Nerf sliding-jump is always echo chamber

Pretty easy response here.  Battlefield is a game about DEFENDING and ATTACKING objectives.  It is not a game about just kill kill kill everything you see.  Granted, there are some game modes for that, but they're the minority.

Now here's the crazy part.  Players who are defending are doing exactly what you're complaining about as camping.  "This stupid player just sits in the corner and shoots me!  I wish he would just walk out of his cover into my crosshairs so I could shoot him!"

BF4 had... vaulting?  It had... ehh, bunny hopping?  What advanced movement are you talking about here?  High mobility?  Most speeds in BF4 would be laughably slow in BF6, excluding the ATV and Dirtbike speeds.

I never understand BF players who complain about camping.  If you want CoD, go play CoD.  CoD doesn't like camping either.  A core mechanic of BF is camping.  It's how you defend objectives.  BF is a game about objectives.  

Players who are defending are doing exactly what you're complaining about as camping

I think the confusion between camping and defending is one that irks me the most. I can’t help but get offended when someone calls me a camper in the chat because I’m actively defending.

And it really gives the wrong impression to new players: don’t stay in one spot, attack, attack, attack or you’re a bad player. How many games have I seen lost because in the late stages, people decided to go on the offensive when they already held a majority of objs? 

Finally, to the people constantly telling active players to "go play COD": be careful what you wish for. The player base has already hemorrhaged from its 750,000 launch peak down to 50,000, and 10.000 is clearly the next milestone if active player is leaving for "COD".

You may want to think about what you wrote there.

BF6 was more “COD-like” at release and during Season 1, exactly when the player-base crashed. The sliding and hopping were stronger, the initial maps were small in size and promoted constant action, sniping was easier than ever, etc. That was the attempt at catching a new generation of players and it did not go well.

Making the game more like COD not only peeved of the legacy fan base, it did not bring in the throngs of new players they would have wanted. And it’s not surprising: if BF feels too much like COD, then it’s just another modern FPS with nothing special about it. People will come and try it when they’re angry at Black Ops 7, but will move on quickly enough. I think there are plenty of things BF can do to attract new players, but it has to do much more with making the core formula more accessible and promote team play, not trying to swap DNA.

And your complaints about not being able to attack a reinforced position just by your lonesome tells me there’s a lot of work to be done to explain that formula. 

Fair points, bro. The drastic player drop numbers were definitely phrased a bit aggressively to make a point, so if you had doubts about that, you're totally right.

To be clear, I’m definitely not a fan of brainless arcade laser-guns or CoD's exact gunplay. If you remember my previous post on gunplay models, I actually favor the BF style over CoD’s approach (though I kept it neutral back then for the sake of discussion).

That said, I still think there are aspects where BF can learn from CoD without losing its soul. Since BF4, the franchise has always hit that sweet spot of high-mobility arcade mechanics blended with massive, immersive sandbox battlefields.

My main issue is that BF6 has actually become far too non-arcade (it's not a really mil-sim game) and overly shifted toward passive play. There are way too many tools designed for camping, and way too few tools for breaking a defensive setup. It’s not about wanting to be a "lone-wolf hero"—it's that creating an opening for your team, has become excruciatingly painful. You take all the damage, get completely shut down by campers, and get little reward for it.

As a side note on the team play design: anti-vehicle efforts suffer from the exact same problem. The score you get for taking out vehicles is ridiculously low—I have no idea why DICE is being so stingy with XP. Playing objective/team play by destroying or repairing vehicles gives almost little return, while camping in a corner to collect kill-tolls all match is far more rewarding. That’s my biggest gripe with the current design direction.

You're mixing up defending with camping.

Real defending is dynamic: you capture and secure an objective first, then maintain map control by checking flanks and holding active angles. Crouching in a dark corner, ignoring objective flow, and waiting for free kills isn't "defending"—it’s just camping, using "team play" as a convenient cop-out for a passive playstyle.

As for BF4,  there's movement tech that players used to break static setups. It wasn't about raw sprint speed; it gave aggressive players tools to counter campers.

And honestly, spamming 'Go play COD' is just discouraging and completely nonsensical.

Incredibly true post, very tragic though.

Sadly, I think the BF forums truly is just an echo chamber of people who refuse to adapt, and therefore all make posts about how the game should be changed to suit them better.

This is true for a lot of games, though. Too many players have an ego only rivaled by their death count or their time spent sitting in a corner with a medic bag and deployable cover. They had the slide because it is a counter specifically to the camping playstyle (even though sliding is fully counterable and predictable).

Zero self-awareness, if I should "go play CoD" maybe they should "go play BF3 or 4". Some people on this forum must get paid per mention of Call of Duty since they bring it up every post.

They're already here in the thread echo chambering each other, and I'm sure more will arrive soon to explain why sliding is somehow physically impossible irl and about how they have deluded themselves into thinking BF is a milsim.