Battlefield 6 Class concept

[EA_Kent]

Hey everyone, 

I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I moved this thread over to the Battlefield General Discussion board. Thanks for sharing your ideas!

/Kent

[Popa2caps]

@Teal_Pipo_Fredo 

I think the class system needs to be removed altogether. Battlefield is stuck in the past like Halo. Created by people who don't want to let go and/ or can't order others around with new creative ideas.

[DingoKillr]

@Teal_Pipo_Fredo don't apologize at least your thinking of what could be done as many just ask for specific number or classes based on older BF. Like wanting the 7 classes of BF2 which restricted weapons and gadgets. I can't see players today being happy on open maps with a shotgun, AT mines and repair tool.

[DingoKillr]

@Popa2caps 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?

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 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.

[Popa2caps]

@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.
 

[Trokey66]

---

@Popa2caps wrote:

@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.
 

---

Where's the negative XP button!?

128 players using the recommended YouTuber set up, no thanks!

I may disagree with some of the finer points of @DingoKillr's class ideas but his general points above are spot on

BFV*s Assualt with ready access to health and/or ammo? Perish the thought...... 🤪

[DingoKillr]

@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.

[Popa2caps]

@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.

[DingoKillr]

@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.

[ragnarok013]

---

@ElliotLH wrote:

To be fair all classes having an anti-vehicle gadget seems a pretty sensible idea. If you're playing Medic in BFV, for example, you don't really have any gadgets like this (unless you're using the M28 of course).

---

@ElliotLH if that occurs then the entire paper\rock\scissors balancing goes out the window. I'd rather have an engineer class again and make people make choices on do I take out that BTR or do I revive my teammate, or do I give them ammo. Also if everyone has an anti-vehicle gadget then vehicles are either destroyed in short order or they have to be absolute monsters to compensate which I don't think many players would like.

One exception is an anti-vehicle gadget that works with engineer such as the laser designator. On its own it can only harass a vehicle but do no damage, but in tandem with an engineer it's a game changer.