Just make us a normal Battlefield game please?Class System- No SpecialistsServer Browser- a normal browser, no quick matchmaking *.Destruction- Lots and lots of destruction. Bring back levolutionMaps- tons of map variety. 25+ new maps https://100001.onl/ https://1921681254.mx/ .PORTAL- Bring this * back and add lots more old maps. I don't care if its the same games 1942, BF3 and BFBC2. Please NO BF4 or BF1- those games are still recent and look amazing still. For the love of god support this * until the end damnit.

I've been playing this series since the 1942 demo came out so bear with me here lol: Bring the old class system back:Preferably something like BF2. NO. MORE. SPECIALISTS.To mitigate the reduction in profit EA would likely assume here, DICE could reimplement the skin system from BFV. Good-feeling aiming (for controller on console): Idk what happened but ever since launch, the aiming in 2042 just hasn't felt good in comparison to ANY console BF game of the past. I go back to BFV and the aiming feels consistent and great. I go back to BF1? Same. I go back to even 720p BF4 on my PS4 and the aiming in that game feels WAY better than 2042. They made a little bit of progress introducing those "aim response curves" but something is still wrong because when I select the BFV option and no acceleration, it still doesn't feel ANYTHING like BFV. Aiming is perhaps the most important part of a BF game so the devs must research the old games and figure out why it feels different even though they're using the same code.Server browser (and persistent servers, obviously):This is so important for the BF series. I want to be able to see which map a server is on, how many players it has, which region it's located in, etc. before joining. I don't understand why DICE moved away from this tried and true model. BF is NOT CoD/Apex/etc. Let it maintain its own identity. DESTRUCTION:I don't mean "Levolution." That's cool too but I mean destruction like you see on Arica Harbor's A point. Players should be able to take meaningful pieces out of any building they come across. Larger structures should of course have frames and certain areas that can't be destroyed. I'm saying this in consideration of something like the rocket assembly tower on the Orbital map in 2042. Obviously, you can't take that entire building down because it would ruin the flow of that map BUT you should be able to blow holes in it and destroy certain parts of it, right? After solving the aiming issues and getting rid of specialists, this is perhaps the number one thing DICE should focus on for the next title. I know it's too late to suggest now but I truly hope this is their main focus.BONUS: New marquee mode: This is more of a dream than anything else but I feel like it's time for DICE to innovate when it comes to modes. The last big swing they took (not counting Hazard Zone or Firestorm because while Firestorm was fun... that's not Battlefield) was Grand Operations. Grand Operations had some truly good ideas but for whatever reason, DICE didn't follow through on them. The mode was incredibly half-baked. The result of each round's bearing on the next was imperceptible as far as I know and one of the mode's sub-modes was rarely reached. Players dropped it immediately because it wasn't given the thought that it needed to become something great. I think a mode with the same "spirit" but done well could put Battlefield back on the map as an innovative series. A mode that maintains and bolsters BF's identity that the series is known and loved for.Is that too much? LOL. Sorry about that. These are the things that would make me TRULY excited for the next BF game. Thanks to anyone who read this. Hopefully, at least one decision-maker at DICE or EA takes a glance at this write-up and is at least a little inspired by it.

Just a couple of things off the top of my head.1. Server Browser2. No cross play3. Better squad tools4. Rental servers5. Better hit registration

@ElliotLH wrote:@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:@ElliotLH wrote:@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:I hope they return to team work core:• Platoon support and customised community and official servers on server browser. No quick match making.• Soldier classes with dedicated purposeful roles without overtly vague customisation.• Chain of command and asset gameplay.• Meaningful destruction and level design where dynamic elements are under warfare shaping strategy real time. Choice of classes matters within squad and team level.• Class and game mechanic design favoring symbiotic interaction with others—complementation; squad wide class restrictions of other classes than standard rifleman like in Insurgency Sandstorm and Hell Let Loose.Other than the class restrictions, I agree with these. It serves for balancing purpose: no longer medic trains, spam of engineers' rockets or hill-humping snipers in abundant numbers. This works well on Hell Let Loose for example, limits can still be circumvented while sacrificing unit benefits.It's mostly a difference of opinion really, and I personally just don't want to be limited in what I can choose in what I see as a largely casual arcade shooter.You know what, after thinking topic clearly I am on same page about that limitation thing. Let server administrator create their own experience while on official one there shouldn't be any limits. Best of both worlds!

... and a single player campaign.

@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote: @ElliotLH wrote: @Estynytapa_Haiku wrote: I hope they return to team work core: • Platoon support and customised community and official servers on server browser. No quick match making. • Soldier classes with dedicated purposeful roles without overtly vague customisation. • Chain of command and asset gameplay. • Meaningful destruction and level design where dynamic elements are under warfare shaping strategy real time. Choice of classes matters within squad and team level. • Class and game mechanic design favoring symbiotic interaction with others—complementation; squad wide class restrictions of other classes than standard rifleman like in Insurgency Sandstorm and Hell Let Loose. Other than the class restrictions, I agree with these. It serves for balancing purpose: no longer medic trains, spam of engineers' rockets or hill-humping snipers in abundant numbers. This works well on Hell Let Loose for example, limits can still be circumvented while sacrificing unit benefits. It's mostly a difference of opinion really, and I personally just don't want to be limited in what I can choose in what I see as a largely casual arcade shooter.

What features HAVE to be in the next Battlefield game for it to be good?

61 Replies

Anobix
Seasoned Ace
2 years ago
@SharpGoblin wrote:
... and a single player campaign.
The single player campaigns for BF are almost always terrible (I thought BC2's was decent, but those had memorable characters and some humor). We had hoped that with the lack of a SP campaign for 2042 that there'd be more MP content thougb... well lol.
As others have said, it's been beaten to death but:
Dedicated/persistent servers and rentable ones (if my buddies and I want to pay for a 100tick server for a group with rcon and such then we should be able to).
- Quick match isn't an issue, per se, just that there needs to be a button to browse servers next to it you don't want just to get randomly slotted into some random game.
No specialists
- Classes have been a mainstay since creation of BF. I think the ablity to choose whatever weapon though, but having the "specialization" to the class type may be the balancing act (recon better with snipers like after the class rework here).
Roadmap for post-launch content, and more than a single map and a few guns each "season".
IDC about skins, I won't personally ever buy them (sorry Dice), I don't mind earning them like the DICE/DICE LA Camo in 4 though.
I honestly like the T/+ menu for weapon versatility. Maybe not having even more ammo types so that you're more dependent on support to have ammo, but otherwise I liked the idea.
Crossplay, in theory, is fine. I prefer to know that there is a higher chance to hit a full server, especially later on in a game's lifespan. But if the amount of hamstringing that had to happen to get it to this point (low tick-rate, very inconsistent netcode, etc) then I'd prefer it without, sadly.
Platoon support/support for more than 4 people to reasonably play together without screwing around timing queue presses and hoping, or joining on a random person on your friends group and waiting to get into the server...
Destruction, and agreed, I don't need "Levolution" but the ability to take down a wall/open a window/etc is such a key experience and has been for over a decade.
TTZ_Dipsy
Hero+
2 years ago
I know they've already said just how difficult it actually is to do, but I'd love to see more night/dusk maps and if they bring back single player, I wish to see more of those maps/levels be used in multiplayer.

Full platoon and RSP support should be priority #1 - I feel losing out on those really kneecapped the replayability
Raajakaarti_Tero
Seasoned Vanguard
2 years ago
@ElliotLH wrote:
@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:
I hope they return to team work core:
• Platoon support and customised community and official servers on server browser. No quick match making.
• Soldier classes with dedicated purposeful roles without overtly vague customisation.
• Chain of command and asset gameplay.
• Meaningful destruction and level design where dynamic elements are under warfare shaping strategy real time. Choice of classes matters within squad and team level.
• Class and game mechanic design favoring symbiotic interaction with others—complementation; squad wide class restrictions of other classes than standard rifleman like in Insurgency Sandstorm and Hell Let Loose.
Other than the class restrictions, I agree with these.
It serves for balancing purpose: no longer medic trains, spam of engineers' rockets or hill-humping snipers in abundant numbers. This works well on Hell Let Loose for example, limits can still be circumvented while sacrificing unit benefits.
ElliotLH
Hero+
2 years ago
@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:

@ElliotLH wrote:

@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:

I hope they return to team work core:

• Platoon support and customised community and official servers on server browser. No quick match making.

• Soldier classes with dedicated purposeful roles without overtly vague customisation.

• Chain of command and asset gameplay.

• Meaningful destruction and level design where dynamic elements are under warfare shaping strategy real time. Choice of classes matters within squad and team level.

• Class and game mechanic design favoring symbiotic interaction with others—complementation; squad wide class restrictions of other classes than standard rifleman like in Insurgency Sandstorm and Hell Let Loose.

Other than the class restrictions, I agree with these.

It serves for balancing purpose: no longer medic trains, spam of engineers' rockets or hill-humping snipers in abundant numbers. This works well on Hell Let Loose for example, limits can still be circumvented while sacrificing unit benefits.

It's mostly a difference of opinion really, and I personally just don't want to be limited in what I can choose in what I see as a largely casual arcade shooter.
RanzigeRidder2
Legend
2 years ago
@TTZ_Dipsy wrote:
I know they've already said just how difficult it actually is to do, but I'd love to see more night/dusk maps and if they bring back single player, I wish to see more of those maps/levels be used in multiplayer.
Full platoon and RSP support should be priority #1 - I feel losing out on those really kneecapped the replayability
@TTZ_Dipsy Yet with Nivelle Nights from BF1 they've proven it can be done. awesome map that was! Same with Prise de Tahure, less epic than Nivelle Nights but still a great night map.

My take on the features that NEED to be in the next Battlefield:
CONTENT! And a regular addition of it including Maps, Guns, Vehicles, Gadgets, NOT SKINS
Server browser with persistent servers
Franchise staple gamemodes need to be available at ALL times: Conquest 64, Breakthrough 64, Rush and TDM
Proper class system (4 classes; Assault, Support, Engineer, Recon)
NO specialists
2 or more factions with distinctive operators, distinctive as in easily recognizable friend from foe, but also what class your opponent has.
4-man squads
Destruction and Levolution. No tornados, sandstorms and other non-value added stuff that looks nice in a trailer but gets annoying in-game after the first awe
Proper progression tree when it comes to unlocking guns, vehicles and their attachments
Single player campaign
Clan and platoon support
Crossplay OFF per default
Balance between infantry vs vehicles. Rock, scissor, paper!
MnK support on console for those who want it
A scoreboard, including ping of all players
NO auto targeting and stuff like robodogs and sentry-guns
Stuff like grapplehooks and wingsuits either get rid of it, or make it available as a selectable gadget to all classes sacrificing another gadget. And limit the gadgets to 1 slot.
NO 3rd person animations
MADMAC50K
Seasoned Ace
2 years ago
Basically, go back to the winning formula:
1. Server Browser
2. More maps, and better map design
3. Map destruction
4. Better balance for air vehicles - stop making them OP
5. Better class system with gadgets that are actually effective
6. More focus on infantry gameplay
7. Promote and reward teamplay better. Don't try to force it by making certain things need a squad to accomplish.
8. Get rid of infinite ammo and counter measures for vehicles - limit their use, or make them have to replenish ammo.
9. Bring back the uncaps as safe zones, and move them further away from first flag to prevent spawncamping.
10. Bring back fixed AA/ AT at locations across the maps. Make them buildable if needed, but bring them back!
Raajakaarti_Tero
Seasoned Vanguard
2 years ago
@ElliotLH wrote:
@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:
@ElliotLH wrote:
@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:
I hope they return to team work core:
• Platoon support and customised community and official servers on server browser. No quick match making.
• Soldier classes with dedicated purposeful roles without overtly vague customisation.
• Chain of command and asset gameplay.
• Meaningful destruction and level design where dynamic elements are under warfare shaping strategy real time. Choice of classes matters within squad and team level.
• Class and game mechanic design favoring symbiotic interaction with others—complementation; squad wide class restrictions of other classes than standard rifleman like in Insurgency Sandstorm and Hell Let Loose.
Other than the class restrictions, I agree with these.
It serves for balancing purpose: no longer medic trains, spam of engineers' rockets or hill-humping snipers in abundant numbers. This works well on Hell Let Loose for example, limits can still be circumvented while sacrificing unit benefits.
It's mostly a difference of opinion really, and I personally just don't want to be limited in what I can choose in what I see as a largely casual arcade shooter.
You know what, after thinking topic clearly I am on same page about that limitation thing. Let server administrator create their own experience while on official one there shouldn't be any limits. Best of both worlds!
Raajakaarti_Tero
Seasoned Vanguard
2 years ago
Can we have artillery observer and artillery commander type of classes like in Insurgency Sandstorm in next game? 'Artillery observer' or signaller could additionally place spawn beacons and 'artillery commander' could be same as squad leader having access to binoculars and various assets. I really enjoy carrying that radio around and chasing commander, haha 😆
ElliotLH
Hero+
2 years ago
@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:

@ElliotLH wrote:

@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:

@ElliotLH wrote:

@Estynytapa_Haiku wrote:

I hope they return to team work core:

• Platoon support and customised community and official servers on server browser. No quick match making.

• Soldier classes with dedicated purposeful roles without overtly vague customisation.

• Chain of command and asset gameplay.

• Meaningful destruction and level design where dynamic elements are under warfare shaping strategy real time. Choice of classes matters within squad and team level.

• Class and game mechanic design favoring symbiotic interaction with others—complementation; squad wide class restrictions of other classes than standard rifleman like in Insurgency Sandstorm and Hell Let Loose.

Other than the class restrictions, I agree with these.

It serves for balancing purpose: no longer medic trains, spam of engineers' rockets or hill-humping snipers in abundant numbers. This works well on Hell Let Loose for example, limits can still be circumvented while sacrificing unit benefits.

It's mostly a difference of opinion really, and I personally just don't want to be limited in what I can choose in what I see as a largely casual arcade shooter.

You know what, after thinking topic clearly I am on same page about that limitation thing. Let server administrator create their own experience while on official one there shouldn't be any limits. Best of both worlds!

I guess another compromise would be an official mode akin to hardcore (or just an official HC mode if you're into that). I do think that could work well as it's similar to what you proposed originally, but officially supported and in the main menu.
IIIWhiteWolfIII
New Ace
2 years ago
@36jwiqi4h9lb Even if the game is purely multiplayer, I would have liked it to have some storyline. The music, videos, events, they all motivate people. I would have liked a camouflage like LA DICE. I would have liked buildings to be fully destructible, bullet penetrable. I would have liked more female characters. Actually, there are few themes for soldiers, I would have liked more themes.

Having maps of different countries would make people feel special.

Forum Discussion

What features HAVE to be in the next Battlefield game for it to be good?

61 Replies

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Recent Discussions

My account for 2042 has been banned by mistake

(meeksda) I loved the Battlefield 6 trailer but I'm still worried for BF2042

Crash to desktop is back!!!

Banned for what?

Battlefield Recruitment Thread