You make a few good points, like the class pickups, but in just about everything else you couldn't be further off.
The maps are some of the better designed BF maps in some time, more so when you compare them to the maps from 4, which ranged from decent, to downright awful.
Here's my train of thought regarding the maps & why I think about 90% of them don't feel like Battlefield maps. There are a couple of them in which the engagement range is pretty much selected for you. What I mean is you are funneled into chokepoint areas of the map.
Not that any previous Battlefield didn't have such before, more recently Operation Metro, Operation Locker but I just seem to be encountering similar areas in which the battles seem to stall.
I've no problem with these sorts of map for the most part, I do enjoy the occasional mindless Metro or Locker 64 man chaos, but to me it just seems like too many of the maps play similar & have too many limitations, at least for a Battlefield game anyway.
As for behemoths, iv yet to see one actually change the outcome. Iv seen them help the other team or my team get close, but never alter it. You just have to have a team that knows how to either use them, or work together to take them out.
I've both been part off & on the receiving end of them completely changing a battles outcome. Really unless you have someone who doesn't know what they're doing driving them, they are extremely potent. Also had them make games closer than they should have been.
I've also had games in which there has maybe only been like 100 ticket difference between the 2 teams with maybe a 60-40 difference in the number of flags held. Like the game is still competitive at that point.
I do feel some weapons need some tweaking, but I think the issue most are having is they think these weapons should act and respond like weapons built in 2016. Although I think all the weapon criticism will be null once the real mode, hardcore, gets released.
Well you raise a good point, typically in the likes of Battlefield games, Call of Duty & other FPS games I usually play hardcore mode more than normal as I find it personally is more balanced because from a damage standpoint the only characteristics that change are the weapons handling as opposed to damage.
But in regards to normal mode, the problem I have isn't that the weapons don't respond how I want them to respond, my problem largely stems from the damage side of things. Which again is one of the reasons I usually end up playing more hardcore than normal, but I'd still expect things to be far more balanced out than they are when I do occasionally want to play normal.
They should look at how effective the weapons from the assault class are & then buff the other classes accordingly. Maybe it's just me, I think the medic rifles, support lmg's are badly underpowered. Some taking 3, 4, 5 hits at medium range to put people down. I don't expect ultra realism, if I did I'd play Arma 2 or 3, but a rifle at medium range should be 3 hits tops to kill someone.
Also in regards to hardcore, I find the fact it wasn't available on launch an absolute disgrace, they'll no doubt try to release it as DLC knowing EA. It's almost as bad as the time Call of Duty didn't have search & destroy available on launch for one of it's titles.