BF6 rooftops and building climbing etc

Naw, it incites camping with no regard for team play. If there are no choppers on the map, no dice. 

if this was COD I would agree with you however, BF is supposed to be a more war and strategic realistic game...WE the real BF players are US Veterans and have deployed in REAL WARS.... we climb to buildings and rooftops, vehicles, mountains, hill tops, trees.... it was because the similarities and closest of real war experience like that gave BF a real edge and overtook COD's crown.... I still remember playing COD watching all those amazing buildings and vehicles but couldn't use any of them, AND if someone is on the rooftops you can just blow that building up.....period..... you can't blow up no buildings in COD.....which only COD players will worry about camping.....REAL BF players don't we just blow them up to pieces with C4, RPGs, tanks you name it.

If that were the case you may be sure as night follows day that there would be swathes of people just camping on the rooftops of nearly every building. Just there for the kills and no playing.

It's not like they allowed rooftop access on maps like Seine Crossing or Grand Bazaar. Even the buildings on the outside of Metro didn't have rooftop access. Since at least Battlefield 3 there have been infantry maps that had some rooftops that you were unable to get to. 

I don't think it's useful to gatekeep this subject by claiming only the people that agree with you are the "BF real players". 

If I think about Siege of Cairo and I ask myself a simple question "Does rooftop access improve the gameplay on this map?", the answer is a resounding no. Having players camp there doesn't just break the flow of the map, but it also means that those people aren't playing the objective.

Let's keep things designed in a way that actually works.

Some maps will have rooftop climbing. Others will not. That is ok. Maybe Portal will allow users to change parameters for roofs too. Some maps should have some limits though. 

ghostflux wrote:

 

don't think it's useful to gatekeep this subject by claiming only the people that agree with you are the "BF real players". 

• "DICE is introducing changes that nobody|no-one wanted or asked!"
• "Everyone agrees that <a, b, c> is wrong"
• "We all want low recoil & spread in guns!"
• "It is objectively true that running-and-gunning is for fools. Only the weak play like it."

What? Cmon, I've been playing basically every BF since 1942. Exploiting map geometry to reach platforms that were unintended by developers/map designers doesn't make one a "real BF player". 

In REAL WARS, if there is a building with a sniper causing a problem, air/artillery support can be called in and that building is shelled and leveled, that is not the case for every building in BF6 (otherwise it would have been a flat surface during the beta). Exploiting invisible barriers which are unreachable by normal means is not "what makes battlefield battlefield"

The one thing that always surprises me is that there's a large number of Battlefield players that have a very poor recollection of how past Battlefield titles used to play, yet they confidently claim something along the lines of "This is not Battlefield". Providing the same old arguments that Battlefield is strategic, realistic or somehow looks like Call of Duty now. These arguments have been brought up repeatedly with every Battlefield title in the past 2 decades.

Yet when you examine the examples they give you and you just take a look at the past Battlefield titles, most of the things they critique have been done before. It's fine for players to have a strong opinion about things, but they should do better than relying on an appeal to authority.

Indeed. As the old saying goes: "Never let reason get in the way of an emotional argument." 

A BF launch always gets emotional between the extremes of Arma Reforger and CoD. Where in the spectrum should BF lie? A discussion with no end.

The market is inclined towards the arcade (a panoply of best-selling FPS games attests to it). Legitimate of EA to want a bigger slice of this.

The BF hardcore crowd needs to accept the harsh reality that the typical player these days wants to just have a laugh and skip the technicalities of recoil & spread and strategic, tactical and team-thinking.

Play it or drop the game and seek an indie aimed at "realism" is the overarching message.