Battlefield Reconsider Class Design, Faction Asymmetry, and Loadout Realism

Dear EA/DICE Battlefield Team,

I’ve been a Battlefield fan since Battlefield 1942—back when CD keys lived on the back of the manual. What hooked me then, and kept me loyal through the years, was Battlefield’s identity: teamwork first, objective play, and grounded realism. It felt like I was part of a unit, not just chasing personal stats.

Since the Bad Company era, a core design choice has puzzled me: the four-class structure with largely mirrored, cross-faction weapon pools. I want to explain why that change, compared with Battlefield 2, undercuts the series’ unique appeal—and offer concrete ways to bring that magic back while keeping modern customization.

How BF2’s Design Made Every Match Feel Fresh (and Why BF6 Feels Flatter by Comparison)

• Faction identity & asymmetric weapons:
  In BF2, U.S. forces used U.S. rifles, Chinese forces used Chinese rifles, Russians used AKs, etc. That meant each round felt new. You adapted to your side’s kit and to the enemy’s strengths/weaknesses. In BF6, when both teams largely share the same guns, that asymmetry—and the learning/adaptation curve that made the series compelling—disappears.
• Specialized classes fostering teamwork:
  BF2’s roles were genuinely interdependent: engineer/anti-tank, spec ops, support/LMG, medic, recon. No one soldier could do everything. You needed teammates. By compressing roles into four broad classes (and allowing powerful cross-gadget/rifle combinations), BF6 reduces that strategic interlock and pushes the game toward self-sufficiency over squad reliance.
• Meta vs mastery:
  In BF2, the “best” choice varied by faction, map, and role. You had to learn different guns and playstyles—M4 vs AK tradeoffs, etc.—rather than defaulting to a single meta setup used every match. That variety is a huge part of long-term replay value.

Shotgun Feedback (Big Kudos, But Wrong Pairings)

First, credit where it’s due: the shotgun tuning in BF6 is excellent. It’s devastating at proper close ranges and appropriately weak outside them. Please don’t nerf that core identity.

The problem is kit pairing: putting a great shotgun on the same class that can also field a strong long-range rifle and a rocket launcher is unrealistic and overpowered in practice. From a believability standpoint, a soldier wouldn’t realistically carry ample ammunition for a full-length rifle, a shotgun, and anti-armor—plus gadgets—without heavy tradeoffs. From a balance standpoint, one player covering extreme close, mid/long, and anti-vehicle breaks the need for squad composition.

Concrete proposal:

• Make the shotgun a primary within Engineer/Anti-Tank (or a similar close-range utility role).
• Pair rocket launchers with shotguns (AT + breaching) as a deliberate “close-range/vehicle denial” identity.
• Keep assault rifles with pistols, not shotguns and rockets.
• Keep LMGs in a distinct Support class with ammo/resupply identity.
• Preserve Recon/Spec Ops as a separate role for sensors, counter-sniper, sabotage, and tactical insertions.

This preserves your excellent shotgun feel while restoring role boundaries that encourage team play.

Bring Back Asymmetric Factions (and Smart Unlocks)

One of Battlefield’s biggest differentiators used to be playing against a different toolbox:

• U.S. could field something like a Javelin—heavier, slower, but devastating vs armor.
• Russians might rely on RPG variants—lighter, quicker to shoulder, more rounds, but weaker per shot.
• Chinese/other factions get their own authentic equivalents.

That asymmetry forces teams to adapt their tactics: flanking vs front-on AT, positioning vs mobility, etc. It also recaptures the excitement of swapping sides because you’re not just mirroring the same kits.

About unlocks: keep progression—it’s fun—but scope it smartly:

• Allow some universal attachments and a small set of cross-faction weapons for progression satisfaction.
• Keep signature faction rifles/launchers faction-bound so identity and asymmetry remain intact.
• Consider a light encumbrance model where heavier AT (e.g., Javelin) trades sprint speed/ADS speed for power, while lighter RPG loadouts offer agility but require teamwork to finish vehicles.

Where BF6 Sits Today vs BF1/BF4 (and How It Could Leapfrog Them)

From the beta, BF6 is good—but for me it doesn’t surpass BF1’s atmosphere or BF4’s combined-arms feel, partly because of these class/weapon identity issues (BF4 suffered some of this too). The good news: you’ve nailed the maps, destruction, buildings, and modern visuals. If you pair that with BF2-style class clarity and faction asymmetry, you’ll create something that stands apart from arcade shooters and hardcore mil-sims alike—the exact “sweet spot” Battlefield historically owned.

Cosmetics: Stay in Battlefield’s Lane

Cosmetics are fine, but please keep them grounded and authentic. Outlandish skins (e.g., bright/pink rifles, novelty designs) clash with Battlefield’s tone. Players who want that style have other franchises. Battlefield’s comparative advantage is authenticity + teamwork.

Specific Requests & Questions

1. Why maintain only four broad classes with mirrored weapon pools across factions?
2. Would you consider expanding classes back toward BF2’s specialized roster (Engineer/AT, Support/LMG, Assault/Medic, Recon/Spec Ops), with clear gadget/weapon boundaries?
3. Will you reassign the shotgun to a role where it belongs (Engineer/AT) rather than stacking it with long-range rifles and launchers?
4. Are you open to faction-unique weapon pools and authentic AT asymmetry (e.g., heavier Javelin-style vs lighter RPG-style), balanced by encumbrance/mobility tradeoffs?
5. Would you pilot a playlist or limited-time mode that enforces BF2-inspired rules (role specialization, faction-unique weapons, restricted cross-gadget stacking) to gather data?

TL;DR

• Keep the shotgun exactly as tuned (it’s spot-on).
• Separate roles so one class can’t dominate all ranges and anti-vehicle at once.
• Reintroduce faction asymmetry and authentic kit identity (BF2 spirit).
• Keep customization, but limit cross-faction sameness so matches feel fresh and teams play differently.
• Keep cosmetics grounded.

I want to be completely honest. Battlefield 2042 was a flop. It wasn’t ready, it didn’t run properly, and releasing it in that state damaged a lot of the community’s trust. What hurts most is that Battlefield has already proven, years ago, how good it can be—Battlefield 2142 in 2006 was one of the best games ever made.

2142 was futuristic, yes, but it also had core design elements that have never been matched. Titans, for example, created an experience unlike anything else. Starting a round by capturing missile silos, dropping Titan shields, and then storming aboard for the final core destruction was incredible. The teamwork, the tension, the shift in objectives—those mechanics created a Battlefield experience that was about strategy and cooperation, not individual kill-death ratios. And when the Titan core blew and you had 60 seconds to evacuate, no one cared about stats—it was about the mission. That kind of innovation and immersion is what makes Battlefield great.

By contrast, newer titles sometimes feel like they are chasing trends set by other games, especially Call of Duty. Slide-cancelling mechanics, for example, are unnecessary and break immersion. They don’t fit Battlefield’s identity. The same goes for overly flashy skins and arcade-like gunplay. Please don’t try to copy what streamers hype—Battlefield should stay unique, grounded, and true to its roots.

Realism matters. Right now, players can stand and fire rifles or even sniper rifles with perfect accuracy, like laser beams. In reality, shooting while standing should be unstable. Going prone should make you more accurate, but also come with real penalties—taking longer to get up and reposition. Sniping should be about finding the right location, setting up, and carefully lining up shots, not bunny-hopping behind rocks and instantly firing. That’s not fun or realistic.

Battlefield has always thrived when it leaned into its own strengths: teamwork, scale, destruction, unique objectives, and grounded realism. You don’t need to follow battle royale trends or streamer-driven mechanics to succeed. You already own some of the best gameplay concepts in FPS history—like Titans in 2142, or the naval combat variant with carriers in Battlefield 4. Please bring those back. They were special, and they gave Battlefield its own identity in the FPS space.

To sum up my requests:

• Don’t repeat the mistakes of 2042—release games when they’re ready, polished, and stable.
• Stop chasing trends like slide-cancelling and flashy arcade mechanics. Battlefield should be Battlefield.
• Reintroduce unique large-scale objectives like Titans—they set Battlefield apart from every other shooter.
• Make gunplay feel authentic, with real trade-offs for standing, crouching, or going prone.
• Keep skins grounded and realistic rather than cartoonish.

Battlefield has the potential to once again be the best FPS series of the decade. But to get there, it has to stop trying to be something else and return to the values that made it great: teamwork, realism, and truly unique gameplay.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I—and many other long-time players—would love to see Battlefield reclaim its place as the most distinctive and memorable FPS franchise.

I pre-ordered because I want Battlefield to be the best version of itself. With your current tech and maps, leaning back into role specialization, faction identity, and objective-first teamwork could make BF6 the standout entry fans talk about for years.

Again thank you for reading and for any insight you can share on the four-class decision and whether these changes are under consideration.

lets make battlefield great again. lol.