Some feedback on my and my friends' experience playing the Battlefield6Beta test

My friends and I are Battlefield players from China. The Battlefield series we've experienced spans Battlefield 2, Battlefield 4, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V, and Battlefield 2042. This series has been a part of our lives for many years, and we sincerely hope it continues to bring us joy for a long time to come. This is also our primary motivation for participating in the Battlefield 6 beta test.

First, let me state that I haven't read other players' feedback on the forums yet, so I'm unaware if I'm repeating issues already reported or addressed. Additionally, my English proficiency is limited. I initially wrote this feedback in Chinese. Following a hint from a community team member, I used AI to translate it into English and have made some additions to the original text. My explanations will be quite lengthy, requiring significant reading time. I apologize in advance if this increases the workload for the community team.

We are quite satisfied with the map design, physical destruction, weapon handling, and visual quality during the test. My friends who played Battlefield 4 and I are very happy about Battlefield 6's return to modern warfare and the classic class system. For those of us living in the 21st century, modern warfare is undoubtedly a more relatable theme. The class system from Battlefield 3 and 4, which offered clear roles without sacrificing versatility, is something we greatly appreciate. Assault focuses on anti-infantry, Engineer on anti-armor, Support on supply, fire support, and fortifications, and Recon on intelligence and long-range engagement – each fulfilling their role and cooperating like a real army. Teamplay also seems to be a major evolution direction for Battlefield 6. However, this leads me to two questions:1.In the current Battlefield 6 Beta, the medic role has been separated from Assault and given to Support, enhancing the Support's supply capability while weakening the Assault's independent combat ability. Is this decision reasonable?2.Does the concept of "teamplay" truly exist organically within the Battlefield player base?

Please allow me to explain my two questions, merging their explanations (this will be very long).① Firstly, the Battlefield series is not a serious military simulation but a shooter game aimed at a broad player base. Players don't employ military tactics; instead, they memorize map points and weapon characteristics, developing strategies unique to the game. These strategies can certainly assist teammates and sometimes even become decisive for the match, but they are ultimately spontaneous player actions, not operations discussed and deployed through a command chain. We often see many players moving together in Battlefield, but this isn't coordinated collective action like in an army. It's either convergent strategies and routes learned through experience, or simply subconscious behavior, like following the player in front. While this does result in group movement, the level of cooperation is ultimately limited.② Secondly, Battlefield doesn't belong to a single country or language group; it belongs to the world. In a single match, we might encounter friends from all over the world. Language barriers can be the biggest obstacle to communication, further preventing cooperation. Even though Battlefield servers are region-locked, it's possible for Asian players to join European servers and be confused by unfamiliar languages. From what I know, this is not rare, at least in China.③ Thirdly, most Battlefield games lack a command system covering the entire team, having only the squad and squad leader concept. Correspondingly, voice chat is only available between squad members. Even if players within a squad know each other and cooperate closely, higher-level cooperation – unified action across the entire team – is impossible. Furthermore, such close cooperation within random squads is rare; most squadmates are just strangers matched into the same game. In Battlefield 4, which had a Commander system, the Commander rarely directed the entire team or squads, often just calling in cruise missiles and supply drops. I believe gamers are not like soldiers or esports athletes who live together, build long-term trust and collective spirit, undergo unified training and cooperation, and define everyone's role and responsibility. In other words, players lack the foundation for deep cooperation. Even if the game's design encourages cooperation, players will often still act as individuals. We've observed this throughout the Battlefield series: players fight for their own enjoyment and stats. We cheer when soloing a tank, not out of contribution as an anti-tank role, but from personal achievement. Some players flank behind enemy lines alone to capture a point; this isn't a commander's tactical plan but a player's clever idea and desire to win. When losing, people might ask, "Why are so many people playing Recon snipers instead of pushing the objective?" but players sometimes remain unmoved, as choosing short-range, high-damage classes isn't their obligation. Regarding class choice: skilled players often play solo, and the classes and weapons they choose invariably feature high burst damage and strong self-sustainability. In BF4, many chose Assault because they had dominant assault rifles at most ranges and medkits to heal themselves without relying on others. In BF1, they chose Assault or Medic. BF1 Assault had powerful SMGs for close quarters and very aggressive gadgets, maximizing damage output within their limited survivability (compared to self-healing BF4 Assault). Medics had semi-automatic rifles dominant at many ranges, allowing them to hold angles and suppress enemies, while medkits/medic crates offered sustainability. In BFV, Medics received powerful SMGs, somewhat restoring the independent combat capability of BF4 Assault, while the BFV Assault felt more like the BF4 Engineer. These class designs provided significant potential for independent play – being either self-sufficient with strong firepower or multi-functional (anti-infantry and anti-vehicle). By stripping the medic ability from the Assault in Battlefield 6, their independent capability is clearly reduced. Simultaneously, unlike BF1/BFV Assault, they lack anti-vehicle capability, focusing more on anti-infantry, with additions like the spawn beacon being consumed on use. The Support class, which combines ammo and medical supply, lacks strong burst firepower (without considering universal weapons), also making it unsuitable for 1-vs-many encounters. These designs seem to force different classes to cooperate. Given the reasons stated earlier, most players won't genuinely engage in teamplay but will continue acting as individuals. Is it reasonable to design the game this way – weakening specific classes to induce cooperation – when the natural player behavior tends towards individualism?

Of course, I don't want to completely deny this design. Different strokes for different folks. Perhaps this design will genuinely guide a change in the game environment. "A good rifle adapts to the soldier's habits; an excellent rifle changes the soldier's habits."

Next, I'd like to provide some feedback regarding vehicles. I haven't played aerial vehicles, only ground vehicles, so my suggestions will be limited to them.① Firstly, I hope the turret traverse speed for Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) is increased, along with the speed of moving the turret in the internal view for all ground vehicles. In my experience, the IFV turret speed currently feels a bit slow, and making large adjustments in the internal view isn't very convenient.② Secondly, I wish to suggest a dual-ammunition mechanism for ground vehicles: carrying a primary ammunition type (larger proportion) and a secondary ammunition type (smaller proportion). For example, an IFV could carry around 200 rounds of High-Explosive (HE) belts plus an additional few belts (e.g., 12 rounds each) of Armor-Piercing (AP) rounds. A tank could carry around 10 HE shells plus around 5 AP shells. This could be an optional feature, as many players are accustomed to single ammo types.③ Thirdly, I hope for greater diversity in vehicle models. I would love to see in the future tanks like the French Leclerc, Polish K2 (Korean design), Russian T-90, German Leopard 2; IFVs like the Boxer, British Ajax; SPAAGs like the Russian Tunguska... along with corresponding factions and uniforms for different maps, e.g., British Army, French Army, German Army... Please forgive me for listing so many. I hope the world's excellent armored vehicles and unique military forces can be showcased through this globally popular game, breaking the stereotype that "foreign armies equal the US Army."④ Finally, I must express our extreme dissatisfaction with the Anti-Aircraft (AA) vehicle. The current AA vehicle uses a 6-round magazine cannon. However, a short burst of only 6 rounds is unsuitable for an anti-aircraft weapon. Battlefield's AA weapons lack fire control computers to calculate lead and trajectory, requiring the player to manually estimate. A 6-round firing cycle lasts only about 1 second – barely enough time to find the correct lead – and then the firing stops abruptly, severely impacting feel and making it nearly impossible to pose a sufficient threat to aircraft. Furthermore, the AA vehicle's self-defense capability against infantry is concerning. AA shells require multiple hits to kill one soldier, but even a full 6-round burst (if all hit) only barely kills one soldier. In practice, hitting all shots is unlikely. Beyond aiming errors, the game's AA vehicle (Flakpanzer Gepard) has guns mounted on either side of the turret, while the aiming reticle is centered on the turret, not coaxial with the guns. Based on my experience and discussions with friends, we frequently encounter situations at close range where aiming at the center results in shots going to either side ("aim center, hit sides"), worsening its already poor self-defense. Perhaps the AA vehicle should operate away from combat zones? This is almost impossible in Battlefield. As mentioned, Battlefield's gun-based AA relies on manual lead estimation. Therefore, the farther the distance, the harder it is to estimate lead, resulting in lower hit probability. While missile-based AA can engage at longer ranges, aircraft have countermeasures like flares to avoid the first missile salvo. Battlefield aircraft fly at low altitudes (often only a few hundred meters) and can easily break line of sight behind terrain before a second missile lock is acquired. Thus, the closer the AA vehicle is to the aircraft's operational area, the longer the aircraft remains in view, increasing the chance of hitting it. However, the AA vehicle's currently weak self-defense capability makes sustained operation near the frontline unrealistic. I believe the AA vehicle's cannon should have a 3 to 5-second overheat mechanic, limiting sustained fire somewhat while allowing players to have better feel and self-defense capability.

Furthermore, I'd like to report some bugs my friends and I encountered. I apologize for not having the habit of recording or screenshotting; I only have text descriptions and one phone picture of the screen. Please forgive any inconvenience caused to the community team.① An abnormal white light source on a wall near Point E on the Egypt (Cairo) map. I don't remember the exact location.② On the Gibraltar battery map, I experienced graphical corruption after spawning once. It manifested as many radial grey streaks emanating from the center of the screen, covering it. These streaks moved as I ran and turned my view. It lasted over a minute. My computer is a Dell G15 5520 laptop. I'm not tech-savvy, so I don't know if it's a computer-specific issue.③ "Spiderman" players on the Egypt (Cairo) map, appearing on rooftops near Point E, on the overpass, and on buildings in the city. My friends and I aren't sure how they got on the roofs.④ On the Egypt (Cairo) map, while in a prone state, I was run over by a friendly tank and fell through the map into the "underworld," as shown in the attached picture(Taken in the underground world).

One additional point regarding kill feedback: my friends and I have a disagreement here. Some of my friends think the kill confirmation in Battlefield 6 isn't prominent enough, but I think it's just right.

Regarding the EA app, I want to provide feedback: can you please stop forgetting players' passwords? Every once in a while, this issue occurs—I enter the correct password, but the system prompts that my password is incorrect. When I try to reset the password and enter the originally correct one, the system tells me I cannot use a previously used password. I’ve already lost access to four passwords because of this, and some of my friends have had nearly ten passwords swallowed up!

Thank you very much for reading this far. Please excuse any inconvenience caused by translation issues or the excessive length of this text.