What’s your map order, favourite to least favourite.

Comments

  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Well, first of all I do not like any of the maps that BFV has to offer, I think they are only a slight improvement over BF1 maps (if at all) and they suffer the issues as the predecessor. Very open map design with little to no clear lanes, not enough cover between the flags and the cover that is available is small houses. This means that the game either forces you into longer range engagements, or point blank range. The overemphasized destruction just increases that effect. As for the maps:
    Maps that are okay:
    Rotterdam (because it has lanes), Devastation (a map where flanking does not take 30 seconds), Arras, (very open, but you can avoid a lot of frustration when avoiding some places)
    Maps that are meh:
    Fjell (satifies my infantry needs, barely)
    Maps that are not enjoyable:
    Hamada (too big and open), Aerodrome (the old "put a huge structure in the middle of the map so that infantry has a meatgrinder, but nothing else"-design concept), Twisted Steel (a bigger Arras with Operation Locker crashed in the middle)
    Maps that I really hate: Narvik (supposedly having lanes, while being totally open, where white guys fight in white backgrounds in a white snowstorm with an awful performance), Panzerstorm (very big, very open, very unnecessary)
  • motojdr6
    183 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It's funny to see that people are hating on Hamada for being too big or having it's flags being spread out over a larger area ... wasn't this community constantly moaning for large BF2 style maps throughout the life cycle of BFBC2/BF3/BF4/BF1? Wasn't this the same community that said that the Dragon Valley remake (which was bloody massive) for BF4 was too small? Wasn't this the same community that accused BF1 for having 'CoD-sised' maps? I'm not saying that everyone in this thread was voicing these sorts of complaints, but I find this whole thing to be pretty silly.

    DICE makes bigger maps and people complain that they're too big ... it's just like those that wanted TTK 2.0 in BF1 and then complained about getting killed too quickly in BFV. Imagine if they re-made El-Alamein in it's full sise for BFV ... this community would end up hating it, even though hardcore Refactor era veterans insist that gigantic maps are in the best interest of the franchise.

    A classic case of 'careful what you wish for'.

    I play conquest. I like big maps, but Hamada plays out really weird. It does not play out like a big map.

    British side feels like you’re constantly fighting over a convex hill that never ends with engagements always no more or no less than 20-30 meters, over the exact same dusty hill anywhere on this side of the map. Every single engagement feels exactly the same. Playing recon isn’t even fun of this map, because lining up headshots on players running over such uneven surfaces is just guess work, and there is still so much cover that getting a second shot surprisingly never happens. You could have 15 different firefights on this side of the map, and they would all be EXACTLY the same experience. Whereas if you have 15 fights on maps like Caspian border, Firestorm, alborz mountain, Sinai desert, golmud railway, gulf of Oman (and many more) etc. Every. Single. Fight. Would be completely different and unique from one another. And offer up a completely new experience.

    The other side of the map plays out like it’s own completely detached battle that has nothing to do with the British side. Just a squad or two playing ring around the Rosie capping the same 3 flags off each other, fighting in the same exact building asset set across 3 flags, or the same dusty hill at G. Both sides secretly kinda hoping they don’t fully clear the area because then they are left sitting there with absolutely nothing to do. Maybe run for 3 minutes over to the other side only to get killed by some LMG in a bush you can’t possibly see with camo.

    The heatwaves and monotone style of the map makes for a good postcard picture or movie backdrop, it only cements how boring and one dimensional all engagements and landscapes feel. While it does look very beautiful in the air, it also makes planes Incredibly unfun to fight infantry because you can’t see jack, but doghfights can be fun with all the obstacles. It’s also a chore to drive a Jeep on this map, because you can only drive on the road. Driving off road is like driving a sedan through a forest, whereas on other big maps driving a Jeep as the crow flies is fun and exciting.

    I like big maps, but Hamada just does not play out well for any class or vehicle. Every fight is the same. Sight lines are surprisingly claustrophobic for a big map.

    I disagree with you it’s the “players fault” for wanting big maps, and saying people don’t know what they want. They want the experience that maps like Caspian border, gulf of Oman, golmud railway and even arras provide. It’s just obviously hard for the devs to always nail the gameplay of these maps when designing them, and the devs need to try new things too.

  • PvtJohnTowle
    1036 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Baabbas wrote: »
    I like them all, except the Fjell because of the bomb fest of bombers....
    i cant find any reason why Dice add planes to this map?
    make a Fell map air superiority only and leave other version of infantry only.

    This map is like a bonus round to planes to farm kills.....
    The bombers are indestructible as they are right now, more than I can count i keep shooting them with the AA marshmallow shooter and it keeps coming straight ahead to bomb me.....
    The AA dont even scare them...

    Just make it infantry only and it would be fantastic agree the bombers are devastating on this map. Not really needed.
  • moosehunter1969
    1108 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    1) Rotterdam, because i am from rotterdam and because the map is a very good infantry-tank conquest map.

    2) Hamada, as a fighter pilot: we need more maps like this, where planes can fly more than 10cm from their base before getting spammed to death by base flak turret sitting basement dwellers.

    3) Narvik, good fun and spread out for both planes and infantry, less so for tanks because of the hills.

    4) twisted steel, the swamps should get more cover, the bridge is usually the chokepoint and tanks rule here.

    5) Arras, as much as i love the map a infantry and how it looks its placed low on the list because its absolute cancer for fighter planes, because sure enough this map has some incel sitting on the flak turret in the base spamming shells halfway across the map.

    6) Fjell, weird map, makes no sense to add planes here, and the flak turrets here are cancer.

    8) Aerodrome, intresting for tanks were it not that the flow is ridiculous with the flag placement, and the hangar meatgrinding gets old really quick.

    7) Devastation, infantry cancer map that is much akin to the awfulness that was tsaritsyn in BF1

    Are you 12? Stop with all this cancer BS, it’s a video game not a horrible disease that takes away your friends and family before their time. Grow up.
  • nifod
    19 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hamada is the worst, too big and CQA followed by fjell. Squads are just running in circles.
  • SlowOldWarrior
    461 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Fjell sucks ****!
  • mav_smileyface
    1313 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    1) Rotterdam, because i am from rotterdam and because the map is a very good infantry-tank conquest map.

    2) Hamada, as a fighter pilot: we need more maps like this, where planes can fly more than 10cm from their base before getting spammed to death by base flak turret sitting basement dwellers.

    3) Narvik, good fun and spread out for both planes and infantry, less so for tanks because of the hills.

    4) twisted steel, the swamps should get more cover, the bridge is usually the chokepoint and tanks rule here.

    5) Arras, as much as i love the map a infantry and how it looks its placed low on the list because its absolute cancer for fighter planes, because sure enough this map has some incel sitting on the flak turret in the base spamming shells halfway across the map.

    6) Fjell, weird map, makes no sense to add planes here, and the flak turrets here are cancer.

    8) Aerodrome, intresting for tanks were it not that the flow is ridiculous with the flag placement, and the hangar meatgrinding gets old really quick.

    7) Devastation, infantry cancer map that is much akin to the awfulness that was tsaritsyn in BF1

    Are you 12? Stop with all this cancer BS, it’s a video game not a horrible disease that takes away your friends and family before their time. Grow up.

    I agree with the use of the word cancer, but to be fair he gave an honest review of the maps!
  • FCKJM
    70 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    Playing grand operations as a sniper most of the time:

    Like to play on:
    Narvik
    Rotterdam
    Aerodrome
    Hamada (map size is too big - I normally only play on flag A, B, C and D)
    Twisted Steel
    Arras

    Don't like to play on:
    Fjell
    Devastation
  • WoIfclaw
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Ranking based on Conquest game mode. Order would probably change quite a bit for other modes.

    Arras
    Twisted Steel
    Rotterdam
    Aerodrome
    Narvik
    Devastation
    Fjell 652
    Hamada
  • dandop_oq7r7ppf
    313 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Twisted Steel - This map has grown on me, and is now my favorite. Plays very well in Breakthrough. Lots of variety and flanking routes, and plenty of cover. I recommend wearing green camo, it will help you a lot.

    Arras- beautiful map, I enjoy how the focus is in the center, and lots of flanking routes. One of the few maps I enjoy playing Conquest on

    Devastation- I do very well on this map as Recon. Surprisingly. All around great infantry map, and works for all modes.

    Rotterdam- Some of my best kill streaks have been done around the train station. Solid map.

    Fjell652- Fun map, and easy to blend in and ambush players. Not sure why a lot of people dislike this map, it’s always a fun time, and lots of action

    Narvik- sometimes I love this map, and other times I can’t stand it.
    Overall it’s good, and I’ve had some amazing flanks on the B flag.

    Aerodrome- Thought about ratings this one higher, and I usually I have good games on it, but I find it a bit boring compared to the others.

    Hamada- I actually think this is a decent map, and I actually like conquest assault on it. I think normal conguest would be to slow paced. This map works best on Breakthrough or Front lines. The more I play this map the more I enjoy it, and it’s only at the bottom (right now) because I’m still getting the hang of this map, and learning the flank routes.
  • ArcBird
    20 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    Arras
    Devastation
    Twisted steel
    Rotterdam
    Hamada
    Narvik
    Aerodrome
    Fjell 652

    Just too many bombers on Fjell.. we'll see after the nerf. But imo that map should only really have like 1 bomber and 1 or 2 fighters / team.
  • trip1ex
    5332 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    motojdr6 wrote: »
    It's funny to see that people are hating on Hamada for being too big or having it's flags being spread out over a larger area ... wasn't this community constantly moaning for large BF2 style maps throughout the life cycle of BFBC2/BF3/BF4/BF1? Wasn't this the same community that said that the Dragon Valley remake (which was bloody massive) for BF4 was too small? Wasn't this the same community that accused BF1 for having 'CoD-sised' maps? I'm not saying that everyone in this thread was voicing these sorts of complaints, but I find this whole thing to be pretty silly.

    DICE makes bigger maps and people complain that they're too big ... it's just like those that wanted TTK 2.0 in BF1 and then complained about getting killed too quickly in BFV. Imagine if they re-made El-Alamein in it's full sise for BFV ... this community would end up hating it, even though hardcore Refactor era veterans insist that gigantic maps are in the best interest of the franchise.

    A classic case of 'careful what you wish for'.

    I play conquest. I like big maps, but Hamada plays out really weird. It does not play out like a big map.

    British side feels like you’re constantly fighting over a convex hill that never ends with engagements always no more or no less than 20-30 meters, over the exact same dusty hill anywhere on this side of the map. Every single engagement feels exactly the same. Playing recon isn’t even fun of this map, because lining up headshots on players running over such uneven surfaces is just guess work, and there is still so much cover that getting a second shot surprisingly never happens. You could have 15 different firefights on this side of the map, and they would all be EXACTLY the same experience. Whereas if you have 15 fights on maps like Caspian border, Firestorm, alborz mountain, Sinai desert, golmud railway, gulf of Oman (and many more) etc. Every. Single. Fight. Would be completely different and unique from one another. And offer up a completely new experience.

    The other side of the map plays out like it’s own completely detached battle that has nothing to do with the British side. Just a squad or two playing ring around the Rosie capping the same 3 flags off each other, fighting in the same exact building asset set across 3 flags, or the same dusty hill at G. Both sides secretly kinda hoping they don’t fully clear the area because then they are left sitting there with absolutely nothing to do. Maybe run for 3 minutes over to the other side only to get killed by some LMG in a bush you can’t possibly see with camo.

    The heatwaves and monotone style of the map makes for a good postcard picture or movie backdrop, it only cements how boring and one dimensional all engagements and landscapes feel. While it does look very beautiful in the air, it also makes planes Incredibly unfun to fight infantry because you can’t see jack, but doghfights can be fun with all the obstacles. It’s also a chore to drive a Jeep on this map, because you can only drive on the road. Driving off road is like driving a sedan through a forest, whereas on other big maps driving a Jeep as the crow flies is fun and exciting.

    I like big maps, but Hamada just does not play out well for any class or vehicle. Every fight is the same. Sight lines are surprisingly claustrophobic for a big map.

    I disagree with you it’s the “players fault” for wanting big maps, and saying people don’t know what they want. They want the experience that maps like Caspian border, gulf of Oman, golmud railway and even arras provide. It’s just obviously hard for the devs to always nail the gameplay of these maps when designing them, and the devs need to try new things too.

    Yep good observations. The map is bleached out and really behaves like 2 small maps separated by a bridge over a large canyon. And you can't drive much of anywhere except on the roads. Back in BF42 the large maps had smooth landscapes that allowed driving virtually everywhere especially on desert maps. Also an El Alamein had 3 flags. Not 6 or 7 where everyone is all over the place like a headless chicken. And in the old days you could see enemies and the maps had a fog of war that meant you could only see ~400m out.
  • Mediffs
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    About 40hours in. Been mostly playing Conquest using Assault/Medic/Support somewhat evenly. Have also spawned as scout once. Not proud of it.

    Rotterdam - Feels like a very balanced map and is the only map where I often use all 3 classes in the same round as all the classes have good areas to effectively use their weapons in.
    Devastation - Some fast paced chaos, especially around the cathedral. Sometimes annoyingly chaotic, but the best map to enjoy the high rates of fire of the Suomi smg and the M1907.
    Hamada - Maybe surprisingly a very differently paced map in my top3. Brings a breath of fresh air not having to be in adhd mode all the time. A bit of an oddball though, because getting from one flag to another is great fun with a G43/M1 Carbine, but once you get there you wish you had a high rof weapon instead. Fun map to hunt vehicles with a Panzerfaust.
    Arras - Usually fun, but sometimes frustrating due to the endless amount of routes people can take. The result being that at anytime someone can come from pretty much any direction. Would be totally fine with that if you could hear enemies a bit better in this game though...
    Twisted Steel - Often feels like everyone else is on the bridge and you're trying to get the other flags alone. Fun if the teams are evenly balanced though.
    Narvik - Same as Twisted steel as it feels your team always ignores one side of the map.
    Fjell 652 - Actually had fun on this map a couple of times, but usually I just leave when this map comes up. Feels like the rounds here are either pretty fun, or absolutely awful.
    Aerodrome - Controlling the hangar in the middle decides the game, and the hangar is just a big hall with a corridor on both sides. You could remove all the other flags from this map and it would play exactly the same. Haven't found anything fun to do on this map.

  • cweberling
    374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    I’m roughly 15 hours in now so I feel I have a reasonable grasp of all the maps

    I am pure infantry, although over the next two years I’ll probably dabble a 1000 kills or so in a tank but I doubt I’ll engage more than thst

    Arass Clear favourite
    Rotterdam
    Aerodrome
    Norvik
    Fjell sp?
    Hamada
    Twisted steel
    Devastation - absolute worst it’s just a spam fest joke of a map and really dishonours conquest

    Norvik to twisted steel.. can switch places dependant on the day,

    As Sinai was beta map for BF1 and remained my favourite map I think Dice know how to hit map BF betamap buttons lol

    mmmm playing mostly frontlines or breakthrough.....Arass, Fjell (especially with the snow storm...but it does turn into a choke point meat grinder....but I like it), Aerodrome, Rotterdam, Twisted Steel (I love the lush swampy farm feel...but the spawns are terrible and it doesn't play well at all.), Devastation, and Hamada (dear goodness Hamada is a beautiful map...but absolutely terrible. Same problem as Twisted steel...spawns are terrible and it plays terribly.)
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It's funny to see that people are hating on Hamada for being too big or having it's flags being spread out over a larger area ... wasn't this community constantly moaning for large BF2 style maps throughout the life cycle of BFBC2/BF3/BF4/BF1? Wasn't this the same community that said that the Dragon Valley remake (which was bloody massive) for BF4 was too small? Wasn't this the same community that accused BF1 for having 'CoD-sised' maps? I'm not saying that everyone in this thread was voicing these sorts of complaints, but I find this whole thing to be pretty silly.

    DICE makes bigger maps and people complain that they're too big ... it's just like those that wanted TTK 2.0 in BF1 and then complained about getting killed too quickly in BFV. Imagine if they re-made El-Alamein in it's full sise for BFV ... this community would end up hating it, even though hardcore Refactor era veterans insist that gigantic maps are in the best interest of the franchise.

    A classic case of 'careful what you wish for'.

    My issue with the map isn't its size or flag locations, but rather that the ticket bleed is too fast in the beginning. And because teamplay is still something you need to look hard and long for most times the rounds end really quickly with 400-500 - 0 matches. At least that's what i've experienced on the map. It's easy to avoid, yet it happens so often. It's not the map's fault really, but still makes me put hamada as the least favorite map.
  • Welshy_Jim1986
    9 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1. Arras
    2. Rotterdam
    3. Aerodrome
    4. Devastation
    5. Twisted Steel
    6. Fjell
    7. Narvik
    8. Hamada


  • Trokey66
    9163 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    1. Arras
    2. Rotterdam
    3. Aerodrome
    4. Devastation
    5. Twisted Steel
    6. Fjell
    7. Narvik
    8. Hamada


    Having put a few more hours in, if you switched Fjell and Hamada, this would be me.
  • Saltychipmunk
    55 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I find the maps vary if quality from game mode to game mode .

    But for front lines .

    The best has to be rotterdam and twisted steel

    And the worst is hamada and devastation. That being said most of the maps are terrible on front lines. even the likes of arras since most of the time the last point becomes a shameless camp fest for the defending team. the uncaps are way too close to the objectives so it is virtually impossible to secure the points.
  • NuthinButSteel
    148 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    I don't know if I have a favorite map but I do like Devastation for sure.

    It's got kind of a Stalingrad vibe to it but that's just me.

    I love maps that have fast paced intense combat. Also a good map to call in v1's.
  • nifod
    19 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The worst is hamada because CQA and to much distance between ABCD AND EFG flags, followed by fjell. But probably panzerstorm will be even worse. Even bigger than hamada and full of tanks. I give it a go for a few conquest matches, but i'm not very hopefull for the infantry 😀
Sign In or Register to comment.