Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

 

Traversal - 

Echoing what a lot of people seem to be saying online here. Seems like the core issues isn't so much the distance between points as it is the content of what's between them. If significant progress is made in terms of defining pathing and cover more clearly, then established lanes between objectives will become more immersive, technical, and challenging to push through - which is a core principle in BF gameplay and what, I believe, keeps a lot of people coming back for more (think Metro/Locker but also maps like Firestorm, Rotterdam, Damavand, etc.; tough chokes & good flanks but still having ways to escape the insanity). I understand you're fighting an uphill battle as it relates to mitigating performance issues but the point stands.

 

As far as the updates to Kaleidoscope and Renewal go, I think these are steps in the right direction but, again, it will come down to what happens between the points, not how far apart they are. With Renewal specifically, I like the more linear scope of the map with the re-placement of the B objectives and believe this will help with the intensity/chaos issue. If most enemies are either to the northeast or southwest of you, you have a better idea of where to maintain focus, can rock-paper-scissors counter with more accuracy and efficiency, and flanking routes can have a greater effect on the tide of battle even (possibly) in 128-player battles.

 

Cover and Line of Sight - 

Honestly, all of this is great. We'll just have to wait and see how these changes affect player activity and movement once the updates are live. My one BIG hope is that these aren't the only changes being made to Kaleidoscope and Renewal, but that these are just examples of things being changed that you have done so far, with the intention to implement more cover and line of sight blockers at/between each objective on each map.

 

As far as immersion goes, static assets like destroyed land and air vehicles would do so much to fix this issue. Love hearing about mud and barbed wire, but my only request to amend that statement is I think it's less about having the world feeling like it's "ready for battle" and more about it feeling upended and//or unsalvageable due to the dramatic effects of climate change. The battle stuff is great but more environmental storytelling to drive home the stark reality of climate wars is also what we're all looking for. 

 

I know the required labor would be massive, but any closer we can get to feeling like we are in the Exodus short film on all maps would be great. Also, Ga-Knomboe_Boy makes a great point about hedgehog spikes and sandbags that (I'm no developer so correct me if I'm wrong here) I feel like might not require much from a performance or art perspective. Shameless plug for the re-implementation of the fortification system here, even though that would be no small feat and would require months of hard, dedicated work. Just saying, we already have fortification-focused, defensive specialists like Irish and Boris ...

 

Intensity - 

I think this is a welcome change and hope that it makes a significant difference without deterring or diminishing enjoyment for vehicle-focused players. In that regard, a permanent vehicle superiority playlist in portal or AOW would be delightful and help to engage vehicle-focused players more/encourage non-vehicle-focused players to try their hand at them without feeling like they need to constantly look over their shoulder for a spicy, C5-wielding Sundance.

 

Also, really appreciate the increased timer for attack-focused vehicles as opposed to all vehicles in general. Ideally, transport vehicles should appear more frequently on maps and in engagements. These, like the MAV specifically, can be used strategically for cover and spawn locations to enable players to push through more entrenched enemy squads at objectives. This is another instance in which something from BFV could help immensely. My assumption is vehicles, particularly transport vehicles, are taken relatively frequently by a single player (I've done this so I assume it's the case) to get themselves closer to the battle or to a desired objective. Adding back in the squad XP "killstreaks" from BFV but having the points be exclusively accrued through squad-focused support (spawning on squadmates, squad revives, etc.) and making them count towards supplementary transport vehicle call-ins could help to keep vehicles where they're needed and not on a respawn cooldown after being used for 30 seconds. This said, I like the changes to the call-in system suggested, too, especially if we're allowed to call in ATVs.

 

Alternatively, if adding vehicles puts too much strain on performance then adding secondary spawn points to the edges of objectives, that are closer/in the direction of other objectives, would be a great way to reduce vehicles but also help with the "walking simulator" aspect. For example (since I know this might not be clear), if we're looking at the updated Kaleidoscope map, when a team captures the A sector, adding spawn points between A sector and B sector (like, on or near the bridges over the river) AND between A sector and C1 (like, placing one 400-500 ft to the southeast of A1) then this could help with getting players from one point to another after respawn without requiring them to run the full distance.

 

Paths - 

All of this sounds great, I wish we could repurpose the distro center on Renewal to another portion of the map in order to alleviate the "barren-ness" of some areas of that map and provide more locations for tighter-quarter infantry warfare.

 

Thanks a lot!