Battlefield 6: Levolution ''on steroids'', full crossplay, 4-player squad, Free to play mode and more

[Azai]

I just re-insalled BF4 on my PS5. While it can look dated and crunchy, seeing tanks, helicopters, jet ski all create general mayhem @ 60 fps is a thing of beauty. Still run in 720p on Series X?

Click to shrink...

It is. So many BF moments in this game but the balance with vehicles was a mess. Fast spawn vehicle servers on PC probably were the most frustrating shooter experience I had so far. Tanka would just snipe from hills.

That and Jets were way better in BF3 so Im glad they went with BF3 as an orientation.

Also the china setting wasnt really my thing. Also the weapons in BF3 were more in my alley with classic AKs and more H&K weapons or more iconic AR15 variants

 

[JJD]

I really really hope they nail armor combat because ever since BF1 something is off with tanks control on consoles.

I was a pretty competent and aggressive tank driver on BC2, BF3 and BF4.

Then came BF1.

In the Beta the small tank controls were ok, I don't honestly remember the bigger ones. There was a lot of discussion about the small tank being overpowered and when the game released something was wrong with the tank aiming. I honestly struggled to aim properly specially the secondary weapons and before BF1 I had no trouble to kill people with the HMG.

It got to a point that stopped playing with tanks. BF5 is a little better but it's tank controls still don't feel as accurate as BF4 and BF3.

Many people on my clan feel the same, but most don't even play anymore.

To this day when I jump back to BF4 I just destroy the enemy team, while playing BF1 or 5 I'm just average.

This is not about armor balance (ammo limitation, health mechanics, etc). This is about the controls.

 

[Qudi]

If there is a battle royale mode it will be dead within months or weeks since Firestorm was such flop and the market is already flooded with battle royale games at this point. Focus on rush and conquest and the fan base will be happy.

 

[JJD]

Double post sorry

 

[Infernostew]

If there is a battle royale mode it will be dead within months or weeks since Firestorm was such flop and the market is already flooded with battle royale games at this point. Focus on rush and conquest and the fan base will be happy.

Click to shrink...

Operations/Breakthrough too!

 

[TheRulingRing]

Forced crossplay between consoles and pc mean I will dkip bf6.

Click to shrink...

Even an opt-out system would suck.

 

[Sky87]

Enforce a limit on the amount of snipers per team (5 per team in a 64 player game) and a queue system for vehicles so the same people don't keep spawning on them (if you are number 1 in queue for a tank or chopper you will respawn in said vehicle upon next infantry death).

 

[ShapeDePapa]

If there is a battle royale mode it will be dead within months or weeks since Firestorm was such flop and the market is already flooded with battle royale games at this point. Focus on rush and conquest and the fan base will be happy.

Click to shrink...

A modern day BR with the Battlefield destruction will probably do extremely well.

 

[SapientWolf]

Enforce a limit on the amount of snipers per team (5 per team in a 64 player game) and a queue system for vehicles so the same people don't keep spawning on them (if you are number 1 in queue for a tank or chopper you will respawn in said vehicle upon next infantry death).

Click to shrink...

That would be awful. The snipers that don't do anything would bogart the slots because assault Recon dies faster.

Battlefront's vehicle system is better for the team but it leads to snowballing. Squad vehicles were a nice compromise. Give the squad leader a tank spawn option next time.

 

[ThatOneGuy831]

A Battlefield BR could work if they make it its own separate thing like Warzone is for COD.They also need to continually update the thing instead of just leaving it to rot like they did with Firestorm

 

[Siresly]

Units sounds like wishful thinking to me. As in that doesn't sound like something that's going to work.
It already hasn't. Commander in past Battlefields mostly only worked in theory.
Only some people play these games to delve into that military hierarchy order aspect. Good luck corralling >63 randos into playing along.
For that to work, people need to want to follow orders. And the players giving the orders needs to have at least some idea of what they're doing.
Maybe it could work as a separate mode, where people opt in to having that kind of experience.

Full crossplay between PS5, Xbox Series and PC, he also says that if the old-gen version comes out it will be included.

Click to shrink...

Well I'm guessing maybe it won't then.

He calls it ''Levolution on steroids'', there will be fully destructible buildings. For example, when you shoot with a tank on a building it will be damaged and eventually fall over. The destruction isn't simply animated, it's actually calculated. Every building can be destroyed except the buildings that are important for the objectives.

Click to shrink...

Because how are they going to sync that? Is this physics-driven destruction of entire buildings somehow not actually very demanding, so it can run on those calculator CPUs? Is the destruction cloud-based?

 

[brawndolicious]

Units sounds like wishful thinking to me. As in that doesn't sound like something that's going to work.

It already hasn't. Commander Mode in past Battlefields mostly only worked in theory.
Only some people play these games to delve into that military hierarchy order aspect. Good luck corralling >63 randos into playing along.
For that to work, people need to want to follow orders. And the players giving the orders needs to have at least some idea of what they're doing.
Maybe it could work as a separate mode, where people opt in to having that kind of experience.

Click to shrink...

In BFV, they had a squad leader mechanic where the squad leader says which objective to focus on and if your squad is generally playing their class well, you rack up requisition points which can then be funneled into special bonuses like calling in airstrikes or special vehicles.

The problem with this system is only the squad leader gets anything out of it. It might be better if there was a reward system for anyone who's a bottom-tier grunt but follows orders well. Could be faster reload time or getting to play vehicles more often or something.

BF maps are really huge and insane so bringing some order to the chaos could work well. I think MAG which came out in 2010 probably handled this well but it's maps were designed from the ground up to make use of this type of mechanic.

 

[Jakisthe]

I must admit, I'm a bit lost on what people are yearning for from BC2 destruction vs that of, say, 4. A lot of the destruction in BC2 was of small shacks or prefab'd buildings; we had both of those appear again en masse in 4, it was just the case that the rest of the map design was made more "stable" such that it would be impractical to envision it being completely destroyed. For instance, I'm thinking of the buildings in the middle of Zavod - those couldn't be blown up at all, whereas the smaller buildings on the outskirts could be."BC2 but with maps that didn't become wastelands due to their inherent design" isn't that far off from 4, so I don't know what else people had in mind. More really tiny shacks?

 

[Ciao]

A Battle Royal tied to a paid game is destined to fail hard. It needs to be it's own F2P thing if they want it to have a chance against Warzone.

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

As long as I can turn crossplay off the rest sounds great

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

If there is a battle royale mode it will be dead within months or weeks since Firestorm was such flop and the market is already flooded with battle royale games at this point. Focus on rush and conquest and the fan base will be happy.

Click to shrink...

If they try it again it needs to go for a heavy vehicle and destruction focus.
Vehicles maybe should have to loot as well, maybe cars and debris in the road can have road loot for example
Run over a car with a tank and maybe it has armor plate pickups, ranged sights, chaff grenades
Antenna, satellites, etc on rooftops maybe having air based pickups(for a fighter get for example you'd shoot the antenna which would blow up, rng picks loot and if you get something it floats up into the air on a balloon like a Fulton from Metal Gear)

On foot action will be relatively weak however
- rocket launchers are incredibly week, limited ammo, slow reload, or whatever
+ mines would do something like 90%+ damage on a MBT, tracks can also be detroyed potentially.
+ C4 is less powerful than a mine but can easily be used to target tracks
+ you can throw grenades into open vehicle hatches killing the driver
+ bridges and roads can be destroyed or booby-trapped
+ the map will contain stationary AA guns, missile sites,
and anti-air vehicles themselves

Every soldier carries a rope launcher by default along with parachutes

The crazy old playable Battlefield vehicles like battleships, aircraft carriers and maybe submarines would be playable

Hypothetical map base could be something like Wake Island but massively expanded.


A player taking over a battleship or carrier could even bring back elements of 2142's Titan Mode.
You can hang out at missile sites launching them at it continuously but be at risk from other players coming by,
or you can drive a jetski up to the ship, climb aboard and have to destroy evey door into the control room to kill the driver immediately.

Imagine if they applied the destruction engine/mechanics to stuff like the carrier and you could destroy sections of the hull and sink it or destroy the engines, or the flight deck.

 

[PanzerKraken]

I'm gonna be honest when I say that I don't get the hatred for battle royale. It's just a game mode and honestly, launching an FPS in 2021 without battle royale would be like launching an FPS in 2001 without Capture the Flag. It's a popular and fun game mode, and it's here to stay

Click to shrink...

Battlefields problem for the past decade has been that it doesn't focus on what it does best and is catering to too many modes and game styles. The game has always worked best when it focused on being about a type of gameplay. Recent BFs try to be COD, Battlefield old school, console BF, tiny scale personal battles, and now battle royale. It just keeps being messy cause the maps, weapons, equipment, classes, just can never be properly balanced and designed to accommodate so many different games

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Battlefields problem for the past decade has been that it doesn't focus on what it does best and is catering to too many modes and game styles. The game has always worked best when it focused on being about a type of gameplay. Recent BFs try to be COD, Battlefield old school, console BF, tiny scale personal battles, and now battle royale. It just keeps being messy cause the maps, weapons, equipment, classes, just can never be properly balanced and designed to accommodate so many different games

Click to shrink...

Rush is a perfect example of that.
It was a great mode in Bad Company when the entire game was designed and balanced around that.
It never worked after that when Battlefield tried to go back to PC style Battlefields.

 

[Alpende]

I hope they knock it out of the park. I really liked everything up until and including BF1 and didn't play BF5 because it didn't appeal to me for some reason.

 

[Noble]

Rush is a perfect example of that.
It was a great mode in Bad Company when the entire game was designed and balanced around that.
It never worked after that when Battlefield tried to go back to PC style Battlefields.

Click to shrink...

Rush and Conquest work perfectly fine together and to me are signature modes of the Battlefield franchise. I don't care about PC, Console or whatever.
The main selling point of Battlefield has always been large scale battles combining air, ground and sea combat. Big scale warfare and objective-based teamplay.

As shooters evolved and became bigger, that selling point has been diminished. Large battles are now offered by all Battle Royale games and many other shooters (COD, Halo... have started to offer larger-scale modes in the past 5 years).

I agree that Battlefield should focus on being Battlefield, no COD or tiny modes, but it can definitely accomodate a range of modes combining the best of oldschool and console BF.

If Battlefield goes for what it is: Big scale warfare and objective-based teamplay, my demands or questions would be more about how can they innovate within their niche? Levolution was great on paper. Climate events were something I really enjoyed too. How can they bring that to the next level? How can they enhance the large scale effect? You can definitely put more players, but that doesn't seem like the solution to me, but part of one. The platoon stuff for instance seems like an awesome idea that can provide more control and enhance teamplay.

I loved BC2, I freaking loved Battlefield 3, I enjoyed Battlefield 4, and from there it just went downhill imo (not like it is in a bad state, but just like other franchises, it seems to be in that point where innovation is needed within the concept).

 

[oriic]

"There will be some free elements of the game. Probably the Battle Royale mode."

After Firestorm? No thx.

 

[CarthOhNoes]

I really hope they ignore Battle Royale and make this a proper Battlefield game.

I'm SO sick of BR now. I'm over it. We have Fortnite, we have Warzone. We don't need another one. Let Battlefield be Battlefield.

 

[Raide]

I really hope they ignore Battle Royale and make this a proper Battlefield game.

I'm SO sick of BR now. I'm over it. We have Fortnite, we have Warzone. We don't need another one. Let Battlefield be Battlefield.

Click to shrink...

There is always room for a well done BR mode. None of them do vehicles super well and none of them do destruction, outside of the Fortnite building gimmick.

Firestorm just came out at a dumb time and it was not well thought out. If they had gone F2P from launch and it was supported like Warzone, it would have been good but people were already tired of World War Stuff anyway.

If BF6 goes 128+ players, then the lack of dedicated BR will be a minor thing. I would rather they make the base game amazing and skip the BR and SP.

 

[Hope]

Even an opt-out system would suck.

Click to shrink...

I don't know how opt out should even work with server lists.

 

[PanzerKraken]

Rush and Conquest work perfectly fine together and to me are signature modes of the Battlefield franchise. I don't care about PC, Console or whatever.
The main selling point of Battlefield has always been large scale battles combining air, ground and sea combat. Big scale warfare and objective-based teamplay.

As shooters evolved and became bigger, that selling point has been diminished. Large battles are now offered by all Battle Royale games and many other shooters (COD, Halo... have started to offer larger-scale modes in the past 5 years).

I agree that Battlefield should focus on being Battlefield, no COD or tiny modes, but it can definitely accomodate a range of modes combining the best of oldschool and console BF.

If Battlefield goes for what it is: Big scale warfare and objective-based teamplay, my demands or questions would be more about how can they innovate within their niche? Levolution was great on paper. Climate events were something I really enjoyed too. How can they bring that to the next level? How can they enhance the large scale effect? You can definitely put more players, but that doesn't seem like the solution to me, but part of one. The platoon stuff for instance seems like an awesome idea that can provide more control and enhance teamplay.

I loved BC2, I freaking loved Battlefield 3, I enjoyed Battlefield 4, and from there it just went downhill imo (not like it is in a bad state, but just like other franchises, it seems to be in that point where innovation is needed within the concept).

Click to shrink...

Rush worked in BC2 because the maps were designed around it. But conquest sucked in that game really, mostly due to map design which was again, Rush focused. But the simple rectangular funneling of those maps was made for a particular mode. In BF3 and 4, it was same thing, the game was more open wide maps in some cases, which were good for conquest, but then you had the linear maps which sucked for conquest but were ideal for Rush. Then DLC that had maps that were only good for particular modes, each always feeling like they were chasing other games around in trying to emulate them.

I don't think BF needs to reinvent anything, they just need to do it well. They keep trying to be about large scale conflict but then keep trying to please the COD player mentality with tiny game modes which so far has never worked well with how the game is balanced and designed.

Call of Duty has done nothing to reinvent itself in years and is doing just fine, you just keep refining what the fans like. Battlefield has been undergoing huge changes in it's systems with it's last two games. BF3 to 4 was probably the smoothest of transitions, which 4 felt like it was just building on what 3 did and improving many things. But they rewrote the whole thing in BF1, then again changing everything in V

They need to go back to basics and focus their game, stop trying to be everything on the market, be unique, be Battlefield again.

 

[elyetis]

I don't know how opt out should even work with server lists.

Click to shrink...

Only see console only server ?

 

[poklane]

Update on these leaks:, the guy behind them (Tom Henderson) was suspended by Twitter and he had to delete several YouTube videos to make sure he didn't lose that as well, and it appears all those deleted videos were about Battlefield 6.


Looks like the leaks might be legit with EA deciding to nuke his accounts.

 

[Polyh3dron]

What I wouldn't give for another Battlefield that goes completely apeshit with ambition and isn't hamstrung by consoles. BF3 was so ahead of its time.

 

[petethepanda]

Funny, because even those buildings could be destroyed in Bad Company 2. I remember the flattened wastelands those maps turned into.

Click to shrink...

I forget the name of the desert map that was in one of the BC2 betas, but at the end of some intense rounds that place looked like the surface of the frigging moon. God that ruled.

 

[Armadilo]

If there is a battle royale mode it will be dead within months or weeks since Firestorm was such flop and the market is already flooded with battle royale games at this point. Focus on rush and conquest and the fan base will be happy.

Click to shrink...

Only reason why it failed because br launched months later when the multi-player had already died, the be was actually good and many people thought it introduced new things that made the mode more fun, with cod copied to their br

 

[Azai]

I forget the name of the desert map that was in one of the BC2 betas, but at the end of some intense rounds that place looked like the surface of the frigging moon. God that ruled.

Click to shrink...

Oasis was the map I think.
And yes, many named this map the reason that they dialed back on destruction.

Rush on Oasis was a mess but fun nontheless.
At the end of a round the map was flat without any cover to defend or plant a bomb.

Especially the first two objectives.
So it was good that they didnt go as far in later games.
Hope they still balance the maps in 6. I dont want tanks to snipe me from everywhere because of the lack of cover.

 

[Coolluck]

Oasis was the map I think.
And yes, many named this map the reason that they dialed back on destruction.

Rush on Oasis was a mess but fun nontheless.
At the end of a round the map was flat without any cover to defend or plant a bomb.

Especially the first two objectives.
So it was good that they didnt go as far in later games.
Hope they still balance the maps in 6. I dont want tanks to snipe me from everywhere because of the lack of cover.

Click to shrink...

I thought it was Arica Harbour. Because we'd always think it said Africa Harbour.

 

[Uzupedro]

Update on these leaks:, the guy behind them (Tom Henderson) was suspended by Twitter and he had to delete several YouTube videos to make sure he didn't lose that as well, and it appears all those deleted videos were about Battlefield 6.


Looks like the leaks might be legit with EA deciding to nuke his accounts.

Click to shrink...

Hmmmm, it sucks he having those problems, at least there is more validity in those leaks, the reveal can't come soon enough.

 

[Azai]

I thought it was Arica Harbour. Because we'd always think it said Africa Harbour.

Click to shrink...

Not sure. Oasis could also haven been BC1 lol
But Oasis definitly was a map that suffered from too much destruction.

Edit: I think it was BC1 as it was later added to BC2.

 

[Azai]

Update on these leaks:, the guy behind them (Tom Henderson) was suspended by Twitter and he had to delete several YouTube videos to make sure he didn't lose that as well, and it appears all those deleted videos were about Battlefield 6.


Looks like the leaks might be legit with EA deciding to nuke his accounts.

Click to shrink...

Was there more new info leaked by him on BF6 after the OP post?

 

[PanzerKraken]

I personally don't want destruction that flattens everything. It's a pure gimmick and not realistic at all. Problem with the destruction systems in these games is that stuff magically goes poof. A building toppled over would still leave a massive amount of terrain and cover, all the building doesn't just go away. Also buildings even under heavy firepower usually don't just turn into parking lots. Look at cities that are sites of constant warfare for months. Even with all the destruction, buildings don't just go flat, many modern buildings don't come down that easy and are not made of cardboard like they were in BC2.

Destructions is cool if done right, and if it was smartly done. But the way BC2 was a gimmick that was ok at the time cause of the fast paced rush matches. In large scale long conquest battles, you need objective zones, cover.

 

[Deleted member 90921]

 

[idioteque]

BF doesn't need a BR mode but it would be a lot better for it.

Just not a repeat of Firestorm. That was god-awful.

 

[Azai]

I personally don't want destruction that flattens everything. It's a pure gimmick and not realistic at all. Problem with the destruction systems in these games is that stuff magically goes poof. A building toppled over would still leave a massive amount of terrain and cover, all the building doesn't just go away. Also buildings even under heavy firepower usually don't just turn into parking lots. Look at cities that are sites of constant warfare for months. Even with all the destruction, buildings don't just go flat, many modern buildings don't come down that easy and are not made of cardboard like they were in BC2.

Destructions is cool if done right, and if it was smartly done. But the way BC2 was a gimmick that was ok at the time cause of the fast paced rush matches. In large scale long conquest battles, you need objective zones, cover.

Click to shrink...

If they do it smart in BF6 with i lndividuel destruction like the leaker mentioned it could be a proper gameplay element.

Eg:
A 3 story building which you can destroy in a certain way (eg destroing the right pillars) so it covers the nearby road amd blocks an entrance for enemy tanks. (or makes it harder at least)

And with it being individuell I can see it being used as a gameplay feature instead of a gimmick.

 

[elyetis]

Click to shrink...

I'm keeping that, I wonder if it will age as badly as what I remember reading from him during the bad company 2 days.

 

[DJDoubleCream]

Any eta on the official reveal for this? Love the way battlefield 5 plays but God damn the levels are terrible

 

[bitcloudrzr]

It is. So many BF moments in this game but the balance with vehicles was a mess. Fast spawn vehicle servers on PC probably were the most frustrating shooter experience I had so far. Tanka would just snipe from hills.

That and Jets were way better in BF3 so Im glad they went with BF3 as an orientation.

Also the china setting wasnt really my thing. Also the weapons in BF3 were more in my alley with classic AKs and more H&K weapons or more iconic AR15 variants

Click to shrink...

Weapons and gadgets in BF4 also felt a bit bloated compared to 3.

Not sure. Oasis could also haven been BC1 lol
But Oasis definitly was a map that suffered from too much destruction.

Edit: I think it was BC1 as it was later added to BC2.

Click to shrink...

Oasis was the map from the BC1 beta and Arica from BC2, but I do not think either of those maps fit that description.

Any eta on the official reveal for this? Love the way battlefield 5 plays but God damn the levels are terrible

Click to shrink...

They have revealed in spring for the last few games.

 

[Darryl M R]

Update on these leaks:, the guy behind them (Tom Henderson) was suspended by Twitter and he had to delete several YouTube videos to make sure he didn't lose that as well, and it appears all those deleted videos were about Battlefield 6.


Looks like the leaks might be legit with EA deciding to nuke his accounts.

Click to shrink...

What exactly did he leak or talk about?

 

[poklane]

What exactly did he leak or talk about?

Click to shrink...

He's the person behind the stuff talked about in this thread's OP.

 

[Darryl M R]

He's the person behind the stuff talked about in this thread's OP.

Click to shrink...

Ah I see. Doesn't taking down his channel give him credibility on these rumors? Would a studio strike down videos that were clearly untrue and did not contain insider knowledge?

 

[Kami]

I'm keeping that, I wonder if it will age as badly as what I remember reading from him during the bad company 2 days.

Click to shrink...

For those of us that weren't around, what did he say during the BC2 days?

 

[ThisOne]

BF doesn't need a BR mode but it would be a lot better for it.

Just not a repeat of Firestorm. That was god-awful.

Click to shrink...

Firestorm was actually pretty great. What was god-awful, though, was the support for it. The systems, map, etc. were honestly great, but it was so poorly supported that it died very quickly. Bugs took weeks (and sometimes months) to get fixed, there were few meaningful or substantial updates, and it was lacking players within about a month. Didn't help that it came out just a few weeks after Apex Legends was doing huge numbers.

 

[poklane]

Ah I see. Doesn't taking down his channel give him credibility on these rumors? Would a studio strike down videos that were clearly untrue and did not contain insider knowledge?

Click to shrink...

Yeah that's what I thought as well.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Ah I see. Doesn't taking down his channel give him credibility on these rumors? Would a studio strike down videos that were clearly untrue and did not contain insider knowledge?

Click to shrink...

There was a channel that leaked BF1 being WW1 months before the reveal, it was never taken down and coincided with era Matt hinting at something similar.

 

[SapientWolf]

There is always room for a well done BR mode. None of them do vehicles super well and none of them do destruction, outside of the Fortnite building gimmick.

Firestorm just came out at a dumb time and it was not well thought out. If they had gone F2P from launch and it was supported like Warzone, it would have been good but people were already tired of World War Stuff anyway.

If BF6 goes 128+ players, then the lack of dedicated BR will be a minor thing. I would rather they make the base game amazing and skip the BR and SP.

Click to shrink...

It would be hard to justify ignoring such a huge market when your game is already designed around large scale combat. Not everyone enjoys the pacing of a traditional BF match compared to BR. The constant chaos that BF fans embrace is probably just too much for some people to even handle.

If load times weren't a thing they could split the difference. So say you only get one life but you respawn in a different server so you still have the immediacy of a traditional match. BF usually eases players into new modes by throwing them into a giant mixing pot anyway.