Forum Discussion

OFFik's avatar
OFFik
New Veteran
25 days ago

Concern about rumored gameplay changes (TTK, ROF, vehicles) + ongoing issues

I’ve been following the recent discussions and leaks around Battlefield 6, and honestly, I’m concerned about the direction things might be heading.

There are multiple reports and test data suggesting potential changes like:

  • Longer TTK (slower time to kill, often meaning more bullets required or reduced rate of fire)
  • Global ROF reductions (some reports suggest even 15–20% across many weapons)
  • Vehicle reworks leaning toward stricter multi-crew/teamplay roles (e.g. separating driver and gunner responsibilities more rigidly)

If even part of this is true, it feels like a major shift in core gameplay — and not necessarily for the better.

Right now, gunplay is actually in a decent spot. If anything, TTK could be slightly faster or at least more consistent across weapons. Some current balance decisions already don’t make sense (for example: certain 5.56 or .300 BLK weapons outperforming 7.62 in raw damage). Slowing everything down further by nerfing ROF across the board sounds like a blunt, artificial way to change TTK instead of properly tuning recoil, spread, or damage models.

From what’s been circulating (including testing environments), these ROF nerfs look like a “one-size-fits-all” solution rather than meaningful weapon balancing — and that’s worrying.

At the same time, there are still major unresolved issues:

  • Netcode and hit registration inconsistencies
  • Bugs like RPG rockets behaving incorrectly right after launch (trajectory issues still not fixed weeks later)
  • Limited map pool and long wait times for matches (especially off-peak hours)
  • Ongoing vehicle balance problems (which are apparently being reworked instead of refined)

Another important point: it doesn’t feel like the majority of players are asking for these kinds of gameplay changes. From what many of us see, the core gunplay isn’t the main issue — it’s that the game is starting to feel repetitive due to lack of content.

Player drop-off seems much more likely tied to:

  • Limited number of maps
  • Lack of smaller, focused modes/maps (TDM, Rush, infantry-focused experiences)
  • Not enough new weapons or meaningful additions to gameplay variety

Instead of prioritizing large-scale gameplay changes, it would make more sense to:

  • Add smaller maps designed for TDM/Rush
  • Introduce more weapons and gameplay variety
  • Focus heavily on fixing existing bugs and improving netcode
  • Avoid introducing new issues (like the ongoing RPG bug)

Right now, it feels like effort is going into producing large amounts of cosmetic content, while the core experience still needs technical polish and content depth.

Based on recent leaks and community findings, the development focus appears to include new content (maps, modes, seasonal updates), while core gameplay systems are being adjusted in parallel — including TTK tuning and visibility changes. Some of this might be necessary, but radically altering gunplay while core technical problems remain unresolved feels backwards.

What worries me most is why these changes are being considered.

It looks like an attempt to:

  • Slow down the game
  • Reduce the skill gap
  • Make gunfights more forgiving

But that comes at the cost of what many players actually enjoy — responsive gunplay and satisfying eliminations. Historically, large-scale TTK changes in Battlefield titles have been very controversial.

Also, enforcing more rigid teamplay in vehicles sounds good on paper, but in public matches it often leads to frustration rather than better cooperation.

So I have a few questions for the devs:

  • Why prioritize major gameplay changes when core issues (netcode, bugs, stability) are still unresolved?
  • Are these ROF/TTK changes planned for release, or are they just experimental?
  • What is the long-term vision — is the game being tuned toward a more casual audience?
  • If core gameplay is significantly altered, how is that fair to players who bought the game for its current feel?

Because if these changes go through in their current form, it won’t just be “balance tweaks” — it will fundamentally change how the game plays.

And that raises a serious question: at what point does it stop being the same game people paid for?

Would really appreciate some transparency on this before future updates roll out.


20 Replies

  • c0ldsun's avatar
    c0ldsun
    Seasoned Adventurer
    25 days ago

    Oh nooo, you mean you need now some aim and hold on target instead of insta kills by only looking in enemies direction.

  • OFFik's avatar
    OFFik
    New Veteran
    25 days ago

    Nah, I disagree when it comes to vehicle changes. "Modern" BFs never had this kind of thing. I always had issues with gunners shooting from tank HMG at other tanks... giving up our position :D People who plays BF are more casual - at least less focused on mil sim! Good tank driver who can decide when to shoot, where etc. and he can really help the team. VoIP wont make the significant change for tank crews, there will be more yelling/trolling probably as the player base is different from mil sims. HLL have this solved pretty good (when it comes to armored vehicles) but BF is a very different game! 

    I agree with your final conclusion! I feel like people are leaving BF but it is not because of the weapons but the overall approach to the game and technical issues. If vehicle gameplay will be changed and I wont be able to fully own my vehicle I will def submit a refund etc. - I dont care, this is a drastical change to the game after a 6 months and not what I bought or signed to lol

  • OFFik's avatar
    OFFik
    New Veteran
    25 days ago

    Exactly, seems these gameplay changes are being considered just to cover the technical aspects.. :D Would love to have crossplay turn off button..

  • The vehicle changes are alright if it promotes more crew specific gameplay, with prox VoIP that won't be so bad and if it means we'll eventually get 2 seater jets that would be even cooler but I doubt it.

    The weapon changes however, you can already feel the disparity in TTK for so many weapons, there's currently only like 4 or 5 meta guns. I have little faith they'll be able to balance it all properly. Either every gun has fast TTK or no gun should have an insane TTK without a massive tradeoff like recoil or bloom. But then how do you balance that on controller. Slower TTK will favor PC and abandon controller players in Multiplayer, the only time controller players would benefit from this is in a pure 1 v 1 scenario like in the BR but Battlefield is never a pure 1 v 1, there's always someone else around the corner or even behind you lmao. It's an issue that they're not seeing and feels like these changes are being made for their BR where armor plates is thing and not for the main game.

    I would not be surprised if someone made a mistake and used the wrong data set being the BR data set to begin testing TTK changes.

    The only positive from slower TTK in Multiplayer is that it will slow the game down slightly and create more organic bottle necks, but is this needed on already tiny maps where it could just further promote camping instead of pushing?

  • I would like to try the slower ROF and see how it plays. I dont think its going to happen. 

     

    I think the bigger issues at hand are still content/Desync/hitreg/and for us PC people not being able to turn off crossplay

  • OFFik's avatar
    OFFik
    New Veteran
    25 days ago

    I get your point, but I don’t fully agree that slower TTK automatically means more skill.

    Faster TTK actually rewards a lot of important Battlefield skills:

    • positioning and map awareness
    • reaction time
    • timing engagements and flanks
    • getting the first shot through better decisions, not randomness

    If I spot someone first, position correctly, and start shooting first, I should have a strong advantage. That’s not “less skill” — that’s awareness and execution.

    Slower TTK doesn’t just “increase skill”, it changes what gets rewarded:

    • it gives more time to react and correct mistakes
    • it reduces the impact of being caught off guard
    • it often allows weaker positioning decisions to be recovered from

    So it’s not really about more or less skill, it’s about which skills matter more.

    On the “laser beam weapons” argument — I think that’s oversimplified. The issue isn’t just ROF or raw accuracy:

    • recoil patterns matter
    • spread/bloom systems matter
    • and especially netcode / hit registration matters a lot in how gunfights actually feel

    A high ROF weapon doesn’t automatically mean instant kills — real fights are shaped by consistency and movement as much as raw stats.

    And honestly, I don’t think the main problem right now is that gunplay is too fast or too lethal. The bigger issues are:

    • inconsistent netcode and hitreg
    • existing bugs (like RPG trajectory issues)
    • and lack of content variety (maps, modes, weapons)

    That’s why adjusting core gunplay globally feels like treating the symptom instead of the actual problems.

    In short: rewarding the player who acts first is not a flaw — it’s a core part of Battlefield’s skill expression. The key is balance, not pushing TTK in either extreme direction.

    12-15 bullets for second is okay for me because not all of them hits target. I also learned shooting with series when needed and if someone is using whole mag in 2-3 seconds it's his issue and maybe he should change weapon? Idk, maybe I dont fully understand this point of view or comment. Skilled soldier controls his weapon, laser beams are not something unrealistic etc. - check videos on yt where skilled guys shot with full auto (and in most cases they dont even have lasers or additional muzzle devices etc.)

  • tomobatyo's avatar
    tomobatyo
    Seasoned Scout
    25 days ago

    I think slower TTK is a good thing. The faster it is the less skill you need to kill someone. Also weapons are way too fast atm so rate of fire nerf is also much needed.

    Weapons are way too accurate for such rate of fire. 900 ROF is 15 bullets per second. With laser beams ttk is like 0.1 sec. This is an issue. It is a game so they won't make the weapon shake so much when you constantly shoot and people don't like bursts so all they can do is slow down the ROF or nerf the pet hit dmg. Something has to be done because right now it is hard to take it seriously.

  • OFFik's avatar
    OFFik
    New Veteran
    25 days ago

    TL;DR

    • Rumored changes (longer TTK, ~15–20% ROF nerfs, stricter vehicle teamplay) could significantly slow down gameplay and change the core feel of the game.
    • Gunplay is already in a decent place — if anything, it could use minor improvements, not global slowdowns.
    • Most players aren’t asking for these changes — the real issue is lack of content, not core mechanics.
    • Player drop-off is likely caused by too few maps, lack of small modes (TDM/Rush), and limited weapon variety.
    • Meanwhile, major problems still exist: netcode, hitreg, bugs (e.g. broken RPG trajectory), long queue times.

    What should be prioritized instead:

    • Fix core issues (netcode, bugs, stability)
    • Add more maps (especially smaller infantry-focused ones)
    • Introduce more weapons and gameplay variety
    • Stop adding new bugs before fixing existing ones

    If these gameplay changes go through, it risks alienating current players instead of fixing what actually matters.

Featured Places

Node avatar for Battlefield 6 General Discussion

Battlefield 6 General Discussion

Join the Battlefield 6 community to get game information and updates, talk tactics and share Battlefield moments.Latest Activity: 1 day ago
11,057 Posts