Not sure this is a Battlefield game yet

 TLDR

An improvement over 2042 - but you had nowhere to go but up. The game design feels unfocused (no thesis/perspective for the gameplay), and the map design tries to do too much, too often. It's also retreading too much ground.

Do less.
Do it better.
Do at least one new thing, but do it very well. 

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away".  -- Saint-Exupéry

Longer Story

BF is not strictly an FPS (a la COD).
It isn't a Milsim (a la ARMA, Squads, etc).

BF does well when it balances these interests - it's major successes have all done this. This iteration leans heavily towards CQB - the strategic elements are lost. 

A best, this makes the game feel like a claustrophobic rail shooter.
At worst, it feels like a 3D bullet hell ('Empire State' is the worst offender).

Frankly, it seems like the BF6 team is so scared of hearing the "walking simulator" criticism from 2042 that it has swung the pendulum too far the other way.

There is a middle ground. Please find it.

Constructive Criticism

Understanding that this is beta test, I would strongly consider the following points. If you care about any of them, an October release seems unlikely given what we've seen - and that would be fine. We'd all appreciate a goal oriented delay rather than a half-polished release.

The team based element is gone. There is (as yet) no incentive to coordinate, and no payoff for completing any objectives - ad-hoc or otherwise - beyond "you accomplish a milestone" (which encourages more solo-style gameplay) or "we win the round" (which is transient).

The game doesn't create a shared sense purpose, or shared understanding of goals, beyond "kill them before they kill us to win". The best BF titles could do that without needing a narrative. BF2142 and 4 did that better than any other titles in the series.

There are no natural key objectives. Positions that have strategic (or even material) advantages create natural focal points for conflict, allowing players to organically discover strategies. Example: Attack and hold the obviously central objective and reap the benefit, or attempt to control the other less obvious points of interest and force the opposition to extend or lose.  BF1's level design exploited this with great effect, and introduced Behemoths, which dynamically created obvious key objectives for both sides.

Flags are captured and held only because they help burn the oppositions tickets. They are all equally valuable, which makes none of them valuable. This makes the game feel unfocused and flat. BF4 and 2142 explicitly conferred flag specific bonuses to the commander - it worked extremely well. BF1 implicitly did this through level design and the placement of 'hero' class pickups (though I frankly hated those).

What are you innovating? BF2142 introduced Carrier-Assault, the Commander role, Squad Leader perks; Bad Company 2 introduced destructible terrain; BF3 broadened role utility; BF4 brought "Levolution"; BF1 introduced firearm characteristics, operations, and Behemoths. 

BF5 and 2042 brought ... well, really nothing, and in my opinion that's one important reason they didn't do as well as BF4 and BF1.

What does BF6 bring to the table?

Why am I buying this title? If your value proposition is "BF6 will be better than 2042", you lose - you had nowhere to go but up, and I'm not interested in spending money on an experience I've already had. I'm going to need a better reason to give you my money.

Frankly, you need to regain my trust.

I have hope for this project, but this it doesn't feel like a Battlefield game yet.