Welcome to the New Shacknews

You're currently viewing the beginning of a full site renovation for Shacknews.com. You might find something working oddly. If you do, let us know! More exciting new features to follow.

Report: Battlefield 1 will have nine multiplayer maps

Datamining from the alpha revealed the names.

49

The dataminers are at it again, and apparently, they have unearthed the names of the Battlefield 1 multiplayer maps.

A post on the Battlefield reddit leaked the first list of names and images, but a post further down offered a compete list with some overview shots as well:

An earlier leak on reddit outed images showing menus and UI.

Again, as of now, there is no official confirmation, but everyone loves some good conversation and speculation, right?

The open beta ends today, and we have some impressions from it. The game will come out on October 21 for PS4, Xbox One and PC 

Contributing Editor

From The Chatty

  • reply
    September 8, 2016 9:35 AM

    John Keefer posted a new article, Report: Battlefield 1 will have nine multiplayer maps

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 10:30 AM

      Nice, that seems alright. Hopefully they all feel pretty good, DICE should know how to make a good map.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 6:40 PM

        yeah I guess they do have a tiny bit of experience with that.

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 11:06 AM

      Weak.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 11:56 AM

        :-( the more the better I guess, but... nine seems a reasonable amount?

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 12:13 PM

          nine is fine

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 12:39 PM

          Nah should release 20 of'em, doesn't matter that 13 of them will suck and never get played.

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 1:01 PM

            Don't need that many but a solid dozen would be great. 9 is even less than BF4's 10, and whose to say all of those will be gems? There are always some duds, and it's been clear for a while they short on the initial content to make DLC map pack more enticing. Not a fan.

            • reply
              September 8, 2016 1:03 PM

              How long has that been clear? What makes you say that?

              • reply
                September 8, 2016 1:08 PM

                Because that has been the model for years now? Small amount of maps up front, and $50 premium pass for x additional map packs, purchasable up front.

                • reply
                  September 8, 2016 1:18 PM

                  The low map count was a tad more acceptable with BF3 and BF4 because they also included the first map pack free to pre-orders (Back to Karkand and China Rising respectively), and they came not too long after launch. So really, you were getting ~13 maps for the initial purchase.

                  Not doing anything like that here as far as I can tell.

                • reply
                  September 8, 2016 1:21 PM

                  It is the pre-order of expansions that bothers you? They have been doing the expansions since BF 1942 and granted they added maps for free in patches later for that game, but it didn't make it obvious that they were trying to boost DLC sales as you say.

                  BF2 they released 2 free maps after the DLC released. BC2 had pretty weak maps up front as each map was not playable on all gametypes initially. More were added and tweaked for gamemodes throughout the life. That one did just have a small amount of DLC though.

                  • reply
                    September 8, 2016 1:44 PM

                    BF1942 also shipped with 16 maps, there wasn't a lack of locations and variety in the initial game in the slightest. They added 5 free maps to the base game in patches on top of that, and the expansions were not on any radar until the game was already a success. That game had also had mod support and user maps, so one just sticking to the base purchase, one had more than enough content to choose from without even touching an expansion pack.

                    It's not even comparable to what is currently happening so I'm not sure why you brought that up.

                    BF2 shipped with 14 maps and added 2, with additional expansions later. Also had mod tools and support.

                    BC2 I don't even consider a traditional Battlefield PC game, but their post-release DLC maps were all free until they did the Vietnam expansion.


                    For the record, as much as liked the Battlefield from the start, I had never bought any expansion or map pack until BF3 and BF4, where I felt forced to just to get more content and continue playing with friends.

                    • reply
                      September 8, 2016 1:49 PM

                      Probably because no one played the DLC much before that. Even then, consider that the barely popular if even noticed Euro Forces pack for BF2 still had more people playing it than the most popular BF2 mod ever did.

                      Were you really desperate for more content in BF4 than what there was at launch? I certainly wasn't sick of those maps by the time the DLC was released. Then they delayed the rest of the DLC to fix up the core game because of the issues people had with it especially on console.

                      I really don't think it is a matter of withholding content so much as putting out DLC that was desirable and enjoyable. BF2142's expansion pack was really fun, but a bit of a side show.

                      • reply
                        September 8, 2016 2:03 PM

                        I didn't really care for many of the vanilla BF4 maps in conquest mode. The levolution junk, fact that most were smaller and condensed and mainly infantry focused outside of Golmud and Paracel to an extent. So yeah, I was really itching for some actual Battlefield ass Battlefield maps. Which eventually got added.

                        I'm not saying they're withholding content, either. Just that they have little to no reason to do a respectable amount of content up front anymore since their pay for addon map plans have been quite lucrative once they started following Call of Duty's model. Even I bought in for the past few games, so I have only myself to blame. I really wish they and everyone else could monetize elsewhere and follow Halo 5 / Overwatch / Titanfall 2's model of keeping the maps free for all and not splitting up the community, but that's just not gonna happen.

                        • reply
                          September 8, 2016 2:05 PM

                          Following Call of Duty's model? You mean yearly releases? They did that before COD. They did persistent leveling, unlocks, and paid map packs before COD too.

                          • reply
                            September 8, 2016 2:08 PM

                            Do I really have to spell it out for you?

                            Talking about Call of Duty's seasonal map pack dlc model, they pretty much invented it and Battlefield followed suit starting with BF3. x amount of planned map packs in a season (premium), pay for them all up front if you want and buy them together for a small discount, or individually for more.

                            • reply
                              September 8, 2016 2:13 PM

                              LA Noire was the first Season Pass game and that was in 2011. If you are talking about pre-selling DLC I guess. I don't remember if you could pre-order Special Forces for BF2. COD didn’t start doing that until after MW2 anyway...on PC that is.

                              BF3 doing that was actually a better deal than the straight map packs with the Season Pass /Premium thing.

                              Which of course isn't all that different than an MMO subscription either. All of them are essentially justifying continuing to pay the developers who are still working on the game after release.

                              • reply
                                September 8, 2016 2:33 PM

                                I was talking multiplayer shooters. The fact that it's called a season pass or premium or whatever matters very little here, I'm just talking about how one giant mp shooter dev & pub copied another's proven procedure for monetizing additional multiplayer maps and it turned out to be successful so they stuck with it.

                                That's all. And the fact that it is continually successful to the point that they'll announce how many premium members they have (gross) and all that means they'll continue doing it this way. They have far more incentive to charge for that sort of stuff later than include more of it up front, it's gotten to the point where they aren't even giving away the first map pack free to pre-orders like before to try and make it a better proposition than the other guy. But still, it makes sense in regularly supporting a game like this with content to keep the community thriving.

                                And no, you couldn't pre-order Special Forces for BF2, there were no expansions announced for games back then until after they launched.

                                • reply
                                  September 8, 2016 2:38 PM

                                  So you are mostly just happy that they didn’t announce it or allow people to pre-order it until a month after release?

                                  Battlefield 2's first expansion pack, Special Forces, first began its development sometime during or shortly before the release of the original Battlefield 2 by DICE: Battlefield producer, Mike Doran, commented in August 2005 that "The truth is that work on Battlefield 2: Special Forces began several months ago."[24] It was officially announced on July 14, 2005 and released on November 21 of the same year.[25][26]


                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_2#Battlefield_2:_Special_Forces

                                  • reply
                                    September 8, 2016 2:49 PM

                                    I'm not sure why you assume that after all I've said. I was far more happy that BF2 included a decent amount of maps up front, and had mod support as well.

                                    As to the Special Forces announcement, I was only saying it was a different time back then. Addons like these for shooters are now planned from the start, they're a given when a game first is announced, if not also mentioned with the announcement and included in the cost of the higher tier pre-order versions that are immediately available upon said announcement. Something like BF2's expansions didn't affect me at all. I didn't need or want them in the slightest because I had more than enough game from the jump and extras, plus I wasn't too hot on BF2 in general, would still rather play 1942 back then. So at the time it wasn't a factor at all for me, and after all this time I have very little memory of them because they never intruded on my experience nor were they expected or wanted from a lack of initial content.

                                    • reply
                                      September 8, 2016 3:45 PM

                                      Other than pure number of conquest maps, it is hard for me to believe that BF1 will not have more content than BF2 at launch.

                    • reply
                      September 8, 2016 2:02 PM

                      I don't think we should compare it to BF1942. We are in a new era of gaming where you have to pay for map packs and the player base just gets fragmented with each release. Not to mention there were no stupid unlocks so you can actually balance the game/classes more easily.

                    • reply
                      September 8, 2016 7:19 PM

                      I still only played like 5 maps on BF42. Some of the other maps had BS for balance. All the water maps were basically the same.

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 11:34 AM

      Any bets on which ends up being the One Shit Map core to all Battlefield releases post-BC2?

      My money is on Amiens.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 11:41 AM

        Are you referring to the meat grinder map or the giant no one wants to play it other than vehicle obsessives map?

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 12:05 PM

          The one that includes absolutely fuckwitted design decisions that even children who design maps on graph paper during recess could tell you are not conducive to good gameplay.

          Its Operation Metro, basically.

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 12:08 PM

            They can still do metro. The Paris metro opened in 1900

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 12:13 PM

            Grinder then. Yeah, those go back before BC2. Karkand was BF2's. I never played 1942 outside of LANs, but I think Stalingrad or Berlin (can't remember) was the meat grinder for it.

            • reply
              September 8, 2016 12:28 PM

              BF2 had a lot of shitty maps that seemed way too big. I'll take a meat grinder like stalingrad over any map that requires motorized transport to get to a different flag in a reasonable amount of time. Those maps always become musical chair shit shows sorta like the map in the BF1 beta.

              • reply
                September 8, 2016 12:31 PM

                I agree. Personally I liked the BF3 approach to the large vehicle maps where there was a small group of 3-4 flags close together on the inside for infantry to fight over. I think they tried to do this with that beta map, but missed the simple elegance of something like Firestorm.

                I would also really like to see a return to some maps designed ground up for Rush.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 11:58 AM

        You mean like the subway in battlefield 3?

        I am getting an ulcer just remembering that map existed.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 2:23 PM

        The trench warfare map everyone keeps begging for

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 11:57 AM

      I am going to miss the beta from my roster of games. It was fantastic once I got the pacing.

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 11:59 AM

      9 sounds low... What did the other games have at launch?

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 12:25 PM

        BF1942 shipped with 16 maps, I was hoping they'd blow it out again this time because of all the historical settings to choose from, and return to naval combat and such. From the previews looks like there's just one map with ships? That's disappointing.

        BC2 / BF3 / BF4 all shipped with 9-10 maps.

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 2:10 PM

          So you are saying that besides 1942 the new game is in line with all the other games and there is nothing to see here?

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 2:11 PM

            Well except for BF3 and BF4 also including a free pack with 4 additional maps with pre-orders. You get even less for buying BF1 early, so it's a bit of a regression if anything.

            • reply
              September 8, 2016 2:19 PM

              Eh, sounds like a big deal about nothing. Only about 5 maps out of any game get actually played no matter how many they release.

              • reply
                September 8, 2016 2:21 PM

                and once all the kids get their parents credit cards to rent a server, it will be 24/7 metro all over again!

                • reply
                  September 8, 2016 2:22 PM

                  Le sigh, yep. "But they are the most played maps!" Yeah cause they take no skill and are quick to level. Stupid meat grinder maps.

                  • reply
                    September 8, 2016 6:51 PM

                    it's not overly difficult to go full auto down a narrow corridor and kill at lest 2 assholes in a chokepoint before you die.

                    you do that over and over and over again, the same exact thing and then you can unlock other weapons, just to do it over and over again.


                    I'll say this right here and now. When you didn't have k/d stats in the screens when you played in the lobby. People actually PLAYED the fucking game, regardless of skill. The second you throw that fake ass carrot in front of someone in terms of their personal statistics. That's when people care about shit.

                    only problem is, people care about their K:D ratio, and NOTHING else.

                    to me, battlefield games never relied on K:D ratio. It serves a purpose in CoD style of games, or quake. but it's very minimal. To me when you show someone stats, they tend to play towards those statistics, and therefore they alter their gameplay style. It's no longer about winning the game. It's about winning the game, but not actually taking chances to win the game. Because it would hurt their stats.

                    a lot of paper tigers up in this shit.

                    10 fucking years ago i complained about this shit. and it's still here.

                    when you throw k:d ratio up onto your screens pre, during, or after the fact. It will influence playstyles. Just for statistics.

                    this shit has been a plague upon FPS for well over 10 years now.

                    to me battlfield games have never been about k:d ratio. But it started with BF2, and it's permeated down since then throughout all the games regardless of platform.

                    Shit, i was never happy seeing those stats in call of duty as well on the console.

                    i could go on and on about this bullshit, and how these stats make people play like bitches online, thinking that their stats "define" themselves online and how they play.

                    i've always hated this shit. To me i say "fuck it" just go balls deep, create as much chaos as you can and deal with it after the fact.

                    that's what battlefield has always been to me.

                    now FPS games are pure statistically based shit and you ain't "gud" unless you have a youtube video with it.

                    this shit makes me sad.


                    guess i'm a "Grandpa" now

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 6:52 PM

          Naval Warfare DLC

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 1:04 PM

        I'm sure the cost to produce a map has increased significantly.

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 12:09 PM

      At this point with EA/Dice it feels like you're getting half a game unless you pony up the $50 for the season pass.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 12:19 PM

        At this point? The bonus map stuff goes back to 1942. Even if we admit that 1942 had more maps on release, it still added more in its expansions. BF2 had fewer on release and added considerably more in expansion packs that added up to the $40 or 50 you currently pay for a pack anyway.

        Never mind that the current BF's have more gametypes, weapons, player leveling systems, friend/social enhancements, etc., it also has a single player campaign. Plus, it is also only $10 more than your spent on BF1942 at release despite inflation.

        Personally I am not stoked by BF1, but I don’t think value arguments hold much water.

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 12:32 PM

      Is the beta over? I can't connect to anything via matchmaking, and nothing comes up in the server list either. PS4. I thought today was the last day.. wtf

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 1:49 PM

        Yeah, looks like it's over. Shame too, since I didn't get to put any time in yesterday I'd been hoping to play a bit more today. Oh well.

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 2:05 PM

          Seems that thing with the Battlefield twitter pointing to a poll asking what map should be added to the beta was a sham then. Perhaps they'll do a round 2 like Titorfall.

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 6:06 PM

            Yeah, the launch is still something like 6 weeks away - I wouldn't be surprised if they did a second round test.

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 2:10 PM

      was it just me or was that playing the medic class totally goddamn pointless in the beta?

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 2:13 PM

        It's just you. That semi auto rifle is ridiculous at mid range

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 2:16 PM

          the guns were the only reason using that class. I didn't like the 2nd semi auto, but the first semi auto.

          but i mean just reviving people etc. Medical crate wasn't that bad to use.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 2:16 PM

        They had very decent semi-auto rifles, could heal with the medpacks (unlockable crate was far better), and optional rifle grenades.

        Reviving seemed totally useless because the downed player has to opt into it for you to see the revive icon, the medic trying to revive is a very easy target on an open map like that, and dying does not cost you a ticket like before. You're better off just respawning in on a squad mate to where you were, with refilled health and ammo and equipment.

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 2:21 PM

          Yeah revive as it exists in BF1 is not good.

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 2:32 PM

          Was there even a revive icon working? We tried it out on an empty server because we didn't think it was working and we never saw an icon when down and asking for a medic. Gave up on the medic class after that.

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 2:36 PM

            Maybe it was bugged, but yeah it worked. It was just rare to see it. I chalked it up to people not understanding how it worked and assuming it was just like BF4 again.

            I did appreciate that when you pressed the call for medic key it showed the medics in range and their distance from you. You could tell if there was none around to just skip and respawn, or if there was some and their distances weren't getting any closer to also skip.

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 6:58 PM

            Yes it worked. There are always several white dots in 3D that were out there representing people needing reviving. Just takes some getting used to.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 2:21 PM

        Medic revive was pretty useless in BF4.

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 3:42 PM

          lol spoken like a true scrub

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 6:40 PM

          wtf are you talking about

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 3:15 PM

        It felt difficult to contribute as a medic. It didn't seem reasonable to revive many people for some reason, and throwing medpacks to teammates via Q seemed buggy?

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 6:07 PM

        I thought the medic had the best gun honestly. But in terms of their other main support ability (namely reviving people), yeah, that did seem entirely pointless. In all the time I spent as a medic, I only encountered one dude who wanted to be revived. And even then, I didn't realize I'd need to manually switch to the syringe, and by the time I'd done that and was attempting to revive the guy, someone else ran up and shot me. :-P

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 6:43 PM

          yea honestly that's the exact same experience that i got out of playing a medic in this beta.

          hate to say it, but actually playing as a medic in the previous BF games kinda actually meant something. Playing a medic in this beta, especially when they removed the kills from cap point thing. Kinda made it pointless.

          but hey!!! at least they still have great weapons!!!

          uuuuggg

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 7:27 PM

        Medic rifle was super fun! I do agree with the comments that reviving rarely happened due to the lack of consequences of respawning.

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 7:55 PM

          Ttk was so low it was really hard to get in that syringe animation when u die in .3 sec from enemy fire

    • reply
      September 8, 2016 5:48 PM

      I felt that defending objectives should warrant points. It encourages objective grabbing but not defending.

      • reply
        September 8, 2016 7:59 PM

        You got bonus points for kills while defending a flag. And that happens pretty often if you stay on a flag.

        • reply
          September 8, 2016 8:01 PM

          Yeah, that's true. I just think that recapturing a point that's partially taken (still in the blue) should give something for a recapture.

          • reply
            September 8, 2016 8:23 PM

            You do get bonus points for squad defense, if your leader has the flag marked. I'm not sure what the criteria is, but I saw it pop up a lot. +200 I want to say, even get those points if you're outside the radius but your squadmate does it.

            • reply
              September 8, 2016 8:25 PM

              Yeah it's a 1 minute timer that you have to defend it for.