@Twordy wrote:
@TickTack121I would love to see the modern battlefield in the same manner as 2/3 and 4. Suppression wasn`t a bad thing, actually, the game felt more balanced thanks to that. Normal Conquest /Breakthrough for 64 and 32 players. I would love to see the destruction that is present in BC2 or BFV. A beautifully crafted world with well-thought environments and something similar to choke points on the map. All-Out-Freakout is a huge 128 player package with fire attrition, trade-offs, and downgrade labels.
Problematic is the incorporation of specialists into a class system without hampering a spine of Conquest. Without strictly formed classes the concept of paper, rock, scissors mechanic is simply gone in Conquest. Without specified roles, CQ becomes fire attrition (all weapons available at the same time) TDM with vehicles and no clear objective.
The role of a Commander, Squad Leader used to be crucial, fun, and engaging. No Squad Management, no VoIP, no global chat, no proper scoreboard, no dedicated servers, the poor map design and gameplay solutions, terrible one-liners, the worst soundtrack in BFs history, and many other things nobody asked for is a package of nails and planks to the BFs coffin.
You extended my post in a perfect way. So again the short form for everyone: Please Dice, ask the players (e.g. regular surveys) what is good about a game and use that for the next game (probably nothing from BF2042, but a lot from BFV) and rework the bad things. I really don't understand what is so hard about that.
They could use BF2/3 and 4 as the concept to get the idea and theme from, while using the BFV core (movement, destruction, gunplay, physics) and focus on fixing the bugs. I bet this game would be 100x better than anything in BF2042. I mean even BF3 in portal sucks, because of the bad core of 2042...
