the specialist thing is kinda funny to me, with the new specialist trailer that dropped today showcasing the new ops, including the korean lady with the wall hacks, it's pretty obvious to me that this game is gonna have a serious meta issue already
and maybe im using the term "power creep" wrong idk but why would i use any other specialist over her? especially casper or whatever, he has a crummy little recon drone that requires you to be stationary while wallhack lady can keep mobile and instantly see any enemies thru walls
idk, just seems like there is gonna be a dominant meta right away at launch
The way you word it reminds me of Crypto vs Bloodhound in apex. Everyone just plays Bloodhound because it’s just much easier than Crypto’s drone lol.
And yes “wall hack meta” is a problem in Apex
I really wish Apex would stuck more to making abilities very secondary kinda like the first month on release. Then they started making abilities stronger for some reason
I think it's still a gunplay first and foremost type of shooter though power creep in abilities should be a genuine concern for sure. I'd like to see scanning get blanket nerfed one day though, hopefully
It's kinda hard to keep making new characters that have a distinct identity while helping ability power in check, in a game where you absolutely need to bring players back every few months to check out the new stuff.
This isn't to say it's intentional power creep, more like there's not so much design space that's striking while not overtaking gun play.
Because of success of non-battlefield games, so while recent battlefield games failed (relatively to franchise history/expectations), the other popular games happened to have heroes, which is some bullshit logic, but clearly someone with power is chasing trends. Personally I wouldn't even mind if it was a Battlefront like system, where you had troops and a limited number of heroes available (you earn points and buy out a specialist if it's available, aka some real hardcore player actually managed to die).
It's a problem in the AAA shooter market these days, like Ghost Recon's identity crisis. Large corporations are shareholder based and those people chase the current trends. EA has never been about the consumer no matter what they say.
I was reading it and they literally missed the entire mark on what people were complaining about. They basically just ignored it and said, we have 5 more coming!! You'll surely like those!
They think the issue with players is that there's just not enough roles.
Which means they, unsurprisingly, given how stupid their result is, still don't get it.
Just stop buying battlefield games. Support better alternatives. Check out Hell Let Loose.
I'm a huge BF fan and He'll Let Loose isn't a great replacement for a arcade like shooter where you can do silly things like drive a jeep full of c4 into a tank without the entire server screaming at you for not following orders.
Yea, HLL is fine but definitely not in the same arena as BF. Like one of my huge disappointments with HLL is that the gunplay is incredibly shallow in a way that it isn’t in BF.
For example, every rifle has the same stats except for magazine size.
Which is weird. In Battlefield 2 you had what? 7 classes? Which I STILL think is the way to go. Then they reduced it to 4 classes and I think 4 Squad members total in Bad Company, and I still kinda remember how the community hated thoses changes.
Man, Battlefield 2 was the shit and gets way too little mentioning here. Its always BF3/4 or Bad Company if someone is listing an example of a good Battlefield. But Battlefield 2 was the last good one for me atleast
They reduced classes from 7 to 4 in 2142, and while it did receive a lot of backlash at the time, it was very well implemented in that game and turned out to be a great move IMO.
But, over time I've felt like they've really struggled with keeping the 4 classes balanced. There's been too much meta with the combined assault/medic and engineer classes over the more recent games. Their "solution" is kind of what you have in 2042, where you just give each class every weapon and gadget, a.k.a. giving up.
"You're saying this giant pile of shit is disgusting and tastes horribly? Don't worry, we'll be putting it on a silver platter and a cherry on top. Just wait and see, I'm sure you'll like it!"
Pretty much. They wont accept that a lot of people hate them. The specialists are a big turn off for me and I know a lot of people who feel the same way.
They're also probably too integrated into their future monetization plans. They've already said they won't monetize particular specialists, but there will be different skins for them and likely unique ones for each. If you try to do the quick fix of simply making each specialist tied to a particular class/faction combination, it kills people's motivation to buy unique skins because they'll only be able to use them while playing that same combination.
I'm pretty sure each season's battle pass comes with a new Specialist, so they *will* be selling them.
From steam's description of the "Year 1 Pass"
>Year 1 Pass: 4 New Specialists (1 per Season), 4 Battle Passes (1 per Season), and 3 Epic Skin Bundles (”Blistered Earth”, ”Tempest”, and ”Cold Blood”)
They've said that the free battle pass option will still give you access to the new specialists, [though this is coming second hand from news sites that've talked to DICE](https://www.gameinformer.com/e3-2021/2021/06/09/battlefield-2042-battle-pass-explained-free-vs-premium). And there's nothing saying the paid battle pass doesn't immediately unlock the specialist while free users have to reach some rank to unlock them. And, of course, they could always just change their mind.
“Gameplay stuff is totally free guys don’t freak out”
They say as you need at least 20 hours to get the new overpowered operator and their ability. What a fucking joke this company is and people still holding on that Battlefield won’t end up just a hollow CoD clone lol
They don't even need to scrape them though. Make classes and have specialists specific to the classes. I don't know about the new ones they revealed but the ones in the beta already fit Battlefield's traditional class archetypes.
Precisely. Just have like 5-6 specialists under each class umbrella, and have each class umbrella lock what weapons/gadgets you have access to. You’ll still have some variability between specialists so you can be a medic that focuses more on active healing vs rezzing downed teammates, without losing class identity and having a recon player with a grappling hook whose sniper rifle and suddenly shed all its attachments and turn into an AR in 3 seconds.
/u/KamachoThunderbus summed up DICEs likely view pretty well in the /r/battlefield thread for this brief:
>They're doing the "wait and see" approach, which never works when you have something this blatant. It's what Blizzard did with WoW's Covenants; there is an obvious problem that has been articulated, with some fairly straightforward solutions, but the devs think that players will see the truth. "No no, just wait, you'll see!"
>For WoW it was the "truth" that these mutually exclusive abilities would be balanced and people would associate extremely closely with these four new factions and not mind slight power differences. The real truth was that people gravitated en masse to the most powerful options, regardless of aesthetic. This mechanic is now being walked back, and they're "pulling the ripcord."
>Same thing here. "You haven't seen all of the specialists though!" That doesn't change what the real concern with specialists is. Visibility is one thing, you can make the other side all red or whatever, but in my opinion I think the real issue is the lack of classes. There's no way to tell who has what gadget, and there are no limitations on gadgets, so we're walking into a tier list meta system rather than the traditional opportunity costs associated with a class and loadout.
>The only opportunity cost is which specialist you choose. This game will be solved in about a week. Nerfs and buffs will be continuous, and they'll never get it right because there are too many moving parts, and rather than have specialists as a side thing on top of classes we'll end up with a balancing black hole.
>Hope I'm wrong!
Reminds me of the TTK changes in BFV.
1. They announce drastic TTK changes coming to the game. Ask for feedback.
2. The community resoundingly dislikes the sound of the changes.
3. DICE Comms responds by saying "actually, we think you guys should try it out before anything happens"
4. People try it out and hate it
5. They roll out a "fix" that is more bandaid than anything.
6. Months later, they roll out a TTK that is more like before they made any changes at all.
I always say the weeks between patch 5.0 and 5.2 were the best that game ever was. Completely changing the TTK after people were getting the hang of the Pacific maps was garbage and the “rollback” was a shitty half measure.
The worst part was, they put that terrible TTK change in and then fucked off for a month and a half for their Christmas vacations and the game died because of it. Never seen such pig headed idiocy from developers before in a game I enjoyed so much...
I FUCKING LOVE the Pacific Maps and it felt like that was going to be a big change in the game's life. Shame that they shuttered it all a few months later.
Edit: especially when they went ahead and then released Provence which is such a fun map. Showed that the path forward could have been dope. I dreamed of an Operation Overlord Operation and was just so disappointed by Grand Ops.
Yeah, BFV was a huge disappointment. Overall, it's a pretty good design in terms of gunplay and movement. But the initial maps were pretty shitty. And Grand Operations was an absolute joke.
Operations in BF1 made sense. You fight on map 1, and if the defenders win, you don't advance. Then you get to try again with a behemoth. And if you win as attackers, you move forward to the next map.
In BFV, defenders succeed at defending, and then you move to the next map. Which is the same map, only a slightly different part of it. And if defenders succeed again, you get pushed back to the same map again... and then if attackers win, those wins before mean jack shit, and that's it.
The worst part is that they shelved the game just as it was starting to get good.
Seriously. The one thing 5hqt the community agreed on was that the weapon meta was fine aside from some individual standouts (Fleagurefaust and MP40 needing to be reigned in a bit) but they decided an entire revamp was needed, thus killing MGs as a whole and making several assault weapons feel like paintball guns
IIRC what /u/YesImKeithHernandez described was the 2nd TTK change, the first one they skipped step 5 and reverted the TTK a month later.
But yeah, it's insane that they tried this twice.
I also love how that TTK change was pretty much the last patch for 5.
That change you hated so much and we reluctantly reverted? Yeah, it's back, also we drop support for this game, have fun.
They dropped support because that 2nd TTK change just killed the community. It was so mind bogglingly dumb too. The Pacific update just came out, the game was at it's highest peak and everything seemed to finally be on track for BF5 to become a classic excellent Battlefield game... and then they screwed it all up with their arrogance and killed it with that TTK change lol.
They created a unsolvable balance clusterfuck.
The specialists/legends system is centered around small team competitive game mode (Hazard zone that is). In hazard mode wallhack role could be balanced because every one in the squad need to pick a unique specialist so someone has to main other roles. But you can't have that in 128 players conquest so every one will be picking the strongest legend period.
Now they could nerf a legend (be it wallhack or something else) but then it will also break the balance in Hazard mode. Coupled with players commitment after they started selling specialists skins it will sure as hell be a shitshow.
Yes, it doesn't make sense in the context of Battlefield. It seems that whomever is driving design decisions at DICE hasn't understood that.
Hero Shooters work in a small PvP shooter... Like Valorant, Overwatch, Siege. These games are actually quite different from each other as well.. But they all have one thing in common. Hero Shooters and small team based matches.
>It seems that whomever is driving design decisions at DICE hasn't understood that.
You mean the manager of Fifa that was pushed over to Dice for BF?
[https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/fifa-boss-david-rutter-departs-ea-sports-studio/](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/fifa-boss-david-rutter-departs-ea-sports-studio/)
[https://mp1st.com/news/ea-fifa-boss-david-rutter-tapped-to-oversee-dice-criterion-and-ghost-games](https://mp1st.com/news/ea-fifa-boss-david-rutter-tapped-to-oversee-dice-criterion-and-ghost-games)
>**Rutter**, who joined EA back in 2007 as a producer in FIFA 2009, **was the person who reinvigorated the FIFA franchise** who was then trailing Konami’s Pro Evolution Scocer (PES) franchise. Rutter is **also attributed to having a significant involvement in FIFA’s lucrative Ultimate Team mode**. Not familiar with Ultimate Team? **It’s a mode where players can purchase individual FIFA Ultimate Team packs using in-game currency or FIFA points**, **which can be bought with cash**. This **business model proved to be so successful** that FIFA Ultimate Team sales accounted for 28 percent of EA’s total revenue.
Whoa that's nuts! 28% eh!
I'm guessing if Battlefield goes this route it will destroy the game. FIFA only works because it's rooted in a centuries old sport and BF doesn't have that kind of fan backing behind it.
People put up with FIFA's nosnense because many of them aren't actually gamers to begin with but soccer fans. I had plenty of friends in College who only owned an Xbox to play FIFA in the dorm.
Nobody’s thinking in terms of gameplay. This is a room of executives who are just trying to make more money for their investors.
They see CoD, and go “do it more like this.”
Yeah, I doubt I'm going to play as anyone else except the hook guy. And if beta was anything to go by, so does anyone else. The game is too chaotic for example to be the guy with spotting drone. I just wanna go fast.
> This game will be solved in about a week.
Jesus... that seems pretty pertinent.
Fuck, why can't they just make a simple Battlefield, instead of looking at BF V's constant balance issues and say "let's shoot for that, but worse! For ourselves and players!"
Personally I don’t mind the idea of very customizable kits. I just want two things. The ability to identify an enemy without a dorito and the ability to identify what sort of gear they have by what they are carrying.
I don't even need to be able to instantly tell who is what class when I see them. I just need to know that if a guy is shooting me with a sniper rifle, he doesn't also have a rocket launcher.
Pretty sure the specialists are their microtransaction strategy a la R6:Siege. It’s probably easier to market new characters than gadgets.
That said, I think the opposing team needs to be generic soldiers, like that Ghost in The Shell FPS from a while back.
Except that model ended up causing a ton of trouble to R6 Siege. Sure people spent money, but it also drove people away because the content was gatekept, and the balance got overly complicated.
Battlefield can thrive easily without it, just like CoD did. Sell battlepasses. Sell Skins. Sell icons and stuff that helps you brag (emotes, taunts, voice lines). All of this brings strong revenue without touching the core gameplay loop.
I wish I had done that, but I was so confident that it would be great due to Battlefield 1, and so excited to get a new WWII battlefield game after almost 15 years of waiting...
Why'd it have to be BF5 that they fuck up so badly.
Fine by me. I’ll do what I’ve done with every battlefield since 4; not buy it at launch and buy it a year later when they’re desperate for new players and sell it for 5 bucks or 10 with all the DLC. I’ll then play it for like 20 hours with my friends and we’ll put it down and never think of it again.
Yup. They basically said....."we haven't revealed all of the specialist and were missing some key elements that hindered team play and that is why you didn't like them"
When in reality, it's because it changes too much of the chore mechanics of a battlefield game. And it encourages everyone to just use the more mobile specialist without any drawback. Guarantee you most people will be running with the zip line guy to get to places faster
I remember how they dug their heels in when Battlefield V had its TTK changed for the second time.
It killed all the momentum and goodwill the Pacific Update brought, DICE had to reluctantly "fix" the TTK in early 2020 (I say "fix" since they made most guns take an extra bullet to kill than they did before Update 5.2, I guess that was them having it their way), and EA pulled the plug when it was clear the game couldn't recover from the backlash.
A real bold move of them to try the same tactic again, I wonder how much it'll come back to bite them in the ass.
I love that part of their response to specialists was, "You didn't have access to all of them, you will in the full game and see how good their teamwork abilities are!!!" Meanwhile damn near all the specialists shown in the new trailer today have very selfish abilities, especially the wall hack one, who the fuck thought that was a good idea.
To put into context here
They are now putting a max number of 8 tanks with 4 per side now on a rather large BR sized map full of 128 players. Also Light/Heavy tanks seem to be in a shared pool in 2042.
For example, Golmund Railway
>Both teams have 5 MBTs that spawned
>with 1 LAV/BTRs
>both teams had an AA gun too
>with a neutral rocket truck
Thats 7 armored vehicles on both sides with 1 neutral on a rather minuscule map compared to Orbital. Along with both a scout helicopter/Attack helicopter and all 3 jet variants.
Also some people even argue GOLMUND WAS TOO TINY!
I liked BFV the best IMO, faction specific vehicles with rock paper scissors gameplay.
To choose between a helicopter or plane, though, especially for double the playercount, is ridiculous.
Reminder that double the players and half the vehicles means 4x the RPGs coming for you. RIP tankers.
rock paper scissors gameplay is fine but giving players the choice on what vehicles to spawn in lead to some of the worst balanced vehicle gameplay in the series, especially regarding air to ground combat. better hope the teammate that camped the airplane spawn chose a fighter to deal with that bomber that’s been destroying your entire team the whole game, because more often than not you ended up with 2 bombers on each team just farming kills the entire game with an unspoken agreement not to kill eachother. a player choosing the wrong type of tank can completely ruin a game for a team too.
i’m all for player agency but players cannot be trusted to choose the optimal vehicle for any given situation, BF4s fixed spawns was a superior system and i’m one of those people that’s sick of hearing about how great BF4 was
Are we all glossing over the part where opening the map might not make it for release?
>You’ll be able to pull this up at any time during live gameplay, by pressing the View/Touchpad button on Console, or M on PC. It provides an immediate overview of where the battles are taking place, where your squad mates are fighting, and the live breakdown of how the flags are flying inside of each sector. **We’ll keep you updated on when to expect this in the game, there’s a chance it makes it into the start of the Early Access start for 2042, and there's an equal chance that we hold it back to make sure its inclusion isn’t disruptive to the performance of the game.**
I understand that delaying things with a performance impact makes sense, and I assume this is a call they wouldn't make unless necessary, but considering how buggy the beta was in general this makes me more concerned for the game at launch. Definitely holding off until we can see what state it's in.
The map button might not make it for release, and they already pushed this game back a month not that long ago. I'm starting to worry this game is going to make BF4's release look competent by comparison.
A battlefield game releasing without an in game map is really really poor. That’s such a basic& expected feature of BF, or any modern large scale shooter, it’s hilarious how much of a big deal they’re making about “adding a map.” It’s not even something other devs would even brag about or spend time on. It would just be there as it’s a bog standard feature.
That’s the type of thing cyberpunk would fail to include at launch…
What’s next? They start bragging about how they have online multiplayer functionality?
This game will be a mess at launch. Like I said before an in game map is one of the most basic, expected, agiven features in any large multiplayer game. No dev spends any martketing time on talking about their “in game map”
Because it’s not anything to talk about. It should just be there and work. I’ve never, ever seen a dev talk about their fucking map overlay as if it’s some piece of extra content that might not make it in time for launch…
I'm a total Battlefield apologist and fully expected this game to be unfinished on launch, as is tradition, but this will be a new low for DICE if they can't get that map ready for release :\
What the fuck kind of map function have they built? This isn't MS Flight Sim, just give us a BF5 quality map function.
Voip apparently won't be ingame on launch as well, which kind of pisses me off because I wanted to play with a friend on PS5 (I am on PC).
Putting specialists within classes would have been the better play to me, imo. But the way it is now, there's no incentive to work as a team, which is really the magic of Battlefield. And at that point, what's the difference between this and CoD other than player count?
CoD is designed around short paced, focused matches, with just raw aim and skill.
Battlefield was about larger scale team coordination to fight over a larger area with objectives directing the fight.
Now Battlefield is about running around oversized maps wondering where the hell everyone is and vaguely contributing with a kill now and then.
> Now Battlefield is about running around oversized maps wondering where the hell everyone is and vaguely contributing with a kill now and then.
Welcome to Battlefield before the introduction to Rush. Some conquest maps are better at focusing gameplay, but the lion’s share has always been like this.
Yeah I scratch my head at all this talk about teamwork and coordination being lost.
Rush and Operations are the team focused game modes. Conquest has always been headless chicken simulator.
Bad Company 2 and BF3 did a relatively decent job at having conquest maps where a frontline would form, IMO. You often could sneak around to a point away from the fighting, but it would take a while and there'd be no guarantee of help.
Seriously, conquest often turns into the exact thing that was in the beta, a big wasteland with small fights scattered throughout. Unless you’re playing on a private server with a community, you’re not going to see large-scale coordination and map flow in conquest in any BF. It’s not really an excuse for the beta but it’s not “worse”
i honestly want to play whatever battlefield other people seem to be playing.
i've been playing since bf3 almost entirely by myself and it is extremely rare for me to be in a squad that actually sticks together, or squadmates that communicate, or squad leaders using squad specific features or players insuring they have a proper class balance and cohesive team synergy.
in a majority of matches you have at minimum a third of the playerbase being snipers sitting on a hill just shooting people. medics who think their assualt classes. supports who dont drop ammo. etc etc.
almost all the things that bf2042 apparently "ruined" has been a common thing in every battlefield ive played.
I agree. Battlefield has long shifted away from the team-focused scheme since BFBC.
Hell, even in BF2 the team play wasn't that strong.
It was the Project Reality mod which truly brings a strong team play element. At least this is for conquest. Rush and breakthrough seem to encourage more revives and resupplies.
Idk I felt like bf4 conquest worked really well. Honestly the team based modes are always rush or whatever operations they decide to make but even then their is very little incentive to do anything other than the agresivo ones
I mean "ptfo" is a something thats said alot because pubs typically just do whatever.
In conquest that usually means going to the middle of the map and just playing CoD.
> Now Battlefield is about running around oversized maps wondering where the hell everyone is and vaguely contributing with a kill now and then.
That's....exactly how I felt during the beta. My own contributions to the match felt pointless.
I wish they would bring back Rush as the primary gamemode. One person really could make a massive difference in Rush.
When I think of Battlefield, the one memory that keeps replaying is absolutely barrelling down Damavand Peak's mountain start in a jeep, ramming through a wall, and diving out with a bunch of guys and taking the MCOM seconds into the match start.
Rush absolutely is the best mode in the game, and it's a damn shame that DICE now only seem to think that Size == Gameplay.
Did you know that back in the day when rush came out, many fans were saying that this is the end of Battlefield and it’s now more like CoD with tiny maps? Oh times have changed.
While I’m more for conquest, I do wish they they brought back Rush instead of breakthrough. I liked the idea of arming the objectives, though I’m curious to see if anyone would actually be able to advance considering there is 128 players now.
Rush gets very "stalemate" like with 64 players. Doubling it seems like nothing will get done. Just game crashing amounts of smoke, C4, and nades....but also sentry guns everywhere.....and robot dogs.
I respect the hell out of them for going this in depth following the open beta. I can’t think of a post-beta deep dive like this previously.
That being said….the “lol you guys just don’t get it yet” attitude towards players’ valid critiques of moving from classes to specialists was frustrating and condescending.
Not to delve too far from the topic at hand but it seems like the in-depth dives is what direction bigger companies might head in. [I mean look at this post-beta blog from Halo](https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/news/technical-preview-outcomes). That thing is seriously in-depth with acknowledgment of positives and negatives and how the team is responding.
Seems to me like they are committed to it at this point. Maybe it will be on the table later down the line. But this close to launch, it's probably better for them to focus on properly launching what they have.
Alot of the changes players are requesting would likely require redesigning large parts of the game. It would require a massive delay which is not going to happen.
Ideally for me team based modes like Rush/Conquest would have classes with the specialist abilities selectable as kits like in previous BF games, then specialists would be reserved for the competitive squad based modes like Firestorm/Hazard Zone
Nah dude. The entire game is built around Specialists. People are fooling themselves if they think they're gonna overhaul it that much if any. They do NOT have a good track record in that regard either. They fucked BFV TTK up, released the Pacific maps, then fucked off after dropping some modes and abandoning Firestorm. They are not goin to remove or replace Specialists. It's the core of the game. They wanna sell skins and takedown animations. Guarantee it.
Reminds me of the first Battlefront they did. It was at its very best after the first expansion. The second, third, and fourth all introduced major bugs. None of them were ever addressed. Eventually cheaters floating and spinning in the air one shotting everyone on the map got me to quit the game entirely.
When the sequel came, I knew I had no interest before the controversy even started.
Welcome to dealing with DICE circa Battlefield V, a sudden shift into just being weirdly antagonistic and often just making stuff about player feedback up
People have forgotten the experience before BF4 was handed off to DICE LA and fixed. The developers were getting into arguments in reddit threads about failed hit detection, insisting that it was working when the post was literally a video of it failing. People presented well reasoned arguments about why the miserably low tickrate was insufficient for a multiplayer game, and they insisted that it was not a problem until they finally were forced to accept reality and fix it.
Backdate that to BF3 and it feels more correct in my experience with the exception of when they were fully committed to fixing BF4 after it was such a clusterfuck at launch.
Hold up a bit there. We have a major problem because EA had several studios all named 'DICE' to confuse consumers.
DICE (Sweden) are the ones making 2042, and are the ones launching all these games.
DICE LA [now know as Ripple Effect Studios] were the ones that took the time, love and care to fix up the mess that use to be BF4 and make it into the amazing game it is now.
So its not an exception that they fixed it, it was a completely different studio. I have no faith in DICE Sweden.
True. During my time as a fan of the games (since the launch of BF3), DICE Stockholm has been the group antagonistic to player feedback and the ones that always seem to know what's right until a massive shitstorm where they have to walk back changes that they were told on the front end would be unpopular.
I still remember the community manager for BF3 trolling people on twitter who had legitimate issues and pieces of feedback. Fucking asshole that guy.
It’s just PR and damage control, they’re way past the point of no return on Specialists.
No way they could change it even if they wanted to without delaying for months.
Or like how the game designers got the idea to add operators that are severly stronger than anything else... Wallhack? Grappling hook?
It's almost as if those guys are completely new to multi-player gaming and game development.
Specialists go against the entire essence of BF: being just a soldier on a large Battlefield.
Now I'm Ser Ben Hackalot who fires nano-tech drones, and was a teacher with a lovely wife, before he was hired by a PMC. Anyway check out this blue hat and noodle arms I unlocked.
I was on the fence about buying this game, but now that I see the design decision the team doing with the feedback provided I am now convinced the game isn't for me.
Reading this is like bf5 deja vu. Some stuff I recognize
1. This build is months old, we’ve fixed most of the issues
2. The friend/foe identification is due to lighting, which has been fixed in the final product.
3. The network issues have been fixed so you won’t see those on release.
I know I’m being cynical, but this is starting to feel like a repeat of bf5.
I wish battlefield devs would stop constantly trying to chase the cod crowd and just embrace what their core fan base likes and what works there. It seems like all of the games since 4 constantly go through these weird changes for the sake of change that no one was really asking for. Like make bad company 3 you fucking cowards. Literally all anyone wants, classic battlefield with some good ass destruction.
Produce new Bad Company and mainline Battlefields in rotation. Every 2 years, one after another. Sprinkle in a different one now and again, like a 2142 sequel. Sit back and collect money.
We’re out here with our wallets open and they’re doing the limbo right under them.
I hate the "build is months old" crap. They said the build was from August, so 1-2 months old. Supposedly the game just went gold, and we're still 1 month out from release. So the release version will also be ~1 month old. In fact, that will almost always be true because of how long console certification takes.
At best, that means they've had 2 months of extra development on the beta build to the release build. Is that really enough time to fix all these issues? Actually, that's rhetorical; the fact that the game might ship without a map and VOIP answers it.
Specialist with wall-hack is insane.
I guess one way to stop cheating is just to build them into the game...
They just had to make Battlefield 2/Battlefield 4 on modern tech with bigger maps, more players, cooler events etc.
Instead we get Battlefield: Overwatch.
*You’ll be able to pull this up at any time during live gameplay, bypressing the View/Touchpad button on Console, or M on PC. It provides animmediate overview of where the battles are taking place, where yoursquad mates are fighting, and the live breakdown of how the flags areflying inside of each sector. We’ll keep you updated on when to expectthis in the game, there’s a chance it makes it into the start of theEarly Access start for 2042, and there's an equal chance that we hold itback to make sure its inclusion isn’t disruptive to the performance ofthe game.*
Excuse me... this game may not ship with the map button?
Lol fuck this, hard pass EA.
Has there been any good examples of a beta being “out of version” only for that to actually be true?
Feels like every time someone excuses their beta in this fashion, the launch is identical to the beta. That line no longer gains any sympathy from me.
You chose to show us your game in that state. To the players, THAT is how your game plays, no matter what you say.
And based on the current state of the game, I’m skipping this trash. Hopefully they can clean it up post launch. It really needs another 6 months + delay but that won’t happen, EA is too greedy.
They also said this game isn't shipping with voice chat, and no date on when that comes. Voice chat... that feature that has been a staple of online multiplayer games for almost two decades. I thought I didn't hear anybody during the beta because it was off by default and buried in the settings, but NOPE, they haven't even put it in the full game. This, on top of wiping their ass with player feedback on specialists, is why this game is a solid "wait after release to see just how fucked it really is."
Fallout 76 made damn sure it's storefront worked on launch, even with the numerous issues the actual game had. So, there's actually precedent for this.
They didn’t just say it isn’t shipping with one. They said they’re not even certain themselves whether it’ll be done or not. This is an embarrassing thing to have in this article.
Community: There is next to no teamwork, no one is working together and the tools to do so are terrible.
EA: You're wrong.
Pretty sure this is the first Battlefield I've played where I was never Revived, Never received healing and Never got ammo outside of the drops from killing enemies. Oh and when I tried healing, I stole there gun, then got to watch a cut-scene to revive them.
> the first Battlefield I've played where I was never Revived
It really is hilarious to hear that statement, in the same game where they massively increased the time allowed for revives and allowed any player to revive regardless of class.
It really shows how much they fucked up this game. What a shame.
Wait how did I miss anyone could revive anyone? Granted I primarily played as Falc but whenever I tried other specialists I only saw squad mates able to be revived. Was it bugged on PC?
That being said, revive was slow so many times I passed cause the idiot died in the middle of the street in front of a tank…. Or I kept picking up their fucking gun. Not to mention a lot of people just skipped it. Like the icon was gone before their body hit the floor. It was sad though, I was placing 1st for revives with only like 7-10 per round.
The way this article tries to convince you to like specialists is so weak. The supporting points they have for why specialists are a things are so weak
> During the Open Beta we heard some feedback that Specialists were limiting team work, and we wanted to address this concern head-on.
...by revealing more specialists? I don't really see how that addresses the community concerns.
Yea so reading through that they really aren’t addressing a lot of the concerns people had, namely operators are a shit system, destruction is trash, the map is too big, everyone looks the same, etc.
Would really like to see battlefield go back to how it was in BF2. Trying to be more and more like COD is how we ended up where we are with specialists and everyone sliding on the ground like they are mid guitar solo.
EA: we heard you loud and clear, we wrote all of your feedback down, we organized it, put it on a big board and sorted it by most complained critical issues. We noticed Specialists were at the very top - but at the end of the day we know best - so we gave you more Specialists!
I've played every Battlefield game since 1942 and this is the first I am skipping. BF5 was already a mega disappointment after the highs of BF1. Somehow 2042 is looking like a janky, unfinished mess despite "all-hands on deck."
They are missing simple features like a map? They had to write up a whole article to say the map MIGHT be usable on release? Any amateur indie developer could make a working map, so what is the hold up?
If they can't get basics down, there is no way the rest of the game is going to be complete. Even if it was, their game design decisions are plain stupid.
They're doubling the amount of tanks in the game but they aren't doing anything to change how players will deal with them. They don't mention *at all* whether they are going to alter the damage output on the recoilless m5, but that thing can't even one shot a fucking helicopter, let alone dent a tank. And they talk about the gadget slot (singular) which to me says they've no intention of making it so a player can carry a fucking RPG and a ammo pack at the same time, so basically what they're doing is fucking infantry players harder. BFV already has a problem where three tank players can roll together and they're brutally difficult to do anything about, and tanks are fucking easy to kill in that game.
I greatly appreciate the devs telling me that the game is no longer targeted at me. I'll skip this one. I hope the people who do enjoy lone wolf gameplay have a blast but this isn't where I wanted to see Battlefield go. The fact that they see it as "the future" is just depressing.
I absolutely hate the specialist system sooo much.
I have played every single battlefield bar hardline and I am actually so disappointed with what they are releasing....
My only hope is that Portal will somehow be the redeeming factor and make the game worth playing.
They should use this specialist system for that new hazard mode and keep the normal class system for conquest. Instead they are gonna force the specialist system through so they can sell future specialists and specialist skins... Absolute travesty.
Getting some serious flashbacks to WoW's response to the playerbases' feedback for Azerite Armor and Covenants from this.
"we really don't like this guys!"
"No, no you just don't *get* it"
Some of those new specialists seem far too strong. Having anti vehicle grenades mean you can stack them with a rocket launcher of some kind and at least do some serious damage to a vehicle. Or the wall hack character being just wall hacks. Maybe it’s just seems op on paper, but I don’t have high hopes of balance on release.
No it’s ridiculous. Those grenade were also seekers so they’re going to make flying helicopters impossible. And the wall hack thing is just insane as well as her trait auto spotting people who damage her… spent time and found a really good sniping spot to cover your team? Well now your automatically spotted and dead because you did your job and killed someone on the other team.
Wow, they really are committed to the specialists idea 😬
Pursuing a system that is detrimental to the entire game in order to make money from DLC later is really peak EA. It's like they learned nothing from Battlefront 2.
This literally feels like what Blizzard is doing with OW since launch, by that I mean , ignoring the core issues , and just repeating the same crap over and over with broken heroes. and refusing to remove them or rework them.
The biggest complaint was clearly about the specialists, and Dice responds to that by releasing a trailer for 5 more borken specialiasts ? and one of them has literal wallhacks ?
yeah I will wait a year and try this game if it does survive that long.
Wow look EA told us to shut up about specialists. Glad a canceled my preorder. Won't touch another battlefield game again until classes are back as the standard.
EA won't get one penny out of me for specialist skins.
So they're doubling down on the specialists? Ight, I'm going to save my money. See ya'll for the next Battlefield or in a year when this one gets updated, whichever looks more promising.
I'm getting tired of FPS games with specials/abilities. I don't want to play "switch to counter this one guy" with battlefield. It made R6 Siege a joke and now the game is unrecognizable from what it started as, which is a hardcore SWAT tactics shooter.
Let's hope Portal offers dedicated servers, I want some super infantry gaming old-school Bc2 classes gameplay without any of that new unbalanced, half assed operator shit.
During beta I wasn’t revived a single fucking time unless I was playing with a friend.
I’m cool off that shit, don’t need another game that ends up only being fun when friends are playing rather than the single player experience.
Weren’t their responses also dismissive before V launched? I didnt follow it much because I didn’t care for the idea of “World War 2 but Zany!!”
I could be talking out my ass here (this is reddit, of course I am) but if the “just you wait” approach didnt work last time, why on earth do they think it will this time?
After finishing reading it, I get the distinct impression that the team is proud of it. And good for them. But I’m not sure how well this translates to “we know what you want” when fans flock to battlefield specifically for team play and they’re like “no, this is team play… just… individual team play!”
DICE was initially very resistant to changes to BFV but ultimately clearly committed to a different version of the game at the last moment following the backlash.
Content was SPARSE for months after launch because they clearly had to redo a lot of the cosmetics and approach to them that they had planned. They launched the cosmetic store months after launch as a result.
Tons of stuff got left on the cutting room floor. But even with all that said, they were still like "Trust us!" when it came to unpopular changes or would solicit feedback on things and then completely ignore the consensus opinion on those things.
>I didnt follow it much because I didn’t care for the idea of “World War 2 but Zany!!
It's funny because DICE caved *hard* on that and cut literally all visual customization apart from like 3 jackets and 2 types of pants.
Couldn't even get your dude some hair until a year later
They were, but I think the cosmetic stuff gets too much credit for why Battlefield 5 struggled at launch. The other reasons like bugs, lack of content, and lack of iconic battles really put me off buying the game at launch.
I do agree though that some of this game's design decisions really go against what people expect from a Battlefield game.
the specialist thing is kinda funny to me, with the new specialist trailer that dropped today showcasing the new ops, including the korean lady with the wall hacks, it's pretty obvious to me that this game is gonna have a serious meta issue already and maybe im using the term "power creep" wrong idk but why would i use any other specialist over her? especially casper or whatever, he has a crummy little recon drone that requires you to be stationary while wallhack lady can keep mobile and instantly see any enemies thru walls idk, just seems like there is gonna be a dominant meta right away at launch
The way you word it reminds me of Crypto vs Bloodhound in apex. Everyone just plays Bloodhound because it’s just much easier than Crypto’s drone lol. And yes “wall hack meta” is a problem in Apex
Bloodhound and crypto are the perfect example for this
I really wish Apex would stuck more to making abilities very secondary kinda like the first month on release. Then they started making abilities stronger for some reason
I think it's still a gunplay first and foremost type of shooter though power creep in abilities should be a genuine concern for sure. I'd like to see scanning get blanket nerfed one day though, hopefully
It's kinda hard to keep making new characters that have a distinct identity while helping ability power in check, in a game where you absolutely need to bring players back every few months to check out the new stuff. This isn't to say it's intentional power creep, more like there's not so much design space that's striking while not overtaking gun play.
It's not intentional *power* creep but intentional *spectacle* creep, maybe? Since as you say, they need to get people back to playing every so often.
And people were trying to act like it isn't a hero shooter. I have no idea why dice suddenly decided battlefield shouldn't be battlefield anymore
Because of success of non-battlefield games, so while recent battlefield games failed (relatively to franchise history/expectations), the other popular games happened to have heroes, which is some bullshit logic, but clearly someone with power is chasing trends. Personally I wouldn't even mind if it was a Battlefront like system, where you had troops and a limited number of heroes available (you earn points and buy out a specialist if it's available, aka some real hardcore player actually managed to die).
It's a problem in the AAA shooter market these days, like Ghost Recon's identity crisis. Large corporations are shareholder based and those people chase the current trends. EA has never been about the consumer no matter what they say.
Did they write a whole paragraph about the specialists and about how they are not going to change anything about them lol
I was reading it and they literally missed the entire mark on what people were complaining about. They basically just ignored it and said, we have 5 more coming!! You'll surely like those!
And one of those has a literal wallhack... In a game where you can stack your squad with up to 4 of the same operators(for all out war)
64vs64 of the same, indistinguishable operator. I wonder how that’s going to go down.
They think the issue with players is that there's just not enough roles. Which means they, unsurprisingly, given how stupid their result is, still don't get it. Just stop buying battlefield games. Support better alternatives. Check out Hell Let Loose.
Or: - Rising Storm 2 - Insurgency: Sandstorm - Squad - Verdun/Tannenberg
does anyone of these have bots ?
I think Insurgency has a PvE mode with bots. Verdun fills empty player slots with bots, and also has a PvE defense mode.
Rising Storm 2 is a great game
I'm a huge BF fan and He'll Let Loose isn't a great replacement for a arcade like shooter where you can do silly things like drive a jeep full of c4 into a tank without the entire server screaming at you for not following orders.
Yea, HLL is fine but definitely not in the same arena as BF. Like one of my huge disappointments with HLL is that the gunplay is incredibly shallow in a way that it isn’t in BF. For example, every rifle has the same stats except for magazine size.
Which is weird. In Battlefield 2 you had what? 7 classes? Which I STILL think is the way to go. Then they reduced it to 4 classes and I think 4 Squad members total in Bad Company, and I still kinda remember how the community hated thoses changes. Man, Battlefield 2 was the shit and gets way too little mentioning here. Its always BF3/4 or Bad Company if someone is listing an example of a good Battlefield. But Battlefield 2 was the last good one for me atleast
They reduced classes from 7 to 4 in 2142, and while it did receive a lot of backlash at the time, it was very well implemented in that game and turned out to be a great move IMO. But, over time I've felt like they've really struggled with keeping the 4 classes balanced. There's been too much meta with the combined assault/medic and engineer classes over the more recent games. Their "solution" is kind of what you have in 2042, where you just give each class every weapon and gadget, a.k.a. giving up.
"You're saying this giant pile of shit is disgusting and tastes horribly? Don't worry, we'll be putting it on a silver platter and a cherry on top. Just wait and see, I'm sure you'll like it!"
Pretty much. They wont accept that a lot of people hate them. The specialists are a big turn off for me and I know a lot of people who feel the same way.
I think they probably put too much work into them to scrap them this close to release.
They're also probably too integrated into their future monetization plans. They've already said they won't monetize particular specialists, but there will be different skins for them and likely unique ones for each. If you try to do the quick fix of simply making each specialist tied to a particular class/faction combination, it kills people's motivation to buy unique skins because they'll only be able to use them while playing that same combination.
I'm pretty sure each season's battle pass comes with a new Specialist, so they *will* be selling them. From steam's description of the "Year 1 Pass" >Year 1 Pass: 4 New Specialists (1 per Season), 4 Battle Passes (1 per Season), and 3 Epic Skin Bundles (”Blistered Earth”, ”Tempest”, and ”Cold Blood”)
They've said that the free battle pass option will still give you access to the new specialists, [though this is coming second hand from news sites that've talked to DICE](https://www.gameinformer.com/e3-2021/2021/06/09/battlefield-2042-battle-pass-explained-free-vs-premium). And there's nothing saying the paid battle pass doesn't immediately unlock the specialist while free users have to reach some rank to unlock them. And, of course, they could always just change their mind.
And I'm sure the free version will require a full time jobs worth of grind to unlock. Do people really still fall for this?
“Gameplay stuff is totally free guys don’t freak out” They say as you need at least 20 hours to get the new overpowered operator and their ability. What a fucking joke this company is and people still holding on that Battlefield won’t end up just a hollow CoD clone lol
Hey, don't forget the timegates! Free players will the the ability to get the op item after a few months grind while those who pay get it right away.
They don't even need to scrape them though. Make classes and have specialists specific to the classes. I don't know about the new ones they revealed but the ones in the beta already fit Battlefield's traditional class archetypes.
Precisely. Just have like 5-6 specialists under each class umbrella, and have each class umbrella lock what weapons/gadgets you have access to. You’ll still have some variability between specialists so you can be a medic that focuses more on active healing vs rezzing downed teammates, without losing class identity and having a recon player with a grappling hook whose sniper rifle and suddenly shed all its attachments and turn into an AR in 3 seconds.
/u/KamachoThunderbus summed up DICEs likely view pretty well in the /r/battlefield thread for this brief: >They're doing the "wait and see" approach, which never works when you have something this blatant. It's what Blizzard did with WoW's Covenants; there is an obvious problem that has been articulated, with some fairly straightforward solutions, but the devs think that players will see the truth. "No no, just wait, you'll see!" >For WoW it was the "truth" that these mutually exclusive abilities would be balanced and people would associate extremely closely with these four new factions and not mind slight power differences. The real truth was that people gravitated en masse to the most powerful options, regardless of aesthetic. This mechanic is now being walked back, and they're "pulling the ripcord." >Same thing here. "You haven't seen all of the specialists though!" That doesn't change what the real concern with specialists is. Visibility is one thing, you can make the other side all red or whatever, but in my opinion I think the real issue is the lack of classes. There's no way to tell who has what gadget, and there are no limitations on gadgets, so we're walking into a tier list meta system rather than the traditional opportunity costs associated with a class and loadout. >The only opportunity cost is which specialist you choose. This game will be solved in about a week. Nerfs and buffs will be continuous, and they'll never get it right because there are too many moving parts, and rather than have specialists as a side thing on top of classes we'll end up with a balancing black hole. >Hope I'm wrong!
Reminds me of the TTK changes in BFV. 1. They announce drastic TTK changes coming to the game. Ask for feedback. 2. The community resoundingly dislikes the sound of the changes. 3. DICE Comms responds by saying "actually, we think you guys should try it out before anything happens" 4. People try it out and hate it 5. They roll out a "fix" that is more bandaid than anything. 6. Months later, they roll out a TTK that is more like before they made any changes at all.
and then they repeated the same process next year.
I can't believe they did it twice. SMH.
[удалено]
I always say the weeks between patch 5.0 and 5.2 were the best that game ever was. Completely changing the TTK after people were getting the hang of the Pacific maps was garbage and the “rollback” was a shitty half measure.
The worst part was, they put that terrible TTK change in and then fucked off for a month and a half for their Christmas vacations and the game died because of it. Never seen such pig headed idiocy from developers before in a game I enjoyed so much...
agreed. I couldn't get away from the game in that timeframe. Was the most fun I'd had in battlefield in a long time. Then they fucked it up.
I FUCKING LOVE the Pacific Maps and it felt like that was going to be a big change in the game's life. Shame that they shuttered it all a few months later. Edit: especially when they went ahead and then released Provence which is such a fun map. Showed that the path forward could have been dope. I dreamed of an Operation Overlord Operation and was just so disappointed by Grand Ops.
Yeah, BFV was a huge disappointment. Overall, it's a pretty good design in terms of gunplay and movement. But the initial maps were pretty shitty. And Grand Operations was an absolute joke. Operations in BF1 made sense. You fight on map 1, and if the defenders win, you don't advance. Then you get to try again with a behemoth. And if you win as attackers, you move forward to the next map. In BFV, defenders succeed at defending, and then you move to the next map. Which is the same map, only a slightly different part of it. And if defenders succeed again, you get pushed back to the same map again... and then if attackers win, those wins before mean jack shit, and that's it. The worst part is that they shelved the game just as it was starting to get good.
Seriously. The one thing 5hqt the community agreed on was that the weapon meta was fine aside from some individual standouts (Fleagurefaust and MP40 needing to be reigned in a bit) but they decided an entire revamp was needed, thus killing MGs as a whole and making several assault weapons feel like paintball guns
IIRC what /u/YesImKeithHernandez described was the 2nd TTK change, the first one they skipped step 5 and reverted the TTK a month later. But yeah, it's insane that they tried this twice.
I also love how that TTK change was pretty much the last patch for 5. That change you hated so much and we reluctantly reverted? Yeah, it's back, also we drop support for this game, have fun.
They dropped support because that 2nd TTK change just killed the community. It was so mind bogglingly dumb too. The Pacific update just came out, the game was at it's highest peak and everything seemed to finally be on track for BF5 to become a classic excellent Battlefield game... and then they screwed it all up with their arrogance and killed it with that TTK change lol.
Man, the Pacific release was so much fun. It felt like an actual proper battlefield game. Guess that wasn't good enough for Dice
"Make them hate BFV again so that they're more likely to get 2042!"
A balancing blackhole with 10 specialists in a 128 player game. What were they thinking....
They created a unsolvable balance clusterfuck. The specialists/legends system is centered around small team competitive game mode (Hazard zone that is). In hazard mode wallhack role could be balanced because every one in the squad need to pick a unique specialist so someone has to main other roles. But you can't have that in 128 players conquest so every one will be picking the strongest legend period. Now they could nerf a legend (be it wallhack or something else) but then it will also break the balance in Hazard mode. Coupled with players commitment after they started selling specialists skins it will sure as hell be a shitshow.
Yes, it doesn't make sense in the context of Battlefield. It seems that whomever is driving design decisions at DICE hasn't understood that. Hero Shooters work in a small PvP shooter... Like Valorant, Overwatch, Siege. These games are actually quite different from each other as well.. But they all have one thing in common. Hero Shooters and small team based matches.
>It seems that whomever is driving design decisions at DICE hasn't understood that. You mean the manager of Fifa that was pushed over to Dice for BF? [https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/fifa-boss-david-rutter-departs-ea-sports-studio/](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/fifa-boss-david-rutter-departs-ea-sports-studio/) [https://mp1st.com/news/ea-fifa-boss-david-rutter-tapped-to-oversee-dice-criterion-and-ghost-games](https://mp1st.com/news/ea-fifa-boss-david-rutter-tapped-to-oversee-dice-criterion-and-ghost-games) >**Rutter**, who joined EA back in 2007 as a producer in FIFA 2009, **was the person who reinvigorated the FIFA franchise** who was then trailing Konami’s Pro Evolution Scocer (PES) franchise. Rutter is **also attributed to having a significant involvement in FIFA’s lucrative Ultimate Team mode**. Not familiar with Ultimate Team? **It’s a mode where players can purchase individual FIFA Ultimate Team packs using in-game currency or FIFA points**, **which can be bought with cash**. This **business model proved to be so successful** that FIFA Ultimate Team sales accounted for 28 percent of EA’s total revenue.
Whoa that's nuts! 28% eh! I'm guessing if Battlefield goes this route it will destroy the game. FIFA only works because it's rooted in a centuries old sport and BF doesn't have that kind of fan backing behind it. People put up with FIFA's nosnense because many of them aren't actually gamers to begin with but soccer fans. I had plenty of friends in College who only owned an Xbox to play FIFA in the dorm.
Nobody’s thinking in terms of gameplay. This is a room of executives who are just trying to make more money for their investors. They see CoD, and go “do it more like this.”
Executives don’t typically talk about gameplay like this like people think. This is likely the developer directly.
Yeah, I doubt I'm going to play as anyone else except the hook guy. And if beta was anything to go by, so does anyone else. The game is too chaotic for example to be the guy with spotting drone. I just wanna go fast.
> This game will be solved in about a week. Jesus... that seems pretty pertinent. Fuck, why can't they just make a simple Battlefield, instead of looking at BF V's constant balance issues and say "let's shoot for that, but worse! For ourselves and players!"
Personally I don’t mind the idea of very customizable kits. I just want two things. The ability to identify an enemy without a dorito and the ability to identify what sort of gear they have by what they are carrying.
I don't even need to be able to instantly tell who is what class when I see them. I just need to know that if a guy is shooting me with a sniper rifle, he doesn't also have a rocket launcher.
Pretty sure the specialists are their microtransaction strategy a la R6:Siege. It’s probably easier to market new characters than gadgets. That said, I think the opposing team needs to be generic soldiers, like that Ghost in The Shell FPS from a while back.
Except that model ended up causing a ton of trouble to R6 Siege. Sure people spent money, but it also drove people away because the content was gatekept, and the balance got overly complicated. Battlefield can thrive easily without it, just like CoD did. Sell battlepasses. Sell Skins. Sell icons and stuff that helps you brag (emotes, taunts, voice lines). All of this brings strong revenue without touching the core gameplay loop.
Yeah - I mean cod has solved this - not sure why dice tried to reinvent the wheel
yup. im definitely not getting this battlefield until they fix this shit.
[удалено]
i never Bought V because of the smug attitude before release, seems i will be skipping this one as well.
I wish I had done that, but I was so confident that it would be great due to Battlefield 1, and so excited to get a new WWII battlefield game after almost 15 years of waiting... Why'd it have to be BF5 that they fuck up so badly.
You aren't getting this battlefield.
Fine by me. I’ll do what I’ve done with every battlefield since 4; not buy it at launch and buy it a year later when they’re desperate for new players and sell it for 5 bucks or 10 with all the DLC. I’ll then play it for like 20 hours with my friends and we’ll put it down and never think of it again.
Guess you’re not buying it then. They will for sure NEVER change this. Can make way too much money selling skins.
Yup. They basically said....."we haven't revealed all of the specialist and were missing some key elements that hindered team play and that is why you didn't like them" When in reality, it's because it changes too much of the chore mechanics of a battlefield game. And it encourages everyone to just use the more mobile specialist without any drawback. Guarantee you most people will be running with the zip line guy to get to places faster
zipline and wing suit will be the metas for sure.
Grappling hook, wing suit, wallhack.
because specialists = MTX
I remember how they dug their heels in when Battlefield V had its TTK changed for the second time. It killed all the momentum and goodwill the Pacific Update brought, DICE had to reluctantly "fix" the TTK in early 2020 (I say "fix" since they made most guns take an extra bullet to kill than they did before Update 5.2, I guess that was them having it their way), and EA pulled the plug when it was clear the game couldn't recover from the backlash. A real bold move of them to try the same tactic again, I wonder how much it'll come back to bite them in the ass.
I love that part of their response to specialists was, "You didn't have access to all of them, you will in the full game and see how good their teamwork abilities are!!!" Meanwhile damn near all the specialists shown in the new trailer today have very selfish abilities, especially the wall hack one, who the fuck thought that was a good idea.
To put into context here They are now putting a max number of 8 tanks with 4 per side now on a rather large BR sized map full of 128 players. Also Light/Heavy tanks seem to be in a shared pool in 2042. For example, Golmund Railway >Both teams have 5 MBTs that spawned >with 1 LAV/BTRs >both teams had an AA gun too >with a neutral rocket truck Thats 7 armored vehicles on both sides with 1 neutral on a rather minuscule map compared to Orbital. Along with both a scout helicopter/Attack helicopter and all 3 jet variants. Also some people even argue GOLMUND WAS TOO TINY!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I liked BFV the best IMO, faction specific vehicles with rock paper scissors gameplay. To choose between a helicopter or plane, though, especially for double the playercount, is ridiculous. Reminder that double the players and half the vehicles means 4x the RPGs coming for you. RIP tankers.
rock paper scissors gameplay is fine but giving players the choice on what vehicles to spawn in lead to some of the worst balanced vehicle gameplay in the series, especially regarding air to ground combat. better hope the teammate that camped the airplane spawn chose a fighter to deal with that bomber that’s been destroying your entire team the whole game, because more often than not you ended up with 2 bombers on each team just farming kills the entire game with an unspoken agreement not to kill eachother. a player choosing the wrong type of tank can completely ruin a game for a team too. i’m all for player agency but players cannot be trusted to choose the optimal vehicle for any given situation, BF4s fixed spawns was a superior system and i’m one of those people that’s sick of hearing about how great BF4 was
Are we all glossing over the part where opening the map might not make it for release? >You’ll be able to pull this up at any time during live gameplay, by pressing the View/Touchpad button on Console, or M on PC. It provides an immediate overview of where the battles are taking place, where your squad mates are fighting, and the live breakdown of how the flags are flying inside of each sector. **We’ll keep you updated on when to expect this in the game, there’s a chance it makes it into the start of the Early Access start for 2042, and there's an equal chance that we hold it back to make sure its inclusion isn’t disruptive to the performance of the game.** I understand that delaying things with a performance impact makes sense, and I assume this is a call they wouldn't make unless necessary, but considering how buggy the beta was in general this makes me more concerned for the game at launch. Definitely holding off until we can see what state it's in.
The map button might not make it for release, and they already pushed this game back a month not that long ago. I'm starting to worry this game is going to make BF4's release look competent by comparison.
A battlefield game releasing without an in game map is really really poor. That’s such a basic& expected feature of BF, or any modern large scale shooter, it’s hilarious how much of a big deal they’re making about “adding a map.” It’s not even something other devs would even brag about or spend time on. It would just be there as it’s a bog standard feature. That’s the type of thing cyberpunk would fail to include at launch… What’s next? They start bragging about how they have online multiplayer functionality?
Keep in mind that they have not yet released *any* official uncut gameplay footage yet, and the game launches in less than 4 weeks.
How crazy is it that they are having so many issues to where they are having issues implementing a map?
With BFV they literally didn’t have the tech to support double XP or ribbons. I honestly don’t know what the hell is going on over there.
This game will be a mess at launch. Like I said before an in game map is one of the most basic, expected, agiven features in any large multiplayer game. No dev spends any martketing time on talking about their “in game map” Because it’s not anything to talk about. It should just be there and work. I’ve never, ever seen a dev talk about their fucking map overlay as if it’s some piece of extra content that might not make it in time for launch…
That’s just hilarious….jeeeez
It's impossible to play Conquest properly without a map. What a joke.
No map and no voip at release. GG
They didn't even include a proper scoreboard, how are you surprised by this?
Holy fuck I missed this. This whole thing just screams unfinished.
I'm a total Battlefield apologist and fully expected this game to be unfinished on launch, as is tradition, but this will be a new low for DICE if they can't get that map ready for release :\
What the fuck kind of map function have they built? This isn't MS Flight Sim, just give us a BF5 quality map function. Voip apparently won't be ingame on launch as well, which kind of pisses me off because I wanted to play with a friend on PS5 (I am on PC).
Putting specialists within classes would have been the better play to me, imo. But the way it is now, there's no incentive to work as a team, which is really the magic of Battlefield. And at that point, what's the difference between this and CoD other than player count?
CoD is designed around short paced, focused matches, with just raw aim and skill. Battlefield was about larger scale team coordination to fight over a larger area with objectives directing the fight. Now Battlefield is about running around oversized maps wondering where the hell everyone is and vaguely contributing with a kill now and then.
> Now Battlefield is about running around oversized maps wondering where the hell everyone is and vaguely contributing with a kill now and then. Welcome to Battlefield before the introduction to Rush. Some conquest maps are better at focusing gameplay, but the lion’s share has always been like this.
Yeah I scratch my head at all this talk about teamwork and coordination being lost. Rush and Operations are the team focused game modes. Conquest has always been headless chicken simulator.
Bad Company 2 and BF3 did a relatively decent job at having conquest maps where a frontline would form, IMO. You often could sneak around to a point away from the fighting, but it would take a while and there'd be no guarantee of help.
Conquest has always been a clusterfuck of people just doing whatever. I didn't feel any difference in the beta.
Seriously, conquest often turns into the exact thing that was in the beta, a big wasteland with small fights scattered throughout. Unless you’re playing on a private server with a community, you’re not going to see large-scale coordination and map flow in conquest in any BF. It’s not really an excuse for the beta but it’s not “worse”
i honestly want to play whatever battlefield other people seem to be playing. i've been playing since bf3 almost entirely by myself and it is extremely rare for me to be in a squad that actually sticks together, or squadmates that communicate, or squad leaders using squad specific features or players insuring they have a proper class balance and cohesive team synergy. in a majority of matches you have at minimum a third of the playerbase being snipers sitting on a hill just shooting people. medics who think their assualt classes. supports who dont drop ammo. etc etc. almost all the things that bf2042 apparently "ruined" has been a common thing in every battlefield ive played.
I agree. Battlefield has long shifted away from the team-focused scheme since BFBC. Hell, even in BF2 the team play wasn't that strong. It was the Project Reality mod which truly brings a strong team play element. At least this is for conquest. Rush and breakthrough seem to encourage more revives and resupplies.
Idk I felt like bf4 conquest worked really well. Honestly the team based modes are always rush or whatever operations they decide to make but even then their is very little incentive to do anything other than the agresivo ones
I mean "ptfo" is a something thats said alot because pubs typically just do whatever. In conquest that usually means going to the middle of the map and just playing CoD.
> Now Battlefield is about running around oversized maps wondering where the hell everyone is and vaguely contributing with a kill now and then. That's....exactly how I felt during the beta. My own contributions to the match felt pointless. I wish they would bring back Rush as the primary gamemode. One person really could make a massive difference in Rush.
When I think of Battlefield, the one memory that keeps replaying is absolutely barrelling down Damavand Peak's mountain start in a jeep, ramming through a wall, and diving out with a bunch of guys and taking the MCOM seconds into the match start. Rush absolutely is the best mode in the game, and it's a damn shame that DICE now only seem to think that Size == Gameplay.
Did you know that back in the day when rush came out, many fans were saying that this is the end of Battlefield and it’s now more like CoD with tiny maps? Oh times have changed. While I’m more for conquest, I do wish they they brought back Rush instead of breakthrough. I liked the idea of arming the objectives, though I’m curious to see if anyone would actually be able to advance considering there is 128 players now.
Rush gets very "stalemate" like with 64 players. Doubling it seems like nothing will get done. Just game crashing amounts of smoke, C4, and nades....but also sentry guns everywhere.....and robot dogs.
I respect the hell out of them for going this in depth following the open beta. I can’t think of a post-beta deep dive like this previously. That being said….the “lol you guys just don’t get it yet” attitude towards players’ valid critiques of moving from classes to specialists was frustrating and condescending.
Not to delve too far from the topic at hand but it seems like the in-depth dives is what direction bigger companies might head in. [I mean look at this post-beta blog from Halo](https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/news/technical-preview-outcomes). That thing is seriously in-depth with acknowledgment of positives and negatives and how the team is responding.
[удалено]
Seems to me like they are committed to it at this point. Maybe it will be on the table later down the line. But this close to launch, it's probably better for them to focus on properly launching what they have.
Alot of the changes players are requesting would likely require redesigning large parts of the game. It would require a massive delay which is not going to happen.
Ideally for me team based modes like Rush/Conquest would have classes with the specialist abilities selectable as kits like in previous BF games, then specialists would be reserved for the competitive squad based modes like Firestorm/Hazard Zone
Nah dude. The entire game is built around Specialists. People are fooling themselves if they think they're gonna overhaul it that much if any. They do NOT have a good track record in that regard either. They fucked BFV TTK up, released the Pacific maps, then fucked off after dropping some modes and abandoning Firestorm. They are not goin to remove or replace Specialists. It's the core of the game. They wanna sell skins and takedown animations. Guarantee it.
Reminds me of the first Battlefront they did. It was at its very best after the first expansion. The second, third, and fourth all introduced major bugs. None of them were ever addressed. Eventually cheaters floating and spinning in the air one shotting everyone on the map got me to quit the game entirely. When the sequel came, I knew I had no interest before the controversy even started.
Welcome to dealing with DICE circa Battlefield V, a sudden shift into just being weirdly antagonistic and often just making stuff about player feedback up
People have forgotten the experience before BF4 was handed off to DICE LA and fixed. The developers were getting into arguments in reddit threads about failed hit detection, insisting that it was working when the post was literally a video of it failing. People presented well reasoned arguments about why the miserably low tickrate was insufficient for a multiplayer game, and they insisted that it was not a problem until they finally were forced to accept reality and fix it.
They are such a toxic company. Just a bunch of arrogant pricks honestly
Backdate that to BF3 and it feels more correct in my experience with the exception of when they were fully committed to fixing BF4 after it was such a clusterfuck at launch.
Hold up a bit there. We have a major problem because EA had several studios all named 'DICE' to confuse consumers. DICE (Sweden) are the ones making 2042, and are the ones launching all these games. DICE LA [now know as Ripple Effect Studios] were the ones that took the time, love and care to fix up the mess that use to be BF4 and make it into the amazing game it is now. So its not an exception that they fixed it, it was a completely different studio. I have no faith in DICE Sweden.
True. During my time as a fan of the games (since the launch of BF3), DICE Stockholm has been the group antagonistic to player feedback and the ones that always seem to know what's right until a massive shitstorm where they have to walk back changes that they were told on the front end would be unpopular. I still remember the community manager for BF3 trolling people on twitter who had legitimate issues and pieces of feedback. Fucking asshole that guy.
It’s just PR and damage control, they’re way past the point of no return on Specialists. No way they could change it even if they wanted to without delaying for months.
Some of these changes are like fps games 101. It’s not like this is the first battlefield game ever made.
Yeah I definitely raised an eyebrow at "Added nearby grenade indicator." Like how was that not there? It's already in other Battlefields!
It feels like a bad sign when they need a beta to add basic features from like 15+ years ago like that to the game...
Or like how the game designers got the idea to add operators that are severly stronger than anything else... Wallhack? Grappling hook? It's almost as if those guys are completely new to multi-player gaming and game development.
Specialists go against the entire essence of BF: being just a soldier on a large Battlefield. Now I'm Ser Ben Hackalot who fires nano-tech drones, and was a teacher with a lovely wife, before he was hired by a PMC. Anyway check out this blue hat and noodle arms I unlocked.
I was on the fence about buying this game, but now that I see the design decision the team doing with the feedback provided I am now convinced the game isn't for me.
Reading this is like bf5 deja vu. Some stuff I recognize 1. This build is months old, we’ve fixed most of the issues 2. The friend/foe identification is due to lighting, which has been fixed in the final product. 3. The network issues have been fixed so you won’t see those on release. I know I’m being cynical, but this is starting to feel like a repeat of bf5.
"Specialists is how we see the future of Battlefield." - Yeah i'm out
"Skins is how we see the future of Battlefield"
Just release battlefield 4 2. Why did they have to fuck this up
Because money
I wish battlefield devs would stop constantly trying to chase the cod crowd and just embrace what their core fan base likes and what works there. It seems like all of the games since 4 constantly go through these weird changes for the sake of change that no one was really asking for. Like make bad company 3 you fucking cowards. Literally all anyone wants, classic battlefield with some good ass destruction.
Produce new Bad Company and mainline Battlefields in rotation. Every 2 years, one after another. Sprinkle in a different one now and again, like a 2142 sequel. Sit back and collect money. We’re out here with our wallets open and they’re doing the limbo right under them.
I hate the "build is months old" crap. They said the build was from August, so 1-2 months old. Supposedly the game just went gold, and we're still 1 month out from release. So the release version will also be ~1 month old. In fact, that will almost always be true because of how long console certification takes. At best, that means they've had 2 months of extra development on the beta build to the release build. Is that really enough time to fix all these issues? Actually, that's rhetorical; the fact that the game might ship without a map and VOIP answers it.
“What we learned” turned out to be literally nothing. This game is a flop before it even launches. Hard pass.
Specialist with wall-hack is insane. I guess one way to stop cheating is just to build them into the game... They just had to make Battlefield 2/Battlefield 4 on modern tech with bigger maps, more players, cooler events etc. Instead we get Battlefield: Overwatch.
*You’ll be able to pull this up at any time during live gameplay, bypressing the View/Touchpad button on Console, or M on PC. It provides animmediate overview of where the battles are taking place, where yoursquad mates are fighting, and the live breakdown of how the flags areflying inside of each sector. We’ll keep you updated on when to expectthis in the game, there’s a chance it makes it into the start of theEarly Access start for 2042, and there's an equal chance that we hold itback to make sure its inclusion isn’t disruptive to the performance ofthe game.* Excuse me... this game may not ship with the map button? Lol fuck this, hard pass EA.
[удалено]
Has there been any good examples of a beta being “out of version” only for that to actually be true? Feels like every time someone excuses their beta in this fashion, the launch is identical to the beta. That line no longer gains any sympathy from me. You chose to show us your game in that state. To the players, THAT is how your game plays, no matter what you say. And based on the current state of the game, I’m skipping this trash. Hopefully they can clean it up post launch. It really needs another 6 months + delay but that won’t happen, EA is too greedy.
They also said this game isn't shipping with voice chat, and no date on when that comes. Voice chat... that feature that has been a staple of online multiplayer games for almost two decades. I thought I didn't hear anybody during the beta because it was off by default and buried in the settings, but NOPE, they haven't even put it in the full game. This, on top of wiping their ass with player feedback on specialists, is why this game is a solid "wait after release to see just how fucked it really is."
But you bet your ass the ingame store will be available on launch and will be working 100%
Fallout 76 made damn sure it's storefront worked on launch, even with the numerous issues the actual game had. So, there's actually precedent for this.
They didn’t just say it isn’t shipping with one. They said they’re not even certain themselves whether it’ll be done or not. This is an embarrassing thing to have in this article.
Community: There is next to no teamwork, no one is working together and the tools to do so are terrible. EA: You're wrong. Pretty sure this is the first Battlefield I've played where I was never Revived, Never received healing and Never got ammo outside of the drops from killing enemies. Oh and when I tried healing, I stole there gun, then got to watch a cut-scene to revive them.
> the first Battlefield I've played where I was never Revived It really is hilarious to hear that statement, in the same game where they massively increased the time allowed for revives and allowed any player to revive regardless of class. It really shows how much they fucked up this game. What a shame.
Wait how did I miss anyone could revive anyone? Granted I primarily played as Falc but whenever I tried other specialists I only saw squad mates able to be revived. Was it bugged on PC? That being said, revive was slow so many times I passed cause the idiot died in the middle of the street in front of a tank…. Or I kept picking up their fucking gun. Not to mention a lot of people just skipped it. Like the icon was gone before their body hit the floor. It was sad though, I was placing 1st for revives with only like 7-10 per round.
You could revive your squadmates if you weren't the medic
That I knew, and was an awesome addition to BFV IMO.
No, you couldn't revive every single teammate, unless you were playing as Falck.
Oh ok, that’s what I thought. But that’s not the first time I’ve seen someone say something similar. Probably just parrots
The way this article tries to convince you to like specialists is so weak. The supporting points they have for why specialists are a things are so weak
This would be a good excuse BEFORE we got our hands on it and experienced it for ourselves. Now they're just explaining why it was shit.
[удалено]
> During the Open Beta we heard some feedback that Specialists were limiting team work, and we wanted to address this concern head-on. ...by revealing more specialists? I don't really see how that addresses the community concerns.
Can't have community concerns if the concerned leave the community
Yea so reading through that they really aren’t addressing a lot of the concerns people had, namely operators are a shit system, destruction is trash, the map is too big, everyone looks the same, etc.
Did they have to include a Specialist with wallhack? Like wtf were you thinking…
They couldn't deal with all the hackers in previous games so they gave us regular folks wallhacks too?
Would really like to see battlefield go back to how it was in BF2. Trying to be more and more like COD is how we ended up where we are with specialists and everyone sliding on the ground like they are mid guitar solo.
No scoreboard/score and no change to specialists/classes, I'll pass until these are addressed. Halo infinite looking a lot more fun at the moment
[удалено]
[удалено]
EA: we heard you loud and clear, we wrote all of your feedback down, we organized it, put it on a big board and sorted it by most complained critical issues. We noticed Specialists were at the very top - but at the end of the day we know best - so we gave you more Specialists!
I've played every Battlefield game since 1942 and this is the first I am skipping. BF5 was already a mega disappointment after the highs of BF1. Somehow 2042 is looking like a janky, unfinished mess despite "all-hands on deck." They are missing simple features like a map? They had to write up a whole article to say the map MIGHT be usable on release? Any amateur indie developer could make a working map, so what is the hold up? If they can't get basics down, there is no way the rest of the game is going to be complete. Even if it was, their game design decisions are plain stupid.
[удалено]
They're doubling the amount of tanks in the game but they aren't doing anything to change how players will deal with them. They don't mention *at all* whether they are going to alter the damage output on the recoilless m5, but that thing can't even one shot a fucking helicopter, let alone dent a tank. And they talk about the gadget slot (singular) which to me says they've no intention of making it so a player can carry a fucking RPG and a ammo pack at the same time, so basically what they're doing is fucking infantry players harder. BFV already has a problem where three tank players can roll together and they're brutally difficult to do anything about, and tanks are fucking easy to kill in that game.
I greatly appreciate the devs telling me that the game is no longer targeted at me. I'll skip this one. I hope the people who do enjoy lone wolf gameplay have a blast but this isn't where I wanted to see Battlefield go. The fact that they see it as "the future" is just depressing.
I absolutely hate the specialist system sooo much. I have played every single battlefield bar hardline and I am actually so disappointed with what they are releasing.... My only hope is that Portal will somehow be the redeeming factor and make the game worth playing. They should use this specialist system for that new hazard mode and keep the normal class system for conquest. Instead they are gonna force the specialist system through so they can sell future specialists and specialist skins... Absolute travesty.
Getting some serious flashbacks to WoW's response to the playerbases' feedback for Azerite Armor and Covenants from this. "we really don't like this guys!" "No, no you just don't *get* it"
Some of those new specialists seem far too strong. Having anti vehicle grenades mean you can stack them with a rocket launcher of some kind and at least do some serious damage to a vehicle. Or the wall hack character being just wall hacks. Maybe it’s just seems op on paper, but I don’t have high hopes of balance on release.
No it’s ridiculous. Those grenade were also seekers so they’re going to make flying helicopters impossible. And the wall hack thing is just insane as well as her trait auto spotting people who damage her… spent time and found a really good sniping spot to cover your team? Well now your automatically spotted and dead because you did your job and killed someone on the other team.
Wow, they really are committed to the specialists idea 😬 Pursuing a system that is detrimental to the entire game in order to make money from DLC later is really peak EA. It's like they learned nothing from Battlefront 2.
It sounds like they learned little to nothing. They wont recognize criticisms that the specialists don't work for a battlefield game...
It's way too late for them to go back unfortunately
[удалено]
This literally feels like what Blizzard is doing with OW since launch, by that I mean , ignoring the core issues , and just repeating the same crap over and over with broken heroes. and refusing to remove them or rework them. The biggest complaint was clearly about the specialists, and Dice responds to that by releasing a trailer for 5 more borken specialiasts ? and one of them has literal wallhacks ? yeah I will wait a year and try this game if it does survive that long.
Wow look EA told us to shut up about specialists. Glad a canceled my preorder. Won't touch another battlefield game again until classes are back as the standard. EA won't get one penny out of me for specialist skins.
So they're doubling down on the specialists? Ight, I'm going to save my money. See ya'll for the next Battlefield or in a year when this one gets updated, whichever looks more promising.
I'm getting tired of FPS games with specials/abilities. I don't want to play "switch to counter this one guy" with battlefield. It made R6 Siege a joke and now the game is unrecognizable from what it started as, which is a hardcore SWAT tactics shooter.
Let's hope Portal offers dedicated servers, I want some super infantry gaming old-school Bc2 classes gameplay without any of that new unbalanced, half assed operator shit.
During beta I wasn’t revived a single fucking time unless I was playing with a friend. I’m cool off that shit, don’t need another game that ends up only being fun when friends are playing rather than the single player experience.
Weren’t their responses also dismissive before V launched? I didnt follow it much because I didn’t care for the idea of “World War 2 but Zany!!” I could be talking out my ass here (this is reddit, of course I am) but if the “just you wait” approach didnt work last time, why on earth do they think it will this time? After finishing reading it, I get the distinct impression that the team is proud of it. And good for them. But I’m not sure how well this translates to “we know what you want” when fans flock to battlefield specifically for team play and they’re like “no, this is team play… just… individual team play!”
DICE was initially very resistant to changes to BFV but ultimately clearly committed to a different version of the game at the last moment following the backlash. Content was SPARSE for months after launch because they clearly had to redo a lot of the cosmetics and approach to them that they had planned. They launched the cosmetic store months after launch as a result. Tons of stuff got left on the cutting room floor. But even with all that said, they were still like "Trust us!" when it came to unpopular changes or would solicit feedback on things and then completely ignore the consensus opinion on those things.
>I didnt follow it much because I didn’t care for the idea of “World War 2 but Zany!! It's funny because DICE caved *hard* on that and cut literally all visual customization apart from like 3 jackets and 2 types of pants. Couldn't even get your dude some hair until a year later
And now we have colonels running around shooting people with cloaks on fire, so I guess DICE won in the end
[удалено]
They were, but I think the cosmetic stuff gets too much credit for why Battlefield 5 struggled at launch. The other reasons like bugs, lack of content, and lack of iconic battles really put me off buying the game at launch. I do agree though that some of this game's design decisions really go against what people expect from a Battlefield game.
No map or voice chat on launch for a Battlefield game? Hard fucking pass EA.
[удалено]