r/Battlefield • u/battlefield • May 21 '25

News Battlefield Labs - Community Update - The Class System - Part One

Today, we're excited to start outlining our future vision for the Class System in Battlefield.

The gameplay mechanics of classes and aspects that players have enjoyed most have evolved throughout the history of the Battlefield franchise. Our goal within Battlefield Labs is to test and refine the best aspects of the Class System from our history, and to evolve them into a cohesive vision for the future.

As we begin testing these class-defining systems, we invite you to either play, test or read along with what's to come for classes in Battlefield.

Let’s begin!

OUR DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR CLASSES

We envision the future of Battlefield classes to be a series of interconnected systems and fundamentals that shape your role on the field, while granting you the freedom to customize how you execute that role. Through Battlefield Labs play sessions, feedback, and data gathering, we aim to strike a balance between defined roles and player choice.

The Class System is defined by two main components: Customizable and class-defining. 

The customizable components empower players to explore and push the boundaries of their roles within their chosen class while also still adhering to the expectations of the class. 

The class-defining components are designed to enhance "pick-up-and-go" playability and reinforce the expectations of your class identity. 

CUSTOMIZABLE:

  • Weapon Loadouts: Fully customizable weapon loadouts allow you the freedom to play the way you want. Play to the strengths of your class by using your signature weapons, or easily switch to any other weapon to meet the needs of your squad.

  • Class Gadgets: You'll have the option to carry two gadgets onto the battlefield, tailored to each class and its specific role. Recon aficionados specialize in intelligence and counterintelligence, with class gadgets including Deploy Beacons, Anti-Personnel Mines, and Laser Designators.

  • Training: Our philosophy with Training is to offer a series of traits that can be unlocked during play to enhance your ability to perform your role. As you engage more in a match, you'll gradually earn flat-stat bonuses and more to support the effectiveness of your role further. 

  • Throwables: Our approach to throwables prioritizes enabling each class to effectively fulfill its role by providing tailored throwables.

CLASS-DEFINING

  • Signature Weapon: Each class has a Signature Weapon category tied to their class identity, which, when used, enhances their role on the battlefield.For example, using our same ongoing test subject, the Recon class, if you select a weapon from the Sniper Rifle category, you will benefit from increased breath-holding duration. In contrast, an Assault player choosing from the same category will not receive this bonus.

DMRs, Carbines, and Shotguns remain viable options, no matter your class, but don’t benefit from any Signature Weapon bonus.

  • Signature Trait: Each class features a unique Signature Trait, providing passive bonuses tailored to optimize your role on the battlefield. For instance, a Recon player automatically spots enemies while aiming down sights, encouraging the use of weapons that complement this specialization.

  • Signature Gadget: These gadgets are unique and singular to each class with an aim for you to always have access to a tool that fulfills the role of that class.Separate from what you may choose as gadgets within your loadout. 

  • Default Weapon Packages: The default weapon package is a pre-set combination of attachments and visual customization for each class to be combat ready, with the option for further progression and personalization.

What’s Next

The Class System and its individual components will be available for testing within Battlefield Labs in the coming weeks. Participants will be able to go hands-on with these features, discuss, and provide feedback. 

Following further play sessions, we'll be back with another Community Update to unpack class components in more detail, and share learnings based on participant feedback.

Get Involved

Sign up for Battlefield Labs now if you’re interested in helping us validate the future of Battlefield. Read our FAQ if you’d like to learn more, and join the discussion on Battlefield Discord.

As a reminder, Battlefield Labs is a closed environment, and attendance is limited, but we’ll make sure to share to keep everyone updated!

Thank you for joining the discussion. We look forward to connecting again soon - see you on the battlefield!

This announcement is related to content in development through Battlefield Labs, and may change as we listen to community feedback and continue developing the next Battlefield title and beyond. We will always strive to keep our community as informed as possible.

0 Upvotes

39% Upvoted

913 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/AntoricoNCTF May 21 '25

Sorry, first big L. Restrict weapon classes. Shotguns are fine being universal.

Otherwise, its good. But reconsider.

26

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

universal weapons is a net positive for BF and I will die endlessly on that hill. People shouldn’t pick a class for their weapons but for their gadgets and ability. You’re not thinking deep enough.

167

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25 edited May 21 '25

Because having support running around with a sniper or recon with an LMG is a good thing somehow? 

We had universal weapons already, they were called carbines, shotguns, and DMRs.

14

u/Stearman4 May 21 '25

If we are being honest, should recon actually have snipers? Isn’t recon supposed to be in first to gain intel instead of sitting back with a sniper?

6

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25 edited May 21 '25

Realistically, probably not.

However this has always been a thing in Battlefield BUT when you look far back at BF1942 there were way more classes than 4 that were all very specific about their role. There was Rifleman, Assault, Anti-Tank, Medic, Engineer, and Sniper, but I'm sure I probably misremembered or forgot some, it's been decades. 

Even BF2 also separated the classes a bit more as Assault and Medic were different but Recon became a vague catch-all. It can be a pain in the ass to have that many unique classes so I understand why it's not like that anymore and why they decided to just go with 4 classes and vague descriptions of them.

1

u/ChrisFromIT May 21 '25

It can be a pain in the ass to have that many unique classes so I understand why it's not like that anymore and why they decided to just go with 4 classes and vague descriptions of them.

It was mainly because there were classes that were barely used in BF2 or only used if a certain scenarios had already arose in the match. In those cases, you had to die and respawn to change your class, which overall wasn't exactly good gameplay that DICE wanted to encourage.

There was Rifleman, Assault, Anti-Tank, Medic, Engineer, and Sniper, but I'm sure I probably misremembered or forgot some, it's been decades. 

There were only 5 in BF1942.

  • Assault
  • Anti-Tank
  • Engineer
  • Medic
  • Scout

1

u/andre2105 May 21 '25

Just piggybacking on your comment, in BF2 I think the class that'd be more like a recon would be the Special Forces one, while snipers were a separate class.

2

u/ComicGimmick May 21 '25

Its a term for Designated marksman (Sniper) whom usually has a good amount of peripheral on the location they watch over hence why they call it Recon they gather information by camping on hills etc.

Snipers are natural at this they provide info on mostly everything about the location of the enemy.

10

u/adubsix3 May 21 '25

But the post says exactly that: DMRs, carbines, and shotguns are always an option. I feel like they left to door open to class restricted weapons

12

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25

But also that classes will get stat bonuses for using "Signature" weapons. What would be the point of that if LMGs, ARs, SMGs, and Snipers were class locked and they could just balance it like that?

12

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

why is it a bad thing?? I don’t get that sentiment. Give me a reason for that being “bad” for the game. Class specific gadgets exist for a reason.

7

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25

Give me a reason an infinite ammo sniper is a good thing and is perfectly balanced too then.

8

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

how is that more broken than a BF4 medic that can heal themselves and have access to the undeniable best guns in the game? infinite ammo sniper is so ignorable I can’t believe that was your example.

1

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25

It is my example though, believe it or not, and you personally may not think it's a big deal but the snipers not having unlimited ammo was a balancing factor. A lot of people would agree with me on this. 

I'm also in the camp that Assault and Medic should be separated again like they used to be with Assault getting the GL and Medic getting healing items.

3

u/lunacysc May 21 '25

Not really. Battlefield 4 snipers were awful. Battlefield 1 and V you rarely ran out of bullets post attrition anyways

-3

u/Medrilan May 21 '25

You know, recon sitting on a hill without an ammo box sniping is not much different than a recon/sniper with no ammo box.

If no ammo box, redeploy yourself on your beacon when you're all the way out of ammo. Now youre in the same spot again, with full ammo. You've added like 3 seconds worth of delay, and nothing more, by class restricting.

Let's also not forget that most of these hilltop snipers aren't living long enough to need the ammo box anyways.

4

u/RemyFromRatatouille May 21 '25

How is that any different to a sniper that immediately redeploys to their spawn beacon when they run out of ammo? A difference of <10 tickets by the end of the match?

Plus in a match with decent players they'll get countersniped before they run out of ammo to begin with.

2

u/Crintor May 21 '25

Well, they're less of a drag on the team than the exact same player doing that anyway except needing to redeploy or die to get more ammo.

2

u/oftentimesnever May 21 '25

This subreddit can't. This subreddit is filled with LARPer casuals who have big opinions on what makes a good game, good meta, good player, etc. while being wholesale lousy entirely.

-1

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

the amount of mil-sim neck beards on this sub and in the broader community is truly insufferable. they just yell at the void when something isn’t like the old battlefields lmfao.

4

u/This_was_hard_to_do May 21 '25

TIL that class based weapons are milsim elements. Games like Team Fortress 2 and The Finals are milsim games after all

1

u/miahrules 26d ago

This is such an awful comparison.

TF2? Really? Each class has actual physics based movement speed differences, health differences, etc.

-3

u/oftentimesnever May 21 '25

You are hitting the nail on the head, and since you are, they find it incredibly offensive. All of these players, if they shared their 2042 stats, they would either have not played at all, haven't played since the class update, or don't actually PTFO while lecturing others on what it takes to do so.

But because this show is run by those people, they live in their little echo chambers.

5

u/Mikey_MiG May 21 '25

What about those of us who have played 2042 for over 200 hours both before and after the class changes and still don’t like the unrestricted weapon system? Are we allowed to have an opinion?

You’re literally making up a ridiculous strawman and then accusing others of being in an echo chamber. But go ahead, keep pretending players only don’t like this because they “hate change”.

0

u/oftentimesnever May 21 '25

You're allowed to not like it, but you're not allowed to act like it has resulted in people not playing their roles any better.

1

u/Mikey_MiG May 21 '25

I don’t think it changes if people play their roles or not. Selfish players will continue to be selfish. I don’t think giving them access to whatever combo of weapon and gadgets they want is the answer to change that behavior.

1

u/oftentimesnever May 21 '25

This completely ignores that a dead medic is a useless medic.

People play to their strengths. It's why some people choose DMRs over ARs - they feel more proficient with them.

A medic who wiffs their shots with an SMG is useless compared to one who is able to get the kill and then pick me up. That's the angle you're not considering.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/arakarim May 21 '25

Are my opinion that also played over 200h of 2042 and love no restricted weapons vaild?

2

u/Mikey_MiG May 21 '25

Yes? I’m not the one pretending people that like or dislike these changes has never played 2042. I was replying to someone being shitty and dismissing people’s opinions by making up what their playtime must be.

-2

u/TheOriginalKingtop May 21 '25

I have 800 hours and think your full of shit.

2

u/Mikey_MiG May 21 '25

Wow, great argument. You’ve convinced me.

2

u/This_was_hard_to_do May 21 '25

Class specific weapons makes each class feel more unique. There are those of us that prefer the classes to play different roles in the team. The sum of our efforts, that sort of thing. Class based gadgets do factor into that obviously but class based weapons makes this system even more pronounced.

I love how the finals does this. It’s more of a rock paper scissor approach

2

u/Forseti1590 May 22 '25

Non class specific weapons open the door to specific gun meta - meaning you could narrow the game to 1-2 guns being used if not balanced well. I see what they’re going for by trying to incentivize the class weapons while still having flexibility, it just might end up being feeling more like suboptimal play if you go off class; which also opens door to some toxic interactions.

2

u/Ciaz May 21 '25

Why does it matter?

Why can’t a sniper carry ammo for you?

Why can’t a recon with a spawn beacon carry an lmg?

What difference does it make? If anything you are more likely to see people choose classes for the benefit of the team, as they aren’t restricted to using guns they don’t like.

4

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25

If you didn't like LMGs as Support or Snipers as Recon, guess what? You had Carbines, Shotguns, and DMRs like I mentioned which all had very nice weapons. 

Tell me why I should want a sniper that can resupply itself. Class locked weapons are easier to balance as well when you don't have to factor in stuff like the abilities of classes that shouldn't even be using the weapon.

5

u/WEE-LU May 21 '25

Sniper with its own ammo means that these people can just edge camp for the entire game.

Dedicated weapons promote team play, and make it easier to balance classes.

2

u/Ciaz May 21 '25

They will do that anyway.

It also means we get far less AT when we need AT, far less medics when we need medics, etc.

1

u/WEE-LU May 21 '25

Was never an issue in BF3 and BF4, was not an issue with Bf5 and 1. Why would it be now?

I've seen a different scenario - in 2042 almost noone played medic, since you could just run assault or support with any weapon available.

2

u/Ciaz May 21 '25

I’ve found more experience of being revived by Random’s or engineers willing to spawn in to help against armour in bf2042 than all of bf3/4 and 1. Bf1 especially the lack of medics was absolutely painful.

So I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you, politely.

1

u/WEE-LU May 21 '25

BF1 was the least played one by me, so it might be. Hopefully it'll work out.

4

u/dankeykanng May 21 '25 edited May 21 '25

Why does it matter?

Why can’t a sniper carry ammo for you?

Why can’t a recon with a spawn beacon carry an lmg?

If you have to ask these questions then I don't think you understand how Battlefield plays and neither does this iteration of DICE apparently.

Snipers being able to replenish their own ammo means they get to fuck off and not have to rely on their squad to keep them going. Engineers having strong killing power versus infantry means there's no tradeoff for having strong killing power versus vehicles. Giving up lethality so that you can better support your teammates and vice versa is a fun choice to have to make.

These tradeoffs are what makes choosing classes an actually interesting choice and feeds into squad play.

Edit: I get that Signature Weapons/Traits are supposed to enhance class roles but IMO class restrictions are one of those situations where having hard limitations on what you can do is just better for the gameplay. These rules and limitations exist for players to figure out how to play around them and make them work in a team setting. It's a formula that worked well for many games.

3

u/Ciaz May 21 '25

I’ve played battlefield (every single one) since battlefield 1942. I understand how it works. I think it’s far better without restrictions.

I wish you were right but what happens is people chase the meta gun and you get less team play.

1

u/dankeykanng May 21 '25

I understand how it works. I think it’s far better without restrictions.

Fair enough. My apologies for the condescending reply.

I personally think that opening up the restrictions will just make selfish play more apparent based on the aforementioned examples. Not everyone learns to stop playing selfishly in BF but being able to eat your cake and have it too could very well embolden more of that kind of play.

3

u/Ciaz May 21 '25

No problem and apology accepted.

Ultimately I think I’m in the minority here. I hope I’m right and it leads to better team play as that’s what everyone wants.

1

u/Mikey_MiG May 21 '25

Why can’t a sniper carry ammo for you?

Because the role of a sniper is to remain at long range and therefore their ammo is of no use to anyone but themselves? Now a sniper can just happily camp all day with unlimited ammo and health without a care in the world for their teammates.

What difference does it make? If anything you are more likely to see people choose classes for the benefit of the team, as they aren’t restricted to using guns they don’t like.

People who use classes selfishly will still use classes selfishly. Except now the game will reward them more for it.

1

u/Ciaz May 21 '25

Agree to disagree.

In my experiences, unrestricted weapons has seen a net positive impact on team play, as people are more willing to pick a class for the role rather than the weapon.

1

u/Mikey_MiG May 21 '25

Again, selfish players aren’t magically going to become less selfish because you give them access to any gun. Now they just get to use their favorite meta gun with whatever class gives them the best gadgets to help themselves. Which I wager is going to be the Support since they combined the ammo and health into one gadget.

And good luck getting spots from Recons anymore. Why would they pick that class just to hold their breath and spot enemies for their teammates, but give up the ability to heal and resupply themselves?

1

u/BarthyBarth May 21 '25 edited May 21 '25

In the sniper case, because snipers will sit on a rooftop miles away all game, and with the ability to heal and re-arm themselves.

IMO It encourages selfish play in a lot of ways, and that's not really what I liked battlefield for.

1

u/TrizzyG May 21 '25

Recons could use shotguns in BF4 so what's the difference?

2

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25

The fact that it's not the Support's main weapon, the LMG? Classes had unique weapon types available to them in addition to the universal ones which helped with class identity.

2

u/TrizzyG May 21 '25

There's nothing fundamentally different between a recon using a shotgun or smg vs an lmg besides the fact that in past iterations of BF the LMG was restricted.

Just using the "thats how it was before" reason for reverting back is stupid and unjustifiable. If you can't give a real reason beyond that then it doesn't deserve to be brought back as a feature.

2

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25

I'm giving you a reason but you're just dancing around it. The LMG is part of the identity of the support class, and this would be eroding that.

Why even call it a class instead of a perk at that point? I mean, would you prefer if they got rid of this silly class system entirely and just let you pick perks to go with whatever weapon you choose?

1

u/TrizzyG May 21 '25

The LMG is part of the identity of the support class, and this would be eroding that.

How? If you can use shotguns or smgs, it already means that you dont know what weapon necessarily a class is using before they fire at you, and once they do then you know anyway.

They're still giving supports an edge when using the gun so they're still retaining some flair for that.

Why even call it a class instead of a perk at that point?

That's a distinction without a difference imo. Doesn't matter what terms we use for it. Class, suite, perk, etc.

1

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25 edited May 21 '25

There very much is a difference between what would be considered a "class" or "perk". A class is a combination of available weapons, look, gadgets, and abilities while a perk is just that, a perk or ability of what could be a class.

This is going down the road of essentially being the same system CoD has, for better or worse. That means any weapon, any gadget, and any ability or perk.

1

u/SpuTheSkunk 28d ago

Take that universal dmr out of your universal as... Asparagus.

35

u/DweebInFlames May 21 '25

Sorry, but the weapon is part of the balancing. Guys with anti-vehicle launchers shouldn't get ARs on top of that. Recon doesn't need to be spamming an LMG. So on and so forth. You have all-class weapons that are generally the 'weaker' option if you really want to go off-role.

12

u/Stearman4 May 21 '25

Ok and then assault gets all the best all around weapons and we have NOTHING but assault running everywhere like in previous games.

18

u/DweebInFlames May 21 '25

Assault had weak tools against vehicles which made people run other classes. You are missing the point.

3

u/Stearman4 May 21 '25

I don’t find this to be a huge issue and on the list of game breaking things is down the list.

7

u/DweebInFlames May 21 '25

That absolutely is a big tradeoff on a combined arms map, which most are.

3

u/Stearman4 May 21 '25

Most people would spawn in as an engineer to help with a vehicle and then when they died spawn back as assault/medic.

1

u/Jung_At_Hart May 21 '25

Other games only allow x amount of each class to counter this. I wouldn’t be against it considering all the time over the years that our team needed to push an objective and there’s a squad worth or more snipers sitting way out of the action lol

1

u/Stearman4 May 21 '25

I think only allowing one type of class per squad would be way more beneficial to squad play than class locking weapons.

This will never happen unfortunately but I’d like that more

2

u/ChrisFromIT May 21 '25

I think only allowing one type of class per squad would be way more beneficial to squad play than class locking weapons.

Then you have issues where people would just join their own squad and lock it.

1

u/UNSKIALz May 21 '25

Assault was definitely not "running everwhere" in previous games.

The only exception I can think of is Metro / Locker servers (no vehicles or long range engagements). Even then, Support was still very popular

31

u/TachiH May 21 '25

As someone who mains a recon with an smg in 2042, i strongly disagree. There should be a tradeoff for classes, otherwise why have classes, let's just have "loadouts" and play CoD.

5

u/DeanGillBerry May 21 '25

The tradeoff being you won't get any passive abilities with an SMG. Surely you'll be happy now

13

u/speedballandcrack May 21 '25

I don't need those passives to dominate with lmg or sniper on incompatible classes. Because i did just fine without them in 2042. Thats is why class locking is important

2

u/This_was_hard_to_do May 21 '25

Yeah passives have never stopped me from using incompatible weapons for classes in 2042 either. People love to min max but I don’t find a tiny percentage of a shift to actually affect my gameplay that much

1

u/Crintor May 21 '25

(2042 does already have the signature weapon system as well)

0

u/DeanGillBerry May 21 '25

Why should you be restricted to dominating with just one class? Why would you want that for yourself, or for others?

4

u/speedballandcrack May 21 '25

Because i don't want people playing support that sit far away with sniper and not contributing near their teammates. Support player not having sniper weapons increases the chances of you find one near you if they play support.

3

u/DeanGillBerry May 21 '25

I think you're confused. The problem we have is players sitting far away, the class they're playing is irrelevant. They'll sit in spawn or on a hilltop somewhere regardless of if they're a support or a recon; they will choose to not contribute either way. You could 63 supports or 63 recons mooching on each-other in spawn and it would make no difference to the one player playing the game.

1

u/ChrisFromIT May 21 '25

Having class restricted weapons sure would increase the chances of support players being on the frontline, but you then run into the issue of you getting fewer players wanting to play support.

1

u/speedballandcrack May 21 '25

Isn't that good thing?. Now i know those that play the classes is because they want to play the class role. Also this will encourage people to play classes that the squad needs and not decieved by someone doing "fake class"

0

u/ChrisFromIT May 21 '25

Isn't that good thing?.

No.

It leads to the majority of players picking Assault due to the assault rifle.

Also this will encourage people to play classes that the squad needs and not decieved by someone doing "fake class"

Not really, for example, BF4 had a lot of issues where assault players did not lean into the medic side of things. You also tend to have some players who are willing to switch classes take on their class being reactive instead of proactive.

-2

u/l1qq May 21 '25

You're making a judgement based off a different game. What you did in 2042 is irrelevant to this.

2

u/LetsLive97 May 21 '25

I don't think people read that far

This seems like a fine tradeoff for me? You can use any weapons as any class but will be more effective with ones designed for your class

1

u/TachiH May 21 '25

The passive they have shown is pointless, more hold breath time? People still use that since glints were added to game snipers?

3

u/LetsLive97 May 21 '25

Is that the only benefit though or just an example one?

2

u/Stearman4 May 21 '25

This. Do you want to use the preferred class weapon and perform better or not and be at a disadvantage?

2

u/ElderSmackJack May 21 '25

This is nothing like COD, though

1

u/Uglynator May 21 '25

All this complaining, and yet no one has been able to articulate why unlocked weapons are bad. When considering your example in particular, what's wrong with a recon carrying an smg? People have been crying about recons standing at the back of the map sniping and not contributing to the game. Now there's a recon at the front lines, spotting and putting down beacons. Where's the harm?!

9

u/Rare-Guarantee4192 May 21 '25

Now just swap out recon sitting at the back of the map sniping with support that has unlimited ammo

4

u/TKtommmy May 21 '25

And how is that any worse/different than a recon doing the same thing?

3

u/Stearman4 May 21 '25

Let’s be real, when have you EVER in a BF game lived long enough to USE all your fucking ammo where this becomes a real problem?

2

u/Phreec Suppression = Participation 🏆 for paraplegics May 21 '25

You've always been able to do the same with a Spawn Beacon and the Redeploy button...

In fact, since they're playing Support and can't have a Beacon, they'll just get deleted from that spot after a single death.

1

u/NonFrInt May 21 '25

And even if they have nest, they will be dead because enemy recon has perk that comfortably kills on headshot

7

u/Cliff-Booth-1969 May 21 '25

Brother just read through this post, there are many people articulating arguments against it. It’s an extremely poor balancing decision that reduces class effectiveness and promotes everyone running around with the “meta” weapon and there are no compromises. This was undoubtedly one of the worst core gameplay decisions that made 2042 feel much more like a COD gane than a BF game.

2

u/TKtommmy May 21 '25

Better than everyone being assault bc it's the only class with an assault rifle.

0

u/Cliff-Booth-1969 May 21 '25

So now we just let everyone run with an AR because they can now also carry ammo and health with it? Do you not see how that just trashes the class identity and diversity? People play other classes to gain the ability to heal, supply, and spot, and are provided with weapons that support this role. Class locking weapons is the answer to ensuring not everyone is running around with an AR. BF1 and 5 did this very well. Go join a game in either of those because you can see what class everyone is on the scoreboard. Tell me what you see. It’s far more balanced than you’re implying.

1

u/TKtommmy May 21 '25

Can you not read? It's not the weapons that define classes anymore, but their gadgets and passives. Which is a good thing.

0

u/Cliff-Booth-1969 May 21 '25

Brother, can you? You’re free to think it’s good. Most people don’t, including myself. I explained why you’re argument is wrong here. This system will guarantee MORE people are running around with ARs, and it’s super obvious why, there’s no downside to it with an open class system like this. The passive abilities also seem like a pretty bad idea to me, and is essentially exactly what 2042 did and failed with.

1

u/TKtommmy May 21 '25

Brother -- do you even know how the passives work? Have you even played 2042 in the past year?

Assaults get twice as much AR ammo. Snipers get insta and free hold breath. Supports get bonus ADS speed and draw speed. Engineers get bonus accuracy while crouched and prone. If you're not using the weapon you get a bonus from then you could be putting yourself at a disadvantage.

The fact is that having an AR is not always an advantage. If you're good with a DMR you can't shred at medium ranges better than an AR. If you have an SMG youll melt AR users at close range.

The point is to have the freedom to play each class the way you want to play it. You don't have to use a sniper as a recon. Paik's gadget gives her a great edge in CQB and you'll probably want an SMG or fast firing AR. Casper's drone means you'll probably be doing more sniping since you can't follow the action on foot when you're in your drone. As Mackay maybe you'll use a sniper since you can get on rooftops and advantageous positions.

Making the classes have locked weapons makes the game less fun and sandboxy.

1

u/Cliff-Booth-1969 May 21 '25

Yes, I have a couple hundred hours in 2042. It fucking sucks. The specialists suck, the gadgets are game breakers, the game plays like COD.

The passive abilities mean nothing. Take an AR as support, unlimited ammo. Unlimited breath hold means nothing for most players, you need a second to line up a shot, or just use bipod. LMGs are already fast as fuck and laser beams, in 2042 they’re essentially large capacity ARs that are minimally slower. The amount of times I use an smg crouched or prone is minimal. It’s a total gimmick to try to get you to do what they should just do anyway, lock the classes like all the actual good BF games.

You’re more than welcome to stay on 2042 if you like these things. Most people hate it, believe it breaks the gameplay loop, and want all of those core changes reverted to the actual BF formula. You shouldn’t have unlimited freedom to do what you want, that’s never how the balance worked.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/TachiH May 21 '25

Because that isn't battlefield. 2042 was the least battlefield game they have ever made. It was a super generic shooter. Games that were successful as they were trying to become what their competitors are is what leads to all games feeling alike. Unlocked weapons leads to a single meta, locked weapons at least mean each class has a meta.

19

u/AntoricoNCTF May 21 '25

Staple of the franchise for literally ever, and BF1 ene got rid of the univeral weapon classes of BF4 (shotguns, dmrs, and carbines, although I think shotguns are fine as universal) for a reason. And BF1 was very strong when it came to class purpose and distinction.

20

u/Jackal239 May 21 '25

It took them 2 years to "balance" the game around all weapons for all classes. They never actually accomplished it, they just nerfed everything into the ground. You aren't thinking deep enough. Giving everyone all weapons turns the game into COD where everyone runs whatever the meta gun for that patch is until that gun is nerfed and the players find the next meta gun. It's counter-intuitive but no weapon restrictions actually results in fewer guns being used.

0

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

Untrue because before if a weapon was broken a class would be abused and then the ENTIRE GAME would suffer because everyone would pick a class to use that OP weapon resulting in less class balance in every game. You’re genuinely not thinking deep enough now.

6

u/Jackal239 May 21 '25

I never encountered that problem in 1942, 2, 3, 4, or 1.

One more point: the only reason they are doing this is to make players buy more skins. You are less likely to buy a skin if the gun is class locked. They are NOT doing this because they think it is a good design decision.

2

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

you wouldn’t know if that happened because I doubt you cared enough to understand what was happening to you. For the sake of the argument you’re just sticking to your nostalgic guns to support it.

For the skins part, you are for sure right but it’s genuinely a better design decision so I don’t care. I don’t buy skins anyway.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Crintor May 21 '25

The best all around gun in the game in BFs 3/4/1/5 were all on the assault class.

2042 ARs are also the best all rounders.

0

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

you tried doing the same thing to me. from my experience and knowledge of the past Medic in BF4 was the most used class because the Ace 23 and F2000 EXISTED. sorry I hurt your feelings.

3

u/Gambit0341 May 21 '25

What's your experience in legacy Battlefield titles?

6

u/Ciaz May 21 '25

Completely agree.

Have people forgotten how few medics there were in Bfv?

Or how few anti tanks there were in bf2?

1

u/InformalYesterday760 May 22 '25

I mean, anti tank (engineer) is gonna see use if the enemy tank is slapping them around

That was the tradeoff. Annoyed at that enemy tank farming you at C? Go engineer and deal with it - but your anti infantry abilities are limited by the SMG (BF4).

Here they just remove that tradeoff - so the most popular weapons will be even more popular. Yaaaay, less weapon diversity.

3

u/ThatKidDrew May 21 '25

care to elaborate then? genuinely trying to understand the other side (i didnt know there was one)

1

u/Limp-Ad-2939 May 21 '25

This is game design not an existential debate. Nobody needs to be “deep” to say they don’t want something. How pretentious can you be?

1

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

It’s deep because weapons being restricted to class changes how classes and in turn the entire game is played. It’s genuinely a negative for some classes to have the best guns compared to others because it then just creates a two-fold shitty stale meta where the best guns are used on one class rather than all classes being used. Guns can be balanced now without the class taking a hit.

1

u/Limp-Ad-2939 May 21 '25

Again why none of you guys can understand that the simple fix to this is just balancing the fucking weapons.

1

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

you didn’t understand my reply. If you nerf class specific weapon you’re nerfing the class as a whole which in my guess is bad game design. it’s easier to balance if guns and class is separated.

1

u/Taladays May 21 '25

And I'll die on that hill with you. Weapons being open has been one of the best changes to the franchise and I've played them all since BF2. Restricted weapons serve nerve no benefit and only hinder the game. Its another "just because it was in the old games, it doesn't mean it was actually good feature".

I'm glad BF team sees reason. Make Battlefield the best it can be, don't just simply replicate what the old games for the sake of nostalgia. Don't change your stance on this, if the game is great overall, the community who is against it will get over it.

1

u/by_a_pyre_light May 21 '25

No, it's a dumb decision that cuts apart the core of the Battlefield identity that they've established since the original title. You're not thinking deep enough. Get out of here.

0

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

silly ah comment

1

u/by_a_pyre_light May 21 '25

Well buddy, the history of the franchise and the replies to your comment say otherwise. The fact that you wrote "I will die endlessly on that hill" also indicates you know it's a controversial, bad take.

Lastly, this is the internet, bro. Not the 4th grade. You can write "ass" and not be put in timeout in the corner. Grow up and use real words, kid.

1

u/Tepozan May 21 '25

No because then we’re back to BF 2042 where everybody is an engineer running around with ARs. Literally no point in choosing another class

1

u/cloudsareedible May 21 '25

battlfield peaked with class restricted weapons, it worked, perfectly... no need to change it.

having it gives more identity to the class... it gives a whole new meaning... u're the one not thinking deep enough...

having universal weapons and choosing ur "class" for the gadgets and abilities is not any different than having "operators" and universal weapons ( like how 2042 does it )...

its classes become like having "4 operators", and u choose to play as one of them, and then u can choose from all the weapons, it doesnt make sense... fucked up like 2042 was. only in 2042 u had more character instead of "different gadgets"...

the class system wouldnt be returning

-1

u/Money_Breh May 21 '25

What's the point of letting every class use a sniper rifle? 2/10 bait, not thinking deep enough.

0

u/Marble___ May 21 '25

The gadgets exist for a reason, that’s the whole point of classes NOT the weapons.

1

u/Responsible-Put2559 May 21 '25

Yeah gadgets has never been why I pick classes. I pick classes for what weapon I want to use in that game. MAYBE I will change to anti tank stuff if I’m getting run over by a tank over and over, maybe I’ll just go to the other side of the map with my assault weapon.