Open vs locked weapons per class

RaginSam wrote:

Who cares that a sniper can resupply themselves?

I do.

It diminishes the teamplay aspect of the game, and makes it so a person can sit in one spot and just hold it down indefinitely.
It also makes it so engineers can sit back and snipe while keeping vehicles up on larger maps, straining vehicle play even more.
It makes recons unbalanced, they can take the best AR or SMG and sit with a TUGS just controlling parts of the map instead of being limited by their weapon choice.

Carbines and DMRs are powerful enough for an "open weapon" category while still having some drawbacks. Why even bother having classes if we are just going to allow all weapons? Let's just make a hero shooter like 2042 again. It's like we learned nothing from that mess.

Furthermore, it keeps the game from becoming CoD. Having locked weapons allows the player to make decisions based on the class they are going up against. I don't have to sit there and be like oh is that engineer going to snipe me? Or is that guy going to have an AR and mow me down outside of my effective range with my SMG". It's a similar idea to the character silhouette's in Overwatch. I know when I see a Reaper I can be like "oh okay shotguns better keep my distance." It helps make gameplay flow better and having drawbacks makes the classes feel more unique.

RaginSam wrote:

A lot of issues are going to arise more so from the maps being too small and with players being able to spawn in big groups too quickly. I think that's what needs the most attention honestly. 

The map sizes are not the issue Siege of Cairo and Iberian Offensive are about the same size as Seine Crossing which is a beloved BF3 map. They play just fine and they play better when you don't have an engineer sitting back with a sniper who can just pick off your guys from their side of the map while keeping a tank alive who is doing the same.

People will choose what weapon they'd like to run before worrying about what class they're going to play. 

And why would that be? Because it is catered for by EA/Dice! During the beta on the open modes almost everybody and their grandma was running an AR, they might as well remove all the other guns from the game.
This travesty of open weapons was introduced in BF2042, not coincidentally the worst installment in the entire franchise.

Open weapons is a CoD mechanic and it’’s clear who they are trying to cater for, Battlefield has always been about the class system with locked weapons.

The player that is going to sit and back and snipe is going to do that regardless of any counter you have presented. Map design IS the answer to that, it's not just about the size of the map, but more so about the sight lines. 

The point of Classes is about what gadgets players can carry. It's supposed to incentivize teamwork and create synergy between them. Recon guy brings spawn beacon, places it near the point, medic can full rez faster than other roles in the squad, engineer can fight vehicles, and so on. To maximize a squad effectiveness, it's best to play different roles, and I think BF6 actually does a good job of this. Weapons play zero role in this. If one class has the best weapon for close quarters, everyone in that squad will run that class then. 

You keep moving past the point of people will pick whatever weapon they want to use first, then they'll worry about the class. Like you said, this isn't a hero shooter, yet you bring one up, kinda ironic. The funny thing is, it rarely matters to know what class you're fighting in Battlefield. Fights last in the milliseconds and a lot of times at medium ranges. It doesn't matter one bit what the other guy is running concerning weapons, it's not going to change my decision making at all. Overwatch is a bad comparison for a Battlefield game. 

Locking weapons to certain classes is a clickbait tactic used by content creators. That's all it is. Stop falling for it. 

I was switching between a few weapons myself. I really liked using SMG's. 

What about COD are you trying to compare though? COD plays a lot different than BF does, it has a completely different design philosophy. Any game will have a meta, that will never change. One weapon will always out perform others, until the devs do an update and change the meta to freshen up things. Nearly every shooter functions this way. And that's all they can do when you have 10 of the same weapon type. It's just about which feels best to you and which ones are viable in a particular meta. You don't have to follow metas, but usually more fun to do so. 

All weapons should have similar TTK, but at different ranges, so here's hypothetically how they should be balanced (distances are just made up to illustrate my point):

SMG's should have the fastest TTK under 20 meters, damage drops off after that, then AR's become the top choice for medium encounters. 

LMG's should have similar TTK to AR at the same range, the penalty for using a LMG should be less accurate hip fire, and longer time to ADS. The benefit is holding down angles without having to reload, and possibly the only weapon that should have suppression fire. 

Shotguns should be very niche, and used for clearing out rooms basically. They should be only one hit under 5 meters or something like that. 

Weapons should have defined roles, the problem is that sometimes it doesn't feel good then to use LMG's, especially the smaller the map is. Also, the community cried about the ADS speed of LMG's, which I can understand to a point, but we gotta figure out a way to define the roles of different weapons somehow. 

I am in favor of locking weapons, at least in vehicular game modes, for a few reasons.

I`ve been playing BF for 2 decades since BF2 2004-5. I do not want BF to become a soulless generic shooter just to hit microtransaction goals.  A title without depth and gameplay mechanics that promote solo play instead of squad play.

It is not fun to do your meta build with another friend while having a glitched weapon on release day. 

Having a sniper rifle with a med and ammo bag at the top of the mountain is beyond me. I am glad that Spawn Beacon is going to be taken away from Recon. Ultimately, Beacon is given to a class that needs to be at the spearhead of the push. Instead, grant Disruption Beacon to Sniper. To counter loitering/smart ammunition, UAV scans, and lower active spot icon overhead.  

LMGs should be more accurate and powerful than ARs with deployed bipods. M60 should deal a lot of damage. Now I feel like I am shooting with a Carbine. I am seeing too many hit markers; TTK is very long. LMGs should be strong at the cost of mobility. So, in other words, players who are less prone to push might still enjoy the game. Whoever said that all classes have to be at the spearhead of aggressive play is deeply mistaken.

Assault Rifle should stay with the Assault Class. Also, Assault must have the option of an attachable Grenade Launcher underneath the barrel. Assault or Squad Leader should always have a Rally Spawn Beacon. This class should take aggressive action to push forward. Not Support, AT, or Recon/Sniper. There has to be a class formidable in all ranges - Assault. Some classes take a defensive perimeter role at close or long range. 

An engineer should only worry about sitting in a vehicle as a gunner or repairing it! On the other hand, the Engineer focuses on destroying any incoming vehicle. Allowing Engineers more aggressive play with ARs puts this class off balance. Promotes running and gunning instead of playing a dedicated role. Engineers' perimeter is not LMGs, ARs, Sniper Rifles'. An engineer should be interested in what is all nearby him. Engineers should not be able to equip two types of Anti-Tank Rockets. Probably the Engineer should not equip Anti-Tank Rockets and Anti-Aerial Vehicles Rocket Launcher at the same time.

It is about the point/score system. Some of the stuff is intertwined. Not everyone has to be a skilled aimer with bunny hops, crouch slides, and dolphin dives.

If everything is available to everyone, such action heavily disrupts the gameplay. Promotes the behaviour that should not be promoted in the first place. All gadgets and weapons available destroy the DYNAMIC difference between vehicular play VS infantry play. 

Overall, I think that splitting the community is the worst part. I may play with open weapons, but Class Weapon Traits have to be meaningful. 

No, no, no, God please nooo, noooooo... Snipers should not resupply themselves or spawn all the time in the same place wit the Spawn Beacon. Snipers should cover the back of your squadmates... not the entire map at random. AT/Engineers should focus on blowing up vehicles or repairs, not on primary weapon killstreaks. LMGs having similar TTK to ARs... please give me a break. Support should stay a little bit behind Assault and act as a Support! Assault should have more ammo and nades than any other class and lead the attack. No Grenade Launcher with smoke cannisters is catastrophic on Breakthrough. 

Sorry lads. That is what I think after 20+ years. 

RaginSam wrote:

The player that is going to sit and back and snipe is going to do that regardless of any counter you have presented. Map design IS the answer to that, it's not just about the size of the map, but more so about the sight lines. 

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. 

RaginSam wrote:

The point of Classes is about what gadgets players can carry. It's supposed to incentivize teamwork and create synergy between them. Recon guy brings spawn beacon, places it near the point, medic can full rez faster than other roles in the squad, engineer can fight vehicles, and so on. To maximize a squad effectiveness, it's best to play different roles, and I think BF6 actually does a good job of this. Weapons play zero role in this. If one class has the best weapon for close quarters, everyone in that squad will run that class then. 

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? Gadgets do create more class identity and that identity pushes them into a specific role. The weapons given to them are designed to fit in that role. LMGs are meant to be used at mid range to keep enemies suppressed allowing you to move up and rez teammates. Do they need a bit of a dmg or recoil buff? Sure, but they also need to carry a trade off which is usually movement speed which is eliminated by the support class perk. The reason you see more medics in open is because everyone can just play support and make themselves entirely self-sufficient which is not how Battlefield is played. You'll likely see less engineers in open which means vehicle play gets indirectly buffed. Weapons absolutely play a role in this they provide a tool to use for the designated ranges at which that class should be during a match.

RaginSam wrote:

You keep moving past the point of people will pick whatever weapon they want to use first, then they'll worry about the class. Like you said, this isn't a hero shooter, yet you bring one up, kinda ironic. The funny thing is, it rarely matters to know what class you're fighting in Battlefield. Fights last in the milliseconds and a lot of times at medium ranges. It doesn't matter one bit what the other guy is running concerning weapons, it's not going to change my decision making at all. Overwatch is a bad comparison for a Battlefield game. 

I move past that point because it's a stupid point. When you choose a role to play you accept the pros and the cons of that role. That's what leads to a class feeling unique and not having stale metas where everyone is using the AS-VAL because if you aren't you are at a disadvantage.

Also, it absolutely matters knowing what class you are fighting. I know that a support with an LMG might be a bit easier to flank or get the jump on because they are going to have a slower ADS. I know that the engineer is using an SMG so he will be limited by range. I know that a recon has one chance to dome me and that he can see me on his TUGS when I'm close. I know that an assault might shell me with a grenade launcher if I stay in this cover for too long. It absolutely should change your decision making, if it isn't you need to rethink how you play the game. Sure the fights last milliseconds in a pitched battle. If you are using cover and taking your time to move and take specific fights then the decision making process has a larger window.

Overwatch is not the best comparison from a gameplay perspective, but I was not talking about the gameplay of Overwatch. It's funny how you ignored that part. Kind of ironic that it was self-serving, since that's what open weapons will lead to. I was speaking about how hero silhouettes and thus the kit that they utilize are similar to understanding the kit that is available to a Battlefield class. It lets the player streamline their decision making instead of having to consider the range at which their enemy is going to be effective.

Open weapons means you will see less class diversity. Everyone will choose support because it is self-sustaining destroying the team play element of the game. You'll then end up with stalemates where it's just medics endlessly reviving each other. Assaults become irrelevant at that point because why would you ever pick one? When you can just have a support that does it better. Assaults get the best weapon because they have the weakest gadgets. Supports get the best utility. Engineers support vehicles and destroy them. Recons provide a place to regroup and re-push with their redeploy as well as information for the team. These clearly defined roles come with clearly defined engagement distances based on the weapons available. Assault front-line, Support mid-line, Engineer keeping vehicles in check, Recon back-line. The only Battlefield game that didn't have these roles clearly defined was 2042 and it was a colossal disaster for too many reasons, I do not want to see that happen again to BF6.

What makes Battlefield unique is the necessity of teamwork — medics reviving, engineers repairing, support resupplying, and recon providing intel. If everyone can carry everything, those natural interdependencies — the heartbeat of Battlefield — disappear, and so does the essence of its teamplay.

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.

No one can carry everything. We're talking about what primary weapons roles can use. 

Each class has unique gadgets and abilities only they can use. Locked primary weapons is so that certain classes wouldn't be able to use certain weapons, like an SMG for Recon or something. Which is objectively silly, antiquated, and has nothing to do with balancing the game. 

You keep moving past the point of people will pick whatever weapon they want to use first, then they'll worry about the class

Just as you keep moving past the point that people will do so because the opportunity is given to them. Prior to BF2042 this issue did not exist. I would always pick the class based on what the match needed at that moment, not which primary weapon that class had. It brought more depth to my gameplay as it forced me to use other weapons, otherwise I would probably never touch a sniper rifle and with that the different play style it requires.

You call it antiquated, I call it part of the Battlefield identity. As others said, removing locked weapons to classes makes Battlefield a generic shooter like any other, or make it another Battlefield 2042.

Locking weapons to certain classes is a clickbait tactic used by content creators. That's all it is. Stop falling for it. 

I’m at an age that I don’t watch content creators and form my own opinion. An opinion which is based on playing years and years of Battlefield. 

The point of Classes is about what gadgets players can carry.

No, the point of classes is about the balance of it all, gadgets, weapons, traits and visuals. 
And with balance I mean the rock paper scissors that Battlefield is known for and which promotes teamwork. I don’t want a recon guy putting down his Tugs or recon drone, or whatever spotting device may come to the base game, light up his minimap like a Christmas tree and sprint in a room with an AR, SMG or Shotgun. And to top it off he has a spawn beacon close by to rinse and repeat when he died.