DICE, PLS! We dont need such big maps for 32v32.
DICE, a simple question: have you actually been reading the feedback on your own forum, or are you just ignoring it?
Right now Battlefield has a serious identity problem. You keep designing huge maps that feel empty, slow, and lifeless, while the actual player count is nowhere near enough to support them. The result is predictable: long travel times, dull downtime, too much running, too little fighting, and entire sections of the map that might as well not exist.
This is not “tactical.” This is not “immersive.” It is just wasted space.
A Battlefield map should feel alive, contested, and constantly shifting. Instead, too many of these oversized maps feel like a walking simulator with occasional gunfights. If you want to make maps this large, then increase the player count so the map density actually makes sense. More players means more contact, more pressure on objectives, more frontline movement, and a better Battlefield experience.
If you are not willing to increase player count, then stop making maps that are built around it. Design maps for the number of players you actually want on them. Smaller, tighter, more focused maps are better than giant empty ones every single time.
The current approach is the worst of both worlds: maps too big for the player count, and player count too small for the maps.
Please stop pretending this is working. The feedback has been consistent for a reason. Either make large maps truly support large-scale battles, or stop forcing this empty-map design on the community.
Battlefield is supposed to be about large-scale warfare, not dead space.
