BFV Launch Maps trailer

[Twinblade★ 3,983]

 

Cool designs overall, though there only being 8 at launch isnt great.

[Tears of the Cows 1,226]

M to the EH

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

[Twinblade★ 3,983]

2 minutes ago, Teh_Laundromat said:

Is that good or bad?  I think the most impressive map is FJell 652. The idea of infantry and aircraft battling it out on the top of a mountain just seems really cool and has a lot of potential.

[kaz 2,445]

looks good

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

21 hours ago, Twinblade said:

Is that good or bad?  I think the most impressive map is FJell 652. The idea of infantry and aircraft battling it out on the top of a mountain just seems really cool and has a lot of potential.

The maps, from what I played in the beta (Narvik & Rotterdam) were never the issue, and the massive desert map from what was gathered always looked like a wicked map for a Battlefield game.

 

The weak point of this game, was never going to be the maps. It's the upgrade system - faster bullets, no downsides or trade-offs; lack of weapons (35 at launch!?), and overall gameplay/squadplay decisions: Health attrition, lack of starting ammunition, everyone can revive, but no one really did in my weekend playing.

[kaz 2,445]

I never got to upgrade anything, but rotterdam was beautiful. 

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

38 minutes ago, kaz said:

I never got to upgrade anything, but rotterdam was beautiful. 

The upgrade system was just that, solely an upgrade; there was never a trade off, like less recoil, but less damage from distance.

 

You upgraded your gun down two paths, but the upgrades included "Faster Bullets", meaning you didn't have to lead your target as much, and could take down an enemy in a shootout quicker, since, well your bullets landed faster. towards the end of the Beta, I could discern who had the upgrade on their weapon, and who didn't - to the point where an enemy could start shooting at me, but I could down him quicker, since I had the upgrade on my weapon...

[Twinblade★ 3,983]

3 minutes ago, Teh_Laundromat said:

The upgrade system was just that, solely an upgrade; there was never a trade off, like less recoil, but less damage from distance.

 

You upgraded your gun down two paths, but the upgrades included "Faster Bullets", meaning you didn't have to lead your target as much, and could take down an enemy in a shootout quicker, since, well your bullets landed faster. towards the end of the Beta, I could discern who had the upgrade on their weapon, and who didn't - to the point where an enemy could start shooting at me, but I could down him quicker, since I had the upgrade on my weapon...

i havent kept up with the game but i think thats one of things they were planning on changing after the beta.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Twinblade

[Twinblade★ 3,983]

Not too thrilled with the map designs based on this. The play areas seem pretty small with not much distance between flags.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Twinblade

[kaz 2,445]

24 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

Not too thrilled with the map designs based on this. The play areas seem pretty small with not much distance between flags.

 

It looks absolutely fine. It's the usual BF spacing. (1942/DC/BF3/4/1 have the same layout for maps). You of all people would see through it even if it looks "small". lol.

 

BF4 dragon valley was smaller than Bandar Desert in BF3, which is actually the biggest map in BF history. And it got boring after a while. 

 

What makes modern BF take a huge dick in the ass compared to BF2 is the fast gameplay. No stamina, unlimited sprinting etc. NOT the map size.

Edited November 2, 2018 by kaz

[Twinblade★ 3,983]

7 minutes ago, kaz said:

It looks absolutely fine. It's the usual BF spacing. (1942/DC/BF3/4/1 have the same layout for maps). You of all people would see through it even if it looks "small". lol.

 

BF4 dragon valley was smaller than Bandar Desert in BF3, which is actually the biggest map in BF history. And it got boring after a while. 

 

What makes modern BF take a huge dick in the ass compared to BF2 is the fast gameplay. No stamina, unlimited sprinting etc. NOT the map size.

Nah, the last few games have had this type of map design and it makes all their maps way less interesting due to predictable chokepoints and flag spacing. You bring up Dragon Valley but its layout made for much more interesting battles than we've gotten from BF as of late. 5 flags in a circular pattern is just not good design so im disappointed that they continue to go that route.

[kaz 2,445]

5 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

Nah, the last few games have had this type of map design and it makes all their maps way less interesting due to predictable chokepoints and flag spacing. You bring up Dragon Valley but its layout made for much more interesting battles than we've gotten from BF as of late. 5 flags in a circular pattern is just not good design so im disappointed that they continue to go that route.

You are retarded if you expected anything else. We have this layout for 64 conquest maps since BF3 BUT and here's the big kicker complainy-boi EVERY BF game had these kind of maps.

 

Granted BF2 had these maps only in Conquest small maps and had actual big maps for every conquest 64 but that doesn't mean it's the norm for BF games. It's one of the biggest misconceptions of the BF fanbase.

 

Either it's nostalgia or they never played every BF game. Armored Kill in BF3 is amazing but large maps doesn't mean it's automatically a better game.

 

My point stands that the gameplay changed towards a COD-like expierience which is the real problem with modern BF. 

[Twinblade★ 3,983]

6 minutes ago, kaz said:

You are retarded if you expected anything else. We have this layout for 64 conquest maps since BF3 BUT and here's the big kicker complainy-boi EVERY BF game had these kind of maps.

 

Granted BF2 had these maps only in Conquest small maps and had actual big maps for every conquest 64 but that doesn't mean it's the norm for BF games. It's one of the biggest misconceptions of the BF fanbase.

 

Either it's nostalgia or they never played every BF game. Armored Kill in BF3 is amazing but large maps doesn't mean it's automatically a better game.

 

My point stands that the gameplay changed towards a COD-like expierience which is the real problem with modern BF. 

Dude I agree with you but you're missing the point. The gameplay became more fast paced because of the map design. Theres nowhere near as much down time between firefights and the fact that the out of bounds areas are so much tighter means that trying to play stealthily is less viable, since there isn't as much space to flank from and approach from different angles. 

 

Thats the problem with conquest at least, and its what made rush my go to mode. So im also disappointed that its not in BFV.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Twinblade

[kaz 2,445]

3 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

Dude I agree with you but you're missing the point. The gameplay became more fast paced because of the map design. Theres nowhere near as much down time between firefights and the fact that the out of bounds areas are so much tighter means that trying to play stealthily is less viable, since there isn't as much space to flank from and approach from different angles. 

yeah I agree with ya too. people that played the old games want bigger maps back but you are missing my point here also. The faster gameplay is the reason BF nowadays sucks compared to the oldschool style.

 

I'm saying small maps were way more enjoyable at infantry gameplay because people wouldn't run around like sonic. 

 

BF4 Dragon Valley is awful. And as much as I like the Armored Kill maps in BF3 especially Alborz Mountain it always ends up with these choke points because the gameplay is faster overall. 

 

And I'm not even talking about infantry, vehicle combat is much faster as well. They will never go back to the roots. But one thing that keeps my hope up is the restocking of ammo/bombs for airplanes (at least).

[Twinblade★ 3,983]

Yeah theres small changes that make it faster and less interesting. Getting rid of the runways and making you spawn in aircraft mid-air is one decision I could never understand.

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

10 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

Yeah theres small changes that make it faster and less interesting. Getting rid of the runways and making you spawn in aircraft mid-air is one decision I could never understand.

Easy. It removed the griefing that plagued previous titles - parking jeep on the runways, C4'ing the aircraft or runway to knock it off course. Now your team's aircraft can't be hobbled before it literally gets off the ground.