bf4

[Wi1D_K4rD]

snip

You wouldn't put the spawn beacon where all the fighting is it would be relatively nearby though. First Marine Recon last I checked isn't just a bunch of snipers they carry M4 carbines typically. With this set up especially with carbines being all kit weapons he can move up the recon can place a beacon relatively close by and continue forward allowing you to assault a flag with all 5 people rather than be almost in effect one man down. I never said the assault would get mortar. Support would still get mortars. This way they have two roles they can fill. They can decide to support via "artillery support" with mortars. Or if they are advancing with their squad they could provide medical support providing suppressing fire and heals to our assaults. Meanwhile the assaults would be able to resupply their 320s and assault rifles on the front line something that is going to be a lot more important it seems with the loss of the ammo in a clip if you reload without emptying it.

I don't see how saying 90% assault is bad means I think it should be 50% to 90% something else. Imagine this, your squad is tasked with taking a point assuming no vehicles are defending. 2-3 Assaults, 2-3 Support Medics, 1 Recon. The recon places his beacon in cover just outside the point in a safe place. Then he moves in along with the 2 -3 assaults and they proceed to move up cover to cover while the 2-3 medic supports who are not that far behind provide covering fire. Moving up as necessary.If the assaults who should be attacking get downed you still have the support guys who should have been relayed where the assaults got killed from be able to provide covering fire for each other watching those positions while they go to revive the assaults and recon. And if they fail well they still have the beacon to fall back on. Meanwhile the recon can plant c4 to breach a wall all while the support/medics continue to provide covering fire. What you have there is well rounded squad that is not only more realistic in terms of modern warfare, aside from the spawn beacon of course, but more versatile with everyone having an important job.

Edit: Basically what I'm advocating is the potential for multiple roles for each class allowing more diversity more choice. Recon would either be sniper or saboteur. Support would be either medic or artillery support. Engineer is either solely anti tank or repair monkey. Assault would be... well assault I can't think of what their second role would really entail. Provides more tactical options for organized play. Opening up much more exciting possibilities.

[RazY70]

This will not work and you know it. Support will stay at the back prawn with their LMGs spewing bullets. They will not provide med packs or revives, just as they didn't provide ammo packs for the most part in BF3.

Anyway, we know from E3 that the roles are going to stay the same as they were in BF3 so I think this discussion is rather moot. I do think that if DICE decides to implement magazine dump across the board and not just in Hardcore it will give the Support class a very big boost, but I assume chances for that are low.

I agree that making carbines all class weapons is a very good idea. However, I somehow doubt you'd see a lot of recons packing them, but I'd sure be very happy to be proven wrong .

[Frosteyy]

snip

You wouldn't put the spawn beacon where all the fighting is it would be relatively nearby though. First Marine Recon last I checked isn't just a bunch of snipers they carry M4 carbines typically. With this set up especially with carbines being all kit weapons he can move up the recon can place a beacon relatively close by and continue forward allowing you to assault a flag with all 5 people rather than be almost in effect one man down. I never said the assault would get mortar. Support would still get mortars. This way they have two roles they can fill. They can decide to support via "artillery support" with mortars. Or if they are advancing with their squad they could provide medical support providing suppressing fire and heals to our assaults. Meanwhile the assaults would be able to resupply their 320s and assault rifles on the front line something that is going to be a lot more important it seems with the loss of the ammo in a clip if you reload without emptying it.

I don't see how saying 90% assault is bad means I think it should be 50% to 90% something else. Imagine this, your squad is tasked with taking a point assuming no vehicles are defending. 2-3 Assaults, 2-3 Support Medics, 1 Recon. The recon places his beacon in cover just outside the point in a safe place. Then he moves in along with the 2 -3 assaults and they proceed to move up cover to cover while the 2-3 medic supports who are not that far behind provide covering fire. Moving up as necessary.If the assaults who should be attacking get downed you still have the support guys who should have been relayed where the assaults got killed from be able to provide covering fire for each other watching those positions while they go to revive the assaults and recon. And if they fail well they still have the beacon to fall back on. Meanwhile the recon can plant c4 to breach a wall all while the support/medics continue to provide covering fire. What you have there is well rounded squad that is not only more realistic in terms of modern warfare, aside from the spawn beacon of course, but more versatile with everyone having an important job.

Edit: Basically what I'm advocating is the potential for multiple roles for each class allowing more diversity more choice. Recon would either be sniper or saboteur. Support would be either medic or artillery support. Engineer is either solely anti tank or repair monkey. Assault would be... well assault I can't think of what their second role would really entail. Provides more tactical options for organized play. Opening up much more exciting possibilities.

Well said. BF4 eSports. Can't wait.

[Wi1D_K4rD]

This will not work and you know it. Support will stay at the back prawn with their LMGs spewing bullets. They will not provide med packs or revives, just as they didn't provide ammo packs for the most part in BF3.

In BC2 when the LMG carrying Medic had medpacks and defib, they actually dropped medpacks and used defibs. You neglect to think about why they sit back spewing bullets. They have an ammo pack that allows them to sit back and do it infinitely. With the way I envision classes are arranged if they want to keep spewing bullets they need to keep their assaults alive. So their assaults can give them ammo. Providing incentive for them to move up and use those medic abilities.

As you said though the roles are staying the way they are which is quite unfortunate.

[RazY70]

This is the usual argument but BC2 isn't really comparable to BF3. TTK was higher and Support could go head to head against Assault with ease

[Wi1D_K4rD]

This is the usual argument but BC2 isn't really comparable to BF3. TTK was higher and Support could go head to head against Assault with ease

TTK didn't seem higher when I played BC2 and I don't see what going head to head with an assault has to do with them providing heals and revives. The assumptions being used here seem to still be off the BF3 tactic of revive trains. Something that is already gimmicky and used merely because of how ridiculously effective it is. The support wouldn't be running in to blindly revive while trying to gun down the enemy. He'd remain in cover to assess the situation and decide if it's absolutely safe to revive. Or if there is two of them or there is another assault nearby have one provide covering fire while he goes to revive there is no need to go head to head against the assault in order to revive. This is for organized play reasons I have no interest in the clusterf**k that is pub play.

Edit: It's occurred to me that in my zealotry for wanting a truly good BF game, I may be derailing this thread for those truly excited for BF4. I want to apologize and will stop now. If anyone wants to discuss this further merely for the philosophical debate of what could make BF4 great. By all means we can start a new thread for it or do it privately. I don't wish to derail this thread any further though.

[RazY70]

TTK didn't seem higher when I played BC2 and I don't see what going head to head with an assault has to do with them providing heals and revives. The assumptions being used here seem to still be off the BF3 tactic of revive trains.

http://denkirson.xanga.com/722757523/bad-company-2/
Gun damage was lower and fire rate was relatively similar resulting in higher TTK.
The ability to go head to head against an assault in BC2 meant you didn't make a huge sacrifice by going support. This is not the case in BF3 and I'm not sure it will be in BF4 either.

The support wouldn't be running in to blindly revive while trying to gun down the enemy. He'd remain in cover to assess the situation and decide if it's absolutely safe to revive.

I'm not sure what you base this on. We're talking pub play every day situation. Not some utopian wishful thinking.

It's occurred to me that in my zealotry for wanting a truly good BF game, I may be derailing this thread for those truly excited for BF4. I want to apologize and will stop now. If anyone wants to discuss this further merely for the philosophical debate of what could make BF4 great

Not sure what this is about either. Everyone wants a truly good BF game. This is what you believe and there's no need to be apologetic about it. I and other may not necessarily agree with you about every point and that should be okay as well. Doesn't mean it can't be an interesting discussion

Edit: Grammar

[Wi1D_K4rD]

Not sure what this is about either. Everyone wants a truly good BF game. This what you believe and there's no need to be apologetic about it. I and other may not necessarily agree with you about every point and that should be okay as well. Doesn't mean it's not an interesting discussion

Eh. I just feel bad that this thread was initially seemed to be more about the excitement about a new bf game and I've been turning it into a discussion on what I wish bf4 should have been. I wouldn't mind starting a thread about our ideas of how a BF game should be. That way this one can return to being about discussing what's actually in BF4 and what you guys are excited about thats added.

[Tea-Assault]

I'm really excited about the ammo and medpacks that can be hooked onto players to make them basically RAMBO :DDD

[Necromancer]

scroll

Spoiler: show

i thought LMGs are not supposed to be on the front line.
and it certainly doesn't work in BF3 (bi-pod LMGs, not SUPPRESSION!!!! assaults).


there is no way to make all classes as appealing and at the same time preserve their "real life" roles.

regarding real life recon marines - pfft, every single soldier is recon on the battlefield. so does civilians, and POWs.
BF3 has no "infiltration" mechanics besides dropping behind the enemy. thats hardly infiltration, thats flanking.
check out ET/QW for infiltration - the recon class can actually take dead enemy uniforms and disguise himself.

people will choose the class that gives them more kills.
if you want people to play different classes, they should all score the same amount of kills ==> they are all the same role.
only a small percentage of players takes other roles/classes that are not the class that scores most kills.
rarely its because of team play, some players "sacrifice" for the others (like going support so everyone will have ammo, although they don't like support). some pick those classes because they enjoy them, and some because they are not good with the "killing class", and have better performance with other classes.
but the amount of kills that class scores is what determines which class will be played.
and you can't make other classes get the same amount of kills as the assault without turning them into assault.

you can nerf the assault down, but then you are killing its role, and simply turning another class into the class that will get most kills. so you'll end up with 90% supports. will it be better?


what you are suggesting is making dependencies. one class will have to depend on the other class.
sounds good in theory, experience shows it doesn't work in pub. there are some dependencies in BF3 (jav/soflam) and they don't work in pub.

dependencies force people to sacrifice to help their team. people don't sacrifice in pub.
the mod i was running on ET introduced Aura skills or "benefits" maybe. like dealing more damage near engineer (on most maps engineer is the only class capable of completing the objective). do you think it caused people to run in groups? do you think it caused people to surround engineers?
no. engineers where hardly played (how do you expect to win the map without an engineer you ask? nobody cares, "let me get the kills, someone else should take engineer while i clean the path").
not to mention they were not followed around.
this is because pub players do not care about the winning or loosing, they only care about their kills.
being highest fragger is the primary objective for the public player.

another Aura skill was actually a punishment. if you are a medic, and is near two other medics, you would deal less damage. didn't stop people from playing medic or clutching up in medic - groups (obviously medic was the popular class)

and its pretty balanced, since the other team did exactly the same thing, so everyone suffered from the same thing and it balanced itself out.

it seems that in pubs, people play alone, rely only on themselves and do not care about the others. and i don't think you can change that.
even if you significantly limit the ammo of the assault, i doubt more people will play support to supply ammo. the assaults will simply find another solution. playing more conservatively or picking up kits (since the guys they kill are also assaults, they stay assault).

[RazY70]

even if you significantly limit the ammo of the assault, i doubt more people will play support to supply ammo.

If you limit the ammo more people will play Support so they can keep themselves supplied

phpBB [video]

[Wi1D_K4rD]

This is for organized play reasons I have no interest in the clusterf**k that is pub play.

That's from one of my previous posts. We keep bringing my class discussion back to public play which in my opinion is and probably will always be the least fun aspect of BF with the way the average player is now. Your right everyone in an average game is selfish. Why should that mean the organized scene, arguably the more important aspect of a games longevity, be stuck with mechanics to appease the sheep that is the average BF player who just wants kills. Honestly if they are playing for just kills there's another gametype they can play its called TDM. Hell there are other games they can play one of which I won't mention by name.

My class design wishes would be to give the organized scene in comp, as well as in GC, more legitimate choices to play tactically. Make the game more varied thus making it more interesting to watch. I personally can't watch most livestreams of BF3 because its always the same, some assault with an M16 along with his squad of more often than not 3 more assaults with M16. The dynamics offered by class dependency, something that promotes teamwork aka something BF was/is known for, allow for more interesting combinations. Do you focus on more precision firepower with more assaults or do you bring along a few more medics? Do you have a recon come with you for their ability to blow walls or have them sit back and cover you with sniper fire? This creates more interesting games worthy of watching. That's what I am proposing here and wish BF4 would have done.

As I said before though if we wish to continue this discussion we should start a new thread and let this thread remain for what is important what you guys are looking forward to in what IS going to be in BF4.

[RazY70]

But the game is designed for pub play first and foremost, and the problems you were referring to (class balance/representation) are predominantly relevant to that scene. Those issues aren't a big deal in organized matches since you play what you're asked to; choices are made by your SL and according to the team needs. You don't need to promote teamplay since it's by definition part of the match being organized.

As for watching the matches themselves, I guess that's a matter of taste. I enjoy watching them not because of the weapons/classes players opt to use, but because they're exciting to watch just like any other competition, and also maybe I can learn a thing or two. When you watch a basketball/football match do you watch it because you want to see diversity?

Here's a BC2 ESL match. Want to take a wild guess what the dominant class/weapon was?

phpBB [video]

The BF2 comp scene was no different. In 5v5 almost everyone played a medic, which was a class of its own (check out the rage session )

phpBB [video]

Obviously different formats (e.g. 8v8) called for different strats and team composition.

[Wi1D_K4rD]

In small scale games, I suppose whichever class has the defibs would dominate regardless what's done evident by the BC2 vid, which uses the very class structure I advocate. As for BF2 it had its issues with class balances as well with many of it's 6 classes being borderline useless.

However now we get into what made up for that. Mods. It was... 21CW I believe that made a mod that actually made the less useful classes viable in an attempt to make it more interesting for their organized matches. So even then it was obvious that class balance was an issue for true teamplay to represent all of the content provided in the game.

I actually thought of a way something like this could be relatively easily implemented by DICE and the more I think about it the more I wish they'd have it in BF4. They want to keep the classes the way they are for the sake of the K/D crowd, fine. They don't even have to give us true mod support something they obviously still refuse to do despite it's proven success at keeping even some of the oldest games alive. What they could do is implement a feature that allows unranked servers to modify the classes any way they choose. Effectively, take for instance CoD's custom class setup. However make it server side so the players can't make custom classes beyond the usual choices over what gun or gadget. Unless the server redefined everything as all kits of course. This I feel would actually be the perfect compromise. You get your regular games designed for the average pub. While allowing for communities like this to truly make their campaigns more diverse and interesting beyond just the good times with the people involved, as much of a great thing that is in it's own right by evidence of my obvious dislike of the game and yet I come back every saturday . Allow them to try the class suggestions I have, which certainly aren't new by any means, or even try other combinations to find just the right fit for the type of campaign they want to have.

[KoffeinFlummi]

They seem to have improved ANT even further: