Since the first wave of the Battlefield 6 (Battlefield 6) has been on the line since the first season, there has been much criticism of the small map. Many of those who used to complain about the intense fighting experienced oppression and limited the use of tactics, while those who enjoyed it felt that the complaint was nothing but a nostalgia. The recent spontaneous community map analysis exercise provides more objective data and allows for further assessment of whether the BF6 map is being facilitated.
Reddit net friend Clara TheRed spent more than 45 hours with PENGUINONPC to extract 72 maps from the series of six works after Field 3, 2011, comparing the area where the characters can play.
By recording the player ‘ s location, from the position to the control point, they then zoom down the map to one metre per pixel to establish a scale across the work.
However, the field 5 player interface did not show the target distance and was therefore not included in the survey. The final result system provides a complete map-size ranking chart, covering the total area of the three generations of the BF series of maps and the area of playable space, which allows for intuitive comparison between players.
Clara TheRed commented: “There may still be human error in the process, but we try to be as precise as possible.”
Data suggest that the problem is not that Field 6 maps are small, but that the largest map in the game is only medium-sized in the series.
In the case of the largest-scale replicated version of Fireline Storm, only 0.34 square kilometres of area and 26th place in the row series are available; in contrast, Field 3 Fireline Storm has 1.10 square kilometres of area, almost three times the BF6 map.
While field 6 maps retain the characteristics of rapid conflict and high-intensity firefights, strategic choice and troop deployments are more limited than in the past.
In addition to the differences in size, the distribution of positions is designed to increase the sense of oppression among players. While much of the old practice was to keep a wide range of open areas around the target, so that infantry, vehicles and aircraft could be used in many ways, the BF6 map boundary was so close to the flag point that it forced a concentration of operations, a tight rhythm of combat and a condensed space.
This also means that the fighting rhythm and depths of the traditional Fields of War have been weakened and that it will take time for old players, who are accustomed to large-scale collaboration and tactical manoeuvres, to adapt.
The message area was very lively, and in addition to the size of the map, players were also interested in the design of terrain and tactical space.
Netizen u/TheBurdensNotyourown suggests that the shape of the map is more important than the size of the infantry, and that he is particularly fond of the Mount of Liberty (the Peak of Emancipation), not only because of its large size, but also because of the U-shaped design, “It is true that the BF6 map is too small, and worse, most of the map design is almost visible in every direction, as if you were stuck in a box.”
Another netizens, u/readilyunaviilable, argued that BF6 maps were often tunnel-like and naturally concentrated players in specific areas, restricting freedom of movement. He cited the Caspian Sea border of the BF3 as an example of a relatively small but square map, with flag spots arranged around central hills, giving players more tactical options than being forced to concentrate at the centre.
Netizens u/Rockyrock 1221, a more classic “strike on Kagan” and the newly created “Cairo siege” point out that, although Carken is an urban map, he retains a sense of sandboxes in open streets and battle spaces; he views the tight layout of the Cairo map, mostly as a narrow corridor, and can only move along the path set by the developers, similar to the traditional Cod or competitive shooting designs, contrary to the concept of a free and large battlefield in the BF series.
