|
Battlefield 6 is generating some serious buzz in the FPS circles. A seeming spiritual successor to Battlefield 3 and 4, core Battlefield players are hoping it will be a return to form for what Battlefield once was — a class based arcade spectacle sandbox shooter with the potential to produce moments that really no other game can.
However, one thing could destroy that return to form, if streamers get their way: Ranked.
Multiple streamers, including the fast-talking Gamba-obsessed Felix “xQc” Lengyel, have demanded Battlefield add ranked modes (among other things not worth mentioning). For core Battlefield fans, this reads as a foolish demand from someone who doesn’t really get what the core Battlefield experience is about.
The magic of Battlefield is in the scale of it all. And that scale is a big reason why a competitive mode just wouldn’t make the game better.
No, Ranked Won’t Work in Battlefield 6
With 64 and 128-person servers, Battlefield matches are big — huge even. The game is a sandbox where players have a lot of creative freedom to enjoy large-scale combat across a variety of terrains and using a variety of weapons and vehicles. Players log on to be a part of these massive struggles, where you can’t really control the outcome.
Sure, the real sweats are going to make a difference more than the average player, but when the match is 64 v 64, individual contribution is minimal.
Given that fact, competitive modes that promote and demote folks based on if they win or not would struggle to accurately reward players. You could probably reward people based on individual performance, but then you are likely to run into the same problems that other games do with skill-based matchmaking, a system that has long frustrated many players in the Call of Duty community for one.
Among these problems is the risk of min/maxing the fun out of the game with essential meta builds, since the goal is to win a ranked game not to explore the game and have fun.
On top of that, introducing a competitive mode would split the player base between the casual and competitive playlists. Then it would further split the players into their ranks, and with huge servers to fill, the probability is that the higher you climb the harder it will be to find games in a timely manner — or the game will compromise the skill-based match-making, in which case why have it?
And then there is the issue of balancing. When ranked modes are added to games, there is a tendency for devs to balance those games around the ranked experience. This is fine in games designed to be highly competitive, tight-knit shooter experiences — Like Counter-Strike, VALORANT, and more.
But Battlefield (at least the best Battlefield titles) has always been about the general player experience. In fact, Battlefield at its best has historically been based on server browser with no real matchmaking at all.
I’m not suggesting balance changes shouldn’t be made, of course they should be. But the balancing should be done to keep the general player experience good, not privilege the highest ranked players who are sequestered in their own ranked games away from the general population.
In short, Battlefield is meant to be a celebration of arcade shooters, a game that is about teamwork and having fun blowing stuff up. For some people, ranked progress is the only thing that keeps them coming back to a game, and that’s okay. But if you need a ranked mode to motivate you to come back daily, don’t play Battlefield — and don’t come into our game and demand we make it for you.
The incentive to play Battlefield is, and always should be, that it’s damn fun. Battlefield has never been an overly competitive shooter, in fact it has proudly stood as an alternative to that side of the FPS genre. If pushed to become a competitive ranked game it could very well lose the core of its own identity — a sandbox spectacle that makes you feel like the hero in your own story.
For now, let’s try to enjoy the beta.
Published: Aug 9, 2025 05:05 pm