I am really hoping we return to faction-specific weapons and tools this time around. All of the talk about options and choices was very disheartening to me, because it seems like they may forego the authenticity of being a part of each faction in favor of general individualized gameplay.
I really hope we see an asymmetrical Battlefield-experience, though one that is still well-balanced of course. I wouldn’t even mind if they ease some players into this change by having a set of “clone weapons” that perform very similarly to each other, similar to how vehicles behave in BF3/BF4.
What do you guys think about specific weapons and how they should balance asymmetry if they go for it?
Someone said that they will have different tanks for each faction, and then probably also different planes and guns.
If they really do “go back to their roots” faction weaponry will be asymmetric. But also there will be balance between them. Take for example BF Vietnam helicopters.
The US had a smaller/lighter, easier to control huey gunship and the Vietcong had big/heavy brick to fly MI-8’s. The offset in the hitbox and flight characteristics was balanced by giving the MI-8 tandem dual rocket launchers (2 or 4 rockets at once) and the Huey a single fire rocket launcher.
I really hope not, as it just creates a divide in the game. Like the Germans getting their MP18 SMG and the rest of the allies don’t. This faction gets an OP faster firing gun and this one doesn’t, not to mention it makes unlocking things unbearably tedious. And as a matter of fact, weapons from opposing factions were routinely commissioned into service with opposing nations as a cheap way of arming their infantry, not to mention it was a good way of studying the application of such weapons in combat, and this has been done for a VERY long time. So I say no this is just nitpicking and I don’t like it.
Infantry weapons is one thing, but how do you handle vehicles? If the vehicle model for this faction is bigger, do you scale up the other factions vehicle or scale down the other? Authenticity has always been a key feature in BF. BF4 highlights this issue with all the air vehicles. Bigger/smaller but same weaponry and hp.
On the weapons side if one side gets an LMG there will be an equal stat LMG for the other. same with BA’s, dmr, shotgun, sm’s etc.
@AceArchangel1 said:
I really hope not, as it just creates a divide in the game. Like the Germans getting their MP18 SMG and the rest of the allies don’t. This faction gets an OP faster firing gun and this one doesn’t, not to mention it makes unlocking things unbearably tedious. And as a matter of fact, weapons from opposing factions were routinely commissioned into service with opposing nations as a cheap way of arming their infantry, not to mention it was a good way of studying the application of such weapons in combat, and this has been done for a VERY long time. So I say no this is just nitpicking and I don’t like it.
First of all, asymmetrical gameplay does not mean one side gets access to better things. The idea is that different sides will get different strengths and weaknesses, and they are expected to be balanced in much the same way an RTS game is. For instance, Starcraft is one of the most balanced games I’ve ever seen, and the three factions share literally nothing in common.
Second of all, if nations used enemy weapons as cheap means of arming infantry, I think that would be a battalion-wide thing. I don’t think there was a single instance in WW1 or WW2 where an army was using a hodge-podge of German, French, British, Russian, Japanese, and American weapons as the soldiers saw fit. I want complete uniformity of the team for authenticity’s sake. I’m personally sick of the mercenary feel of modern shooters, and would prefer more restrictions. While it does offer less freedom in-game, it frees us from the monotony and homogenous gameplay of so many other shooters. Plus, I believe it offers new strategic implications. Think about it: Players may evolve entirely different tactics depending on which side they play as if the differences are interesting enough.
@NatsuTerran said:
First of all, asymmetrical gameplay does not mean one side gets access to better things. The idea is that different sides will get different strengths and weaknesses, and they are expected to be balanced in much the same way an RTS game is. For instance, Starcraft is one of the most balanced games I’ve ever seen, and the three factions share literally nothing in common.
Second of all, if nations used enemy weapons as cheap means of arming infantry, I think that would be a battalion-wide thing. I don’t think there was a single instance in WW1 or WW2 where an army was using a hodge-podge of German, French, British, Russian, Japanese, and American weapons as the soldiers saw fit. I want complete uniformity of the team for authenticity’s sake. I’m personally sick of the mercenary feel of modern shooters, and would prefer more restrictions. While it does offer less freedom in-game, it frees us from the monotony and homogenous gameplay of so many other shooters. Plus, I believe it offers new strategic implications. Think about it: Players may evolve entirely different tactics depending on which side they play as if the differences are interesting enough.
Butter it up any way you like, my view holds value and valid points, I know exactly what you are talking about but this isn’t a military simulator, this is Battlefield. Go play Verdun or Arma if you want a milisim.
It’s really not about making it a milsim. I actually find more value in asymmetrical gameplay such as what is found in RTS games than in authenticity. BF is the closest thing to that in the FPS genre and I really wish they would go in on that idea. I desperately want players to have to think up strategies and counter-plays based around strengths and weaknesses of the different armies, rather than just building their go-to classes and a few fall-back classes without much thought. There’s a huge layer of strategy missing that could exist as it does in RTS games.
This is NOT an RTS if it was then it would already be in the game, and BF has had an absence of such implementation since the use of the Refractor engine, and BF2/2142, unless you are talking about the semi faction specific feature that was in BF3 (M16 and AK74) and Hardline (of which, it wasn’t liked) and in both of those games you could get those guns unlocked on the other side through extended use of such gun.
Just because it isn’t an RTS doesn’t mean they cannot make a design choice that borrows elements. FPS games aren’t an RPG but you see RPG elements absolutely littered in shooters. In fact, the absence of the faction-specific weapons and inclusion of your own personal class-builder is itself an RPG element.
That is sidestepping, as I originally said it is an unnecessary hassle for the players especially players who are going to have to adjust to already very different game. Like I stated it makes unlocking certain things a grind which again alienates a player who is, again already trying to adjust to a game that is unfamiliar.
I don’t understand. How is unlocking things any different at all? It’s exactly the same as the progression system in any BF game except you would have a separate progression as each army. The interface can make this extremely obvious.
maybe if you only played on the same side every time… duh. You bounce from side to side and when there are multiple factions it slows down that progression rate because you can’t focus on a single weapon.
Oh, you’re talking about weapon levels. I thought we were only talking about unlocking guns. I think it still needs to be seen exactly what kind of customization we can do to the weapons. I’m having a difficult time imagining there being too many attachments for the time period. I personally hated how CoD WaW introduced so many non-authentic attachment options. I would be fine if there was very little you could do to augment the weapons in this type of game.
@NatsuTerran said:
Oh, you’re talking about weapon levels. I thought we were only talking about unlocking guns. I think it still needs to be seen exactly what kind of customization we can do to the weapons. I’m having a difficult time imagining there being too many attachments for the time period. I personally hated how CoD WaW introduced so many non-authentic attachment options. I would be fine if there was very little you could do to augment the weapons in this type of game.
true and I would accept faction specific weapons, as long as you can still unlock the weapon through a set amount of kills or something similar.
You mean unlocking it permanently for any side to use? That completely defeats the point though. I hated how that was done in BF3. I want true differences between the factions as a gameplay feature. Equal armies are boring.
Well I extended an arm, and you severed it. And frankly this back and forth is getting no where, I asserted where I stand.
I think a hybrid approach, similar to Battlefield 2 and 2142, would be best. Have the stock weapons unique to each team, then have the unlockables available to all factions.
@quicktiger said:
I think a hybrid approach, similar to Battlefield 2 and 2142, would be best. Have the stock weapons unique to each team, then have the unlockables available to all factions.
Agreed.
I’d like to see faction based uniforms as well, but you can’t have it all.