are asking the wrong question here. The question you should ask is why did DICE spend the unbudgeted and unplanned time/money/manpower to add a class system into an already released game 1 year after launch? There's only one reason that a publicly traded for profit company would spend so much unbudgeted resources to completely overhaul a game 1 year after launch - it failed both corporate and investor expectations and they are trying to salvage not only 2042, but future Battlefield titles after cancelling BF5 support early. DICE has the data on what the Battlefield player base wants from the surveys sent out and from the forum feedback threads here in AHQ for 2042 and now DICE is pivoting to bring the players back who either didn't buy the game or players who purchased the game and put it down because it didn't feel like Battlefield. The implication of this data and the associated change is that those who liked the complete freedom of a hero based "create a class" from 204's launch are in the extreme minority or DICE would not have spent the resources overhauling the game. I really feel for those who liked 2042 without the Battlefield trappings but the larger player base wants a traditional Battlefield experience with classes.

---

@ragnarok013  написал (-а):

@Psubond You are asking the wrong question here. The question you should ask is why did DICE spend the unbudgeted and unplanned time/money/manpower to add a class system into an already released game 1 year after launch? There's only one reason that a publicly traded for profit company would spend so much unbudgeted resources to completely overhaul a game 1 year after launch - it failed both corporate and investor expectations and they are trying to salvage not only 2042, but future Battlefield titles after cancelling BF5 support early. DICE has the data on what the Battlefield player base wants from the surveys sent out and from the forum feedback threads here in AHQ for 2042 and now DICE is pivoting to bring the players back who either didn't buy the game or players who purchased the game and put it down because it didn't feel like Battlefield. The implication of this data and the associated change is that those who liked the complete freedom of a hero based "create a class" from 204's launch are in the extreme minority or DICE would not have spent the resources overhauling the game. I really feel for those who liked 2042 without the Battlefield trappings but the larger player base wants a traditional Battlefield experience with classes.

---

Is that your fantasy?

Do you even realize that the vast majority of players are singles and do not belong to any squads? And they won't, because they don't need to, because there is something to do in life.

So, no one needs a stupid class system except a bunch of nostalgic retrogrades (crying like that doesn't need to be listened to at all). It would be better if they spent money on maps like Metro and Locker, on global chat, on a server browser, on managing squads and so on.

---

@ragnarok013 wrote:

---

@Psubond wrote:

---

@mimi0xi wrote:
@PsubondChanges within the class system and complete removal of class system are two very different things. Every title brought some changes to the system, but it still existed and that's what's important.

Class system has consistently been up there with the server browser as some of the most requested features in 2042.

---

so you think it's ok to fundamentally change a game over a year after release?  i don't.  changes from game to game before a game is released are one thing.  changing them a year AFTER release are quite another

class system has also been consistently argued against in regards to forcing it into this game.  many people have been very vocal about it.

and you didn't get your class system, all you succeded in was haphazardly shoehorning specialists into a quasi class system without locking weapons to classes

---

@Psubond You are asking the wrong question here. The question you should ask is why did DICE spend the unbudgeted and unplanned time/money/manpower to add a class system into an already released game 1 year after launch? There's only one reason that a publicly traded for profit company would spend so much unbudgeted resources to completely overhaul a game 1 year after launch - it failed both corporate and investor expectations and they are trying to salvage not only 2042, but future Battlefield titles after cancelling BF5 support early. DICE has the data on what the Battlefield player base wants from the surveys sent out and from the forum feedback threads here in AHQ for 2042 and now DICE is pivoting to bring the players back who either didn't buy the game or players who purchased the game and put it down because it didn't feel like Battlefield. The implication of this data and the associated change is that those who liked the complete freedom of a hero based "create a class" from 204's launch are in the extreme minority or DICE would not have spent the resources overhauling the game. I really feel for those who liked 2042 without the Battlefield trappings but the larger player base wants a traditional Battlefield experience with classes.

---

so basically screw the people who bought the game and liked it.  they get the game they purchased completely taken away from them (this is not the same game i bought).  trade them for maybe better future sales by tricking people (if you think they won't have specialists in the next game so they can sell skins you are delusional)?

i'm not buying the next game regardless of how good it is.  dice burned all of their "trust me bro" good will with me.  i skipped BFV because sonderlund ran his mouth, i have no issue skipping the next battlefield (and everything after that until the game AFTER they get their act together and stop with the "crap on players with the radio silence and haphazard design changes and decisions."