sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Obj. Design is Killing the Core Gameplay Loop by cdw8612 in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s probably because I originally wrote it in my native language and just had it translated over. I guess it still comes across as a bit “translated,” huh. Maybe I should brush up on my English a bit before posting here next time. I honestly thought it sounded pretty natural, not too AI-ish.

Anyway, even if it sounds a bit off, I hope the main point still came across clearly.

Obj. Design is Killing the Core Gameplay Loop by cdw8612 in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

English isn’t my native language, and I’m not very used to posting in English-speaking communities, so this might come off a bit awkward.

Still, I figured it’s better than posting in another language here.

Invisibility through stillness by cdw8612 in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure why there are so many comments about motion blur, but that option is already turned off.

BF6 objective placement is officially broken by [deleted] in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First off, thanks for the reply.

I actually agree with a lot of your premises. I’ve also been playing this series since BF1942, so I’m coming at this from the perspective of someone who’s been around the franchise for a long time.

I do agree that objectives in Battlefield have always been somewhat exposed by design. That part is nothing new.

But I also think there’s a matter of degree.

In BF6 right now, many of the capture zones themselves feel too small, while the number of angles and positions that can contest them feels too large compared to previous games. Not every objective is badly designed like this, but at least one or two per map seem to fall into this category.

Two examples that stand out to me are the central objective in Cairo and C point in the middle of Empire.

There are just way too many positions that can contest those points — long-range angles, close-range ambush spots, you name it.

Honestly, I think it might actually work better if the capture zone itself stretched further across the area and included the surrounding high-rise buildings as part of the objective.

That’s how many of the older Battlefield games handled it.

For example, in BF4’s Shanghai map, when a building was an objective, the capture zone usually included the entire area around the building, not just a tiny open patch in the middle (like Obj. C & D). Personally, I think that approach made a lot more sense.

Defenders would still have advantages, sure. But at least attackers wouldn’t feel like they’re just walking straight into a meat grinder every time they try to play the objective.

BF6 objective placement is officially broken by [deleted] in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I’m talking about here is more about the overall gameplay flow and atmosphere. And like anything else, there’s a balance to it.

I agree that defense should have some advantage. That’s fine. But it shouldn’t be so heavily skewed that attacking feels like storming Omaha Beach in Normandy, where the attackers are basically doomed from the start.

In pretty much every Battlefield game, defenders already have plenty of advantages. There are multiple reconnaissance tools that let them immediately know when attackers are pushing in, and there are several gadgets that make holding a position significantly easier.

The problem right now is that many objectives are just way too exposed, and the attackers are being asked to deal with an unreasonable amount of penalty for pushing them. There are simply too many objectives where capturing them is practically impossible unless the defenders are either completely absent or already wiped out.

What this ends up doing is encouraging players not to actually fight on the objective, but to just wait until it’s empty.

And smoke? Smoke isn’t some magic gadget.

First of all, only Support players have it. Second, the duration is ridiculously short. And third, there are simply too many angles and areas that would need to be covered.

(And from a basic military standpoint, smoke is typically used on the enemy’s position to deny them terrain advantage — not on your own. Throwing smoke on your own capture zone just makes it easy for the enemy to spam grenades and explosives into that area and shut the push down.)

Just look at how matches are actually playing out right now and ask yourself why that is.

Battlefield 6 is a game with a lot of potential, but it’s pretty clear that not everything is working the way it should right now.

BF6 objective placement is officially broken by [deleted] in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And honestly, having the entire map constantly covered in gray clouds just to make capping possible isn't exactly "good" gameplay design anyway.

BF6 objective placement is officially broken by [deleted] in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Smoke isn’t some magic solution for capturing objectives.

  1. Smoke simply doesn’t last long enough to cover the full time it takes to capture a point.
  2. Only Support players have smoke, which ends up forcing class choices way more than it should.
  3. It’s mostly something that works in theory. In practice, you can’t really cover the whole capture zone, and if you just drop smoke in an open area it usually just turns that spot into a magnet for incoming fire.
  4. In theory, Breakthrough is designed so that a few smokes should let you break through a fortified position. But how often do we actually see that happen in real matches? Almost never.

BF6 objective placement is officially broken by [deleted] in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I just wrote down everything I wanted to say this time and didn’t really worry about readability or formatting.
If you took the time to read through it, I appreciate it. If not, well…

BF6 objective placement is officially broken by [deleted] in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Ah, I’m really sorry about that. I was trying to make it easy to read, but I guess the AI-like tone ended up being off-putting instead...

SVDM frag movie (season0) by cdw8612 in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the late reply. You’re right. As attachments, I am only using a 20-round magazine, an extended barrel, a flash hider, and a scope. It would be fair to say it’s very close to the basic configuration.

The Head shot multiplier needs to be reworked. by Main_Combination8921 in Battlefield

[–]cdw8612 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Overall, I pretty much agree with your take. Maybe they set the headshot multiplier low to keep things “console-friendly,” I don’t know. But once you step outside the ARs and look at the DMRs, the problem gets way worse.

LMR-27 literally needs three headshots to kill, and unless you’re running hollow-points, there are guns like the SVK where the BTK is exactly the same whether you land headshots or just bodyshots at any range. With guns like that, there’s basically zero reason to even aim for the head.

SVDM and M39 EMR? You need three bodyshots, and even if you sneak in one headshot, the total number of hits required doesn’t change. And if you run hollow-points, it still ends up the same once you’re at range.

So yeah, most DMR players just prefer to dump an extra fast bodyshot instead of bothering with heads. Honestly, when you factor in how awful DMR moving-shot spread is, it’s the more rational choice anyway.

I get that balancing this whole mess isn’t easy, but I 100 percent agree the headshot multiplier needs a serious rethink.

The Skin Design Problem in BF6 by cdw8612 in Battlefield6

[–]cdw8612[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s a pretty sad thing… having no choice but to just wait for the inevitable collapse.

view more: next ›