@asmontIThey have known what the players wanted for a long time.
Metro/Locker and maps like these have been some of the most popular maps for a long time.
BFV maps are in separate "playlists" with large maps in one "playlist" and infantry/CQC-focused maps in another.
But Dice are knows better and makes a game of large open/barren maps without much close combat, wonder why 2042 was such a big failure...
@cso7777 wrote:
But Dice are knows better and makes a game of large open/barren maps without much close combat, wonder why 2042 was such a big failure...
Yeah, it's a head scratcher.
It's like they learned nothing from Panzerstorm. The map got poor feedback and was re-worked six weeks later.
https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-5/news/panzerstorm-map-updates
@DICE wrote:
Based on feedback from our players and telemetry data collected from thousands of matches, we knew we needed to refine the map, particularly the encounters between soldiers and vehicles. The following changes are designed to balance the soldier-versus-vehicle experience by bolstering the tactical effectiveness of soldiers without compromising the power of vehicles.
One common criticism of the map, for example, is that players felt too exposed when traveling on foot from Flag to Flag. Or simply, Panzerstorm felt too flat. The updates to address this and other issues are somewhat subtle, so let’s discuss each below.
How does DICE go through that experience and not apply any lessons towards BF2042? Then there's the fact that even after the updates Panzerstorm was still a bottom tier map for most players. Also a map rework in only four weeks (excluding holiday break)...we were spoiled.
