Forum Discussion
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?
romIVster wrote:What you are really saying is you are a cod player. Those are no good.
romIVster wrote:Ok cod player, you dont seem to get it
romIVster wrote: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.
romIVster wrote:you have SO many good opinions
Thank you, I know.
- cementerydriver1 year agoSeasoned Ace
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