@WinterbornGuardUsing the OP's specific example of Hourglass as an example, there is plenty of cover in the villages until it is destroyed.
Do you want more destroyable cover or cover that can't be destroyed?
Hourglass is also not exactly flat is it? The dunes often offer plenty of cover hiding you from many sight lines. To suggest that all sectors on Hourglass have uninhibited sightlines across all of them is rediculous.
@XD-DAWG11 wrote:
@Trokey66The little village is literally the only actually destructible part of hourglass. Not the best example to try and invalidate others’ criticism. The rest of it is almost entirely static and empty. Sand dunes in a massive empty desert isn’t great or interesting map design. They’re literally just bumps you have to run up and down constantly towards the objective. It’s good for you that you like the game and support EA. But many of us don’t and are fed up with EA’s laziness.
That little village on 64 player produces some of the best cap and defend gameplay in 2042.
If you are strategic you get from A to C and vice versa by using the road between both flags or you can be dumb and just run across the desert in a straight line and then complain about wide open spaces.
And the lazy comment. Seriously?
Have you seen the insane detail on all of the maps. The delusion with you guys is seriously off the charts.
@Trokey66 wrote:@WinterbornGuardUsing the OP's specific example of Hourglass as an example, there is plenty of cover in the villages until it is destroyed.
Do you want more destroyable cover or cover that can't be destroyed?
Hourglass is also not exactly flat is it? The dunes often offer plenty of cover hiding you from many sight lines. To suggest that all sectors on Hourglass have uninhibited sightlines across all of them is rediculous.
Have you not played BF4 or even the BF3 maps in portal? There are plenty of examples of buildings that can be destroyed which leave behind rubble that still serves as decent cover from most angles for infantry. But on Hourglass you can drive vehicles through them destroying 90% of the building and leaving infantry exposed from nearly every angle.
How can you bring up destroyable cover vs non-destroyable cover and not get that it's the very heart of the issue?. Just about every building should be able to be destroyed from a structural standpoint while leaving enough debris behind to still provide a semblance of cover, no matter how degraded.
And as far as your argument about sight lines: Most of the capture points and the routes between them are easily overseen by snipers nesting on top of the high rise buildings that give them an unobstructed view to 80% of the map. Getting hit at 1000m by a camper with a DXR is common on hourglass.
