The beauty of battlefield is when it all comes together and everyone is down to their last tickets and it's a scramble to hold points it is one of the most rewarding feelings in gaming 4:27
Spot on with your assessments. After round cosmetic crates for the winning team would go a long way. Gun charms, gun skins, patches you can wear on your character, all that would be cool
one way they could incentivize squad proximity is to allow you to grab an ammo pouch off of a support player in your squad if they have an ammo box just like in bfv. I want to ask what you would think if the support class went back to how it was in bfv where it took the role of the engineer class.
at 11:00 what if the place you wanted to destroy turned into a mini "rush" game. for instance imagine siege of shanghai and the enemy team has captured the top of the tower which has certain benefits for keeping it capped but if the point remains captured for a certain amount of time the enemy team will be allowed to cut their losses instead of continuing to capture an objective they cant and instead attempt to destroy the objective by planting explosives at key support areas of the building. this makes it so the attacker has a way to cut their losses and for the defender to have already benefited quite a bit from keeping the objective captured.
The next game needs to: 1. Be polished and feature complete out the gate 2. Focus on class/squad/team play 3. Bring back destruction with dynamic maps AND push the destruction tech beyond what we've seen 4. Have a large array of weapons and gadgets at the start 5. Have a large array of vehicles at the start 6. Have a large array of new and classic maps at the start 7. Focus on the 64 player to push graphics and performance 8. Deliver on the "live service" model (ie. 2 classic and 1 new map every 3 month season) 9. Have reasonable monetization with "realistic" player skins (ie. no Attack on Titan skins running around) 10. Focus on the CORE BF EXPERIENCE ONLY - No BRs, no extraction BR's, JUST 64 PLAYER COMBINED ARMS MULTIPLAYER
@@billybobj9988 disagreed, "Grand operations" felt way less grand. Only breakthrough was comparable to operations but it wasn't as athmosperoc or chaotic like bf1. Still, breakthrough was my favourite game mode in bfv.
Bf1 maps were made for operations BF4 maps were made for conquest BF2042 MAPS were made for battle royale That's why those games were best played in those modes
For me, Operations like in BF1 (Not the V ones) has given each win much more weight, cause you had a goal to push back the enemy team for 3 or 4 rounds in different maps and starting conditions until you reach the final ending. It was a great evolution of conquest/breakthrough in my opinion. You can even build in some law between each round. Maybe a reward for the winning team at the end would be a good idea too, cosmetics for example.
Yes. I think BF should stop making their core gamemode Conquest, and focus more on these more directed, linear game modes. They feel much more purposeful and immersive compared to the open-endedness of conquest. Adding layers of simple logistics like level cap said is a great idea imo.
Honestly felt this revisiting BF1 and being like... I can see why everyone is playing this again. They could've just expanded on operations. maybe have a continuous war going on. let players have a customizeable character maybe, possibly make them mercenaries, then have unlocks be tied to reputations for the game's factions. then have match runs that have objectives or something for each team.
But a few things I so like and they should put into the next game that is squad revival and item plus menu where we can switch on the go it what keeps me on the go than having one loadout and you are put into a situation where you don't have the right attachments.
@@AceWolf2009 yh 5 fundamentals were great shame they left it, if I knew 2042 was going to come out I would’ve begged for them to keep giving us content in bf5😂
@@AceWolf2009not at the start it didn’t… Wokefield V wasn’t good until after it’s lifespan and they went we won’t do that again and doubled down with Wokefeild 2042 😂
Frontlines is one of the best modes Dice has ever put in a game. Pushing back from your last objective and securing the win always felt awesome. And if you had a good squad you could really make a difference. Doubtful it will show up in 2042 but I'd love to have it back in the next game
thats why incursions wouldve been amazing. it was literally just like frontlines, minus the mcoms. honestly you probably could just make frontlines a competitive mode with tweaked classes like incursions was. make that bih f2p and you got a banger bf game thats ready to print money.
@hondacr01 right! When they announced they were putting a timer on it it seemed like everyone was happy about it except for me, I liked endless rounds constantly ptfo ing
I think maybe you've missed what used to make the old Battlefields so great, it wasn't arbitrary goals/achievements, it was the "Battlefield Experience", where due to limitations within each class, you had to communicate and work together to achieve victory in a sandbox light environment that allowed you to be the authors of your own experiences. Battlefield has lost its way i think because it lost sight of this, in its attempt to chase the COD crowd it sold its soul down the river. Moving further and further into the arcade genre, mixing classes to such an extent that everyone is a one man army that doesn't need teamwork to succeed, not supporting community servers which were the backbone of the community, pursuing "live service" models that ultimately fail to be delivered upon, the silly "gadgets" and lack of respect for the historical settings they were portraying have all contributed to the franchises down fall. How do you fix this? Personally i'd like to see a return to older concepts, class kits that require teamwork to succeed, faction specific weapons and vehicles with their own advantages, Squad 2.0 with destructible environments basically. I've sank over 2500 hours in Squad over 5 years, and its that balance of teamplay, community, authenticity and immersion that i can't find in Battlefield anymore that keeps me coming back. But then again i am in my mid 30's and i'm sure the younger Battlefield fans will disagree lol.
I’m 24 and have been playing BF games since Battlefield Bad Company 2. I 100% agree with your comment on the poor directions that DICE/EA took the franchise. It’s only now a shadow of its former self and has lost its true identity. Battlefield was a true destructible sandbox with large maps but still accessible in size. The class kits with catered roles, unique gadgets, and weapons classes assigned to various kits is what shaped the teamwork-oriented Battlefield experience. This one man army, everyone’s a winner, chat censorship, no voip, type of “Battlefield“ game is not what Battlefield was. It more feels like a Battlefield-lite made by the CCP. I hope this horrible direction they took this franchise gets realized and actual change back to core Battlefield formula + additional innovative gameplay mechanics that compliment the core formula gets implemented for the next title.
Im in the same boat as you, ive bought every BF since bad company 2 and All I wanted was more destruction better player movements and physics more detail and lots of guns thats why BF4 was and is still the best BF game, and even today I can hop on a server and have people on the mic communicating and playing their roles. Still not everything levelcap said was bad I wouldnt mind some tweaks or additions to some of the game modes to keep it fresh.
I agree to full extend, started with BF1942, saw the writing on the wall with BF3 and lost interest in the title with BF2042.. If there is a smart Squad modder, they could add a progression system like in BF2 but with faction specific weapons and awards, and we would have a updated BF2 right there. Otherwise i would hope someone takes on Battlenonsense's BF1982 concept and make an actual competitor to Dice's mess
I really miss the Commander app from BF4. It was fun to be able to jump into BF4 at any time away from home to help my teammates and earn XP. I love the squad objective ideas. Also, didn't BF4 have the specific perks for capturing different points? I think that would work brilliantly in 2042 or a new game in the future!
@@straightouttagaming3110 I'm totally fine with that as long as Dice continues to support 2042 until the new game is released. BFV was reaching its full potential and then Dice pulled the plug. I hope that doesn't happen again.
I thought the fortifications building from bfv was pretty cool, don't know if any other game did it before, but it was nice to be able to build cover, and it's a shame it wasn't in 2042
Yeah dude! I remember always wanting to fortify when playing with my brother, it was fun amd it made you feel like you were actually contributing to something
Hell Let Loose does this perfectly (fortifications that is). Holding back to reenforce an objective would help out your team loads. If you're into that check it out.
They need to expand on the operations game mode that was in battlefield 1. Add a war story vibe to it, let it be cinematic, where your side has specific goals while the other team has specific goals in the match, then have side missions that can change the outcome of the match as you said in this video. I think that would help and if you make each squad feel like a bad company then that will definitely work well for squad moments. Maybe each team has squads that have to team up to work on the same objective to gain extra points, which would help people to be more team focused.
Titan mode in 2142 is what levelcap is describing. Had to work with your team to capture silos to bring down enemy shields and invading and trying to blow up an enemy titan was a team effort as well. Then being the one to finally blow up the core was such a good feeling. Defending against enemies was also rewarding. They need to bring that mode back but do it better than bf4 did.
@@hunterxgirl It's absolutely baffling how they could just remake that game with no changes and sell a bajillion copies, and instead they went with this.
A big issue is that the player mind set has changed from a team based thought process to the stream/youtube creator mindset of K/D one for glory meta montages and waiting for the perfect moment playstyle. Not that its a bad thing but it wont matter how many many ways the devs try to push squad based options it will never change unless the gamer mindset changes...
its like psychological conditioning. This exploitation of human Competitive behaviour, was the luring pathway for many fps game studios nowadays. IMO, this competition was the most stressful experience rather than a relaxing experience of having fun.
Yes. The most fun I've ever had is in early battlefield games in which my squad members and teammates were selfless and sacrificed to get the win...EVERYONE HAD SO MUCH FUN
100% but you also have to take in to account. 60% of players are 13-14 years old. So even though they shouldn't be playing the game to begin with, you have a consistent majority of your player base that lack the mental capacity for true team play
I think it would work if they doubled down on what made Battlefield great (epic large scale battles, synergi between vehicles and infantry, fun realism and skill-based gameplay). Your suggestions are all good and I would add more vehicles that require teamwork to run effectively (oh, and bring back Titan-mode!).
They tried doing that and people said the maps were to big with fights only happening at objectives or flag vs flag spots. (which yea ptfo) As for the vehicles that require teamwork people complain their too strong IE: choppers with a gunner or transports with a full team inside. Yes to titan mode I loved carrier assault in bf4 and the battlefront cruiser space battle game mode.
Teamwork ? Have you played other BF ? Because it dosent depends on the game , seriously depends on the players and the "modern gamers" 80% of times dosent play for teamworks , its all about the kd . 2042 have revives , ammo crates , spoting , etc but half dosent do it , as when i was playing BF 4 in 2014 for example , you had the same revives , ammo crates , spoting etc but you felt players played for having a sense of teamwork ,not anymore ...
@@coryyoung7544 if you are talking about 2042 beta, it had the issue where the map was completely empty except for the points. What you describe is a bad map design, where there is only the cap points that draw players in, with basicly a wasteland everywhere else
@@JayCord00 noone plays battlefield for high kd think youre thinking about a different game yes battlefield was also known for team work since the game is heavily based around team play not super announced but people would still work together especially in bf4 my heart goes to all those transport helis who would fly around objectives with the gunner facing the side of the objective along with the engineers
Not sure if anyone remember this game called MAG but there was a game mode that had squads from large platoons attacking smaller objectives to make things easier to get to the main objective. For example: if you take out the Sam site You have access to infantry fighting vehicles and air to assist in the main fight. I think they can create their own mix from that.
@@christiansmemefactory1513 as much as I agree this flavour of specialist gameplay needs to go You exaggerate Selecting a different specialist is essentially choosing a secondary gadget that goes along with a skin Most of the "superpowers" you're referring to have either appeared in Battlefield as gadgets before, or are honestly nice additions to the franchise Grapple hook is cool, though I'd prefer it to function more like realistically, as opposed to Halo Infinite grapple hook. Throw it up on a ledge, climb the rope like a human being/slide down Wingsuit is honestly really cool Paiks power isn't nearly as "wallhacky" as people say, though I understand why people want it to go, full 3D spotting in Battlefield has its place, but it has to be rare and strong Everything else like riot shields, launchers, deployable cover idk what the issue is
@@MoronicIndvidual they did drop the ball there - they didn't go as far as cod, but I was expecting an atmosphere like that Exodus short film Closest you'll see in game is orbital during a storm
That whole section from 10:00 onward has some really solid ideas, sounds great, and giving big advantages/bonuses to whoever completes those side objectives could make matches much more interesting. I think it would be cool also to have different ways to capture objectives instead of just occupying territory. Like say in a "breakthrough" situation, some outdoor outposts would just need regular captures, but other kinds of locations like server rooms, control rooms, weapon bunkers, vehicle depots, etc would need different things to be taken over like: steal data from the server, destroy the control room, collapse the weapon bunkers, steal the vehicles etc. or just like you said, completely demolish a building and it's flag. etc As for the BR side of things i always wondered how a "conquest royale" would play out, big map, 128 players, you die and you're out permanently. Maybe to win you can either wipe the enemy team or cap all objectives. So healing each other, giving ammo, repairing vehicles, defending flags and all of that would be extremely important and the playstyle would be waaay more slow and tactical and squad focused creating a more realistic war situation.
I’m not a doomer but the momentum of the franchise has stalled out since Battlefield 1 and I feel it’s just not coming back. EA/Dice fucked up two times in a row and have to play catch up. At this point, just would go with a remaster of Battlefield 3 and 4 just to get some momentum back into this franchise
We shouldn't be encouraging companies to re-sell us the same product. That's part of what's killing innovation in gaming. They had a load of great features that made BF3, 4, 1, and even V fresh. 3's mad design, 4's plethora of weapons and vehicles, 1's immersion, and V's movement. All they had to do was stack all of those features in a way that made sense and then skin it with 2042 (without the dumb specialists). Then at that point they start adding new features, one being the larger player count.
@@talisman0018 To add on to the last bit I’d rather they nail performance and visual quality that match 1 or V first, and then move on to player count. But seeing colossal screwup after screwup with minimal action or recognition that they had screwed up makes me lose my faith in developers entirely.
PlanetSide 2 did basically what you talked about with the minigames a while ago. While the main win condition is the Continent Alert which determines who locks down the continent and gets its bonus, they also had some "mini alerts" with things like free fighter jets for everyone with the goal being to capture a resource and score points for your faction, to a mode where everyone got free robotic MAX suits and the goal was just to rack up the most kills for your faction.
Grand Operations was legit garbage though. Any sense of achievement was undermined when winning as an Attacker meant little and Winning as a Defender meant nothing because the match HAD to progress.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… BF needs to evolve into something similar to what Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory used to do but on a much larger scale. It would be great if there was a mode in BF where there were ACTUAL OBJECTIVES teams had to complete during a match. Think like breakthrough but instead of just fighting to hold areas, one team would have to first blow up a giant walk to gain access to the next part of the map. Another example would be something like a grand operations’ airborne mode (which was great but undercooked). The attacking team would have to blow up some AA installments or vehicle depots. You could even include these types of objectives into a mode like conquest so that players aren’t just focused on flags + kills. Imagine what a “heist objective” would look like?! That would be so exciting. One team has to break into an enemy compound and steal a vehicle full of Intel/resources/whatever. After they steal if they would have to drive the vehicle back to their main base while the other team is trying to destroy it. All of the classes and gadgets would play so well into things like this. To add stakes, you could have modes in which players only have a certain number of lives. Maybe each player gets 10 lives.
I wish they would add an airstrike request on the commorose that would show up for friendly air vehicles. Would add a lot to the cinematicness of it. Imagine your squad manages to coordinate an assault on an objective, but there’s a tank, barely any cover, and you don’t have enough AT equipment to take it out. A squad leader calling for an airstrike, and then a friend Apache coming in and tearing shit up would be a very battlefield moment. Kinda minor but would be cool
You could add soft-skinned Self propelled Artillery and "GPS Guided" air dropped bombs to that, I kinda miss the "Dumb bombs" from the WW-I and WW-2 inspired BF games :(
Conquest Royale could be a cool free to play mode. A bunch of squads deploy onto a map with objectives to capture just like in conquest. In this mode your team gets limited lives but with every objective your team captures you get a small amount of tickets (lives) for your team to share. The first squad to capture all objectives wins the match or the last squad standing wins the match. To keep squads from camping objectives ai soldiers could be deployed onto the objective to run down the squad's resources and tickets or the defending squad could have their positions shown on the map after a certain amount of time of them camping. Different classes have positions that only they're able to play. Maybe engineers are the only ones that can repair vehicles and fortify objectives. Only medics can save tickets by being the only ones who can revive squad mates, Support are the only ones who can drop ammo and ammo crates, and assault are the only ones who carry body armor and more than one primary weapon. Matches last 30 minutes, and they have more than one map in rotation.
One of the things they could bring back was Commander Mode from the older BF games. It didn't get used often enough but really made a huge difference in the maps play if you had a competent Commander, and like you mentioned bringing back the field calls for squad leaders
The problem is that it makes too much of a difference. The team that had a commander have almost always won. It is only a problem because there were not enough players on those roles. Still, you should not expect people to occupy commander slots on all servers because it's just not as fun to play...
@@210Artemka’ve had games in BF4 with a commander on my team and we still lost in some games. It really depends, like what OP said, if the commander is experienced or has no idea with what they’re doing. Also commander might not be as fun but it’s rewarding since you’re pretty much giving your team a decent push in combat and figure out how to play the objective since you see everything from above, if you know what you’re doing.
Titan mode in 2142 was a blast. You had a commander and gunner seats on the titan if you want to support ground units. The titan could move its position on the map. The faster you held missile sites the faster the enemy titan's shield would drop. Then it was time to assaslt the titan and take out its reactor. Point is that you really felt your squad's actions made a real different in the game.
They need a conquest mode that each objective you take does something. An objective controls something on the map or has security camera room something that gives you a good feeling taking a objective
Amen. Something like a satellite recon boost. Where enemies get spotted at a certain distance from an objective automatically. Something both side would want to fight over, but also have to contend with primary objective
Battlefield 1 had a brilliant set piece in Behemoths, which made each map and game play differently. They were far from perfect, but had a huge impact on the matches and this concept could be really cool in future Battlefield titles.
I always thought that building walls, protection, barriers etc in BFV was an awesome features and massively underused by a lot of players. Yet it was strategically very helpful in many cases, and it gave you points while you capped. I'd love to see that mechanic brought back and improved on, made bigger.
The Irony here LevelCap, is you talk about BRs and, if you look at the reaction to DMZ versus WZ, I'd dare say we've already gotten to the point where BR is stale and extraction shooter is the newest "cool kid on the block". If your BR isn't innovative, it isn't going anywhere. Exfil shooters are even more investment from a player base and they seem to like that. Fascinating to see how quickly that tide turned.
I'll never forget the match that first truly made me fall in love with Battlefield; it was a match of Paracel Storm Conquest in BF4, had to be as far back as 2015 or 2016; my team was brought to the brink of defeat at like 100 tickets to 600- and suddenly we came together and rallied in game comms, and we began systematically taking objectives back as a small team until we finally brought the score back to even, down at 20 or so tickets per team before finally clutching the victory in an all-out gunfight at the last objective. I've never cheered so hard at the end of a BF game since; if the franchise can make games that produce more matches like that, I can re-fall in love with Battlefield again.
Dude EA is trying to reinvented BF since 5 and is failing miserable. Just leave the franchise with the classic gameplay and create another title with more flexibility to new stuff...win win for everybody. Money is probably not a problem.
Battlefield should innovate through map design and game modes with just enough interesting gameplay additions. BF1 was the last time BF did that so hopefully they can do that with BF6
my most memorable match was in BF5 as a squad leader with our whole squad co-operating and working together. its moments like these as you said which give motive to win a game and are remembered. The only issue currently is that these sorts of events are few and far between and the solutions you brought up here sound very plausible to making battlefield a more team oriented, cohesive experience.
Yeah something like that, but now every one plays the game to just unlock attachments, guns or weekly missions. This cohesive gameplay rarely happens when the team is all high level players that actually want to play as a team.
I love how ever since BF3, all the franchise did to "innovate" was to shout "BIGGER" from title to tile, expecting that to be enough while getting buggier at the same time...
I thought about this for awhile. My take : Dump conquest. Dump all modes. Make a truly dynamic mode that is similar to Operations, but 2 battalions on each side. Each battalion will have 3-4 objectives to win the campaign .
I'd love to see squad objectives. I also would like to see destruction of objectives, maybe towards the end of the match the teams are left with 2 or even 1 objective to capture or defend like a breakthrough conquest mash up if that makes sense.
LEVELCAP What you think of a mode like this. Its seems so simple it might even be do-able now in 2042 customs idk. I'd call it like Attrition Conquest -Instead of having team tickets every squad has tickets say like each squad gets 20 tickets. -Once your squad runs out of tickets, your squad is out of the game, UNLESS your team can capture and hold majority flags say for a 2-3 minutes that would cause a warzone style "jailbreak" where anyone who is dead and spectating to come back with one more life. This feature would replace the traditional ticket "bleed mechanic" but gives a point to capturing objective still. -When every squad from one team is wiped the match is over. -I would also suggest a time limit probably say like 20-30 minutes where if no team has won that it goes into a sudden death type mode where the "jailbreak" feature is disabled and its becomes a straight up 1 life death match until the last team standing without this feature in theory the game could go on forever where both teams bounce back and forth jailbreaking spectators out. This in theory would add some intensity to every match but not so much that it would ruin that battlefield feel. The only thing is if the skill of the teams are way off the round could be over quick but I've been in conquest matches where they end in less then 10 minutes because our team captures all 6 points and spawn traps the other team so I feel like it wouldn't be a far cry from what is going on already in some matches. TLDR basically conquest mode but every squad has 20 lives to share amongst them if the squad runs out of lives they become spectators. Spectators can be brought back if their team hold majority flags for X amount of time. Last team standing wins. Very similar to Halo Infinites attrition mode just at a bigger scale and with a warzone style jail break feature.
I like the idea of squad upgrades coming back. Some of the things you mentioned sounded really good. What I don’t want to see is a battle royale or the specialist that we have now. I miss the old soldiers, also if I wanted a battle royale I would play one of the others. I play battlefield because I like that it isn’t a battle royale. With that being said there is room for improvement. BF 2042 has been by far my least favorite battlefield game. I am looking forward to see what Dice has come up with, but after BF2042 I am reserved.
I really liked the "Outpost" game mode. It game me something to while capping instead of just hiding or clearing buildings. Being able to build barriers was also cool. They had some really cool mechanics is BF5 but didn't bring them over to 2042.
I'm primary a BF player, but one mode in CoD I liked was headquarters. During a normal BF conquest map they could, at certain times, open up a random point on the map. When captured, it would give the score advantage of 2 or 3 points for a limited time before despawning. It would be a great way to comeback when the other team is deeply entrenched.
This PLUS a reworked class/trait system would be incredible. I can imagine a frontlines/breakthrough game mode where each sector is like a mini conquest game; whichever team completes their squad goals first, including taking the main capture points wins!
In regards to a squad objective within a game: Anyone remember the first Homefront? That game actually had a really underrated and fun multiplayer scene that was built around BF's modes. One thing it did that I have yet to ever see since, is the HVT, or High Value Target system. Essentially if an enemy player went on a kill streak very quickly, the game would assign them as a HVT target to a few players, starting out with maybe 2-3 players being given this kill order. As this HVT perhaps got more kills in their streak, MORE players would be alerted and assigned the objective of killing this player and ending their streak. Homefront had a battle point call in system, most similar to Battlefront 2 2017. And the bounty for killing this HVT got bigger and bigger as they got larger streaks and more and more players were assigned to kill that target. It created this interesting loop where not only was your team now looking towards a secondary objective, it lead to this situation where 4 things were occurring at once: 1. A high threat target needs to be taken out, killing them will help your team, secondary to the primary win conditions. 2. The bounty for killing them will reward you (and thus your team) with a lot of battle points to bring in some powerful call ins and swing the battle. 3. A meta coop competitive experience because your pressed for time to kill the HVT before your teammate does. The longer you wait, the more teammates are assigned this objective and will compete with you. 4. As for the HVT, you became this John Wick character, where soon everyone is coming after you. The more kills you got while HVT, the more battle points you got: each kill was worth more while being a target. Surviving as long as possible while being the HVT was itself the objective. I remember being both the HVT and chasing them down, and it felt so high stakes. As the assassins, you saw that giant battle point bounty dangling right in front of you, and you're in a race with your team. As the HVT you just felt like a badass the longer you stayed alive. The game was actively advertising how dangerous you were. And this system really works best in a Battlefield scaled game, rather than a classic COD/Halo arena shooter. The size of the maps allows for some chase, and the sandbox keeps everyone on their toes. Maybe the HVT gets in a tank, maybe they're in a destructible building, maybe they're just driving around trying to stay alive. This I feel would offer stream worthy content.
They have a solid track record of making fun new modes too, rush, frontlines and breakthrough gave me some of my fondest and most intense bf memories. I’d much prefer a focus on those modes than the usual conquest tbh bf was at its best when it was designed for rush
I kinda feel like the main mode of M.A.G. achieved some of this back in the day, there was a progression to each match at least as the attackers opening up the concentric zones and merging from smaller fights into larger ones, special assets to target and so on. The main failing was that if you did incredibly well on the defense not only was there no progression because you kept your sector locked down but you could do that for the whole game and still lose.
I disagree. If DICE/EA released a game exactly like an upgraded next-gen version of BATTLEFIELD 3 -- with gritty realism, fantastic new maps, modern warfare, consistent permanent modes, a great server browser, a co-op mode and a campaign -- I'd buy it immediately. I'd buy the game AND the "Premium Edition" dlc too. I don't want CoD. I don't want Fortnite, PUBG or another clone of other military FPS games. I want a Battlefield game that is like BF3 and BF4 but updated with next-gen graphics and network coding.
This, I can’t believe it’s so hard to grasp that idea. Though the realism is a bit of a stretch due to it being battlefield(and what you can actually do in BF), I agree with pretty much that entire statement.
I haven’t played BF2042 but all of your ideas for “mini side missions” during conquest sounds like a leap in the right direction! I suggest these mini missions pit 2 squads against each other. One teams obj is to extract with as many supply cases as possible, while the enemy squad obj is to search and destroy all the supply cases before they are recovered from the other team.
Players need to stop accepting garbage from these multi million dollar companies and also stop listening to EA shills making videos like “ it’s finally happening..” “it’s good now”… it should of been good in the first place.
I always thought a battlefield mode like operations but on a way larger scale and with communication would be awesome as hell. Make the maps huge but make sure to add plenty of faster methods of traversing the map (personal carriers, trucks etc.) Make the maps super dynamic, with plenty of chokehold areas like bridges and tunnels which if one team is doing well enough, can be blocked or blown up. Ensure there are large open areas like parks or fields for vehicle combat like tanks, but plenty of smaller areas for soley infantry combat. Add like at least 100 players on 2 teams (probably the hardest thing to accomplish). Players are organised into groups of 6 or 7 with one squad leader who can give objectives or signal for support/supplies. 1 player on each team is elected operations leader. They take control of a detailed live map of the game. They give larger objectives to squad leaders, hold the bridge, flank the farmhouse, blow up the dam etc. Squad leaders who need reinforcements or supplies can signal to the operations leader and the OL can send airdrops or can signal a nearby squad to help. For large scale pushes, OLs can signal for 5 or 6 squads to attack a location. U could have seperate lesser OLs for tank players or jet players which can signal for bombardments to heavy enemy encampments. The possibilities for this game mode are endless, but there would have to be some punishment system for players deserting or not following orders, or else nobody would play as intended.
Something that really implemented a good sense of flow or direction were the massive battles in BF1. I'm not sure what they were called, Operations? But those were really fun and could lead to some climax moments! They weren't too long either, and playing for the win always felt natural and progressive. Getting one of the vehicles could lead to big plays and even for the defending players, the massive Behemoths would provide other big impact events. I feel this was a real hit for Battlefield and as someone that has never really been a regular Battlefield player, I really enjoyed that mode a lot!
If the next battlefield had this it would honestly change gaming for the better. All these ideas sound great especially the part about the tickets running out and the objectives closing down and coming down to control over one point with the whole team watching the last few survivors try and clutch it out. That sounds fuckin awesome
I also think we need to be clear that Studio expansion is needed. COD have multiple studios working on games - a collective force of thousands of developers. I'm still unsure who is even doing what in EA at the moment. Are DICE, Ripple Effect and Ridgeline all doing Battlefield? If not, they need to be. Remember when we were told in Spring 2021 that DICE LA (Ripple) were handling all post-launch content for BF2042? That was clearly a lie, or DICE LA were severely under-resourced.
I think a cool verison of conquest would be if they made it so at the start of the round only one objective is unlocked, and once captured, the team that captured it would unlock new flags towards the enemy spawn, but the previous flags would remain, giving the enemy the opportunity to back cap. I think this would give the match a back and forth flow like BF1 had, and would devolve into a bit more chaotic experience towards the end of the match.
Nope , they just need to remaster Battlefield 2 , u can clearly see how played was battlefield play4free despite being a chinese pay2win copy of battlefield 2
Duh! And somebody finally gets what I been saying for years, u thought BFV n 2042 was bad already, u haven't play that entry with its $50+ prices for a gun & its attachments.
I think it just depends on the player in general, I enjoyed the battlefield formula all the way up to battlefield 1, I'm not saying it's a bad game or anything i put in hours in it but at that point the battlefield formula is just dying on me, the same way the call of duty formula died on me years ago around the time bf3 came out
I will admit I do like the idea of mini games or goals. So goals within classes can make the player can become a specialist. For example medic that revives 5 players without dying then they can receive a 30% revive speed. If a medic goes on a 5 kill streak. When reviving they receive 15% reduced incoming. So the medic becomes a combat medic through dynamic goals. Engineer goals: 5 destroyed vehicles awards the player with increased damage to vehicles by 20% on weak spots 5 weapon kills that are non explosive the player is awarded faster reload speed for both weaponry and explosive gadgets. Sinper goals: 10 spot assist will award the sniper with advanced spoting that gives a outline of the enemy for their squad. 5 head shots will award the player the ability to automatically spot the enemy if the sniper hits a body shot for the squad. And so on. Of course all upgrades are lost if killed. That way the player really feels as a active contribution to swing the match in their favor. This is my idea that was inspired by Star Wars Battlefront Awards system when a player complete a hidden goal during the match.
My idea of innovation for BF is this: What if they can make a gameplay that is like Breakthrough, but two separate teams are pushing/defending on both each side of the map until the attackers reach the center. For example, 64 players (32 attacking vs 32 Defending) on each side of the map in which they push/defend. Basically, the breakpoint on the map will be at the center where all 128 players will accumulate to attack/defend the center objective.
Maybe a good idea to try would be to gather and fight over the ability to use certain vehicles. Like in BFV Firestorm. You had to get the tank out of a bunker. You could do it by yourself but it was twice as easy to get a squad mate to turn the handle on the other door. Opening the door sounded an alarm so everyone knew someone was trying to get the tank. Then it would be an advantage to actually get the tank and it would make it valuable enough to keep repaired and defend.
Nowadays I open YT looking forward to your content man. I don’t when I started watching your vids but I don’t pretend on stopping… very constructive videos essays and you’re always on top of the Battlefield discussion! Keep on the awesome job Level Cap! You’re great!
Objective suggestions: - Capture computer terminals just outside objectives. If captured, capturing objective moves faster. - Satellite data falls onto map. First squad to grab it gets to stall enemy vehicle respawns. - Bringing wounded back to HQ will allow injured player to get two respawns that only count for one.
The Battlefield series is full of innovation and modern concepts, they just have to combine all of the best and most interesting parts of all previous games. BF:2: Interactable commander assets BF:BC2: Level of destruction Squad focused battles BF3: Weapon customisations BF4: Commander mode (make it better) Levolution Setting? Deploy camera BF:H: Creative and interesting weapons and gadgets (zipline, taser, shield) Vehicle deploy timer Mobile health/resupply stations around assaults and supports BF1: Operations Behemoths Crew focussed vehicles Elite classes Map specific interactables Spawning in vehicles with specific vehicle classes In-depth vehicle part destruction model BF5: Build mode (maybe expanded on a bit) Squad leader support call-ins Firestorm
I love the "turning the end of a close match into a last man standing" It's almost already a thing if you've ever played a really close Conquest match for example. You already have people spamming chat with "DONT RESPAWN"
In general: 1. Less attrition-based scoring (spawn traps suck) 2. All the flanks. I doubt I'm alone in living for a super beefy mow-down when I've worked around the enemy team. 3. Less linear game modes. Does anyone NOT want Frontlines back? It had great back-and-forth. 4. Keep OP elements of the game. But make them OP only through collaboration and cooperation. Spawn beacons & d-fib paddles are highly effective when used correctly but nobody screams to nerf these items (because they only work well when used skillfully). BF2042 choppers: make em squishy, but super deadly. Needing constant repairs just to barely stay in the air, such that a wayward sneeze knocks em down. 5. Lean in on Portal. AOW is great, but the potential is limitless in Portal. Could be a great way for players to swap between SBMM and casual play. Sometimes we wanna be sweaty, sometimes we wanna goof off and troll noobz. Both are fun.
After BF3 the franchise went to a more arcade direction. IMO BF3 had it perfect apart from the gimmicks like suppression for instance. It looked great and realistic/believable, gunplay was incredible with real recoil & spread to control and counter. Guns looked, felt and sounded mental on that game. Ever since BF3 I have been missing that visual and audio design and the maps were just perfect. It was a simple game but at the end of the day that's all you want from Battlefield, really, just a good time to jump into with no headache.
I’d love to see something like “attrition conquest” where they incorporate assigned objectives, and each objective is like a supply boost. Squads have their own ticket counter for the entire match and can earn more by completing squad objectives. If they run out of tickets that squad can no longer respawn. Whittle down the squads to just a handful by the end and you can have a BR style last man standing situation, but instead of it being between the two most kitted players (usually in a br anyway) to the two with the least supplies left and nothing to fight with but a few rounds and their melee. Kinda take the final stand mode and the idea of attrition from BFV, but implement it into one match vs grand operations
The idea that different points would unlock various things for the team controlling them is a great idea IMO. - Radar sites that would let your team track enemy air. - Hospital/Field hospital would slow reinforcements drain or something. - Air site would give some more or different (heavy air support) air reinforcements - Artillery sites, I would have a different idea here, more on that later. - etc.as mentioned in the video. This could be added to a spin on Conquest rather than adding it to the current Conquest so they can play more around with it, and more destruction again please. On the artillery site, I would perhaps make it so that you could then call-in artillery pieces (self-propelled or stationary) or simply have access to stationary pieces on the site that you can use. This would have to be combined with another suggestion I saw among the comments where you could easier communicate that you needed Air/Artillery support at a location. This could then be full-filled by other players. BUT!.... I really think the best thing they could do here in that case was to evolve portal even further, to allow designing in things like this. Portal is IMO a fantastic idea on paper - now I haven't played with portal allot as of late, but last I did it did seem somewhat limited in what you could actually do in there, but maybe I just didn't give it enough time. But Portal should IMO be designed so that it is the only tool used to design game modes, be that from the community or the developers. That would make it easier for DICE to play around with game modes and it would allow players to do the same. But well, I guess that would just be wishful thinking from a Software Architects perspective :S...
Game modes need mini and major objectives plus progression but it all needs to be authentic, not artificial or AI driven. Some examples: - Insurgency had a conquest like mode where advantages were had if a single MCOM was destroyed in the enemy's base. - BF1 (or maybe 5) gave you extra vehicles for holding certain points. Also, have squad streaks like you mentioned. - Maps could be asymmetrical, but could be made more even if one team destroys a bridge or something. The other team would fight to keep it standing. - Conquest Assault and Rush had that linear progression. - 2142 also had that Titan mode that was a combo of conquest and assault, in sequence.
The fact a group of friends (in a size from 2 to 10) cannot get together and play on the same team, and see how they stack up against others is the smoke that shows the size of the fire going on at DICE.
If they combine bf2, bf4, bf1 and bfv unique features and use te current generation tools, like mobile integration for the commander mode, twitch in game interactions and other interesting stuff, would be the ultimate fps game
A few friends and I came up with a similar idea to the revised Conquest, however it was more like Operations from BF1 mixed with the objectives of BF5 as well as the systems used in say Red Orchestra/Rising Storm 2. Essentially players could play this game mode which we called, "Battlefield," which was a "Story type mode" that told a dynamic story between the Defenders and Attackers. Each round would have a cutscene with dynamic voice lines to depict how the current battle or situation is going. Think like Titanfall 1's campaign. Each map would be dynamic in its destruction and once the Attackers pushed on from that map, the next map could show the desperation of the defenders, with a system designed to place props, destroy buildings and world build. However if the defenders pushed the Attackers back to the previous map, you would see the map still in it's previous ruin but with camps and stuff as the Attackers have dug in. We know it'll never happen as it would be far to complex and would have to operate like Foxhole/Planetside 2, with matches having their own day/night cycle and having to reach a kind of "victory point." It would also require constant player input.
This is why, Titan mode in 2142 was incredible, it was conquest but your capture points made an impact, the mode was one of a kind and they need to almost replicate that, have 2 ways to destroy an objective final but one is slower than the other but the faster way is much harder. To me personally that was peak BF and not mode has had that feeling, maybe peak BFBC2 rush but TITAN mode was just LIT
A few things that still need fixing. We can’t vehicles spawn. When people are in tanks, jeeps or Wildcats, no one can spawn to them unless your in their squad. The stealth chopper needs its stealth nerfing. It’s still OP. Maps are being fixed but Manifest update still has point too far away for troops on the ground. Your still running for ages from on point to another. That amount of empty space in the map is still there. Squad commands being heard by other player and spotting players, so you don’t get picked off trying to revive in unsafe locations.
Honestly, I think I have to disagree with my man level cap here which I don’t normally do. If 2042, was essentially just BF4 reskin, it would’ve been wildly, successful, well received, and people would still be playing the hell out of it. Bf 3,4 and 1 are beloved and still popular for a reason. Bf 5 and 2042 bombed cuz they’re trying to copy popular games or reinvent the wheel. STOP IT Dice.
I just want a new Battlefield that has the same kind of atmosphere and immersion of BF1, with that feeling like you're in war movie. Full scale destruction and awesome maps. Improve and innovate those aspects.
The one thing i will absolutely agree with is when a match is close having one objective that when taken wins the match. Battlefield matches and the game are at it's best when everyone has a single goal to focus on with many different ways to approach it.
I dislike the concept of playing to win. Obviously I play the objective but I do so in a way that is always fun to me. Emphasis on winning and putting so much pressure on actually playing well just makes me feel horrible when I inevitably play poorly and I quit. That’s why I dislike battle royale and the modern gaming market in general. Battle Royales especially make me feel horrible, I get shaky and anxious and the way I feel the next hour or so relies entirely on whether I win or lose (and I always lose). By the end of my first game I’m already exhausted and I quit.
I would tell you to check out Section 8: Prejudice, it's an old game now, but it had those objectives during fights. One person on the other team would be designated V.I.P. and their team would be tasked with protecting them, meanwhile the enemy team would try hard to kill the V.I.P. in the timeframe which was set. This wasn't a main goal, it was a goal given during the conquest match. There were several other events during the time of a match as well (destroy HQs, kill all members of the other team, pick up stuff/defend the stuff etc etc.) Also, Section 8 probably had the coolest respawn of any game ever, but that is besides the point. Also, if they are keeping 128 players. they need to make more ways to give orders and such. 4 man squads isn't big enough. Instead maybe make it 4 x 4. Make four four man squads be part of a platoon, or something like that, to give more cohesion to the fights, make it so that one man gives orders to that platoon, while maybe have a general on top giving orders to those 4 and give bonuses for platoons that ptfo, and don't punish those that don't play the objective. You shouldn't be punished for playing the way you want, but you should be rewarded for playing for the benefit of your team.
I think the only item you might have missed is the capture points that have certain vehicles attached to them that are only available to that team while they control the point. BF4 usually did that for attack heli spawns it would be cool to have that feature back in the game!
The older battlefields would do this with defensive positions against the larger vehicles, like coastal defense guns or large AA emplacements. It was amazing to beat the other team to one of the large guns and blast a destroyer out of the ocean.
Well. They COULD do what they have always innovated in, and turn up the destruction. With everything getting fixed in 2042 lately, the lack of destruction is still a massive disappointment. I had all the same thought on the mini objectives, and big event type stuff. Though, I don't think it should remove objectives, rather it should just change them. Or change its location. I do really like the idea of the end game focusing to fewer objectives. Also, coming from someone who just likes gaming to chill most the time. I have no qualms with them sticking to the classic shooter style. I don't want another super sweaty hardcore, high stake competitive shooter. I want to run around shooting as shit explodes around me. Call me old fashioned, but winning is not the point of games for me, having fun is.
My first Battlefield game was Battlefield 3 on the Xbox 360 so it was only 12 V 12. With those numbers of players a single person really could have a large impact on the overall outcome. 128 players just dilutes the individual's efforts. Bigger isn't always better. That was another reason why Rush was so fun. It focused everyone on one or two objectives.
I like a lot of these ideas. I would also throw more class based objectives as well. If any of you remember a game called MAG you had specific depots and radar installations that attackers would try to destroy and if they succeeded your repair soldiers would need to repair it so your commander could do their job supporting the team. Really fun teamplay moments from that game.
They need to bring back game modes from battlefield 2142! But what I think made battlefield stand out was the scale of it all. I’d like to see the maps be scales up 4x or more and more space between the bigger objectives and way to get there. Imagine a subway map but you need to take a 30 sec train to get to the next objective you a squad of armored transports bigger tank battles more vehicles like the middle launcher truck and aa vehicles and more air play I think the maps right now are too small or too complex for some good all out warfare
You are 100% correct all the ideas that you threw on the table are all very good. I think that squad points like in battlefield five must come back, and the game should be evolving all the time . Like an evolving map, the layout could change during the match. As you say, special squad missions can be randomly generated and distributed, and if the squad succeeds the team can gain extra points, health ammunition , artillery, tanks, planes, whatever. It is very possible to spice things up while staying battlefield. The most important thing is that we must feel at war , the immersion has to be there. Destruction as well.. I also think that battlefield should have its own free to play mode. Either that be a battle royale or an extraction shooter or a simple conquest mode that’s only on one or two Maps for promotion. I don’t agree with you that a battle Royale is more fun than battlefield. For sure that the stakes are higher and victory is more rewarding. However, the most fun you have in a battle royale is at the last circle but you have to get there and sometimes there’s not much action before that. however, in battlefield I feel there is always something going on that just gets my heart pumping in my adrenaline going. Its also much more cinematic and visually captivating. Chaotic also. It’s like I’m in the final circle the whole match.. battlefield has a more mature audience, but I think that if they make a good game without bugs that is solid from the getgo, the game is going to succeed, and bring the younger audience into the franchise.
I'd love to see something that makes battlefield feel more like an actual battlefield. I'd love for infantry to be able to call in an airstrike and for the pilots of helis and jets receive that call and come to their aid on the ground. It's hard to incentivize objective play since even now in BF games people don't play the objective they just go for kills. I think creating cinematic like moments in these games would make people either want to watch the game be played or take part in that moment themselves. And not just a "I had a cinematic moment wingsuiting head shotting 3 people", more of a "my squad was holding down this point and we called for armor and air support and other random players rolled in and helped us push the other team back" Stuff like that happens in War Thunder and I love watching those videos online. I agree though, however they innovate it needs to be fun to play and fun to watch and I would even add the barrier of entry to join in that fun should be low.
I like your thinking here and it's been something I've dwelt on. Not only just squad goals but also adding different types of objectives over the tired "hold this area to capture it and then defend it". A game like this could easily add in secondary objectives that can be in combo with squad objectives. Why not have caches that need destroying, radar stations that need to be hacked, bring an item from one place to another, a switch inside of a tight building that needs to be turned on or off? These can be special objectives that only happen so often during a match (obviously you can't just reset them like a flag capture). These can be on a timer so that once one side has completed it it can be something that resets after 10 minutes to be tried again.
IMO, Battlefield's mp core formula was the strongest among any fps ever created. Because, All the other fps multiplayer games today are mostly competitive or focusing on getting kills alone; Those studios and devs lures us to that by exploiting the competitive human behavioural nature. Competitive fps are certainly have more fun effect than non-competitive games. But that competitive games also induces stress among players. COD was a relaxed game before the introduction of sbmm in it. But as of now, Battlefield was the only relaxing grand arcade game alive. So, What Dice needs, was to use that core formula properly without chasing other games trends.
Thank you to Star Trek: Fleet Command for Supporting the channel! Check out the game here i.try.games/stfc/hc98ll #ad
The beauty of battlefield is when it all comes together and everyone is down to their last tickets and it's a scramble to hold points it is one of the most rewarding feelings in gaming 4:27
Spot on with your assessments. After round cosmetic crates for the winning team would go a long way. Gun charms, gun skins, patches you can wear on your character, all that would be cool
one way they could incentivize squad proximity is to allow you to grab an ammo pouch off of a support player in your squad if they have an ammo box just like in bfv. I want to ask what you would think if the support class went back to how it was in bfv where it took the role of the engineer class.
@@Meatloaf_TV facts
at 11:00 what if the place you wanted to destroy turned into a mini "rush" game. for instance imagine siege of shanghai and the enemy team has captured the top of the tower which has certain benefits for keeping it capped but if the point remains captured for a certain amount of time the enemy team will be allowed to cut their losses instead of continuing to capture an objective they cant and instead attempt to destroy the objective by planting explosives at key support areas of the building. this makes it so the attacker has a way to cut their losses and for the defender to have already benefited quite a bit from keeping the objective captured.
The next game needs to:
1. Be polished and feature complete out the gate
2. Focus on class/squad/team play
3. Bring back destruction with dynamic maps AND push the destruction tech beyond what we've seen
4. Have a large array of weapons and gadgets at the start
5. Have a large array of vehicles at the start
6. Have a large array of new and classic maps at the start
7. Focus on the 64 player to push graphics and performance
8. Deliver on the "live service" model (ie. 2 classic and 1 new map every 3 month season)
9. Have reasonable monetization with "realistic" player skins (ie. no Attack on Titan skins running around)
10. Focus on the CORE BF EXPERIENCE ONLY - No BRs, no extraction BR's, JUST 64 PLAYER COMBINED ARMS MULTIPLAYER
I think adding extraction game mode would be good if they do it right and have as its own thing/game mode like bf5 and firewall
Yes exactly
That would require either the old Battlefield developers to come back or Battlefield fans who understand the franchise to sign up at DICE.
Guy is preaching - yes to all of this
@@bearbenny4619 firestorm was genuinely really good, just needed some attention and work
I think this is why operations was so successful in bf1, cause you played to move onto the next map, not to see "you won" at the end of the match
I adored the operations. It’s a shame they never really came back in quite the same way
@@Twangaming bf5 did it pretty good as well
Yeah, there was sense of proggresion. Defending last ground was so epic.
@@billybobj9988 disagreed, "Grand operations" felt way less grand. Only breakthrough was comparable to operations but it wasn't as athmosperoc or chaotic like bf1. Still, breakthrough was my favourite game mode in bfv.
Bf1 maps were made for operations
BF4 maps were made for conquest
BF2042 MAPS were made for battle royale
That's why those games were best played in those modes
In bf4 if you took certain points on the map it would reward the team with a extra ground or air vehicle
That wasnt even a battlefield 4 original. Feature was present in other previous games, and it was dropped in bf1.
@@emilelerate6454 BF1 had that feature. BF1 had the most original BF features of the past 3 recent games.
Hell's yeah someone mentions this, also remember when you got a bomber because of the center objectives. Dice has been lacking a bit
AC130
@@BA3RGaming or even gigantic missiles
For me, Operations like in BF1 (Not the V ones) has given each win much more weight, cause you had a goal to push back the enemy team for 3 or 4 rounds in different maps and starting conditions until you reach the final ending. It was a great evolution of conquest/breakthrough in my opinion. You can even build in some law between each round. Maybe a reward for the winning team at the end would be a good idea too, cosmetics for example.
I really enjoyed playing operations.
Operations in BF1 were absolutely epic!
The "Not the V ones" comment was the cherry on top for me. Thankyou.
Yes. I think BF should stop making their core gamemode Conquest, and focus more on these more directed, linear game modes.
They feel much more purposeful and immersive compared to the open-endedness of conquest.
Adding layers of simple logistics like level cap said is a great idea imo.
Honestly felt this revisiting BF1 and being like... I can see why everyone is playing this again. They could've just expanded on operations. maybe have a continuous war going on. let players have a customizeable character maybe, possibly make them mercenaries, then have unlocks be tied to reputations for the game's factions. then have match runs that have objectives or something for each team.
the problem with battlefield is not that they fail to adapt its that they try hard to adapt and it always fails
And they forget everything they learn works from past titles and try reinvent the wheel every title
With 2042...they just went way too far away from their roots.
Atleast 5 still had the BF formula and feeling...
But a few things I so like and they should put into the next game that is squad revival and item plus menu where we can switch on the go it what keeps me on the go than having one loadout and you are put into a situation where you don't have the right attachments.
@@AceWolf2009 yh 5 fundamentals were great shame they left it, if I knew 2042 was going to come out I would’ve begged for them to keep giving us content in bf5😂
@@AceWolf2009not at the start it didn’t… Wokefield V wasn’t good until after it’s lifespan and they went we won’t do that again and doubled down with Wokefeild 2042 😂
Frontlines is one of the best modes Dice has ever put in a game. Pushing back from your last objective and securing the win always felt awesome. And if you had a good squad you could really make a difference. Doubtful it will show up in 2042 but I'd love to have it back in the next game
Frontlines was so good. I loved the endless frontlines matches from BF1 before they patched it.
thats why incursions wouldve been amazing. it was literally just like frontlines, minus the mcoms. honestly you probably could just make frontlines a competitive mode with tweaked classes like incursions was. make that bih f2p and you got a banger bf game thats ready to print money.
@hondacr01 right! When they announced they were putting a timer on it it seemed like everyone was happy about it except for me, I liked endless rounds constantly ptfo ing
Not exactly the same but the breakthrough game mode is kinda similar, a lot like bf1 operations minus the behemoth mechanic and two attack attempts
@@hondacr01 i remembered i was on a match that lasts more than 2 hours back then. it's kinda dumb but it was fun 😅
I think maybe you've missed what used to make the old Battlefields so great, it wasn't arbitrary goals/achievements, it was the "Battlefield Experience", where due to limitations within each class, you had to communicate and work together to achieve victory in a sandbox light environment that allowed you to be the authors of your own experiences.
Battlefield has lost its way i think because it lost sight of this, in its attempt to chase the COD crowd it sold its soul down the river. Moving further and further into the arcade genre, mixing classes to such an extent that everyone is a one man army that doesn't need teamwork to succeed, not supporting community servers which were the backbone of the community, pursuing "live service" models that ultimately fail to be delivered upon, the silly "gadgets" and lack of respect for the historical settings they were portraying have all contributed to the franchises down fall.
How do you fix this? Personally i'd like to see a return to older concepts, class kits that require teamwork to succeed, faction specific weapons and vehicles with their own advantages, Squad 2.0 with destructible environments basically. I've sank over 2500 hours in Squad over 5 years, and its that balance of teamplay, community, authenticity and immersion that i can't find in Battlefield anymore that keeps me coming back. But then again i am in my mid 30's and i'm sure the younger Battlefield fans will disagree lol.
I’m 24 and have been playing BF games since Battlefield Bad Company 2. I 100% agree with your comment on the poor directions that DICE/EA took the franchise. It’s only now a shadow of its former self and has lost its true identity. Battlefield was a true destructible sandbox with large maps but still accessible in size. The class kits with catered roles, unique gadgets, and weapons classes assigned to various kits is what shaped the teamwork-oriented Battlefield experience. This one man army, everyone’s a winner, chat censorship, no voip, type of “Battlefield“ game is not what Battlefield was. It more feels like a Battlefield-lite made by the CCP. I hope this horrible direction they took this franchise gets realized and actual change back to core Battlefield formula + additional innovative gameplay mechanics that compliment the core formula gets implemented for the next title.
Exactly this.
Im in the same boat as you, ive bought every BF since bad company 2 and All I wanted was more destruction better player movements and physics more detail and lots of guns thats why BF4 was and is still the best BF game, and even today I can hop on a server and have people on the mic communicating and playing their roles. Still not everything levelcap said was bad I wouldnt mind some tweaks or additions to some of the game modes to keep it fresh.
Battlefield should be like a casual milsim. Big awesome battles with incentivised squad play.
I agree to full extend, started with BF1942, saw the writing on the wall with BF3 and lost interest in the title with BF2042..
If there is a smart Squad modder, they could add a progression system like in BF2 but with faction specific weapons and awards, and we would have a updated BF2 right there.
Otherwise i would hope someone takes on Battlenonsense's BF1982 concept and make an actual competitor to Dice's mess
I really miss the Commander app from BF4. It was fun to be able to jump into BF4 at any time away from home to help my teammates and earn XP. I love the squad objective ideas. Also, didn't BF4 have the specific perks for capturing different points? I think that would work brilliantly in 2042 or a new game in the future!
but were mostly not getting a new one years from now...
@@straightouttagaming3110 I'm totally fine with that as long as Dice continues to support 2042 until the new game is released. BFV was reaching its full potential and then Dice pulled the plug. I hope that doesn't happen again.
I thought the fortifications building from bfv was pretty cool, don't know if any other game did it before, but it was nice to be able to build cover, and it's a shame it wasn't in 2042
gosh yeah, would have been very useful earlier on when all the base maps had no cover
Not sure, less you want to count fortnight. But there are plenty of games that let you build fortifications.
Yeah dude! I remember always wanting to fortify when playing with my brother, it was fun amd it made you feel like you were actually contributing to something
Hell Let Loose does this perfectly (fortifications that is). Holding back to reenforce an objective would help out your team loads. If you're into that check it out.
@@jaywerner8415 like the indie ww2 games, enlisted, he’ll let lose
They need to expand on the operations game mode that was in battlefield 1. Add a war story vibe to it, let it be cinematic, where your side has specific goals while the other team has specific goals in the match, then have side missions that can change the outcome of the match as you said in this video. I think that would help and if you make each squad feel like a bad company then that will definitely work well for squad moments. Maybe each team has squads that have to team up to work on the same objective to gain extra points, which would help people to be more team focused.
Titan mode in 2142 is what levelcap is describing. Had to work with your team to capture silos to bring down enemy shields and invading and trying to blow up an enemy titan was a team effort as well. Then being the one to finally blow up the core was such a good feeling. Defending against enemies was also rewarding. They need to bring that mode back but do it better than bf4 did.
and then everyone jumps of the titan. with a nice explosive ending. i miss those days
Yeah that was awsome.
Still my favourite Battlefield
Funny to think they could do it 16 years ago.
@@hunterxgirl It's absolutely baffling how they could just remake that game with no changes and sell a bajillion copies, and instead they went with this.
A big issue is that the player mind set has changed from a team based thought process to the stream/youtube creator mindset of K/D one for glory meta montages and waiting for the perfect moment playstyle. Not that its a bad thing but it wont matter how many many ways the devs try to push squad based options it will never change unless the gamer mindset changes...
And RUclipsrs who never revive when playing medic...
its like psychological conditioning. This exploitation of human Competitive behaviour, was the luring pathway for many fps game studios nowadays. IMO, this competition was the most stressful experience rather than a relaxing experience of having fun.
Yes. The most fun I've ever had is in early battlefield games in which my squad members and teammates were selfless and sacrificed to get the win...EVERYONE HAD SO MUCH FUN
100% but you also have to take in to account. 60% of players are 13-14 years old. So even though they shouldn't be playing the game to begin with, you have a consistent majority of your player base that lack the mental capacity for true team play
I think it would work if they doubled down on what made Battlefield great (epic large scale battles, synergi between vehicles and infantry, fun realism and skill-based gameplay).
Your suggestions are all good and I would add more vehicles that require teamwork to run effectively (oh, and bring back Titan-mode!).
They tried doing that and people said the maps were to big with fights only happening at objectives or flag vs flag spots. (which yea ptfo)
As for the vehicles that require teamwork people complain their too strong IE: choppers with a gunner or transports with a full team inside.
Yes to titan mode I loved carrier assault in bf4 and the battlefront cruiser space battle game mode.
Teamwork ? Have you played other BF ? Because it dosent depends on the game , seriously depends on the players and the "modern gamers" 80% of times dosent play for teamworks , its all about the kd . 2042 have revives , ammo crates , spoting , etc but half dosent do it , as when i was playing BF 4 in 2014 for example , you had the same revives , ammo crates , spoting etc but you felt players played for having a sense of teamwork ,not anymore ...
@@coryyoung7544 if you are talking about 2042 beta, it had the issue where the map was completely empty except for the points. What you describe is a bad map design, where there is only the cap points that draw players in, with basicly a wasteland everywhere else
@@JayCord00 noone plays battlefield for high kd think youre thinking about a different game yes battlefield was also known for team work since the game is heavily based around team play not super announced but people would still work together especially in bf4 my heart goes to all those transport helis who would fly around objectives with the gunner facing the side of the objective along with the engineers
@@JayCord00 been playing BF since 1942 (but have skipped 2042). I know but team play should be encouraged still. I always PTFO and support the squad.
Not sure if anyone remember this game called MAG but there was a game mode that had squads from large platoons attacking smaller objectives to make things easier to get to the main objective. For example: if you take out the Sam site You have access to infantry fighting vehicles and air to assist in the main fight. I think they can create their own mix from that.
Reality is, what ever 2042 tried, it went wrong.
Even on an aesthetic level, I feel 2042 totally dropped the ball. The character design, and the weapons look so cartoony
@@MoronicIndvidualaesthetic*
100% not playing a BF game with specialists or abilities. Get that hero garbage outta here!
@@christiansmemefactory1513 as much as I agree this flavour of specialist gameplay needs to go
You exaggerate
Selecting a different specialist is essentially choosing a secondary gadget that goes along with a skin
Most of the "superpowers" you're referring to have either appeared in Battlefield as gadgets before, or are honestly nice additions to the franchise
Grapple hook is cool, though I'd prefer it to function more like realistically, as opposed to Halo Infinite grapple hook. Throw it up on a ledge, climb the rope like a human being/slide down
Wingsuit is honestly really cool
Paiks power isn't nearly as "wallhacky" as people say, though I understand why people want it to go, full 3D spotting in Battlefield has its place, but it has to be rare and strong
Everything else like riot shields, launchers, deployable cover idk what the issue is
@@MoronicIndvidual they did drop the ball there - they didn't go as far as cod, but I was expecting an atmosphere like that Exodus short film
Closest you'll see in game is orbital during a storm
That whole section from 10:00 onward has some really solid ideas, sounds great, and giving big advantages/bonuses to whoever completes those side objectives could make matches much more interesting.
I think it would be cool also to have different ways to capture objectives instead of just occupying territory. Like say in a "breakthrough" situation, some outdoor outposts would just need regular captures, but other kinds of locations like server rooms, control rooms, weapon bunkers, vehicle depots, etc would need different things to be taken over like: steal data from the server, destroy the control room, collapse the weapon bunkers, steal the vehicles etc. or just like you said, completely demolish a building and it's flag. etc
As for the BR side of things i always wondered how a "conquest royale" would play out, big map, 128 players, you die and you're out permanently. Maybe to win you can either wipe the enemy team or cap all objectives. So healing each other, giving ammo, repairing vehicles, defending flags and all of that would be extremely important and the playstyle would be waaay more slow and tactical and squad focused creating a more realistic war situation.
I’m not a doomer but the momentum of the franchise has stalled out since Battlefield 1 and I feel it’s just not coming back. EA/Dice fucked up two times in a row and have to play catch up. At this point, just would go with a remaster of Battlefield 3 and 4 just to get some momentum back into this franchise
I’d be inclined to agree if I didn’t have zero faith in their ability to make a remaster without fucking it up beyond recognition.
We shouldn't be encouraging companies to re-sell us the same product. That's part of what's killing innovation in gaming. They had a load of great features that made BF3, 4, 1, and even V fresh. 3's mad design, 4's plethora of weapons and vehicles, 1's immersion, and V's movement. All they had to do was stack all of those features in a way that made sense and then skin it with 2042 (without the dumb specialists). Then at that point they start adding new features, one being the larger player count.
A remaster would be nice but wouldn't help long term
@@talisman0018 To add on to the last bit I’d rather they nail performance and visual quality that match 1 or V first, and then move on to player count.
But seeing colossal screwup after screwup with minimal action or recognition that they had screwed up makes me lose my faith in developers entirely.
Five wasn’t a fuck up it was a marketing disaster. Game itself was actually good.
PlanetSide 2 did basically what you talked about with the minigames a while ago. While the main win condition is the Continent Alert which determines who locks down the continent and gets its bonus, they also had some "mini alerts" with things like free fighter jets for everyone with the goal being to capture a resource and score points for your faction, to a mode where everyone got free robotic MAX suits and the goal was just to rack up the most kills for your faction.
I miss the grand operations, multiple modes in one match, you got a sense of achievement when winning and a load of XP.
The ten medals rolling in after spending a whole map following a tank column with a repair tool. Those were the times.
Grand Operations was legit garbage though. Any sense of achievement was undermined when winning as an Attacker meant little and Winning as a Defender meant nothing because the match HAD to progress.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… BF needs to evolve into something similar to what Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory used to do but on a much larger scale.
It would be great if there was a mode in BF where there were ACTUAL OBJECTIVES teams had to complete during a match. Think like breakthrough but instead of just fighting to hold areas, one team would have to first blow up a giant walk to gain access to the next part of the map. Another example would be something like a grand operations’ airborne mode (which was great but undercooked). The attacking team would have to blow up some AA installments or vehicle depots.
You could even include these types of objectives into a mode like conquest so that players aren’t just focused on flags + kills. Imagine what a “heist objective” would look like?! That would be so exciting. One team has to break into an enemy compound and steal a vehicle full of Intel/resources/whatever. After they steal if they would have to drive the vehicle back to their main base while the other team is trying to destroy it.
All of the classes and gadgets would play so well into things like this.
To add stakes, you could have modes in which players only have a certain number of lives. Maybe each player gets 10 lives.
I wish they would add an airstrike request on the commorose that would show up for friendly air vehicles. Would add a lot to the cinematicness of it. Imagine your squad manages to coordinate an assault on an objective, but there’s a tank, barely any cover, and you don’t have enough AT equipment to take it out. A squad leader calling for an airstrike, and then a friend Apache coming in and tearing shit up would be a very battlefield moment. Kinda minor but would be cool
Always wanted a better way to communicate with friendly air, without being in their squad...
That’s an awesome idea!
You could add soft-skinned Self propelled Artillery and "GPS Guided" air dropped bombs to that, I kinda miss the "Dumb bombs" from the WW-I and WW-2 inspired BF games :(
Conquest Royale could be a cool free to play mode. A bunch of squads deploy onto a map with objectives to capture just like in conquest. In this mode your team gets limited lives but with every objective your team captures you get a small amount of tickets (lives) for your team to share. The first squad to capture all objectives wins the match or the last squad standing wins the match. To keep squads from camping objectives ai soldiers could be deployed onto the objective to run down the squad's resources and tickets or the defending squad could have their positions shown on the map after a certain amount of time of them camping. Different classes have positions that only they're able to play. Maybe engineers are the only ones that can repair vehicles and fortify objectives. Only medics can save tickets by being the only ones who can revive squad mates, Support are the only ones who can drop ammo and ammo crates, and assault are the only ones who carry body armor and more than one primary weapon. Matches last 30 minutes, and they have more than one map in rotation.
One of the things they could bring back was Commander Mode from the older BF games. It didn't get used often enough but really made a huge difference in the maps play if you had a competent Commander, and like you mentioned bringing back the field calls for squad leaders
Also bonking snipers lights out with supply boxes lol
The problem is that it makes too much of a difference. The team that had a commander have almost always won. It is only a problem because there were not enough players on those roles. Still, you should not expect people to occupy commander slots on all servers because it's just not as fun to play...
@@210Artemka’ve had games in BF4 with a commander on my team and we still lost in some games. It really depends, like what OP said, if the commander is experienced or has no idea with what they’re doing.
Also commander might not be as fun but it’s rewarding since you’re pretty much giving your team a decent push in combat and figure out how to play the objective since you see everything from above, if you know what you’re doing.
Titan mode in 2142 was a blast. You had a commander and gunner seats on the titan if you want to support ground units. The titan could move its position on the map. The faster you held missile sites the faster the enemy titan's shield would drop. Then it was time to assaslt the titan and take out its reactor. Point is that you really felt your squad's actions made a real different in the game.
They need a conquest mode that each objective you take does something. An objective controls something on the map or has security camera room something that gives you a good feeling taking a objective
Amen. Something like a satellite recon boost. Where enemies get spotted at a certain distance from an objective automatically. Something both side would want to fight over, but also have to contend with primary objective
Battlefield 1 had a brilliant set piece in Behemoths, which made each map and game play differently. They were far from perfect, but had a huge impact on the matches and this concept could be really cool in future Battlefield titles.
Ah yes, innovate... you mean create another battle royal. gotcha! - EA Shareholders
I always thought that building walls, protection, barriers etc in BFV was an awesome features and massively underused by a lot of players. Yet it was strategically very helpful in many cases, and it gave you points while you capped. I'd love to see that mechanic brought back and improved on, made bigger.
And above all it was really fun to build defenses.
The Irony here LevelCap, is you talk about BRs and, if you look at the reaction to DMZ versus WZ, I'd dare say we've already gotten to the point where BR is stale and extraction shooter is the newest "cool kid on the block". If your BR isn't innovative, it isn't going anywhere. Exfil shooters are even more investment from a player base and they seem to like that. Fascinating to see how quickly that tide turned.
I'll never forget the match that first truly made me fall in love with Battlefield; it was a match of Paracel Storm Conquest in BF4, had to be as far back as 2015 or 2016; my team was brought to the brink of defeat at like 100 tickets to 600- and suddenly we came together and rallied in game comms, and we began systematically taking objectives back as a small team until we finally brought the score back to even, down at 20 or so tickets per team before finally clutching the victory in an all-out gunfight at the last objective. I've never cheered so hard at the end of a BF game since; if the franchise can make games that produce more matches like that, I can re-fall in love with Battlefield again.
That sounds awesome!
Dude EA is trying to reinvented BF since 5 and is failing miserable.
Just leave the franchise with the classic gameplay and create another title with more flexibility to new stuff...win win for everybody.
Money is probably not a problem.
LevelCap: "When I say 'innovate' I don't mean 'copy other games.'"
EA/DICE: "I don't understand the difference."
Battlefield should innovate through map design and game modes with just enough interesting gameplay additions. BF1 was the last time BF did that so hopefully they can do that with BF6
"Battlefield's old, rarely innovated formula just doesn't cut it in the modern world"
>More people playing bf1 than 2042
my most memorable match was in BF5 as a squad leader with our whole squad co-operating and working together. its moments like these as you said which give motive to win a game and are remembered. The only issue currently is that these sorts of events are few and far between and the solutions you brought up here sound very plausible to making battlefield a more team oriented, cohesive experience.
Yeah something like that, but now every one plays the game to just unlock attachments, guns or weekly missions. This cohesive gameplay rarely happens when the team is all high level players that actually want to play as a team.
I love how ever since BF3, all the franchise did to "innovate" was to shout "BIGGER" from title to tile, expecting that to be enough while getting buggier at the same time...
I loved the fact that you could get stuff from the squad points in bf5, it gave you a reason to go to the objective that your squad leader choose
I thought about this for awhile. My take : Dump conquest. Dump all modes. Make a truly dynamic mode that is similar to Operations, but 2 battalions on each side. Each battalion will have 3-4 objectives to win the campaign .
@Kai Miller yes ;)
I'd love to see squad objectives. I also would like to see destruction of objectives, maybe towards the end of the match the teams are left with 2 or even 1 objective to capture or defend like a breakthrough conquest mash up if that makes sense.
LEVELCAP What you think of a mode like this. Its seems so simple it might even be do-able now in 2042 customs idk.
I'd call it like Attrition Conquest
-Instead of having team tickets every squad has tickets say like each squad gets 20 tickets.
-Once your squad runs out of tickets, your squad is out of the game, UNLESS your team can capture and hold majority flags say for a 2-3 minutes that would cause a warzone style "jailbreak" where anyone who is dead and spectating to come back with one more life. This feature would replace the traditional ticket "bleed mechanic" but gives a point to capturing objective still.
-When every squad from one team is wiped the match is over.
-I would also suggest a time limit probably say like 20-30 minutes where if no team has won that it goes into a sudden death type mode where the "jailbreak" feature is disabled and its becomes a straight up 1 life death match until the last team standing without this feature in theory the game could go on forever where both teams bounce back and forth jailbreaking spectators out.
This in theory would add some intensity to every match but not so much that it would ruin that battlefield feel. The only thing is if the skill of the teams are way off the round could be over quick but I've been in conquest matches where they end in less then 10 minutes because our team captures all 6 points and spawn traps the other team so I feel like it wouldn't be a far cry from what is going on already in some matches.
TLDR basically conquest mode but every squad has 20 lives to share amongst them if the squad runs out of lives they become spectators. Spectators can be brought back if their team hold majority flags for X amount of time. Last team standing wins. Very similar to Halo Infinites attrition mode just at a bigger scale and with a warzone style jail break feature.
I like the idea of squad upgrades coming back. Some of the things you mentioned sounded really good. What I don’t want to see is a battle royale or the specialist that we have now. I miss the old soldiers, also if I wanted a battle royale I would play one of the others. I play battlefield because I like that it isn’t a battle royale. With that being said there is room for improvement. BF 2042 has been by far my least favorite battlefield game. I am looking forward to see what Dice has come up with, but after BF2042 I am reserved.
I really liked the "Outpost" game mode. It game me something to while capping instead of just hiding or clearing buildings. Being able to build barriers was also cool. They had some really cool mechanics is BF5 but didn't bring them over to 2042.
I like the ideas man knocking out an objective would compress the combat that could get increasingly intense
I'm primary a BF player, but one mode in CoD I liked was headquarters. During a normal BF conquest map they could, at certain times, open up a random point on the map. When captured, it would give the score advantage of 2 or 3 points for a limited time before despawning. It would be a great way to comeback when the other team is deeply entrenched.
This PLUS a reworked class/trait system would be incredible. I can imagine a frontlines/breakthrough game mode where each sector is like a mini conquest game; whichever team completes their squad goals first, including taking the main capture points wins!
In regards to a squad objective within a game:
Anyone remember the first Homefront?
That game actually had a really underrated and fun multiplayer scene that was built around BF's modes.
One thing it did that I have yet to ever see since, is the HVT, or High Value Target system.
Essentially if an enemy player went on a kill streak very quickly, the game would assign them as a HVT target to a few players, starting out with maybe 2-3 players being given this kill order.
As this HVT perhaps got more kills in their streak, MORE players would be alerted and assigned the objective of killing this player and ending their streak.
Homefront had a battle point call in system, most similar to Battlefront 2 2017. And the bounty for killing this HVT got bigger and bigger as they got larger streaks and more and more players were assigned to kill that target.
It created this interesting loop where not only was your team now looking towards a secondary objective, it lead to this situation where 4 things were occurring at once:
1. A high threat target needs to be taken out, killing them will help your team, secondary to the primary win conditions.
2. The bounty for killing them will reward you (and thus your team) with a lot of battle points to bring in some powerful call ins and swing the battle.
3. A meta coop competitive experience because your pressed for time to kill the HVT before your teammate does. The longer you wait, the more teammates are assigned this objective and will compete with you.
4. As for the HVT, you became this John Wick character, where soon everyone is coming after you. The more kills you got while HVT, the more battle points you got: each kill was worth more while being a target. Surviving as long as possible while being the HVT was itself the objective.
I remember being both the HVT and chasing them down, and it felt so high stakes. As the assassins, you saw that giant battle point bounty dangling right in front of you, and you're in a race with your team. As the HVT you just felt like a badass the longer you stayed alive. The game was actively advertising how dangerous you were.
And this system really works best in a Battlefield scaled game, rather than a classic COD/Halo arena shooter. The size of the maps allows for some chase, and the sandbox keeps everyone on their toes. Maybe the HVT gets in a tank, maybe they're in a destructible building, maybe they're just driving around trying to stay alive.
This I feel would offer stream worthy content.
They have a solid track record of making fun new modes too, rush, frontlines and breakthrough gave me some of my fondest and most intense bf memories. I’d much prefer a focus on those modes than the usual conquest tbh bf was at its best when it was designed for rush
And then only use them on a limited basis rotating them in and out
I kinda feel like the main mode of M.A.G. achieved some of this back in the day, there was a progression to each match at least as the attackers opening up the concentric zones and merging from smaller fights into larger ones, special assets to target and so on. The main failing was that if you did incredibly well on the defense not only was there no progression because you kept your sector locked down but you could do that for the whole game and still lose.
I disagree. If DICE/EA released a game exactly like an upgraded next-gen version of BATTLEFIELD 3 -- with gritty realism, fantastic new maps, modern warfare, consistent permanent modes, a great server browser, a co-op mode and a campaign -- I'd buy it immediately. I'd buy the game AND the "Premium Edition" dlc too. I don't want CoD. I don't want Fortnite, PUBG or another clone of other military FPS games. I want a Battlefield game that is like BF3 and BF4 but updated with next-gen graphics and network coding.
This, I can’t believe it’s so hard to grasp that idea. Though the realism is a bit of a stretch due to it being battlefield(and what you can actually do in BF), I agree with pretty much that entire statement.
Levelcap just wants a Warzone copy. Big team battles with large maps and vehicles is what Battlefield is about. We dont need another lame 1v1 or 4v4
But those games are "outdated" and just "don't cut it anymore"
I haven’t played BF2042 but all of your ideas for “mini side missions” during conquest sounds like a leap in the right direction!
I suggest these mini missions pit 2 squads against each other. One teams obj is to extract with as many supply cases as possible, while the enemy squad obj is to search and destroy all the supply cases before they are recovered from the other team.
Players need to stop accepting garbage from these multi million dollar companies and also stop listening to EA shills making videos like “ it’s finally happening..” “it’s good now”… it should of been good in the first place.
I always thought a battlefield mode like operations but on a way larger scale and with communication would be awesome as hell.
Make the maps huge but make sure to add plenty of faster methods of traversing the map (personal carriers, trucks etc.)
Make the maps super dynamic, with plenty of chokehold areas like bridges and tunnels which if one team is doing well enough, can be blocked or blown up.
Ensure there are large open areas like parks or fields for vehicle combat like tanks, but plenty of smaller areas for soley infantry combat.
Add like at least 100 players on 2 teams (probably the hardest thing to accomplish).
Players are organised into groups of 6 or 7 with one squad leader who can give objectives or signal for support/supplies.
1 player on each team is elected operations leader. They take control of a detailed live map of the game.
They give larger objectives to squad leaders, hold the bridge, flank the farmhouse, blow up the dam etc.
Squad leaders who need reinforcements or supplies can signal to the operations leader and the OL can send airdrops or can signal a nearby squad to help.
For large scale pushes, OLs can signal for 5 or 6 squads to attack a location.
U could have seperate lesser OLs for tank players or jet players which can signal for bombardments to heavy enemy encampments.
The possibilities for this game mode are endless, but there would have to be some punishment system for players deserting or not following orders, or else nobody would play as intended.
This mostly sounds like Hell Let Loose
These are honestly great ideas. Love the AI generated squad objectives
Something that really implemented a good sense of flow or direction were the massive battles in BF1. I'm not sure what they were called, Operations? But those were really fun and could lead to some climax moments! They weren't too long either, and playing for the win always felt natural and progressive. Getting one of the vehicles could lead to big plays and even for the defending players, the massive Behemoths would provide other big impact events. I feel this was a real hit for Battlefield and as someone that has never really been a regular Battlefield player, I really enjoyed that mode a lot!
If the next battlefield had this it would honestly change gaming for the better. All these ideas sound great especially the part about the tickets running out and the objectives closing down and coming down to control over one point with the whole team watching the last few survivors try and clutch it out. That sounds fuckin awesome
I also think we need to be clear that Studio expansion is needed. COD have multiple studios working on games - a collective force of thousands of developers. I'm still unsure who is even doing what in EA at the moment. Are DICE, Ripple Effect and Ridgeline all doing Battlefield? If not, they need to be.
Remember when we were told in Spring 2021 that DICE LA (Ripple) were handling all post-launch content for BF2042? That was clearly a lie, or DICE LA were severely under-resourced.
Excuse the fuck... No.
I think a cool verison of conquest would be if they made it so at the start of the round only one objective is unlocked, and once captured, the team that captured it would unlock new flags towards the enemy spawn, but the previous flags would remain, giving the enemy the opportunity to back cap. I think this would give the match a back and forth flow like BF1 had, and would devolve into a bit more chaotic experience towards the end of the match.
Bf1 wasn't special in that regard what the hell are you talking about?
Nope , they just need to remaster Battlefield 2 , u can clearly see how played was battlefield play4free despite being a chinese pay2win copy of battlefield 2
Duh! And somebody finally gets what I been saying for years, u thought BFV n 2042 was bad already, u haven't play that entry with its $50+ prices for a gun & its attachments.
The true Battlefield!
Naa remaster 4
I think it just depends on the player in general, I enjoyed the battlefield formula all the way up to battlefield 1, I'm not saying it's a bad game or anything i put in hours in it but at that point the battlefield formula is just dying on me, the same way the call of duty formula died on me years ago around the time bf3 came out
For me would be
- bf4 gameplay
-bf1 atmosphere
-bf5 animation
-Destruction
No, Battle Royal is not fun or engaging. Keep that crap away from at least one game.
I will admit I do like the idea of mini games or goals. So goals within classes can make the player can become a specialist. For example medic that revives 5 players without dying then they can receive a 30% revive speed. If a medic goes on a 5 kill streak. When reviving they receive 15% reduced incoming. So the medic becomes a combat medic through dynamic goals.
Engineer goals:
5 destroyed vehicles awards the player with increased damage to vehicles by 20% on weak spots
5 weapon kills that are non explosive the player is awarded faster reload speed for both weaponry and explosive gadgets.
Sinper goals:
10 spot assist will award the sniper with advanced spoting that gives a outline of the enemy for their squad.
5 head shots will award the player the ability to automatically spot the enemy if the sniper hits a body shot for the squad.
And so on. Of course all upgrades are lost if killed. That way the player really feels as a active contribution to swing the match in their favor. This is my idea that was inspired by Star Wars Battlefront Awards system when a player complete a hidden goal during the match.
My idea of innovation for BF is this:
What if they can make a gameplay that is like Breakthrough, but two separate teams are pushing/defending on both each side of the map until the attackers reach the center.
For example, 64 players (32 attacking vs 32 Defending) on each side of the map in which they push/defend. Basically, the breakpoint on the map will be at the center where all 128 players will accumulate to attack/defend the center objective.
Maybe a good idea to try would be to gather and fight over the ability to use certain vehicles. Like in BFV Firestorm. You had to get the tank out of a bunker. You could do it by yourself but it was twice as easy to get a squad mate to turn the handle on the other door. Opening the door sounded an alarm so everyone knew someone was trying to get the tank. Then it would be an advantage to actually get the tank and it would make it valuable enough to keep repaired and defend.
Nowadays I open YT looking forward to your content man. I don’t when I started watching your vids but I don’t pretend on stopping… very constructive videos essays and you’re always on top of the Battlefield discussion! Keep on the awesome job Level Cap! You’re great!
Objective suggestions:
- Capture computer terminals just outside objectives. If captured, capturing objective moves faster.
- Satellite data falls onto map. First squad to grab it gets to stall enemy vehicle respawns.
- Bringing wounded back to HQ will allow injured player to get two respawns that only count for one.
They had one job of BF: 2042, and nobody got understand. Absolutely Zero.
The Battlefield series is full of innovation and modern concepts, they just have to combine all of the best and most interesting parts of all previous games.
BF:2:
Interactable commander assets
BF:BC2:
Level of destruction
Squad focused battles
BF3:
Weapon customisations
BF4:
Commander mode (make it better)
Levolution
Setting?
Deploy camera
BF:H:
Creative and interesting weapons and gadgets (zipline, taser, shield)
Vehicle deploy timer
Mobile health/resupply stations around assaults and supports
BF1:
Operations
Behemoths
Crew focussed vehicles
Elite classes
Map specific interactables
Spawning in vehicles with specific vehicle classes
In-depth vehicle part destruction model
BF5:
Build mode (maybe expanded on a bit)
Squad leader support call-ins
Firestorm
I love the "turning the end of a close match into a last man standing" It's almost already a thing if you've ever played a really close Conquest match for example. You already have people spamming chat with "DONT RESPAWN"
In general:
1. Less attrition-based scoring (spawn traps suck)
2. All the flanks. I doubt I'm alone in living for a super beefy mow-down when I've worked around the enemy team.
3. Less linear game modes. Does anyone NOT want Frontlines back? It had great back-and-forth.
4. Keep OP elements of the game. But make them OP only through collaboration and cooperation. Spawn beacons & d-fib paddles are highly effective when used correctly but nobody screams to nerf these items (because they only work well when used skillfully). BF2042 choppers: make em squishy, but super deadly. Needing constant repairs just to barely stay in the air, such that a wayward sneeze knocks em down.
5. Lean in on Portal. AOW is great, but the potential is limitless in Portal. Could be a great way for players to swap between SBMM and casual play. Sometimes we wanna be sweaty, sometimes we wanna goof off and troll noobz. Both are fun.
After BF3 the franchise went to a more arcade direction. IMO BF3 had it perfect apart from the gimmicks like suppression for instance. It looked great and realistic/believable, gunplay was incredible with real recoil & spread to control and counter. Guns looked, felt and sounded mental on that game. Ever since BF3 I have been missing that visual and audio design and the maps were just perfect. It was a simple game but at the end of the day that's all you want from Battlefield, really, just a good time to jump into with no headache.
I’d love to see something like “attrition conquest” where they incorporate assigned objectives, and each objective is like a supply boost. Squads have their own ticket counter for the entire match and can earn more by completing squad objectives. If they run out of tickets that squad can no longer respawn. Whittle down the squads to just a handful by the end and you can have a BR style last man standing situation, but instead of it being between the two most kitted players (usually in a br anyway) to the two with the least supplies left and nothing to fight with but a few rounds and their melee. Kinda take the final stand mode and the idea of attrition from BFV, but implement it into one match vs grand operations
The idea that different points would unlock various things for the team controlling them is a great idea IMO.
- Radar sites that would let your team track enemy air.
- Hospital/Field hospital would slow reinforcements drain or something.
- Air site would give some more or different (heavy air support) air reinforcements
- Artillery sites, I would have a different idea here, more on that later.
- etc.as mentioned in the video.
This could be added to a spin on Conquest rather than adding it to the current Conquest so they can play more around with it, and more destruction again please.
On the artillery site, I would perhaps make it so that you could then call-in artillery pieces (self-propelled or stationary) or simply have access to stationary pieces on the site that you can use. This would have to be combined with another suggestion I saw among the comments where you could easier communicate that you needed Air/Artillery support at a location. This could then be full-filled by other players.
BUT!.... I really think the best thing they could do here in that case was to evolve portal even further, to allow designing in things like this. Portal is IMO a fantastic idea on paper - now I haven't played with portal allot as of late, but last I did it did seem somewhat limited in what you could actually do in there, but maybe I just didn't give it enough time. But Portal should IMO be designed so that it is the only tool used to design game modes, be that from the community or the developers. That would make it easier for DICE to play around with game modes and it would allow players to do the same. But well, I guess that would just be wishful thinking from a Software Architects perspective :S...
Game modes need mini and major objectives plus progression but it all needs to be authentic, not artificial or AI driven. Some examples:
- Insurgency had a conquest like mode where advantages were had if a single MCOM was destroyed in the enemy's base.
- BF1 (or maybe 5) gave you extra vehicles for holding certain points. Also, have squad streaks like you mentioned.
- Maps could be asymmetrical, but could be made more even if one team destroys a bridge or something. The other team would fight to keep it standing.
- Conquest Assault and Rush had that linear progression.
- 2142 also had that Titan mode that was a combo of conquest and assault, in sequence.
The fact a group of friends (in a size from 2 to 10) cannot get together and play on the same team, and see how they stack up against others is the smoke that shows the size of the fire going on at DICE.
I remember when BF5 had this sudden death mode to decide which team won where both teams comes to a tie in the main match. That was pretty cool.
Just add Metro, Locker, Damavand, Karkand, Bazar, Shanghai and the servers will be full 24/7.
If they combine bf2, bf4, bf1 and bfv unique features and use te current generation tools, like mobile integration for the commander mode, twitch in game interactions and other interesting stuff, would be the ultimate fps game
A few friends and I came up with a similar idea to the revised Conquest, however it was more like Operations from BF1 mixed with the objectives of BF5 as well as the systems used in say Red Orchestra/Rising Storm 2.
Essentially players could play this game mode which we called, "Battlefield," which was a "Story type mode" that told a dynamic story between the Defenders and Attackers.
Each round would have a cutscene with dynamic voice lines to depict how the current battle or situation is going. Think like Titanfall 1's campaign. Each map would be dynamic in its destruction and once the Attackers pushed on from that map, the next map could show the desperation of the defenders, with a system designed to place props, destroy buildings and world build. However if the defenders pushed the Attackers back to the previous map, you would see the map still in it's previous ruin but with camps and stuff as the Attackers have dug in.
We know it'll never happen as it would be far to complex and would have to operate like Foxhole/Planetside 2, with matches having their own day/night cycle and having to reach a kind of "victory point." It would also require constant player input.
This is why, Titan mode in 2142 was incredible, it was conquest but your capture points made an impact, the mode was one of a kind and they need to almost replicate that, have 2 ways to destroy an objective final but one is slower than the other but the faster way is much harder. To me personally that was peak BF and not mode has had that feeling, maybe peak BFBC2 rush but TITAN mode was just LIT
Did my man's just pitch a mobile game ad in his "gamers rise up" shpeel?
Lol
A few things that still need fixing.
We can’t vehicles spawn. When people are in tanks, jeeps or Wildcats, no one can spawn to them unless your in their squad.
The stealth chopper needs its stealth nerfing. It’s still OP.
Maps are being fixed but Manifest update still has point too far away for troops on the ground. Your still running for ages from on point to another. That amount of empty space in the map is still there.
Squad commands being heard by other player and spotting players, so you don’t get picked off trying to revive in unsafe locations.
Honestly, I think I have to disagree with my man level cap here which I don’t normally do. If 2042, was essentially just BF4 reskin, it would’ve been wildly, successful, well received, and people would still be playing the hell out of it. Bf 3,4 and 1 are beloved and still popular for a reason.
Bf 5 and 2042 bombed cuz they’re trying to copy popular games or reinvent the wheel. STOP IT Dice.
I just want a new Battlefield that has the same kind of atmosphere and immersion of BF1, with that feeling like you're in war movie.
Full scale destruction and awesome maps. Improve and innovate those aspects.
It’s only a matter of time before LC gets an email from dice with a job offering 😂
The one thing i will absolutely agree with is when a match is close having one objective that when taken wins the match.
Battlefield matches and the game are at it's best when everyone has a single goal to focus on with many different ways to approach it.
I dislike the concept of playing to win. Obviously I play the objective but I do so in a way that is always fun to me. Emphasis on winning and putting so much pressure on actually playing well just makes me feel horrible when I inevitably play poorly and I quit. That’s why I dislike battle royale and the modern gaming market in general. Battle Royales especially make me feel horrible, I get shaky and anxious and the way I feel the next hour or so relies entirely on whether I win or lose (and I always lose). By the end of my first game I’m already exhausted and I quit.
I would tell you to check out Section 8: Prejudice, it's an old game now, but it had those objectives during fights. One person on the other team would be designated V.I.P. and their team would be tasked with protecting them, meanwhile the enemy team would try hard to kill the V.I.P. in the timeframe which was set. This wasn't a main goal, it was a goal given during the conquest match. There were several other events during the time of a match as well (destroy HQs, kill all members of the other team, pick up stuff/defend the stuff etc etc.)
Also, Section 8 probably had the coolest respawn of any game ever, but that is besides the point.
Also, if they are keeping 128 players. they need to make more ways to give orders and such. 4 man squads isn't big enough. Instead maybe make it 4 x 4. Make four four man squads be part of a platoon, or something like that, to give more cohesion to the fights, make it so that one man gives orders to that platoon, while maybe have a general on top giving orders to those 4 and give bonuses for platoons that ptfo, and don't punish those that don't play the objective. You shouldn't be punished for playing the way you want, but you should be rewarded for playing for the benefit of your team.
The other day, me and a squad mate captured a zone and wiped a squad with seconds to spare. We won conquest by THREE points in the hypest comeback!
I think the only item you might have missed is the capture points that have certain vehicles attached to them that are only available to that team while they control the point. BF4 usually did that for attack heli spawns it would be cool to have that feature back in the game!
5 also did this on some maps. Extra planes if you captured an airfield on the map. Some points also gave you an extra tank..
The older battlefields would do this with defensive positions against the larger vehicles, like coastal defense guns or large AA emplacements. It was amazing to beat the other team to one of the large guns and blast a destroyer out of the ocean.
Well. They COULD do what they have always innovated in, and turn up the destruction. With everything getting fixed in 2042 lately, the lack of destruction is still a massive disappointment.
I had all the same thought on the mini objectives, and big event type stuff. Though, I don't think it should remove objectives, rather it should just change them. Or change its location.
I do really like the idea of the end game focusing to fewer objectives.
Also, coming from someone who just likes gaming to chill most the time. I have no qualms with them sticking to the classic shooter style. I don't want another super sweaty hardcore, high stake competitive shooter. I want to run around shooting as shit explodes around me. Call me old fashioned, but winning is not the point of games for me, having fun is.
What reality? The reality now is that it's a great game and fun as hell.
My first Battlefield game was Battlefield 3 on the Xbox 360 so it was only 12 V 12. With those numbers of players a single person really could have a large impact on the overall outcome. 128 players just dilutes the individual's efforts. Bigger isn't always better. That was another reason why Rush was so fun. It focused everyone on one or two objectives.
I like a lot of these ideas. I would also throw more class based objectives as well. If any of you remember a game called MAG you had specific depots and radar installations that attackers would try to destroy and if they succeeded your repair soldiers would need to repair it so your commander could do their job supporting the team. Really fun teamplay moments from that game.
They need to bring back game modes from battlefield 2142!
But what I think made battlefield stand out was the scale of it all. I’d like to see the maps be scales up 4x or more and more space between the bigger objectives and way to get there. Imagine a subway map but you need to take a 30 sec train to get to the next objective you a squad of armored transports bigger tank battles more vehicles like the middle launcher truck and aa vehicles and more air play I think the maps right now are too small or too complex for some good all out warfare
So naval strike from battlefield 4
Oh yeah pretty much
You are 100% correct all the ideas that you threw on the table are all very good.
I think that squad points like in battlefield five must come back, and the game should be evolving all the time . Like an evolving map, the layout could change during the match. As you say, special squad missions can be randomly generated and distributed, and if the squad succeeds the team can gain extra points, health ammunition , artillery, tanks, planes, whatever. It is very possible to spice things up while staying battlefield. The most important thing is that we must feel at war , the immersion has to be there. Destruction as well.. I also think that battlefield should have its own free to play mode. Either that be a battle royale or an extraction shooter or a simple conquest mode that’s only on one or two Maps for promotion. I don’t agree with you that a battle Royale is more fun than battlefield. For sure that the stakes are higher and victory is more rewarding. However, the most fun you have in a battle royale is at the last circle but you have to get there and sometimes there’s not much action before that. however, in battlefield I feel there is always something going on that just gets my heart pumping in my adrenaline going. Its also much more cinematic and visually captivating. Chaotic also. It’s like I’m in the final circle the whole match.. battlefield has a more mature audience, but I think that if they make a good game without bugs that is solid from the getgo, the game is going to succeed, and bring the younger audience into the franchise.
I'd love to see something that makes battlefield feel more like an actual battlefield. I'd love for infantry to be able to call in an airstrike and for the pilots of helis and jets receive that call and come to their aid on the ground. It's hard to incentivize objective play since even now in BF games people don't play the objective they just go for kills. I think creating cinematic like moments in these games would make people either want to watch the game be played or take part in that moment themselves. And not just a "I had a cinematic moment wingsuiting head shotting 3 people", more of a "my squad was holding down this point and we called for armor and air support and other random players rolled in and helped us push the other team back" Stuff like that happens in War Thunder and I love watching those videos online.
I agree though, however they innovate it needs to be fun to play and fun to watch and I would even add the barrier of entry to join in that fun should be low.
I like your thinking here and it's been something I've dwelt on. Not only just squad goals but also adding different types of objectives over the tired "hold this area to capture it and then defend it". A game like this could easily add in secondary objectives that can be in combo with squad objectives.
Why not have caches that need destroying, radar stations that need to be hacked, bring an item from one place to another, a switch inside of a tight building that needs to be turned on or off? These can be special objectives that only happen so often during a match (obviously you can't just reset them like a flag capture). These can be on a timer so that once one side has completed it it can be something that resets after 10 minutes to be tried again.
IMO, Battlefield's mp core formula was the strongest among any fps ever created. Because, All the other fps multiplayer games today are mostly competitive or focusing on getting kills alone; Those studios and devs lures us to that by exploiting the competitive human behavioural nature. Competitive fps are certainly have more fun effect than non-competitive games. But that competitive games also induces stress among players. COD was a relaxed game before the introduction of sbmm in it. But as of now, Battlefield was the only relaxing grand arcade game alive. So, What Dice needs, was to use that core formula properly without chasing other games trends.