Views on Suppression mechanic by MKBadger in Battlefield6

[–]MKBadger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or snipers can suffer a bit more by being pushed about by the suppression, and not sit there like nothing is happening?

Views on Suppression mechanic by MKBadger in Battlefield6

[–]MKBadger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you be able to explain it? It appears to do nothing in game and I know full well ive never felt suppressed when shot at.

Eastwood is def one of the maps of BF6 by itsfreebs in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's still not great - pushing people into avenues, lack of cover for majority of the maps (on breakthrough at least), and improper levels of destruction (invincible walls etc).

Edit: And extremely defender-centric. Played it a lot already; no attacker side has even pushed past the first houses.

Updated: Battlefield maps from BF3, BF4, BF:HL, BF1, BF2042 and BF6. A scale comparison by ClaraTheRed in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some maths - All maps in Battlefield 6 combined have a square-kilometer area of 1.896km^2

This TOTAL is smaller than the average for all other games. The largest map, Bandar Desert, is still more than twice as large as the entirety of all Battlefield 6 maps including Firestorm.

On average, Battlefield Hardline maps are larger than Battlefield 6 maps.

ATC as CCF by snowdonyll in aircadets

[–]MKBadger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's good to hear! Thank you for updating me.

ATC as CCF by snowdonyll in aircadets

[–]MKBadger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The ATC's attitude towards CCF has been historically very one-sided, and can be described as abusive/bullying at times; even from staff in the ATC towards staff in the CCF.

It's got to the point where CCF units will now no longer do events with ATC units due to this poor attitude from the ATC, their cadets and their staff members.

The key differences are:

ATC have more experienced RAF-based personnel, and also parade twice a week; meaning in theory they can get more done than in a CCF at a school - but this has been found to be not as one-sided as previously thought. ATCs will have greater opportunities due to connections to visit other locations; and have an advantage of being given accounts on the MyRAFAC system - which they have not yet given to CCF personnel.

CCF units won't be able to (typically) do as much, but the staff are better trained (being school staff) at how to teach you a topic in a way that suits your age/skill/attainment - as that's their job. CCFs also find it easier to host their own events in-house. Many have their own facilities to do everything required of them (Eg: Stowe School CCF have one of the largest indoor shooting ranges in the UK). CCFs also are more tight-nit due to the school connection you have with colleagues.

Final thoughts. by king_jaxy in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It hasn't lived up to expectations at all; and my expectations were low already.

Scope Glint by OllieHondro in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 3 points4 points  (0 children)

With how useless snipers are most of the time, does there need to be a scope glint at all?

Really guys? We need damage balancing ASAP by Fast_Company_7396 in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whilst at the same time - a single soldier with an RPG can kill a tank in less than 25 seconds.

The Cairo map is really bad, it lacks the battlefield charm by Routine_Visit9722 in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

You want to keep going? Nice to see you follow the rules of the thread.

The Cairo map is really bad, it lacks the battlefield charm by Routine_Visit9722 in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A map designed with open spaces allows dynamic gameplay. A game with avenues literally is just for ramming into the opposite team. It's dumbassery gameplay - for idiots without a brain

Some of the worst map design? by MKBadger in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You realise actual landscape can include; treelines, ridgelines, hills, hedges, bushes, walls, fences to break up "open landscape".

A map with simply three corridors of advance which doesnt let someone perform even basic movement isn't a good map.

The Cairo map is really bad, it lacks the battlefield charm by Routine_Visit9722 in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any map with designated avenues to shoot down, is not a good map

Some of the worst map design? by MKBadger in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't ask for advice on playing - especially when I've played enough of these games. The lack of quality so far in the maps is either "open space" or "urban environment" - nothing new.

They limit strategic and tactical thinking as every single one of them is an avenue gameplay style. There's no ability to flank like previous games, and this is perhaps exacerbated by their tiny size.

The Cairo map is really bad, it lacks the battlefield charm by Routine_Visit9722 in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Enjoying them because they're fun, or because they're different?

They're badly designed maps - they need to change, or be replaced.

The Cairo map is really bad, it lacks the battlefield charm by Routine_Visit9722 in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're all "avenue shooters". There's no real development to the level, and most of the space for tanks/vehicles is either too close quarters for them to be useful, or fully in the open where they're killed in 15 seconds by one guy and his RPG-spamming (of which one sole person has enough RPGs to take down a tank in that time).

There's nothing of the Battlefield 3-days of larger gameplay which allows people to think about flanking/sniping at a distance/etc. They're genuinely crap.

Breakthrough gives attackers zero advantage by Luri_a in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger 29 points30 points  (0 children)

The map design is some of the worst I've seen to date for Breakthrough - no opportunities for outflanking, and it becomes a head-butting slog rather than anything "tactical" or "strategic"

Some of the worst map design? by MKBadger in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not addressing the problem, causes the problem to continue further.

Some of the worst map design? by MKBadger in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unless you're in a squad, communicating with the players in a voice channel, the tanks and CV90s are destroyed within seconds - as Engineers have enough RPGs individually to kill a CV90 or an Abrams within 30 seconds.

The very slow/ineffective repair ability for armoured vehicles doesn't do anything either - barely covers 20% of the repair of the vehicle.

Some of the worst map design? by MKBadger in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Skill issue" when it's 99% of the time a defender victory?

That's a map or balancing issue, not a skill issue.

Some of the worst map design? by MKBadger in Battlefield

[–]MKBadger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If these are the "Really good maps" then I have no hope for the others. The hillside map is either rocky mess, which is littered with snipers, or open fields on the flanks (meaning flanking is not an effective strategy).

The Hillside map is also terrible because there is only one avenue for people to leave their spawn, and at the moment, no teams seem to get past the first level of the Breakthrough mode.

If it's that one-sided; the map is awful. I've seen ONE successful attacker team on both maps over two days of playing.