Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

by lI_XTRO_Il

Original Post

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

★★★ Newbie

In regards to the 128 vs 64 players, I believe it is best to convert fully to 64. While I appreciate the concept of 128 players, I don't believe that the current iterations of Breakthrough and Conquest really showcase it in a way that is meaningful, nor do I think it is worth the performance sacrifices it creates, especially in breakthrough where gameplay throttles in heavily fought over areas. The map size and design present in BFV and SWB2 both strike a more meaningful point, Al Sundan not withstanding as many areas of the map are under/not utilized in any meaningful ways.


At the same time, I don't believe that 128 players is an all out bad mode, but I do believe it needs to be broken down more, into a way that focuses more on squad-centric conflicts and encourages those in a way that Drop Zone currently tries to encourage, but makes a bit too difficult to solo-q for. Having a mode, for instance, where a "commander" (could simply be a list like A-1, b-2, c-3 etc) organizes squads and setting certain specific objectives on a larger map for those squads and measuring their success on that, I believe would make better use of squads and operators, as it would focus players into picking operators for their objective, limit spawn points, while maintaining a large battlefield with signature moments when certain squads would succeed in an attack, objective or defence that the series is known for.

Message 21 of 813 (1,967 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

★★★ Novice

with the atmosphere that we were shown in the original trailers cities were war torn with trash and debris everywhere I feel like with these maps adding more trash ,debris ,broken buildings ,boxes  and crates that are scattered and buried in the sand or snow will give them more immersive feel and also add cover that will help the gameplay.

Message 22 of 813 (1,968 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

★★★★★ Guide
@Straatford87 These suggestions were taken from my Ideas/Suggestions thread

10. Maps, This one is going to talk mainly about maps in general, For a game set during a economical crisis and a lot of fighting theres very few signs of combat, For example on hourglass, All of the buildings are brand new and have working LED Lights, I think these should be altered and give the map a more fighting atmosphere, with some of the towers even on fire, some of the buildings missing chunks that have fallen onto the ground to give cover ect, Map altering aspects would be great aswell, I would love to see levolution brought back into the game

Add in a new fortification system, Similar to how Battlefield 5 fortifications were, except have them not placed in allocated areas, Allow for the player to place these fortifications wherever, The main people who can do these are Engineer Roles & Specialists this would make sure that not everyone can place fortifications, These fortifications can range from sandbag placements, to maybe bunkers that are enterable and destroyable, These fortifications can also be offensive and defensive, So for example engineers can place AT Weapons and other stationary weapons, except from AA, I truly think there are way to many ways to destroy Air Vehicles atm, But these can be AT Guns, Lmg positions and maybe Artillery guns, Obviously there would be a limit to some stuff like the weapons and cooldowns ect
Message 23 of 813 (1,966 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

★★★ Newbie

I am an old 43 year old gamer. I found the original battlefield bad company entertaining, spent hours playing and thoroughly enjoyed the game. I don’t know what you can do but can’t you make a fun game like the original bfbc with 2022 graphics ? I would spend my money on this product .

Message 24 of 813 (1,963 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

★★★ Pro
Please remove overtime in breakthrough. Attackers get it too easy. They respawn indefinitelly with 0 penalty. Block their spawn or make them only spawn on base and run. If they can make it - kudos to them. Otherwise they just flooding the point while defenders can't do anything really.
Message 25 of 813 (1,968 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

[ Edited ]
★★★ Newbie

@Straatford87I would like to add that it's not only these issues it's that I don't want to be dropped into the map in some forced far away area from a drop ship. Let me chose my spawn on the map and wait for a bit and spawn on the first captured flag or a squad mate. The way past battlefields have done it worked great.

I'd also like to add that I'd like a return to a map rotation as well as switching from attacker to defender in relevant modes. This was also something that worked well in the past. I know this isn't specifically  map design related but my point on the initial insertion point could help alleviate the long walks.



*edit: I'd like to add that I'd love it if portal maps were made available at least in 64 player AOW modes (128p if that works too) and not only in portal. This would add way more variety and coupled with a true map rotation would be a breath if fresh air. Compared to matchmaking again and again to find a different map than the one you just played. That and I love classic maps and don't want to be forced away from all of my unlocks to play them in portal only. 

Message 26 of 813 (1,940 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

[ Edited ]
★★★★ Apprentice

@Straatford87Dont know if you can do this, but I want a huge improvement to graphics design of the maps. They look pretty flat, especially skyscrapers on Kaleidoscope and Hourglass. I think the problem is the bad lighting and color correction. Dont get me wrong, graphics in this game are extremely good, but I know, and I can see, that they could be better. For examle Kaleidoscope looks flat in sunny weather, but when clouds arrive and starts raining, map become looking pretty decent and not that flat, as before

Message 27 of 813 (1,942 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

★★ Novice

To answer some of the asked questions :

 - Orbital on breakthrough is one that needs addressing, attacking planes crash in to the defenders giving attacking forces an unfair advantage, as well as ruining the beginning of a round.

 - Vehicles need a slight nerf in health, many times it feels like a bolte is invincible even after taking three rocket shots, tanks and Wildcat are in good position IMO, but the turrent turning on the tanks and wildcat feels kind of sluggish. Maybe a lock on rocket like the javelin or the MBT LAW from bf4 will probably help infantry. Now we are reliant on a SOFLAM to achieve such things

 - Hourglass is in a dire need of line of sight blockers on breakthrough for defence the A1, B1, B2 flags are almost undefendable if the attacking team has a semi decent tank or wildcat player,     orbital as well the giant open launch field needs a bit more cover and rubble, Renewal also needs a bit more cover in the green fields between the flags often times you do not have enough   time to go from one cover to the next one to hide from the camping snipers on the walls or the tall building. And you already know about Kaleidoscope.


 - Making the maps just a bit more compact will reduce the travel time between flags, increase the action and be more fun over all.

Message 28 of 813 (1,943 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

★★ Guide
@Straatford87 all maps provide a poor opening experience because of the location of the base spawn, ALL OF THEM! You need to provide an option to NOT spawn in, how difficult can that be? It was literally in every other previous title. So I guess you'd consider it a "legacy feature".

Regarding how to make it easier to understand how to get from one obj to the next, how bout you add the ability to call in a quad or dirt bike? seems simple enough. Getting from one objective to another on 128 player maps isn't difficult but there needs to be a means to do so. And then going forward don't make such large maps and base them on 64 players as obviously 128 players isn't working out as well as you had expected.

Unfortunately there is no way to better define traveling paths between objectives to keep combat focused, the maps are too large and the larger battles will always be focused on the center objectives. Its simply the nature of the beast, use it to your advantage, learn from it and make smaller maps with 64 players so you get that nice vintage mix between downtime and chaos.

I haven't played the game in 2 months because there is no voip, no scoreboard, lack of weapons, 0 infantry only maps, etc. The experience really means nothing right now because there is no variety, you spawn in, run for 15 minutes to reach the first objective which your team has already captured, then run another 5 minutes on your way to the 2nd objective only to mowed down by a heli or bolte. Its simply not fun. I could go 15k-5d in a round and all of those deaths could be due to a vehicle. Thats really not how battlefield should be IMHO. Figure it out and get back to me when you have a game thats worth playing.
Message 29 of 813 (1,930 Views)

Re: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps - Feedback Thread

[ Edited ]
★★ Expert

@Straatford87Man, no clue why it took two full months to put this post together but oh well. Feedback I have at the moment -

Infantry vs. vehicle balance on breakthrough - It's garbage. Hot, utter, massive garbage. There are too many vehicles that can spawn and infantry have little counter to them outside of some lame C5 drones or hacking them, which is only available to a one character consistently.

If both teams can "handle" armor/air the matches are fairly fine, but it requires your armor/air and their armor/air to largely be matched. If you CAN'T or they CAN'T, it's a steamroll where armor/air just wipes the floor with the other team with little to no recourse. It snowballs and it feels like *.

Beyond that half the vehicles feel like garbage to play against. Bolte is a prime offender since it's easy to position it defensively so you can't shoot the driver/gunner and is quick enough to evade most anti armor rounds. Vehicles in general feel like garbage

And that's it for now. I'm not sure why you're asking this, though, even from what little reading I've done this is all * that's been discussed extensively while the game still had a community.

Now the community is dead and y'all are expecting to get tons of qualitative feedback and it's way, way, way too late. All that's being shown off for the "bigger work" is a few capture points moved around? Like, that's bad, DICE. It honestly looks like nobody is working on this game.

At least the blog post is nice. To respond to that -

Traversal: Still blown away that the game ended up being a "walking simulator" and nobody on the team noticed. This was apparent literally within the first few matches in open beta. How'd y'all not notice?

Intensity: May, maybe y'all should have listened to DICE from a decade ago when they said 128 players wasn't fun (I think it is) and is hard to design around. Maybe don't get super ambitious if you don't have an experienced team.

LoS: I'm glad you feel and hear us, I'm not sure how this was missed in internal testing either since it's GLARINGLY OBVIOUS WITHIN A FEW MATCHES.

Paths: Why should we have confidence y'all can figure this out when you thought capture points on top of rooftops in breakthrough was a good idea?

Cover: Basically the same issue as LoS.

I mean, we're 3 months into the year and you still need more time to move capture locations and spawn points? You're just starting feedback now?

Does anyone at DICE even actually work on this game or have y'all moved the team onto the next one?

I was expecting a lot more detailed and better delivered communication than this given that y'all haven't said * for a few months but hey, I guess this is better than continued silence.

Lost of, "We agree with your frustrations." not a lot of "We're sorry we delivered a half-baked game with glaringly obvious design flaws and mistakes."

Message 30 of 813 (1,918 Views)


What's EA Play?

New name, new look, same great benefits: EA Access and Origin Access are now EA Play.

Get more info on the change here.


Forget your EA Account ID or password?

Reset, update, or link your account information.

View more on EA Help