Lack of cover in BF2042 Maps

@Vykking_xD_    I agree.  The maps are sterile and uninteresting.   

BF1 and BFV maps were more detailed, provided cover and war torn debris, and much more interesting and realistic.  In comparison the 2042 maps look retro. 

They also contribute very little to game play and appear to be poorly designed from that perspective.  The only exception being Discarded, but that too has lack of cohesion.

---

@FlatChat  schrieb:

@Vykking_xD_    I agree.  The maps are sterile and uninteresting.   

BF1 and BFV maps were more detailed, provided cover and war torn debris, and much more interesting and realistic.  In comparison the 2042 maps look retro. 

They also contribute very little to game play and appear to be poorly designed from that perspective.  The only exception being Discarded, but that too has lack of cohesion.

---

Not true at all, the map design was exactly the same bad. Only that they have pulled the maps for 2042 larger. And now it is finally noticed even the last how bad the map design is. With BF4 the bad design began. Since most maps were so bad. After BF3, the good map designers have gone and were replaced by really bad staff. The maps have been flat and empty for a long time.

In BF2042 they completely overdid it with the empty and flat, because they just pulled apart the already bad maps.

E.g. Orbital... the distance between the launch pad and the hangar for the rocket is about 100m in reality. In BF2042 250m.

This is another fake narrative that is now 'true'.

There is plenty of cover all over the maps for infantry to use. It's incredibly easy to drop out of the enemies line of sight.

Expecting cover over every inch of the map including the desert is just bizarre.

---

@Tank2042Man  schrieb:

This is another fake narrative that is now 'true'.

There is plenty of cover all over the maps for infantry to use. It's incredibly easy to drop out of the enemies line of sight.

Expecting cover over every inch of the map including the desert is just bizarre.

---

Bizarre is that someone claims something like that, although there are 4 old maps in BF2042 that have everything that is missing in the new BF2042 maps.

Desert maps? We have one new one in the game, and even that is the worst desert map in BF ever.

I tend to agree with this, I feel that there is less cover than in previous BF titles.  Yes there were large open maps as well but I feel the ratio has changed.

@Donidon 

"The maps have been flat and empty for a long time."

Yes, there are maps like that, for sure in previous BF titles.  

However there are others which provide more solid and interesting game play.  IMO maps like:

Devastation

Rotterdam

Provence

Amiens

Even the more open country maps in BF 5, and especially BF 1, are more interesting IMO than those in 2042.

Monte Grappa

St. Quentin Scar

Argonne Forrest

Rupture

The thing about the previous maps is that they had cohesion in design and placement of features, which contributed to good game play.  2042 maps appear discontiguous with features and focal points separated by large amounts of open space.  They lack harmony and synthesis and this impacts game play accordingly.

@Tank2042ManAgree, skyscrapers do little more than shield helos from missile locks... 

Manifest is the other reasonable map in 2042 along with Discarded, IMO the others are atrocious.  But neither is on a par with the best maps from BF1 and V