Apparently it’s around 1500m end to end,and for the fly boys it’s got a runway,Back to old school for the planes.
for one map
Which is weird right? People have stated that Rotterdam even though being a “tiny” map felt empty even with 64 players yet scream for massive maps; contradiction much?
Arras seems big enough and Twisted Steel is gonna be bigger than that too.
Why can’t we have mix of both large/medium/small maps? Battlefield has always done that
Rotterdam was small on the medium side.. it felt empty traveling from A to C to D because the vast majority of teams kept to A to B to D aswell as the bridge and let’s not forget there were many many 4 story stairs around alot of the capture zones that added to the overall space of Rotterdam.
Hamada could be another future firestorm map.. but I also remember dice mentioning that firestorm will be the biggest map ever created by them.. so how big will hamada be or how much of hamada will be accessible?
We need B-17!
I think the time to bleed out and then respawn contributed to the “empty map” but I agree it is a contradiction … people want bigger maps but complain about “empty”? The two are directly related.
I wonder if it’s cosmetic or really for landing?
That new map looks good.
Remember people got bored walking over the big maps?
Then we got the ability to sprint…constantly.
That was a massive change that removed a mechanic that required the player to think about their environment tactically.
Yes I’m still grumbling about that one…
Probably the only one..
Agree.
Small maps with very few vehicles and no planes, medium maps with some vehicles/planes and large maps with a lot of vehicles/planes. Then there is something for everyone. I like such a mix.
That is what dice seems to be doing with the maps, watch the Deep Dive interveiw.
It’s a great start if true I like the idea… I’ve sat on hamada for afew and if it’s as big as drunkzie from dice says they could up the total number players to fill the open space to a 64 vs 64 game. 32 vs 32 in a 1500 m map? They claim it’s the biggest multiplayer map so think about that vs all the maps from the past.
But it’s linear which renders it size to point of wasted space in both ends of map. Conquest does work better in circular map design where flags are spread out.
I felt Rotterdam was big. Surprised to hear that it’s a small map in BFV. I had to check how many people were on the server often because the map felt empty. It seemed the half from the train bridge to river side was the busy side of the map, the river down the middle was virtually empty because it was easy to get taken out. Either way it’s one of the most fun maps I ever played.
You forgot about all the 4 story stairs all over the map too
I have always liked the large maps with lots of vehicles. I am really curious to see just how big the firestorm map will be. Supposedly it will be the biggest ever for a BF game. I hope we get to play conquest on firestorm lol.
I hope it still has a lot of action with gun fights and not tank wars
This!! So many good memories with that beast in 1942!
I’m honestly worried that Hamada will be TOO big. There’s an inherent balance that has to be maintained in these map designs. Make a map too small, and you end up with both teams fighting over one objective. However, the same can happen with a map that’s too big, because people don’t like running tremendous distances to back cap. They want action, not a running/driving simulator. So what do the two teams do? They cap all the gimmes on either side of the map and fight over the closest one or two objectives in the middle of the map for the rest of the game.
BF started with huge maps with vehicles but this changed with BF3. It was never a problem until BF got a newer playerbase of people who came from other games with less players and small maps.
Most don’t know how to play “real” BF maps where you need transports. Tanks and a lot of light vehicles.
Hamada is not even a huge map. Compared to what used to be huge maps this map is a medium size map.
Only the area that is actually played in counts. And that space needs to be filled with care. I would even go so far to claim that big maps like Karelia and Altai are bad by design since the only actually played area are the flags since transition between them takes too long.
Talking about Firestorm is quite interesting, because it is rather large, but the actually played area mostyl focuses around the buildings and the according flags, with very nice and short transitions. It is similar with Caspian Border, vast spaces remain unused, but the space that is played is filled in a meaningful way. Top notch map design.
Now Karelia and Altai basically only consist of flags and wide areas in between them that have nothing of value. At some point DICE decided that instead of combined arms, a map should have a dedicated infantry area for the infantry folks and all around it vast nothingness for the vehicle folks. Anyone caught up between these playstyles got screwed over. I guess these maps are also much cheaper to make.
Concerning Rotterdam it felt empty at times for a medium map, but remember that it uses a horseshoe flag layout so most action will be around that line. Also without spotted enemies on the minimap, you will likely miss many players just running past/beside you.
As for Hamada, well if we can get over the marketing gibberish of “bigliest map ever”, it still boils down to the question if it is enjoyable for the infantry player as well as the vehicle player and if the trademark BF feature of combined arms is working. The rest is meaningless.
It’s large but not that much larger than Caspian Border is. I’m glad they’re making some larger maps, I just hope they give us enough vehicles. BF1 didn’t really have a map that was mostly vehicular.