Open vs locked weapons per class
Traditionally Battlefield has always been about classes, and with that came class locked weapons. This how it was and how it should be! One of the big mistakes they made with BF2042 was to first int...
Forum Discussion
A sniper should not be able to resupply themselves + have instant health regen + deployable cover or trophy system. It basically makes them a one man army. At least without the ability to resupply themselves they would have to seek out a support player for ammo. Not to mention supports should be on the front lines of the fight SUPPORTING the team. It destroys the team dynamic.
Huh? What are you on about? It's one player, how would they be able to do all of that? Classes have limited and locked gadgets. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. No one can do everything. You're just making stuff up at this point.
How is it at all going to create synergy when my support is sitting 500m away from where I need to be as an engineer or assault?
The person 500 meters away will do so no matter what you're presenting here. Nothing you have said will fix that. You can kick people from your squad, or find some people to play with. Locking primary weapons won't magically make some random play the way you want them to play.
You can't seem to make one valid argument here.
Huh? What are you on about? It's one player, how would they be able to do all of that? Classes have limited and locked gadgets. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. No one can do everything. You're just making stuff up at this point.
I can't believe I have to break it down like this for you.
CLASS = SUPPORT = AMMO, HEALTH, DEPLOYABLE SHIELD, TROPHY
WEAPON = SNIPER
SNIPER DOES NOT = CLASS
The person 500 meters away will do so no matter what you're presenting here. Nothing you have said will fix that. You can kick people from your squad, or find some people to play with. Locking primary weapons won't magically make some random play the way you want them to play.
It's not about the PERSON it's about the CLASS that person has to pick to enable themselves to sit 500m away. A guy who picks an AR/Carbine/SMG isn't going to be 500m away from the objective. The person who plays RECON and has a kit designed for sitting off objective which is fine, but they will eventually run out of ammo and rely on their team to resupply. They also won't have access to instant health regen which gives them a massive edge in a fight.
You can't seem to make one valid argument here.
You are either choosing to miss the point or cannot/did not read what I wrote.
So you having an issue with the support being able to have ammo, heals, deployable shield, and a sniper sounds more like a class balancing concern. I've already explained how to balance that. Split up ammo and heals between classes? Map design plays a HUGE role in how many snipers you'll have on the field. People who want to snipe, they're gonna snipe bud. No way around that. They'll die 99% of the time before they need to resupply. The type of player that camps and snipes, usually they get very few kills per round. Better players don't camp like that and snipe.
I don't think heals are instant either, and they're definitely on a cool down.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't like your approach to balancing classes and weapons. I think its backwards, and you're making issues out of nothing. All of your concerns revolve around sniping, it's trivial.
Snipers and Shotguns are the only weapons that should be locked if they're going to limit primaries. Outside of that, I disagree with that approach, and have explained with scenarios how that has no practical effect on the game.
I keep reading your post, you keep saying the exact same thing. You don't budge. You don't discuss. Your mind is completely made up with no room to debate any nuance whatsoever.
So you having an issue with the support being able to have ammo, heals, deployable shield, and a sniper sounds more like a class balancing concern. I've already explained how to balance that. Split up ammo and heals between classes? Map design plays a HUGE role in how many snipers you'll have on the field. People who want to snipe, they're gonna snipe bud. No way around that. They'll die 99% of the time before they need to resupply. The type of player that camps and snipes, usually they get very few kills per round. Better players don't camp like that and snipe.
No, I have an issue with support enabling completely self-sufficient gameplay. May as well give them the RPG while we are at it. Map design is not the issue here at all, nor is it the topic of this thread. Sure the map design MIGHT play a small role in how many sniper (weapons) are out there, but allowing those who choose a sniper rifle to also for example have an RPG available as engineer enables a whole other can of worms if they can just sit back snipe and shoot vehicles. It's much harder to root out the sniper whose locking me with a stinger or blasting me with an RPG every second. Again my problem isn't with people who want to snipe my problem is with enabling these kits with too much power and self-sufficiency.
I don't think heals are instant either, and they're definitely on a cool down.
It's the availability of the heal that's the problem. They can re-peek sooner making them more oppressive.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't like your approach to balancing classes and weapons. I think its backwards, and you're making issues out of nothing. All of your concerns revolve around sniping, it's trivial.
My concerns do not all revolve around sniping you've just zeroed in on that in an attempt to trivialize my argument. I've stated several times that assault becomes nearly worthless in open playlists and that supports who can equip ARs essentially nullifies them. I have stated that an abundance of people playing support is BAD for team synergy leading to significantly longer matches and stalemates.
I keep reading your post, you keep saying the exact same thing. You don't budge. You don't discuss. Your mind is completely made up with no room to debate any nuance whatsoever.
Yes, because my stance is for closed weapons. That's how discussions and debate work. Why would I concede my stance without you offering anything to sway my stance? All you've done is say my points are invalid instead of explaining WHY you want open weapons and why they are better for game-design and balance. Saying "because I like it" or "I only use ARs" is not a valid reason. Those are not game-design and balance issues. Those are you issues.
I've already rebutted several reasons you could offer such as more medics on the field and I've stated that's actually a bad thing for game-balance for several reasons. If you can name some reason that isn't selfish then I'd be willing to "budge" perhaps.
