Updated Renewal Map Review
Thoughts? The Good: I do like the flow better, the objectives are now more linear. The added cover and objective updates are nice. I like the darker lighting in E sector (indoors). The Bad: ...
Forum Discussion
@SleepyWeasel68 here ya go.
I am sure DICE will get a good idea on the heatmap after this change. US is at a pretty big disadvantage, first that RU is closer to more points and second, if RU takes the A sector, they can ultimately defend both A points while spawn camping pretty easily. I would consider moving the US spawn back to the road to the north of the A sector and if they are going to leave the D sector the way it is, consider moving the RU spawn to the north of E sector.
Just FYI, it is my belief that there is not enough development time left for a second update to any map. So Kaleidoscope and Renewal are done. At most, as they did before, may move an objective area, but I don't think we will see any other changes on these maps going forward.
The biggest complaint was not enough cover for infantry, so they shrunk the map on the edges, then used those assets to provide cover. When I think of open maps, I think of Golmud Railway, it was pretty bare from point to point, but then had cover at the objectives. That seems to be what they attempted here.
@Straatford87 the one thing I would look at is pathing on the A objectives for infantry, as I feel like I am vaulting more than anything else on those points (someone else mentioned this as well). You may be able to remove a few to make the infantry movement less vaulty (if that is a word).
@Adamonic Yes, it's a clear disadvantage for US (i just played 128 player version). The only problem with this map was lack of cover which now is addressed more or less. But I'm still spending to much on running in desert which is actually not fun. They should increase number of transport vehicles in desert part of the map. Although after a few weeks no one will play 128 version of the map and i can only find a match in exedous conquest (64 player) so we sure be more concerned about 64player version of this map lol
@IzEagle wrote:
@AdamonicYes, it's a clear disadvantage for US (i just played 128 player version). The only problem with this map was lack of cover which now is addressed more or less. But I'm still spending to much on running in desert which is actually not fun. They should increase number of transport vehicles in desert part of the map. Although after a few weeks no one will play 128 version of the map and i can only find a match in exedous conquest (64 player) so we sure be more concerned about 64player version of this map lolJump over to D and E. Fun gun battles
