Open vs locked weapons per class

I think you all understand me wrong.

I do like both open & closed but now the option has been given i like to play the open more in bf6 beta.

The only game i actually play is Battlefield for the last 20 years or so. I pre ordered the Phantom edition and i will play it closed or open.

Im lazy, i don't get it, i don't belong, Battlefield was always a serious but fun shooter and you guys sound not fun at all.

Fortunately, I don't need to defend my arguments with these kinds of accusations

It's my opinion how could it be invalid? I like to equip a DMR as second rifle with Assault in open class so where "Do i poke a hole in my logic" 

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. 

If i take the open and closed system away for a moment and just look at the classes then this is the main problem for me, but i just go along and adapt with it.

I don't like the overal class setup, gadgets, specials etc.

Again it's my opinion but,

Assault, i like the primary weapons, the 2nd primary weapon option and grenade launcher thats it.

Support, I feel this should be Medic focused. It also needs something extra instead of only providing.

Engineer, I do like the rpg a lot and play alongside a tank. That's it.

Recon, i do not play this class "Just being honest im not good at it"

In previous titels i felt more connected to the classes. I do understand that it's a beta but we are only 2 months out. How much are they actually going to change?

TheCovenant98 wrote:

Im lazy, i don't get it, i don't belong, Battlefield was always a serious but fun shooter and you guys sound not fun at all.

I never said any of this, I said your argument was lazy and didn't make any sense, which I proved by responding with a mirrored question backed by several points.

TheCovenant98 wrote:

Fortunately, I don't need to defend my arguments with these kinds of accusations

You may not need to defend your arguments, but clearly you felt the need to weigh in here and would like to discuss this topic and discussions usually contain arguments or there wouldn't be much to discuss.

TheCovenant98 wrote:

It's my opinion how could it be invalid? I like to equip a DMR as second rifle with Assault in open class so where "Do i poke a hole in my logic" 

The hole in your logic is from the fact that you said you do not see the value in the assault class in a closed system. Which is inherently flawed logic because assault has even LESS value in an open system.

RaginSam 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. 

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.

RaginSam wrote:

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.

RaginSam wrote:

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.

RaginSam wrote:

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.

TheCovenant98 wrote:

Assault, i like the primary weapons, the 2nd primary weapon option and grenade launcher thats it.

So then you like just about everything that Assault offers. I don't get what the point of this comment is?

TheCovenant98 wrote:

Support, I feel this should be Medic focused. It also needs something extra instead of only providing.

The issue is not that it needs to be medic focused it already is. They have the fastest revive speed through defibs or through the new drag mechanic. It doesn't need anything "extra" they are support. Their role is to PROVIDE SUPPORT. 

TheCovenant98 wrote:

Engineer, I do like the rpg a lot and play alongside a tank. That's it.

So you like the engineer then just not the weapon. The problem is you have to trade power for utility when it comes to good game balance.

TheCovenant98 wrote:

In previous titels i felt more connected to the classes.

This is because in all previous titles EXCEPT 2042 the classes had locked weapons. You felt more connected because of the limitations and strengths of each class. They didn't all feel like one generic military guy shooting the same gun because that's the meta!

me as a tank or heli player are facing 32 snipers with a stinger.

The only thing you do is bashing opinions to defend a closed system thats not a discussion at all.

You clearly are trapped in you're own way of thinking. "I don't get the point, You're argument is invalid etc etc.

You're so incredibly tiring to talk to. Not because you're right, but because you're so full of yourself and your answers.

So the Assault class has only to offer what i wrote? Wrong, it has more so you're answer is already invalid.

You think support doesnt need something extra, i do. So you're invalid again because it's my opinion.

And lastly now you also now why i feel connected to a class or not? You just know for some reason INVALID AGAIN.

TheCovenant98 wrote:
The only thing you do is bashing opinions to defend a closed system thats not a discussion at all.

I'm sorry you feel that way, my stance on this issue is counter to yours. I haven't "bashed" your opinion at all though. I've stated several reasons why I disagree with your opinion and why your opinion isn't a reason for a sweeping change to a system with a proven track record.  Discussions contain arguments, it doesn't mean I dislike you, or I am trying to have a fight which is different from an argument. Am I supposed to just agree with your opinion and we can all just get along? Wouldn't be much to talk about then would there?

TheCovenant98 wrote:
You clearly are trapped in you're own way of thinking. "I don't get the point, You're argument is invalid etc etc.

I'm not trapped in my own thinking, I've actually thought about this subject far more than I'd like to admit. I've taken into account both sides and weighed them against each other. However, in a discussion it is on you to provide strong arguments to support your stance.

TheCovenant98 wrote:
You're so incredibly tiring to talk to. Not because you're right, but because you're so full of yourself and your answers.

This is called attrition. I'm not full of myself or my answers. How could you discern that from text on a screen? There is no smug tone to be found. I am however confident in my responses and answers. I take the time to think about them before I respond so that I am limiting the emotional response I give and only responding with logic.

TheCovenant98 wrote:
So the Assault class has only to offer what i wrote? Wrong, it has more so you're answer is already invalid.

You can't just say I'm wrong without saying WHY I'm wrong or at the very least explaining what else Assault offers. All you've done is state that I'm wrong and invalid and provided ZERO reason even when asked. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of.

TheCovenant98 wrote:
You think support doesnt need something extra, i do. So you're invalid again because it's my opinion.

Again you provide no reason here. Opinions do not equate to reason. While everyone is entitled to their opinions, those opinions are not automatically valid or rational simply because they are held. Reason requires a foundation of evidence, logical consistency, and a willingness to consider alternative perspectives. Your opinion is just a feeling that they need something extra until you state WHAT that extra thing they need is. Support is already the most well rounded class in the game so I see no need for anything more. Not to mention they will be getting other options for their utility items in the full release such as trophy systems.

TheCovenant98 wrote:
And lastly now you also now why i feel connected to a class or not? You just know for some reason INVALID AGAIN.

No, I don't precisely know why you feel connected to a class or not, but given what you said one can fairly assume that you are disconnected because of a lack of class identity and because the main thing that has changed in terms of class identity is open weapons then it is fair to assume that this is the cause, unless you state otherwise.

I don't care HOW you feel about the issue, I care about WHY you feel the way you do about the issue. Until you provide reason for your opinion then the conversation will remain static and I will appear as though I am being obstinate. Again, it's not on me to prove myself wrong.

It's also safe to assume that since you are on a discussion board you want to discuss this topic and I'm sorry, but it's both arrogant and ignorant if you can't be bothered to explain yourself. Are we all not good enough for you to explain why you hold the opinions you do? Talk about calling the kettle black, yikes.

Dude seriously?

You can't see that the Assaults class has more to offer then the 3 things i said in my comment?

So the Assault class has no signature gadget? no field spec? no signature trait?

Im out, im sorry...