Is BF labs not being used anymore?
It’s good we get fixes and changes, but seeing as it’s not been long since the release the amount issues being fixed is a bit alarming not to mention the back and fort on some fundamental parts of th...
Forum Discussion
Whoever play tested the Eastwood map needs to be fired or let go from the test bed of player volunteers.
Conquest. At Objectives A and B, once the buildings are destroyed, there’s literally ZERO cover . If you’re trying to contest or capture the objective, you’re easily picked off from enemy tanks on nearby high ground, picked off by far off snipers and , of course, picked off by the enemy helicopter. You’re literal sitting ducks trying to capture the objective that has no cover.
Objective B isn’t much better either. There is a lone shipping container as the only cover with open sight lines from 100 yards away all around.
Then there’s the fact that Objectives A and E can be defended from the enemy “out of bounds” HQ areas because the out of bounds zone is literally 10 yards from the capture zone. Thats beyond incompetent map design.
We went through this pain in 2042 with most of the maps being totally overhauled and the objectives having extensive amounts of cover added. Even in BFV the Panzerstorm map overhaul had to be done because of the lack of cover for infantry.
And it’s not like DICE hasn’t made great objectives in previous games. How did this map make it to LIVE without someone raising a hand and saying something about these poorly thought out objectives??
Defenders should have to actually get in there and defend objectives from inside the objective, rather than having clear, unimpeded fields of fire into every inch of the capture zone from afar because there is no cover.
