Delete Specialists, Delete the Maps
I hate all out warfare because of the specialists and the awful map design. The graphics are also a whole separate issue that I'm not going to talk about. But Dice, please delete these two massive pr...
Forum Discussion
@FatFranz
You are free to just back to whatever BF in the series is a BF to you .. and stop requesting things that no ones want beside a handfull of overly vocal and totally unrealistic players .. Who ask each and everyones of them a different " Vision " of what they call battlefield ...
Ive played BF for longer than pretty much anyones on these forums .. And sorry but beside breakaway and Kaleidoscope the maps are very good for conquest WICH IS THE true BF experience ...
Also in find this BF to be the best BF they ever made since BF2 ... BF3 was not bad per say neither BF4 but they were not as good as BF2042 in so many aspect ..
Some maps needs improovement here and there .. So balance issues need to be adressed here and there ... But DICE dosnt have to shut the game or fundamentally changed it ...
They created PORTAL just for peoples like these who want BF 2042 to be a carbon copy of old tittle .... Portal offer almost unlimited possibility ... But you know the truth ? Almost no ones want to play these even if they put lots of effort into the modable aspect .. Why ?
Because most peoples who dont spend a seconds on forums actually enjoy the base game more than these " Users created modes " wich they might play for an hour or so every now and then ..
Now the " Target audience " they had for portal want to force everyones into the " OLD " experience because they cant get populated servers for their " vision " of what BF should be .. Thats the reality
BF2042 base game is very much a battlefield wich at its core is a COnquest type game with combines arms gameplay , Air , Ground and infantry troops battltling out ! .
You are free to just back to whatever BF in the series is a BF to you .. and stop requesting things that no ones want beside a handfull of overly vocal and totally unrealistic players .. Who ask each and everyones of them a different " Vision " of what they call battlefield ...
Ive played BF for longer than pretty much anyones on these forums .. And sorry but beside breakaway and Kaleidoscope the maps are very good for conquest WICH IS THE true BF experience ...
Also in find this BF to be the best BF they ever made since BF2 ... BF3 was not bad per say neither BF4 but they were not as good as BF2042 in so many aspect ..
Some maps needs improovement here and there .. So balance issues need to be adressed here and there ... But DICE dosnt have to shut the game or fundamentally changed it ...
They created PORTAL just for peoples like these who want BF 2042 to be a carbon copy of old tittle .... Portal offer almost unlimited possibility ... But you know the truth ? Almost no ones want to play these even if they put lots of effort into the modable aspect .. Why ?
Because most peoples who dont spend a seconds on forums actually enjoy the base game more than these " Users created modes " wich they might play for an hour or so every now and then ..
Now the " Target audience " they had for portal want to force everyones into the " OLD " experience because they cant get populated servers for their " vision " of what BF should be .. Thats the reality
BF2042 base game is very much a battlefield wich at its core is a COnquest type game with combines arms gameplay , Air , Ground and infantry troops battltling out ! .
Since I have only played the beta, I am a little cautious of commenting on maps. But BF was built as a vehicle game on big maps. And as I see it, BF returns to this concept with BF2042.
So why is this not a true BF game in terms of mapdesign. Is it because the current player base want small / medium size maps with 10 sec between each flag.
Like I said, I'm not taking a stand. I'm just curious.
- @SirBobdk Its not the distance that's the issue of the maps, they just lack decent cover or in-between area's where the close combat can happen.
The way its designed now just feels like: Alright. We have vehicles. They should be able to reach everywhere so lets make points nice and open. Its fine to have vehicles on points but at some spots it renders infantry just being target practice.- @Daeyon-be
Yes, that was also my view after the beta. I liked the size, but there was really a lack of cover. However, this is something DICE should be able to fix.
I'm going to buy the game at some point. But like many others, I also think there is a lot to be done before the game is where it should be. I hope it's going to happen.
@SirBobdk wrote:
@Daeyon-be
Yes, that was also my view after the beta. I liked the size, but there was really a lack of cover. However, this is something DICE should be able to fix.
I'm going to buy the game at some point. But like many others, I also think there is a lot to be done before the game is where it should be. I hope it's going to happen.Trust me mate, there's plenty of infantry cover on 2042 maps if you know how to play Battlefield. Even on Dust Bowl you learn to dip in between the valleys if your dumb enough to run across the desert.
And there are plenty of areas in the map for infantry to play close quarters and plenty of areas and flags where infantry dominate ground vehicles.
The splash damage from vehicles is very low when surrounded by any object in game so it's pretty easy to avoid dying to a vehicle.
I can't confirm however it appears they have made splash damage decrease when a shell comes into contact with an object.
These kids want full cover from flag to flag and want to never have to face a big scary vehicle. And if they do, they want to press X once to make the big bad vehicle go away.
The maps are very cool on 64 player, probably the most interesting launch maps for a long time.
@SirBobdk wrote:Since I have only played the beta, I am a little cautious of commenting on maps. But BF was built as a vehicle game on big maps. And as I see it, BF returns to this concept with BF2042.
So why is this not a true BF game in terms of mapdesign. Is it because the current player base want small / medium size maps with 10 sec between each flag.
Like I said, I'm not taking a stand. I'm just curious.
The maps are also just boring. There is nothng special about them. Everything is clean and nice, cars parked everywhere, yet if all the vehicles are in use, you have to walk all over the map. Even in 64-player maps you sometimes have to walk around 300 meters after being forced to spawn at the start of the match to the first objective.
Another problem is, that vehicles can farm everything, if there is not at least one squad abusing the soflam + rocket launchers. Jets are for example so fast, they can easily have endless runs on AA-vehicles, since the can just flair all the time and fly away from the lock-on. Good chopper pilots can do the same, as the lock-on stops, as soon as even the smallest thing is in your line of sight.
- @SirBobdk We jumped into 1942 last night to see what the fuss was about and I have to say, there was no real difference in terms of this mythical 'cover' between El Alamein and Hourglass for example.
Both have large open expanses of 'nothing'!
Although there is no real direct comparison, the same with Battle of the Bulge. (I also noticed that the church is the same as BFV and the windmill is from BF1!).
Not saying these maps are bad in and of themselves but in terms of cover, not that much different from BF2042 maps.
It just seems that the 'community' want large maps but don't want to travel far with loads of detail that isn't cluttered and has loads of cover that can be destroyed.- @Trokey66 I'm surprised at how torn the community is, it's really embarrassing.
People claim it's not Battlefield but forgot where the series started and what the maps were like.@CordlezToaster
This so call " community " as never been homogenous .... At all every singlle entry have peoples loving or hating it and its always been like this .. Now its just there is DRAMA loving folks trying to ice the drama cakes ..
But in reality those who saw BF2 as gold standard Hated bad company and BF3 those who saw bad company as gold standard hated BF3 , Those who saw BF3 as gold standard hated on BF4 and so on and on and on
@Trokey66
Not saying these maps are bad in and of themselves but in terms of cover, not that much different from BF2042 maps.
@CordlezToaster
People claim it's not Battlefield but forgot where the series started and what the maps were like.
——————————————————-
That was what I meant. BF2042 maps seems very similar to maps from before BF3 imo.
So saying they are not Battlefield is perhaps more because most have started with BF3. Even my favorite map from BF3 "Bander desert" looks like this: large and open.- @Trokey66 Ya and el Alamein was in a natural dessert so it makes sense. Also bf1 siani dessert is huge and open, but again it's in the dessert. Hour glass is in a city, so where's all the buildings and close quarters combat like it should be in a city?
- @dirtytamato uhh... the CQ combat is in the city you absolute *. There's a whole sector of the map for it. Crying about the rest of the map being a desert is just stupid. It's a city in the desert. Wild concept, I know. There are also tons of sand dunes providing cover between all of the sectors so that gunfire is mostly limited to each area, and so people aren't being sniped from across the map.
- @SirBobdk I like orbital, that map is good. But the other maps are just empty. In bf4 they have city's with tons of buildings and you can interact with most of them, in 2042 there is a couple of buildings and then they got board and filled the other half of the map with sand. Obviously this is just one example, but you also can't hardly interact with anything either. 2042 is a huge step back with added super hero crap that most players didn't want in the first place. That's my problem
