Forum Discussion
@Psubond wrote: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 they can play in the framework of a traditional class if they want to. why do proponents of classes want to force that on others?
is it really that important to you to know someone is an engineer even though they may be running AT mines and a repair tool and not rockets? what if the support is carrying a mortar and claymores and not ammo. what does seeing their class really do for you? it doesn't tell you what they can do or what they are carrying
please explain to me what you actually GAIN from classes, because i can only see what you LOSE by having them
Classes have been a staple in the BF series and are 1 aspect of the game that separated it from one of its main competitors in the FPS genre (COD) outside of vehicle combat and structured game/team play. While BFV also had "heroes" they were cosmetic, had minor character development with trailers and lore, and were optional purchases with the base game. It also had multiple characters and uniform options for each class. The restrictions and lack of flexibility in previous titles all tied into the MILSIM aspect of the game: As a medic, I'm going to be running around with my squad and focused on keeping them alive thus I have gadgets and/or weapons that allow me to do so. But I also have an easily identifiable uniform (red cross, caduceus, stethoscope). My team knows who to ask for revives but the enemy knows what I'm capable of as well. They know I will have specific gadgets and guns and to target me to prevent me from reviving or healing. Without traditional restrictions, a lot of this is lost. I know that Boris will have a turret but I don't know for certain that he's equipped to heal his team, a repair tool, or camp with an LCMG. I can't immediately tell how they are most likely going to play when any weapon and gadget is available to them. I can't tell how anyone in my squad or their squad will play either. If I'm playing rock-paper-scissors I know what each hand looks like and how they interact with each other(rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, etc). In the military, I know that soldiers with the same uniform as me but different symbols on their arms or lots of "flair" on their chest may: outrank me, must be addressed in a specific way, and must have accomplished a lot in their career.
In a game like Call of Duty, classes are not necessary as most of the gameplay is based on being a super-soldier. I can run around get 3-4 kills in a row and then call in air support on my own. There is no true incentive in making sure my team covered all bases and has a diverse mix of weapons and gadgets as I can always respawn and select a new loadout. In 2042, I can do all of that and always call in a new loadout as Angel and be a super-soldier. While yes it helps to have other specialists there is no situation that can't be solved as an Angel with 4 different load-outs at my disposal and with 3 other squadmates as the same character we can do anything. In previous, games those limitations encouraged and rewarded diverse classes and playstyles. You had to know that the engineer may have an RPG or AA and in a tank could beat a vehicle in combat but would probably have trouble "beating that guy covered in branches and leaves" over distance. You know that the guy in the ghillie suit could beat a tank up close with C4 but would probably lose over distance(ignoring AT sniper rifles). You also knew their healing or ammo was limited.
In older games, your level was presented as a military rank and also tied into who could be commander or squad leader. This also meant that they would be able to coordinate with the commander for air support and orders. Ignoring the vehicle drops in 2042, a squad of 4 Angels again can do anything and does not need to rely on higher-ranking teammates or squad leaders as you did in the past.