Grinding, Destruction, & Survive-ability Rewards

Battlefield 1 General Discussion
1

Really wanted to share my concerns over Battlefield 1.

Grinding / Progression:
Grinding is my number 1 issue with almost any multiplayer shooter, and a balance just isn’t being struck between pleasing the casual and the invested audiences. Battlefield is designed around its gameplay, and progression should merely be there to enhance the experience. The problem I’ve seen is that both Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be pushing towards progression for the sake of progression, and as a result this can hinder the gameplay. Take Battlefield 3 and it’s squad perks as an example - what purpose did those unlock serve outside of progression? All it did was hurt the gameplay, and create an even bigger divide between new and experienced players.

Attachments and vehicle unlocks are even worse for me. The customization is there to allow the player to cater their loadout to their playstyle. Why do players have to earn the ability to do this? In Battlefield 3, it was such a buzzkill to use one gun, get bored of it… swap to another one that looks interesting before realizing - “Oh… oh wait, this doesn’t have any attachments”. Not a big issue by any means, but it adds up. Vehicle unlocks are equally annoying. Why do I have to earn the right to use TV missiles? Why do I need to get experience with a vehicle just to have the tools to counter enemy pilots? Maybe ECM jammers fit my strategies more, so why can’t I just equip it from the start?

Don’t get me wrong, progression serves it’s purpose. I just think it’s silly when it interferes with gameplay. With Battlefield 4, we saw the introduction of alternative attachments, emblems, camos, and other cosmetic features. Now more than ever the franchise has so many features that can be used to balance this aspect of the game. It has so many cosmetic features that could be used for the late game challenges, and keep players that enjoy grinding busy. Take a look at Call of Duty 4 - it did a fairly good job at pleasing both audiences. All gameplay affecting content could be unlocked within 20 hours. It gives that nice early progression that invested players crave, but it also offers a sweet escape from grinding that other players might seek. They offered two late-game challenges for the invested audience - prestiging and gold camos. The issue being that prestiging had to be done first if both were the goal of the player.

I’m not saying to add prestiging into the game, but rather to use a similar mentality to progression. Have an early game progression that appeals to invested and casual audiences alike (20 hours or less), and then have that transition into the late-game challenges which only offer cosmetic rewards. At the 20 hour mark, the average player having all the weapons and vehicle upgrades unlocked. Afterwards, players may shift their focus onto the cosmetic unlocks. Camo’s may offer several tiers of difficulty to obtain in order to give invested players a variety of challenges to go for. Alternate attachments (eg. green laser sight) as well as character customization could also be used to give players additional challenges to grind towards.

By limiting the progression curve to around 20 hours for gameplay affecting content, players can still be eased into the content and they can still feel the satisfaction of earning items. However, it better allows players to experiment and craft their loadouts to their playstyle, and it helps reduce the divide between new and experienced players. More importantly, it allows players that hate grinding have an escape, and they’re able to experience the game at its fullest within a short amount of time (in comparison to other challenges present). Ultimately, it’s about crafting an enjoyable experience for both the casual and the invested audiences.

Destruction:
With Battlefield 3, destruction proved to hurt the map balance on certain modes such as TDM and Conquest. I’m sure this aspect was carefully looked at with Battlefield 1, but I’d like to share my concerns over it as well (I’ll keep this one short).

Caspian Border was a perfect example of a map that gets it’s balance absolutely destroyed. As the match played on, there was a shift in balance between infantry players and vehicles. As more and more cover was destroyed, there were less areas and paths for infantry players to use. All in all, a very frustrating experience, especially when the enemy team had experienced pilots.

I’ve made a thread about this before, but in a nutt shell I’d like to see more emphasis on the evolution of a map rather than its destruction. Maybe have destruction that actually adds to the cover: buildings falling over, bombers crashing, land deforming, caves opening up, etc. Maybe have class roles that can repair certain structures. Or, maybe even go as far as to design maps twice: once in their initial state, and once in their final state. This way maps could have more strategic value to their destruction. If the final state of the map is balanced, then the question a team must ask is - “What do we have to destroy to regain the balance?”. Meta strategies may form, and there may be a tug of war that occurs to keep the balance centralized. A very hard task for sure, but I’d like to see something. To the very least, limited destruction in modes that don’t work well with it.

Survive-ability Rewards:
Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline both had mechanics that rewarded a players ability to perform objectives while surviving. I really don’t see how these mechanics benefit the overall experience. By rewarding survive-ability, players are only encouraged to play it safe and limit their deaths. If a squad makes an effort to take over a key objective, why should they be punished for failing? Shouldn’t they be encouraged to regroup and try again?

The issue with these mechanics is that they seem to encourage an individuals performance rather than team performance. Rewards can still be offered for success that don’t punish individual players. Take 1943’s bombing run - it gave teams key objectives to take, and it offered advantages for capturing them. If a squad failed to take it, no worries - they did nothing wrong. They just have to think of a better strategy or try the same one again.

By avoiding punishing individual players, they can be encouraged to take risks and potentially turn the tide. Your squads effectiveness isn’t diminished for failure, but there are still rewards that benefit the team as a whole. Ultimately, players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive, but to work together and work towards victory.

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

2

1: We dont need casuals to be running with everything unlocked. Filthy casuals stay on the bottom of the feeding chain. Also, I feel like the progression to unlock something should instead be harder. Maybe not make a progression system but more like an achievement unlock system. You pick a weapon you want, you complete the assignment for it. Though some weapons should still be locked behind others like how the AT grenade could be hidden behind dynamite or some other hand held explosive device. This gives a sense of reward for effort as well as increase replayability without hindering what kind of progression route a player wants to take.
2: Destruction is Battlefield and Battlefield is destruction. Either you learn to adapt to a changing environment and be skilled or you die like a dog. I agree that there are a FEW, and very few, maps that have the issue that you speak of but look at the server settings; how many tickets are there, how many players in the server, what kind of mode is being played, what map is being played. All of those contribute to your experience in the server and it caters to a specific audience within the player base. If you dont like it then never shouldve joined in the first place
3: youre sorely mistaken on bf4s squad mechanics. Squad field upgrades are earned throygh squad points. If they increased the points needes to reach max lvl, give better perk options and allowed teamplay to earn points, thatd be great too.

and lastly, you sound like youre a displeased CoD fanboy who tried battlefield thinking it was milsim.

3
  1. Not everyone enjoys grinding in these types of games. Progression is often there for progression sake with no benefits to gameplay. Both casual and invested audiences need to be targeted.

Look at Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - it strikes a balance between both audiences. It understands that not all players will enjoy the competitive 5v5 gameplay, and it offers a casual mode. It’s a video game… a piece of entertainment designed to entertain. Your attitude towards the casual audience doesn’t help your argument.

  1. Read that section again.

  2. Give me an argument as to why. My point stands - punish teams via objective rewards, instead of punishing individuals. Squads should feel comfortable with taking risks - that’s where a lot of fun situations can occur.

I do play Call of Duty, and I’m prestige 5 in Black Ops 3. It’s a fun game, among a solid franchise. I’ve also played Unreal Tournament, Quake, Rainbow Six, Red Orchestra, Halo, Counter-Strike, Tactical-Ops, etc. All fun and enjoyable games. Calling me a fanboy does nothing to help your argument.

4

Didn’t want to make another thread over such a small gripe, so I thought it best that I update this one:

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

5

1 grinding is fun, without it people wont play nearly as often, and dont get a feeling of achievement

2 i agree with persus, this is battlefield, play smart and learn the new enviroment or gtfo

3 battlefield has developed a squad system that works… and what if the player dosent like to talk to other people and prefers to play solo? They shouldnt be punished either, i agree with persus on this too

6
  1. There definitely need to be some repairing item to rebuild once destroyed objects for creating dynamic balance between destruction and reconstruction like those bridges in Dragon Valley. Engineer class would have done that with repair tool but there isn’t going to be one, so…
7

@MP7Warrior said:
1 grinding is fun, without it people wont play nearly as often, and dont get a feeling of achievement

2 i agree with persus, this is battlefield, play smart and learn the new enviroment or gtfo

3 battlefield has developed a squad system that works… and what if the player dosent like to talk to other people and prefers to play solo? They shouldnt be punished either, i agree with persus on this too

  1. Grinding isn’t fun for everyone - that’s the issue. What I’m suggesting isn’t to remove grinding, but rather to balance the experience for a wider audience.

  2. I’m also not suggesting to remove destruction, but to limit it if it breaks the balance of a map. TDM is a prime example of a mode that suffers from it. More ideally, I think destruction should be used to evolve a map rather than continuously remove from it.

  3. Why is this system better? Why should players be punished for making risky plays. The alternative I mentioned offers the reward, without the punishment to individual players. This system goes against PTFO’ing, since deaths should mean little if the team wins.

8

1 I’ve always preferred a good grind. They shouldn’t stack the best items at last, but it shouldn’t be given to you automatically. Being given objects for completing tasks (progressing) activates something in humans, which makes them want more. That’s how MMO’s can run so long. I think it’s nice.

2 destruction is battlefield (like many have said) but I agree, they should make levolution systems more viable for actual game changing, instead of just gimmicks.

3 They should make playing alone MORE punishing. They keep saying they want a team oriented game, but they don’t push it. Imagine if spawning was in waves: once someone dies, the wave counter starts. Anyone who dies before the wave counter finishes will spawn in that wave too. The closer a POINT is the enemy HQ, and the closer a squad member is to an enemy POINT, the longer the wave counter (squad counter being lower than normal point counter).
Revives should be slower and generally playing alone should be possible, but also much harder. Too many times we have people just running into a meat grinder and either re-spawning 5 sec later, or getting insta-revived.
If someone just sits around doing nothing to avoid dying, they are a hindrance to their team, and the enemy team gets the upper hand. This will force people to play smart but still maintain aggressiveness.

4 I absolutely agree with the weapons customization from the map window. There is really no reason for them to have a second option screen for that (hell, just customizing vehicles is tedious).

9

[quote=“LuciAssassin”]1 I’ve always preferred a good grind. They shouldn’t stack the best items at last, but it shouldn’t be given to you automatically. Being given objects for completing tasks (progressing) activates something in humans, which makes them want more. That’s how MMO’s can run so long. I think it’s nice.

2 destruction is battlefield (like many have said) but I agree, they should make levolution systems more viable for actual game changing, instead of just gimmicks.

3 They should make playing alone MORE punishing. They keep saying they want a team oriented game, but they don’t push it. Imagine if spawning was in waves: once someone dies, the wave counter starts. Anyone who dies before the wave counter finishes will spawn in that wave too. The closer a POINT is the enemy HQ, and the closer a squad member is to an enemy POINT, the longer the wave counter (squad counter being lower than normal point counter).
Revives should be slower and generally playing alone should be possible, but also much harder. Too many times we have people just running into a meat grinder and either re-spawning 5 sec later, or getting insta-revived.
If someone just sits around doing nothing to avoid dying, they are a hindrance to their team, and the enemy team gets the upper hand. This will force people to play smart but still maintain aggressiveness.

4 I absolutely agree with the weapons customization from the map window. There is really no reason for them to have a second option screen for that (hell, just customizing vehicles is tedious).[/quote]

3 thats sounds like a fun game mode that would work in this game, evry time a wave spawns they start in the trenches

10

@LuciAssassin said:
3 They should make playing alone MORE punishing. They keep saying they want a team oriented game, but they don’t push it. Imagine if spawning was in waves: once someone dies, the wave counter starts. Anyone who dies before the wave counter finishes will spawn in that wave too. The closer a POINT is the enemy HQ, and the closer a squad member is to an enemy POINT, the longer the wave counter (squad counter being lower than normal point counter).
Revives should be slower and generally playing alone should be possible, but also much harder. Too many times we have people just running into a meat grinder and either re-spawning 5 sec later, or getting insta-revived.
If someone just sits around doing nothing to avoid dying, they are a hindrance to their team, and the enemy team gets the upper hand. This will force people to play smart but still maintain aggressiveness.

I believe teamwork should be encouraged, for sure. The issue with Field Upgrades is that it can punish teamwork as well - more specifically, it punishes failure. A squad that’s working together should be encouraged to get right back up, and try again. The “punishment” is losing the match.

In 1942 you had players that went out of their way to take out the carrier - a valuable asset to the enemy team. That’s another example of a reward that punishes the enemy team, and not individuals themselves. It’s a team game, as you’ve said. The team itself needs to be punished, and not individual players. Players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive - they should be encouraged to work together and go for the win.

11

I agree with the second two points, though getting squad wiped should have some penalty still, like it does in BF4, you should be smart enough to revive your fallen squadmates, or stay alive for them to spawn on you so you dont have to respawn at base or some far away flag.

On this first point, I think progression should be more like something where you start off with all the basics for weapons, like 1 RDS/1 4x sight, Laser/Magnifier/flashlight, Hbar/muzzle break/compensator/suppressor, Angled grip/Stubby Grip/Ergo Grip. Considering you need about 100 kills to unlock most things for your gun, thats 100 kills where you will be at a slight disadvantage, with most guns its not that big of a deal, but some guns need some grip or barrel option to become good, and are much worse without them.

So progression should really just be to unlock paints for the gun, different looking customization options (like the different grips/suppressors/sights in BF4), maybe some small things like being able to add a kill count to your gun that updates every time you respawn if you got more kills in the life before etc. Not gameplay changing options, atleast not “major” gameplay changing options. Green laser vs red laser affects things minorly, but mostly its just a personal preference, thats where the progression should be.

12

@Bertominus_Rex said:
I believe teamwork should be encouraged, for sure. The issue with Field Upgrades is that it can punish teamwork as well - more specifically, it punishes failure. A squad that’s working together should be encouraged to get right back up, and try again. The “punishment” is losing the match.

In 1942 you had players that went out of their way to take out the carrier - a valuable asset to the enemy team. That’s another example of a reward that punishes the enemy team, and not individuals themselves. It’s a team game, as you’ve said. The team itself needs to be punished, and not individual players. Players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive - they should be encouraged to work together and go for the win.

That is very true.
The field upgrades don’t really add much either, besides someone getting more armor… I could maybe see something like the squad leader being able to “choose” a squad designation (engineer, medic, artillery) at the start of the game (not changable), that would then give the squad bonus points if they focus on that. That would allow the team to also see which other squads to stick with, if they wanted something specific (like a tank, sticking around the squad that gets bonus points for being engineers, and vice versa).

13

@Bertominus_Rex said:
Really wanted to share my concerns over Battlefield 1.

Grinding / Progression:
Grinding is my number 1 issue with almost any multiplayer shooter, and a balance just isn’t being struck between pleasing the casual and the invested audiences. Battlefield is designed around its gameplay, and progression should merely be there to enhance the experience. The problem I’ve seen is that both Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be pushing towards progression for the sake of progression, and as a result this can hinder the gameplay. Take Battlefield 3 and it’s squad perks as an example - what purpose did those unlock serve outside of progression? All it did was hurt the gameplay, and create an even bigger divide between new and experienced players.

Attachments and vehicle unlocks are even worse for me. The customization is there to allow the player to cater their loadout to their playstyle. Why do players have to earn the ability to do this? In Battlefield 3, it was such a buzzkill to use one gun, get bored of it… swap to another one that looks interesting before realizing - “Oh… oh wait, this doesn’t have any attachments”. Not a big issue by any means, but it adds up. Vehicle unlocks are equally annoying. Why do I have to earn the right to use TV missiles? Why do I need to get experience with a vehicle just to have the tools to counter enemy pilots? Maybe ECM jammers fit my strategies more, so why can’t I just equip it from the start?

Don’t get me wrong, progression serves it’s purpose. I just think it’s silly when it interferes with gameplay. With Battlefield 4, we saw the introduction of alternative attachments, emblems, camos, and other cosmetic features. Now more than ever the franchise has so many features that can be used to balance this aspect of the game. It has so many cosmetic features that could be used for the late game challenges, and keep players that enjoy grinding busy. Take a look at Call of Duty 4 - it did a fairly good job at pleasing both audiences. All gameplay affecting content could be unlocked within 20 hours. It gives that nice early progression that invested players crave, but it also offers a sweet escape from grinding that other players might seek. They offered two late-game challenges for the invested audience - prestiging and gold camos. The issue being that prestiging had to be done first if both were the goal of the player.

I’m not saying to add prestiging into the game, but rather to use a similar mentality to progression. Have an early game progression that appeals to invested and casual audiences alike (20 hours or less), and then have that transition into the late-game challenges which only offer cosmetic rewards. At the 20 hour mark, the average player having all the weapons and vehicle upgrades unlocked. Afterwards, players may shift their focus onto the cosmetic unlocks. Camo’s may offer several tiers of difficulty to obtain in order to give invested players a variety of challenges to go for. Alternate attachments (eg. green laser sight) as well as character customization could also be used to give players additional challenges to grind towards.

By limiting the progression curve to around 20 hours for gameplay affecting content, players can still be eased into the content and they can still feel the satisfaction of earning items. However, it better allows players to experiment and craft their loadouts to their playstyle, and it helps reduce the divide between new and experienced players. More importantly, it allows players that hate grinding have an escape, and they’re able to experience the game at its fullest within a short amount of time (in comparison to other challenges present). Ultimately, it’s about crafting an enjoyable experience for both the casual and the invested audiences.

Destruction:
With Battlefield 3, destruction proved to hurt the map balance on certain modes such as TDM and Conquest. I’m sure this aspect was carefully looked at with Battlefield 1, but I’d like to share my concerns over it as well (I’ll keep this one short).

Caspian Border was a perfect example of a map that gets it’s balance absolutely destroyed. As the match played on, there was a shift in balance between infantry players and vehicles. As more and more cover was destroyed, there were less areas and paths for infantry players to use. All in all, a very frustrating experience, especially when the enemy team had experienced pilots.

I’ve made a thread about this before, but in a nutt shell I’d like to see more emphasis on the evolution of a map rather than its destruction. Maybe have destruction that actually adds to the cover: buildings falling over, bombers crashing, land deforming, caves opening up, etc. Maybe have class roles that can repair certain structures. Or, maybe even go as far as to design maps twice: once in their initial state, and once in their final state. This way maps could have more strategic value to their destruction. If the final state of the map is balanced, then the question a team must ask is - “What do we have to destroy to regain the balance?”. Meta strategies may form, and there may be a tug of war that occurs to keep the balance centralized. A very hard task for sure, but I’d like to see something. To the very least, limited destruction in modes that don’t work well with it.

Survive-ability Rewards:
Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline both had mechanics that rewarded a players ability to perform objectives while surviving. I really don’t see how these mechanics benefit the overall experience. By rewarding survive-ability, players are only encouraged to play it safe and limit their deaths. If a squad makes an effort to take over a key objective, why should they be punished for failing? Shouldn’t they be encouraged to regroup and try again?

The issue with these mechanics is that they seem to encourage an individuals performance rather than team performance. Rewards can still be offered for success that don’t punish individual players. Take 1943’s bombing run - it gave teams key objectives to take, and it offered advantages for capturing them. If a squad failed to take it, no worries - they did nothing wrong. They just have to think of a better strategy or try the same one again.

By avoiding punishing individual players, they can be encouraged to take risks and potentially turn the tide. Your squads effectiveness isn’t diminished for failure, but there are still rewards that benefit the team as a whole. Ultimately, players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive, but to work together and work towards victory.

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

@Bertominus_Rex said:
Really wanted to share my concerns over Battlefield 1.

Grinding / Progression:
Grinding is my number 1 issue with almost any multiplayer shooter, and a balance just isn’t being struck between pleasing the casual and the invested audiences. Battlefield is designed around its gameplay, and progression should merely be there to enhance the experience. The problem I’ve seen is that both Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be pushing towards progression for the sake of progression, and as a result this can hinder the gameplay. Take Battlefield 3 and it’s squad perks as an example - what purpose did those unlock serve outside of progression? All it did was hurt the gameplay, and create an even bigger divide between new and experienced players.

Attachments and vehicle unlocks are even worse for me. The customization is there to allow the player to cater their loadout to their playstyle. Why do players have to earn the ability to do this? In Battlefield 3, it was such a buzzkill to use one gun, get bored of it… swap to another one that looks interesting before realizing - “Oh… oh wait, this doesn’t have any attachments”. Not a big issue by any means, but it adds up. Vehicle unlocks are equally annoying. Why do I have to earn the right to use TV missiles? Why do I need to get experience with a vehicle just to have the tools to counter enemy pilots? Maybe ECM jammers fit my strategies more, so why can’t I just equip it from the start?

Don’t get me wrong, progression serves it’s purpose. I just think it’s silly when it interferes with gameplay. With Battlefield 4, we saw the introduction of alternative attachments, emblems, camos, and other cosmetic features. Now more than ever the franchise has so many features that can be used to balance this aspect of the game. It has so many cosmetic features that could be used for the late game challenges, and keep players that enjoy grinding busy. Take a look at Call of Duty 4 - it did a fairly good job at pleasing both audiences. All gameplay affecting content could be unlocked within 20 hours. It gives that nice early progression that invested players crave, but it also offers a sweet escape from grinding that other players might seek. They offered two late-game challenges for the invested audience - prestiging and gold camos. The issue being that prestiging had to be done first if both were the goal of the player.

I’m not saying to add prestiging into the game, but rather to use a similar mentality to progression. Have an early game progression that appeals to invested and casual audiences alike (20 hours or less), and then have that transition into the late-game challenges which only offer cosmetic rewards. At the 20 hour mark, the average player having all the weapons and vehicle upgrades unlocked. Afterwards, players may shift their focus onto the cosmetic unlocks. Camo’s may offer several tiers of difficulty to obtain in order to give invested players a variety of challenges to go for. Alternate attachments (eg. green laser sight) as well as character customization could also be used to give players additional challenges to grind towards.

By limiting the progression curve to around 20 hours for gameplay affecting content, players can still be eased into the content and they can still feel the satisfaction of earning items. However, it better allows players to experiment and craft their loadouts to their playstyle, and it helps reduce the divide between new and experienced players. More importantly, it allows players that hate grinding have an escape, and they’re able to experience the game at its fullest within a short amount of time (in comparison to other challenges present). Ultimately, it’s about crafting an enjoyable experience for both the casual and the invested audiences.

Destruction:
With Battlefield 3, destruction proved to hurt the map balance on certain modes such as TDM and Conquest. I’m sure this aspect was carefully looked at with Battlefield 1, but I’d like to share my concerns over it as well (I’ll keep this one short).

Caspian Border was a perfect example of a map that gets it’s balance absolutely destroyed. As the match played on, there was a shift in balance between infantry players and vehicles. As more and more cover was destroyed, there were less areas and paths for infantry players to use. All in all, a very frustrating experience, especially when the enemy team had experienced pilots.

I’ve made a thread about this before, but in a nutt shell I’d like to see more emphasis on the evolution of a map rather than its destruction. Maybe have destruction that actually adds to the cover: buildings falling over, bombers crashing, land deforming, caves opening up, etc. Maybe have class roles that can repair certain structures. Or, maybe even go as far as to design maps twice: once in their initial state, and once in their final state. This way maps could have more strategic value to their destruction. If the final state of the map is balanced, then the question a team must ask is - “What do we have to destroy to regain the balance?”. Meta strategies may form, and there may be a tug of war that occurs to keep the balance centralized. A very hard task for sure, but I’d like to see something. To the very least, limited destruction in modes that don’t work well with it.

Survive-ability Rewards:
Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline both had mechanics that rewarded a players ability to perform objectives while surviving. I really don’t see how these mechanics benefit the overall experience. By rewarding survive-ability, players are only encouraged to play it safe and limit their deaths. If a squad makes an effort to take over a key objective, why should they be punished for failing? Shouldn’t they be encouraged to regroup and try again?

The issue with these mechanics is that they seem to encourage an individuals performance rather than team performance. Rewards can still be offered for success that don’t punish individual players. Take 1943’s bombing run - it gave teams key objectives to take, and it offered advantages for capturing them. If a squad failed to take it, no worries - they did nothing wrong. They just have to think of a better strategy or try the same one again.

By avoiding punishing individual players, they can be encouraged to take risks and potentially turn the tide. Your squads effectiveness isn’t diminished for failure, but there are still rewards that benefit the team as a whole. Ultimately, players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive, but to work together and work towards victory.

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

@Bertominus_Rex said:
Really wanted to share my concerns over Battlefield 1.

Grinding / Progression:
Grinding is my number 1 issue with almost any multiplayer shooter, and a balance just isn’t being struck between pleasing the casual and the invested audiences. Battlefield is designed around its gameplay, and progression should merely be there to enhance the experience. The problem I’ve seen is that both Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be pushing towards progression for the sake of progression, and as a result this can hinder the gameplay. Take Battlefield 3 and it’s squad perks as an example - what purpose did those unlock serve outside of progression? All it did was hurt the gameplay, and create an even bigger divide between new and experienced players.

Attachments and vehicle unlocks are even worse for me. The customization is there to allow the player to cater their loadout to their playstyle. Why do players have to earn the ability to do this? In Battlefield 3, it was such a buzzkill to use one gun, get bored of it… swap to another one that looks interesting before realizing - “Oh… oh wait, this doesn’t have any attachments”. Not a big issue by any means, but it adds up. Vehicle unlocks are equally annoying. Why do I have to earn the right to use TV missiles? Why do I need to get experience with a vehicle just to have the tools to counter enemy pilots? Maybe ECM jammers fit my strategies more, so why can’t I just equip it from the start?

Don’t get me wrong, progression serves it’s purpose. I just think it’s silly when it interferes with gameplay. With Battlefield 4, we saw the introduction of alternative attachments, emblems, camos, and other cosmetic features. Now more than ever the franchise has so many features that can be used to balance this aspect of the game. It has so many cosmetic features that could be used for the late game challenges, and keep players that enjoy grinding busy. Take a look at Call of Duty 4 - it did a fairly good job at pleasing both audiences. All gameplay affecting content could be unlocked within 20 hours. It gives that nice early progression that invested players crave, but it also offers a sweet escape from grinding that other players might seek. They offered two late-game challenges for the invested audience - prestiging and gold camos. The issue being that prestiging had to be done first if both were the goal of the player.

I’m not saying to add prestiging into the game, but rather to use a similar mentality to progression. Have an early game progression that appeals to invested and casual audiences alike (20 hours or less), and then have that transition into the late-game challenges which only offer cosmetic rewards. At the 20 hour mark, the average player having all the weapons and vehicle upgrades unlocked. Afterwards, players may shift their focus onto the cosmetic unlocks. Camo’s may offer several tiers of difficulty to obtain in order to give invested players a variety of challenges to go for. Alternate attachments (eg. green laser sight) as well as character customization could also be used to give players additional challenges to grind towards.

By limiting the progression curve to around 20 hours for gameplay affecting content, players can still be eased into the content and they can still feel the satisfaction of earning items. However, it better allows players to experiment and craft their loadouts to their playstyle, and it helps reduce the divide between new and experienced players. More importantly, it allows players that hate grinding have an escape, and they’re able to experience the game at its fullest within a short amount of time (in comparison to other challenges present). Ultimately, it’s about crafting an enjoyable experience for both the casual and the invested audiences.

Destruction:
With Battlefield 3, destruction proved to hurt the map balance on certain modes such as TDM and Conquest. I’m sure this aspect was carefully looked at with Battlefield 1, but I’d like to share my concerns over it as well (I’ll keep this one short).

Caspian Border was a perfect example of a map that gets it’s balance absolutely destroyed. As the match played on, there was a shift in balance between infantry players and vehicles. As more and more cover was destroyed, there were less areas and paths for infantry players to use. All in all, a very frustrating experience, especially when the enemy team had experienced pilots.

I’ve made a thread about this before, but in a nutt shell I’d like to see more emphasis on the evolution of a map rather than its destruction. Maybe have destruction that actually adds to the cover: buildings falling over, bombers crashing, land deforming, caves opening up, etc. Maybe have class roles that can repair certain structures. Or, maybe even go as far as to design maps twice: once in their initial state, and once in their final state. This way maps could have more strategic value to their destruction. If the final state of the map is balanced, then the question a team must ask is - “What do we have to destroy to regain the balance?”. Meta strategies may form, and there may be a tug of war that occurs to keep the balance centralized. A very hard task for sure, but I’d like to see something. To the very least, limited destruction in modes that don’t work well with it.

Survive-ability Rewards:
Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline both had mechanics that rewarded a players ability to perform objectives while surviving. I really don’t see how these mechanics benefit the overall experience. By rewarding survive-ability, players are only encouraged to play it safe and limit their deaths. If a squad makes an effort to take over a key objective, why should they be punished for failing? Shouldn’t they be encouraged to regroup and try again?

The issue with these mechanics is that they seem to encourage an individuals performance rather than team performance. Rewards can still be offered for success that don’t punish individual players. Take 1943’s bombing run - it gave teams key objectives to take, and it offered advantages for capturing them. If a squad failed to take it, no worries - they did nothing wrong. They just have to think of a better strategy or try the same one again.

By avoiding punishing individual players, they can be encouraged to take risks and potentially turn the tide. Your squads effectiveness isn’t diminished for failure, but there are still rewards that benefit the team as a whole. Ultimately, players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive, but to work together and work towards victory.

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

@Bertominus_Rex said:
Really wanted to share my concerns over Battlefield 1.

Grinding / Progression:
Grinding is my number 1 issue with almost any multiplayer shooter, and a balance just isn’t being struck between pleasing the casual and the invested audiences. Battlefield is designed around its gameplay, and progression should merely be there to enhance the experience. The problem I’ve seen is that both Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be pushing towards progression for the sake of progression, and as a result this can hinder the gameplay. Take Battlefield 3 and it’s squad perks as an example - what purpose did those unlock serve outside of progression? All it did was hurt the gameplay, and create an even bigger divide between new and experienced players.

Attachments and vehicle unlocks are even worse for me. The customization is there to allow the player to cater their loadout to their playstyle. Why do players have to earn the ability to do this? In Battlefield 3, it was such a buzzkill to use one gun, get bored of it… swap to another one that looks interesting before realizing - “Oh… oh wait, this doesn’t have any attachments”. Not a big issue by any means, but it adds up. Vehicle unlocks are equally annoying. Why do I have to earn the right to use TV missiles? Why do I need to get experience with a vehicle just to have the tools to counter enemy pilots? Maybe ECM jammers fit my strategies more, so why can’t I just equip it from the start?

Don’t get me wrong, progression serves it’s purpose. I just think it’s silly when it interferes with gameplay. With Battlefield 4, we saw the introduction of alternative attachments, emblems, camos, and other cosmetic features. Now more than ever the franchise has so many features that can be used to balance this aspect of the game. It has so many cosmetic features that could be used for the late game challenges, and keep players that enjoy grinding busy. Take a look at Call of Duty 4 - it did a fairly good job at pleasing both audiences. All gameplay affecting content could be unlocked within 20 hours. It gives that nice early progression that invested players crave, but it also offers a sweet escape from grinding that other players might seek. They offered two late-game challenges for the invested audience - prestiging and gold camos. The issue being that prestiging had to be done first if both were the goal of the player.

I’m not saying to add prestiging into the game, but rather to use a similar mentality to progression. Have an early game progression that appeals to invested and casual audiences alike (20 hours or less), and then have that transition into the late-game challenges which only offer cosmetic rewards. At the 20 hour mark, the average player having all the weapons and vehicle upgrades unlocked. Afterwards, players may shift their focus onto the cosmetic unlocks. Camo’s may offer several tiers of difficulty to obtain in order to give invested players a variety of challenges to go for. Alternate attachments (eg. green laser sight) as well as character customization could also be used to give players additional challenges to grind towards.

By limiting the progression curve to around 20 hours for gameplay affecting content, players can still be eased into the content and they can still feel the satisfaction of earning items. However, it better allows players to experiment and craft their loadouts to their playstyle, and it helps reduce the divide between new and experienced players. More importantly, it allows players that hate grinding have an escape, and they’re able to experience the game at its fullest within a short amount of time (in comparison to other challenges present). Ultimately, it’s about crafting an enjoyable experience for both the casual and the invested audiences.

Destruction:
With Battlefield 3, destruction proved to hurt the map balance on certain modes such as TDM and Conquest. I’m sure this aspect was carefully looked at with Battlefield 1, but I’d like to share my concerns over it as well (I’ll keep this one short).

Caspian Border was a perfect example of a map that gets it’s balance absolutely destroyed. As the match played on, there was a shift in balance between infantry players and vehicles. As more and more cover was destroyed, there were less areas and paths for infantry players to use. All in all, a very frustrating experience, especially when the enemy team had experienced pilots.

I’ve made a thread about this before, but in a nutt shell I’d like to see more emphasis on the evolution of a map rather than its destruction. Maybe have destruction that actually adds to the cover: buildings falling over, bombers crashing, land deforming, caves opening up, etc. Maybe have class roles that can repair certain structures. Or, maybe even go as far as to design maps twice: once in their initial state, and once in their final state. This way maps could have more strategic value to their destruction. If the final state of the map is balanced, then the question a team must ask is - “What do we have to destroy to regain the balance?”. Meta strategies may form, and there may be a tug of war that occurs to keep the balance centralized. A very hard task for sure, but I’d like to see something. To the very least, limited destruction in modes that don’t work well with it.

Survive-ability Rewards:
Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline both had mechanics that rewarded a players ability to perform objectives while surviving. I really don’t see how these mechanics benefit the overall experience. By rewarding survive-ability, players are only encouraged to play it safe and limit their deaths. If a squad makes an effort to take over a key objective, why should they be punished for failing? Shouldn’t they be encouraged to regroup and try again?

The issue with these mechanics is that they seem to encourage an individuals performance rather than team performance. Rewards can still be offered for success that don’t punish individual players. Take 1943’s bombing run - it gave teams key objectives to take, and it offered advantages for capturing them. If a squad failed to take it, no worries - they did nothing wrong. They just have to think of a better strategy or try the same one again.

By avoiding punishing individual players, they can be encouraged to take risks and potentially turn the tide. Your squads effectiveness isn’t diminished for failure, but there are still rewards that benefit the team as a whole. Ultimately, players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive, but to work together and work towards victory.

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

@Bertominus_Rex said:
Really wanted to share my concerns over Battlefield 1.

Grinding / Progression:
Grinding is my number 1 issue with almost any multiplayer shooter, and a balance just isn’t being struck between pleasing the casual and the invested audiences. Battlefield is designed around its gameplay, and progression should merely be there to enhance the experience. The problem I’ve seen is that both Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be pushing towards progression for the sake of progression, and as a result this can hinder the gameplay. Take Battlefield 3 and it’s squad perks as an example - what purpose did those unlock serve outside of progression? All it did was hurt the gameplay, and create an even bigger divide between new and experienced players.

Attachments and vehicle unlocks are even worse for me. The customization is there to allow the player to cater their loadout to their playstyle. Why do players have to earn the ability to do this? In Battlefield 3, it was such a buzzkill to use one gun, get bored of it… swap to another one that looks interesting before realizing - “Oh… oh wait, this doesn’t have any attachments”. Not a big issue by any means, but it adds up. Vehicle unlocks are equally annoying. Why do I have to earn the right to use TV missiles? Why do I need to get experience with a vehicle just to have the tools to counter enemy pilots? Maybe ECM jammers fit my strategies more, so why can’t I just equip it from the start?

Don’t get me wrong, progression serves it’s purpose. I just think it’s silly when it interferes with gameplay. With Battlefield 4, we saw the introduction of alternative attachments, emblems, camos, and other cosmetic features. Now more than ever the franchise has so many features that can be used to balance this aspect of the game. It has so many cosmetic features that could be used for the late game challenges, and keep players that enjoy grinding busy. Take a look at Call of Duty 4 - it did a fairly good job at pleasing both audiences. All gameplay affecting content could be unlocked within 20 hours. It gives that nice early progression that invested players crave, but it also offers a sweet escape from grinding that other players might seek. They offered two late-game challenges for the invested audience - prestiging and gold camos. The issue being that prestiging had to be done first if both were the goal of the player.

I’m not saying to add prestiging into the game, but rather to use a similar mentality to progression. Have an early game progression that appeals to invested and casual audiences alike (20 hours or less), and then have that transition into the late-game challenges which only offer cosmetic rewards. At the 20 hour mark, the average player having all the weapons and vehicle upgrades unlocked. Afterwards, players may shift their focus onto the cosmetic unlocks. Camo’s may offer several tiers of difficulty to obtain in order to give invested players a variety of challenges to go for. Alternate attachments (eg. green laser sight) as well as character customization could also be used to give players additional challenges to grind towards.

By limiting the progression curve to around 20 hours for gameplay affecting content, players can still be eased into the content and they can still feel the satisfaction of earning items. However, it better allows players to experiment and craft their loadouts to their playstyle, and it helps reduce the divide between new and experienced players. More importantly, it allows players that hate grinding have an escape, and they’re able to experience the game at its fullest within a short amount of time (in comparison to other challenges present). Ultimately, it’s about crafting an enjoyable experience for both the casual and the invested audiences.

Destruction:
With Battlefield 3, destruction proved to hurt the map balance on certain modes such as TDM and Conquest. I’m sure this aspect was carefully looked at with Battlefield 1, but I’d like to share my concerns over it as well (I’ll keep this one short).

Caspian Border was a perfect example of a map that gets it’s balance absolutely destroyed. As the match played on, there was a shift in balance between infantry players and vehicles. As more and more cover was destroyed, there were less areas and paths for infantry players to use. All in all, a very frustrating experience, especially when the enemy team had experienced pilots.

I’ve made a thread about this before, but in a nutt shell I’d like to see more emphasis on the evolution of a map rather than its destruction. Maybe have destruction that actually adds to the cover: buildings falling over, bombers crashing, land deforming, caves opening up, etc. Maybe have class roles that can repair certain structures. Or, maybe even go as far as to design maps twice: once in their initial state, and once in their final state. This way maps could have more strategic value to their destruction. If the final state of the map is balanced, then the question a team must ask is - “What do we have to destroy to regain the balance?”. Meta strategies may form, and there may be a tug of war that occurs to keep the balance centralized. A very hard task for sure, but I’d like to see something. To the very least, limited destruction in modes that don’t work well with it.

Survive-ability Rewards:
Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline both had mechanics that rewarded a players ability to perform objectives while surviving. I really don’t see how these mechanics benefit the overall experience. By rewarding survive-ability, players are only encouraged to play it safe and limit their deaths. If a squad makes an effort to take over a key objective, why should they be punished for failing? Shouldn’t they be encouraged to regroup and try again?

The issue with these mechanics is that they seem to encourage an individuals performance rather than team performance. Rewards can still be offered for success that don’t punish individual players. Take 1943’s bombing run - it gave teams key objectives to take, and it offered advantages for capturing them. If a squad failed to take it, no worries - they did nothing wrong. They just have to think of a better strategy or try the same one again.

By avoiding punishing individual players, they can be encouraged to take risks and potentially turn the tide. Your squads effectiveness isn’t diminished for failure, but there are still rewards that benefit the team as a whole. Ultimately, players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive, but to work together and work towards victory.

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

@Bertominus_Rex said:
Really wanted to share my concerns over Battlefield 1.

Grinding / Progression:
Grinding is my number 1 issue with almost any multiplayer shooter, and a balance just isn’t being struck between pleasing the casual and the invested audiences. Battlefield is designed around its gameplay, and progression should merely be there to enhance the experience. The problem I’ve seen is that both Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be pushing towards progression for the sake of progression, and as a result this can hinder the gameplay. Take Battlefield 3 and it’s squad perks as an example - what purpose did those unlock serve outside of progression? All it did was hurt the gameplay, and create an even bigger divide between new and experienced players.

Attachments and vehicle unlocks are even worse for me. The customization is there to allow the player to cater their loadout to their playstyle. Why do players have to earn the ability to do this? In Battlefield 3, it was such a buzzkill to use one gun, get bored of it… swap to another one that looks interesting before realizing - “Oh… oh wait, this doesn’t have any attachments”. Not a big issue by any means, but it adds up. Vehicle unlocks are equally annoying. Why do I have to earn the right to use TV missiles? Why do I need to get experience with a vehicle just to have the tools to counter enemy pilots? Maybe ECM jammers fit my strategies more, so why can’t I just equip it from the start?

Don’t get me wrong, progression serves it’s purpose. I just think it’s silly when it interferes with gameplay. With Battlefield 4, we saw the introduction of alternative attachments, emblems, camos, and other cosmetic features. Now more than ever the franchise has so many features that can be used to balance this aspect of the game. It has so many cosmetic features that could be used for the late game challenges, and keep players that enjoy grinding busy. Take a look at Call of Duty 4 - it did a fairly good job at pleasing both audiences. All gameplay affecting content could be unlocked within 20 hours. It gives that nice early progression that invested players crave, but it also offers a sweet escape from grinding that other players might seek. They offered two late-game challenges for the invested audience - prestiging and gold camos. The issue being that prestiging had to be done first if both were the goal of the player.

I’m not saying to add prestiging into the game, but rather to use a similar mentality to progression. Have an early game progression that appeals to invested and casual audiences alike (20 hours or less), and then have that transition into the late-game challenges which only offer cosmetic rewards. At the 20 hour mark, the average player having all the weapons and vehicle upgrades unlocked. Afterwards, players may shift their focus onto the cosmetic unlocks. Camo’s may offer several tiers of difficulty to obtain in order to give invested players a variety of challenges to go for. Alternate attachments (eg. green laser sight) as well as character customization could also be used to give players additional challenges to grind towards.

By limiting the progression curve to around 20 hours for gameplay affecting content, players can still be eased into the content and they can still feel the satisfaction of earning items. However, it better allows players to experiment and craft their loadouts to their playstyle, and it helps reduce the divide between new and experienced players. More importantly, it allows players that hate grinding have an escape, and they’re able to experience the game at its fullest within a short amount of time (in comparison to other challenges present). Ultimately, it’s about crafting an enjoyable experience for both the casual and the invested audiences.

Destruction:
With Battlefield 3, destruction proved to hurt the map balance on certain modes such as TDM and Conquest. I’m sure this aspect was carefully looked at with Battlefield 1, but I’d like to share my concerns over it as well (I’ll keep this one short).

Caspian Border was a perfect example of a map that gets it’s balance absolutely destroyed. As the match played on, there was a shift in balance between infantry players and vehicles. As more and more cover was destroyed, there were less areas and paths for infantry players to use. All in all, a very frustrating experience, especially when the enemy team had experienced pilots.

I’ve made a thread about this before, but in a nutt shell I’d like to see more emphasis on the evolution of a map rather than its destruction. Maybe have destruction that actually adds to the cover: buildings falling over, bombers crashing, land deforming, caves opening up, etc. Maybe have class roles that can repair certain structures. Or, maybe even go as far as to design maps twice: once in their initial state, and once in their final state. This way maps could have more strategic value to their destruction. If the final state of the map is balanced, then the question a team must ask is - “What do we have to destroy to regain the balance?”. Meta strategies may form, and there may be a tug of war that occurs to keep the balance centralized. A very hard task for sure, but I’d like to see something. To the very least, limited destruction in modes that don’t work well with it.

Survive-ability Rewards:
Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline both had mechanics that rewarded a players ability to perform objectives while surviving. I really don’t see how these mechanics benefit the overall experience. By rewarding survive-ability, players are only encouraged to play it safe and limit their deaths. If a squad makes an effort to take over a key objective, why should they be punished for failing? Shouldn’t they be encouraged to regroup and try again?

The issue with these mechanics is that they seem to encourage an individuals performance rather than team performance. Rewards can still be offered for success that don’t punish individual players. Take 1943’s bombing run - it gave teams key objectives to take, and it offered advantages for capturing them. If a squad failed to take it, no worries - they did nothing wrong. They just have to think of a better strategy or try the same one again.

By avoiding punishing individual players, they can be encouraged to take risks and potentially turn the tide. Your squads effectiveness isn’t diminished for failure, but there are still rewards that benefit the team as a whole. Ultimately, players shouldn’t be encouraged to stay alive, but to work together and work towards victory.

Allow loadouts to be modified from the map:
One thing that annoyed me about Hardline and BF4 was that they added an extra click to customize the loadout. Sometimes I frequently find myself switching weapons to mix things up, and BF3 was fairly convenient in this regard. Sounds silly, but it’s a minor improvement that would be amazing in my eyes.
Here’s a concept to show what I mean: Loadout-Concept-Slideshow-Images - Album on Imgur
Further improvements could be made, for sure. It’s just an example of what I’d like to see. The camo slot doesn’t make much sense to have - its easier and more convenient to choose them within the full menu. Overall, the logic behind these two menus would be that the quick-selector is used for altering play styles, and the full customization screen is used for altering aesthetics as well as the finer details of loadouts.

It’s PC-centric, but I personally think user interfaces should be designed with platform strengths in mind.

Could stick to call of duty bro?

14

@ThatElzoGuy said:

Could stick to call of duty bro?

You don’t need to quote that entire message six times, let alone once. What does your question have to do with this thread?

15

I’m bumping this due to the increased activity of the forums - wasn’t satisfied with the responses.

16

I have a solution for the weapon progression system, now for this you still have to unlock all of the attachments, but they can make the attachments standardized across all weapons.

For example using a sniper, If you you unlock the x12 zoomed scope, you unlock that attachment for all snipers. If you unlock an extended clip fo a sub machine gun you unlock it for all sub machine guns. Most weapon parts and attachments are/were standardized at the time, thanks to Henry Fords idea of interchangeable parts which were integrated into the military. This would allow players to build up a gun, unlock a better gun, with already has some of its attachments unlocked that’s to unlocking them in other guns of a similar type (rifle, shotgun, machine gun)

They can still add more advanced attachments for only the elite guns to allow further progression requirements.

Honestly I don’t know why they haven’t done this yet…

17

tl;dr: tl,dr

18

I’d definitely prefer this system over the current one. For me, attachments were the biggest grind in BF3.

19

Yeah and it really makes sense, no reason to unlock the same scope for every weapon

20

Grinding / Progression
Rank progression should be mainly about objective scoring. Player score should be irrelevant. Each rank should have a set objective based criteria. It would severely limit boosting and promote more objective based team play.

  • Rank 1: 100 kills, 15 captures, 30 defends
  • Rank 2: 100 kills, 30 captures, 50 defends, 10 vehicles destroyed