Re: Points that need full re design

@xPaleHorseIt is the one take that actually makes sense.

1) 64 Players max
2) Better combined arms map designs and variety
3) Classes which provided combat readability & predictability which allows for prioritizing targets in order to take objectives
4) More weapons with unique characteristics that make sense (i.e. i'm not using an SMG to outclass someone at long range with an AR)
5) Browser

Shall I go on? Or do you now understand what it means to utilize BF2/3 features/sets?  You're the one who said FULL redesign...not partial "put lipstick on a pig" redesign.

---

@xPaleHorse wrote:
@-DFA-Thumpwow what a helpful take. so original. trying to provide actual solutions here.

---

@xPaleHorse , what @-DFA-Thump was so kind to point out to you is actually what a very large group players have suggested/wanted from this BF2042 from the very onset.  And have repeated again and again to EA/DICE obviously to no avail.

Taking the disaster that BF2042 is and just trying to make some superficial changes to it, will not turn this Titanic around.  Matter of fact is that millions of the customers have already dropped it entirely, lost total faith in EA for this to be savable and moved on.  It doesn't help to put lipstick on a pig.  Its still a pig...

And what EA first sold to us and set the expectations up for, and generated so much excitement across large sections of the Battlefield fanbase was that BF2042 would be a modern version of the all time greats BF3/BF4.

Hence why @-DFA-Thump suggestion is spot on:

Take the BF3/BF4 and make an exact copy of that, just with the modern tech/processing power/screen resolutions etc to go with it.

THAT would be a certain slam dunk success!

@CyberDymei think you both missed my point (ha ha). i mean ACTUAL IN MAP OBJECTIVES. not the game. not the guns. not the vehicle unlocks. hence my examples. yall are both so wound up and salty over the release that you completely missed it. yes everyone is aware the game isnt what its supposed to be, if i wanted to hear that id go to reddit thanks.

Orbital and manifest are mostly ok maps (nothing special, but at least acceptable).

The rest of the maps needs heavy redesign of all the open areas of the maps. Infantry has way too hard a time getting from objective to objective, because they have no cover to hide behind (objects, terrain etc) and the game has a lot of camping snipers due to many high points on the map (too much 'verticality').

Some objectives like the ones on Kaleidoscope are bad and should be fixed, but the barren maps are a bigger problem than the objectives (at least in conquest).

---

@xPaleHorse wrote:

@CyberDymei think you both missed my point (ha ha). i mean ACTUAL IN MAP OBJECTIVES. not the game. not the guns. not the vehicle unlocks. hence my examples. yall are both so wound up and salty over the release that you completely missed it. yes everyone is aware the game isnt what its supposed to be, if i wanted to hear that id go to reddit thanks.

---

Hahahaha on you @xPaleHorse ???

Obviously your initial posting was not very instructive in what you really wanted to discuss then.  As we were several that considered the game design was your POINT and subject.  If you instead had correctly described your subject to be the flag zones and placement of flag objectives, then it would have been clear.  And no justification either to be silly or arrogant with neither me nor with @-DFA-Thump.

We are neither salty nor wound up, so back up with your misplaced insults.

This is supposed to be a friendly forum, so no place for personal attacks like that.

---

@cso7777 wrote:

Orbital and manifest are mostly ok maps (nothing special, but at least acceptable).

The rest of the maps needs heavy redesign of all the open areas of the maps. Infantry has way too hard a time getting from objective to objective, because they have no cover to hide behind (objects, terrain etc) and the game has a lot of camping snipers due to many high points on the map (too much 'verticality').

Some objectives like the ones on Kaleidoscope are bad and should be fixed, but the barren maps are a bigger problem than the objectives (at least in conquest).

---

Much agreed @cso7777 !

The maps are maybe big, but most come across as having been made in a rush, with little concern for how the gameplay and two fractions are supposed to both attack/defend across them, and advance strategically with movements from flag to flag.  Manifest is probably the best working map of the new in BF2042.

Also, if this is the future after breakdown of civil society and all on the run, then why do the maps not reflect that?

Right now all the infrastructure, streets and squares all come across very pristine.  As just having been swiped for any litter the very same morning and all repainted, as if it was the prepping for May 1st on the Red Square, Grace Kelly arriving at Casino Square in Monaco or like SG Clean Day in Singapore.

Instead we should have plenty of mayhem areas and infrastructure components spread around, which all could aid for making the gameplay much more interesting and making the maps/flags work much much better than what we have today.  

Renewal, Discarded and Breakaway all suffer from this, though each map have segments that are working well.  But severe gaps between some flags are devastating for the overall gameplay.  Hourglass is in it's class of its own.   Nough said...