What is the fascination with classes?
why are people so wrapped around the axle on not allowing the flexibility that we have now and insisting on restricting the playstyle of others? people can set their loadout however they like so the...
Forum Discussion
@Psubond Classes are one of the three bedrock pillars of Battlefield that makes Battlefield what it is since the very first Battlefield 20 years ago. Classes are an integral portion of the paper/rock/scissors balancing that made Battlefield balanced and predictable that 2042 completed eschewed. It is impossible to balance every permutation of hero/weapon/gadget that the community can come up with; it's far easier for DICE to balance weapons/gadgets around classes with their restrictions due to the aforementioned tradeoffs.
Classes prevent people from being a jack of all trades, it encourages weapon and gadget diversity because you have to choose between a specific weapon type and a specific role instead of everyone running the meta hero/weapon/gadget to be a lone wolf like you see in 2042 and Warzone. Overall it makes for a healthier more team oriented experience.
The real question is if one doesn't like Battlefield why play Battlefield and demand that the formula change to be something else when other games do what 2042 is copying much better?
Classes prevent people from being a jack of all trades, it encourages weapon and gadget diversity because you have to choose between a specific weapon type and a specific role instead of everyone running the meta hero/weapon/gadget to be a lone wolf like you see in 2042 and Warzone. Overall it makes for a healthier more team oriented experience.
The real question is if one doesn't like Battlefield why play Battlefield and demand that the formula change to be something else when other games do what 2042 is copying much better?
@ragnarok013 wrote:
@PsubondClasses are one of the three bedrock pillars of Battlefield that makes Battlefield what it is since the very first Battlefield 20 years ago. Classes are an integral portion of the paper/rock/scissors balancing that made Battlefield balanced and predictable that 2042 completed eschewed. It is impossible to balance every permutation of hero/weapon/gadget that the community can come up with; it's far easier for DICE to balance weapons/gadgets around classes with their restrictions due to the aforementioned tradeoffs.
Classes prevent people from being a jack of all trades, it encourages weapon and gadget diversity because you have to choose between a specific weapon type and a specific role instead of everyone running the meta hero/weapon/gadget to be a lone wolf like you see in 2042 and Warzone. Overall it makes for a healthier more team oriented experience.
The real question is if one doesn't like Battlefield why play Battlefield and demand that the formula change to be something else when other games do what 2042 is copying much better?
BF1's and BFV's Assualt class say hello 👋🏻
I would even suggest BF4's Medic lifted their head at the mention of this.
Players have always run the 'meta hero (class)/weapon/gadget' regardless of how the classes are constructed.
Teamplay is in the hands of the players, those that want to teamplay will, those that want lone wolf meta, won't regardless of class/specialist.
You and I have been here long enough to remember all the 'insert class here' don't 'insert class role here' threads! Specialists haven't changed that in and of themselves.
I am no fan of specialists personally and wouldn't be upset if classes returned in the next game but they are not as bad as people make out.
And as to clones (this bit isn't directed at you @ragnarok013 )
Clones of specialists - Bad
Clones of classes - Good
Makes sense......
Skins aren't spectacular but not to bad and faction skins would help but for me, not essential but one thing we can all agree on is the one liners.
@Trokey66 wrote:Clones of specialists - Bad
Clones of classes - Good
Makes sense......
Seriously? Coming from you who's apparently been around for as long as I have, it's very obvious. The models in older games were (mostly) faceless. They had nothing tied to them. No backstory, no quips, no identifier other than what their role is. Not only that, but they were different depending on what faction you played. Stop trying to BS us here, you know exactly why people don't want clones of Marvel/Disney characters, especially when they are EXACTLY the same on both teams other than a damn glowstick.
So if they dumped the specialist and brought back classes but kept the way you can choose any weapon/gadget would that make everyone happy?
@CantGetRight
Outright removing them at this point would just be weird; I think more effort should have gone into creating faction specific specialists with unique skins at the start - You could take it a step further and add a dedicated BRINK/Far Cry style colour scheme if you're feeling spicy.
I mean, it's possible they could do a full switch-over for S1 but I just don't see it happening. If the majority of players could agree on a decent class specific list of weapons and balance, I'd personally prefer that - Too much variety, in my opinion, causes too many players to become selfish and abandon PTFO
- @Albake21z The models in older games all had faces and as to names, so what? Apart from the menus and some one liners, specialist names (nevermind back story) do not appear in game.
What fundamental difference does it make if you play as Boris instead of Support, Falck instead of Medic or Casper instead of Recon?
None what so ever!
Assuming you read all my post you would have seen the bit where I mentioned faction skins would help but are not essential for me. That said, if you play as Sundance for example, how many times gave you seen an enemy Sundance and not tried to shoot them? And be honest.
Marvel/Disney characters? That's a new one!- @Trokey66 I said mostly, because most of their faces were covered up. Their faces were also so generic, there was no way to tie a character to it.
You already answered your own question. The difference is Falck is a strong written character, with a background and specific voice lines. Hearing and seeing the same thing on both teams is an issue. She's Russian, but works on both teams.
I've gotten slightly better at it, but in my 85 hours, it's happened often, Not so much from a distance, but up close there have been many instances where I was confused if it was an enemy or teammate. Only way to know is by playing laser tag and looking to see what color glow stick they have.
How much better would it be if Sundance was faction specific, so I don't have to look at a damn glowstick. I would see, hear, and acknowledge that Sundance = specific team.
@Trokey66 wrote:
@ragnarok013 wrote:
@PsubondClasses are one of the three bedrock pillars of Battlefield that makes Battlefield what it is since the very first Battlefield 20 years ago. Classes are an integral portion of the paper/rock/scissors balancing that made Battlefield balanced and predictable that 2042 completed eschewed. It is impossible to balance every permutation of hero/weapon/gadget that the community can come up with; it's far easier for DICE to balance weapons/gadgets around classes with their restrictions due to the aforementioned tradeoffs.
Classes prevent people from being a jack of all trades, it encourages weapon and gadget diversity because you have to choose between a specific weapon type and a specific role instead of everyone running the meta hero/weapon/gadget to be a lone wolf like you see in 2042 and Warzone. Overall it makes for a healthier more team oriented experience.
The real question is if one doesn't like Battlefield why play Battlefield and demand that the formula change to be something else when other games do what 2042 is copying much better?BF1's and BFV's Assualt class say hello 👋🏻
I would even suggest BF4's Medic lifted their head at the mention of this.
Players have always run the 'meta hero (class)/weapon/gadget' regardless of how the classes are constructed.
Teamplay is in the hands of the players, those that want to teamplay will, those that want lone wolf meta, won't regardless of class/specialist.
You and I have been here long enough to remember all the 'insert class here' don't 'insert class role here' threads! Specialists haven't changed that in and of themselves.
I am no fan of specialists personally and wouldn't be upset if classes returned in the next game but they are not as bad as people make out.
And as to clones (this bit isn't directed at you @ragnarok013 )
Clones of specialists - Bad
Clones of classes - Good
Makes sense......
Skins aren't spectacular but not to bad and faction skins would help but for me, not essential but one thing we can all agree on is the one liners.
@Trokey66 I heavily disliked BF1/5 class structure however as much as people whined about the Hellriegel, Automatico, M1 Garand, or STG44 imagine if we had 2042's system where everyone could use them in BF1/5? Actionman from BF1/5 was a bad implementation of the class system IMO, I personally preferred BF2/3/4's class systems (and yes all 3 are different especially BF2's) but they were mostly balanced and overall a consistent vision compared to BF1/5 system that heavily favored Actionman. I didn't care for BC2's medic with an LMG but it wasn't that much different compared to the BF2/3/4 philosophy IMO. There have always been classes that are more popular either due to kit or weapons (hello M-16A3) but the restrictions and a healthy weapon count for all classes really did help mitigate over saturation of weapons on the battlefield despite any particular weapon's popularity. As you recall DICE has historically had trouble balancing weapons and gadgets when they were restricted to classes, how can we expect DICE to balance every possible combination of weapons/specialists/gadgets now that everyone can use everything?
I understand the clone comment isn't directed at me but I will respond. In all other BF titles the classes are generic unnamed soldiers. Armies use uniforms for friend/foe identification so everyone naturally looks the same. In 2042 Specialists are named people with backstories and unique looks and voice lines. Seeing 24 Boris Specialists running around (especially with zero faction differences is insane and makes no sense while seeing 24 of the same assault soldier just means he's an assault soldier and not the same exact guy "Jim the Sapper". Games like RS6 and Overwatch don't allow you to have have more than one of the named hero on the Battlefield and those are also small player count modes so the clone wars isn't an issue with named characters for those types of games.
Lets just keep this simple.
2042 has specialist.
look how bad the game is doing.
@Psubond , sorry to double respond but I just wanted to weigh in on my thoughts about the "clone" issue as well.
In my opinion, the clone issue wasn't an issue in previous games because it was a uniform. It's like looking at a football team - they all wear the same jerseys, pads, etc. so of course they look the same. There's not a moment though where I'm looking at a football team and I'm under the impression that they're all the same person. My eyes see similar models, but my brain differentiates them as individuals because that's what uniforms are meant to do - make individuals look similar, and the uniforms in game act the same way as uniforms act in real life.
2042 is like if that football team started taking off their uniforms and they were still all the same underneath. Then it is weird. My brain would freak out if I saw a football team that was all made up of clones of the same person. With specialists, 2042 identifies them as unique individuals, then throws multiple of that same individual on to your screen at once. So your brain identifies them as clones of each other.
A full football team of generic people wearing similar uniforms so they look similar = normal
A full football team of Tom Bradys, or even of half Tom Bradys and half Peyton Mannings = weird
@ragnarok013 wrote:
@Trokey66 wrote:
@ragnarok013 wrote:
@PsubondClasses are one of the three bedrock pillars of Battlefield that makes Battlefield what it is since the very first Battlefield 20 years ago. Classes are an integral portion of the paper/rock/scissors balancing that made Battlefield balanced and predictable that 2042 completed eschewed. It is impossible to balance every permutation of hero/weapon/gadget that the community can come up with; it's far easier for DICE to balance weapons/gadgets around classes with their restrictions due to the aforementioned tradeoffs.
Classes prevent people from being a jack of all trades, it encourages weapon and gadget diversity because you have to choose between a specific weapon type and a specific role instead of everyone running the meta hero/weapon/gadget to be a lone wolf like you see in 2042 and Warzone. Overall it makes for a healthier more team oriented experience.
The real question is if one doesn't like Battlefield why play Battlefield and demand that the formula change to be something else when other games do what 2042 is copying much better?BF1's and BFV's Assualt class say hello 👋🏻
I would even suggest BF4's Medic lifted their head at the mention of this.
Players have always run the 'meta hero (class)/weapon/gadget' regardless of how the classes are constructed.
Teamplay is in the hands of the players, those that want to teamplay will, those that want lone wolf meta, won't regardless of class/specialist.
You and I have been here long enough to remember all the 'insert class here' don't 'insert class role here' threads! Specialists haven't changed that in and of themselves.
I am no fan of specialists personally and wouldn't be upset if classes returned in the next game but they are not as bad as people make out.
And as to clones (this bit isn't directed at you @ragnarok013 )
Clones of specialists - Bad
Clones of classes - Good
Makes sense......
Skins aren't spectacular but not to bad and faction skins would help but for me, not essential but one thing we can all agree on is the one liners.
@Trokey66 I heavily disliked BF1/5 class structure however as much as people whined about the Hellriegel, Automatico, M1 Garand, or STG44 imagine if we had 2042's system where everyone could use them in BF1/5? Actionman from BF1/5 was a bad implementation of the class system IMO, I personally preferred BF2/3/4's class systems (and yes all 3 are different especially BF2's) but they were mostly balanced and overall a consistent vision compared to BF1/5 system that heavily favored Actionman. I didn't care for BC2's medic with an LMG but it wasn't that much different compared to the BF2/3/4 philosophy IMO. There have always been classes that are more popular either due to kit or weapons (hello M-16A3) but the restrictions and a healthy weapon count for all classes really did help mitigate over saturation of weapons on the battlefield despite any particular weapon's popularity. As you recall DICE has historically had trouble balancing weapons and gadgets when they were restricted to classes, how can we expect DICE to balance every possible combination of weapons/specialists/gadgets now that everyone can use everything?
I understand the clone comment isn't directed at me but I will respond. In all other BF titles the classes are generic unnamed soldiers. Armies use uniforms for friend/foe identification so everyone naturally looks the same. In 2042 Specialists are named people with backstories and unique looks and voice lines. Seeing 24 Boris Specialists running around (especially with zero faction differences is insane and makes no sense while seeing 24 of the same assault soldier just means he's an assault soldier and not the same exact guy "Jim the Sapper". Games like RS6 and Overwatch don't allow you to have have more than one of the named hero on the Battlefield and those are also small player count modes so the clone wars isn't an issue with named characters for those types of games.
So by your own admission the class system can be can be, and sometimes is, flawed.
And I think this is the point here, certainly for me, that specialist are by no means perfect but compared to some previous games, are no worse than classes.
I don't buy the 'clone' issue because apart from BFV, every game gas been full of 'clones' to some degree or other. Bf1 had no soldier customisation at all and BF4 was limited to coloured overlays. Granted, each side is different to each other and this is an area the BF2042 does fall flat but is not game breaking for me.
SPOILER long post incoming. Because to answer to this topic we have to cover few things.
The FPS military game approach during the 2000's :
Rude, organic, feel at war, immersion. Hell look even COD at the beginning (World at War, such a great one)
Time go by, some games start to make FPS less "military" and more quick fun easy cool shooter. BUT, Battlefield decide to keep this approach of :
You're a soldier. War immersion. Organized and paced gameplay, structured. It was this sweet spot between COD and ARMA
==> to do so, some key points will define what is BF. :
- the player character behave like a human
- infantry is supported by vehicles
- you are (have) not a personality, you are a soldier, among a squad.
- you are given a class, you have a ROLE among your squad. Your appearance reflect your role
- you have a squad leader & commander, you're on a battlefield with a specific objective
- interactive environment (through destruction)
- mode HARDCORE if you want to push immersion further, you have to be even more careful and rely even more on your teammate.
Now player will always play the way they want within the margin they are given. But this was the structure, the core of the gameplay. The BF DNA. And it was by consequences attracting a certain type of player.
Let's see 2042.
(we saw this direction start to appear before, BFV been quite a signal)
- player run and move at a superhuman speed, jump and climb in 0.5s some 2m tall object and fences
- vehicles are not here to escort infantry, but are fun things on their own, in mass quantity, and mass murder infantry. Can even pop out anywhere (hell, even roof)
- you have a face, a personality, you are not a soldier with a role you hare a hero with tricks. You have cool looking outfit that doesn't reflect what you can do, but make you "unique".
- you can do and be whatever you want with whatever combinaison you want, no matter your "character"
- you have a leader on the paper but he can't do anything you can't
- environment is half interactive (mostly due to map design)
- no more mode HARDCORE
It's a simple key point comparaison. Between what along opus defined BF DNA, what's left in 2042 (nothing).
___________
Now we are not lacking of games nowadays, the simple no class cool quick hero trendy individualist shooters are countless. But, we still had this sweet spot that was BF. This slightly more serious and rude game. Pretty much the only one of his genre done by a AAA studio.
EA came back with a marketing that was saying out loud "the real BF is back" : people expected a game that smell in everyway the BF DNA.
People discovered that pretty much none of the DNA was there. The disappearance of the class to replace them by heros being one of the most obvious change ... well it was the cherry on the icing, the greatest beautiful final middle finger from EA to the BF's fans.
Classes core idea was aligned with the core design of BF. To give you a role as a soldier, to structure things. While specialist (and not only through their outfit and cheesy lines), by the hero approach instead of soldier, the zero restriction (create your own recipe) etc ... diluted the notion of role and promoted the individualist style. Removing all the structure and organization. Wiped by the super dude that can do everything.
Which goes among with the messy unorganized gameplay that 2042 suffer from. Heros clones flying jumping around with "tricks". No idea who does what. Vehicle absolutely everywhere passing by at 300 km/h.
___________
Consequences, so many people say specialist doesn't belong to BF. And it's not subjective approach, it's remarks based on BF DNA. Now one could say, it's evolution, games change over years, so do BF. But evolution doesn't means turning your back on your own licence to attract a completely different customer target. Which is obviously what EA just tried. And i emphasis the "tried" because number speak for themselves, it's a failure. Indeed Specialist is not the only source of it, but it's a whole. The specialist concept is a huge part of the problem linked to this new approach of the gameplat that do not fit a NF
___________
So i'll turn around the question. What good does the specialist bring in a BATTLEFIELD game. And i don't count the more free weapon choice as argument, this simple change could have been easily done with classes adjustment.
Like allowing all classes to pick an Assault Riffle if they wanted. While giving each of them one kind of weapon specific to their role.
And some of the cool specialist tricks ideas as primary gadget choice (let's remember specialist are in fact gadget slot 1)
