I think that there are too many flags on 64 player servers. This game is not concentrated enough to achieve its maximum radness. Running around to every flag to capture it, let alone having to organize a small squad to defend each one, is too much of a task and too distracting from the fun of battle: flanking, overcoming "barracades"-or strongholds, strategizing, working together, finding great sniper points, angles to fire from.
If there were, say 4 flags on 64 map Karkand (spread out to leave middle ground for battles that would occur between travelling squads and armor)---(there would be more time for sabotage), the battles would become so intense and deliberate that you'd have to call on teamwork. You'd call in for armor at a certain point, you'd need a Nader (resupply) over there at that corner where the enemy has stationed several good riflemen, etc... etc..
We don't need 7 or 8 flags on a 64 map to ensure conflict, that would happen--and in a more unpredictable and sspontaneous way--if there were fewer flags, anyways.
Right now the game is a blast, but I think it would change and become even more fun with this change.
has anyone else felt this way about these maps?????
If there were, say 4 flags on 64 map Karkand (spread out to leave middle ground for battles that would occur between travelling squads and armor)---(there would be more time for sabotage), the battles would become so intense and deliberate that you'd have to call on teamwork. You'd call in for armor at a certain point, you'd need a Nader (resupply) over there at that corner where the enemy has stationed several good riflemen, etc... etc..
We don't need 7 or 8 flags on a 64 map to ensure conflict, that would happen--and in a more unpredictable and sspontaneous way--if there were fewer flags, anyways.
Right now the game is a blast, but I think it would change and become even more fun with this change.
has anyone else felt this way about these maps?????
Comment