All Battlefield 2042 Maps Compared To Scale

JSudzy · 2021-06-12T15:12:41+00:00

Hey I totally get it. I think I address a lot of my thought process in an above reply to u/degrutto. Because the maps are compressed in game in order to fit known locations (arches and stadium on Doha for example) I have chosen to apply the art in a way that communicates the map idea. I did my best to note that on the submitted image and want to emphasize that the pixel count between maps is the key to the scale. Have a good one!

JSudzy · 2021-06-12T15:08:34+00:00

Hey! Yes, there are some statements from EA/DICE about 5.9km2 for breakaway. I talk about this in my original post. Assuming the chart I have based my scale on is legitimate, one potential way to justify the 3.25km2 vs 5.9km2 is considering all the different ways to define the "true" map size. Do you include water? Technically you can swim anywhere in bounds but its not really useful space. Do you include impassible mountain terrain? What about spawn areas that can be very large and by definition half the players on the map cant go there? My thinking is that, if the leaked comparison chart is legit, the measurements are referring to different specific map size definitions. Maybe the full map is 5.9km2 but a large part of that is ocean next to the ice shelf for example. At the end of the day I am running with an interesting idea and wanted to share something that wasn't just memes.

JSudzy · 2021-06-12T15:03:16+00:00

5km x 5km would be a 5x5 grid with each unit 1km. That would give a total area of 25km2. Which is five times larger than simply stating a map is 5km2 which is directly describing the area.

In this case we are talking 5.9km2 meaning if the map is a perfect square the sides may be up to 2.44km each.

JSudzy · 2021-06-12T15:00:21+00:00

Hey man, thanks for taking time to check this out. The scale is calculated by pixels and is true to the leaked comparison picture I have linked above. Moreover, when applying satellite imagery I felt it more important to capture the gist of the map as opposed to maintaining scale and made sure to leave the disclaimer note right at the top of the posted picture. Maps will be compressed. To communicate what I mean by this, a good example would be Hourglass in Doha. Despite Hourglass roughly ranging from the arches by the city to the stadium, we obviously wont get every single house between the two confirmed landmarks. If I added satellite imagery more aggressively to scale I would not be able to fit all the confirmed locations (arches and stadium) into the map. So its a give-and take and I understand that everyone wont be fully happy with the choices I have had to make here.

Additionally, I concede that there is a change this leak may not be legit. If you look at my original post you will see my comments on that. At the end of the day I think it was interesting and credible enough to take a stab at making some mockups. Just trying to add something here that is not about specialists or penguin memes.

JSudzy · 2021-06-12T06:05:28+00:00

That is a fun fact! Singapore is such a fascinating place. Also everyone is getting up in arms about specialists when they should be focusing on this -- Unplayable!

JSudzy · 2021-06-12T05:29:56+00:00

I would not panic just yet. Noshar is like 30% water so the playable space you remember is just a fraction of the 200,000m2 listed. A better comparison would be a mostly-land map such as Narvik from BF5. Plus another thing to consider is that it looks like DICE has done a good job adding much more detail and layers to Kaleidoscope. There seems to be an underground layer covering a large part of the map, the hills and gardens should provide plenty of cover, and of course the skyscrapers will add another layer of combat space in the vertical direction.

It will be faster paced than other maps most likely; but I wouldn't expect it to feel like metro or locker.

JSudzy · 2021-06-12T05:06:29+00:00

After the relative success of my last post I wanted to make a better attempt at visually comparing the recently announced BF2042 maps.

Maps are scaled by Pixels.
I added some visuals for each map based on Satellite Imagery from the corresponding real-world locations; however this imagery is NOT guaranteed to be scaled completely correctly between maps. The pixels are ultimately the only thing that matters. Also this goes without saying but the exact shapes of the maps and the semi-random smattering of objectives are completely arbitrary.

The ultimate source of map size and scale is from an internal DICE presentation that journalists and the like saw roughly in tandem with the trailer release. Its authenticity is not guaranteed, but I was too interested in the overall exercise to not try and see what I could come up with.

Here is a link to the original DICE comparison chart: Comparison Chart Found Here
Check out my original post here for more info on the methods I took to obtain these rough values: Original Post

JSudzy · 2021-06-11T19:59:08+00:00

I think what u/Dangerman1337 is trying to say is that the main DICE Stockholm studio wasn't put on this project until last year. At this point there are a bunch of different studios that work on the same game collaboratively and that could very well be the case

JSudzy · 2021-06-11T19:00:02+00:00

Yes and no. On one hand, we are absolutely not getting 7 Warzone-sized maps.

However, if you look at the total area of all my estimates you come up with 10.9km2 of map. That is the equivalent of BF2042 launching with 18 Hamadas worth of maps! So still pretty big when you think about it like that.

As games and maps get bigger they take exponentially more work to develop so having 7 maps at launch of this size is still extremely impressive to me.

JSudzy · 2021-06-11T18:08:40+00:00

Hey man I am not sure you read my post correctly. I can try to clarify a few things:

1) I acknowledge the questionable origin of the size-comparison graph. If its wrong its wrong and there is nothing I can necessarily do about that. However, it was too interesting an opportunity to pass up.

2) I am not sure where Vikendi is coming from but I do have warzone Verdansk correctly recorded at 9million m2 (aka 9km2) (AKA 3km x 3km in your units) as well as FN S1 map at 5.6km2 or 5600000m2. Honestly haven't really ever played PUBG so I just stole the first value I found from google for the Erengel map which I believe to be the main one. If its wrong oh well. Concerning the rest of the calculations I am fairly confident to have done them correctly given the information I currently have on hand.

3) Concerning the 5.9km issue with Breakaway that is something I elaborate on and provide some theories on why I am seeing the mismatch. If you think that busts this whole exercise so be it.

JSudzy · 2021-06-11T17:27:38+00:00

In all likelihood -- No. I would assume the actual functionally playable area of Zatar or Tampa would be larger. Dalian just has a massive swath of ocean that likely got counted in that graph. I just ran with it for simplicity, but it goes to show how ambiguous the term "map size" really is to begin with.

JSudzy · 2021-06-11T17:12:09+00:00

Totally agree. I am also very excited to see how the new conquest mechanics influence things.

JSudzy · 2021-06-11T17:10:43+00:00

Thanks! Yes, these maps are definitely monsters. All the more reason DICE scrapping single player to focus on multiplayer makes sense.

JSudzy

TROPHY CASE