Ah....so not "expansive" at all then, thats a shame, a big (or in this case a little
) shame——The Official Battlefield 6 Thread——
- Thread starter Neil79
- Start date
) shame
Yeah I was hoping it was going to be bigger version of the existing beta maps or something, but no its the same conquest maps the beta had already and it takes like 20 or 30 seconds to drive from one side of the map to the other, very expansive indeed
Last edited:
Theres definitely not much expansive about a map with a 30 second time to cross. Maybe they spelled it wrong and they meant to say expensive maps
Just drive slower and it'll take longer for you, might make the map feel bigger.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,882
Anyone think that Battle of Cairo Map is not suitable for Conquest Mode? its far too small for tanks imo..often getting stuck on objects that in reality a tank should run over / destroy with ease.
Its definitely an infantry map.
Its definitely an infantry map.
Last edited:
Just had a round on it now over lunch and we played in a tank the entire round, basically took over the entire map. As long as you stick to your routes (running the outside of the map) you can pretty much dominate the A/C/E points without any major concern.
I think a lot of people forget the big road that loops around the whole map, you can travel round the back of the A point, then close to the spawn all the way past the far side of B without having to struggle through the middle / crowded parts.
It's for sure more infantry focused - but tanks are super fun to use on it.
Might want to try re-reading my post, where did i state it plays like cod? What i did state is that the beta seems geared to entice those players into playing, mostly due to the maps that have been selected for this so called "beta". It's hardly coincidence ea flap their gums about wanting 100 million players then launch a "beta" with maps that are quite at home with a TDM headless chicken style of play.
A map like firestorm would have been far more interesting and would give us a go at an actual battlefield map vs these infantry meat grinders.
Spot on
it is indeed. as you are playing against a person who has unfair advantages. not sure what the aim assist percentage is in battlefield 6 but in some games its as much as 60 percent. to someone whos semi decent thats massive aiming wise.
Yeah it's really annoying. Just goes to show that certain peeps are only interested in racking up kills no matter what.
I'm honestly quite surprised that they didnt include just 1 proper large map. There has been a lot of feedback about map size and they could have very easily dealt with that mapsize feedback by just including 1 proper large map. Theres 9 maps at release and we've been given 4 of them, cant see that it would have hurt to make just 1 of those 4 be a big map. I can only assume that there is a reason why they dont want to showcase one of their large maps and I guess only they know what the reason is. Doesnt make a lot of sense to me, if it was me and I was wanting to show off my new game, I'd provide as many variations of the game as possible so as to maximise the width of the game appeal. If they were just showing 1 map, I could understand that they would want to show the map that displays the most intensive action as that gives the quickest dopamine hit to the players but if I was showing 4 (almost half) of my actual release maps, I'd go with 2 smalls (to primarily show off infantry combat and gameplay mechanics), 1 medium (to primarily show off infantry and vehicle combat and gameplay mechanics) and 1 large (to primarily show off multi vehicle, aircraft and naval combat and gameplay mechanics)
Yep bizzare map decisions unless they just want to attract the COD kids.
They said themselves they chose these maps to show off their "high octane gameplay" in other words COD gameplay
Apart from Liberation peak there is nothing Battlefield here and even at that this map is smaller than most Bad Company 2 maps which as all old BF players know was a mini BF game allbeit a great game.
Word is we will have Liberation Peak, Firestorm and maybe one other map bigger than the existing maps.
Thats not enough, just remake some of the BF3 maps , Aftermatch expansion had some fantastic maps too.
Its as if they lost any of their good map designers.
Delta Force too would be a good game if it had good maps.
Last edited:
"big" maps doesn't mean it will be good..... You need to have good map design too especially for the game modes like conquest. That's the main concern I and others should have. I mean look at bf 2042, arguably it's maps were big but they were/are awfully designed which did more harm than good.
It's pretty evident now that dice have designed the maps to be "high octane action" to win the cod player base and that's fine, the game plays well for that play style.
Like I said before, the battlefield days are over, this is simply the new game design for battlefield.
It's pretty evident now that dice have designed the maps to be "high octane action" to win the cod player base and that's fine, the game plays well for that play style.
Like I said before, the battlefield days are over, this is simply the new game design for battlefield.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 May 2022
- Posts
- 2,391
- Location
- London
I agree, but they do tend to guarantee a less 'cluster****' style of gameplay. Small maps on Battlefield is usually just a big old mess. Tried this beta again and its just intolerable how chaotic it is. No room for any kind of tactics or anything.
It's just dumb downed cannon fodder gameplay. Getting more than 2 kills in a row as infantry on the small maps feels like some of kind of amazing achievement.
Last edited: