William

Application developer and a casual gamer living the dream in SoFlo

[William @XeuseuX]

@ARCRaidersMedia This really solves nothing and is only a punitive action against RTX owners. If it truly leveled the field then great! However, it fixes nothing.

https://t.co/QbSU5yFoHq

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it’s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

@Annie2nd Really does NOTHING for fairness.

https://t.co/QbSU5yFoHq

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it’s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

@ArcRaidersNow https://t.co/QbSU5yFoHq

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it’s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

@edivaldobrito https://t.co/QbSU5yFoHq

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it’s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

@svwsmith Exactly! https://t.co/QbSU5yFoHq

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it’s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

@Echo_4609 @ARCRaidersMedia https://t.co/QbSU5yFoHq

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it’s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it’s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

The Removal of NVIDIA Filters in ARC Raiders Solves Nothing—It’s Just Punitive
The recent decision to disable NVIDIA RTX Game Filters in ARC Raiders is a move that misses the mark on "fairness." While intended to level the playing field, it actually achieves the opposite: it punishes players for their hardware choices while leaving the "problem" completely unsolved.

1. Filters are Post-Processing, Not "Game Modding"
NVIDIA filters do not inject code, modify game files, or "wallhack." They are visual accessibility tools. They take the final image sent to the monitor and adjust the tint, contrast, and clarity. It is no different than putting on a pair of high-contrast sunglasses to drive in the rain. You aren't changing the road; you’re just changing how you perceive the light hitting your eyes.

2. The "Darkness" Inequality is a Hardware Issue, Not a Software One
The argument for removal is often "fairness in the dark," but hardware is never equal:

The "Accidental" Advantage: A player on an older, cheaper LCD TV that can’t produce deep blacks might naturally see 10 feet further into a dark corner than a player on a high-end OLED monitor with perfect, "crushed" blacks.

The "Manual" Advantage: Any player can spend five minutes adjusting their monitor’s physical buttons or Windows display settings to achieve the exact same visibility.

Removing NVIDIA filters doesn’t stop people from seeing in the dark; it just removes the convenient switcher for people who invested in NVIDIA hardware.

3. It Punishes Quality and Customization
If I have a high-end monitor that renders rich, dark shadows, the game is actually "punishing" me with a visibility disadvantage compared to someone with a lower-quality screen. Filters allow us to calibrate our specific hardware to ensure we aren't being handicapped by our own display's color accuracy. Disabling them is purely punitive toward those who want to use their GPU's built-in features to fix this hardware discrepancy.

4. If Visibility is a Mechanic, Code it Into the Game
If the developers truly want to ensure no one can see in the dark, the solution isn't blocking filters—it���s changing the rendering. * If you don't want us to see in a hole at Spaceport, don’t render the player inside it until they are within a certain range.

Reduce the visibility radius in dark areas to 4 feet at the engine level.

That would create true equality. Simply blocking a software overlay solves nothing, because the "advantage" still exists for anyone willing to click their monitor buttons or use a different brand of screen.

Conclusion
By removing RTX filters, the developers haven't leveled the playing field; they’ve just made it more tedious for players to calibrate their experience. Those who want the "advantage" will still get it through hardware settings, leaving everyone else in the dark—literally and figuratively.

True balance comes from game design, not by stripping away hardware features from your players.

[William @XeuseuX]

And here we go AGAIN! #Battlefield6 #BF6

[William @XeuseuX]

EA still hasn't fixed #Battlefield6 Challenge Tracker bug. I can only track 3 challenges because I am tracking some phantom challenge that I cannot untrack. I should be tracking 2/4 not 3/4. This has been going on too long. When can we get this resolved? #Battlefield6 #BF6 @Battlefield @EA

[William @XeuseuX]

I agree on the skill issue as I am in the same boat. I am an older player and I just don't have the eyesight and reflexes like I did back in the day of Battlefield 1942. I can accept my skill gap but I think you have more working against you than just the skill gap.

Many players have an overwhelming advantage on top of the skills gap. Aim assist can be godly for some console players so if you are on PC that can get frustrating. However the main culprit is not having access to the same equipment putting you at such a disadvantage it sucks the fun right out of the game. This equipment is locked away behind progression gates so outrageous that it can be impossible to achieve them, especially when the only way is to earn them by battling players who have more time, more skills and more money to dump into the game than you do. You may have better luck in Vegas.

And yes, I said more money. Those whom paid more and got more XP boosts (I paid for Phantom as well) were able to gain an advantage faster. While others may have held of on using XP boosts because it would be a waste to use a 60 minute boost to only get slaughtered and WASTE it. It is only a matter of time before EA starts selling these XP boosts outright or with Seasonal Battle Passes thus turning BF6 a "Pay to Win".

The deck is stacked against the little guy again.

[William @XeuseuX]

EA, fix Battlefield 6's progression! Bot matches should count for XP. Not everyone has time to grind against skilled players with better gear. Grinding bots hurts no one, levels the field, and makes real matches about skill, not equipment. Hypocrites with top gear farm newbies like bots—same thing. Let us grind our way or scrap the grind entirely. Deliver what was promised!

[William @XeuseuX]

@EndersFPS Bot progression hurts no one—it levels the field! You're just mad you can't farm disadvantaged players like bots for stats. That's just as "lame." Let casuals grind without gatekeeping. #BF6 #FairPlay

https://t.co/PuMWXMwRiR

[William @XeuseuX]

Battlefield 6's progression is broken! EA's bot XP ban in Portal screws casuals, locking gear behind grind walls. Let us level up fairly—stop the pay-to-win and elitist stat-padding. Who's with me? #BF6 #Battlefield6 #Battlefield #FixTheGrind

As a Battlefield veteran who's been playing since the original 1942 launch—through every title, good and bad—I'm deeply frustrated with the progression system in Battlefield 6. It's more punitive than rewarding, especially for older or less-skilled players like me. EA's decision to remove XP and progression from Portal matches against bots only exacerbates this, widening the skill gap and pushing casual players away.

Let's be honest: age catches up. My reflexes aren't what they used to be, and against younger, sharper players, I'm basically a walking target—essentially a bot myself. The system locks weapons, attachments, and equipment behind steep progression walls, like requiring 300 kills with a subpar gun. How is that feasible when you're getting sniped from across the map before you can even advance? This isn't just about skill; it's about an uneven playing field where unlocked gear gives veterans a massive edge, making it impossible for newcomers or casuals to catch up. We won't dive into cheating or console aim assist, but the core issue is that players with endless time to grind hold all the advantages, turning matches into stat-padding sessions at our expense.

What's particularly hypocritical is the backlash against bot grinding. Those complaining that bot users are "cheating" their way to unlocks are doing the exact same thing: exploiting their gear advantages to farm kills on disadvantaged players. Their stats aren't earned through pure skill—they're inflated by preying on those stuck with starter loadouts. True skill would shine if everyone started with equal access to gear. I have no issue losing fair gunfights because I'm outplayed, but I resent EA's design putting its boot on my neck from the start.

Allowing progression in bot matches wouldn't hurt anyone—it would level the field, letting under-skilled players unlock items without being cannon fodder. Skilled players could still earn recognition through badges, trophies, or leaderboards that highlight talent without granting mechanical advantages. Grinding is grinding, whether against bots or humans; just let us choose our method, or scrap the grind entirely. Otherwise, you're alienating buyers who want to enjoy the full game they paid for, not quit in frustration after endless one-sided matches.

And don't get me started on XP boosts. For those of us who shelled out for the Phantom Edition or bought boosters via microtransactions, it's a blatant cash grab. Using a boost just to die repeatedly and make zero progress feels like a scam—it forces you to buy more to stay competitive, turning the game into pay-to-win. We should all oppose this; it undermines fair play and rewards wallets over skill.

EA, rethink this. A more inclusive progression system would unite the community, not split it. What do you all think—am I off base, or is this killing the fun for casuals?

[William @XeuseuX]

@BFBulletin Great. Don't fix issues just screw over your customers.

https://t.co/PuMWXMwRiR

[William @XeuseuX]

Battlefield 6's progression is broken! EA's bot XP ban in Portal screws casuals, locking gear behind grind walls. Let us level up fairly—stop the pay-to-win and elitist stat-padding. Who's with me? #BF6 #Battlefield6 #Battlefield #FixTheGrind

As a Battlefield veteran who's been playing since the original 1942 launch—through every title, good and bad—I'm deeply frustrated with the progression system in Battlefield 6. It's more punitive than rewarding, especially for older or less-skilled players like me. EA's decision to remove XP and progression from Portal matches against bots only exacerbates this, widening the skill gap and pushing casual players away.

Let's be honest: age catches up. My reflexes aren't what they used to be, and against younger, sharper players, I'm basically a walking target—essentially a bot myself. The system locks weapons, attachments, and equipment behind steep progression walls, like requiring 300 kills with a subpar gun. How is that feasible when you're getting sniped from across the map before you can even advance? This isn't just about skill; it's about an uneven playing field where unlocked gear gives veterans a massive edge, making it impossible for newcomers or casuals to catch up. We won't dive into cheating or console aim assist, but the core issue is that players with endless time to grind hold all the advantages, turning matches into stat-padding sessions at our expense.

What's particularly hypocritical is the backlash against bot grinding. Those complaining that bot users are "cheating" their way to unlocks are doing the exact same thing: exploiting their gear advantages to farm kills on disadvantaged players. Their stats aren't earned through pure skill—they're inflated by preying on those stuck with starter loadouts. True skill would shine if everyone started with equal access to gear. I have no issue losing fair gunfights because I'm outplayed, but I resent EA's design putting its boot on my neck from the start.

Allowing progression in bot matches wouldn't hurt anyone—it would level the field, letting under-skilled players unlock items without being cannon fodder. Skilled players could still earn recognition through badges, trophies, or leaderboards that highlight talent without granting mechanical advantages. Grinding is grinding, whether against bots or humans; just let us choose our method, or scrap the grind entirely. Otherwise, you're alienating buyers who want to enjoy the full game they paid for, not quit in frustration after endless one-sided matches.

And don't get me started on XP boosts. For those of us who shelled out for the Phantom Edition or bought boosters via microtransactions, it's a blatant cash grab. Using a boost just to die repeatedly and make zero progress feels like a scam—it forces you to buy more to stay competitive, turning the game into pay-to-win. We should all oppose this; it undermines fair play and rewards wallets over skill.

EA, rethink this. A more inclusive progression system would unite the community, not split it. What do you all think—am I off base, or is this killing the fun for casuals?

[William @XeuseuX]

@D_ill_one @BattlPULSE @Battlefield I agree. I have the same sentiments.

https://t.co/PuMWXMwRiR

[William @XeuseuX]

Battlefield 6's progression is broken! EA's bot XP ban in Portal screws casuals, locking gear behind grind walls. Let us level up fairly—stop the pay-to-win and elitist stat-padding. Who's with me? #BF6 #Battlefield6 #Battlefield #FixTheGrind

As a Battlefield veteran who's been playing since the original 1942 launch—through every title, good and bad—I'm deeply frustrated with the progression system in Battlefield 6. It's more punitive than rewarding, especially for older or less-skilled players like me. EA's decision to remove XP and progression from Portal matches against bots only exacerbates this, widening the skill gap and pushing casual players away.

Let's be honest: age catches up. My reflexes aren't what they used to be, and against younger, sharper players, I'm basically a walking target—essentially a bot myself. The system locks weapons, attachments, and equipment behind steep progression walls, like requiring 300 kills with a subpar gun. How is that feasible when you're getting sniped from across the map before you can even advance? This isn't just about skill; it's about an uneven playing field where unlocked gear gives veterans a massive edge, making it impossible for newcomers or casuals to catch up. We won't dive into cheating or console aim assist, but the core issue is that players with endless time to grind hold all the advantages, turning matches into stat-padding sessions at our expense.

What's particularly hypocritical is the backlash against bot grinding. Those complaining that bot users are "cheating" their way to unlocks are doing the exact same thing: exploiting their gear advantages to farm kills on disadvantaged players. Their stats aren't earned through pure skill—they're inflated by preying on those stuck with starter loadouts. True skill would shine if everyone started with equal access to gear. I have no issue losing fair gunfights because I'm outplayed, but I resent EA's design putting its boot on my neck from the start.

Allowing progression in bot matches wouldn't hurt anyone—it would level the field, letting under-skilled players unlock items without being cannon fodder. Skilled players could still earn recognition through badges, trophies, or leaderboards that highlight talent without granting mechanical advantages. Grinding is grinding, whether against bots or humans; just let us choose our method, or scrap the grind entirely. Otherwise, you're alienating buyers who want to enjoy the full game they paid for, not quit in frustration after endless one-sided matches.

And don't get me started on XP boosts. For those of us who shelled out for the Phantom Edition or bought boosters via microtransactions, it's a blatant cash grab. Using a boost just to die repeatedly and make zero progress feels like a scam—it forces you to buy more to stay competitive, turning the game into pay-to-win. We should all oppose this; it undermines fair play and rewards wallets over skill.

EA, rethink this. A more inclusive progression system would unite the community, not split it. What do you all think—am I off base, or is this killing the fun for casuals?

[William @XeuseuX]

@BattlPULSE Yeah, not so sure this is a good. Progression is punitive not rewarding.

https://t.co/PuMWXMwRiR

[William @XeuseuX]

Battlefield 6's progression is broken! EA's bot XP ban in Portal screws casuals, locking gear behind grind walls. Let us level up fairly—stop the pay-to-win and elitist stat-padding. Who's with me? #BF6 #Battlefield6 #Battlefield #FixTheGrind

As a Battlefield veteran who's been playing since the original 1942 launch—through every title, good and bad—I'm deeply frustrated with the progression system in Battlefield 6. It's more punitive than rewarding, especially for older or less-skilled players like me. EA's decision to remove XP and progression from Portal matches against bots only exacerbates this, widening the skill gap and pushing casual players away.

Let's be honest: age catches up. My reflexes aren't what they used to be, and against younger, sharper players, I'm basically a walking target—essentially a bot myself. The system locks weapons, attachments, and equipment behind steep progression walls, like requiring 300 kills with a subpar gun. How is that feasible when you're getting sniped from across the map before you can even advance? This isn't just about skill; it's about an uneven playing field where unlocked gear gives veterans a massive edge, making it impossible for newcomers or casuals to catch up. We won't dive into cheating or console aim assist, but the core issue is that players with endless time to grind hold all the advantages, turning matches into stat-padding sessions at our expense.

What's particularly hypocritical is the backlash against bot grinding. Those complaining that bot users are "cheating" their way to unlocks are doing the exact same thing: exploiting their gear advantages to farm kills on disadvantaged players. Their stats aren't earned through pure skill—they're inflated by preying on those stuck with starter loadouts. True skill would shine if everyone started with equal access to gear. I have no issue losing fair gunfights because I'm outplayed, but I resent EA's design putting its boot on my neck from the start.

Allowing progression in bot matches wouldn't hurt anyone—it would level the field, letting under-skilled players unlock items without being cannon fodder. Skilled players could still earn recognition through badges, trophies, or leaderboards that highlight talent without granting mechanical advantages. Grinding is grinding, whether against bots or humans; just let us choose our method, or scrap the grind entirely. Otherwise, you're alienating buyers who want to enjoy the full game they paid for, not quit in frustration after endless one-sided matches.

And don't get me started on XP boosts. For those of us who shelled out for the Phantom Edition or bought boosters via microtransactions, it's a blatant cash grab. Using a boost just to die repeatedly and make zero progress feels like a scam—it forces you to buy more to stay competitive, turning the game into pay-to-win. We should all oppose this; it undermines fair play and rewards wallets over skill.

EA, rethink this. A more inclusive progression system would unite the community, not split it. What do you all think—am I off base, or is this killing the fun for casuals?

[William @XeuseuX]

Battlefield 6's progression is broken! EA's bot XP ban in Portal screws casuals, locking gear behind grind walls. Let us level up fairly—stop the pay-to-win and elitist stat-padding. Who's with me? #BF6 #Battlefield6 #Battlefield #FixTheGrind

As a Battlefield veteran who's been playing since the original 1942 launch—through every title, good and bad—I'm deeply frustrated with the progression system in Battlefield 6. It's more punitive than rewarding, especially for older or less-skilled players like me. EA's decision to remove XP and progression from Portal matches against bots only exacerbates this, widening the skill gap and pushing casual players away.

Let's be honest: age catches up. My reflexes aren't what they used to be, and against younger, sharper players, I'm basically a walking target—essentially a bot myself. The system locks weapons, attachments, and equipment behind steep progression walls, like requiring 300 kills with a subpar gun. How is that feasible when you're getting sniped from across the map before you can even advance? This isn't just about skill; it's about an uneven playing field where unlocked gear gives veterans a massive edge, making it impossible for newcomers or casuals to catch up. We won't dive into cheating or console aim assist, but the core issue is that players with endless time to grind hold all the advantages, turning matches into stat-padding sessions at our expense.

What's particularly hypocritical is the backlash against bot grinding. Those complaining that bot users are "cheating" their way to unlocks are doing the exact same thing: exploiting their gear advantages to farm kills on disadvantaged players. Their stats aren't earned through pure skill—they're inflated by preying on those stuck with starter loadouts. True skill would shine if everyone started with equal access to gear. I have no issue losing fair gunfights because I'm outplayed, but I resent EA's design putting its boot on my neck from the start.

Allowing progression in bot matches wouldn't hurt anyone—it would level the field, letting under-skilled players unlock items without being cannon fodder. Skilled players could still earn recognition through badges, trophies, or leaderboards that highlight talent without granting mechanical advantages. Grinding is grinding, whether against bots or humans; just let us choose our method, or scrap the grind entirely. Otherwise, you're alienating buyers who want to enjoy the full game they paid for, not quit in frustration after endless one-sided matches.

And don't get me started on XP boosts. For those of us who shelled out for the Phantom Edition or bought boosters via microtransactions, it's a blatant cash grab. Using a boost just to die repeatedly and make zero progress feels like a scam—it forces you to buy more to stay competitive, turning the game into pay-to-win. We should all oppose this; it undermines fair play and rewards wallets over skill.

EA, rethink this. A more inclusive progression system would unite the community, not split it. What do you all think—am I off base, or is this killing the fun for casuals?

[William @XeuseuX]

@SilverChambers Typical @EA, why fix a feature when you can use to secure sales and then remove it. This pattern with them and #Battlefield is older than most of the players. I'm not surprised.

[William @XeuseuX]

Yet another annoying bug for BF6. I can only track 3 challenges because I am tracking a phantom challenge that I cannot untrack. #Battlefield #Battlefield6