New Open vs. Closed Weapons Feedback After Blog Post

Are you referring to this article?
https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-6/news/community-update-play-your-way

If so, I think you need to read the article again. You did not understand the content. The class pick rate was almost identical between the two playlists, with a 1-2% difference at most. That does not mean that the difference in people playing the open vs closed playlist is 1-2%.

"Lastly, another key insight from the Open Beta was that the vast majority of players, after trying both playlist types, chose to stick with Open Weapons. This reinforces our belief that Open Weapons is the right path forward for Battlefield 6. At the same time, we recognize that some players prefer the Closed Weapons experience. To support them, official Closed Weapons playlists will be available at launch."

This is the key point:

"At the same time, we recognize that some players prefer the Closed Weapons experience. To support them, official Closed Weapons playlists will be available at launch."

I played a lot of the Battlefield series and I played in the BF6 open beta, and I saw no actual problems with the difference between open or closed weapon playlists.

Other people's opinions may differ.

I don't know what you expected from the people that lied to us about getting a server browser only for it to be a Portal browser which was already a thing.

I've read that this is heavily debated, but in an IGN poll I saw that the vast majority of the voters wanted a closed weapon system. According to the IGN poll, which at the time of this post has 2406 voters, 24.8% preferred open, 60.2% preferrred closed, and 15% had no preference.  I think it could improve the game for numberous reasons. Stick with what made BF great.

It establishes clear roles. Players immediately know what their class does, which makes teamwork and objective play more effective. It balances gameplay. Limiting weapons per class makes it easier for devs to tune guns and gadgets without breaking the game. It encourages team work. If classes specialize, you rely on your squad for different abilities, which makes matches more strategic and fun. It makes progression more fun. Unlocking and mastering class-specific weapons feels more rewarding when you can’t just pick the best gun for everything. Newer players will be more comfy. Closed classes make it easier to learn one class at a time instead of being overwhelmed by every weapon in the game.

I also think it would be awesome if DICE ran an in-game poll at release to see what the community prefers. Something like:

1) Closed classes (each class has its own weapons/gadgets)

2) Hybrid (core weapons are locked, but limited cross-class options exist)

3) Open classes (all weapons available for all classes)

4) No preference

I know you're trying to listen to the fans, so make their voices heard. I think basing the decisions on gameplay strictly on the Beta is misguided.

I literally haven't talked to anyone or read anyone even saying they want open weapons class

Most players are not on the forums, or will ever see a IGN poll. I have not seen or heard of this poll. The players that engage in this discussion is not usually the average player.. and most players that are happy with the open system solution do not feel the need to make their voice heard, as the open weapon system is default in the game, and the developers has already said that this is the route they are taking. 2406 voters is not a lot of data, and is likely very biased. The data from the open beta is much more based and far more trustworthy.

generalchampine wrote:

It establishes clear roles. Players immediately know what their class does

No, the class itself does not become more intuitive by closing the weapons. The roles are still similar, however a open weapon system offers more variety, which could be viewed as a positive. I at least think it is.

generalchampine wrote:

which makes teamwork and objective play more effective.

generalchampine wrote:

It encourages team work. If classes specialize, you rely on your squad for different abilities, which makes matches more strategic and fun. It makes progression more fun.

This is in my opinion false, and for a lot of players it is the complete opposite. By closing the weapons you hinder teamwork. 

I will likely play BF6 solo a lot, as I do not have that many friends that plays fps games that much. I would for example want to play support in many scenarios, so that I can focus on team play and feel that I contribute to my squad by resupplying, healing and reviving my team mates if that is needed. However, If you close the weapons I will simply not play support because I am forced to play with a weapon type that I do not like. Then I will instead pick assault class and play for my self whenever I play solo.. and the only way I will be playing as a team is if the squad plays around, and supports me. Let's be honest, that never happens. This just makes the game way less fun. 

Closed weapons makes the class system more redundant.. as players will pick class based on weapon instead. 

generalchampine wrote:

Limiting weapons per class makes it easier for devs to tune guns and gadgets without breaking the game.

No, it is not that hard to balance, and the weapons and classes needs to be balanced regardless of a open or closed weapon system. 

generalchampine wrote:

Newer players will be more comfy. Closed classes make it easier to learn one class at a time instead of being overwhelmed by every weapon in the game.

No, no one is feeling overwhelmed by their ability to choose their desired weapon. Newer players will be more annoyed that they are forced to play with weapons they do not like, and they will stick to certain classes instead of engaging in an actual good class system that could be interesting for them, but instead you are forcing a weird restriction that should not be there. 

A open class system provides more variation in the way we play the game, more variation in builds and more interesting gameplay. 

In the end the open weapon system is better for majority of players. If you personally do not like it you can play the game as you want, and there is nothing stopping you from using the signature weapons, even in a open weapon system, but stop forcing that on everyone else. Let me play the game as I want. 

generalchampine wrote:

I also think it would be awesome if DICE ran an in-game poll at release to see what the community prefers.

That could work, it might be a good idea. It is important, as you say, that it is in-game and available to real players without having to access a forum or poll somewhere else. It should probably be out for a couple of weeks after release, and you should only be asked to vote after you reach a certain level, so you have a better understanding of your preference. 

No, the class itself does not become more intuitive by closing the weapons.

It answers a simple question, "What engagement distance am I supposed to engage at?". Snipers intuitively stay further away. Support given that the machine gun often has slower ADS time, or is less accurate when firing on the move, is automatically moved towards a more defensive role. Submachine guns are pushed towards aggressive CQB play at the front lines, as they traditionally have poor range, but have excellent hipfire and shooting on the move statistics. The assault rifle is somewhat ambiguous though, which due to its versatility does not push players towards a playstyle. In my opinion that's more intuitive.

The designers knew exactly what they were doing by making open weapons the most accessible and first available game mode. It allowed them to use biased numbers to justify a position they already held.

This is a behavior often referred to as "The Tyranny of the Default". 

If a class is defined by the engagement distance, then I agree with you. I don't think that it should be though. In my opinion a class is defined by the utility it brings to the team, and you can play with different weapons at different distances and still provide the same underlying role. Having closed weapons does not necessarily make the players immediately know what their class does, and I do not think it is a positive thing that we force players to play a certain way either. 

Engagement distance is just one (potential) part of the identity and so is the utility it brings to the team. If you're clearing buildings, you're not doing the same job as when you're occupying the high ground and spotting everyone in a large area. Similarly, you won't be healing anyone if you're far way from your teammates. This means that the engagement distance in many cases dictates the kind of utility that you can bring to your team. Whether that's a positive thing is an entirely different question, but in terms of intuitiveness the weapon you play does make an impact.