IMO the biggest issue in 2042 (besides the technical issues) are the poorly designed maps. Many of the games poor balance issues stem from the poor map design. In general the maps are far too open with little or no cover. Because of this vehicles both land and air can feel op and down right oppressive at times. If more of the capture points were in indoor areas or just had more cover vehicles would feel more balanced. Also, I feel the objectives are poorly spaced out. Lots of them feel cluttered to close to each other and because of this you have tons of players in a small area and huge parts of the map that are simply unused. Having more objectives or having them more evenly spaced out around the map would help spread out the players and action. Every map should have a good balance of areas for infantry to have battles without getting rekt by vehicles over and over. Right now 6 of the 7 maps are far too open with not enough cover and this favors vehicles, snipers and dmr's. IMO the only map that feels somewhat balanced is manifest. Manifest has a good balance between cover, infantry areas, sniping and vehicle play. I really hope future maps offer a better balance

Agreed, none of the maps are any good. In previous releases i had firm favourites straight away, none are my fave in this game.Massive open kill zones, spawn die, repeat repeat.I really have tried to like the game, put in ton of hours, but i just find myself getting frustrated and bored real quick, and it's primarily the maps,

There is a lot of this - too much jogging across open spaces is making me want to go play something else.I didnt have that experience before. There are a number of very empty maps, and, the emptiness doesnt win points for representing the real life counterpart of that emptiness.Empty desert, empty ice areas... empty is dull. And running through large empty space is even more dull than looking at them.

Making me cross 300-500m of open barren terrain is a problem. Yes there are vehicles but, very few run transport (no points in that right?) Inf should have the ability to get from point A to point B without being vehicle/dmr/sniper fodder.

Maps really make or break a game. BF4 and BF1 had great maps overall with great balance. I generally couldn't stand the maps in BF5 with the exception of the Pacific maps. I think back to Hamada, Aerodrome, Panzerstorm, etc. Those maps and others just played out horribly and ruined the game for me. They were just wide open maps with little areas of cover. Seems like many of the maps in BF2042 play out the same way. And when you look at some of the buildings they did add, they're impressive, but I'm left thinking "Did they really need to make this look the Taj Majal in Las Vegas?" Just seems so unnecessary and doesn't really add anything to the game. And if they do add different types of close quarter or medium sized maps to BF2042 I'm really wondering what they'll be like with 128 players....

Maps are way to open and expansive no cover moving from one objective to the other.

2042's biggest issue. Poor map design

42 Replies

Outkast1877
4 years ago
the maps are fine, if you have the vehicles and movement speed of warzone. When your movement speed is that of a grandma ( the main character) then the map design sucks.
BtheReaper49
4 years ago
Maps really make or break a game. BF4 and BF1 had great maps overall with great balance. I generally couldn't stand the maps in BF5 with the exception of the Pacific maps. I think back to Hamada, Aerodrome, Panzerstorm, etc. Those maps and others just played out horribly and ruined the game for me. They were just wide open maps with little areas of cover.
Seems like many of the maps in BF2042 play out the same way. And when you look at some of the buildings they did add, they're impressive, but I'm left thinking "Did they really need to make this look the Taj Majal in Las Vegas?" Just seems so unnecessary and doesn't really add anything to the game.
And if they do add different types of close quarter or medium sized maps to BF2042 I'm really wondering what they'll be like with 128 players....
RaZentT
4 years ago
I have an item for this in my community feedback poll, you should take the time to provide your feedback here so we can quantify and prioritize what the community wants: The feedback they need but never requested [Poll] : battlefield2042 (reddit.com)
ArchAngeL-PCX
4 years ago
@cng82 I can't agree on this one. BF2042 has a lot of issues, but maps aren't one of them. Orbital, Breakaway, Manafest, and Renewal all have plenty of cover, a variety of the kinds of features we were used to seeing in BF2 or BF4, and good symmetry between the flags.

The other 3 are a bit disjointed. For instance, Hourglass has the E flags in the city and pretty much nothing in between them and the C and B flags. But if you stay over in the area between B and the A flags at the Stadium, then there's all kinds of flow and cover.

Discarded has the ships isolated out on their own with not much of interest around. Kaleidoscope plays well in the center areas, but not so much when trying to get to the buildings.

Still, the overall issue imo is vehicles. The fact they aren't on the map magnifies the open space areas. Normally there would be plenty of vehicles at the uncap spawn with a variety at each flag. In BF4, you were never at a loss for a vehicle for long. And I see no real replacement here for the dirt bike like they did the horse in BF1. The end result is you will never see a vehicle unless you do enough to get one called in, assuming the game lets you lol.
daniellematti
4 years ago
Maps are way to open and expansive no cover moving from one objective to the other.
HarmoniseD8
4 years ago
There is a lot of this - too much jogging across open spaces is making me want to go play something else.
I didnt have that experience before. There are a number of very empty maps, and, the emptiness doesnt win points for representing the real life counterpart of that emptiness.
Empty desert, empty ice areas... empty is dull.
And running through large empty space is even more dull than looking at them.
Donidon
4 years ago
The maps simply lack everything, and no, the maps were not better in BF1, that was 100% the same bad map design, only many people didn't notice it because the maps were smaller.

Hourglass: what kind of place is that? Ok all full of desert sand, but without the sand the map would be just as wrong, no place in the world looks so weird.

Discarded: ever seen how it really looks on the ship scrap yards in India? Not like this.

Manifest: is ok... but more trees and maybe another layer inside the mountain wouldn't be bad. And where are the big halls that are on every port?

Kaleidoscope: what kind of park is that supposed to be? There is not a single tree, there should be hundreds of trees in the map. If only to break up all the sightlines. I've never seen such a sterile park in any game.

Orbital:
Why is the big tunnel such a death trap? Where are the emergency routes that a tunnel has?

Renewal: Why are there no covers for the plants in the desert? They would all die in the sun, and the water would evaporate immediately. There is a lack of greenhouses, tarpaulins ect.

Breakaway: there the weather is consistently much too good. You should only be able to see a few meters on this map.
ragnarok013
Hero+
4 years ago
@BtheReaper49 wrote:

Maps really make or break a game. BF4 and BF1 had great maps overall with great balance. I generally couldn't stand the maps in BF5 with the exception of the Pacific maps. I think back to Hamada, Aerodrome, Panzerstorm, etc. Those maps and others just played out horribly and ruined the game for me. They were just wide open maps with little areas of cover.

Seems like many of the maps in BF2042 play out the same way. And when you look at some of the buildings they did add, they're impressive, but I'm left thinking "Did they really need to make this look the Taj Majal in Las Vegas?" Just seems so unnecessary and doesn't really add anything to the game.

And if they do add different types of close quarter or medium sized maps to BF2042 I'm really wondering what they'll be like with 128 players....

@BtheReaper49 to me 2042 reminds me of BF4's map design only bigger and I thought BF4-BF5 all had rather bland map design compared to BF2/BC2/BF3 which all had stellar map design. BF4 had fun maps but not overly memorable to me and that's how 2042's maps feel to me - not bad, fun to play on but they won't be classics.
R1ckyDaMan19
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
Now I am really familiar with the maps they seem fine to me, the solar array map and the desert city map are my only gripes.
One half of the solar array map is terrible for advancing armies with the rocky landscape, the other half is great with cover everywhere.
That desert city map is just horrible, you have the A flags, B flag and D flag, the rest are not worth the effort getting to.
Budwalker
4 years ago
Agreed, none of the maps are any good.
In previous releases i had firm favourites straight away, none are my fave in this game.
Massive open kill zones, spawn die, repeat repeat.
I really have tried to like the game, put in ton of hours, but i just find myself getting frustrated and bored real quick, and it's primarily the maps,