I bet anything it'll be DLC.

yeah but by having no cover it forces you to fire from a distance and plan accordingly, I remember playingGrand Baazar on Battlefield 3, every time we clashed with the enemy it was always down that long street, because there was hardly any destruction to be had in BF3 the street would hardly get damaged and as a result people simply camped in the market places and placed claymores, fired grenade after grenade and just spammed USAS shotgun shells to anyone that whizzed around the corner, that made the gameplay and strats on that smallish map very predictable and very boring with some frustration, no matter how you planned the results were more or less the same and that's due to map size and lack of decent destruction.

I expect some level of destruction from this to make it viable to take away an enemy team's place of cover meaning that they have to move away and plan or get kiled off rather than have a few tiny pebbles blown off and keep behind cover while resorting to grenades/mortars.

OT: I'm pretty sure most games are supposed to be a solid 60 by now, if not then there's a clear and present problem that should be resolved before launch, I'm not at all surprised by the varying map sizes because I just think back to BF3/BF4 when I think of "varying" and destruction where appropriate just makes me think that it's going to be BF3 level od destruction all over again which is the say incrediably minimal and not game changing.

The lack of space battles is another disappointment, having battles in the sky can be fun and all but there is this thing called a skybox and a limit which ruins the immersion and overall feel for the space of the map size, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually decide to add in space battles but as map pack DLC.

Jim recently made a video on Battlefront with him explaining his cynicism and how he got to that point where he was expecting bad things from the game from what was not show/shown instead of just drooling over the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br3Xm_s1P6Q

Yeah at first I was disapointed too, but then I thought about it and it made sense.  I mean idk if you remember but the space battles in Battlefront 2 were kind of half-assed.  There was still gravity for some reason, and interiors of the ships were underdeveloped (Compared to say the massive interiors of ships in Battlefield 4 and BF2142).

If DICE does space battles expect the whole shebang! 

Yep it will be DLC, and done right!  Instead of shoehorned in at launch.

very strong materials =P

I think it's already been established in the SW universe that there's hardly any super strong material, at best you'd need a force field to negate most firepower and even then on places like Endor the very bunker holding the shield gen for the DS mk 2 was probably the weakest area and even that got blown up so easily.

After watchinbg every Star Wars movie and animation, practically everything in the show strong or weak has been shown to be easily destroyed or blown up, there's maybe one or two materials but in the end those are negated by everything else that's been blown up bay style.

Come on, the Death Star is super strong, except by a very specific 1m hole that would make the entire thing explode if someone with a X-wing shot it! Talk about design flaws.

And lets not forget about Endor, the frigate and capital ships in the prequels and original series, the AT-AT's, Tie fighters being weaker than X-Wings despite the Empire having unlimited funds compared to the small Rebel army tech.

LOL your pictures just prove my point.

For one thing the you can't build an artificial solid moon sized structure without super strong materials, the stresses a structure that big would undergo are well beyond real world technology.

The Executor Class ship is over 17KMs long, yet the Death Star still stands after that enormous ship lands into it, most definitely an example of super strong materials.

The Death Star was destroyed by it's reactor exploding, that's a power source sufficient enough for a moon sized space station/ship, in order to blast something that big apart and keep it apart you have to break it's gravitational bonds, meaning that power source is probably millions of times more powerful than anything in the modern world, by which I mean all potential explosive armaments on the planet today.

My point is that a regular dude running around with a blaster isn't blowing a hole in a wall, unless he has some advanced explosive, but said explosive will probably wipe out him, his buddies and leave a huge crator in the area of the map if he uses it, basically end game style stuff.

Unless it's a regular concrete wall, there are tonnes of examples of super strong materials in Star Wars, unless you're going to ignore the laws of physics.

Regarding the AT-AT it's still in one piece, right up until it's defenses are warn down by super strong lasers from snowspeeders.

I've watched every star wars film, multiple times, the events you showed actually prove my point.

It seems like the imperial generals were frauding the budgets and transfering funds for their bank accounts while using lower quality materials to build weapons and such. Bastards.

How about you let me decided where is appropriate?