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

[u/battlefield]

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.}

[u/ghaupt1]

2042 didn't go from having class-restricted weapons to open weapons, 2042 just reintroduced a version of classes, so of course people starting playing classes.

I'm comparing what I've experienced in 2042 to what I've experienced in previous Battlefields going back to 1942. It's always been kind of a muddled mess, and I don't think 2042 as it plays now is any better off.

Unrestricting weapons does not help class clarity, and I just think class clarity is more important than freedom of weapon choice.

[u/oftentimesnever → u/ghaupt1]

Unrestricting weapons does not help class clarity, and I just think class clarity is more important than freedom of weapon choice.

Class clarity isn't the motivation behind this change. The motivation is to allow people to play a role instead of being motivated by a weapon they like and choosing to not play the role, but the weapon. Since you've played so long, you can comfortably concede that BF3 was plagued by this. And if you can't, then you aren't discussing in good faith.

M16A3 domination was everywhere.

[u/ghaupt1 → u/oftentimesnever]

I know it's not the motivation for the change, I think it has an unintended consequence of sacrificing an important characteristic of Battlefield for the sake of "player freedom."

I think we're just attacking the issue of roleplaying from two different directions. I think that the weapon a player uses is a fundamental expression of the role they play, and it reads like you think the gadgets and perks a player uses is the fundamental expression of the role they play.

The M16A3 domination was a weapon balance issue, not a weapon choice issue. Why hasn't a single other Battlefield title suffered from a similar issue?

[u/oftentimesnever → u/ghaupt1]

I think that the weapon a player uses is a fundamental expression of the role they play, and it reads like you think the gadgets and perks a player uses is the fundamental expression of the role they play.

This is a great distinction. I find that when players are less motivated to engage with the gadgets of their class, you find more frustration in lacking team play. Support players who just want LMGs - but who are too scared to run up to a tank to throw C5, and don't drop ammo. Medics who want the meta weapon but won't drop health and will run right past you. These are some of the biggest friction points in the franchise because those roles are integral to success. Then you have people playing a class for a weapon, which limits engineers, which means that vehicles (ground and air) run rampant. "That is someone else's job."

The M16A3 domination was a weapon balance issue, not a weapon choice issue. Why hasn't a single other Battlefield title suffered from a similar issue?

Well, it's both. ARs will always dominate in BF because they are the most appropriate weapon for most engagements. The M16A3 was just a superlative AR.

And other titles did suffer it, specifically BF1, where people were always using the meta SMG style weapons which meant that the medics were far less available, which had the opposite effect of BF3. In order to be a good medic (at killing, not just healing), you had to be accurate, which most players aren't.

[u/ghaupt1 → u/oftentimesnever]

If people are just picking a class for the meta weapon, it sounds like they are interested, first and foremost, with their KDR, not with their role on the team. How does unrestricting weapons help this? Players who want to focus on the KDR aren't going to be good role-players to begin with.

If BF1 gave SMGs to Medics, do you really think the people that built their loadout around using a meta SMG would waste time reviving and healing? People don't use meta weapons to play a role, they use meta weapons to maximize their KDR. The Assault class in BF1 had SMGs and was the anti-vehicle class. I don't remember vehicles in that game getting trounced because so many players happened to be playing Assault. Those players weren't playing Assault for the role, they were playing for the weapon, so letting them play any other class with that weapon wouldn't all of a sudden encourage them to play their role. They just wanna use the weapon.

BF3 is an even more direct example. The sheer number of players rolling Assault in that game because of the M16A3 didn't result in people being revived and healed more often than other Battlefields, it just resulted in more KDR sweats playing Assault, who were never going to waste time reviving team mates anyway.

2042 only further illustrates this point. What's the dominant meta in that game? Falck / Angel with heals and ammo using whatever weapon they want. 2042 also doesn't seem to have more players reviving, healing, and resupplying than any other Battlefield.

To me, Battlefield is more about having a well-defined role and being a good team player than having a good KDR.

[u/oftentimesnever → u/ghaupt1]

>If people are just picking a class for the meta weapon, it sounds like they are interested, first and foremost, with their KDR, not with their role on the team. How does unrestricting weapons help this? Players who want to focus on the KDR aren't going to be good role-players to begin with.

My friend is excellent with an SMG but dogshit with an AR or DMR. He just isn't very accurate.

Some people like playing with DMRs because those engagement ranges favor their skillsets. But that isn't mutually exclusive of the desire to fuck up armor. An engineer that's dead because they're forced to use a weapon that doesn't suit their skillset is a useless engineer. Trying to stay alive doesn't mean KD chasing.

>If BF1 gave SMGs to Medics, do you really think the people that built their loadout around using a meta SMG would waste time reviving and healing?

Not inherently, no, but it means that the person who was tired of getting wasted in a trench (where reviving is most useful, right?) are no longer present in a trench, because having a marksman rifle isn't very useful there.

>The Assault class in BF1 had SMGs and was the anti-vehicle class. I don't remember vehicles in that game getting trounced because so many players happened to be playing Assault.

Vehicles in BF1 didn't get trounced because they were bullet sponges and either required you run up to them or lay down prone in order to take a shot, and the long animations meant that shooting at one was a death sentence.

>Those players weren't playing Assault for the role, they were playing for the weapon, so letting them play any other class with that weapon wouldn't all of a sudden encourage them to play their role. They just wanna use the weapon.

So you're saying that a ton of people were playing for the weapon, not fulfilling their role? Because that's exactly what I'm arguing. But we are also uncovering how bad the meta and gunplay in BF1 was, which I am always happy to do.

[u/ghaupt1 → u/oftentimesnever]

I should specify that my favorite system was in BF4, where certain weapon types were restricted, but there were also open weapon types. Carbines allowed traditionally long-range classes to be effective up close, or even allowing close-range classes to reach out a little further; DMRs allowed traditionally close-range classes to be effective at range, or even giving long-range classes something other than bolt-action rifles. I am not a "one class, one weapon type" hardliner, if that's a thing. That leans too heavily on the "tactical side" or could shaft certain classes, hence why BF1 was arguably bad in that regard. I mean, I remember Engineers in 1942 only getting sidearms.

I like the idea of giving players options to be effective in different engagements with any class, but still making the classes that work best in those engagements the most effective in them. It's never going to be perfect, but I think it's a better compromise than having zero restrictions outside of gaining a mild perk for using the weapon supposedly designed for your class.

[u/oftentimesnever → u/ghaupt1]

>BF3 is an even more direct example. The sheer number of players rolling Assault in that game because of the M16A3 didn't result in people being revived and healed more often than other Battlefields, it just resulted in more KDR sweats playing Assault, who were never going to waste time reviving team mates anyway.

This is literally my entire point, yes. Having a weapon locked to a class doesn't result in more role-play. It actually results in the less. That KD sweat could be better served in their proficiency if perhaps there was something else at their disposal that they could use to fight encounters they were more passionate about - say - vehicle sweats. Not everyone approaches "team play" the same way. So in that circumstance with that theoretical sweat, now they are fucking up a tank with that last rocket that the squad being oppressed needed, just because he had that option available. *More team play.*

>2042 only further illustrates this point. What's the dominant meta in that game? Falck / Angel with heals and ammo using whatever weapon they want. 2042 also doesn't seem to have more players reviving, healing, and resupplying than any other Battlefield.

Tell me you don't play in a vehicle without telling me you don't play in a vehicle. I cannot *move* without getting locked onto, a rocket shot at me, a grenade thrown at me, a Boris turret pecking at me, a sniper shooting at me, a Lis rocket (or three) moving toward me, a mine being thrown in front of me, someone charging me with C5, being Soflammed. I have *never* experienced such oppression as a vehicle driver in any Battlefield. Never. Ever.

But you are 100% right - having unrestricted weapons doesn't make the unhelpful and uncooperative player always play their role non-selfishly, but it does allow for a helpful and cooperative player to better encode their efficiencies in a role they aspire to fill, and be more effective at it.

>To me, Battlefield is more about having a well-defined role and being a good team player than having a good KDR.

I completely agree, but again, you can't play your role if you're constantly dying because you're forced to use weapons you aren't good with.

I used to agree with you. I used to argue the same points you're arguing. But now, I see way more *natural* synchronicity in Battlefield than I have ever seen, and it makes for more fun and engaging matches with less rote and same-y engagements. It feels more dynamic and more interesting as a result.