Why can't we have five classes?

It's almost like the class system that was in place for BF3 and 4 were made as they were for a reason. 

Now it's 90% supports that don't play like supports, some snipers that are still exactly the same people and god bless their souls may they never change, and engies who only picked engi because they got killed by a vehicle and they are spawning with enough boom to blow up the entire map.

Copy the old class system.  Literally was a near perfect setup.  Instead we get this disaster.

BF3 / 4 were both pretty solid with the classes, the only gripe i have with it is the whole Assault / Medic hybrid stuff that we had going on. Some players went full Assault, some just had the health pack and others were a full medic which to me anyway made the class a little " up in the air " as it were about it's identity. 

If there was a fifth Medic class, then Assault could've been designed to be even more effective and specialized then it was with extra offensive gadgets at their disposal, on top of that we would've had a 100% dedicated Medic, popin smokes, getting revs and dishing out health packs. 

But yes you're 100% correct, supports don't play like a supports, they just have too much going on for them that people either be completely selfish when using them, don't get any revives because they want to just go Brrrrt with an LMG, sit off in a corner somewhere with a mortar or running around trying to get all the revives in, it's simply too much for one class.  

Recon and engineer do have their place but still need some tweaking. 

Assault does nothing as far as i'm aware, people keep bringing up the ladder, which helps you get up high to snipe...? Seems to be all i ever ever see people do with it. Oh and the spawn beacons, always too close to objectives or in braindead spots where the enemy team finds it too soon with Assault players. Recon players did a much better job at hiding beacons in secluded corners of the map, yes sometimes it meant a bit of a run to an objective, but the gadget actually saw some use for more than 10 seconds after being deployed.    

Painknight wrote:

It's almost like the class system that was in place for BF3 and 4 were made as they were for a reason. 

Now it's 90% supports that don't play like supports, some snipers that are still exactly the same people and god bless their souls may they never change, and engies who only picked engi because they got killed by a vehicle and they are spawning with enough boom to blow up the entire map.

Copy the old class system.  Literally was a near perfect setup.  Instead we get this disaster.

This is so real lol.

If you make medics weak, no-one uses them. This is what happened in Battlefield 2 because everyone who wanted a good gun had to use assault (or restrict themselves to very short ranged Anti-Tank weapons the DAO12 & P90, the medic SMGs were rubbish) until Medics got the G36E in the Special Forces expansion, at which point they became the by far most used class in the game because the G36E was better than the Assault Class guns. 

Grenade launchers aren't useful enough to have people use them if they aren't the strongest gun.

BF3 and BF4 was a game of medic trains, because that class had enough of a good gun to make it worth using so the lemming sweat squads would be able to kill anyone they came across and revive.

99% of people only play Support because it gets self-healing and can use good guns still. If you took away self-healing and/or ability to use good guns, the class would evaporate. You'd be left with battledads who LMG bipod onto their deployable cover spamming "suppressive fire" from their 200 round mags and hitting nothing, and the few maniacs who run around with their paddles out and don't do any shooting.

Engineer & Anti-Tank was a pointless distinction. If you were in a vehicle or a rep guy you'd be taking an engineer and have no need for anti-tank. If you were on the ground as infantry, you didn't have a vehicle so you would take anti-tank to kill enemy vehicles. Merging them is fine.

Only BF2 had anything that needed a "Spec Ops" class, one that was intended to blow up backfield commander assets and hunt down the enemy commander. In modern games, you can make a recon a spec ops by taking C4 and a suppressed weapon.

QcR4ptor wrote:

By splitting the roles, players would have to choose between healing or ammo instead of having both.

No-one would ever play the ammo class. People who pick the healing class don't care about the minor benefit of supplying ammo. They would remain playing the healing class and then pickup kits from the ground or kill themselves to respawn with new ammo.

MackTKau​ I get what you're saying, and I agree that in older Battlefield titles like Battlefield 2, weapon balance had a huge impact on class pick rates.

But I think the situation is very different now.

With the current open weapon system, players are no longer locked into specific guns per class like they were in Battlefield 3 or Battlefield 4. That fundamentally changes player behavior. Today, a lot more players choose their class based on gadgets, utility, and role rather than just weapon strength.

For example, saying that no one would play an ammo-focused class doesn’t really hold up anymore. Even back in BF3 and BF4, Support couldn’t self-heal, yet it was still widely used. Not because of survivability, but because of its utility—ammo resupply, suppression, explosives, and area control.

Also, the idea that Support players just sit on a bipod and do nothing is a bit of a stereotype. It’s like saying all Recon players just camp. In reality, every class has multiple playstyles:

-aggressive

-defensive

-objective-focused

-team-support oriented

And each of those can be effective depending on the situation.

Splitting roles like healing and ammo wouldn’t necessarily “kill” one of them—it would create meaningful trade-offs. Right now, when one class can do too much, it reduces team dependency. Battlefield has always been at its best when squads rely on each other.

So I think the real question isn’t “will people play it?”, but rather “does it improve teamwork and class identity?” — and in my opinion, it does.

AnEejit​ 

AnEejit wrote:

Assault does nothing as far as i'm aware, people keep bringing up the ladder, which helps you get up high to snipe...?

I understand where you're coming from, and I get your point.

But I don’t think Assault is useless at all.

Every class in Battlefield has its purpose, its strengths, and also its own playstyle that appeals to different types of players.

Assault is definitely more of a solo-oriented class compared to others, but that’s not a bad thing—it fills a specific role. Some players prefer a more aggressive, frontline playstyle, constantly pushing objectives and taking fights head-on without focusing too much on team support mechanics.

And that kind of playstyle is still valuable.

At the end of the day, Battlefield is a team game, and every action contributes in some way. Whether it’s reviving, resupplying, repairing, spotting, or simply applying pressure on the enemy, it all has an impact on the team.

Not every role needs to be heavily teamplay-focused to be useful—some are there to create momentum and keep the fight moving forward.

Yes it's definitely a more solo orientated class, which is fine. But when they go ahead and make support this " does everything class " it just seems like such an odd decision.

Every class in my mind should have some solo play aspects and team play aspects, that way no one is lacking behind too much (Assault) and no one is placed in a position where people expect everything of them (Support).  

Looping back to solo play, if Assault did have the explosives crate that I'm suggesting that would do two things.

One: it would compliment the other gadgets and the class in general, allowing for a bit more self reliance when it comes to aggressive, frontline solo play.  

Two: it would take some of the power away from Support and enable Assault to have some benefits to team play. 

Win win. 

Initially my thoughts were to go back to the BF3 / 4 setup of Assault/Medic hybrid, but then we'd run into some classic issues that plagued is back then and still do to this day.   

Assault/Medic hybrid: you run to numerous issues, some Assault players will want to play more aggressive than those who chose to play as a hardcore Medic. What this means is some of your " Medics " will be too aggressive and dieing more frequently, which is less of an issue if they were just an Assault, as a dead medic isn't of much use. Just look at Support currently, a Medic who's in spawn with a mortar isn't of much use, a Medic who's hunkerd down with an LMG away from the action isn't of much use either. 

Since there will be a clear distinction between the two roles, play styles and players alike you might as well have two different classes at this point, it saves people in chatt complaining about all the assault players who don't run defibs.. Which we all remember fondly from BF3 /4 days.  

Also, with Assault just receiving the health pack element from supports kit it doesn't stop the mortar spam we see from them. Which only leads to stagnant frustrating gameplay.   

So while the four class setup with Assault/Medic hybrid is better than the mess we currently have, it doesn't solve all of our issues.  Five classes however, does. 

AnEejit​ I agree with you that ideally having 5 classes would be the best solution.

Regarding Support, I also agree with your point, and that’s exactly why I think introducing a separate Medic class would be a great improvement. The Medic could be fully focused on teamplay, with gadgets like defibrillators, med packs, and smoke grenades, and carbines as their signature weapons.

On the other hand, Support could return to a more classic Battlefield role, focused on sustained fire and area control. For example, giving them ammo crates, mortars, an interception system, C4, incendiary grenades, and LMGs as their signature weapons. This would make Support feel much closer to how it played in older Battlefield titles.

I also understand your point about Assault being too solo-oriented right now. The idea of an explosives crate could actually be a really good addition. It would give Assault more tactical value and a bit more teamplay potential, instead of being purely focused on aggressive solo gameplay.