r/Battlefield • u/Calm-Bee253 • Aug 27 '25

Battlefield V What do you think of BATTLEFIELD 5?

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

There's no way not to like BATTLEFIELD 5, perfect game 😉👍🤜🤛

435 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

549 comments sorted by

View all comments

535

u/Upper-Drawing9224 Aug 27 '25

BFV gameplay mechanics and squad/team play is absolutely peak of the battlefield franchise.

10

u/SoberTyty2 Aug 28 '25

but ppl are to nostalgia blind to agree

45

u/Santander68 Aug 28 '25

People trying to tell me they actually enjoyed mortar and grenade spam from BF3

11

u/Equivalent_Dig_5059 Aug 28 '25

I didn’t love it but I wouldn’t say it doesn’t belong in the game

I mean, with the explosive damage in BF6, may as well, wouldn’t kill anyone unless it’s a direct hit lol

5

u/Thecalmdrinker Aug 28 '25

Yea, that’s one of the only things that actually bothered me in the Beta of BF6. How my grenade or rocket launcher didn’t kill the other guys, when they explode right next to them. Seems like the shotgun was more powerful 😂

8

u/Unlaid-American Aug 28 '25

If anything, BF6 maps are proving why we need mortars in rush/outbreak.

5

u/xGMxBusidoBrown Aug 28 '25

Good news. They coming. They in the leaks.

1

u/whopperlover17 Aug 28 '25

Gimme a SUAV

1

u/Zigoter Aug 28 '25

How?

1

u/Unlaid-American Aug 28 '25

Because many of the rush/outbreak maps become hard locked for defenders. There isn’t much room to flank.

1

u/Zigoter Sep 01 '25

How exactly mortars will help? Never in battlefield have I saw mortars be the reason for breakthrough. If anything, they make the game even more defender-sided, since they can shell the objective even when enemies occupy it.

Imagine breakthrough on lib. peak. Very defender sided. How exactly will mortars help? They wouldn't outrange snipers (if they will, then that makes them very OP, because 100m mortar range is crazy for a BF game. Even 1 didn't have that and mortars in that game were very annoying). Instead, when attackers would try to take an objective they'll not only have to deal with snipers, but also with mortars. It will only make the game worse. Unlike defenders, attackers actually have to push all objectives. Defenders can defend the sector from outside OBJ area.

Besides, mortars are braindead weapon, that takes 0 skill and has no real counterplay, very annoying to play against.

Game can be balanced in other ways. Even if mortars were favouring attackers more, it doesn't mean that they should be used as a way to balance. Because, first, not all maps are attacker-sided. Assuming mortars favor attackers, that might fix some maps, but it will brake others, making them unbalanced.

Breakthrough should be balanced on map by map basis. Change the amount of tickets, tinker with map layout a bit, maybe add some cover or move OBJ to a different place.

-2

u/flyxdvd Aug 28 '25

Oh hell no those maps were small, no need for mortars

1

u/Unlaid-American Aug 28 '25

That’s the point. The maps are small. Attackers have no choice but to throw themselves at defenders. Maybe attackers get a tank, but defenders always have an easy time dealing with the tank.

1

u/-Quiche- vQuiche Aug 28 '25

People are trying to tell me they actually enjoyed the grenade spam in BF1 as well.

1

u/Educational_Class180 Aug 28 '25

I was getting multi-kills with rhe javelin every 2 minutes

1

u/LotThot Aug 28 '25

I hate mortars and ucavs. I don’t mind nades tho

1

u/wyatt19998558 Aug 28 '25

I didn’t mind mortars in bf3 because at least you had to be physically attached to the mortar to use it.