Two things, new map 🤦🏻♂️.. and gun nsw4 🤦🏻♂️
For starters close range gun with terrible low rate of fire. The guns rate of fire is way to low…. Should have been 700 or higher. new map beautiful but terribly designed. Not to mention certain part look identical in colors and etc very confusing.. this update has been meh , guess ill see if it grows on me but i doubt it….
Desync
So I'm gonna take a wild guess even with the server browser console and PC wont be split and desync will still be a massive issue. I really thought they would have fixed it a year later. Its horrible on PC shooting a console user. Its to the point when I can tell the user was a console user by the way my bullets hit. I know. Im crying, but it just seems so insane at this point.
The M277 Recoil Issue
The M277 carbine currently suffers from excessive recoil, requiring high point-cost foregrips just to bring its recoil down to the baseline level of other weapons. Back before the limb damage drop-off was introduced, this harsh recoil served as a reasonable balance check for its 4-shot-to-kill capability within 65 meters. However, with the current damage model, the overwhelming recoil makes it completely uncompetitive. I hope the team can improve its recoil control, perhaps by introducing a recoil buffer attachment.
You are nerfing the Mini Scout the wrong way.
Here are the patch notes taht are relevant: This has to be a joke by someone who does not play the game to understand what makes snipers frustrating to the recieving end and what does not. The mini scout is the one rifle that does not have a sweet spot and relies on one to have the luck or skill to land a headshot, especially when a follow up shot is not likely. This will only make its already low pick rate even lower (most guys like their cheap sweetspot kill and low drag rounds) If you wanted to make the Mini Scout be less good at beyond 150m, you reduce its V-E-L-O-C-I-T-Y, to make it harder to land a shot at someone who is not completely still at a distance. In older BF games you could change the gravity acceleration of different guns to change how their rounds are affected by long shots. Now the Mini Scout will be completely dropped for the ELR-40, M2010 ESR (the most used SR in the game) and any other SR that actually has sweetspots bellow 150m or beyond. When making balance decisions you are supposed to think hard about how things work in practice before throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks and leaving it there for months to fester. Edit: Alternative nerf that could work for every sniper rifle in the game: Make it so Snipers have to stay still for more hundreds of miliseconds before they can get back their full accuracy. This will make them have to stay longer exposed to take a good shot.Feedback on the European Casino Map
Is DICE out of level designers and only left with artists? That new European Casino map is terrible. It’s packed full of clutter, gaudy and over-styled. It’s all about visuals, with no thought to gameplay flow or player movement paths. Without proper movement routing in an FPS, lines of fire spiral out of control. It’s clear your FPS map design quality has dropped drastically. If visuals are all you care about, you might as well hire interior designers — they’d be far better suited for this job. Isn’t good FPS map design supposed to start by laying out movement routes first, then use props to carefully manage lines of fire and combat spaces? Why are maps now being built with artists just scattering props randomly, with zero consideration for traversal flow?
EA & DICE: Battlefield Deserves Better Than This Embarrassing Decline
EA & DICE: Battlefield Deserves Better Than This Embarrassing Decline An Open Letter from a Battlefield Veteran Since 2008 To EA executives, DICE management, and everyone responsible for the direction of this franchise: I've been playing Battlefield since 2008, and watching this legendary franchise lose its identity has become genuinely painful. Let's be clear: Battlefield 6 is a slight improvement over Battlefield 2042, but that's an embarrassingly low bar. Being better than one of the franchise's most disappointing entries doesn't automatically make BF6 worthy of the Battlefield name. Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, and Battlefield 1 weren't just games. They represented the ambition, atmosphere, scale, and brilliant map design that made this franchise legendary. And now? You keep releasing disappointing maps and celebrating every update as if you've accomplished something extraordinary. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR MORE CONTENT. WE ARE ASKING FOR BETTER CONTENT. At this point, I would gladly sacrifice every single upcoming map in exchange for properly rebuilt versions of the legendary maps from BF3, BF4, and BF1. Why? Because I have more faith in maps designed over a decade ago than in whatever your current team is producing. You've become remarkably consistent at one thing: delivering disappointing maps and presenting their release as some kind of major achievement. And here's the question your management should seriously ask itself: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CREATIVE MINDS WHO MADE BATTLEFIELD GREAT? Did you push out the talented developers who built this franchise and replace them with people who don't even understand its fundamental identity? I don't know what happened internally at DICE, but the results raise serious questions about the creative direction and leadership of this franchise. The old DICE understood Battlefield. Today's decisions make it increasingly difficult to believe that same understanding still exists. You had the blueprint for greatness. You had BF3, BF4, and BF1. And somehow, instead of building upon those masterpieces, you've spent years struggling to match them. To EA executives and investors: stop confusing the quantity of released content with the quality of the player experience. A roadmap full of mediocre maps is not an achievement. I don't need another flashy trailer or another update celebrating content that fails to deliver. I WANT THE REAL BATTLEFIELD BACK. If your current team cannot create maps worthy of this franchise, then swallow your pride, bring back the classics, and learn from the people who actually understood what made Battlefield special. After all these years, the most embarrassing thing isn't that Battlefield has competition. It's that your greatest competition is still your own past. Sincerely, A Battlefield veteran since 2008 — tired of watching a legendary franchise lose its identity.Using Dead Space to prop up Battlefield while killing a DS2 Remake is a joke.
Let’s be brutally honest here: dangling Dead Space in front of players as a seasonal Battlefield crossover event while leaving the actual franchise on ice is a slap in the face to the community. Look at the reaction every single time EA touches this IP. The second the Battlefield "Stop the Convergence" event went live, the top comment across social media wasn't about Battlefield—it was players asking where the Dead Space 2 remake is. The demand hasn't gone anywhere. In fact, it’s louder than ever. Here is the reality EA seems determined to ignore: The foundation is already built: Motive already did the heavy lifting. The Frostbite engine upgrades, the peeling system, the zero-G mechanics, the audio design, and Isaac’s character model are already built and proven. Remaking Dead Space 2 wouldn't require starting from scratch—the hardest part of the R&D is already paid for. The 2023 Remake proved the quality: The first remake was universally praised by critics and fans as one of the best survival horror remakes ever made. If it didn't hit astronomical, FIFA-level sales numbers out of the gate, that was a marketing and release-window issue, not a lack of interest in the franchise. The original Dead Space 2 needs modern support: On modern PC hardware, the 2011 version is a technical headache that requires fan patches just to run properly without breaking. Console players on PS5 are still stuck without a native modern version. Stop treating Dead Space like a skin pack: Dead Space 2 is widely considered the peak of the trilogy. Treating Isaac Clarke like a promotional cosmetic for live-service shooters instead of greenlighting a proper follow-up shows a complete disconnect from what players actually want to spend money on. You have a passionate, vocal fanbase ready to buy a Dead Space 2 remake on day one, and the groundwork is already done. Stop using the Marker as marketing bait for other games and give Motive the green light to finish what they started.Weapons Ratings
I find it curious that weapon ratings continue to climb well above 50, when usable add-ons end there. Once you are above 50, there are only cosmetic changes. Which I would guess 95% of us don't care about. Why not add 1% of lethality for every 10 levels above 50? Something tangible to work toward . . . ? [Edit: All caps removed from title - ElliotLH]
Advanced Network Infrastructure,
Battlefield 6 Server Stability and Hit Registration Improvements Author: MonteiroYuGames Category: Battlefield 6 – Technical Feedback and Suggestions 1. Introduction A reliable network infrastructure is essential for delivering a consistent and competitive Battlefield experience. I would like to propose further investigation and improvements to server stability, network synchronization, hit registration and overall multiplayer responsiveness. The objective is to reduce inconsistencies during combat and provide a fair, predictable experience across PC, PlayStation and Xbox. 2. Advanced Hit Registration Hit registration is one of the most important technical aspects of a first-person shooter. Potential areas for investigation: More consistent synchronization between player actions and server-side hit validation. Improved handling of shots fired during high-latency situations. Reduced discrepancies between the shooter's perspective and the server's final result. More consistent bullet impact feedback. Investigation of situations where multiple shots appear to connect but produce unexpected results. The goal should be reliable and consistent hit detection without compromising server authority or competitive integrity. 3. Network Latency and Stability Explore improvements to the game's ability to maintain stable connections during large-scale battles. Suggested areas: More consistent latency management. Reduced network jitter. Better handling of temporary packet loss. Improved connection stability during intense combat. Investigation of sudden latency spikes. More reliable synchronization between players and servers. 4. Server Performance and Synchronization Large-scale Battlefield matches place significant demands on server infrastructure. Potential improvements: More consistent server simulation performance. Reduced synchronization discrepancies between clients. Better management of high player counts and simultaneous combat events. Improved handling of vehicles, explosions and destruction events. Monitoring of server performance under peak gameplay conditions. 5. Network Transparency and Diagnostics Players would benefit from clearer information about the quality of their connection. I suggest exploring an optional network diagnostics display showing: Current ping. Packet loss. Network jitter. Connection stability. Server performance indicators, where technically available. Clear diagnostics would help players distinguish between local connection problems and server-side issues. 6. Matchmaking and Server Selection Investigate whether matchmaking and server allocation can consistently prioritize suitable connections while maintaining reasonable queue times and balanced matches. Potential areas: More consistent regional server selection. Reduced unnecessary connection instability. Better handling of cross-platform matchmaking. Improved connection quality without sacrificing matchmaking availability. 7. Technical Testing and Validation Suggested testing scenarios: High-player-count multiplayer matches. Multiple simultaneous explosions and destruction events. Vehicle-heavy combat situations. Different latency and packet-loss conditions. Cross-platform synchronization tests. Server performance during peak activity. Useful metrics could include latency distribution, packet loss, jitter, server simulation performance, hit-registration consistency and frame-time correlation. 8. Expected Benefits These improvements could contribute to: More reliable hit registration. Greater multiplayer consistency. Better connection stability. Fairer competitive encounters. Improved cross-platform synchronization. Greater player confidence in the game's technical performance. 9. Long-Term Vision A strong network foundation is essential for Battlefield's long-term success. As the game evolves and receives new maps, modes, vehicles and gameplay systems, its network infrastructure should continue to support increasingly complex multiplayer battles. Question for the DICE development team: Could further improvements to network diagnostics, server synchronization, latency management and hit-registration consistency be investigated, with measurable testing across PC, PlayStation and Xbox? The goal is to build a technically reliable multiplayer experience where combat outcomes are consistent, transparent and fair. Thank you for considering this proposal. — MonteiroYuGames
