Maps are far too small, and that causes almost all problems with the game

Whether it's weapon balance, class balance, vehicle balance and subpar performance of air assets, Rush mode clusterf despite 12v12 format, Breakthrough on Liberation, general unimportance of defending captured points in Conquest... every single problem can be traced directly to the one feature this beta had: maps. are. too. small. By a lot. Not only in the XY dimensions seen from the strategic map, but also in sorely lacking layers of verticality.

Why are high ROF weapons the only sensible choices atm? Because most encounters are CQC and you need to nuke down the guy who jumped from behind the corner, or you're dead. Why is the Assault the best class on every map - because everything is CQC, where Assault shines through adrenaline and mobility. Why vehicles feel off? Because they have no space to maneuver and have no field of fire to suppress infantry on. Why so many choke points in small game modes (namely Rush and Breakthrough) are sore to play - because there's no space to flank or to create an off-angle. Why defence on Conquest is a waste of time and tickets? Because you need 20-30s top to reach that point from another, at any time, and current flow of the game in Conquest clearly promotes aggressive takeover on the nearest point, no matter whether it's defendable or not. Creating this benny hill experience where group of players just run in circles to blue the other team reds (there's one exception in Liberation and C - if Americans hold this point the other team is utterly f'd, but that again comes from the map being too small, where C spawning can flood D and E way too easy and too fast).

And I cant say I hate Cairo or Empire State - they would be decent CQC maps, and a nice change of pace, to play on from time to time. But that cant be the core of the map design philosophy in BF... it just obsoletes too many options and playstyles and dynamics that make or break Battlefield.