Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

I cant believe what i just read. 

First... ok. You understand there are problems with the map layout and too long ways without cover. 

Your fix is : change the locations of the points. 

Ok, thats the easiest way with minimal work. The same way this whole game is made of (and a cause why it flopped) 

A really good solution would be: create covers, destructible buildings, change the terrain, spawn more civilian vehicles for transport on the maps. 

That requires work, sure. 

Second: You seem to be focussed on kaleidoscope. ok, you have to start with a map. 

But you want to release those changes "in season 1!". You didnt even wrote at the start of season one, only while the first season is running. You seriously need ANOTHER 3 MONTH to change the capture points??? 

I dont have words for this. I thought about giving a longer specific feedback on the maps, but you still dont get what the gameplay should be, it would be ignored anyway. 

Good luck. 

Hey there

I got an absolutely MASSIVE twitter thread that's far outside of the scope of AHQ with all the problem points and possible improvements

(Which usually consist out of using level assets so nothing new has to be made and the memory budget doesnt get an even bigger hit) 

I also actually mentioned some things i liked in the post (map design wise) and of what i want to see more of!

I link the last tweet in the thread, from there you can just scroll up

https://twitter.com/DANNYonPC/status/1498052172549955591

- Danny

@DANNYonPCCommunity, repost this tweet to death. This thread spitting facts.

https://twitter.com/DANNYonPC/status/1498052172549955591

Take the weapons off the TRANSPORT vehicles. They should only be for TRANSPORTING troops. Give them heavy armor. Provide more of them but lord, get the weapons off of them. There are enough vehicles to farm us without putting weapons on vehicles meant to move people around.

Its kinda hard when you see a feedback request after spending 4 months posting here just that. Clearly, this could have been implemented during the beta. 

While maps are a major problem, I think you guys trying to not see the big elephant in the room. Not sure why. But just changing spawn points, adding cover etc will not bring people back to 2042. I suggest that your team should play some of your past titles to understand why most people loved about BF in the past. The flaws with 2042 go way deeper than just the maps. Your points are the easy fixes. They wont bring players back. They wont add new players to 2042. Even if you implement all of the obvious things, personally, i will not be playing again. 

But if you insist on my honest map feedback, sure. One. Last. time. 

- Design wise they don't match the story you tried to sell with 2042. Where's the war? The maps look like a kids playground. The art illustrations I've seen from the game shows a completely different vibe to the maps. You can create cover by adding a war torn battlefield. For crying out loud, Kaleidoscope has sprinklers going on. Really? During war and a climate crisis? 

- More unarmed vehicles (and no, the * future golf cars don't count) like quad bikes at spawn points. Again, PLAY YOUR PAST GAMES. 

- Levolution. I don't care what people say, for me, this was always something i loved about BF. It doesn't mean only buildings have to collapse but this the story is about climate change, why do the storms don't do any real damage? Except for Orbital, the maps feel boring and bland. 

Example:

on BREAKAWAY there could be an earthquake happening and the oil rig would sink so that the top level is now ground floor. It would change the dynamics of the game and give maybe the losing team a chance for a last push to capture new flags. 

- Destruction: Over a year ago you said " taking destruction to a whole new level". That was a plain lie. Where is it? 

- Visually the maps look like last Gen. Why? Have you played BF 1 and V? There is zero detail in 2042 maps. Bland, boring and they look rushed. 

As you can see, in my opinion, it would be best to scrap the game and start over. A 2042 2.0 if you will. Its going to be hard and a waste of time to polish a *. Sorry to be frank - I dont mean no disrespect but you can imagine after months of waiting, this feels pointless. IMO. 

Not enough cover.

Too many Vehicles so infantry doesn't stand a chance

Not enough spots for Infantry to fight

Maps need to be shrunk a little even if they are made for 128. Gotta be something. Move the spawns. 

Hourglass for example needs a major major major rework 

On the proposed breakthrough change for Kaleidoscope...please don't, that map looks truly awful compared to what we have now. Stacking points behind each other, rather than next to, limits opportunities to engage on more than one front and realistically only opens it up for back dooring, which is a pretty boring strategy IMO.

Beyond that, the new version halves the first sector in terms of playable area which will just make it more abysmal. It might work for 64 players, but this will be a disaster for 128 players.

I don't play CQ, but even the CQ map seems to dramatically reduce the amount of map used which makes no sense. The solution shouldn't be, "Move flags around and ignore huge sections of the map because getting places is difficult and there's no cover." the solution should be, "Adjust flags and spawn points a bit, but add more static/dynamic cover to maps and more non-combat transportation options as well as potential dynamic objectives a la equipment kits in BF1 to add additional conflict points."

Like, both of those proposed maps look pretty dreadful to play and not like any meaningful improvement over the current version, outside of spawn points being closer to the action so we don't have to spend 45 seconds running to the fight if we can't spawn on our squad.

I think there are a lot of problems, but chief among them is that DICE did not make any  "INFANTRY ONLY" maps in 2042.  This has been a timeless tradition and like many other traditions, some genius at DICE designing this game had zero clue.  We need some of the Operation Metro, Operation Locker, and Fort De Vaux, etc.  

This is a good start. I echo what many people have said; I think the 2042 maps feel good in vehicles, but not as infantry. For a good balance I’d point to Caspian Border, which of course, is already in the portal mode. I can’t quite pinpoint what it is, but that map’s flow, cover, exploration, and each of the capture points feel natural, interesting to fight around, convenient yet challenging to rotate to, and most importantly, it feels very good.

I think personally that Caspian works very well for both conquest and rush, and by extension I’d imagine breakthrough would also work quite well. I think it’s secret is that each capture point is varied and has interesting environmental aspects to interact with I.e. many destructible buildings, and as well, the flags are very easy and quick to rotate to while still having lanes that are interesting to fight around + have natural cover, like how the centre flag is atop a ridge and there’s that tiny river to its immediate west that you have to go through to get to C flag, or the small highway in the southwest of the map where you can dance between the main highway and the river, etc.

I also realize that you folks said you based Orbital off of Caspian border, but I think orbital’s problem is it is simply too big. It has the interesting infantry gunfight areas; I think rush on Orbital is quite good, so my suggestion is somehow condensing those areas together while keeping the rotations between them interesting, quick, and varied, having natural cover baked into them. For example, perhaps trenches could be added in that huge runway centre of the map so it’s not so vulnerable for infantry to cross etc.