Battlefield 2143 would be the only guaranteed instabuy from me.
I know futuristic shooters have the highest chance of sucking since they are less grounded in reality, but they also allow for way more experimentation. I need a break from boots on the ground with some wild ass future shit happening.
Ok, now that I'm at a proper desktop, what I'd want to see:
-Modern/near future setting. The world wars limit things with regards to specialization/vehicle/map selection (how many skyscrapers existed in 1943?) but too far future makes stuff too homogenous.
-At most5 classes. These calls for 7-8 absurdly specialized classes like BF2 is bonkers. Please no. This isn't to say that every class should have ever weapon, or every gadget, or anything like that, and in fact overlap should yes be limited, but 4-5 allows for plenty of specialization while still being dynamically adaptable to different playstyles. It very much shouldn't be "this anti-tank class should completely blow vs infantry", it should be "these non-anti-tank classes should be able to contribute in an equally meaningful, dinstinct, and engaging way". Balance up, not down.
-Between ARs, Carbines, SMGs, Shotguns, DRMs, LMGs, and snipers, maybe only, say, carbines or shotguns would be universal - or possibly just shared across 2 or 3 classes, and each class getting access to two-or-three-at-most types. I've no trouble with cutting back some of the broadness among the primaries and truly mixing things up in secondaries; this is where the single shell shotguns and machine pistols and lever action scopeless DMRs can go or whatever.
-Actually, hell, here's what I'd do: Assault: (AR, Carbine, Shotgun); Engineer: (SMG, Carbine, ability to use secondary weapon akimbo if foregoing primary); Recon: (DRM, Sniper, ability to have an extra gadget slot if foregoing primary); Support: (LMG, Shotgun, ability to have double explosive ammo/grenades if foregoing primary). Essentially, give every class the ability to have a kinda weird, outside the normal-scope-style of play, except for assault, who simply has the most weapons. Yes, again, maybe this is stupid.
-Each weapon class should have ~5-7 weapons, but they should all be distinct in ways that we've seen recently in some psuedo-milsim stuff; the LMG which starts to shoot faster the longer your burst is, or the AR with reverse recoil, or the 2 round burst sniper rifle, or whatever. Not crazy, but textural differences which go beyond things like "has 10m before the damage dropoff" or stuff like that (which the weapons should also have).
-Nothing faction locked from a mechanical perspective, of course.
-Vehicle unlocks should be extensive, with a full suite of mechanically interesting changes possible for every vehicle, but should start with an extremely capable loadout, with everything else strictly being sidegrades and/or for specific scenarios. Remove the "vehicle newbie getting smoked with no unlocks" type stuff.
-Same thing for weapons. I've no trouble with grinding out attachments, but every weapon should start with a basic, generalized loadout; a stock, a grip, a scope, whatever. Maybe have it so the player can choose 5 to have universally unlocked for the weapon class or whatever and then everything else needs to be unlocked on a per weapon basis.
-All attachments should change things mechanically, and if it's going to be a statistical shift on some bar under the weapon, the change should at least be, say, 20% or more. No more of these 30 different grips to unlock which do nothing but look different.
-All unlocks should be currency based, like some sort of token, and these should unlock consistently every few kills (15?). No more of those 4 samey scopes you get and then the stuff you really want is 200 kills deep in a random lootbox. Let players choose how they want to equip their weapons/vehicles - would hopefully also spur more even keeled balance too.
-Destruction should be amped up, but harder to do. Someone mentioned Siege-esque wall blasting; I'd love to see that sort of granularity for CQC implementations. At the same time, I too remember the endgame wastelands of BC2; if that's going to be possible, I'd want it to require some real concerted effort, and even then, maybe not that far. Still, building leveling would be great to see - especially if they expanded a bit more on the sorts of layouts that ruins make. Large scale stuff should be commander level, however.
-Bring back the BC2 commander. Very agree with giving him assets and more of a presence on the battlefield. BF4 was meh here, so it'd be great to see Dice get back to some real logistics plays. There's so much more that could be done too, freed from some of the confines of their last implementation; freely directed AC-130s; artillery emplacements; targeting a building for demolition which could then reveal C4 planting zones at randomly selected core pillars, designated attack zones outside the purview of a point to capture; etc etc. Maybe this is where what we saw as "battle pickups" could go; BF doesn't need powerups like that.
-Stick levelution on the commander too, somehow. I actually liked this a lot, but apparently people didn't, so I figure making it into a more dedicated, harder to carry out action is a decent enough compromise.
-BF5 did [only] two things right in my mind - great gunplay and moment to moment usage/angles therein, and fortifications. These would be great to see come back, and with a modernized setting/commander, there's plenty that could be done with them.
-3D spotting I never actually ever disliked, but maybe make it much harder to do - need a recon vehicle, or a commander ability, or a specialized series of weapon attachments with the recon class, or whatever. All that Q hammering did get to be a bit much, even just, like, for me to do all the time.
-Have all the weapons/gadgets/vehicles/whatever feel like different weapons/gadgets/vehicles. Maybe some scope has an unusual way of rangefinding. Maybe some vehicle has to select targets from a map and use a spotter to confirm. Maybe a gadget has a unique setting for it's grenades. Some of the best stuff in battlefield has been when it really feels like you're flying a jet, or really feels like you're in a slow HIMARS, or setting the ranging on a rifle, because that's when things start feeling more like it's a real war vs moving around video game assets dressed up with different skins, and I'd want to see more of that for sure.
-100 players. It doesn't only have to be a "power of 2" sort of thing. 128, as someone mentioned, would put too much emphasis on vehicles with too large of maps (infantry are still important in Battlefield and always have been), but 64 is indeed starting to feel constrained. It doesn't have to be MAG or Planetside, but some expansion would be nice all the same.
-3-4 dedicated players should be able to beat an equally skilled single vehicle. Now, this isn't to say that a single player shouldn't ever be able to beat a single vehicle, or there should be no anti-tank/anti-air weapons able to do real damage, or that 180-0 helicopters should be a thing, but the way I see it, vehicles empower a player. They can turn the tides, but can be vulnerable. Still, they're also relatively rare; you don't see any team, ever, with 32 vehicles, so it should be a force multiplier, which doesn't happen if single vehicles are routinely getting destroyed by tactics of a single, equally skilled, infantry player.
-Vehicles spawn on the map; have some vehicles take whole squads to even use at all, like a military carrier hovercraft.
-Have squad points/spawning be more considered and impactful.
-128hz, custom servers with good anti-cheat and good autobalance (ha!) day one please
-Slower health regen, or maybe only to 50% or whatever, with limited revival options. Headshots tend to be final like that.
-Conquest. Rush. Some variant of Titan. Conquest Assault/Frontlines. Domination. Maybe TDM.
-Bring back Battlelog; all the complaints against it were silly and it remains by *far* the best server browser I've ever used. Just, you know, have it accurately display the actual number of people playing on a server.
-Honestly I liked some of the SPs, and I can very much imagine how it'd be possible to make a good one, but I know it takes a ton of resources and it's really what players come to Battlefield for. I've no trouble with them relegating it to far down the road support, like one chapter of a campaign released every other month, or even not at all if it'd be that much of a hassle.
Please be modern.Dont care if it's a reboot or not. Give me modern guns, modern tanks, jets, helo's and modern combat with counter measures,UAVs etc.
And imagine..what I wrote is basically BF4.. but I want it all in better graphics and exclusive to next gen. Please Dice,because BF V is an embarrassing joke to the franchise. My worst BF...which I sadly paid for a deluxe Edition that was boring, stayed boring and was a terrible Battlefield game out the gate.
My main issue with this IP is that it wants to be an action packed and fast paced shooter that doesn't require squad coordination. By doing that, the game has become more boring. Back when I played BF (I played it most in the BF2 and BF 2142 days) it was slower paced and players coordinated and cooperated. IMO the game was much better back then. It simply felt way more tactical.
I have played 3, 4, 1 and 5, but with each iteration I'm done with the game faster and faster. I call the game 'Running, Shooting, Dying' at this point. If I want to play soldiers nowadays I play Squad on Steam. That game actually feels like an evolution of the BF formula, with stuff like base building, randomized control points and body dragging. Lone wolfing being actively discouraged by the games' systems. And with a community that actually plays together and uses the excellent ingame positional VOIP.
I miss the old style conquest maps with home bases, airfields, drivable ships, etc. You know, when you actually had to use tactics when capping flags and to keep in mind where (enemy) vehicles could spawn to use that to your advantage. BF nowadays is just so dumbed down just to give the losing side equal playing time. Just let me dominate the opposing team to give me that sense of doing everything right. Or, if you're on the losing side, the thrill of somehow getting outside of your only spawn unnoticed to cap a flag on the other side of the map to totally overthrow the match.
BF is nothing like that now. And I especially dont care for any new modes or single player (Ok, maybe Rush as an alternative). So yes, go back to what made me love Battlefield in first place.
Classes need to be better defined to facilitate better teamplay.
Limit the amount of modes. Conquest and Rush.
Bring back 3D spotting, but limit it to your squad.
Weapon customization similar to BF4.
Commander
Anti-cheat
WTF is Jackfrags even talking about with this reboot nonsense? The only sequel in the entire series was BFBC2, every other game is effectively a reboot.
Here are some tips for DICE:
Don't design the game based on bullet point features that you think will look good on paper, or people expect. Design the game based on what makes it more fun to play. Fuck the haters. The series got into trouble when DICE stopped making decisions based on what they thought was the most fun, and started worrying about what people expected.
Be honest about the game you're making.
Aim for a consistent tone throughout all of the game design elements. BFV was completely schizophrenic in this regard, it didn't know WTF it wanted to be.
Make the game that you guys want to play. If the team isn't voluntarily staying back after work to playtest the game because it's so much fun, then you've failed.
WTF is Jackfrags even talking about with this reboot nonsense? The only sequel in the entire series was BFBC2, every other game is effectively a reboot.
Here are some tips for DICE:
Don't design the game based on bullet point features that you think will look good on paper, or people expect. Design the game based on what makes it more fun to play. Fuck the haters. The series got into trouble when DICE stopped making decisions based on what they thought was the most fun, and started worrying about what people expected.
Be honest about the game you're making.
Aim for a consistent tone throughout all of the game design elements. BFV was completely schizophrenic in this regard, it didn't know WTF it wanted to be.
Make the game that you guys want to play. If the team isn't voluntarily staying back after work to playtest the game because it's so much fun, then you've failed.
I tthink the one biggest change that would improve the game would be to reduce spawns back to flags and squad leaders only. The number one thing that has continually ruined this series since BF3 is the increasing over-availability of spawns that has turned the game into this mindless deathmatch spamfest clusterfuck with no pacing.
I'd also be on board with bring back magazine pools.
