When did he admit that? The map design (especially rush) is terrible in BF4 - Nexus has been pretty vocal about this.
The Battlefield 4 Thread ~ Server details in opening post ~
- Thread starter ~Mike~
- Start date
- Status
When did he admit that? The map design (especially rush) is terrible in BF4 - Nexus has been pretty vocal about this.
I think the vanilla maps for bf 4 are quite well designed (conquest large). My main complaint is too many vehicles i.e. lacang damn
As kiwi said though, rush etc. game modes are pure **** for them, bf 3 rush maps were better and bc 2 is FAR better for rush mode.
However, the majority of DLC maps for bf 4 are absolute **** imo, only a couple of "real" stand out maps, lumphini gardens and propaganda. The naval maps would have been great if it weren't for the gunship...
BF 3 maps were designed well but the lack of cover from the massively OP aircraft didn't make for an enjoyable experience. AM maps = amazing! (except markiz monolith, ruined by roof campers once again....), loved the CQ maps too, didn't have the other DLC packs but imo they looked awful, especially the ones with the ac130 (even more OP in that game)
As for what else can they do, no idea! But introducing OP gadgets/weapons is most certainly not what I would do
Likewise for game modes, conquest large, rush, TDM and 1-2 others are fine but not 14 game modes...
I would like to have seen something like what happened with bc 2 and vietnam DLC, not just new maps but new/reskinned weapons, vehicles, gadgets etc. So hardline could have been one DLC pack... then maybe have a WW1/2 DLC, future shooter/2142 DLC, vietnam etc. etc.
As kiwi said though, rush etc. game modes are pure **** for them, bf 3 rush maps were better and bc 2 is FAR better for rush mode.
However, the majority of DLC maps for bf 4 are absolute **** imo, only a couple of "real" stand out maps, lumphini gardens and propaganda. The naval maps would have been great if it weren't for the gunship...
BF 3 maps were designed well but the lack of cover from the massively OP aircraft didn't make for an enjoyable experience. AM maps = amazing! (except markiz monolith, ruined by roof campers once again....), loved the CQ maps too, didn't have the other DLC packs but imo they looked awful, especially the ones with the ac130 (even more OP in that game)
As for what else can they do, no idea! But introducing OP gadgets/weapons is most certainly not what I would do
Likewise for game modes, conquest large, rush, TDM and 1-2 others are fine but not 14 game modes...I would like to have seen something like what happened with bc 2 and vietnam DLC, not just new maps but new/reskinned weapons, vehicles, gadgets etc. So hardline could have been one DLC pack... then maybe have a WW1/2 DLC, future shooter/2142 DLC, vietnam etc. etc.
fundamentally to resolve those issues its going to have to wait until the next Battlefield game.
They've got the whole design philosophy wrong with the maps, attempting to create generic maps then adapating those to all the different game modes. The BC2 rush maps worked so well because they were designed first and foremost as rush maps.
They've got the whole design philosophy wrong with the maps, attempting to create generic maps then adapating those to all the different game modes. The BC2 rush maps worked so well because they were designed first and foremost as rush maps.
I don't want them to "pad out" DLC with this ****. spend more time and effort on map designs, maybe some new vehicles like the snowcross etc, or like the tank destroyers in bf3 and the such. not ******* hover tanks n **** gadgets that are retarded.
or maybe just spend more time looking at the core game it's improved a lot... but there's still a way to go xD
everything else is just gimmicks dangled in front of us to try and dazzle us from noticing things that still need fixing/smoothing. and it's just taking the **** with all the "future" weapons now.
or maybe just spend more time looking at the core game
it's improved a lot... but there's still a way to go xDeverything else is just gimmicks dangled in front of us to try and dazzle us from noticing things that still need fixing/smoothing. and it's just taking the **** with all the "future" weapons now.
I don't want them to "pad out" DLC with this ****. spend more time and effort on map designs, maybe some new vehicles like the snowcross etc, or like the tank destroyers in bf3 and the such. not ******* hover tanks n **** gadgets that are retarded.
or maybe just spend more time looking at the core game
everything else is just gimmicks dangled in front of us to try and dazzle us from noticing things that still need fixing/smoothing. and it's just taking the **** with all the "future" weapons now.
That's a totally different issue though. That's just you not liking what they've spent their time on.
The amount of dev time spent creating hover tanks is no different to that of creating the tank destroyers in armored kill.
Speaking as somebody who played 2142, this will be great nostalgia for me. But for those that didn't play or enjoy 2142, they probably don't care.
And its pointless saying "spend more time on the core game" since the DLC team will never ever work on the core game. They are texture artists - map designers, sound technicians, modellers etc.. with maybe one or two actual coders to stick it all together. These people will never work on bug fixing the main code branch. That's done by the CTE team who have produced tons of fixes in the last patch and the upcoming September one.
I think the vanilla maps for bf 4 are quite well designed (conquest large). My main complaint is too many vehicles i.e. lacang damn
As kiwi said though, rush etc. game modes are pure **** for them, bf 3 rush maps were better and bc 2 is FAR better for rush mode.
However, the majority of DLC maps for bf 4 are absolute **** imo, only a couple of "real" stand out maps, lumphini gardens and propaganda. The naval maps would have been great if it weren't for the gunship...
BF 3 maps were designed well but the lack of cover from the massively OP aircraft didn't make for an enjoyable experience. AM maps = amazing! (except markiz monolith, ruined by roof campers once again....), loved the CQ maps too, didn't have the other DLC packs but imo they looked awful, especially the ones with the ac130 (even more OP in that game)
As for what else can they do, no idea! But introducing OP gadgets/weapons is most certainly not what I would do
I would like to have seen something like what happened with bc 2 and vietnam DLC, not just new maps but new/reskinned weapons, vehicles, gadgets etc. So hardline could have been one DLC pack... then maybe have a WW1/2 DLC, future shooter/2142 DLC, vietnam etc. etc.
I think the best map was Bazzar infantry only, Fire Storm was fun early on, as was Caspian Boarder... but then they buffed and buffed and buffed air, as if that wasn't enough they then nerfed and nerfed again any ground based air defence.
It completely wrecked any and every open air map, it became plain ridiculous, Jet's targeting and killing Infantry from miles away with the machine gun, everytime you stepped out from cover *Thud, killed by jet* that to keep a few Console Kids happy raping the ground with impunity.
I actually gave up on all open air maps, retreated to pretty much playing Bazzar exclusively before getting bored with that, i stop playing BF3 long before BF4 came out.
I find BF4 a bit better, Air is not as highly buffed as it is in BF3, a Jet can't kill infantry from the other side of a huge map, its not quite as easy for a gunship to take out a Tank, though its still Console arcade easy, Mobile AA's aren't completely useless.
Though repairing the Little Bird while on the go needs to be stopped, between that and flares its impossible to take one out with anything less than a 3 or 4 stinger team all going after it, or a 3 RPG team provided you can get within 50 meters of it.
Hainan Hotel while a good map quickly became a map written off because of that
Last edited:
don't get me wrong, I loved 2142 
running about in mechs and stuff! was great fun! but there's a time and a place for rail guns, hover tanks, spinning flying drones and the like... and that would be a new 2143 game or what ever. not a game that already has a plethora of **** gimmicky gadgets.
these artists/designers, they could have spent more time on map design, or even make a testing team themselves waste of resources if you ask me, putting futuristic things in a game that shouldn't be.
just my opinion
running about in mechs and stuff! was great fun! but there's a time and a place for rail guns, hover tanks, spinning flying drones and the like... and that would be a new 2143 game or what ever. not a game that already has a plethora of **** gimmicky gadgets.these artists/designers, they could have spent more time on map design, or even make a testing team themselves
waste of resources if you ask me, putting futuristic things in a game that shouldn't be.just my opinion
I don't mind futuristic stuff, however.... don't mix it in with a modern set FPS game and balance the stuff out i.e. that railgun, add bullet drop, slow the bullet down and definitely don't make it so that it can damage/take out vehicles.... Likewise for that stationary weapon, make it do **** all damage against aircraft and extremely weak against infantry or/and reduce the ammo by a **** load.
Very true that last part.
However, if they hadn't rushed the game out, the maps could have been great from the start for both rush and conquest. To make them "great", they only have to do a few simple changes i.e. implement an out of bounds system for height/building roof tops (kind of addressed this in some ways with the spawn beacon and not being able to parachute in), remove some vehicles and change the placement of a few flags/coms (they have done this a bit in cte with a few maps and mcoms + vehicles)
flood zone rush in the CTE is much better and actually pretty damn good fun.
I hope they take a look at all the comments and re-visit bf 4 once completely finished and see how cluttered it is and go back to a more simple game, the grenade/explosive situation in general is a joke and metro in bf 4 shows exactly why, in bf 3, you could make a push for it and explosives were annoying but compared to bf 4.... can't even push forward due to all the grenades etc.
Played lockers a few weeks ago and was standing at a doorway trying to get A flag but couldn't because there was literally 6-10 grenades coming my way every 1-3 seconds....
Yup, pretty much agree with all that.
Can't say I have an issue with the little bird too much, only map it is generally a problem is on flood zone but then if you equip the no skill AA mines, place them around the rooftops, it pretty much shuts the little bird down, have done that a few times now when there is a good enemy pilot. Hardly ever get any kills with it but it will keep them away or divert them elsewhere or even better make them lose control and crash into something
Bazaar probably my favourite bf3 map too, infantry play was just amazing. See if this was a BF 4 map, we would have the following on it:
- gunship
- MBT tank
- little bird
Most of my gameplay time in bf 3 was spent on the CQ maps
I loved them, whilst it is COD/TDM, there was just something fun about them, really well designed imho + every match was super close and of course no way of getting base rape.
It is a shame they messed caspian up so much for bf 4, that wall ruined the map.
pre-school finishes early!
Very true that last part.
However, if they hadn't rushed the game out, the maps could have been great from the start for both rush and conquest. To make them "great", they only have to do a few simple changes i.e. implement an out of bounds system for height/building roof tops (kind of addressed this in some ways with the spawn beacon and not being able to parachute in), remove some vehicles and change the placement of a few flags/coms (they have done this a bit in cte with a few maps and mcoms + vehicles)
flood zone rush in the CTE is much better and actually pretty damn good fun.
I hope they take a look at all the comments and re-visit bf 4 once completely finished and see how cluttered it is and go back to a more simple game, the grenade/explosive situation in general is a joke and metro in bf 4 shows exactly why, in bf 3, you could make a push for it and explosives were annoying but compared to bf 4.... can't even push forward due to all the grenades etc.
Played lockers a few weeks ago and was standing at a doorway trying to get A flag but couldn't because there was literally 6-10 grenades coming my way every 1-3 seconds....Yup, pretty much agree with all that.
Can't say I have an issue with the little bird too much, only map it is generally a problem is on flood zone but then if you equip the no skill AA mines, place them around the rooftops, it pretty much shuts the little bird down, have done that a few times now when there is a good enemy pilot. Hardly ever get any kills with it but it will keep them away or divert them elsewhere or even better make them lose control and crash into something
Bazaar probably my favourite bf3 map too, infantry play was just amazing. See if this was a BF 4 map, we would have the following on it:
- gunship
- MBT tank
- little bird
Most of my gameplay time in bf 3 was spent on the CQ maps
I loved them, whilst it is COD/TDM, there was just something fun about them, really well designed imho + every match was super close and of course no way of getting base rape.
It is a shame they messed caspian up so much for bf 4, that wall ruined the map.
pre-school finishes early!
Last edited:
Bazzar was a simple map with few entry point on any give place, thats what made it so great. you could always predict where your enemy would come from, so you could always plan ahead, use thought out tactics.
The CQ maps in BF4 have too many entry points, you can never have enough bodies to cover tham all and you can never predict where your enemy would come from.
So you can never get into a skill based fire fight, you would always get shot in the back from 6 different angles.
Its a different mentality to the Bazzar design, in Bazzar once you have taken a position you could defend it.
With BF4 CQ maps its deliberately designed so that you can't.
The CQ maps in BF4 have too many entry points, you can never have enough bodies to cover tham all and you can never predict where your enemy would come from.
So you can never get into a skill based fire fight, you would always get shot in the back from 6 different angles.
Its a different mentality to the Bazzar design, in Bazzar once you have taken a position you could defend it.
With BF4 CQ maps its deliberately designed so that you can't.
I can see what you mean but... in some ways it is good to have more than just a couple of ways of flanking/getting to a flag, it makes for a more balanced game, of course, there can be too many ways i.e. pearl market, get shot from about 20+ angles/places
Unfortunately, the majority of players go for the area/flag where the most action is all the time though i.e. lockers and C flag.
I think the best CQ map(s) for infantry and flag/map design is zavod, lumphini and propaganda.
Ah yes forgot about that and the constant UAV scans....
Unfortunately, the majority of players go for the area/flag where the most action is all the time though i.e. lockers and C flag.
I think the best CQ map(s) for infantry and flag/map design is zavod, lumphini and propaganda.
don't forget the cruise missilethat on grab ass would be hilarious.... clear out the central flag in a jiffy
Ah yes forgot about that and the constant UAV scans....
Very true regarding the new map - you can literally get shot from anywhere given the amount of buildings with windows and camping spots.
new map is ok (looks really nice) but as usual, dice and their thought of more is better ruins it, too many vehicles in general
jets can't see **** cause of all the clouds but I suppose this is quite good at the same time for losing other jets and aa...
Wish DICE would stop attaching vehicles to certain flags too, just give each team the vehicle in their deployment i.e. the aa vehicles in this map are tied to two flags (flags closest to the deployment bases) so if one team gets both of them, good bye aircraft and hello aircraft rape for one team (1 attack heli each team and another attack heli attached to a flag)...
jets can't see **** cause of all the clouds but I suppose this is quite good at the same time for losing other jets and aa...
Wish DICE would stop attaching vehicles to certain flags too, just give each team the vehicle in their deployment i.e. the aa vehicles in this map are tied to two flags (flags closest to the deployment bases) so if one team gets both of them, good bye aircraft and hello aircraft rape for one team (1 attack heli each team and another attack heli attached to a flag)...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 6,270
- Location
- North London
Is anyone else having issues getting on severs ?
I keep getting " No contact With EA Online "
I keep getting " No contact With EA Online "
Yep, same here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 6,270
- Location
- North London
I can see it ending up a Youtube night 
- Status