Forum Discussion
8 Replies
- Spikethenewb18 hours agoRising Novice
Also, Blackwell Fields...
I can't tell which one is worse at this moment. Please Dice!!! - ghostflux18 hours agoRising Ace
I think New Sobek City wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't so easy to rooftop camp. It could probably use some adjustments around the C/E area to break up the sightlines to all of the buildings surrounding it.
- cso777718 hours agoSeasoned Ace
"Verticality" sound fun, but in reality makes for awful game-play. Especially when the map has lots of open areas without very much cover.
- Spikethenewb18 hours agoRising Novice
I think the biggest issue with it is that it is far too small. If it was opened up and some of the rooftop camping spots were addressed, I think it would be a better map.
- Deriiian18 hours agoSeasoned Newcomer
New Sobek City is fine , Blackwell Fields is just so bad , I do not understand how you can add these many vehicles in such small map , you get locked on your Heli and jets while still in base , and there is an objective literally right next to your base in Conquest.
0 Covers for anything and people stay with tanks in base with laser guided shells/missiles - ghostflux16 hours agoRising Ace
Verticality is fine as long as the game is designed around it. If a rooftop is accessible through multiple entry points from the ground, it becomes a pretty big risk to stay there. The B objective on Manhattan Bridge has the exact opposite problem, it pretty much can't be effectively camped/defended because there's more than 6 different entry points.
New Sobek City has this issue where there's tons of buildings that either don't have any entry points, or have just one entry point. That means you either have to pull some pretty acrobatics with the assault ladder or you have to parachute on top of the building from a heli. Shooting down from a heli works as well, but you almost immediately get sniped by RPGs on that map, if you don't maintain a pretty fast pace.
- MoistGooche15 hours agoSeasoned Newcomer
Manhattan’s bridge is trash for breakthrough I’d say.
- Zhukov21113 hours agoSeasoned Ace
Horribly designed objectives with ZERO cover like Objective A and Objective E on this map on Conquest make PTFO a joke because snipers or tanks can pick you off from high ground a mile away. And DICE took away smoke from 3/4 classes, smoke that is essential for capturing these horribly designed objectives.
Siege of Shanghai map in BF4 has a lot of verticality but also tons of cover for foot soldiers to traverse and avoid getting sniped from 360 degrees 90% of the match. I swear the Neu DICE devs since BFV never played BF4 or BF1.
I really do vehemently hate how PTFO isn’t necessary in BF6 in order to defend a lot of Conquest objectives on a lot of maps in BF6 due to infinite sight lines and due to the lack of proper trenches and proper overhead cover inside the capture zones.
About Battlefield 6 General Discussion
Community Highlights
Recent Discussions
- 23 seconds ago
- 7 minutes ago
- 16 minutes ago
- 16 minutes ago
- 20 minutes ago