What you painted there is an exaggeration. It was maybe half of that and data has shown that this area was mostly used by either snipers or tanks camping on the sides and shelling people that actually flank. If you preferred that play style I can see why it's upsetting to you, but after seeing the change in action, we believe it has done good to the map and the overall playtime on it has increased. So it looks like the majority of the players find Aerodrome a bit more fun now. :)

solid_x1

Well, it is true to a certain degree, however narrowing the map is not ideal, maybe adding more transport vehicles could fix that problem. I like aerodrome a lot, but I feel like there could be a trench network on each side just to hide from snipers and tank campers.

Yeah, I absolutely agree with you that flanking on this map is rather hard. We extended cover on both sides and the situation improved, but lot of the problems still remain. I still hope to find time to give it a proper pass one day, but currently all map resources are on new content. So no time for it.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think it's due to a general negative sentiment against "DICE" and 5.2 right now. Comes with the job. :)

ElvisT

Your response is the epitome of what is called survivor bias.

That's exactly what I would expect the data to show. The people who use it to travel wouldn't be in that area of the map as much as the people who travel through it.

I feel like before you guys continue to use data to back up what you want to see, you should look at what you're not seeing.

Take a look at where this survivor bias comes from.

https://www.trevorbragdon.com/blog/when-data-gives-the-wrong-solution

I feel like even when you guys think you get it right, and you use data to back it up, the general feedback is what really matters.

There is a lot of assumption here. Yes, if the data is really limited and for example just a heat map, you might be right, but we very much can see the difference between movement, stationary, stance, combat, kills, deaths, etc. So I can only show locations of stationary people killing with certain weapons on certain ranges and in contrast compare to people moving along and so on. The fault is rarely with the data, but how you use it.

Btw, I love that story of the WW2 planes. It's such a great example and makes for a great story, but it also known since WW2 and therefore considered. As much as someone might like to think we are a bunch of amateurs looking into data not knowing what we are doing cause it fits their narrative. I assure you we have people that do this full time and are well educated in the topic. If one believes that humans generally can't read statistical data successfully then I won't be able to change that opinion here and now.

On a last note I would like too add that we are working "data-informed" and not "data-driven". There is a huge difference and I feel it's important for game development to utilize the first form as we otherwise might lose the human factor. This is also why we are considering general feedback, but such feedback also needs to be of volume and representable.

[deleted]

[removed]

As you can see on the title in my name, I work with Maps and Modes and I clearly referred to content as maps. If Pacific wasn't to your liking and you think it was bad "content" then I don't think any of the work my department is doing will brighten your day and I am sorry for that. Yet I feel like I need to defend the guys who worked on the Pacific maps and say that they didn't deliver broken content. Just wanted to make that clear. :)

I would also kindly ask you to calm down the language as insults get us nowhere. :/