Weekly BF

New Map is Out a Day Early

124»

Comments

  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'll have to play it more before I make up my mind, but my initial reaction is if you liked Metro and Locker, you'll love Mercury.  It's small, it's linear, it's difficult to flank unless the other team is asleep, and much of the cover is buildings which go away during the course of the game.  If you dislike snipers and prone machine-gunners, you are probably going to pop an artery playing this map.
    As one of those Metro/Locker folks, I do disagree, just based on how open and vertical the map is. That said, I can understand where the reaction comes from. :p
    I spent lots of time on Metro and Locker, had plenty of fun there.  But to me a Conquest map should allow big flanking moves, you shouldn't be under fire in the first ten seconds of the round and be forced to go prone constantly just to get out of nonstop enemy fire.  Having played a few more rounds on Mercury I'm starting to like it more, it is sometimes possible to get around the enemy line if they aren't paying attention.  But many rounds become something like trench warfare, you can see half your team just staring into sniper scopes with no intention of moving.  It's a meatgrinder map, and some folks love that.  I guess I was hoping more for something like Dragon Valley or Bandar Desert or Silk Road, a map where movement is a useful tactical tool.  I'll keep playing the map, maybe it will grow on me.  It might be more fun with smaller teams.
  • TropicPoison
    2421 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Seems the majority think it's a sucky snipe fest map, are DICE ever going to add boats? Look at all that wasted water.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1931 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I only played 1 round of CQ and one as attacker in Breakthrough so i obviously had the usual issues associated with lack of map knowledge, but in first impressions it was only OK.  Seeing as its meant to be Crete why was the map not an island and why with all that water do we not have any boats.  Just some E-boats/MTBs would have been nice.  I also think, if it would have been one map of 3 or 4 instead of the first new map in months, that seeing as this is meant to be the airbourne invasion of Crete, i would have liked to have seen it in CQ assault/airbourne mode with initial para drop and boat spawns, instead of plain old CQ.  

     In my Breakthrough game it definitely was a sniper fest and the OHK of the Boys definitely comes into its own with the defenders on the high ground.  In my CQ game i cheesed it a bit by spending half the round in a Valentine on top of the hill sniping the enemy players around C which was like shooting fish in a barrel until an enemy squad finally decided enough was enough and i had to do a quick exit and subsequently exploded when i decided to venture into town.  

    Like others have mentioned; if it was one map of 3 or 4 in a DLC then it would be decent, but as the only map in 6 months its disappointing and leaves you thinking why the ... did it take so long to release the map
  • Godmodegta
    392 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    really nice map, first match I had good time, only negative is, it terrible when invested with sniper .
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1631 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Narfiam said:
    I'll have to play it more before I make up my mind, but my initial reaction is if you liked Metro and Locker, you'll love Mercury.  It's small, it's linear, it's difficult to flank unless the other team is asleep, and much of the cover is buildings which go away during the course of the game.  If you dislike snipers and prone machine-gunners, you are probably going to pop an artery playing this map.
    A few weeks ago a dev said that you will love it if you loved Monte Grappa and another BF4 map which I don't remember the name because I haven't played that game.
    OK, Monte Grappa was one of my favourites of BF1 and it doesn't looks like Monte Grappa at all, as I said before it's more like Empire's Edge which was one of my most hated maps of BF1.
    I don't know why they thought Mercury is similar to Monte Grappa, because have some small hills and a little verticality? It doesn't has huge hills with a lot of trenches, bunkers, tunnels and a big basin with more or less secure paths for advancing if you don't like the bunkers or the hills, so it doesn't remind me Monte Grappa at all.
    Yeah very different, Monte Grappa was 2 - 3 times the size of Mercury for a start. Monte had more gradual long slopes rather than abrupt cliff faces, played very differently from the little I saw.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1631 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 30
    VincentNZ said:
    It is way more similar to Empire's Edge in terms of verticality than MG or Altai Range. It might be too small though for 64 players. I think it might be smaller than Devastation and it has a kind of linear flag layout creating a denser space.
    It would make a really good conquest small map, and I am looking forward to the SQC version.
    Do you know when the SC version is out?

    Edit - Summer, Narvik, Devastation and Mercury coming
    Post edited by DrunkOnRedWine on
  • xKusagamix
    1001 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 30
    Seems the majority think it's a sucky snipe fest map, are DICE ever going to add boats? Look at all that wasted water.
    It's kinda weird (i didn't play since BFV yesterday) because there're people saying it's Sniper wet dream map, and there're people saying Tank should not exist in the map because waves of Assaults with PIAT/Panzerfaust and Dynamite.

    Is anyone here think about the map is infested with MMGs also?
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    850 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    It looks great, but design wise it can be far too accommodating to campers. It feels like the map and weapon design departments at Dice have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
    It plays a bit like a smaller Aerodrome at times, which for me is not a good thing. The camping meta in V is strong enough as it is, it doesn't need further help.

    Conquest is the best of the modes, it's not terrible. But not enough thought has been put into layout. Lot's of space and possible flanking routes have been ignored in favour of creating a campers paradise. MMG/Boys users will profit.

    Breakthrough is an absolute abomination, still not managed to play a single game as an attacker where half of my team haven't quit by end of the first sector. Defending is far too easy. Especially on this map, but also in V in general.
    Truly awful mode, the fact that we've lost Frontlines and been given this trash blows my mind.

    Could be worse, it is better than Aerodrome, but after a six month wait it's a bit disappointing, I just don't think Dice know what to do with V.

    With the way V has been designed Squad Conquest plays better anyway so I'm looking forward to more maps in that mode.
    The 5v5 could be interesting also.
  • n7k6k5w9jp0
    363 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    tiny-****-poor-snipe-fest.

    4/10
  • MintySSD
    45 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I played 3 rounds on the map today.

    Its not bad but sniper heaven though, never saw anymore than two tanks at once in either game.

    That C point though, dont use the AA gun there i found out the hard way its a easy hit from b or far side of D by a sniper.

    I think a tank with a spotting scope will have advantage in suppressing snipers at the edge of the map towards the brit side.
  • Kattegat_Twin
    832 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    People are saying the new map is tiny? What? Really?

    I like the new map quite a bit. Had 7 or 8 rounds on it last night. It's beautiful for a start, really nice location. Anyone who thinks it's a small map needs their eyes checked. Yes there are bigger maps, but come on, calling this one small is ridiculous.

    There are an awful lot of things that they've got wrong with this game, but in my opinion this new map is something they've got right. Credit where it's due.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3410 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It is a bit smaller than I expected to be, but it's decent enough. That island not too far in the distance looks like wasted potential though, even if we could have run the risk of having campers establish their tents there.

    DICE said that this map is reminiscent of Altai Range and Monte Grappa. I can kind of see the connection with Grappa, though only to a tiny extent. However, I fail to see how this map is inspired by Altai Range. Altai was a vast mountainous map, with lots of natural peaks, an airfield and a prominent weather station. Mercury is a small coastal town filled with houses, an airfield that is too far away and fairly different to that of Altai in terms of shape and in-map location, some seaside views and some slightly hilly parts. I really can't tell how someone could make this connection.

    It also seems strange to have such a coastal map without any naval combat whatsoever.

    Still, it certainly looks rather pretty.
  • mcRen98
    349 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    http://forgottenhope.warumdarum.de/screenshotsfh2/Invasion%20of%20Crete/minimap.jpg I was expecting the scope of the map to be around this size or smaller to accomodate less camping on mountains. For a large all out airborne invasion map that took liberties for Combined arms it sure as hell doesn't look all that big. Tanks feel like they have been shoehorned in, the trailer shows two extra objectives in conquest are missing and the island which could have honestly been another objective just seems to be some random location on the map for aesthetic choises, were they planning to allow that point to be accessible but realised they don't have boats or something?


    7 months this map took. There isn't even a grand operations mode for it yet and I'm already disappointed.
  • trip1ex
    4912 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Narfiam said:
    I'll have to play it more before I make up my mind, but my initial reaction is if you liked Metro and Locker, you'll love Mercury.  It's small, it's linear, it's difficult to flank unless the other team is asleep, and much of the cover is buildings which go away during the course of the game.  If you dislike snipers and prone machine-gunners, you are probably going to pop an artery playing this map.
    A few weeks ago a dev said that you will love it if you loved Monte Grappa and another BF4 map which I don't remember the name because I haven't played that game.
    OK, Monte Grappa was one of my favourites of BF1 and it doesn't looks like Monte Grappa at all, as I said before it's more like Empire's Edge which was one of my most hated maps of BF1.
    I don't know why they thought Mercury is similar to Monte Grappa, because have some small hills and a little verticality? It doesn't has huge hills with a lot of trenches, bunkers, tunnels and a big basin with more or less secure paths for advancing if you don't like the bunkers or the hills, so it doesn't remind me Monte Grappa at all.
    Yeah very different, Monte Grappa was 2 - 3 times the size of Mercury for a start. Monte had more gradual long slopes rather than abrupt cliff faces, played very differently from the little I saw.
    Yeah the MOnte Grappa comparison looks very rough. As does the Altai Range comparison.  

    I
  • SendTheInfantry
    781 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'll have to play it more before I make up my mind, but my initial reaction is if you liked Metro and Locker, you'll love Mercury.  It's small, it's linear, it's difficult to flank unless the other team is asleep, and much of the cover is buildings which go away during the course of the game.  If you dislike snipers and prone machine-gunners, you are probably going to pop an artery playing this map.
    As one of those Metro/Locker folks, I do disagree, just based on how open and vertical the map is. That said, I can understand where the reaction comes from. :p
    I spent lots of time on Metro and Locker, had plenty of fun there.  But to me a Conquest map should allow big flanking moves, you shouldn't be under fire in the first ten seconds of the round and be forced to go prone constantly just to get out of nonstop enemy fire.  Having played a few more rounds on Mercury I'm starting to like it more, it is sometimes possible to get around the enemy line if they aren't paying attention.  But many rounds become something like trench warfare, you can see half your team just staring into sniper scopes with no intention of moving.  It's a meatgrinder map, and some folks love that.  I guess I was hoping more for something like Dragon Valley or Bandar Desert or Silk Road, a map where movement is a useful tactical tool.  I'll keep playing the map, maybe it will grow on me.  It might be more fun with smaller teams.

    With smaller max player counts it could be fun.

    The map in its current state does not play out well.

    It baffles me that DICE consistently crams 64 players into too small maps and mapareas (breakthrough). This is NOT what conquest and Battlefield should be about!



  • flatrock101
    147 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So many heads popping up and down in this map, Reminds me of whack a mole.
  • SendTheInfantry
    781 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mcRen98 said:
    http://forgottenhope.warumdarum.de/screenshotsfh2/Invasion%20of%20Crete/minimap.jpg I was expecting the scope of the map to be around this size or smaller to accomodate less camping on mountains. For a large all out airborne invasion map that took liberties for Combined arms it sure as hell doesn't look all that big. Tanks feel like they have been shoehorned in, the trailer shows two extra objectives in conquest are missing and the island which could have honestly been another objective just seems to be some random location on the map for aesthetic choises, were they planning to allow that point to be accessible but realised they don't have boats or something?


    7 months this map took. There isn't even a grand operations mode for it yet and I'm already disappointed.

    Ahh based on t he good old BF2 engine.

    HUGE maps, 64 players. The good old days. Shame DICE cant deliver that anymore.
  • crazzeesyko
    60 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    With the lower player count of frontlines this map would've worked better but...
Sign In or Register to comment.