Forum Discussion

Hero

4 years ago

Solved

"Specialists" don't belong - Change my mind

I posted this in another thread but I think it warrants it's own thread. Classes aren't as much about "restricting choices" as much as bringing back some sort of structure to the game. Classes are ...

discussion

Twordy
4 years ago
The main problem with specialists is that they tend to be almost everything like Angel. Or succeed individually at flanking the enemies.
There is a reason for Command structure with Squad formations in modern militaries. Usually, I find Rifleman, Rifleman (Grenadier) with a grenade launcher, Automatic Rifleman with LMG, Marksman with Sniper/DMR. Some Squads include Medic, Grenadier (Anti Tank), Ammo handlers (usually Riflemans). Being the universal soldier is helpful for every single individual. Specialist limits the number of equipment, its quantity too. For example, fewer rockets to equip and no secondary equipment compared to previous Battlefields. Instead, players receive a Specialist gadget that is usually highly individualistic. This change, for some, may seem only cosmetic or viewed as a black or white color dilemma. But this design approach changes the dynamics of the match. Not to mention how the map design with 128 players change the dynamics of CQ. The sprint button has never been as important in a Battlefield game as before.
In the game mode called Gun Master, which was greatly popularized by CoD devs, there is no need for classes. I have no idea why this should not be the example and the case for TDM, SQTDM, Domination, and many other solely Infantry-based game modes. The medic class is the ultimate meta since at least 2005. Why there should ever be Classes or Specialists with no suitable sort of abilities in such casual game modes. Domination might be easily turned into a competitive mode with proper level design and setup.
Battlefield has never been a military simulator, let`s make that clear. Battlefield has succeeded in the introduction of the Conquest mode. A game mode that is deeply rooted in the division of combat roles similarly to modern militaries. Every squad is built upon combat roles, operators, prime objectives. This approach is not present in BF2042 and is strictly optional. Squad divisions with their respective roles helped players to find a meaningful way to play the game. Weapon type, side equipment was extremely intuitional, players could subconsciously adapt their playstyle. Players derived more gratification from being useful in times of crisis not because of their aiming skills. That is the beauty of the game in previous Battlefields, especially in BF2. Battlefield is a highly tactical arcade game, especially in Conquest mode. BF2 spawned such titles as Project Reality, Squad and these games are closer to mil-sim.
BF2042 has a completely different approach and I would quarrel whether this benefits Conquest mode even as a concept. To me, Conquest falls apart without organized Squads with combat roles. Without pre-determined classes, Conquest as a concept feels shallow. In addition, there is a complete absence of Squad Management. Servers are not being run by the communities. Battlefield just falls apart and becomes more individualistic.
I would give any money to witness Conquest mode with 7 or 11 classes. Rifleman, Medic, Support, Engineer, Anti-Tank, Sniper, Spec-Ops, Paratrooper, Recon and possibly Mercenary and Insurgent spin-off operators with respective equipment and combat approach than what is currently present in 2042. Vehicles deployed for a specific theatre of war as it used to be and is not apparent for the devs nowadays. Right now instead "Battlefield is back baby" slogan, I may witness "bad jokes on us players" as the main motto.

Psubond

Legend

4 years ago

@Ironhead841 belong or not isnt the issue. To get rid of them requires a game redesign and getting rid of skins that people unlocked. Have fun selling that to EA

Noodlesocks
4 years ago
Honestly I have noticed little tangible difference in how the game feels to play.
I get it, a well designed class system would absolutely be much better but simply having classes doesn't itself make it better. Take Battlefield 4 for example. A game that for a lot of people is considered the standard for Battlefield but the class system in that game is designed so poorly that pretty much every server and their admins have to restrict what weapons people can use. Can you imagine Battlefield 4 now with no community run servers and no admins to force good balance?
Not to mention that Dice Sweden has been diluting the necessity for class and team play for many years and over many games to the point where they could implement a perfectly balanced class system into 2042 and it probably would not improve anything. The class system never really helped me get ammo from support players when I needed it. Repairs from engineers. Health from medics. It has never helped me relay important information to my teammates right next to me about the enemy or get my squad to diversify our classes to maximise efficiency and work together.
The problem is that over time, the core design of Battlefield has withered and become rotten. The discussion the community is having shouldn't be about whether specialists belong because the core design at the heart of the franchise has gotten to the point where the most fundamental aspects of multiplayer gaming simply does not exist any more. They have been actively designed out of Battlefield over the course of several games.
I'm not going to say specialists don't belong in 2042 because honestly I haven't noticed any particular difference from their inclusion. That itself I consider a pretty sad indication of what Battlefield has become over the years. What I will say is that the game and the franchise needs to be completely broken down and redesigned from the ground up with fundamental multiplayer game design as the core focus instead of whatever silly gimmick Dice Sweden feels like focusing on this year.
- DrunkwoIf
  4 years ago
  they arnt going anywhere, all we can do is hope they learn from this and dont put them in future games.
  - AuramiteX
    Seasoned Veteran
    4 years ago
    We can't change your mind because you are absolutely correct.
    EA better re-design the game fast, whilst refunding players in the process.
    The current game is a failure. If you can't take the actions needed to save it then let it die and give people their money back.
Ironhead841
Hero
4 years ago
@Psubond wrote:
@Ironhead841belong or not isnt the issue. To get rid of them requires a game redesign and getting rid of skins that people unlocked. Have fun selling that to EA
With the current state of the game that may not be the worst idea.
The thing that really kills me is that they had a pretty easy roadmap to follow along the lines of BF2, BF3, BF4 but opted for this mess?
- Lancelot_du_Lac
  Seasoned Ace
  4 years ago
  @Ironhead841 My guess is that roadmap didn’t lead to the sales results that EA were looking for. All the communication from EA would point to a shift to BR-style game to tap into the huge potential audiences that Fortnite/Apex enjoy.
  IMHO, EA will lose faith that the BF franchise can ever be a ‘blockbuster’ game. Therefore, any significant support/development will shift to those franchises that can deliver it.
  At this stage, I fear that the ‘traditional’ BF player base will be seen as niche, an of no real interest to major games publishers.
  - Ironhead841
    Hero
    4 years ago
    @Lancelot_du_Lac
    Ya unfortunately I think you may be onto something there.
AntEater1997
Seasoned Hotshot
4 years ago
@Psubond And a lot of the issues many people have with the game are core design decisions and will most likely never get addressed unless the game gets a complete overhaul. So I see EA dropping support for this pretty quickly