Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

by Straatford87

Original Post

Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

[ Edited ]

Hi folks,


On March 2 we shared our Core Feedback initiative with you, helping to outline what it is that we’ve seen, and heard from you since we launched the game, and how we’re keen to discuss the ways in which we are bringing improvements to the game - asking for your thoughts on our plans along the way.


Our first post focused on maps and the experience that you have playing on them. Over the course of March, we’ve collected thousands of your comments via the Battlefield Forums, Twitter, Discord, Reddit and other spaces. Thank you for being a part of that conversation. From the lengthy word count explorers, to the Video Essay producers, and the ‘+1, ^ this’ crowd - your views and thoughts are deeply appreciated by us.


We have taken the necessary time to read through, listen, and identify your common top points of feedback. This has all then been reviewed with the design teams to ask how your feedback aligns with our current design goals, and how best we can help to prioritize our work to help bring the changes you feel are most impactful in this area. 


Today I’ll share with you the top points on what we’ve learned from your feedback, the next steps that we’re taking for map design, and a timeline as to when you can expect to see these first changes delivered in-game.





For Traversal we outlined that travel time on foot between Base Spawn and Flags was too long. Our proposed solution is to reduce overall travel time between these areas by moving them closer together.


We shared that the first map in need of changes is Kaleidoscope, which through your feedback you’ve confirmed to us is the right call. However, you’ve also shared with us that Renewal is another map that really needs to see changes made to it. We hear you on that, and we’re looking to deliver a refreshed version of Renewal alongside Kaleidoscope as part of Season 1 this summer.


To give you a better understanding of what to expect, here are several examples of our work in progress intent to improve traversal across both maps:






Another feedback point was that you’d like us to shift focus away from traversal by foot by ensuring that there are more transport vehicles active on the map. Increasing the number of active vehicles on the map isn’t something we can do as a short term solution as this has the potential to impact our separate work on improving game performance, but we do hear you on this and want to do what we can to approach the problem from different angles.


One of the ways in which we think we can limit the amount of time spent on foot is to change the distribution of vehicles across our selection pools. We are currently exploring how gameplay changes when the two seater M5C Bolte features as part of the Armored Vehicle pool, and MAV instead shows up in the Transport Vehicles category, as well as shifting the MD540 Nightbird out into the Attack Helicopter pool, ensuring that Air Transport is more readily available in the round.





In our first post, we detailed that there wasn’t enough Cover available across maps to ensure safety when traveling between Flags. Additionally, we highlighted that there aren’t enough Line of Sight blockers, introducing an unintended increase on the number of long range engagements.


You’ve asked us to ensure that when we are moving around both Flags and Objectives to new areas, that we’re also working to ensure that sufficient Cover is available in their new locations. We hear you on that, and work is already underway that helps to ensure this standard is upheld. We believe that this should also resolve Line of Sight issues that have been highlighted by you.


Here are several examples on Kaleidoscope and Renewal to show where we not only intend to add further Cover via obstacles, but also by elevating terrain to block Line of Sight:














Immersion is another point you’ve asked for us to look at, often through discussion of how the maps feel too clean, and pristine. You’ve expressed to us that you want it to feel like each Flag and Objective needs to have more strategic value, and something that you feel is worth fighting for.


As an example taken from the improvements we’re bringing to Kaleidoscope, we’re updating the gazebo on B1 into a military installment. We’ll replace grass with mud, and cover the area in barbed wire to better immerse it into our world, and to bring improvements to the narrative of our battles. We want you to feel the objectives are ready for battle whilst you are fighting over them.






For Intensity we outlined that especially in 128* player modes, combat can become too chaotic around our Objectives, making it hard to determine what’s going on around you, and where you should be keeping your attention. 


You’ve told us that in your experience, the primary cause for this problem is vehicle dominance. 


Based on that feedback there are several changes we’ll make to reduce overall vehicle availability and uptime:


  • We’re reducing the number of attack vehicles and helicopters that can be active at any time in 128 player modes per category from 3, to 2. This means you’ll only be able to encounter 2 tanks, and 2 attack helicopters available at any time, instead of 3 each.
  • We’re increasing the cooldown for attack vehicles and helicopters from 60, to 120 seconds.

  • As discussed earlier, the MD540 Nightbird will be moved from transport into the attack helicopter category, and the MC5 Bolte will also be moved from transport into the attack vehicle category.

In summary, this means current dominant vehicles will see a reduction in active time, and you’ll encounter less of them on the Battlefield. 


This is the first set of priority changes we’re able to make to Intensity that should see an immediate improvement to gameplay, and they’re part of our next game Update.


There’s two final things that we also heard and saw shared in your feedback this month that we wanted to bring to the forefront to solicit more input from all of you. 


We saw many of you make the suggestion that we could restrict the call-in system to only light vehicles and Ranger. This would mean that attack vehicles would now only be available via the Deploy Screen. For Flag areas, you’ve asked if these could be made larger to further spread out combat over this area. These are still ongoing discussions that we’re reviewing, so whilst we haven’t progressed that discussion into active changes in development, we’d love to hear from more of you on these two things specifically.





We outlined that there were too few clear Paths between Flags, making it unclear where enemy fire could come from, or how to best travel between Flags.


You’ve told us that you’d like to see this improved by lining up Cover in such a way that it follows a clear path between Objectives. This is something we’re looking to update once we’ve finished moving Base Spawn and different Flag locations closer together.


You’ve also told us that several areas on maps are underutilized and that they serve no purpose for travel. To address this you can expect us to explore removing the most underutilized areas. A good example of that would be on E1 on Renewal, which we are reviewing to become an out of bounds area to make an immediate improvement to pathing on that map.






We’ve discussed several changes today that we’ll not only make to maps, but also to gameplay such as how often or how many vehicles you’ll see on the Battlefield.


The first changes we’ll make are to vehicle play and availability, and those will be ready in the next Update. Following that you’ll start to see the first updates to Flag, Base Spawn locations, and Cover and Line of Sight on Kaleidoscope and Renewal. These changes will arrive during Season 1, and as we get closer to deploying those updates we’ll be able to share all of the specifics.


We’re now getting started on bringing these same standards of updates to our other launch maps alongside needed visual changes to make all maps feel ready for battle. There’s a lot of work involved in doing that, so you can expect us to start discussing more about those updates during Season 1, and for the changes themselves during Season 2.




We’ll return in a couple of weeks with a new topic for Core Feedback, this time focusing on Specialists. We’re currently preparing a similar post for you as we’ve done for maps, and we’re looking forward to getting that in front of you to open up that discussion. We know Specialists has been a major topic for you, and we’re looking forward to sharing with you what we’ve planned to improve their gameplay and fit into the World of Battlefield™ 2042.


Lastly, we’ve received thousands of comments from you throughout March. I want to end with another thank you, and to say how much we appreciate your dedication and feedback while we continue to work on delivering updates to Battlefield 2042. So many of you reaching out means a lot to the team, and we’re looking forward to continuing these conversations with you.


*Supported on Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation®5, and PC only. Xbox One and PlayStation®4 will be locked at 64 players.


This announcement may change as we listen to community feedback and continue developing and evolving our Live Service & Content. We will always strive to keep our community as informed as possible.

Message 1 of 285 (7,834 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

[ Edited ]
★★★★★ Apprentice

This is all well and good, but it’s not going to bring the players back, the game’s been bugged since it started in November and the few people still playing are waiting until April to be able to aim down the sight when exiting a vehicle?! The maps changes are good but it isn’t enough and far too late. The bugs shouldn’t be taking 5 months to fix. As for the specialists next they need replacing altogether, especially those annoying as hell quips that they have, get rid, go back to classes for gods sake. If people wanted to play Apex they’d go play that, don’t need to hear the same quip over and over again. And for the love of god give us either dedicated servers or a server browser, I’m sick of having to play the same map 4 times in a row as that’s the only one that loads. 

Message 2 of 285 (7,772 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

[ Edited ]
★★★ Guide

@Straatford87  EDIT - For Renewal removing the distribution centre results in the loss of quite a few buildings and props which are unique to Renewal.

Please see the mock up I have done which relocates the distribution centre warehouse to the power inverter location B1, and relocated algae ponds and structures to the fields between D and E. This would result in most of the action being between areas with decent cover whilst retaining all the unique buildings. You can open the image in a new window to see it in slightly higher detail





The feedback loop changes are definitely an improvement for the most part.X

I would recommend a lot more sandbags around the streets - sandbags can be destructible, whereas concrete blocks are only semi-destructible.

Also sandbags give off a more "militarised" feeling, compared to concrete blocks.

Further to this, some metal hedgehogs and concrete hedgehogs would go a long way see images


But also, add a server browser for AoW, this is more important.


conc hedgehog.jpg


Message 3 of 285 (7,745 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

[ Edited ]
★★ Expert

@Straatford87Overall good changes and I'll need to chew on them more, but this still feels underwhelming after a month of feedback and 5 months post launch. The game needs much, much, much more than this, but I guess y'all can't talk about anything else.

At least vehicle spam should be less awful, though now with a lot more awful Boltes and Little Birds which is gonna be a joy for the absolutely abysmal vehicle vs. infantry balance.


Edit: Why is the specialist feedback thread opening in a few weeks? Why not now? Where the hell is the urgency to fix this busted game and deliver consumers the game y'all promised and sold us on? Is bandwidth really this limited that only one area can be worked on at a time within DICE?

Message 4 of 285 (7,742 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread


@edgecrusherO0 wrote:
@Straatford87 Overall good changes and I'll need to chew on them more, but this still feels underwhelming after a month of feedback and 5 months post launch. The game needs much, much, much more than this, but I guess y'all can't talk about anything else.

At least vehicle spam should be less awful, though now with a lot more awful Boltes and Little Birds which is gonna be a joy for the absolutely abysmal vehicle vs. infantry balance.

I'm very happy that we are able to get the vehicle changes into your hands in the next update - it should be a big improvement to overall gameplay.


I know you'd like to see more of what's planned, and I can clarify that what we've shared today is only specific to the topic of Maps. There's more we are working on, but that's not a discussion for today. We'll follow-up in April with a similar discussion on Specialists, so looking forward to your feedback on that as well.

Message 5 of 285 (7,709 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

★★★★★ Novice

Yes, the maps suck at the moment. However there is an entire player base on console that can't play with each other or AT ALL with PC crossplay off! What good does tweaking the maps or voice comms do when WE CAN'T get into a game! The pace of this navel gazing is agonizing... 5 months in and GAME BREAKING things like not being able to ADS still exist. The new BF game will be online before you finish coming up with the proper format for a BLOG. C'mon man, this is some next level dysfunction. ROAD MAP! COMMUNICATE DATES! KEEP THEM!

Message 6 of 285 (7,696 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

★★★ Guide

Thank you.

This is a small step in the right direction.

More cover everywhere please.

Also ensure we get some NEW content for the game, not just corrections to the launch data.

"Live Service" is not just a catchphrase.



Message 7 of 285 (7,688 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

★★★ Guide

@Straatford87 regarding the changes to transport vehicles, will you be adding more spawns for ATV's / quadbikes?


The spawns for these are few and far between. A couple of these at most isolated capture points and main bases would go a long way.

Similarly, there really should be some kind of partially armoured light transport for quickly carrying 4 people. In previous games we had HMMV's, Vodniks and other transports.


Message 8 of 285 (7,667 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

★★★★★ Expert

Interesting tines ahead.

Message 9 of 285 (7,660 Views)

Re: Core Feedback - Maps, Next Steps | Discussion Thread

★ Pro
@Straatford87 That's not even the bare minimum to bring me back, the bare minimum for me is to remove the entire specialist system and their stories and their gadgets+ having more characters for each military, and add all the weapons and vehicles of Battlefield 4 + leaning left and right + full xp portal if AI is disabled + server browser

That's the bare minimum, and I know you won't even get close to that my expectation of you as studio are below my K/D when I was 7.

Message 10 of 285 (7,639 Views)
Twitter Stream


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