Core Map Feedback: Dynamic Sector Layouts

Something like this. Put vehicles in the corners, infantry spawn near cover at the old flags, and have aircraft coming in from the absolute farthest corners. 

Thanks for even reading it all and looking at the visuals.  I think there could be numerous layout and design choices.  My intention of the post is to give a concept of what could be done with dynamic sector layouts.  Its nice to see people taking the concept and changing it or expanding on it.  I really think this is how DICE uses the already designed maps, and expands on them, giving us multiple versions of each map.  It would keep the game fresh as each dynamic layout would feel like a different map, due to flows, points, pathways, etc.  

@AOD_OddJob001I completely agree, your concept makes a lot of sense and is 10x better than the original map design concept. It would be refreshing.

In addition to the layouts, you can add night or weather/rain as another variable.

I really like the tunnel idea, I posted that in another thread. I have been down there a few times with the elevator, yet there is really no tactical reason to go down there unless the other end of the tunnel or elevator brought you closer to the next point. Right now it is perpendicular to any of the points, which makes it useless. They could even add some type of underground railway tunnel that leads to the Data Center.

I really like this concept and outside of adding or moving flags, it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to implement unless the logic is not there to make those changes. To me it would seem easy, just have different versions and ID#s for each of the flag combinations, then just put those in the queue with the others. Something like Kaleidoscope_MP_C64_v1, etc.

I also did a layout for the map feedback thread.

This one is closer to the original layout with the same number of capture points, but I've relocated capture points / zones so there is more street fighting in the bottom right hand corner, whilst also adjusting capture points in the top left hand corner slightly so the fighting between the ground level points is closer together with A2 located to an external plaza and giving some space for the spawn points for the top of the skyscraper.

I also suggested a service passage connecting the tunnel to D, and adding in a ground floor interior to one of the larger buildings for C2 so there would be more fighting between the larger buildings and on the streets rather than in the park.

My issue with the layout proposed by Dice is they end up cutting off half the map and relocate the Russian spawn near where G currently is, thereby further reducing the actual streetscape area being played on (because there will now be a boundary for the Russian base spawn). We want more streetscape action, not less.

The layouts proposed in this thread are good by providing multiple layouts using different parts of the map. The problem is if Dice don't provide multiple variants for the same map on the same mode (ie only one 128 player conquest variant, only one 64 player conquest variant), then we end up losing a large portion of the map.

MMFA: Make maps fresh again!

i can see you put more effort into these layouts then DICE did developing the maps.

sadly the issue is this makes the game moew complicated and from my knowledge of BF if you make it just a tiny bit complicated the average BF player will not bother....
already in the maps as they are people are not really giving two figs about the objectives, and now you have different lanes on a game by game basis....
yeah i am willing to bet the average BF player will suffer a mental breakdown and go into a fetal position....

Nice idea, in fact, taking into account the ridiculously small number of maps, it would have spiced up the gameplay! Unfortunately, on this forum, just like on reddit, nobody from Dice reads it.

Take a look, for example, how many pages the thread "Add server browser (...)" has and see how many times someone from Dice in it replied. Sad but true, the opinion of the community obviously does not interest them.

But I hope that eventually something will change in this issue and we will finally be able to communicate with the developers of the game.

We've seen this idea a couple times before.

Most recently Al Marj in BFV which has a 4 and 5 flag layouts.  Further back the BF1942 mod community would have 'Day One' and 'Day Two' versions of the same basic map, but with different flag layouts.

It's an excellent (and cheap?) way of getting more mileage out of the maps.  I think it's a great idea and fully support this.

It'd be even better if DICE would occasionally toss out the least popular version and replace it with a new layout.  Allow the community to help slowly refine and improve the layouts.

Lastly, I agree that the maps are too big - but in the sense that objectives are too far apart.  If DICE does start tweaking map layouts I'd like to see them address both this alternate layout proposal as well as address the distance between flags.