TO: Battlefield 2042 development staff RE: Feedback Battlefield 2042 v0.3.3

TO: Battlefield 2042 development staff RE: Feedback Battlefield 2042 v0.3.3 PART 2

Specialists

I fully understand and respect the fact that somebody worked hard to design, draw, animate and employ voice talents in multiple languages for specialists. The expense in terms of time, money and organisation must have been costly especially during a worldwide pandemic but these points do not justify the validity of specialists in a Battlefield game. I have seen post after post of people trying to find ways of making specialists more appropriate for the game and I don’t doubt that all of these ideas are bad. I myself expressed ways of balancing them out in my feedback report for the beta version of your game before the more controversial ones were released, but having played with the completed game I must say that specialists do not work for Battlefield and that to continue forcing them into a Battlefield game is no different to pushing a square peg through a round hole. Again let me be clear I am not saying that your hard work to create specialists is bad, the things that the characters say (minus the swearwords), the way they look would work fine in a friendlier lighter toned game for a younger demographic like Fortnite rather I am saying that specialists are bad for Battlefield games and do not belong in them.

I am fully aware that I can configure a portal server to exclude specialist abilities or the models themselves in favour of class based soldiers but the vanilla experience personified by your game is currently the one of specialists which is giving your game a culture of immaturity and simplicity such that tactical symbiotic team-play is portrayed implicitly as an option rather then a necessity.

What do I mean exactly? As expressed earlier Battlefield games are complex first person shooters that differentiate themselves from the competition by implementing military type assets and terrain that are interwoven with one another such that one asset excels in one thing but is limited by another.

An example of this can be seen in objective placements such as the D flag on Caspian Border in Battlefield 3. Capturing said objective grants your team not only a spawn location but elevated territory to see much of the map. So your team can use this for spotting, painting targets with a SOFLAM or suppressing and attacking but you are disadvantaged through this property by being visible to everyone on the map so without good defence from other assets you can be shot at and bombed from all angles. This property can be seen in other flag less areas of the map that have hills or boulders.

A previous example given mentioned Wake Island in Battlefield 3 and its asymmetrical team balance relating to placement of objectives, the various assets and what each team has to begin with. This property can be seen again in the same game with the Strike at Karkand map.

Another example can be seen in weapon design such as in transport vehicles. Such vehicles possess heavy machine guns which have increased spread size to help reinforce their roles as defensive or suppression based tools that aid in transport. There are many more examples of these intricate assets that can be found in these games; too many to write about and even then words can only express so much as such you really need to experience the game to understand where I am coming from.

This many-to-many relationship creates a kind of ecosystem that allows these attributes to exist in various arrangements dependent on game mode leading players to contribute to the Battlefield in a limited number of ways. These limitations help to emboss the structure of the game and are not negatives. In principle they are no different to the limitations imposed on players in other games such as: having finite movement patterns for chess pieces, having 1 ball in a football game at a time or having boxing being a 1 vs 1 sport where only padded fists are used.

As asserted previously, in essence it is a team based 3D military equivalent of rock, paper, scissors with the exception that the choice of assets is based on variables and constants which are available to the teams not complete random chance; no asset totally dominates all the others.

With that being established the map design in previous Battlefield games is designed around foot soldiers and vehicles that emulate their real world counter parts.

With additional augmentations applied toward the game in the form of soldier perks which add subtle changes to the soldiers abilities. This feature is present in both Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 with the latter sharing those abilities to your squad in the form of squad perks to help further bond you closer together on the Battlefield. The perks offer small gentle changes that do not drastically alter the way in which you as the player experience the Battlefield, rather they serve as a means to diversify the Battlefield such that the soldiers mirror some of the mild changes that would exist within a group of people while catering toward your squads objectives while on the Battlefield. In essence it is a class within a class and while not perfect coerce the players to behave in specific patterns with regard to their squad, the mode and furthermore their team inviting both structure, respect and discipline for the game, its rules and its assets.

As a result of its implementation there are no special peaks or tall structures on the maps that are specific to one type of soldier or vehicle, leading to an implied logic being expressed from the game to the players that manage the expectation of: where to go, where to aim and where to shoot further contributing to the idea of not just where to defend and where to attack but how.

This can be seen in many of the older games such as in Grand Bazaar on Battlefield 3 especially in Rush mode through the use of the defensive suppression perk, explosive perk and the destruction 2.0 game mechanic. This in combination with the assault classes grenade launcher or explosive XBOW can be used to quake the side of the buildings in an attempt to bury the upcoming enemy, forcing the players to either move away from the buildings to other routes of cover or to move faster to reach the objective and take the fight to the enemy. This can happen for either team. It is important to note that the perks mentioned in this example are not needed to quake the buildings, they only reinforce the aims of your squad by giving you reduced suppressive effects to incoming enemy fire and additional explosive ammo slots. That is to say how you play is still based on your squads understanding of the game, its rules and the weapons with the perks acting like lenses to give focus to the way you and your squad manage the objective.

In Battlefield 2042 soldiers have special abilities that conflict with the aforementioned as soldier traits and abilities work more like power-ups for the individual and are mostly mutually exclusive to one another. Though it can be stated that these attributes enhance the way in which you experience the Battlefield they are often self serving and contradict any kind of symbiotic structure that exists in the game. That does not mean that they cannot be used to work toward a team or a squad objective but rather that they work largely without consideration of other assets and so can easily unbalance a game. More specifically with regard to map design the points that you have mentioned are tethered directly to the way specialists exist in your game in the same way that the various weapons and vehicles exist in your game. Adding, removing or moving map geometry might fix the issue in some cases but if someone creates a portal variant with edited or alternative factions the map may no longer function as intended or possess largely invalid or inaccessible areas. This may happen regardless of good map design but that is why it is important to ensure that the vanilla experience is implemented with concern paid toward all the problematic issues of your game.

Sundance

Sundance’s wingsuit gives players the ability to glide between locations. The issue with this is that such players have unrivalled flanking ability that allows them to either get behind enemy lines with a silenced LMG or capture an objective. Keep in mind that players can spawn on-top of one another in this game so if you and your team have combed through an area on foot and have began to move on or have formed a defensive line some ways ahead of the already captured objective and are now engaging enemies your teams ability to see, shoot or even spot a single gliding person is going to be limited. The reverse can also happen because there are plastic bags blowing about on the map so even if you are occasionally looking into the sky during the heat of battle you might see something which you think is a gliding person behind you and pull back to go defend the rear, this takes resources away from the front-line.

With regard to spotting a gliding person it is not intuitive as the spotting mechanic is similar to firing a bullet in that it takes time to reach its destination so you must lead your spot else it just places a generic marker. Adding to this a successful spot does not follow the spotted player so if I successfully spot a fast gliding person the game will just place a static red marker in the sky where they last were.

I have heard some people criticise such comments by saying that if the wingsuit is unfair then air vehicles are unfair because they both fly. This is not true because air vehicles can be both seen and heard in this game not just in terms of the model itself but also in the execution of its weapons and countermeasures. They are also fairly limited between teams and are bigger so are easier to see and can give off smoke when severely damaged. You are not likely to confuse a vehicle for a plastic bag nor does it force you to constantly scan the skies for one because it gives users additional feedback relating to its presence and distance. So in previous Battlefield games if I and my team have cleared an area we can rest easy in knowing that the area is free of enemies; this is further confirmed with the existence of AA vehicles as I and my team can conclude that if there were air vehicles than the AA would be shooting at them and I would either see this or hear it.

Yes, it is very possible for someone to jump out of the air vehicle and try and take the objective but it is less likely to succeed because of what I have just mentioned. The only way to remove any concern of gliding players with regard to map design would be to remove buildings and level the playing fields which is going to compromise your art direction and the players experience severely.

I am sure it is fully possible for your development team to refactor the wingsuit so that it gives the player less flight and more of an enhanced base jump function but then the question needs to be asked what is the wingsuit for exactly and how does it help your squad or team? If the answers are around the lines of “it’s cool” or “it allows your squad to spawn on you when you have swooped away from somewhere” then it would be best to simply remove the wingsuit entirely as it is not conducive to a decent Battlefield game and will only contribute to the problems that I mentioned above. It is not to say that you cannot have cool things in a video game but rather that you have to consider how these things relate to one another; what is the pay-off and how easy is it to attain, as well as how much fun is it to play with vs play against.

Her speciality also causes problems in a way that most Battlefield veterans should be well familiar with, as Battlefield has always had a potential problem with grenade spam; your past development teams even made an official Battlefield: Bad Company 2 public service announcement video on it involving character Sweet Water and staring pitcher CC Sabathia on the need to PTFO and not rely on “hand bombs”.

If you want to watch it then you should be able to do so via your EA YouTube channel but here is the link anyway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Qpui1hYBw&ab_channel=ElectronicArts

Considering this I don’t understand why someone in your work group felt it correct to introduce 3 grenades to one soldier. Keep in mind that anyone can play as Sundance so take 3 and multiply it by any number of Sundance players and you have the worst kind of grenade spam ever known to the history of Battlefield. Clearly there is no sensible map design for this, rather you need to remove it and give all players access to 1 grenade per spawn. If grenade types are going to be considered then providing they are balanced the player should only have 1 grenade type per spawn with a max quantity of 1.

Mackay

Mackay’s grappling hook allows him to get up to hard to reach places. The issue with this is similar to Sundance in that it adds more questions to where players will be in an area making the experience feel more random. If a player should use the grappling hook to hide in or on top of one of the many stacked containers or tall structures then their presence is very much invisible to the enemy team.

Many people have criticised this point by saying that you can just use proximity sensors and MAVs and though this is true the problem is that there are many tall structures per map that would require this kind of treatment. Considering the fact these assets are limited in quantity and also can alert players to your presence it may not be possible or even appropriate to use them at times.

Note that we haven’t dealt with the idea of dispatching such an individual, grenades may not reach or connect with the enemy player. If the enemy player is nested in a high structure your gun may not be useful because of the distance and you may not have enough players to deal with him, not to forget Mackay could also have a radio beacon and his squad members could have wingsuits which takes the previous issues concerning Sundance and adds to this one.

The issue is further compounded on maps which include floor to ceiling racks such as the hydroponics area in the map Renewal, as the grappling hook allows players to get access to an area which should be impossible.

Like with Sundance the only way to remove any concern of grappling hook players with regard to map design would be to remove tall structures and level the playing fields which is not a good option. Yes, you could limit the grappling hook so it only works on certain surfaces but then why have it in the first place? If the answers are again around the lines of “it’s cool” or “it allows your squad to spawn on you when you get away from somewhere” or “it was in Battlefield 2”.

Then I would ask is it fun or annoying to deal with such players and how does it relate to your squad and teams needs?

It may work well as a Battlefield pickup that can make one or two zip lines for your squad or team to use but considering how it is giving players out of bounds potential it would simply be a better solution to just remove it altogether as you would not have to worry about designing a map that balances out the aforementioned issues.

Ji-Soo Paik

Ji-Soo Paik’s scanner gives her the ability to temporarily see enemy soldiers through walls in bursts, when this happens enemies are lit up on the mini-map for a period of time. The issue here is obvious in that knowing where somebody is in a first person shooter before they know where you are is a huge advantage. It does not matter if: you only see their position in brief intervals, it makes her visible on the map, it has limited access time or even if you tell the player that someone scanned them because not only is there no limit to the number of players that can have this specialist there is no counter measure that you can use as a pre-emptive strike to prevent someone from using this ability.

This leads to players spawning on hot objectives, engaging their scanners and marking all the targets in the nearby vicinity for enemy players to engage all while they are safe and sound. The problem is further exacerbated because players are not limited to weapon types like in older Battlefield games so a player who uses this specialist can also take an LMG and some C5, scan the wall for enemies, blow the wall and engage any targets with the LMG that he missed with the C5 explosives. I know that EMP grenades could be considered a counter but it is not pre-emptive as you have to see the player before you know to use an EMP grenade on them. That logic is no different to saying that the counter is to shoot them before they shoot you neither of which are solutions to an unfair game mechanic.

Her trait is also controversial as an enemy is highlighted on the 3D world totally nullifying any camouflage or tactical implementation that the enemy had put into his actions.

Again there is no map design that can balance this out because the issue is with the specialist it is not a question of making the scanner only work on certain surfaces. It is a question of relevance; ask the question to yourselves. Why is this in the game? Is it fun or annoying to deal with? If it is supposed to be fun then why is it not in previous games and why are people complaining about it?

As implied this needs to go as it is not a fair asset for Battlefield.

Boris

Boris’ turret automatically spots players and attempts to shoot at them but this is also its issue as

enemy players are highlighted much like when Ji-Soo Paik uses her scanner. It also has no setup time or extraction time, has infinite ammo and you can place it in any soldier posture. So if a player has relevant camouflage equipped for the terrain that he occupies and is visually hidden an enemy Boris player can just throw a turret out and the player will be seen for all to shoot at.

This is not the same principle as throwing out a proximity grenade because while I might be discovered on the mini-map I may not be visible to players on the 3D game world as my camouflage and location may be very good not to forget the fact that the proximity grenade only works for a short period of time and it also does not shoot at me so does not spoof me into a firefight that I cannot win.

Navin Rao

Navin Rao’s trojan network trait has the same issues that I have expressed with other specialists that is they make enemies visible on the Battlefield. I know players will probably say that his trait takes time to execute and requires aiming and therefore is balanced I would remind those people that this is not an issue of balance as it makes being able to launch a tactical assault with relevant camouflage and weapon silencers that much harder such that if one of my squad members is seen, hacked and killed then I or my other squad members can be seen. There is no solution for the player to avoid this as Navin Rao and his trait is not restricted to indoor environments so it’s not likely that in an outdoor environment that I am going to see him before he scans me and even if that were feasible it is not fun. The same principle can be applied to his cyber warfare suite. The expectation of a player using a vehicle should not be to scan the faces of Battlefield soldiers to make sure that they are not Navin Rao and if they are to take them out from a distance or to go all in and kill him first before he hacks you for the most obvious of reasons that it is not fun. Secondly by the time you notice a Navin Rao player you will most likely be hacked either by said player or another Navin Rao player and thirdly it is not a feasible option given the: number of players and enemy vehicles, weather based effects, explosions, smoke and shader effects as well as the many costumes that can help to obscure the soldiers identity.

I have heard players offer criticism against my comments that vehicles should be treated as long range offensive weapons only and not used for close range assault; meaning to say that my comments relating to Navin Rao are incorrect because I am just using the vehicles wrong. To this I can only point people to Battlefield 3 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 as an example of how vehicles work to soften up the infantry based resistance. In short not only could they attack from afar but they could do so up close with the only concern being the use of RPGs and other explosives. What happens in those games is not comparable to Battlefield 2042 because a single RPG does not slow or stop my armour vehicle from moving nor does it stop me from shooting; it takes a coordinated effort from an engineer based team to do this and even then it can still fail based on how well the pilot operates the vehicle. Yes, there are lock-on weapons like Stingers and Javelins but as implied a good pilot can out manoeuvrer them either with map geometry or with countermeasures.

Casper

Casper’s trait is a motion sensor which alerts the player to nearby enemy movement. The ability might not seem like an issue but it yields the exact same problem as the other specialists which concerns visibility and the potential for soldiers to use stealth based tactics to neutralise enemy targets. It begs the question: what is the point of trying to use tactical stealth techniques in Battlefield 2042 when the chance of being seen is so high? If you look at earlier Battlefield games the reward that comes from using a particular class is based on your understanding of not just its benefits but also its limitations. The limitations of the reconnaissance class is that your vantage point and your rifles behaviour offers enemy players a level of predictability to your functions and whereabouts so you as the reconnaissance soldier need to be aware of your surroundings and pick out key targets for your team using not just your scope but also your map, MAV, SOFLAM or tactical binoculars. That is your primary function; if you are so unfocused on the Battlefield that enemies can sneak up behind you then your not doing your job properly and getting killed is supposed to be your punishment to coerce you to do better next time.

The other issue that I would like to briefly point out is the MAV C5 combo. I would like to think that this is a bug and is not intended to be in the game but considering that it has been in the game for months and that previous Battlefield instalments had removed it within the first few days of release I am going to assume that it was meant as a feature and as such ask for the ability to be removed, the reasons go without saying.

Anghel

Anghel has the ability to give armour to soldiers but the problem with this is that it often leads to much of the players being equipped with armour, sometimes without even knowing it as Anghel players will constantly spam the armour all over the Battlefield. The effect isn’t too bad as its only an additional 20 hit points but the issue can become more pronounced if a cluster of Anghel players are defending a small area and are constantly throwing armour on one another between engagements. Unlike health kits which give HP over time the acquisition of armour HP is instant so you could effectively help team members to cheat a bullet or two.

The other issue relates similarly to your aim to coerce players down certain map roots, that is Battlefield 2042 currently has issues of implying what you and your team are supposed to do to protect or take an objective. Since Anghel players are naturally free to go any where on the map it is possible that you and your squad could be drawn to a dangerous part of the map based on his presence and the lure of scattered armour pieces; I mentioned a similar example of this with the position of an SMG player who has an ammo box and how you respond to him.

Some may say that this is part of the experience of playing a game and yes that is true, making decisions in a game and being dealt consequences for bad ones is definitely part of a game but this is not a reality simulator as such it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations of what the average player can do in a multiplayer game without direct communication. Even if there is a means to communicate with that individual it is not reasonable to assume that a player will ask the Anghel player in the distance if the area he is occupying is safe and if you can get armour from him.

You as the Battlefield 2042 developers need to communicate intuitively to your players on how best to play parts of your game I am not talking about making the game easier, using tutorial messages or moving objectives closer together. I am talking about infusing your assets with meaning based on the other assets and rules that exist in your game. In doing so players will instinctively work together to accomplish a common goal.

For example, in previous games you may have passive assets that act as a vantage point for spotting, suppressing or regrouping and may take the shape of a building, a bus or a train cart that is positioned offside of the objective but not within its capture point. The existence of such an asset in this way gives incentive for players to seize it as their own as it offers something that your team can use thus expressing to your team that you all should go there and maybe make use of the surrounding area as an optimum means to take or defend the objective.

In consideration of this, a better solution for armour acquisition would be to apply the distribution of armour plates to a dedicated area of a particular map such as an abandoned armoury, foundry or a worn out shack. This would mean that players would have to not only go to a location on the map but also interact with the asset; it could look like a military type container or a wooden crate and give a limited quantity of armour plates or it could even be a dye press machine that can make an unlimited number of armour plates but requires player cooperation to use efficiently. To elaborate, this could happen through: one player turning on the power, a second player moving the conveyor belt, a third player charging the compressor and the forth player lowering the dye press; such a machine could make a maximum of 5 armour plates at a time and have no storage capabilities. This would not only give your map more personality as this asset would not be shared on every map but will also give teams a reason to defend, abandon or attack the associations of that asset. The use of such a mechanic will also limit armour spam forcing teams to pick and choose their moments as well as their locations for defence or offence, so not every time is armour time; you and your team must earn the privilege first.

Anghel’s call in ability is not bad but like the above it would be better to localise this ability to a physical asset on a map. Again it does not have to be on every map but in implementing it this way your maps will have much more of an identity to them because they will be providing different experiences that directly effect your teams objectives while adding to game immersion.

Like my other comments I have heard people defend the idea of Anghel’s call in capability and armour capability by saying that it is no different to how medical kits and ammo crates work and so should remain as it is but that is exactly my point. The way you play or deploy this asset is no different in how you play with the medical kits and the ammo crates. What is the point of having different things in your game if the interactions are all identical? What is more fun holding down/attacking an area on the map with your team that gives armour or picking it up from one of the 30 plus Anghel players spamming it randomly on the floor of the Battlefield?

Irish

Irish has the ability to fortify a bullet proof structure. One of the issues with this ability is that it can be deployed and extracted almost instantly which much like Boris’ turret leads to players throwing them out during a direct fire fight or installing it in awkward places. Furthermore increasing the potential of drawing players into poor locations for defence or offence.

As mentioned with Anghel it makes far more sense to localise this fortification aspect to certain areas of a map and bond teams together by making it available to engineer classes. In doing this it will serve to highlight points of interest for your team to congregate around for the purpose of tactical focus and player resource exchange (healing, ammo, radio deployment etc.) while again adding to the character of your map as not every map will have these things so you are testing different aspects of team cohesion while providing a unique experience.

Also, because the asset would be restricted to a particular position on the map you would also get the predictability aspect that your game so desperately needs. This is good because predictability gives way to tactics. To expand, there is no unique pre-emptive tactic that can be employed against an Irish player when they can instantly erect a bullet proof fence because you cannot see that he is going to do this and there is little delay when he does so he is not really impeded. Where as in my example if engineers have to make contact with the remains of a fortification point on a map and take time to build it then you and your team can put 2 and 2 together and mount a plan of attack not just because of what they are doing there and now but also because of your knowledge of the limited number of fortification points that exist on that map.

Again, this kind of map design and soldier limitation implies to the players that you and your team are supposed to do something at a certain place, at a certain time and that you must do it as one.

The Others

The rest are no better or no worse but given the choice I would much rather just have some of their features repurposed as gadgets for a particular class while having some of their more passive abilities refactored as squad perks (Dozer’s explosive resistance could easily be likened to the flak jacket perk in Battlefield 3).

Again I understand that your development team is going to look at specialists at a later date but unless removing specialist is already part of the plan or you already know in advance what specialist changes you are going to make in context to map design then it would be far better to stop and reconsider; you have to put features to well thought out balanced game mechanics not the other way around. More specifically, map changes being implemented first and specialist changes occurring later may well create the disjointed experience that had sent Battlefield players away in the first place and is not likely to bring them back because the experience will be largely unchanged; you have to decide what your game is before you create the features not after.

That being said I am not saying that we need more specialists to counter other specialist abilities nor am I trying to say that clever map design can balance them out, I am trying to say that they do not belong in a Battlefield game. It does not matter if you buff, nerf, add or remove something many of their abilities are game breaking which is why some of these abilities have never been seen in a Battlefield game before and why they are often considered as cheats.

It is not the same as squad perks from Battlefield 3 or soldier perks from Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Selecting a perk in those games does not give me the ability to see enemies through walls or as coloured silhouettes on the Battlefield nor do they allow me to jump higher or fly. To speak more candidly they do not give soldiers abilities that vastly impact your judgement or consideration of how to deal with enemy soldiers who have equipped say a suppression perk or a speed perk or a flak jacket because the effect is not clearly apparent to the player when they are engaging one another. That is you are not thinking about the squad perk that the enemy soldier and his squad has equipped when you engage in those games because the result relates more specifically toward the individual player and collectively their squad and their teams needs; it does not look any different from your perspective as the attacking player. Yes, the effect may be directed toward you when you are on the receiving end as the enemy but it does not drastically alter your expectations of the assets, the game or its rules. This is why the specialists are not comparable to classes or squad perks and why it is important to deal with them now and remove them before they negatively influence your map design.

Close

If you have read my feedback comments whoever you might be whether you are a customer, developer, producer or some other staff member I do thank you for taking the time out of your life to do so, I can understand that someone criticising your hard work or something that you might like can be intolerable and even offensive at times but know that this is not the purpose of my feedback. While I admit I have less positive things to express about your released game then I did about the beta version this is only because I like many others judged your beta video game as intended, as an incomplete product still undergoing changes and optimisations. If it had been revealed long ago what I and others would be getting in a complete product then the above would have been submitted with my previous feedback post.

As expressed posting criticism can sometimes stir up a lot of animosity and so I was very reluctant to post this feedback to your game; given the state of affairs I am not sure if what I want is even feasible at this point since the changes mentioned would effectively sum to a completely different game from the one that currently exists but a few work friends asked for my opinion after they told me of their views for the game and upon hearing what I had to say they recommended for me to type it up and submit it under the whim that it couldn’t hurt to try. I really do hope that it was worth a try and that it doesn’t fall on deaf ears.

To close I once again want to ask the development team and all staff associated with Battlefield 2042 to please play Battlefield 3, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 multiplayer to gain a more pronounced understanding of what I have expressed in my comments.

They are not perfect games but the teamwork in those games is real, the type and balance of the game assets are cohesive and the community regardless of its size is healthy.

Specifically with regard to community health I mean that the potential to receive any kind of toxicity or abuse is very low in those games; this is probably due to the game being directed away from l33t gaming culture that you would find in most Call of Duty like shooters and instead caters toward an original alternative experience of a first person shooter so they are not pretentious or provocative. They are very objective orientated and disciplined games that take time to learn but if you work with your squad and have ago with PTFO in mind you will not be disappointed and you’ll be wiser for the experience in context of what Battlefield 2042 requires.

Battlefield 3, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 are also mature video games which possess a high and unique capability ceiling. Because of the complex difficulty level this tends to screen out the immature players and again helps to promote a healthy community or culture. The reason I say this is that you have made a lot of the assets of Battlefield 2042 as easy or as forgiving as beer pong and as result you have beer pong like players. More to the point what I mean is that you have currently attracted many (not all) players who are less interested in playing the objective and more likely to have come with the intention of playing your Battlefield game like any other first person shooter; either for the purpose of grinding unlocks, getting trophies, kill streaks or just seeing explosions and chaos. In essence Battlefield 2042 is giving people a poor perception of what Battlefield games are about and is not helping them to understand what Battlefield was and should be.

If that was the plan all along then nothing I have stated will matter and the game will continue to debase itself to the point where it is no different from any other first person shooter. But if you imbue your Battlefield game with the ethos of the older games I am speaking about sensible mature art direction in visuals and audio and speech, interesting maps that challenge team cohesion, relevant camouflage, semi realistic vehicles and weapons mechanics and tailor them altogether with respect of balanced symbiotic team orientated assets then you would of created an exceptional Battlefield game that both I and others will gladly play and speak fondly of in the same way that I and others speak fondly of the older Battlefield games as well as other Electronic Arts masterpieces like Desert Strike, Jungle Strike, EA Hockey, Road Rash, Dead Space, Command and Conquer and so on.

Make the game for the Battlefield players and the Battlefield players will come.

Thank you again for reading my feedback.