Original Post — Direct link

Let me give this proposal – DICE could rework some of the maps – a bit more context and detail. Feel free to add your ideas and opinions.

Why could DICE do it:

  • this is supposed to be a live service, that is a living and breathing experience, so why not?
  • Rainbow Six: Siege is showing, that it can be done
  • some maps are just not great and telemetry should show that as well (i.e. people leaving when it comes up or some parts/objectives are just not working)
  • DICE would not have to start from scratch and create all new assets, thus saving on time and resources, while still providing us with fresh (but not quite new) content

How DICE could go about it:

  • remove the map(s) from the current map pool
  • work on the map(s) either in secrecy or in a transparent way
    • if you choose the transparent way, the community map project from BF4 could be a blueprint
    • there were even hints at the return of a CTE in some form or another...who knows (can't find tiggr's tweet about it right now)
    • or surprise us – also fine with me
  • add the map(s) back in with a cool map(s) + mode(s) focussed ToW event
    • make it a positive experience for everyone

What DICE could do:

  • look at what makes the new maps so exciting and fun
    • I don't want to speak for the community what it exactly is, but...
    • ...this subreddit is probably willing to help :D
    • and I'm sure people at DICE know as well, since they were able to create these exciting new maps
  • don't be afraid to make bold changes
    • we now have 4 factions to choose from
    • the name/place and year could also be up for change (I heard people like well known battles, so why not repurpose an old map towards that?)
  • regardless of map design, add more atmosphere, since this is almost always lacking in the base maps
  • have one mode in mind, when looking at the maps
    • I mainly play Conquest and I think the new maps work well, even though they were made with Breakthrough in mind
  • moving around fortifications and/or ammo/health crates is not what I mean :p

Don't get me wrong, I understand that re-working maps is still a whole lot of work. Audio, effects, lighting, map flow and meta, fortifications and, and, and...all of it matters and is not done in a few weeks, even if you have a solid starting point. I still think, the live service model is the chance to rework stuff, that was just not quite where it could be.

Just some examples of maps I would love to be reworked and why – personal opinion as a Conquest player:

  • Fjell 652 – stringent infantry gameplay with fixed lanes and too much focus on center objective C and annoying planes
  • Rotterdam – lacking atmosphere (especially compared to Operation Underground)
  • Devastation – circle of objectives around the center objective gets annoying quick (I tend to avoid center flags, especially when there is an uneven amount of flags)

What do you think? What maps would you like to see reworked and how?

External link →
about 5 years ago - /u/tek0011 - Direct link

Originally posted by EmbracedByLeaves

Pretty sure this happened with Panzerstorm.

It was released and then re released with significantly different topography.

Right. Multiple maps have had small parts added or removed. Trenches changed, debris added, flag cap zones changed.

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Hey everyone here. I am interested in this topic. Feel free to list things you like changed and why. Try to avoid making proposals on what to do instead as they quickly can become unrealistic for performance, technical or time reasons. Just describe what you don't like or would like to see changed.

Good example: I can't see the enemy due to the sunlight shinning in my face. Bad example: I get blinded, change the map to night.

Will read all responses!

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Originally posted by WiSeWoRd

Give us the ability to spawn into transports from the menu. It would lead to people using them at the same rates as BF3/4.

We discussed this actually, but there were multiple concerns for various reasons. Instead we went with the new always spawned and visible on the deploy screen system we have now. Transport vehicle availability is way more reliable now and we are pretty happy with the results we saw.

about 5 years ago - /u/PartWelsh - Direct link

Originally posted by Juel92

I feel like the BF community disagrees AF on basically everything. Gotta be a hard job being the community workers trying to suss out WTF to do.

Upvote the memes is about the most consistent rule I’ve found over the years.

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Originally posted by sealteamz6

Yeah I really like the idea of improving maps but I also see so much disagreement in the community as to which maps are good and bad with which modes I am sometimes skeptical of peoples complaints. Apparently everyone hates Fjell? I usually enjoy games on that map. Not saying its necessarily an amazing map but I usually find the games fun.

Maps are very opinion bases. Always have been, always will, but we got a lot of data on how maps rate on average. We get those data from different sources. One of them being monthly surveys that get shared on this Reddit. This allows us to get an understanding of the overall popularity. Similar to how IMDB rating on films doesn't actually tell you if it's a good movie, but it tells you how most people think about it.

With that data in mind, I can happily say that besides what reddit sometimes suggest, we are doing really well with 80-90% of the maps. We have 3 candidates which are not performing as hoped. Overall this is a way better trend then in previous games. Especially with post launch map releases. All of them are doing incredible well.

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Originally posted by MrVetter

-- Operation Underground: In the map overview it would be awesome to see the accual underground layout (or at least when you select a player to spawn that is below ground level)

-- Damage over time from crashing houses:

As of now its always 3 damage ticks from falling pieces. I would love each damage tick to check seperately if you are still within the house area.

I often run out of the house and am like 5 meters away from the house and then die. It feels like some red shells from mario kart chase me.

Edit:

-- Narvik Conquest: German side has 2 PAK´s from F -> D, Brits none. Not a big deal but feels a little unfair (especially when you are the first on D and get oneshotted by it)

-- Marita: Would be awesome to have some tunnels in the Mountain. I remember some BF1 Maps with tunnelsystems and it could add some additional flanking pathes.

--- Squadconquest in general:

-- 2 Spawns on each map / Each side. -> This game mode suffers the most if teams are not balanced and the result often is spawntraps

-- Set the Deserting-timer on all maps to 4 seconds. Its way too easy to spawntrap weaker teams and 10 seconds give you so much time to walk in their spawn area and kill them more.

-- More recovery tools when you are tripplecapped (like the transporter on Rotterdam)

-----> As you promised to read all responses please say "cheesecake" to proove it :p

Thanks for reading and Cheers :)

cheesecake

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Originally posted by YesImKeithHernandez

add more transports, also a motorcycle would be neat

This would probably be one of the most significant changes that, in theory, shouldn't be too hard to do (right?)

BFV tends to promote the worst of running for way too long to either get to objectives that are active or flanking and getting behind the enemy for some actual tactics as opposed to zerging from one objective to the next.

As always it's way more complicated than it seems. Sure, adding more vehicles is easy. I can literally drag and drop them in, but no, that would most likely quickly destroy the server performance which then would cause latency issues and reduction of client performance as well. It's a fine balance we need to strike here. :)

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Originally posted by layth_haythm

I’d say don’t waste your time with the old maps I think spending the time to make great maps like Iow Jima and Pacific Storm is much better in my opinion.

I would disagree. :)
A successful live service needs a bit of both as we don't retire old maps. So having every single map on a high level of quality is really key to a consistent gameplay experience.

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Originally posted by Robert-101

Well, Pacific Storm as an example on Breakthrough really doesn't work well attacking. I mean half the team is quitting. I guess what i'm saying is that the popularity of the new maps may have nothing to do with the layout, as much as they're more popular battles and factions.

Idk if there's anything they could do to make the vanilla boring maps any better. The only thing they could do, is just come out with more popular maps and factions.

In addition, their history of reworking say TDM, didn't fare too well, while the others like Frontlines may not either.

I like posts like this and I am sorry for dragging you out like this now, but I feel like it's a perfect example of "personal perceived reality" vs "what the massive playerbase actually does". Your comment made me curious if the perceived experience of you is actually reflected in data. So I went and looked it up. Turns out since the launch of the Pacific maps people have actually spent more time playing Pacific Storm Breakthrough than Iwo Jima Breakthrough.

Also to the TDM rework: I am sorry if you preferred the old versions of the layouts, but we actually haven't seen a change in playtime or popularity (for better or worse) since the change.

The constant iteration of Rush has seen a lot of success as well and the latest changes to Frontlines also seemed to go well with the players. (I believe we have some more in 5.2 coming.) The changes we do are based mostly on player feedback. We are not changing stuff cause we suddenly had the idea to do so. This thread is a testament that there is an interest in such efforts.

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

Originally posted by Robert-101

Well, thank you for your response. But you're making my point. The changes you made to TDM, showed relatively no changes in playtime or playercounts.

How much work was put into that, to achieve that result?

And so we'll go thru this again, when there's so many other things we would enjoy? That's the whole point here.

The Pacific "worked", and i doubt it worked because of the layout. It worked because you brought in what we always wanted from the get go. It really is that simple.

And going by 'reddit" is a huge mistake dude, in what folks have interests in. Because if the choice is, regurgitate old content, or focus on new content, i think you know the answer you're gonna get, no matter what's said here.

And again, thank you for the response.

I feel like there is a scale between no change and insane appreciation. So while we might not have seen change with TDM, we have seen success in those other areas I mentioned. I am not crazy. I don't expect as much traction on this as we have seen with the Pacific, but the costs are minimal in comparison. I think the TDM changes took one designer a week or so.

about 5 years ago - /u/Kenturrac - Direct link

It's not that easy. Never is. :)