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
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.
