Battlefield 6 Class concept
Hi! I want to share skeleton concept of what I would like to see as soldier class system in Battlefield 6. This is based on assuming that next game takes place in modern times. Assault: Assault rifl...
Forum Discussion
@DingoKillr
Classes still need some restrictions. Do you really want a sniper with unlimited ammo and health? How about AR with grenade launcher and unlimited ammo?
That's an odd analogy in my mind. If someone was using a sniper, why would it be so bad for them to have access to unlimited ammo? Battlefield 4 is still the most played Battlefield title to date and vehicles have had unlimited ammo, yet no one complains. Why would it be any different if someone with any weapon got this same ability just because they picked the ammo box as a gadget?
@DingoKillr
Classes should be used as a method to prevent unwanted styles of play not create weaker team mates to support 1 type of player.
I totally disagree with this 100%. I always thought letting players play how they wish is the best thing for the community. Sure, you need some limitations here and there (small ones), but just straight up making people play a certain way is a thing of the past in video games now. The only other game stuck in the past is Halo that I can think of, and who in the world plays that? Battlefield was intended to be a sandbox after all. Once DICE started making Star Wars Battlefront titles, Battlefield has become a limited nightmare.
@DingoKillr
I think we need 4 primary roles Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle, Ammo and Health, while secondary roles like recon, fire support, repair or sniper could be scatted around the primaries.
Classic example of what I think you are talking about is Recon/Sniper and since BF3 has been basically the same, if anything it has got more pigeon hold in that role with even less to do.
I picture a Battlefield title with huge destructible maps ( no theme, or history nonsense). Amazing amount of weapons, vehicles, tools, gadgets, and absolutely no on map weapon pick-ups and/ or elite classes, Ammo stations are okay). That way they could balance each and every individual vehicle, tool, weapon and/ or gadget without hurting the core experience for the whole class.
@Popa2caps Any form of camping should be kept to as minimum as possible, it leads to static play which creates boring games.
Actual people did complain about unlimited ammo on vehicles. DICE attempt to take steps to reduce vehicle camping.
Wow, you 100% disagree then next sentence you agree with me. Having people play the way it design is still around and will remain. Everything in a game has rules on how it acts a SMG is not a long range weapon.
I remember complaints across BF about always being killed by the same weapon. If there is only 1 class why have BF4 Carbine, Shotguns or DMR when you have SMG, AR or Sniper rifles. More options does not mean more usage. BF4 tanks are good example of very limited variance in options.
Actual people did complain about unlimited ammo on vehicles. DICE attempt to take steps to reduce vehicle camping.
Wow, you 100% disagree then next sentence you agree with me. Having people play the way it design is still around and will remain. Everything in a game has rules on how it acts a SMG is not a long range weapon.
I remember complaints across BF about always being killed by the same weapon. If there is only 1 class why have BF4 Carbine, Shotguns or DMR when you have SMG, AR or Sniper rifles. More options does not mean more usage. BF4 tanks are good example of very limited variance in options.
@DingoKillr wrote:
Any form of camping should be kept to as minimum as possible, it leads to static play which creates boring games.
That's why BR took off. It forces players to move around. The Battlefield community is fighting against it, yet complaining about campers, take your pick.@DingoKillr wrote:
Actual people did complain about unlimited ammo on vehicles. DICE attempt to take steps to reduce vehicle camping.
I totally understand DICE did limit tanks in BFV, but that's my point. More people play Battlefield 4 and tanks only have loading limits. Seems to me people care about sandbox / gameplay more than if someone has unlimited ammo supplies.@DingoKillr wrote:
Wow, you 100% disagree then next sentence you agree with me.
No, You stated "Classes should be used as a method to prevent unwanted styles of play not create weaker team mates to support 1 type of player."
I stated "I totally disagree with this 100%." How did I agree with anything you stated?@DingoKillr wrote:
Having people play the way it design is still around and will remain. Everything in a game has rules on how it acts a SMG is not a long range weapon.
I remember complaints across BF about always being killed by the same weapon. If there is only 1 class why have BF4 Carbine, Shotguns or DMR when you have SMG, AR or Sniper rifles. More options does not mean more usage. BF4 tanks are good example of very limited variance in options.
I understand games need to have some balancing for the whole rock, paper, scissor approach, but I also at the same time understand what the majority of gamers expect in video games nowadays.
They expect a level of hardness that Battlefield has never seen, yes even in hardcore mode. Battlefield is 100% a casual shooter like Destiny. People running around acting like they're in a war game because of the environment backdrops, but then just clicking the spot mechanic button over and over and shooting at icons (Fortnite is more hardcore than Battlefield has ever been, my opinion!).
If Battlefield 2021 releases with the same level of casualness and limited classes as Battlefield 4, 1, Hardline (LOL) 5, people will get bored very quickly and stop playing. If the title is nothing but people running around clicking the spot mechanics, people will leave.
Warzone does so well because people get to build loadouts in both multiplayer and Warzone. It's a feeling of ownership for each and every user. Battlefield doesn't have that.
We will see when both companies release their new titles, I really expect Activision to come out on top. If Activision comes with more vehicles and destruction, Battlefield is doomed.@Popa2capsNo, the BF community as a whole is not fighting against BR it is the majority care more about playing other modes in BF.
BR is only 1 mode which is solo to squad. BF has 32 players on a team. You can not balance Conquest, Rush, Frontlines, Domination or others by allowing all 32 players to camp nor allow a team to all carry ammo and anti-vehicle launchers. How can you balance a tank to fight 3 or 30 Infantry as well as fight 2 to 3 tanks?
How many player in game of COD MP? Has it broken 5 yet. Does COD MP force you to move around? No.
People will get bored so players only get bored with BF how about COD or PUBG. Players get bored when they find it no longer fun. Making BF the same as other games based on what a few want is what screwed BFV. I spent hundreds of hours playing each BF since BF: Vietnam some even 1000's but I have never played 1 minute of Firestorm because I don't like the concept. Why should players like me not want something like what BF have offered without it turning into the next Fortzone. Players will come and go based on what they like not everything has to be BR.
As for more play BF4 since when? https://bfstats.tech/ seems to me your wrong.
What is with those rose coloured glasses how was BF4 such the great sandbox game! BFV is far more sandbox it has customization of uniform and vehicle (plan & tank) choices even with limited ammo more still play.
Hullo, BF is a wargame it is not BR. I for 1 have no problem with it being causal shooter, jumping on at night playing a few hours for fun. I am not making money by playing nor does it need to be setup for super elite individuals. If DICE wants something competitive(BF1 incursions) or something that streamers can gush over (BFV) they can go ahead. I am sure once all the games are BR the next generation of players will be asking for something new.
BTW even a single class with restriction is no different to creating class.@DingoKillr
No, the BF community as a whole is not fighting against BR it is the majority care more about playing other modes in BF.
BR is only 1 mode which is solo to squad. BF has 32 players on a team. You can not balance Conquest, Rush, Frontlines, Domination or others by allowing all 32 players to camp nor allow a team to all carry ammo and anti-vehicle launchers. How can you balance a tank to fight 3 or 30 Infantry as well as fight 2 to 3 tanks?The word camping is an early 2000's thing, let's move on and grow up with it's use. No one over 10 years old should be using that word.
Yep, it's definitely tricky to balance old mechanics. I bet that developers spend a hell lot of time on how to implement new ideas with the old. In my opinion I had my fun with those old game types in the past, I'm ready for new ideas. If someone wants to play those old ones, they always have the older titles to do so.I loved 007 Goldeneye on the N64, but If I went back I can guess I would find it boring. Same with the Resident Evil games, just can't get into them anymore. I need more to keep me locked in, same thing with my first person shooters. Conquest, Rush etc, same old thing. Just give me a bunch of weapons to choose from and let me shoot things in a huge destructible environment in this next game, I don't mind trying new game types at all. If Battlefield needs to have a name change, I'm all for it.
@DingoKillr wrote:How many player in game of COD MP? Has it broken 5 yet. Does COD MP force you to move around? No.
It depends on the game type to be honest. There is 6 on 6 or even Ground War with up to 100 people 50 on 50. I'm not bias at all to video games. Both offer something different, but have similarities.
@DingoKillr wrote:People will get bored so players only get bored with BF how about COD or PUBG. Players get bored when they find it no longer fun. Making BF the same as other games based on what a few want is what screwed BFV.
The developers at DICE screwed up Battlefield 5, no one else has the power to do it. You can't blame other titles for its downfall, nor its success. DICE is a collection of people and their vision for Battlefield 5 wasn't what (most) people wanted, the game failed to keep them entertained, the majority moved on.
@DingoKillr wrote:I spent hundreds of hours playing each BF since BF: Vietnam some even 1000's but I have never played 1 minute of Firestorm because I don't like the concept. Why should players like me not want something like what BF have offered without it turning into the next Fortzone. Players will come and go based on what they like not everything has to be BR.
As for more play BF4 since when? https://bfstats.tech/ seems to me your wrong.The data you linked seems to be only PC. Console numbers are far greater then PC for most Battlefield titles from BF3 onward.
@DingoKillr wrote:What is with those rose coloured glasses how was BF4 such the great sandbox game! BFV is far more sandbox it has customization of uniform and vehicle (plan & tank) choices even with limited ammo more still play.
Rose coloured glasses? What do you mean by this?
I'm not at all trying to change what you like, just saying I don't like Battlefield 5. Shoot, I haven't liked a Battlefield title from Battlefield 4 for the most part, but that doesn't mean I don't respect other opinions. I didn't like Battlefield 5 because I felt it was too much like Star Wars Battlefront.
So in my honest opinion, Battlefield 5 was a rushed project from the people at DICE trying to finish Star Wars Battlefront 2 at the same time. When you have people spending so much time on one project idea, it's hard to remove that mindset before working on the next one.More detailed on why I liked Battlefield 5.
1. Machine guns couldn't be aimed down sight unless prone. I think that's a straight up copy of Star Wars Battlefront Storm Troppers or something.
2. I didn't like the look and graphics of the game. yes, I'm not joking.
3. Building tool. I didn't like most people having a hammer out, over a weapon in a first person shooter. Just people running around using a hammer doesn't feel like Battlefield.
4. Squad points - Dislike the leader got to use all the points. Also didn't like the fact there even were Squad only features. I directly noticed a ton of people who went solo and locked their squad so they could use their own points, myself included.
5. Revives - I didn't like the squad revives not being a medic. If you didn't revive you looked mean, but if you tried and died in the process you lost your location. If you're going to have an gadget in the game to revive, it's best to keep that exclusive to the gadget. Also wasn't a fan of people looking around when they got killed.Just by game mechanic anyway I looked at it.
6. I didn't find any of the maps enjoyable, just none. Plus a limited amount of destruction. I had to look up the names of them just for this post. Just nothing felt Battlefield. It reminded me of just backdrops like the Star Wars Games had.
7. I don't care for history theme video games. Every start of the match was some narritaror just telling me something about history, but I paid for excitement and Battlefield. I didn't pay for HistoryField.I could go on, but in my eyes the last Battlefield I enjoyed was Battlefield 4 before playing Battlefield 5.
@DingoKillr wrote:Hullo, BF is a wargame it is not BR. I for 1 have no problem with it being causal shooter, jumping on at night playing a few hours for fun. I am not making money by playing nor does it need to be setup for super elite individuals. If DICE wants something competitive(BF1 incursions) or something that streamers can gush over (BFV) they can go ahead. I am sure once all the games are BR the next generation of players will be asking for something new.
BTW even a single class with restriction is no different to creating class.Change happens even if people don't like it. People grow, not everyone wants to, but the majority just want someone new. In video games that means a new experience not found in the previous generation. Some might not enjoy the Battle Royale game type, but honestly there are so many Battle Royale's at the moment it fluctuates on what people even mean when they even state the word BR.
I certainly can't compare a Fortnite Battle Royale to Apex, or PUBG to Warzone. Just like death match before it, game types change, that's a good thing (my opinion). I've been waiting years for a more hardcore Battlefield experience and out of all places I got that from PUBG.
No aim assist for controller users, yes please!
Recoil you need to learn how to use, About time!
No more spotting mechanic, How wow amazing!I'm not talking about everyone's opinion on Battlefield when I say change is good, just mine. Please understand that.
@Popa2caps wrote:@DingoKillr wrote:
Any form of camping should be kept to as minimum as possible, it leads to static play which creates boring games.
That's why BR took off. It forces players to move around. The Battlefield community is fighting against it, yet complaining about campers, take your pick.@DingoKillr wrote:
Actual people did complain about unlimited ammo on vehicles. DICE attempt to take steps to reduce vehicle camping.
I totally understand DICE did limit tanks in BFV, but that's my point. More people play Battlefield 4 and tanks only have loading limits. Seems to me people care about sandbox / gameplay more than if someone has unlimited ammo supplies.@DingoKillr wrote:
Wow, you 100% disagree then next sentence you agree with me.
No, You stated "Classes should be used as a method to prevent unwanted styles of play not create weaker team mates to support 1 type of player."
I stated "I totally disagree with this 100%." How did I agree with anything you stated?@DingoKillr wrote:
Having people play the way it design is still around and will remain. Everything in a game has rules on how it acts a SMG is not a long range weapon.
I remember complaints across BF about always being killed by the same weapon. If there is only 1 class why have BF4 Carbine, Shotguns or DMR when you have SMG, AR or Sniper rifles. More options does not mean more usage. BF4 tanks are good example of very limited variance in options.
I understand games need to have some balancing for the whole rock, paper, scissor approach, but I also at the same time understand what the majority of gamers expect in video games nowadays.
They expect a level of hardness that Battlefield has never seen, yes even in hardcore mode. Battlefield is 100% a casual shooter like Destiny. People running around acting like they're in a war game because of the environment backdrops, but then just clicking the spot mechanic button over and over and shooting at icons (Fortnite is more hardcore than Battlefield has ever been, my opinion!).
If Battlefield 2021 releases with the same level of casualness and limited classes as Battlefield 4, 1, Hardline (LOL) 5, people will get bored very quickly and stop playing. If the title is nothing but people running around clicking the spot mechanics, people will leave.
Warzone does so well because people get to build loadouts in both multiplayer and Warzone. It's a feeling of ownership for each and every user. Battlefield doesn't have that.
We will see when both companies release their new titles, I really expect Activision to come out on top. If Activision comes with more vehicles and destruction, Battlefield is doomed.except Warzone isn't hardcore. IT's pretty casual.
Also contrary to what you say, BF4 did have an ownership feeling to loadouts. EAch class could choose from a selection of ~40 guns in 4 categories. Some guns overlapped classes iirc but many were unique to each class. And each gun could be equipped with a different optic, accessory, barrel and underbarrel plus different paint.
And each class had its own unique selection of gadgets they could equip albeit with a little bit of overlap in some cases. You could choose 2 gadgets per class.. Plus you could select the and the nade you wanted to use and select camo type.
The only thing BF4 didn't do was let you save more than one loadout per class.
Even BF1 had a fair amt of personalizing your loadout. It just had fewer gadgets and guns because of WW1. And DICE didn't use an attachment system for the guns. Again probably partly due to WW1 Instead they had up to 3 different versions of each gun.
I don't think there is a huge magic to any one class layout.
I am partial to having a separate AT class but that may be nostalgia. But I remember lots of fun playing AT in BF42 with the bazooka and your gun was only a pistol. You were a true tank hunter with that class. And you died a lot generally speaking. But putting a bazooka up the rear of a tank did a ton of damage - one shot kill maybe but perhaps it was only if the tank was at least somewhat damaged.
Also miss having a strict engineer class like in the oldest games. Again, BF42, that role of placing mines and using dynamite and then having a one-shot rifle.
But that's not modern era. in BF4, engineer was probably my most played class because it was the all around class. MOre so when playing Obliteration and not having a full server, then it was almost a necessity to play that class. IT was the sort of action man class.
Never liked having the medic heal themselves especially heal them while running around and reloading. I always thought it was too cheap and players played medic more to heal themselves than anything else. It became the defacto close quarters class in most maybe all BF games.
I think passing out ammo is boring. And ahte when people throw a crate down and then 2 seconds later they are throwing another crate down 15m up and the old one disappears. Passing out bags is too tedious.
Ziplines and grappling hooks were great gun in the Special Forces xpac in BF2. Surprised they haven't brought those back in 15 years at least to a mainline BF game.
Loved playing recon in BF4 with the beacon and C4 and a carbine. The beacon was great for maintaining attacks - especially helpful when playing Obliteration and trying to deliver the bomb to an mcom. And C4 let you have some power against tanks. The carbine was good enough so you had a chance in combat much of the time.
