> but im sure many people would have a preference for it.

hardly, for shooters it will become very frustrating very fast, because a lot of the time you're going to get outrandomed rather then outskilled.

I mean I don't get why everyone is focusing on shooter style games, this would be really great instead for assassination games or hide&seek games, including path findings, runners, treasure hunt etc.

I think Arma is proof against it not working. Sure the maps are static in Arma and not random, but they are also large enough that I might utilize a same spot twice over hundreds of hours of play, while in something like CS or CoD I use the same spots hundreds if not thousands of times. Plus with the larger maps without artificially small arena limits there is very rarely a 'safe' area to camp anyways. In CS or CoD you can block off two lanes and be immune from a surprise flank, but when somebody can literally go 1km circle around you and your team without you ever knowing about it there really isn't a safe area.

If you want a more direct comparison on how map limits effects playstyles, compare Insurgency with Arma, they both have similar weapon deadliness and player types where running and gunning isn't really possible, but the overall game strategy players use and rely on is very different. You regularly see players in Insurgency using the map limits to their advantage and can just assume they won't get shot from certain directions because of it, in Arma you might try and utilize a similar area but there is no guarantee someone might not take the time to completely flank you or pop out of the sea or just take pot shots from 2km out on a hill top.