How Battlefield 4 attempts to encourage team play and class diversification

Not everyone that played Battlefield 3's multiplayer mode bothered to be a cooperative type. Many players opted to go Lone Wolf, sticking to the default Assault class, and playing DICE's game like Any Ol' Shooter. To encourage a bit more variety, DICE is attempting to communicate the game's various features more clearly to players in Battlefield 4.

17

Not everyone that played Battlefield 3's multiplayer mode bothered to be a cooperative type. Many players opted to go Lone Wolf, sticking to the default Assault class, and playing DICE's game like Any Ol' Shooter. To encourage a bit more variety, DICE is attempting to communicate the game's various features more clearly to players in Battlefield 4.

"I think only a fraction of our players have tried all available gadgets or vehicles in multiplayer," lead multiplayer designer Thomas Andersson says admits. "I think we can do a better job in BF4 of letting players make more educated choices in their kit loadouts and combat roles."

Admitting that "some players" only played with the default Assault loadout, BF4 plans to educate players in BF4. "We're clearly displaying what gadgets can do for you, how different weapons compare, and how they affect your options on the Battlefield," Andersson said in a blog post.

Lone Wolves also went against the cooperative design that DICE had intenced. The plan is to "highly encourage team play--but never force it" by reintroducing Field Upgrades. Similar to the feature in Battlefield 2142, Field Upgrades reward individual players by helping out the team. "You earn them through squad scoring such as squad healing, completing objectives with your squad members, squad resupplies, squad repairs, and other squad actions," Andersson detailed. And you'll be able to choose different upgrade paths, each containing four specializations.

Of course, the addition of Commander Mode is another boon for team-based play: having a Squad Leader literally issue commands to the rest of the squad should make objectives more clear. And, everyone that participates in the command chain will be rewarded. "This creates an eco-system that I believe will take team play in Battlefield 4 to new heights," Andersson added.

Andrew Yoon was previously a games journalist creating content at Shacknews.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    August 12, 2013 6:00 AM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, How Battlefield 4 attempts to encourage team play and class diversification.

    Not everyone that played Battlefield 3's multiplayer mode bothered to be a cooperative type. Many players opted to go Lone Wolf, sticking to the default Assault class, and playing DICE's game like Any Ol' Shooter. To encourage a bit more variety, DICE is attempting to communicate the game's various features more clearly to players in Battlefield 4.

    • reply
      August 12, 2013 6:11 AM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 7:01 AM

        That's easy to answer: the lone wolf wants the points for the flag cap. He wants his unlocks, screw winning and screw team play.

    • reply
      August 12, 2013 6:26 AM

      It was pretty hard to coordinate with teammates in BF3 when you couldn't talk to them.

      Proper VOIP support would be nice.

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 6:49 AM

        This is my exact thought.

        If Battlefield series is going to rave about how they have destructible buildings, better graphics for every new iteration, and this new feature and that new feature why would they not build the most needed feature, voice communication?

        • reply
          August 12, 2013 6:56 AM

          yah they really dropped the ball on VOIP Support in BF3! They better have in-game VOIP support this time around.

          • reply
            August 12, 2013 7:07 AM

            they better not just throw in FFA all-team speak as the default. with 32 people on a side... VOIP becomes more of a problem than a positive feature. I don't want to spend more time muting than playing

            • reply
              August 12, 2013 7:15 AM

              I'd be cool with just chat with your squad... soo stupid they implemented chat through Battlelog.

              • reply
                August 12, 2013 7:30 AM

                I mean on the one hand, we aren't in battlefield to have it be IRC and have horrible typers stop during a firefight to TYPE. that's dumb.

                also dumb is enabling VOIP in a game where 10 people are waiting for a tank and will inevitably scream at each other following whoever gets it and doesn't get it. or someone who screams REZ ME every 5 seconds. or someone that continually says "THEY WERE RIGHT THERE, NO HELP, WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE USELESS".

                so I wonder if there will be easy VOIP management. If they just throw in FFA all team voice, I'm going to be really pissed off.

                I want more in-HUD style capabilities to mark/unmark objectives moreso than VOIP to be quite honest. and I hope the commander's version is really good.

                • reply
                  August 12, 2013 7:58 AM

                  Didn't BF2 just have squad only VOIP?? I don't remember it doing VOIP for the entire team.

                  • reply
                    August 12, 2013 8:25 AM

                    Squad leaders could talk to the commander, and the commander could talk to all the squad leaders, but if you were just in a squad then you could only talk to your squad.

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 6:56 AM

        They will have this for BF4 right?

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 6:57 AM

        true, but it's a double edged sword. they'll have to include a one click "mute all" function. communication with strangers is often quite vile and overall useless. it detracts from the game more than it adds to it.

        what they really need is better Q support so people actually MARK TARGETS and objectives, in place of assuming VOIP is the better way to communicate.

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 7:04 AM

        Yep also this!b fuck that game had squandered potential.

    • reply
      August 12, 2013 6:59 AM

      Well considering how fucking TERRIBLY they handled squads in 3 in the patches, I'd say they have NO CLUE how to encourage team play and I have no faith in them at fucking all

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 7:06 AM

        it was weird to see the reversal of the "Battlefield structure" they had going, to end up in FFA mode as Andrew says... any old shooter. It used to be commander -> squad leaders -> troops, and I wonder why they scrapped that in BF3. They need more tangible bonuses to encourage squads. But lots of servers just turned on the FORCE SQUAD flag because people just don't give a shit and often want to sit in the wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back and try to snipe. Alone.

    • reply
      August 12, 2013 7:30 AM

      IMO, remove the k/d on the scoreboard. Was never there and never should have been implemented. Too many people nurture their ratio and thus, go against what the game is all about.

      I have OK stats and I don't give a damn, because if I have to spawn and die 5 times to defend a crucial objective (which will in the end make us win the game), then I will take the hit.

      I wish my teammates would think like that sometimes. Hopefully BF4 really brings teamplay back.

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 7:34 AM

        I would guess they are more about the points going forward. All of those old school multipliers from squad and commander coming back... and of course, given there's a commander who might not ever fire a weapon, they gotta find a way to get on the scoreboard.

        I think there are game modes where you can glorify the DM skills, and that's fine to have a K/D posted in there. But for conquest and rush it should just be the points.

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 8:04 AM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 8:17 AM

        It was there in BF2, so saying "it was never there" is kinda just wrong.

        Also, the notion that focusing on K:D can't be beneficial for team play isn't totally true. If you're in the general vicinity of objectives, having a really high K:D ratio means that there are fewer opponents for the rest of the team to deal with, making it easier to capture them. Obviously, this requires a bit more thought on the part of the people just deathmatching to keep moving to hotspots where thinning the opposition will be helpful (something most of them won't be doing, especially if they can't figure out how to change their loadout).

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 8:23 AM

        KDR replaced with overall win/loss ratio

        • reply
          August 13, 2013 1:16 AM

          Judging someone's ability on the cooperation or lack there of from teams he gets put on isn't a great idea. Some sort of points based system would make more sense.

      • reply
        August 12, 2013 3:34 PM

        I would like to see k/d and kd/r removed from all non-deathmatch games.

Hello, Meet Lola