I don't agree that Panzerstorm is a bad infantry class map for Conquest which is why I continually cite it as one of the best in Battlefield V. I feel it works well for infantry precisely because DICE's change to the damage model plays far, far better with larger, paced encounters and attack/defence instead of minimal downtime between capture points. Almost all the infantry tactics and roles work just fine, because infantry is frequently spaced out enough that you're reliant on individual proximity medics/support for resupply, especially taking down armour. Arras is the exact opposite and why it's dogshit; it takes all of 10 seconds to move from one capture point to the other, the flow is broken, there's no spacing or encounter compartmentalising, and thus no highlighting of any class role or vehicle play. It's disposable chaos.
That's not to say I think bigger = better for Battlefield. I remember Battlefield 3 or 4 added what was then "the biggest conquest map in Battlefield history" with all vehicles and whatnot and it was dogshit. Size is not what I ask for. What I want is all facets of the core Battlefield design (infantry, armour, and air) operating together on a map where capturing and defending posts is the prime objective, capture points are spaced in such a way that they avoid claustrophobia and disposability, and the match feels like an organic sandbox of various battles going on at once.
Tighter conquest maps in Battlefield 1 worked fine because of the arcade, squishy nature of the damage and accuracy models. Spacing is still absolutely important but encounters are less frustrating due to the reliability on escaping damage and the fast respawns. Battlefield 1 is a quick game, snappy and explosive, and good pacing between capture points feels like a thunderous battle(s) moving around the map. Battlefield V's changes reward more paced play with exciting, deadly encounters that, once over, are rewarding for the victor as they have the advantage of time to capture a point. This is made redundant when infantry flow is so heavy that it's just a clusterfuck of explosions and gunfire all the time, with a damage model where players drop easily. DICE counteracted the poor capture point distribution in the alpha by putting a lot more pressure on attrition, making the moment-to-moment encounters more tense as ammo was actually something to consider. This nicely shifts infantry away from waves of chaos, as attention and patience are rewarded. DICE pandering to complaints and reducing attrition lead to what we got; Battlefield 1's disposable chaos wrapped in a game with more accurate guns that do more damage. It doesn't work.
As a side, I don't care that Battlefield explores other modes or that infantry is the heart of combat. I actually agree with that; if the infantry play doesn't work, nothing will. But Battlefield's identity is absolutely 100% to me the sandbox-like nature of maps that combine infantry, armour, and air in such a way that there's a quasi-strategy game element to the match flow and a sense of role playing to your classes' strength and weaknesses. Battlefield has and always will be, for me, at its absolute best when it accentuates these features and is designed from the ground up around the dance of Conquest. The moment DICE starts to backtrack and reduce the significance of this design template, usually by limiting the complexities of sandbox play, class roles, etc, is the moment Battlefield's identity dissipates and it starts to look and play like other shooters on the market.
I don't blame people for having different preferences though, because DICE has experimented with the franchise a lot of the years. Bad Company 2 is absolutely the tentpole splintering of the fanbase because it was a really, really good game that also reworked the Battlefield focus to heavily emphasis on infantry play and Rush. This has an appeal, and a market. And I get that, especially since Bad Company 2 was almost 10 years ago and fans of that game want a proper sequel. I just don't want mainline Battlefield to become Bad Company 3. It might be a great design template but no amount of arguing over how superior it is going to convince me, because it's fundamentally not the same. I've been playing Battlefield since 1942, and so the core identity of the mainline series is what I personally crave. The less Battlefield is like this, the more it spreads itself thin and detracts from the sandbox infantry/vehicle design, the less interested I am. And until there's a competitor willing to invest time and money in making essentially a Battlefield replacement that ticks all the boxes, I'm bloody stuck whining here about DICE's output :P.
EDIT: I'm so fucking sorry for this incoherent novel of a post hahaha.
