Game intel
Battlefield 6
The ultimate all-out warfare experience. In a war of tanks, fighter jets, and massive combat arsenals, your squad is the deadliest weapon.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Vehicle play is what separates Battlefield from every other modern shooter. When the light ground transport (LGT) jeep and even tanks feel like “death traps,” that’s not a tuning oversight – it’s a design failure. DICE hardware producer Kit Eklöf told PC Gamer the studio will run a Battlefield Labs test “soon” to trial a package of vehicle improvements, a concession driven by persistent player complaints rather than proactive roadmap planning.
Months after Battlefield 6 launched, vehicle viability has become a visible driver of player frustration and churn. SteamDB and Circana data cited by 3DJuegos show Battlefield’s post-launch momentum already softening heading into 2026, while community threads are dominated by the same complaint: jeeps and light transports disintegrate under minimal fire or mines, so teams stop using them. That’s not a cosmetic gripe — it changes how matches play out. If vehicles are consistently ignored, the game tilts toward infantry-skewed skirmishes and away from the large-scale combined arms fights Battlefield promises.
Pre-release comments from designer David Sirland admitted the studio intentionally shipped vehicles on the weak side. The idea was to avoid overpowered rideable weapons; the execution left vehicles functionally unusable in many scenarios. Saying “we started weak” is honest, but it’s also a design choice that cost credibility: players don’t forgive a sandbox that neuters core toys for the sake of conservative balance.
Kit Eklöf’s “death traps” line (PC Gamer) is blunt and accurate. Steam’s Battlefield News also confirms the changes will be staged through Battlefield Labs first — which is the right process in theory. In practice, Labs needs to include measurable goals (survivability, usage rate, objective impact), not just feel-good adjustments rolled out with vague caveats.
Players are asking for two linked things: safer light vehicles and stronger tanks. PC Gamer and community reports say tanks are dying to rockets and close-range SMG spam in about two minutes — not just on paper but in match logs. If you buff LGT durability while rockets and spawnable AT remain rampant, you’ll simply shift frustration elsewhere. Air vehicles add another layer: inconsistent helicopter flight models, ill-placed jets on tight maps, and clumsy AA mechanics were flagged as far back as the December rebalance patch notes, meaning vehicle problems span the whole meta.
Battlefield Labs is a sensible tool — staged testing, data-driven iteration. But this announcement reads more like damage control than a confident plan. DICE also wants more time on maps (lead producers have said they prefer fewer, higher-quality maps), which is defensible, but it compounds the problem: fewer maps mean each one must support balanced vehicle routes and spawn flows. Community posts point to map-specific chokes (Liberation Peak’s asymmetrical vehicle access, for example) that a Labs vehicle package can’t solve alone.
DICE can approach this two ways: make vehicles more durable and tweak player-side counters (rocket timers, SMG TTK), or leave counters intact and make vehicles more resistant. Each path changes the game’s identity. Right now, there’s no public detail on what the Labs test will include. That’s the real issue: “we’ll test” is not reassurance unless we see the variables being measured and the metrics for success.
If I were on the call with DICE’s PR rep, I’d ask: what are the concrete metrics you’ll use in Labs to decide whether a change graduates to live? Will you publish those? Players deserve more than “we’re working on it.”
DICE admits Battlefield 6’s vehicles — especially the LGT jeep — are effectively “death traps” and will trial a vehicle improvement package in Battlefield Labs. That’s a necessary correction to a design that deliberately started vehicles weak, but it’s overdue. The leap from Labs promise to meaningful revival depends on measurable survivability fixes, tank buffs (or counter rebalances), and map changes that actually let vehicles matter again.
Get access to exclusive strategies, hidden tips, and pro-level insights that we don't share publicly.
Ultimate Gaming Strategy Guide + Weekly Pro Tips