BF6 rooftops and building climbing etc
Maps We observed some players finding a way to reach rooftops and venture out of bounds. This gameplay is not intended for these maps, and the upcoming ladder for the Assault class is also not desig...
Forum Discussion
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.
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".
It has become fashionable (and worse for wear) the constant generalisations by some who wish to desperately be heard to affix the "nobody|no-one" or "all" qualifiers to their gripe. Ongoing since at least the early days of Reddit and the Battlefield channel. Now rife on X, Discord, and here.
- "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."
It grates. Is it so hard to forethink: 'Not in my name?'
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.
