Another problem with support ammo crate.

I do agree that some refills are WAY too long.  When you compare gadget to gadget refill times, it's all over the place.  An engi can refill an RPG in approx 5 seconds from a ammo spec support.  In contrast, 40mm takes about 20 seconds or so.  Grenades feel like a mess as well, since it also takes about 15-20 seconds to refill those.  In what world is this supposed to make any sense?  

I don't think it should be instant like in CoD.  There's a reason they are called CoD kids, it's because they can't wait 10 seconds for anything they need it nownownownowmememememe and it's made CoD an unplayable pile of trash because they cater to that.

FOMO should die a painful death.  We need legislation against this crap because it's some of the most toxic marketplace behavior that can possibly exist.  I'm NOT against seasonal content, as in holidays, annual events, etc.  But a one time event for no reason but to make people spend money is just scumbag behavior.  Every game should copy Deep Rock Galactic season mechanics.

Cooking grenades to deal more damage and blast radius?  Is this some CoD thing?  If it is, wow, what an abysmally trash mechanic.  How are you supposed to predict if a grenade will kill you as an enemy if it changes randomly?  Really bad idea on this one.

Have you tried using the other specialism for Support? One is meant to allow faster refills whereas the other gives quicker revives. 

Agreed about season passes. I think they should be permanent and let the user decide which to work on. However, I'm not too fussed about time limited events themselves, as some are better than others. 

PrototypeA01​ I agree with you on ammo — it should be almost instantaneous. From a gameplay and realism standpoint, grabbing magazines from a crate shouldn’t take noticeable time. It just slows down the flow unnecessarily, especially in infantry fights.

For grenades though, I don’t fully agree that they should be instant. If they were, a lot of players would just spam grenades constantly, and that would quickly become frustrating and unbalanced. We’ve seen in past games how explosive spam can ruin infantry gameplay.

That said, I do think the current timing is a bit too long. A good middle ground would be:

Ammo: nearly instant

Grenades: slightly faster than now, but still with a small delay to prevent spam

Gadgets (drone, mortar, etc.): reduced slightly, but still slower than basic equipment

That way, you keep the pacing smooth without breaking the balance.

C4 I can blow up a tank with C4 and the tank will respawn before I get my 4 C4 back.

Side note if I do a "skillful" act of placing 4 C4 directly on the back of a APC, Tank I expect it to blow up. Not survive with 9hp and delete me.

16d93b9d7e4c3f1b​ In older games like Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4, C4 was a powerful but high-risk anti-vehicle option. It gave infantry—especially non-engineer classes—a last-resort tool against vehicles. That added depth and balance to infantry vs vehicle combat.

Right now, that dynamic is missing. C4 is both weaker and less accessible, especially since the Support class no longer has access to it.

I think a good solution would be:

Bring C4 back to the Support class

Slightly buff its effectiveness (especially against rear armor)

Keep the high-risk / high-reward nature intact

This would:

Encourage more dynamic gameplay

Increase destruction (which is core to Battlefield)

Improve infantry vs vehicle balance without breaking it

Overall, I believe reverting C4 closer to how it worked in older Battlefield games would bring more benefits than balance issues.

I know. I was really good at getting close to vehicles in Bf3,4,2. I would even trap vehicles in 1942. Was fun baiting players.

I think recon is good with the C4 I can see some really bad things again if support has it. Yes would be ideal but would really unbalance them.

Then again I do some mess up suff the c4 and claymore together.

16d93b9d7e4c3f1b​ I understand your concern about potential balance issues, and honestly it’s a fair point.

That being said, Support and Recon both had access to C4 in previous Battlefield titles like Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4. Even in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, C4 was available to Assault, which also provided ammo at the time. So this isn’t really a new or untested idea — it already proved to work.

Back then, it was never really considered unbalanced. In fact, it added a lot to the gameplay. C4 being more accessible created more opportunities for destruction, more tactical plays, and a better balance between infantry and vehicles.

Vehicles had to be more cautious because there was always a risk in close-range engagements. If someone was rushing toward you, you never knew if they had C4 or not.

Right now, vehicles don’t really have that same level of fear. The only real close-range threat is Recon, and even then, only a fraction of Recon players actually use C4 — and most of them tend to stay further away from the action anyway. So unless there are a lot of Engineers on the enemy team, vehicles can often just push aggressively without much risk.

If we’re being honest, how often do we actually see vehicles being destroyed with C4 in BF6? It’s pretty rare compared to older Battlefield games. And on top of that, we’re seeing far fewer of those classic “only in Battlefield” or funny C4 moments that used to define the franchise.