1543 postsMember, Administrator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, EA Community Manager, Battlefield V
edited March 2019
With the varied maps in Battlefield V, we go from cities to snowy mountains and deserts to devastated airfields. Each map (Panzerstorm included) has their own quirks, and each can tweak how you play based on situational circumstances specific to that map. We'll go over some of the top comments from you, our community, and have a constructive discussion on what makes a map a "bad map" and what really good maps look like.

Community feedback:
  • More Maps - Yep, we know the community wants more maps. Currently, Battlefield V has 9 maps (not counting the night version of Panzerstorm in Battle of Hannut). This is definitely something that's coming, with Chapter 3 starting this March. Chapter 3 will be featuring Firestorm more Combined Arms missions, and the Battle of Greece.
  • Night Maps - Requests for night versions of current maps are also a big topic. One thing to note when creating night maps: It's not as simple as just replacing the sun with the moon. From previous conversations in older titles, some devs have mentioned it's actually easier in some cases to create a whole new map than to "nightify" (yep, I just made that word up - you're welcome) an existing map. Shadows, light sources, etc. changing on current maps can actually be a bit more heady than creating a new map from scratch. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but that is the reality.
  • Classic maps of WW2 - We've heard the requests for D-Day maps (Normandy and such), new regions, and some reimagining of maps from BF2. We don't have anything to share just yet on our next iteration of maps at this time, but we also don't want you to think you're talking into the void. We do hear you. Stay tuned for the next roadmap that's coming out which will detail quite a bit for the next Chapters.
  • Community Maps - Something that was really awesome was the Community Map Project in Battlefield 4. Working closely with the community's feedback and testing, we created a new map based on previous maps and wholly new ideas. Definitely something we've seen as a request from within the community.

For this discussion, however, I'd like us to possibly focus on the current 9 maps in Battlefield V. I'm not expecting everyone to highlight the good and the bad of each map in their comments, but I would like to get a bit more insight from you, our community, on what maps you really like.. and WHY. That's so important. The WHY you like this map for whatever reason is key. Same with the WHY you don't like a map.

Some comments that really resonated with me in This Week in Battlefield V - February 25th Edition are:
I think the biggest takeaway for DICE regarding maps should be that maps are best when they capture that complete "Battlefield" feeling. Currently, Panzerstorm and Arras do a good job at this. Open areas with enough shelter for infantry to move and defend, and lots of planes, tanks and vehicles. This creates the Battlefield experience that us veteran players know and love about the franchise.

and a counter point:
No, absolutely not. Panzerstorm and Arras are really bad maps because they have a ton of open areas without cover and too much vehicles that can camp objectives from afar easily (looking at you, point B on Arras).
Previous installments had good maps. Like "Strike at Karkand" (BF3 edition) and Zavod 311. What makes both maps so good? They have several lines of attack between spawns (Strike at Karkand: 4-5, Zavod 311: 3-4) and a small selection of vehicles. Lines are separated by plenty of objects and elevation changes that break LOS and prevent snipers and vehicles from becoming too oppressive. This also allows good flanks, even with 3D spotting. There are a few good sniping spots that provide a good view of all lines of attack, however they are on the objectives, not around them. If you want a spot, you have to attack an objective. This is why Aerodrome is such a terrible map, it's exactly backwards there.
Devastation and especially Rotterdam are the only maps in V that come close to that ideal. Twisted Steel (exposed line of attack on the bridge) and Narvik (downhill and exposed B on bridge) make similar mistakes as Aerodrome, but it's a bit more manageable.
Something to note about this interaction: No one attacked someone else for their opinion. Their reasons are clear and concise on why they feel the way they do about the maps. If you're participating in this discussion, it's vital that we respect each other's opinions even if we disagree. Along with that, be constructive. You can say something doesn't work, you don't like it, etc. without being abusive, or using generalizations like "Maps suck." That really doesn't tell us anything, now does it?

Here's a post that discussed all the maps, good and bad, as an example of the type of feedback we're looking for:
Here are some of my thoughts on the maps:

Aerodrome is unpleasant to defend on in Breakthrough. I'm sure you have your own statistics but I haven't seen many defender wins. I think largely the problem is that defenders in that first sector are forced to choose between two objectives that are overlooked by attackers, so they feel like fish in a barrel. I would like a bit more solid cover between the attacker spawn and A/B on that first sector, something that offers defenders more opportunity to get out and flank attackers and get closer to the tanks that camp on the hills.
Attackers should have to fight for that hangar in the second sector. I would pull the capture area right inside the hangar. I would also consider blowing out a corner of the big hangar to offer more opportunities to defend at medium/long range before attackers are right at their doorstep.
The final set of hangars could do with the capture area reduced to just one hangar, probably the one closest to the defender spawn. This is so attackers need to fight over one hangar rather than simply hanging back and winning by sheer numbers. I think that pair of hangars would benefit by being connected by an underground service area/basement area, to give more flanking opportunities, and an interior space to fight in safe from flying bombs.

Fjell could do with something substantial to fight over other than just snow and rock. I would like to see a medium size military installation somewhere in one of those huge blank snowy areas, set into the mountain--a complex interior for infantry to fight over. BFV has a dearth of non-destructible interior spaces. People like the variation and choice offered by having interior/exterior routes to make their way around a map. I realize of course that infantry exist to be farmed for kills by planes and tanks, but sometimes its nice to give infantry players a safe space to do their thing.

I wasn't a big Panzerstorm fan to start with but I have warmed to it. I think perhaps it could do with one less farm, one more village or something else that offers a bit of variation and solid cover for infantry. Maybe a factory with an agricultural theme. As another commenter said, more weather and day/night variation would ensure this map played out differently each time.

Arras and Devastation are probably my favourite maps in the game. What they have in common is lots of solid cover for infantry to move around, and great environments for battles. As an infantry player I don't feel like fodder for vehicles on those maps, even though both have tanks and Arras has planes. Rush on Arras has been a highlight of the game so far for me.

Visibility on Devastation is still a problem, on PS4 anyway. I honestly haven't noticed an improvement. Some areas are entirely dark, and player models are completely black. Last night I searching for a guy I knew was in an alley between A and B (Conquest), and I think we were both standing in the alley looking right at each other at one point. I shot first because I happened to see the shape of his head and shoulder. In the same game I missed a guy who was prone in a corner of the cathedral--he was a mess of grey on grey, indistinguishable from ground scatter, with a lighting/contrast level that matched the floor exactly. I think probably the problem is not really lighting but shape recognition, and the amount of customization players have available to them means it's no longer a question of learning the 4 enemy shapes per map. If DICE are committed to customization then you need another way to improve enemy visibility, and that's either spotting or an edge glow of some sort.

Hamada could do with a mine network or something else for players to move through in cover. Right now players can choose between being funneled along valleys or moving over bare flat hills--those should be high risk, high reward flanking options instead of the only choice. Maybe players would have to blast open certain paths in the mines with their own explosives. Hamada could also be badass at night--the map would feel very different if it wasn't always a searing white midday.

Rotterdam feels ripe for a couple of gunboats for the canals/waterfront. I know we have no naval units yet but if we ever do, I feel like Rotterdam could benefit from it. It would also make Breakthrough more interesting if attackers and defenders had a couple of boats to work with in that first sector. For the most part I like Rotterdam well enough, it offers a nice mix of flanking options when moving between any of the objectives.

So, let's get to it, shall we?
Post edited by Braddock512 on


  • Ramsey111uk
    6 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The two main maps I like are Rotterdam and Devastation, plenty of cover and they have good flanking routes, there is a lot of small battles going on around the maps and not all in one place, the two maps have the good feel about them because they really test your skills.

    Panzerstorm is a ok map, but I feel its to open, its meant to be a Tank map so I feel there should be more tanks to make it an all out Tank war map
  • Dr_X2345
    774 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm not sure if this is the sort of feedback you want, but I honestly think some proper CQC infantry-only maps would go down pretty well. I know I'd like at least one or two, at least. What and where this map could be? I'm not sure - I'm not a massive WWII buff - but perhaps some kind of prison complex, or a factory, or something? There's got to be something.
    Another style of map which I think could do very well is maps incorporating naval warfare. I really like the idea of gunboats in the canals on Rotterdam, perhaps even in the main river on Twisted Steel as well, but in my eyes that's less naval warfare and more infantry-based combat with water based backup. I believe a developer was hinting at some remastered of old BF 1942 maps, and it was suggested that a Wake Island map might be in the design process, and from gameplay I've watched on that map I think having several gunships and perhaps few larger boats (destroyers?) could make for a very fun map - perhaps even submarines could be added, especially considering the mention of the submarine-hunting specialisations of the Mosquito variant that is featured in next week's Tides of War.
    Finally, in a different discussion someone mentioned an idea for a map which is set in the Paris Metro system, which I think would be another nice close-quarters infantry-based map which o have some interesting design. I believe Operation Metro was set in Paris, but modern - so this could be an option for remastering previous fan-favourite maps.
    In terms of the existing maps, I think areas that shine in terms of design (at least for me) are the more enclosed and/or crowded areas. The main hangar on Aerodrome is one of my favourite objectives in the game - it has the raised catwalks on each side, plenty of cover in both the main area and the side corridors, and is generally fairly self-enclosed, meaning that you don't die from random snipers sitting far back from the objective whilst attacking or defending.
    Another thing that I would certainly like to see is night versions of the existing maps. Currently there are only two or possibly three, and those are only accessible through Grand Operations. I think Panzerstorm at night has a very different atmosphere to the regular map, as does Narvik, and I'd love to see this extend to the other maps. Rotterdam at night, with the streetlights on, reflecting off glass wi does and the water? Incredible.
  • Marshennn
    312 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    My feedback re: maps is strictly going to be based around Conquest as that's my most played mode since BF2.


    Aerodrome is my least favorite map in Battlefield V. Most of the action only takes place on C, which leads to the exact same meatgrinder experience every single round. This is largely because snipers and tanks have long lines of sight so flanking around to other objectives can be extremely difficult. Trying to flank in the open simply isn't fun, so most players just stick to C.

    Hamada is a really good map that caters to many different play styles and it also has some good elevation to stay away from long sniper sightlines. The ruins side of the map (EFG) is extremely fun for infantry. My only "issue" with Hamada is it's not 1500m on Conquest! And maybe the map needs an extra tank or two.


    One of my favorite maps so far. Again, there is something for everyone on this map and the undulating terrain makes it easier to move around. I especially love the use of tall vegetation on this map that acts as cover. It's something I've been requesting since the CMP in bf4.

    Again, this is one my favorite maps in the game. Tanks, planes and infantry all work really well on this map. The giant bridge also gives it a unique identity and will probably make this a memorable map.


    Narvik is a pretty decent map for infantry and planes. It has a good amount of verticality and the dock area is really fun to defend. The destruction is also a lot more impactful on this map than any other.

    FJELL 652
    I don't like Fjell all that much. I don't think the map has a good flow to it as players just seem to run around in circles similar to Guilin Peaks from BF4. It's also quite unmemorable as almost all the CPs are pretty much the same.


    These 2 are really good infantry maps. Plenty of cover, multiple routes to choose from and the objectives are unique for the most part. While tanks can be good on Rotterdam, they're pretty useless on Devastation.

    This is my favorite map so far. It's a very typical old school Battlefield map where the distance between objectives is quite large, meaning more focused fights on objectives. As a tank player, I love the focus on pure tank v tank gameplay. As an infantry player, I love the area between D and C; the fights there can be extremely intense. I would love to see some more unique location for this map though. Apart from B, the CPs feel a bit too samey with the same structures everywhere.


    I would love to see maps with more natural elevation. The hills and valleys design of Fushe Pass, Giants of Karelia or Dragon Valley is my favorite and I feel it's an experience that the current maps do not provide.
    I also want to see more unique locations in a map. The base jump on Damavand Peak for example is one of the most memorable moments in BF history, and I feel more maps need to have something like that; one or two elements that gives players an unforgettable experience.

    PS- I am really glad that you guys haven't forgotten the Community Map Project and are looking to do something similar. Outbreak is special!
  • TTZ_Dipsy
    100 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Arras (think first sector Rush/Breakthrough) needs work. A series of trenches leading up to, and going past that first elevated lip are a must.

    Right now the defending team can set all the way up near their spawn and pick anyone off climping the ridge (this is especially bad with tank campers). A large dip/crater in the ground, either in the middle or on the left would go a long way in exposing both sides equally.

    Hamada... yikes that is one horribly imbalanced map depending on the mode. Outside of the ruins this map is so damn open and is a long rangers' wet dream.

    Elevating both sides with underhang or splitting the ce ter of the map with a larger ridge of it's own (effectively creating two large valleys) would change the dynamic of the map completely imo. I would absolutely love to be able to blast certain chunks of the mountains away though I know that would require a tonne of data.

    Fjell needs better AA emplacements - as they currently stand, A and C flag guns can be easily picked off by the enemy. I understand you can't have them completely hidden away but man oh man are they out in the open.

    Even if you manage to avoid the watchful gaze of a scout or semi-auto, the pilot just needs to stay the course and before you both know it, they are over the mountain :(

    I like the circular zerg nature of the map but find what it contains to be a little dull; C flag village is nice but I don't get the sense i'm fighting over anything important elsewhere.

    Aerodrome can be a nightmare for either team depending how the tankers wanna handle things. In Breakthrough the attackers can overlook so much in the first sector it can make things extremely difficult for defenders to properly counter. They have an amazing amount of fortification options until the last sector but I think the objectives are too far apart for them to effectively take care of both simultaneously.

    Devestation is a pretry good map overall but it can be extremely easy to go invisible with all the nooks and crannies your soldier can clip into.

    Last sector objectives in Breakthrough are annoyingly easy to snipe/prone support from afar - The objective in the rubble past the church either needs to be placed on the ground, not up top of the rubble, or some sort of beam/extension of debris needs to block the spawn point's direct line of sight.
  • GaunteroDimmS4
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think that you just can't make a map that would be enjoyed by everyone. It's human nature, we are different and we don't have the same tastes. So the idea of good and bad map can be indeed an objective notion but is without doubt subjective.

    As ekolimits said, you should ensure that maps work properly for the specific game mode. The main reason we dislike Aerodrome is that it doesen't work well with the current modes. In conquest it's just a rotation of people who go from one objective to another and capture the flags, with clashes occurring usually only on C and D. Never saw a good push on the other flags. Breakthrough isn't particularly fun in this map too. But who knows, it could be fun on a game mode like Rush, with a lot of action on C, stairs collapsed to prevent people from camping on the mezzanines and a lot of interesting clashes in the actual Aerodrome.

    Clearly, even if a lot of angry players make it look like maps like Aerodrome are just wasted time, it isn't, and imho should be polished and fixed for other game modes, where they could really shine.

    I personally prefer wide open maps like Panzerstorm but I also enjoy a lot maps like Devastation and even more maps like Metro/Operation Locker. I think that a map like that, without vehicles and focused on Infantry only would be a fine addition to the game and could appease an important portion of the playerbase.

    So what you could do is trying to give us the means and maps to enjoy the game how we like playing it: if I'm an infantry focused player, I should have a map like Metro/Operation Locker/Fort Vaux that we currently don't have. On the opposite side, a map like Panzerstorm already lets vehicle focused players enjoy their vehicles (but here we go back to the maps-modes correlation, since Panzerstorm is one of the best maps that I enjoyed on Breakthrough but it isn't that good on standard Conquest). The main reason lots of players liked the new operation is indeed the fresh air that came with Panzerstorm at night and the Breakthrough mode based on it. And this leads to another issue that you clearly might have already acknowledged but I'd like to mention: map variety, or at least too few news about possible new maps that kills our hype for future updates.

    TL;DR Maps should work properly on the specific game modes they're designed on and should be better balanced. We need more maps for a better rotation, maps like Metro/Operation Locker/Fort Vaux that currently aren't in the game.

  • Paintpro_12
    55 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Thank you DICE!!!!! At least we know the game isn’t going to just stop after March! As far as maps go I really enjoy panzer because of the shear size of it. Would really love to have another map same side but have trenches going to each point but also have open area. As far as the capture points go the size of the new F is amazing and just the right size.

    The maps I REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE are any with pile of rocks that are unable to climb over... like Fjell... however with the update it’s much easier to move around However you still get stuck or the player just refuses to even attempt to climb. I’ve noticed on allies side spawn to A gives me the worst time.
  • wc138
    1119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2019
    Look, the game has gotten a lot of hate. A really quick browsing of the forums would tell you that. There are so many issues and so many players upset that it stands to reason that the idea of showcasing the "forgotten aspects" and attempting to take a road less traveled is a bad idea. You've already listed it, but it seems to me that a quick go-to solution is to rehash maps that players would recognize. Why not? Players want a current generation experience that includes the battle of the bulge, d-day, blah blah blah. They want WW2, and whether DICE/EA has noticed or not, they want the WW2 experience they recognize.

    Other than that, it's pretty simple: giant maps are beautiful, but the most played and well loved maps have always/will always be maps where fire-fights become concentrated at various points/bottle-neck areas. If we're just running for A to B to C to D and killing one or two enemies along the way, we're not going to have the same level of fun. I'm not a huge fan of tug-of-war maps like Metro, but people really go for that. It's why the new map is doing so well. It feels like a constant engagement.

    Or put a poll of everyone's favorite maps from 42, and go from there.
  • DirtyDog1974
    318 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I have to chuckle at your quote "varied maps" @Braddock512 , you are kidding right? The lack of variety is one of the things hurting this game right now.
  • DeathStalker131
    6 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I am totally one of those asking for Night Maps and proper War Maps (Community Maps would be fantastic too) but one of my biggest wishes is that we get some good old Battlefield maps that are huge, but is still split into different parts where close quarter fights are also possible. The biggest problem i have with the current BFV maps is that they are all so small and made in such a way that everyone is always at the same spots. i spend 70% of the matches getting instantly killed as i spawn, i miss the good old days where you could spawn and actually run/drive for a while before you got into action. Try to do that in BFV and you'll instantly get sniped across the map by either an actual sniper or a tank. Panzerstorm is a really big map which is great, but the problem is that its extremely open and flat. Most of the Battlefield 3 maps were fantastically put together with a lot of different areas, forests and buildings. The server was split up around the whole map and there was action around certain parts of the maps, you could actually move around there without instantly dying and there wasn't always 32vs32 in a tiny area. That is my whole perspective on this, the thing that makes a good Battlefield map is a big and detailed map with a bunch of varied areas and "hotspots" where both Infantry and Vehicle can fight without causing a massive clusterf**k of constant spawnkilling.
  • AuctionedCow
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I recently did a 7 page write up on Squad Conquest map designs, DM'ed it to @nattskift on twitter, but here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QOXRkJYMmKjiWlQHLdFBP50qZhlCBSJW4HrcHj8wmIw/edit?usp=drivesdk
  • MrLelap1
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I miss the bad company 2 time where maps were designed for the gamemode. With the return of rush (which i hope will remain a permanent gamemode) i would like to see more "vertical" maps and gameplay.
    As you can understand i'm a big fan of bfbc2 so i will take some example on it.
    For example, it could be cool to have a map as valparaiso, arica harbor or even laguna presa. Indeed i think it s really important to have a lot of different gameplay and phases in the same map/game. With these maps i have that feeling. Firstly a big push for the first objective ( landing on the beach on laguna or a big tank assault on arica harbor) where areas are open
    on the 2nd objective your on a town (arica harbor)
    3rd objective a bridge (arica harbor aswell)
    and 4th one on docks
    These maps are for me iconics through their diversity and the fact that you move on and your fight seems not useless. It works for rush but also for grand operations.
    Well, I hope my english is ok...
    Thanks for that discussion and keep the good work :)
  • marcanthony421
    118 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    The maps that offer flow for infantry are the best imo. Aside from Hamada, all the maps have spots where the flow feels amazing. Im talking tanks pushing through cover and infantry fighting around it. When people arent just camping, the library on devastation is just as amazing as the C and D flags on Panzerstorm. They have space for vehicles but they also let infantry move about without being overrun by vehicles. But those parts are just parts of the map rather than the entire thing. Fort De Vaux felt like a map for almost all kinds of engagements. Most of the maps in this game are tailored to medium to long range. We need a genuine cqc map
  • TheThurston13
    74 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BAD -
    I'll keep it short because I know you have a lot to read. First off the worst part I hate about any map, is when the main Spawn deployment is visible from near a cap point. Eg. A flag on Rotterdam, D flag on Arras, B flag on Arras ect. It promotes spawn camping and gives snipers and tanks the ability to never leave their deployment and gives them the ability to get kills. The other thing I dislike about a map, for example on Fjell, where there is only two exits from a deployment, this crates spawn traps fairly often, which causes teh server to become unbalanced, due to players leaving.

    GOOD - what makes some of the greatest maps for me is maps that consist of 80% close to medium range engagements with the other 20% of the map consisting of longer engagements. Real tight corridors like a populated village, downtown or large building. As well as a lot of elevation changes. Maps are typically laid out as a sprawling open area with flag objectives spread out on a horizontal plane. Imagine if flags were spread out on the vertical plane.

    The best part about receiving maps was map packs where we would receive a multitude of them 1 to 4. Receiving just one map every month or two doesn't really get me enthusiastic about diving in and discovering new spots on multiple maps.

    Thanks for listening, Thurston
  • CaptainHardware
    303 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    A good map has routes for flanking that have cover, uses all of it's space productively, supports multiple forms of play, has flags which make military sense as objectives (either they contain hard cover, or are physically dominating terrain) and does not provide positions which lead to easy spawn trapping of the enemy. It also should not have multiple objectives directly against the uncap edge, let alone overlooking it.
    I think Aerodrome is the objectively worst map in the game because it doesn't meet any of these criteria.

    A huge portion of the map is a cover devoid wasteland across the entire top of the map. This easily could have held another flag, I'd suggest some kind of munition dump and bunkers set into the gorge, surrounded by blast berms. This also would have removed the large geometric advantage the German team has on this map due to the bias in objectives to their side, and the easier access from D-C then from C to B or A.

    Most of the map is wide open, and most of the cover is easily destroyed, it's ability to support diverse play is limited and tedious. It contains few transports to make up for the lack of cover or create anything but an infantry 'run and hope you aren't sniped' style experience. The C flag in theory provides more close quarters, but in reality it's not a very dynamic place It's almost like a honey trap for people to die in. It needs two more entryways, as an easy solution.

    Meanwhile several flags on this map, A, B, D and to a point F and E, are overlooked by large amounts of high ground and don't make military sense. These would not be the points you defended if you actually had to defend this map in real life. They are deathtrap holes.

    Most of the fortifications on this map are also near worthless, like why are so many in the bottom of the dry wash? And they aren't even commonplace overall, which suggest game performance isn't a reason why they are rare. It feels like someone stopped adding them halfway. Also per usual in BFV, the fortifications even when useful, usually have some really glaring weak spots designed into them which prevents the defender from seriously exploiting them. I don't get the logic of this considering how much work it is to build them up vs how easily they are blown up. They don't need large weak spots added.

    Though the C flag on Arras is perhaps the absolute worst in the game in terms of flags being overlooked by high ground and poorly fortified. This objective makes no military sense, the crossroads near it would be a more logical point to defend. It's overlooked by higher ground on three sides, and even the low end by the map edge has some rocks which overlook the actual capture zone.

    While not ideal I think Twisted Steel has proven to be the best map, not because of any really specific design choices, but because basically every flag has a serious amount of cover on it, and the large number of indestructable trees ensures that even very intense fighting can't leave it with large cover devoid wastelands. It has a lot of transport vehicles, the flags fill all of map area in a rational sense, more then one combination of flags creates a reasonably, defensively, winning position and, none of the flags is directly against the uncap zone. It has an infantry focused zone on the B-E axis, but nowhere is actually impossible to go as infantry, or as a vehicle. The only thing I'd change would be maybe another ford on the main river, but I actually rather like it overall.

    FJELL 652 meanwhile... plays as the worst map in battlefield history. But it doesn't have to be. I think about 95% of this is because of the VEHICLE DEPLOY SCREEN. It should not be possible for both teams to have 100% bombers. But the game lets them do that. This is obviously flawed game design, and very painful when it happens. But it's not really the map's basic fault other then that it has planes at all. That said, if the vehicle deploy screen is going to exist then maps need to be designed with it in mind.

    The other 5% problem I see is basically, the map could use one more flanking route, and basically I'd like to see a ring style pathway around the base of the mountain connecting all points. That would reduce the bomber farming and the really bad choke point situations. But really it's the flawed vehicle spawn design which has seriously degraded all battlefield gameplay. The infantry combat can be rather good otherwise.
    If each team on Fjell had 1 bomber, 1 attack plane and and 2 fighters, and the center point let you gain another 1 bomber the map would play far better.

    All battlefield V maps would play better if more flags actually mattered. Battlefield used to have a complex game changing system in which certain flags gave you different vehicles. And because vehicles were map specific that serious affected the balance of power. And it gave you a reason to not only try to get one flag over another, but to focus on defending that flag because it kept giving you that vehicle spawn.

    The nerfing of this mechanic, only a handful of points in BFV grant any form of combat vehicle, and the total removal of the armored vehicles and planes spawning on the map vs the deploy screen seriously dumbed down game play, while also making it less fun and less interesting in general. I have no doubts that this is directly linked to why zerg hoard style game play has become so prolific in BF1 and now BFV. No real reason exists to do otherwise if all points are created equal.

    Something else which I think is serious affecting most of the maps in the game is the location of respawns from the flags. The maximum I have noted is 160 meters for the C point on Panzerstorm. This is absurd, but 100-120m distances are common.

    Back in the days of BF4 the distance was usually more like 60m, but since battlefield 1 the typical distance seems to be 80m minimal with a handful of exceptions, and often considerably greater. This doesn't make sense when some objectives are as little as 100m apart. Spawn on the E or F flag on Narvik and you can end up at the boundry of the other point. At which point I'd rather have spawned on the center of the other objective so at least I could pick up some ammo.

    I recognize that sticking to a strict limit creates design problems or may cause you to spawn die (we should be told if we are going to spawn contested) but as a rule the spawns are too far from objectives.

    Also just in general, I think the maps need more indestructable cover then less. Twisted Steel for example would be terrible if you could destroy all the trees. I know some folk want to be able to level maps, but with amount of carpet bombing and V1 strikes in this game hard cover is more important then ever. The best maps in battlefield's past never would have worked if they could be flattened, and frankly the bullet penetration system in this game is so opaque and hard to figure out, as well as seemingly not allowing penetration of more then 1 barrier, even if its two wooden fences I'm not a big fan of that either.

  • trip1ex
    5331 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    Overall feeling for BFV maps is they are the least exciting collection of launch maps of any BF game released.

    I don't think the developers developed the maps for Conquest. Feels like they made flag locations for Operations or BReakthrough and then used some of the same locations for Conquest. PRobably why the flag zones are in general too busy because something like Breakthrough might only feature 1 flag at a time (2 at the most) and they wanted to space out those 64 players out more over 1 or 2 flags. Well put that in Conquest and you ruin Conquest because players get lost in the "micro" of the map instead of battling over the "macro."

    But there's more reasons why maps aren't fun. Terrible lighting, poor visibility, too small, too much map clutter, too many nooks and crannies, not developed properly for Conquest, too infantry centric, and not exciting features are the reasons and sometimes all of the above.

    Rotterdam could be a cool infantry map just by looking at it but it turns out it's not fun to play. There's way too many spaces for infantry to hide and to hit you from long distance. The flag zones have too many hiding spots. IT becomes a chore to search them all the time. Going into the canal area at all just feels like you're asking to be pegged off by some enemy 100m away somewhere. The lightning in the canal area bugs. OFten blinding making the screen difficult to look at. YOu should be fighting over city streets but for a city map there's not a lot of that. You often are fighting inside tiny nooks and crannies and hallways. That leads to an overall point: The maps have too much "micro" when BF is more known for the "macro." Meaning battles across bigger areas. Not so much smaller. And as with all the maps, i'm used to just glancing and determining if an enemy is there or not. With the lighting in BFV you can't really do that.

    DEvastation looks pretty but again, because of grey on grey and black on black, it isn't that fun to play. Again a lot of nooks and crannies. It has the feeling of I really don't want to go down this road because some enemy is going to be somewhere in the rubble and kill me before I can even see them. I don't want to go search the flag zone for the same reason.

    Narvik. Same sort of issues. Poor visibility, not fun to drive a tank on because their movement is too restricted and too easy to be ambushed, too many small set pieces for little battles, flag zones are often too busy and cramped. As with many of these maps, the design in Conquest encourages players to find a bush and wait for enemies to come by and shoot them in the back. When that's done move up and find another deer stand to sit in. My eyes roll over when approaching most of the flag zones because there is much clutter and the lighting and visibility is so oversaturated and poor. And in the flag zones not only are there so many hiding spots that you have to check but good luck seeing the enemy hiding before they see you moving. Nevermind the sight lines into the flag zones from outside are so open to being shot from by enemies you can't see at long distance.

    Hamada. Again looks good in a trailer but plays not as fun. First of all you can't really see anything because the lightning is so darn blinding and oversaturated. It is difficult to tell anything apart. I'm used to glancing and seeing if an enemy is there or not in BF. Not studying my screen for 2 minutes every time I want to move. Next a big desert would be a fun opportunity for tank battles on the move. But not on this one. Movement for tanks is limited mostly to roads because much of the other terrain isn't easily navigable by tanks. And then along with not being able to see infantry that well, tanks camp and don't move. They are slow anyways so you can't have that fun of tank battles in the open even if you wanted to unless you featured the light tanks. While it is nice that this map actually makes you fight through the enemy to get flags, it also feels like it is 2 maps combined into one. And you still get that Zerg feeling say on the back half of the map or front half even where teams just exchange flags. The plane on the runway is nice, but feels too little too late.

    Arras is one of the better maps because it has the village fighting and the flower field/open fields along with planes and tanks and is sort of an all around map in the classic BF sense. But it's too small . And some parts of it are open fields (where the flower fields are) surrounding by lots of bushes and trees and you're asked to cross those at least at one flag. This gives that feeling again of the enemy can be camping in the trees and bushes surrounding it. And you just feel like you're going to be headshotted from some angle and not much you can do about it. And even this map has its share of being killed from long distances of enemies you couldn't see. And in some parts because of all the bushes and trees and shadows, it's hard to distinguish enemies from environment. I recall moving on this map sometimes and looking around and not seeing the AA in a field. Before it promptly mows me down.

    Panzerstorm reminds me of old BF the most because of its size. But generally too hard on the eyeballs to make your way around the flag zones on foot to locate enemies. Either someone is 100m away that you can't see them and will shoot you in the back or a guy is right in front of you in the grass and kills you before you notice him. Or a tank shoots you from long distance because they have scopes and can sit back and shoot players from 150m away easy. The game in general imparts too much of a keep your head down 24/7 feeling to it which doesn't let the player operate very easily(move around.) Map is probably too flat with slight slopes leading to the middle and too open as Tanks like to sit back and seem to have domain over multiple flag zones at once. I don't generally agree with the crowd that says this or that map is too open but maybe on this one it is. Using vehicles in BFV is also much more a pain in the butt because of the annoying enter and exit animations the game has now. It used to be fun to use vehicles and pick up teammates, zoom around and jump out, but now just annoying mainly. It doesn't help that there isn't a good system any more for determining if transport vehicles are available or not. It also might be buggy. Hard to tell. It certainly isn't consistent with how you enter other vehicles like tanks or planes. Destruction doesn't do this map any favors since it destroys the little cover it has. But I'd probably take this map over most of the bunch because at least it has the combined arms variety so you can play a variety of unique roles (firing a slightly different smg or lmg etc is not what I would consider a unique role or variety btw) which was a major appeal of BF over the years.

    Fjell is annoying because of the visibility and being yet another infantry-centric (~5+?!? out of 8 or 9) and cramped map with 64 players. The flying can be fun on this one although often feels disconnected from the game. Its hard to see enemies from the air without zooming in and slowing down. Some planes just end up being blind carpet bombing on flag locations. The snow can help visibility from the air because you see dark uniforms against white background. The poor ground visibility means you can't really see who is shooting you much of the time and can't see anyone to shoot. LIke a lot of the maps, teams mainly rotate around this map never trying to GAIN more flags. They just exchange flags. IT's the Zerg gameplay. In Conquest of old you never had this constant Zerging. It makes Conquest rather pointless for a game that is supposed to be about 2 armies just trying to conquer one another.

    Aerodome is an all brown unexciting map. A brown map with a generic airplane hangar and some black wreckage clutter in a secondary hangar with a few huts and flat terrain? The visibility with the all brown bugs. EVeryone just goes to the hangar which isn't an exciting location. You can get shot from where ever on this map at all times. The non-central hangar has so much clutter outside it and all super dark black colors...it's too hard on the eyeballs as is the all brown of the rest of the map. Not fun to move around in. Tanks get stuck on that stuff too easily. And then tanks sit back and spam the hangar etc as well. Hard to track enemies. EVeryone goes for the middle. You can take the back flags with the halftrack to protect yourself from enemies with scopes you can't see. Not that fun to drive it though and get in and out of it because of the somewaht difficult terrain to navigate for the halftrack and the animations for entering/exiting vehicles.

    Another overall point. Most of these maps are just unexciting locations with unexciting battles. There's nothing memorable about most of them.

    TWisted Steel. This map makes you think BFV is BF Vietnam. The bridge is long but surprisingly the battle on the bridge feels too small - too generic. IT's too narrow. And then has a few pieces of wreckage on it. IT's basically like the D flag on Navrik. IT's too much a small set piece for a mode other than Conquest aka made for Breakthrough or something or made for 8v8 infantry playtesting. A lot of battles on this map in other areas are shooting things you can't see with dust and smoke and water or whatever kicking up so you really can't see them. With all the bushes and trees anybody could be anywhere. It ends up, in the end, feeling like a chore like every map in general. It's fun for a bit and then gets old once you realize you are constantly just going in circles trying to shoot stuff you can't see. Then you gotta ask what's the point?

    Another overall point - for BF the best Conquest maps are the ones where it's not too easy not too hard to contain or flank.

    I think overall maps aren't exciting locations, are too busy and too infantry centric with visibility that doesn't let the player confidently and quickly determine if the coast is clear or not. I mean over half the maps are small almost entirely infantry -centric maps. And the gameplay on them is too much heads down 24/7 or get shot from someone somewhere ~100m away. That's the feeling the maps and game give off. IT also doesn't feel like the maps in Conquest are designed for Conquest. And often times the maps lend themselves to teams just circling around constantly with no point other to grind for kills. YOu're missing the most important part of teamplay. Actually caring about the outcome of a round! The Conquest maps aren't set up for this. It feels like too much of a chore to play on them because of all of this. Hoping BF6 is better. Until then I am retired BF fan.

    Post edited by trip1ex on
  • BaronVonGoon
    7067 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    I'm going to keep it short and sweet with an example:

    Visualize Siege, Dawnbreaker, Firestorm, Oman, Propaganda, and Pearl Market.

    Visualize Twisted Steel, Panzersturm and Narvik.

    How different are the two groups?

    The BF4 maps have alot of assets. They're not open fields with some assets sprinkled in. They're made up of alot assets concentrated in an area. The asset-to-open-space ratio is very high, their isnt much open space.

    Now the BFV maps are the exact opposite. All I can think of while playing is I'm bored. I want more buildings. Bigger buildings. More hallway firefights, more urban stuff. More corners. Less open spaces requiring eyes in the back of my eye head.

    One thing the maps in BF3/BF4 had on BFV is less random deaths, because there were less open spaces.
    237 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    i need custom camouflage outfits for every single map.... maybe u should start with this
  • BaronVonGoon
    7067 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Also, you guys were doing such a good job with map design in BF3 and BF4 but it seems maps now are open fields with assets sprinkled in. The creativity in BF3 maps is no longer present. Why? I know creativity isn't like muscles or fat, it doesn't go away. Exercise that creativity with some interesting map design please.
Sign In or Register to comment.