Hello, how are you, the first thing I want to say is thank you for the opportunity to give our opinion in this forum.
I am Spanish speaking, I hope the translation is understood.
He also comments on certain aspects of the maps before going into detail on the points he has made.
.A map on the battlefield, you have to feel... I mean, when you play you have to feel inside it and in BF2042 this doesn't happen.
The reasons are several...
1. We do not have that immersion as in other installments of the saga, we are near the end of the world, a war between the USA and Russia, we should see an apocalyptic scenario and each map we play is totally beautiful as freshly painted and finished, a more gloomy it would be more immersive.
2 The scale of the map, when we play a map like Kalidoscopie, if I start running from the beginning of the map, in 3 minutes I have covered the whole city, this is also not immersive, wandering, opening doors, climbing stairs, that gives the feeling of that you are in that city. This happens in other maps, in Qatar, the stadium part is the most immersive, but the towns do not produce immersion, maps like BF1's Sinai Desert or Bf5's Al Sundan have more immersive towns, the difference is that in each town, you are inside the town, you climbed stairs, open doors, in bf2042 you don't feel that feeling
3. The destruction. ... I think you've heard this more than once, but it's not the fault of the community, I remember the words "The destruction will go to another level", and if people expected everything to be destructible, to bring everything down. buildings, that is tornadoes are going to destroy everything, and what we find is a skewed destruction, since most of the tall buildings are not damaged, in fact, and it is a personal appreciation, I notice more destruction in BF1 and BF5 than in BF2042, and I'm talking about what I feel as a player when I'm playing.
And that destruction elevated to another level, those tornadoes could destroy everything in their path, which does not happen and does not produce that immersion so longed for by the players.
By the way, on the Breakaway map there are no weather events, a snow storm would be great.
4. Interact with the map, this is very important and in BF2042 it should be one more step and it doesn't happen like that, it's these little details that make it go from being a shooting game to an AAA and that people come to play it.
I mean falling to the ground and getting your gun dirty or bloody when you kill someone very close, being able to go underwater, being stunned by an explosion and knocking the camera to the ground, turning a corner and being able to lean in gives you the feeling that you're interacting , well and in bf5 you could interact a lot with the map by being able to build, these are some examples that would give the map much more realism.
Now I would like to talk about the 128 players, I am a conquest player I have played 508 hours level S80, the big problem of the 128 players is that they do not perceive that what you are affecting the final decision of the game. You are a small part of a war and no matter how hard you try, you are not going to make your team win. This didn't happen in BF1 and BF5 and sometimes you won 1 ticket and it was very epic and fun, this didn't happen in BF2042.
It's also important in maps to have map rotation, matchmaking, sometimes you play the same map up to 4 times, that's boring, if you're on audio with 5 friends you can't play the same map with them, people want to be able to choose the server.
And if it's not possible... then there should be matchmaking but put you on a server with map rotation so you don't repeat them.
It would also be very good to be able to choose a region, for example I am from Europe but if I play at 2 am as I do many times in Europe the serves are half empty 20 vs 20 players in conquest of 128 players, and in NA they are full of players in which we have good gameplay.
Now your questions:
1. Which maps currently offer a poor opening experience due to the Spawn Base location?
I have already said that I am a 128-player conquest player and I play on ps5, currently every time we deploy we either do it in a vehicle or it makes us an animation and we deploy as infantry, and on the console they do many vehicles Don't stop to pick up to the players, with whom you have 2 minutes to run until you meet an enemy.
It would be great to be able to deploy on vehicles directly or to be able to wait to deploy until a flag is in our possession.
2.Which maps make it harder to get back into the fight on a capital stage?
Escape, in conquest of 128 players, when you leave the upper part and the rival has captured the central part C AND D it becomes very difficult for your team to advance
3.Regarding the Advanced Mode questions, it is not a game mode that I usually play, but I do have friends who play it and I comment that 128 players is very chaotic, especially if you play infantry, there are people who play it with a vehicle and I really enjoy it, but I do think maybe a middle ground between 64 and 128... like 92 players could be interesting
4. On which maps and flags do you see the most immediate need for more line of sight blockers?
On roofs it should not be possible to order vehicles, there are those who climb vehicles in kaleidoscope zones and have incredible vision zones towards the B1 and B2 flags.
Escape in the part from C to A you are at the mercy of vehicles, you could also enable cornices in mountain areas to protect yourself from helicopters. Also in the part from D to C, or towards B if a vehicle appears you are dead. There is also a line of sight from the top to D where the Bolte are placed and the infantry are killed by their shots.
Renew your Respawn on the D1 flag when you leave you are at the mercy of all vehicles and snipers. Also in the whole green zone there is little coverage, only the channels, the access from E to D feels empty, there is a lot of line of sight.
kalidoscope: the whole map itself seems too squared, it would be very good to have destructible zones that would serve you between coverage zones. Areas between E and D use walls or have extraordinary line of sight. Zones between flags... from D to E... from D to B.
Hourglass: it is a difficult map, also between flags, from D to B there are many lines of sight, also between C and E and also from the Stadium to B
Discarded for me it is the best map in terms of coverage and lines of sight and Manifest and Orbital with those height changes always give you coverage
5. Do you have any ideas on how we can better define travel paths between objectives to keep combat focused?
The idea of making the maps rectangular is great.
Let's go to the Breakaway map, where you can access sector A, you have many access points, many, you have to focus on those points, a great example is the argon forest of bf1 where nature forced you to go through certain paths, put up barriers natural, or even make underground passageways, those of Kalidoscopio would be great but oriented differently between flags so that they had to be passed from flag to flag to have access from above or below but focused.
6. Do you see opportunities for improvement to make it easier to understand how to move from one goal to the next?
This question is linked to the previous one ...... with those natural barriers and when you achieve a goal you always look at the goal that is closest to you, that is where you have to work, on those paths that were mentioned to you, you have to direct the players where you want them to go, if you put a cliff or a wall people have to go around it, like the access to B of Manifest, where you have done a great job, that is where the fight is focused
Hoping to be able to give my opinion on the specialists a big hug
DICE Team
