Open/Closed Weapons: A Hybrid Solution
Premise: To resolve the Open/Closed weapon debate in a way that does not split the player base into two separate playlists, I am proposing a hybrid solution be adopted that incorporates both the ope...
Forum Discussion
There are already other threads about this. A hybrid solution could work, but I don't think this suggestion would solve the problem for me. I would still feel forced to choose a class based on my preferred weapon(s). An open class system is simply far better for most players, as it allows you to choose a class based on situation and promotes more tactical team play instead.
As an example I really liked playing the support class in the beta. I felt like I could contribute a lot to my squad in many situations. However if I am forced to play with an LMG as a support I would never play that class. This is not how the class system should feel like. I should pick my class based on the needs of the squad and the needs of the situation I am in. This is why a class system is a positive thing. If I only pick class based on the weapon, the system becomes redundant.
I understand your concern about splitting the player base, but It's better to just keep the weapons open as default.
If you are going to make a "hybrid system" I think more of the weapons needs to be available to different classes. Each weapon should be usable for more than one class, also sniper. Like, why did you exclude sniper from the Assault class.
This is what the entire open/closed weapon debate is about. There are two kinds of people, one plays to the weapon, and the other plays to the class.
Personally, I'm part of the group that plays to the class. Even if Support only has access to an LMG in a closed weapon system, if Support's kit is what the team needs, I'm playing support and will accept using the LMG, even if that weapon isn't necessarily the optimal choice for that scenario. I would choose the class for its gadgets if its what the team needs, vs. choosing another class for their weapon. Like it or not, this kind of weapon restriction plays a role in game balance. I can choose the optimal class gadgets for the situation, but it could potentially come at the cost of not having access to the optimal weapon for that scenario. In an open weapon system, however, nothing would be stopping me from selecting the optimal weapon for that scenario in addition to the optimal class kit. This leads to power creep on the individual level.
The second group of players, the ones that play to the weapon instead of the class, would approach this scenario differently. In a closed weapon system, they wouldn't pick the support class and instead pick the class that has access to the weapon they want to play, even if it has the least optimal class kit for that particular scenario. In an open weapon system, this type of player too would simply choose the support class and combine it with the optimal weapon for that situation. The open weapon system in this scenario also leads to power creep at the individual level.
Like it or not, weapon restrictions based on class were part of the game's balance. The open weapon system upsets this balance. The system I am proposing doesn't perfectly solve the issue of people playing to the weapon instead of playing to the class, but it would give them some flexibility in class choice, and at the very least funnel them into an objective oriented role that would help the team on every map. Lets assume the scenario discussed above one more time, but this time under the constraints of the hybrid solution I have proposed. The players that play to the weapon wouldn't be able to couple the support kit with the most desirable weapon, but they would at least have the option to choose either the class that has that weapon as its signature weapon or the assault class's kit, whichever would help the team more. This system would still keep game balance in check and limit power creep at the individual level, while at the same time providing a bit of extra flexibility for the type of player that would rather play to the weapon than play to the class.
This may result in a relatively higher number of players selecting the assault class, but this class has the weakest kit of the core classes, and the gadgets it does have access to (deploy beacon in particular) could help the team in any situation, and more importantly, without much effort on the Assault player's part. The kind of player that plays to the weapon instead of playing to the class is often not focused on team-oriented gameplay to begin with, but under this hybrid system their contribution to the team would at least be increased in comparison to a strictly closed weapon system.
And regarding your question about why Snipers aren't included in the Assault Class's weapon choices:
The developers stated, in explanation of moving of the Deploy Beacon from the Recon Class kit and to the Assault Class kit, that they wanted to prevent situations in which the spawn beacon was used individualistically by sniper players to get back into a sniper hole, and instead wanted to shift its focus to a more objective-oriented role. Giving the Assault Class access to Sniper Rifles would directly oppose the intention behind moving the Deploy Beacon to Assault's kit.
This is what the entire open/closed weapon debate is about. There are two kinds of people, one plays to the weapon, and the other plays to the class.
Personally, I'm part of the group that plays to the class. Even if Support only has access to an LMG in a closed weapon system, if Support's kit is what the team needs, I'm playing support and will accept using the LMG, even if that weapon isn't necessarily the optimal choice for that scenario. I would choose the class for its gadgets if its what the team needs, vs. choosing another class for their weapon. Like it or not, this kind of weapon restriction plays a role in game balance. I can choose the optimal class gadgets for the situation, but it could potentially come at the cost of not having access to the optimal weapon for that scenario. In an open weapon system, however, nothing would be stopping me from selecting the optimal weapon for that scenario in addition to the optimal class kit. This leads to power creep on the individual level.
The second group of players, the ones that play to the weapon instead of the class, would approach this scenario differently. In a closed weapon system, they wouldn't pick the support class and instead pick the class that has access to the weapon they want to play, even if it has the least optimal class kit for that particular scenario. In an open weapon system, this type of player too would simply choose the support class and combine it with the optimal weapon for that situation. The open weapon system in this scenario also leads to power creep at the individual level.I am hearing what you are saying, and I understand that there are two types of players. I still don't agree with a closed weapon system though. Why would you take away a meaningful class system from the players that prioritize their weapon first.
We should strive for balance, but the game does not have to be perfectly balanced for normal public lobbies. Let people have fun and play what they like. They can also add more strict, hard core or even ranked lobbies for players that want that experience.The kind of player that plays to the weapon instead of playing to the class is often not focused on team-oriented gameplay to begin with
That is not necessarily true, but they definitely wont be team-oriented if you make the class system redundant to them. I want team-oriented gameplay, and I want the classes to matter to me.. however the classes just wont matter if I feel forced to pick the class based on the weapon.
The developers stated, in explanation of moving of the Deploy Beacon from the Recon Class kit and to the Assault Class kit, that they wanted to prevent situations in which the spawn beacon was used individualistically by sniper players to get back into a sniper hole, and instead wanted to shift its focus to a more objective-oriented role. Giving the Assault Class access to Sniper Rifles would directly oppose the intention behind moving the Deploy Beacon to Assault's kit.
I understood it differently, I might be wrong though, but I read it as they moved it because they want the Deploy Beacon to be a tool to push into enemy lines and allow for a spawn point that helps the team to get into better positions. That is why it fits better on the Assault class. It not like they did it to take it away from players using a Sniper Rifle.
I am just adding my perspective here. I do not think that many players on the forums will agree, as most players are not on these forums to begin with, and the players that prefer an open weapon system has no reason to be here either as the open system felt good and was the default system in the beta.
I might be open for a Hybrid solution, but then I think it is optimistic to suggest splitting the Support into two classes, as the release is only one month away (could happen at a later point though). And I think all weapon types should be available to at least two different classes. Including Sniper Rifles.
They could also have a rotation of the game modes instead of splitting the player base. 3 days with all game modes being open, then 3 days with locked weapons, or something similar.
Regardless I am very much looking forward to the release!Ok cod player, you dont seem to get it. Say you do pick a class based on the weapon. Well now you have a bunch of gadgets, you might as well use them. If you need sniper rifles, your gadgets are going to force you to spot and do things, just by nature of "you play the cards you are dealt" so while you may not PREFER it, you will do what the team needs you to. If you are playing battlefield, it is very hard to be useless unless you do certain stupid actions, and those actions are the same no matter what your class. The class system has always guarenteed this. BTW there have always bbeen options. Look at battlefield 4.
If you wanted to play a long range weapon and you were not a recon, USE A DMR. Its not as good as a true sniper, but it gets the job done
If you want to use an assault rifle, well you cant get the best unless you are assault, but hey carbines get pretty close, slap one on and enjoy. LMGs were ACTUALLY quite limited as only support had them and that could be worked on for sure but even Close range guns like pdws had other guns that could feasibly do similar things. There are OPTIONS for those who want them, but it isnt a COD rushfest where you see the same 10 guns being used every game.
This is exactly how a class system should feel. YOU MAKE CHOICES. TOUGH CHOICES.
This is NOT call of duty. Your playstyle itself changes in a class. THIS is what battlefield should be. We dont need ballerina cod crap. We need BATTLEFIELD.
Open weapons are like impossible to balance.
Since you have SO many good opinions (you dont) why dont you tell me how to balance carbines vs assault rifles? What would make you choose a carbine?What you are really saying is you are a cod player. Those are no good.
Ok cod player, you dont seem to get it
This is NOT call of duty. Your playstyle itself changes in a class. THIS is what battlefield should be. We dont need ballerina cod crap. We need BATTLEFIELD.
I love it when people has literally no other argument than calling me a CoD player. Great job. I am well aware this is not Call of Duty, and I don't want it to be. Yes, your playstyle does change with different classes, even in a open weapon system.
Just keep weapons open as default. It is not that hard to balance, and the weapons should be fairly balanced regardless if they are closed or not. It does not have to be perfect for a public casual match anyway. The game should be fun, not feel like it restrict you in a stupid way.. and yes, closed weapons is in my opinion a stupid restriction. We can have different rules if they ever implement a ranked mode.
I really don't understand why it is that important for you to ruin the game for other players by locking weapons. Just play with the class and signature weapon if you want, but don't force other players to play with different classes OR weapons. It is not that hard, and it is not that big of a deal. I never liked the class system with closed weapons in BF3 either, luckily BF6 beta had a more fun open system, where I as a player actually appreciate and engage in the class system.you have SO many good opinions
Thank you, I know.
Let me ask you, y does the game has to have open weapons to be fun. BF has a rock, paper, scissor style of play which gets thrown off when you have open weapons. Its fine for battle royale but not for the base game. What makes it even more ridiculous is how they are closing throwables instead. The term COD player is used to over simplify a list of core mechanics that are oversimplified for shooter, which is not a bad thing but it has a place (not BF)
You are correct in saying Balancing weapons its easy, but that only counts when you are only Balancing said weapons. BF has a class system which focuses on what each class does instead of a K/D ratio which is what makes it difficult to balance. It doesn't have to be perfect, you are correct on that point but it also makes it pointless to have classes and a variety of weapons when most will run with the same gun loadout no matter which class they play. One player shouldn't be a one man army, 1 gun shouldn't be good at everything. Each class and weapon has to have shortcomings and every player have to rely on others to overcome them (weight the consequences of your choices and actions). Worst case scenario fall back and reposition to a situation that is advantageous "this is what COD players seems to not understand" (you are not a super soldier).
You can play alone but you will need to have more situational awareness or risk getting blown/shot to hell. Also it will emphasize the need for taking cover and fire, which has been nerfed as respawn time and health regen are too fast but i can overlook it if they did a better job at balancing the classes. I don't have a problem with games that have open weapons but it doesn't work for BF base game balancing, don't have an issue with it being added to battle royale and lobbies as those stray away from classic BF and should have more freedom. With all said and done it would be up to EA to make that final decision
Featured Places
