- Primary Subject: Battlefield 6
- Key Update: DICE announces Battlefield Labs test focused on vehicle adjustments
- Status: Balance changes in testing phase
- Last Verified: February 22, 2026
- Quick Answer: Vehicles in Battlefield 6 feel either too fragile or too dominant depending on mode. DICE plans to test adjustments, but meaningful fixes must address pacing, survivability, and counterplay together.
Battlefield 6 was designed around pure spectacle, with massive maps and combined arms warfare where infantry fight beneath tanks and helicopters.
But right now, vehicles — the very backbone of Battlefield’s identity — are either laughably weak or frustratingly oppressive.
And that contradiction is at the center of one of the game’s biggest ongoing controversies.
Why Has the LGT Jeep Become the Face of the Problem?
The most infamous example is the LGT, the Light Ground Transport jeep that has become a running joke within the community.
At least in theory, it allows teams to cross vast maps quickly and without risk. In practice, it does neither. It has multiple seats and a turret position, yet offers almost no meaningful protection from bullets, explosives, or mines.
Players often ignore rows of unused LGTs and run across open terrain instead, not because they enjoy the hike but because the jeep feels like a mobile kill feed donation.
Months after launch, that reputation hasn’t improved. When someone tries to use it as intended, the outcome is usually predictable, with instant destruction or a panicked bail-out seconds later.
DICE has now addressed the problem openly, saying it has listened to complaints about light vehicles being “death traps” and will run a Battlefield Labs test focused on vehicle changes.
How Did Vehicle Balance Spiral Into This Situation?
The current vehicle problems are the product of long-standing balance choices embedded in Battlefield 6’s design philosophy.
Infantry anti-vehicle tools are abundant. Engineers can carry multiple rockets. Anti-tank equipment spawns frequently.
Certain classes dominate close-range engagements, shredding vehicle occupants the moment armor cracks.
Even heavier vehicles (tanks in particular) don’t always feel like battlefield anchors. Instead of shaping momentum, many players describe them as fragile investments with extremely short lifespans.
It creates an odd contradiction where vehicles are meant to feel dominant but end up feeling expendable.
At the same time, the issue isn’t just that vehicles feel underpowered; in modes like the BR-style RedSec environment, many players argue they’re actually too strong.
A newly introduced heavy armored car has been described by some players as overly dominant, especially in early match phases.
It spawns quickly, sustains damage too efficiently, and can overwhelm squads before anti-vehicle counters are realistically accessible.
While some players believe there are enough anti-vehicle tools available, others feel they aren’t accessible fast enough to prevent matches from spiraling early.
It’s not about whether solutions are there, but whether they can be applied when the pressure is on.
Can the Battlefield Labs Test Actually Fix This?
That’s why the upcoming Battlefield Labs test actually matters, because a small armor buff for LGT won’t be enough.
If they nerf the heavy car without addressing early-match pacing, it won’t solve the larger concern.
To properly address the issue, transports need to last long enough to justify deployment, armor must threaten without suffocating infantry play, and counterplay has to be available immediately.
You can’t separate Battlefield from its vehicles; they aren’t optional additions, they drive map flow, force dynamic frontline shifts, and power the franchise’s trademark chaos.
When transports are avoided and armor becomes either paper-thin or frustratingly dominant, the combined-arms fantasy breaks down.
Can Battlefield 6 Still Turn This Around?
Battlefield 6 is far from dead, yet the early momentum has faded, and in a live-service shooter, perception and momentum go hand in hand — which makes Season 2’s impact critical.
It delivered updates, clearer roadmap direction, and balance adjustments, but the surge many expected never materialized, as Steam player numbers rose without coming close to launch highs.
Reports show a dramatic drop in peak concurrency, with about 90,000 players during Season 2 versus 700,000+ at release.
That gap won’t automatically shrink after a patch, especially when a significant chunk of the launch audience has already moved on.
In the end, the figures aren’t as important as the faith players have, since live-service games depend on belief to last.
Once players replace your game in their daily rotation, winning them back will take more than minor adjustments.
Vehicles remaining broken for months only deepened that erosion, especially since the LGT transport issue was anything but subtle.
So yes, some damage has been done, but damage isn’t the same as irreversibility, especially when vehicle balance is one of the few areas that can quickly reshape how the game feels.
If transports become genuinely usable instead of liabilities, if tanks live long enough to shape objectives without being unstoppable, and if early-match heavy vehicles feel contestable rather than snowball-ready, that could reshape player sentiment fast.
Battlefield’s identity is built on combined arms, and when that layer is fixed, the whole experience changes.
For more like this, stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com, the best website for gaming news.