I guess it's time for one of these. By now, we know what Battlefield 4 is, and what direction it went it. Where do we want it to go from here? Here's where I want it to go.

• Battlefield 4's gotten too broad for its own good. Too many modes, and not enough care put into any of 'em - leading to stuff like letting Commanders spawn the gunship on maps without a proper vehicular counter to them. Sloppy design, to say the least. So fewer modes, more carefully designed, across all the platforms.
• Which falls in line with what I really want. I feel like DICE needs to condensate the modern broadness of Battlefield down to its essence. Boil down everything to its purest form and combine it. Take what's great about Conquest, what's great about Rush, what's great about any of the other modes, and meld it into one singular super-mode. I don't want to play Rush or Conquest or some CTF variant. I want to play Battlefield. For me, that would be Conquest with a more defined ruleset for more direction in the sandbox, creating fixed frontlines, as well as the addition of a slew of dynamic objectives on every map, that'll trigger specific events that'll benefit the team that gets the job done first, designed to loosen the more rigid fighting of a more regulated frontline-centric Conquest-mode.
• Last, but not least. I feel like the 64 playercount has to be reconsidered. The super-high playercount creates a slew of balancing challenges, and no solution to which can truely prevent things like map congestion, limiting the viable map designs tremendously. From my experience, it doesn't take 64 players for Battlefield to create the beloved sense of chaos, depending on map design as little as 20 players can do. That said, I'd say the sweetspot is around 40 players.
• What ressources are saved by reducing playercount should be put into higher fidelity physics and more dense and more granular environmental destruction. In fact, I'd prefer *less graphics* in favor of higher fidelity physics and destruction as well. The higher fidelity physics would also go great with unshackled vehicular physics. Since BF:BC 2, the game's physics try to prevent players from screwing up too badly, in favor of playability. I say, let me flip my jeep onto its roof - because that's the crazy chaos that's most charming about Battlefield to begin with.
• Less technical issues.

T/L/D/R Version: Condense Battlefield down to one super-mode, reduce playercount to about 40, increase physics simulation fidelity, as well as density and granularity of environmental destruction, unshackle vehicular physics in favor of more chaos, at the cost of playability. Less technical issues.

That's just me of course. What do you want?

I'd like the next Battlefield to actually work.

I just want more ridiculousness. Everything should blow up.

2143 make it so numba won.

Battlefield 1982

I honestly can't follow you on some of your points ... in what way are there too many modes? There is Deathmatch, Conquest, that Bomb-Mode and Rush ... and the "new" Battlship mode in one of the mappacks.

Deathmatch is there because some people like it, Conquest is pretty much Battlefield ... Rush was a really (actually my prefered) fun mode in BC2, the problem with that mode in BF4 is that the default ticket-count is way too low. That Bomb-Mode ist a fun new addition (imho) that does a good job in focusing the action on certain spots on the map.

The new mode in Naval Strike is a combination of conquest and rush and really fun as far as I can tell.

When it comes to thinks like counters for the gunship ... maybe it's just me, but I couldn't tell you a map on which that is the case. Occasionally I do really well in a gunship but 90% of the time that thing gets shot down way too fast to do any serious damage. If that doesn't happen that just a case of the other team not playing well and in that case they honestly deserve what they are getting.

Same goes with every other vehicle. On maps where there is no direct counter to a vehicle (lets say Silk Road ... 2 Scout Helicopters in each team, no AA) it's a matter of adapting to the cirumstances. If I see the enemey helicopters are tearing up my team I get into a helicopter myself and hunt them, or I get a stinger ... there is always a way to deal with any situation if you adapt to it.

I am with you on Conquest though ... if they found a way to define that mode more so the frontlines are clearer that would be great, but maybe that would destroy the mode, I really don't know.

I am also with you on playercount, I feel like 40 to 48 players is the sweet-spot. There is still plenty of chance to shoot people while it's not as random with enemys everywhere, on some maps even 40 would be a little much (Metro and Locker come to mind)

More physics and less issues are always good :)

I'd settle for a 1943 remaster on pc. I loved that game on 360.

Certain modes, like for example Rush, take a lot more consideration design-wise, to really *work*. I feel like DICE has spread themselves too thinly, and can't and doesn't really playtest and iterate on its map/mode combinations as much as it should. Also - some of it, like the arbitrary increase of playercount for Rush from 24 to 32 depending on platform, feels completely careless. Design is about being decisive. Not deciding what the proper playercount is for Rush, that's a striking lack of design, and it shows. 24 is the better option for Rush, by the way.

With how broad Battlefield has become, the inevitable carelessness in regards to the minutia of it all, leads to grave balancing mishaps, like giving the commanders a gunship on a map without proper means to counter them, which is a circumstance on one of the Naval Strike maps. The gunship is like a mile up in the sky. It takes a chopper like a minute to get to that altitude, and it is a wholly ineffective counter in my opinion. So you end up with a gunship spotting and pelting everyone on the map with impunity for the whole round, which is clearly a balance nightmare, that never should have come to pass.

Sure - Team Deathmatch and the likes are no-brainer modes, so why not have 'em. I'll give you that. However - my fondest memories are of Battlefield games that came with only one or two modes. I think if DICE would focus on creating *the one ultimate Battlefield mode*, the results would speak for themselves. And really, if they built a fun space to play that ultimate mode in, straightforward Team Deathmatch and the likes aren't an issue really.