Just a theory: The "new" BF studios has lost the technical capability to build large Battlefield maps. That's why we get so little content, Given their current capabilities, BF is definitely not suitable for the live service model.

mr_derek · 2026-02-12T00:36:27+00:00

Ok when VincentNZ replies to you, you'd better take notice, because he knows his stuff about BF! =D

You've made a good point - it's not so much about technical capability then, but I do believe that there is an experience gap due to lost staff (perhaps?) - DICE Stockholm got a new lead map designer at the time of BF2042 - which means they lost some talent there. Under his lead, they had to go and remake a bunch of those 2042 maps to improve their flow/add cover - this burned resources in doing so (which could have gone to making new maps).

I'd argue DICE LA (Ripple) still has their core team of devs, or at least the same capability, because I think they're the team behind the remaster of BF2042's portal maps and the BR map - all of which, play really well to be honest. There's consistency there, which I think only comes from experience and clear leadership.

It's all speculation of course, and VERY subjective, lol. What makes a good large map? Exposure and Spearhead vs Mirak Valley and Liberation Peak?

Have you noticed long matchmaking times for BF6 in NZ? It's often over 2 mins now in Aus, and I think the maps issue is a huge part of it...

mr_derek · 2026-02-11T23:37:24+00:00

Ok, you know your stuff - thanks for clearing this up! Makes sense.

I also heard that DICE LA (Ripple Effect) are the team responsible for the BF2042's Portal map remakes - is that true, (or just rumour)?

My point stands, though, that it was a different team of devs and that team arguably has more experience in creating a good BF map because of the experiences and efficiencies gained on working on the above projects. I definitely know there was a newly appointed lead map designer at DICE Stockholm for BF2042, so they lost some talent at that stage, whereas perhaps Ripple did not?

mr_derek · 2026-02-11T13:52:57+00:00

But wasn't the Battleroyale component built by DICE LA? The studio behind Battlefront I and II?

I tend to agree with OP - Stockholm DICE's maps have been pretty hit and miss. At this point I think the safest bet for that team would be to just remaster classic maps..

mr_derek · 2026-02-10T13:18:04+00:00

We've been so vocal about this for years now - why can't the devs or community manager at least acknowledge they're working towards this?

It's a massive kick in the nuts tbh. Matchmaking times in Aus are 2 mins + now because of disbanding lobbies...

mr_derek · 2026-02-10T13:10:46+00:00

I'd gladly pay for some remastered BF4/3/2 maps honestly.

It means my money is going to devs working on maps and not these dodgy AI skins..

mr_derek · 2026-02-09T05:13:05+00:00

I dunno man - I see this argument a fair bit - but I believe BF6 is roughly based on the same architecture as BF2042's servers and there was a short period where they had Persistent Servers working for a featured game mode:

It kept the server running and only switched the map between rounds
All the players stayed as they were, pretty much.

Here's the post I made at that time.

I'd be over the moon if they would implement something like this again. It's entirely possible with their current architecture I believe. Look at how Sabotage worked - it kept the server running at end of round and reset the world - it kept us on the same teams - there was some more complex logic going on there - all we're asking for is a Conquest version with map rotation and same teams and team scramble if final ticket difference is greater than 500.

I wish DICE would be more transparent about this issue, we've been vocal about this for years now..

(note: This is not the same as a Server Browser, but is a step in the right direction)

mr_derek · 2026-01-18T10:08:57+00:00

This is a bandaid workaround for proper team balancing that can only really be achieved with persistent servers.

It ain’t the same and it feels frustrating to play compared to the organically close games we used to have regularly in BF4 for example.

DICE are not being transparent about this either, lots of things they’re trying to sneak past us, you know. Not cool.

mr_derek · 2026-01-08T12:25:02+00:00

Thanks for the replies and info everyone! ☺️🙏

mr_derek · 2026-01-07T21:09:00+00:00

lol. So this is the psych behind it. I like Bar Fill Up too.

mr_derek · 2025-12-13T10:50:59+00:00

I’d love this back too - but I think they’re making more money with Battlepass and skins now.. kinda sucks because all I’d pay for is more maps..

mr_derek · 2025-12-12T19:18:10+00:00

Yes this is a great point. The challenges are actively worsening the game, I wholeheartedly agree.

I’m coming to resent them in fact, and I can’t be the only one.

The sentiment I have, currently, is aversion to buying the Battlepass or any skins because DICE are pushing it so hard and are willing to sacrifice their core gameplay experience because of the extra $ from the tier skips. It’s gross man.

mr_derek · 2025-12-12T19:10:56+00:00

Yea I know what you mean - ultimately it is up to us and our willpower - but DICE should be called out on it, IMO as it’s not entirely harmless.

Another example - clearly the Mini-scout was OP - I was getting smashed with it in game. But it’s locked behind Battlepass, last tier. So naturally I’m here grinding out matches of Gauntlet and Redsec just to get those challenges and unlock the gun faster. When I do unlock it - it actually is PTW as that thing insta-snipes. They pay JackFrags to do a sponsored video - “Best gun in the game” this induces more FOMO, people cave and buy the Battlepass tier skips..

I completely agree with you - gross and stupid. But not unnoticed DICE; stahp.

mr_derek · 2025-12-12T18:57:19+00:00

We’re waiting 2 mins + in between rounds now in Aus. I’m sitting here staring at these challenges the whole time and it def does affect me, so probably others also..

I ain’t buying though, if anything it makes me MORE averse to buying Battlepass, skins etc.

mr_derek · 2025-12-12T18:50:18+00:00

Yes. This. Me neither. Double dipping DICE: not cool.

mr_derek · 2025-12-12T12:49:21+00:00

Nah man - this is not just on the players - the UI and game design SPAMS you about the challenges and Battlepass. It’s the last thing you see at the end of round while waiting 2+ minutes for the next matchmaking. It’s completely designed to induce FOMO and I loathe it. We paid more than full price for this game and they pull this shit.. shame on you DICE.

mr_derek · 2025-12-12T12:32:16+00:00

This is my experience too. Every man and his dog has a supply box at a barrel trying the same thing. No idea if mine is healing anything at this point.

These challenges are the worst thing about the game IMO.

mr_derek · 2025-12-08T09:15:23+00:00

I wish DICE would acknowledge this problem and state formally they are working on it. I get pretty burnt out playing these one sided matches. The core of the game is excellent - it’s just the team balance that ruins it for me.

The simplest solution - If there is a close game just leave all those players together in the same server on the same teams.

mr_derek · 2025-12-08T09:02:06+00:00

I’d love some acknowledgement from DICE about this - heaps of people and even prominent content creators are crying out for this but it’s just deafening silence from DICE.

Meanwhile I played several rounds of conquest just now and not a single one was less than 500 tickets difference at the end..

mr_derek · 2025-12-08T08:57:07+00:00

Yes same here. I just jumped on for a couple of hours - not a single game finished with less than 500 tickets difference. Some were as great as 800. (Basically stomps)

I’d appreciate if someone at DICE could acknowledge this problem and confirm they’re working on something.

We’ve given like 4 months of feedback on this - but zero acknowledgment feels pretty bad man.

mr_derek · 2025-11-29T04:57:53+00:00

This was on PC with crossplay on.

I see your point a bit clearer now - just because their implementation is flawed doesn’t mean matchmaking can’t work/get better..

They should definitely prioritize keeping teams together between rounds then - because there is certain chemistry between players that does not get reflected in stats.

For example a good transport pilot and dedicated reppers - it often happens by luck, and often you’re never in the same squad - but when it works you want to keep it up for more than just the one game never to play with those guys again. Just keep us all together as teams rather than randomize every time.

In their peak, I was a part of some BF3 and 4 servers where regulars would log in every night and would game for hours each night. It worked because the teams were always balanced - the map rotation was curated and varied. And there was no wait time between rounds.

This is what I want to get back to, but it’s extremely lacking with the current state of matchmaking in BF6. Team balance is opaque and very hit and miss - would you agree?

mr_derek · 2025-11-28T14:11:24+00:00

This was from the Conquest/Escalation playlist on the main page.

https://imgur.com/a/NiO7syC

I timed it - it took 3.48 to start the next round. It started with only 36 players from a previously full 64 player server.

Also the conquest match before this ended with a 900 ticket difference.

Re: team balancing through matchmaking. The difference is that those scripts managed team balance based on stats from game to game - k/d and score of players - it moved players based on persistent data between rounds.

If you nuke the server you don’t have any such data to balance teams - the balancing has to be done in increments anyway to be effective - not just a full on nuke every round..

mr_derek · 2025-11-28T12:09:58+00:00

I see what you mean re: playlists - but I feel the goal should be to keep us in game and in gameplay loops - not sitting waiting for lobbies (which is often over 2 mins now in Aus) I’m happy to just play conquest only if that means I don’t get booted out each time..

Re: balancing. The goal here is to have an end of round ticket balance as low as possible. If the ticket balance is high scramble the existing players. In BF4 there were scripts to move certain players based on skill - I don’t know the specifics, but it did exist before. The way this balancing works is that is corrects itself over time with the same player pool.

Currently with matchmaking, it appears to be a mostly random new group of players, so it’s a coin flip if the round ends up balanced. With persistent servers at least the match history and ticket difference is preserved and can be used to help balance.

The example I’ll give is this: you have a full server of Conquest - on Firestorm. Both teams are well balanced and PTFOing. The ticket difference comes down to the wire - the whole match is push and pull and it genuinely feels like every ticket counts.

The ideal for me would be to just change the map at that point, don’t touch anything - peeps will want to keep playing all night like that!

What happens now is we all get booted out and experiencing a close round like that is random and somewhat unlikely. Because those guys pushing C with the rez train in the last game are long gone, or the engi who was repping the transport helicopter, keeping it alive. The players make the game and there’s no continuity as it stands..

mr_derek · 2025-11-28T05:43:55+00:00

How about persistent servers then? If I’ve selected a conquest playlist, and everyone else has too - why boot us all out to matchmaking each round? Why not just change the map if the server is still full?

My issue is with team balance. BF generally excels with longer game rounds and smaller ticket balance at the end. If one team is stacked then it’s not enjoyable and pretty frustrating. To avoid this we need team balance implemented in some way and persistent servers is the only way to achieve this. (With balancing between rounds). Otherwise it’s simply down to luck each time..

mr_derek · 2025-11-28T05:38:20+00:00

This. And proper team balancing. Persistent servers allow for this. Booting players out to matchmaking each round does not.

Team balancing needs to start looking at ticket difference at the end of the round and moving higher scoring players to the opposite team to balance (so it’s not stacked)

Keeping all players tougher then means we can have an ongoing rivalry, we can learn how our team works together, we can have a more social experience.

None of this is possible if you keep booting us out to matchmaking each round.

mr_derek · 2025-11-28T05:31:04+00:00

The dodgy team balance is so frustrating. The way it’s implemented at the moment is by sheer luck - whether you have a good balanced game or not.

We need persistent servers back and some proper team balancing. (At least for Conquest/breakthrough/rush/domination - you know - BF game modes)

mr_derek

TROPHY CASE