# DISCUSSION: Maps **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [February 28, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678 "2019-02-28T21:16:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DK\_Bastian2](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/47e85d/32.png) [@DK\_Bastian2](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DK_Bastian2)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 9:13am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/61 "2019-03-07T09:13:00Z")
> [@MatthewSkeet](#): > > I only play breakthrough and occasional frontlines mainly as medic > > Arras - probably is in my top 3 maps. > Point A (defender) can be sometimes a bit cumbersome especially when there are tanks pressing on it. the farm building can be knocked down in seconds. and you are without a cover. then the hill humpers can snipe you down and you cant do anything. What I would like to see here is giving the defenders a bit more area to approach that damn hill and take out snipers and camping tanks. this would force people to actually attack the objectives > also the path between A and spawn (church) is too open and more often than not attackers block you from coming down to defend it. > I think the worst bit about arras is the actual grass itself. in real life it would spread out as you move across it… NOT STICK THROUGH YOU and still covering you. all you have to do is to prone in a random place and camp (that often happens at 3rd cap points (water mill and that last building before last cap point). > > Devastation - viability, viability, viability, viability, viability. yet is my 2nd of top3 > but. 1st A, B are great to defend and attack. I rarely had games where attackers were blocked from even reaching the B cap point although it does happen > A/B/C caps the only issue I have is limited space to move around for defenders especially between A and Cathedral > 3rd A/B are good and balanced > 4th A/B (trains) I hate - I can never tell where from the defenders will come, there is just too many options in comparison to other cap points > > Fjel - yup I like it as well. but visibility is an issue here… a lot and it’s too short (just 4 caps) > > 1st A/B points have way too much open space (especially A). While I manage to smoke myself in there 9/10 times, I should not have to. Hill humpers (support and recon) can be a nuisance on those points although if they are busy you can flank them fairly easy. Furthermore, if you flank A where the huts are there is a bit of an open space till next huts (and the defender spawn canyon thing). This is where I often get shot down. > 2nd A/B - The out of bounds flank on B (dice please do not fix this) can be often a game changer if executed well. The A cap is annoying as hill humpers camp in out of bound area so either extending it or doing something to stop this from happening would be great. Again I’m playing medic so there is not much I can do to take them down. > > The one change I probably would do is to limit number of snipers/long range shooters on this map as these are the players that ruin the map > > Rotterdam - this is a mixed bag > A cap is great. bit of CC bit of sniping, decent flanks and defending points and the clusterfeck in the under passage reminds me of Op Metro in BF3 > > 1st A/B. B point (market) is very unbalanced. too many dark areas meaning you get shot by ghosts (viability again) especially under the train track. The tank being able to camp out of bounds behind the market is another dumb thing to have. > A I rarely attack this side because it’s a lottery. I cant see people in the windows because they simply blend in. on top of that access being blocked by sandbags makes it impossible for me to get past it (medic) so flanking options are limited and they should not be in my opinion especially in CC areas (look at 1st A with 3 completely different access points) > > 2nd AB - B (white building), again visibility is an issue but less than A. several access points including back entrance flank > A - (train tracks) is just too open, the tracks themselves are full of camping support players with MMG, without a smoke it can be difficult. and as mention earlier visibility in shadows > > Aerodrome - well, this one is a mixed bag probably one of the worst maps for me. > I like defending and attacking A. > B is wrecked by hill humping TANKS. yes, tanks. I wish I took screenshots. I would have beautiful images of 4-5 tanks on hills just shooting from a distance > A (hangar) - cap zone should be changed im just not sure how. Getting inside is a pain and once you are in you are shot down from 4 different directions. Some windows would be great so that you can check whats going on. > I only like to play this map if I have Mastery (5-6-7) assignments to complete > 2nd A/B > Radar - I dont even go there > hangars - visability is a main factor taking away the fun in this area. > > In summary, there is too many tanks that camp too far. > > Narvik - I like the whole B side of the map (bridge, coal etc), A side is just ruined by visability but I do enjoy playing this map and I rarely get shot by a sniper which cannot be said about the next map… > > Hamada - why DICE, why?! > Who’s decision was it to even release this map. it is literally the worst map in the game. full of damn hill humpers ( remember, as a medic there is not much I can do). > Might as well just do plane field and it will be easier to play this map. most of the attack points or access to them are in the valleys. DICE WTF!!?? > Did I mention that it takes forever with 500 tickets to begin with > Sumarry: Default playstyle is me pressing the options button and selecting quit > > forgot about > Twisted steel. my 4th fav map I’d say. It’s really good in either BT or FL > I always take the right hand side. it’s more CQ the with limited campers for attacking and defending teams. > However > 1st B point is spammed by bombers and leveled down to oblivion making it impossible to hide from incoming fire. And guess what, there is no way of taking those planes down. > > The bridge, I simply ignore, it’s just not worth it (unless I land on top of it lol) > the last ABC points are too open when attacking (can you see a theme). Basically once you capture C and plan to get B or A it’s a lottery if you will get shot down by a camper hiding in the bushes or somewhere > > Overall, the maps are too open at places and dying from a hill humper that never goes at the objective is just annoying. > I said this in a previous topic somewhere. Most of my deaths are from snipers and someone camping in a dark corner of the map. When you have to run from your spawn area flanking a capture point for 2 minutes only to be shot down by a camper it takes out all the fun. > In fact snipers in this game are the most useless and infuriating class of all BF’s games Not really, i the old BF’s you knew if they used scope, i do in fact not use scope most of the time but get insane long range kills because, i use my eyes and knowledge about distance and their speed - long range kills looks awesome so i do not use scopes, so you still hate me or ? haahaha ---
**Author:** ![DK\_Bastian2](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/47e85d/32.png) [@DK\_Bastian2](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DK_Bastian2)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 9:25am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/62 "2019-03-07T09:25:00Z")
> [@Moorlander](#): > > > [@LEGlJAS](#): > > > > i need custom camouflage outfits for every single map… maybe u should start with this > > And then the cry babies would complain that they can’t see you; completely ignoring the fact that you took the time and effort and skill to choose the right outfit for the job. This is after all the job of camouflage gear, is it not? I dont get those people choosing a snow outfit on panzerstorm, and then get mad when i choose a green camo with green face paint and they can’t see me! They need to get more into the customization so players know what a big deal it is to choose snow on grass. Like maybe make an officiel video showing how hard it is to spot a person with the RIGHT camo. like people choosing grass on snow, or desert helmets on snow og anything they need to add more variants to different already existence clothing and helmets like Hazadorous Conditens. sorry my English my hands hurt haha ---
**Author:** ![Kongo030](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@Kongo030](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Kongo030)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 12:48pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/63 "2019-03-07T12:48:00Z")
Basically the game needs to adjust. Like War Thunder you get a default skin and you can buy individual ones for snow or desert maps. The game loads the skin according to the map. No special skin and you end up with a default. It would also attract players to buy skins. With that bad UI I’m not bothering to switch skins before the round. I expected a lot more functionality when they announced the company feature. ---
**Author:** ![KAMEKAT](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/8797f3/32.png) [@KAMEKAT](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KAMEKAT)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/64 "2019-03-07T16:36:00Z")
First post! First of all , thank you for this game DICE. I love this game. As far as maps go, I’m aware that a lot of our comments are subjective. For instance, I prefer infantry focused maps. Fjell, Rotterdam, Arras, Battle of Hannut, Devastation. I still enjoy the other maps for the most part! One map that I cannot play right now is Aerodome. I used to love this map. But nowadays, both teams will have 15-20 snipers which makes it impossible to play the game for me. I understand there’s probably no way around that as it’s not a DICE issue but a player problem. ---
**Author:** ![someguy12121](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/someguy12121/32/103557_2.png) [@someguy12121](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/someguy12121)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 9:32pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/65 "2019-03-07T21:32:00Z")
> [@Kongo030](#): > > Basically the game needs to adjust. Like War Thunder you get a default skin and you can buy individual ones for snow or desert maps. The game loads the skin according to the map. No special skin and you end up with a default. > It would also attract players to buy skins. > > With that bad UI I’m not bothering to switch skins before the round. I expected a lot more functionality when they announced the company feature. Also you provide yet another reason why BF1 was better. BF1 had Loadouts that you could save and switch to on the fly mid-round. This would be awesome in BFV as then you could presave uniforms depending on the map. Heck BF4 had adaptive paints which changed based on the type of map to blend in better which I LOVED, slapped it on all of my vehicles and some guns. The fact that you have to go to a separate screen to change anything mid-round is crazy and primitive. The maps though in this game are just meh overall. Devastation is the only one that makes it feel like a battle. ---
**Author:** ![Kongo030](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@Kongo030](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Kongo030)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/66 "2019-03-08T17:58:00Z")
That’s what I expected from my company. To set up different loadouts and safe them with custom names. So I could have different for example assault loadouts depending on whether I need to attack or defend or if there are vehicles or not. ---
**Author:** ![misisipiRivrRat](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/misisipirivrrat/32/102822_2.png) [@misisipiRivrRat](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/misisipiRivrRat)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/67 "2019-03-10T23:52:00Z")
> [@Jokerdef](#): > > > [@BaronVonGoon](#): > > > > I’m going to keep it short and sweet with an example: > > > > Visualize Siege, Dawnbreaker, Firestorm, Oman, Propaganda, and Pearl Market. > > > > Visualize Twisted Steel, Panzersturm and Narvik. > > > > How different are the two groups? > > > > The BF4 maps have alot of assets. They’re not open fields with some assets sprinkled in. They’re made up of alot assets concentrated in an area. The asset-to-open-space ratio is very high, their isnt much open space. > > > > Now the BFV maps are the exact opposite. All I can think of while playing is I’m bored. I want more buildings. Bigger buildings. More hallway firefights, more urban stuff. More corners. Less open spaces requiring eyes in the back of my eye head. > > > > One thing the maps in BF3/BF4 had on BFV is less random deaths, because there were less open spaces. > > I agree with this. Virtually all of the maps are way too open and have sparse cover. This leads to players just sitting still and sniping. Also many of the objectives are located in very open areas and thus are easily defended and very hard to take. > My favorite map Arras has cover, urban areas and many opportunities to flank the enemy. In other words, you can have fun like in BF4 and also BF1. > So for future maps I would like to see more dense maps with better cover and for the current maps perhaps relocating the objectives in Frontlines and Conquest modes could make some difference. And you could also change weapon balance so that sniping and camping is less effective and a mobile more tactical play style would become more popular. Like in the “good old days of BF”. My ideal maps would be like the wide open maps you mentioned combined with the smaller areas for close quarter combat. Then there is still that Battlefield feel. Just think , you’re taking damage from a tank so you run into a building to escape only to engage enemy soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![someguy12121](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/someguy12121/32/103557_2.png) [@someguy12121](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/someguy12121)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 5:07am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/68 "2019-03-11T05:07:00Z")
> [@Kongo030](#): > > That’s what I expected from my company. To set up different loadouts and safe them with custom names. So I could have different for example assault loadouts depending on whether I need to attack or defend or if there are vehicles or not. You mean the customization that they said would be in the game and now isn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Jokerdef](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/jokerdef/32/106824_2.png) [@Jokerdef](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jokerdef)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 7:43am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/69 "2019-03-11T07:43:00Z")
> [@misisipiRivrRat](#): > > > [@Jokerdef](#): > > > > > [@BaronVonGoon](#): > > > > > > I’m going to keep it short and sweet with an example: > > > > > > Visualize Siege, Dawnbreaker, Firestorm, Oman, Propaganda, and Pearl Market. > > > > > > Visualize Twisted Steel, Panzersturm and Narvik. > > > > > > How different are the two groups? > > > > > > The BF4 maps have alot of assets. They’re not open fields with some assets sprinkled in. They’re made up of alot assets concentrated in an area. The asset-to-open-space ratio is very high, their isnt much open space. > > > > > > Now the BFV maps are the exact opposite. All I can think of while playing is I’m bored. I want more buildings. Bigger buildings. More hallway firefights, more urban stuff. More corners. Less open spaces requiring eyes in the back of my eye head. > > > > > > One thing the maps in BF3/BF4 had on BFV is less random deaths, because there were less open spaces. > > > > I agree with this. Virtually all of the maps are way too open and have sparse cover. This leads to players just sitting still and sniping. Also many of the objectives are located in very open areas and thus are easily defended and very hard to take. > > My favorite map Arras has cover, urban areas and many opportunities to flank the enemy. In other words, you can have fun like in BF4 and also BF1. > > So for future maps I would like to see more dense maps with better cover and for the current maps perhaps relocating the objectives in Frontlines and Conquest modes could make some difference. And you could also change weapon balance so that sniping and camping is less effective and a mobile more tactical play style would become more popular. Like in the “good old days of BF”. > > My ideal maps would be like the wide open maps you mentioned combined with the smaller areas for close quarter combat. Then there is still that Battlefield feel. Just think , you’re taking damage from a tank so you run into a building to escape only to engage enemy soldiers. Hmmm like Caspian Border in BF3 maybe? That would be great indeed 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kismo1980](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/f1d935/32.png) [@kismo1980](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/kismo1980)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2019, 5:11pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/70 "2019-03-11T17:11:00Z")
Still I would love it if this game would have more maps… Something in the forests, some maps that we saw during the single player… Some more diversity and other locations … ---
**Author:** ![olavafar](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/olavafar/32/101046_2.png) [@olavafar](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/olavafar)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 9:32am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/71 "2019-03-12T09:32:00Z")
My feedback is going to be based around Conquest as that’s my most played mode. Thanks to @Marshennn as I used their post as template for mine. My style of play is mostly quite objective close. I play both vehicles and infantry and I play more or less every class equally much. I do daily orders and assignments for the weapons which sometimes make me play in different ways. AFRICA AERODROME I like this map. I tend to play scout or tank and push flanks. It can be annoying when both sides decides to use tanks as snipers and avoid each other as this limits the possibility to move quite a lot (see Panzerstorm). Scouts can be countered if one is scout but a sniper tank may require a tank to take out and it might not be possible to get one. HAMADA This map I do not particularly like. I seem to spend a lot of time just running here. The E - G flags and the A - D has this huge gap of open area between them. It is mostly possible to get over as it is not easily locked down by scouts etc but it is a looong run. Often one ends up at the objective just after it was taken anyway, only to see that the flag one just came from is now contested. Just sitting and waiting is not something I’m very fond of either. I play all classes on this map. Flying is quite enjoyable on it. Side note: I do like the Frontlines version of this map very much. FRANCE ARRAS I like this map a lot. I can play any class here and have fun. Lots of flanking options and cover. TWISTED STEEL See Arras. Bonus is flying a fighter through the bridge. I try to do that every round if I can get a plane :). NORWAY NARVIK See Arras. It is a bit hard to be aggressive with tanks here I think. I do not mind it as I have no need to stay in a tank for a full round so I just drive to C and get blown up. It lacks the ‘open’ flag options of Arras and Twisted Steel. FJELL 652 For me this is primarily a flying map. The flying is so good on this map I tend to do that if I get a plane. Infantry play is OK but has a tendency to tilt one way or the other with one team only have A or E or getting caught in spawn. HOLLAND ROTTERDAM and DEVASTATION I regard these manly as infantry maps and they are both favorites. Playing tank in any of them, especially devastation, is hard if one wants to be on objectives. Rotterdam works but devastation might just as well be without the tanks. On devastation the main use of the tanks are as spawn points but they will rarely last very long and spawning on a tank has its drawback with the animations involved. PANZERSTORM This is the map I like the least. Playing as infantry means running around a lot. Tankers have a tendency to camp in the open areas making the game quite static. Flying is not very enjoyable either as the map is flat and gives little cover from AA or other planes. Imo it should come in two of the legacy modes: Tank superiority and Air superiority. As a combined arms map, not a favorite of mine. RELATED SUGGESTIONS Map voting is something that comes up now and then. I’m not particularly fond of it as I like the variation one gets with a rotation. As it has been up until now though there are no map-based assignments so that argument against is gone. Question is how one could design a map voting system that both gives a variation (so that not all servers turn into Devastation 24/7) while still giving players some influence over next map. One such suggestion could be to have a rotation but let players affect the order by voting for the next map among those not yet played in a rotation. So if we have map A-K. We start the server on A. Next round one can vote for any of B-K. If D wins, third round will be between B,C, E-K. etc until all maps have been played and then next round there is A-K to vote among again. I have not thought much about what this would mean, just throwing it in here. ---
**Author:** ![ENKkii87](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/enkkii87/32/101864_2.png) [@ENKkii87](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ENKkii87)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 1:38am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/72 "2019-03-13T01:38:00Z")
This is kind of off topic but can we have 64 man variations of game modes. Sometimes and absolutely chaotic frag fest is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Granatenmaxe](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@Granatenmaxe](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Granatenmaxe)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 4:55am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/73 "2019-03-13T04:55:00Z")
Close quarter 64 player Wolfenstein map would be great. ---
**Author:** ![hshtrs](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/8dc957/32.png) [@hshtrs](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/hshtrs)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/74 "2019-03-13T22:06:00Z")
So about the maps, I’m saying this all the time and I think I can speak for majority of the ccommunity - we need remake of Operation Metro based in Paris 1944. BFV desperately needs this kind of CQC mess! And I can guarantee you, tons of people will come back just for this map. ---
**Author:** ![KingAchilles666](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/df788c/32.png) [@KingAchilles666](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KingAchilles666)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/75 "2019-03-14T01:35:00Z")
> [@LEGlJAS](#): > > i will never forget the battlefield hardline maps… the beat, black friday, code blue, museum, diversion, pacific highway… damn i miss this game sooo much..never had so fun in since bf3 I actually just booted up Hardline a few days ago, a lot of the maps are fun and diverse and the Night Maps are actually like a spooky night time lol. ---
**Author:** ![tolly2121](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@tolly2121](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/tolly2121)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2019, 1:51am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/76 "2019-03-14T01:51:00Z")
I agree with the comment above that Fjell needs some work. I can honestly say it is my least favorite map, but when I do like it it is because I am playing C and the mountain village was a cool idea. All the other maps work well IMO. They force you to play differently, so what works on one will not work well on another. I like that. I do think the brightness in Hamada needs to be toned down just a titch. ---
**Author:** ![fakemon64](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/7ba0ec/32.png) [@fakemon64](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/fakemon64)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2019, 2:33am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/77 "2019-03-14T02:33:00Z")
> [@KingAchilles666](#): > > > [@LEGlJAS](#): > > > > i will never forget the battlefield hardline maps… the beat, black friday, code blue, museum, diversion, pacific highway… damn i miss this game sooo much..never had so fun in since bf3 > > I actually just booted up Hardline a few days ago, a lot of the maps are fun and diverse and the Night Maps are actually like a spooky night time lol. I wasn’t a big fan of hardline, but I will admit the maps were pretty damn decent… ---
**Author:** ![Faylum](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/faylum/32/101926_2.png) [@Faylum](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Faylum)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2019, 4:28am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/78 "2019-03-15T04:28:00Z")
Some very interesting suggestions here. There is a few types of maps i am looking for, something i don’t think DICE are capable of making due to low res settings nuking foliage. But to put it simply: \* Jungle maps. (No i don’t mean jungle elements, i mean maps entirely filled with high grass and foliage. Where tankers have flamethrowers, flame troopers, coastal ships shoot incendiary rounds and the map can be burned down to charcoal. What am i talking about? A Levelution style map like Tarowa, Guadalcanal, Burma.) \* Island defence maps. (Where Allies have a few planes they cannot bail out of. Ships for artillery and landing craft. Defenders have a few minutes to build their coastal batteries and defences, the islands have underground bases, hill bases and airfields to capture) \* A real Battle of Britain map based almost entirely on the BF1942 map. (In its objectives and layouts. With Spitfires being nerfed in number and damage. perhaps 2 spitfires for every 10 Axis planes. And the axis having infinite numbers of planes to spawn immediately. So as not prevent gaps in plane waves.) \* Japanese vs Russians in Manchuria \* Crimea \* Italy \* U-Boats vs Escorts. Atlantic shipping war, allies get planes, destroyers, cruisers and battleships, along with people having to physically escort the transport ships, while axis get access to U-boats. \* Bismark vs Allied bombers Scharnhorst vs Allied fleet Aircraft carrier vs Aircraft carrier, US vs Japanese (Obviously this wouldn’t work without being able to steer big ships and sink them.) \* For once i would like a map that is based on a retreat. Where one team has to effectively retreat while perhaps some NPC vehicles need to progress backwards, perhaps some trucks or first aid vehicles. The Germans lets say are fighting rear guard action against the Russians and only have to buy time, their only objective is to buy time. The attackers have more vehicles and planes but longer spawn delays and must negotiate obstacles and kill pits. Basically a type of ‘mine cart’ game mode, where team work for both sides is in breaking through an area. PTFO in its rawest form. \* Arhnem \* And most importantly i want an absolutely visceral and unreal depiction of the Normandy beach landings. (If only the battlefield franchise could spend some time working on gore’n’gibets i could spend my life reliving this theatre) ---
**Author:** ![OldSkoolzFinest](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/oldskoolzfinest/32/107027_2.png) [@OldSkoolzFinest](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/OldSkoolzFinest)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/79 "2019-03-15T15:33:00Z")
If you want to make a good maps, Stay away from designing them like Fjell, Devastation , Hamada. These maps have the worst Lighting and Shadowing out of them all. FJELL and Narvak is Blinding with how the lighting sheens off of the snow making the map look blue, and then the shadows are so dark on the players blend right in. Devastation is a Dry one tone Nightmare of a map. A prone campers best friend. Dark and saturated with shadows. Every Night map in BF1 has better Visibility than this does. Hamadas open desert area is too damn bright with how the light sheens off the rocks is well…rocks shouldn’t be able to blind players. This games Visibility problem isn’t because of Camouflage or what the player is wearing, it’s because the lighting and shadows are too extreme compared to past titles with bad contrast implementation. I just bought two well rated mid/high end 4k tvs that I had professionally calibrated to play on Xbox one x and this game still looks terrible on them. But all my other games look phenomenal including past titles in your own Franchise. ---
**Author:** ![JDOGMcFUZZL](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e9a140/32.png) [@JDOGMcFUZZL](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JDOGMcFUZZL)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678/80 "2019-03-15T18:45:00Z")
We definitely need more maps in general. But definitely some maps with elevation changes in them. Either a city that has more buildings to run around in (rotterdam has some but most of the buildings only have a ground floor) or a mountain side with lots of valleys and hills to fight through. Also we need some naval battles in this game. With boats. That would be awesome. And we need another large map like panzerstorm with lots of tanks and even more planes. [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678.md?page=3) [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/discussion-maps/106678.md?page=5)