What's with the Camp G fetish?

[Guest]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

Keep discussing. Usefull thread if you can go in detail like some of you have done here.
How do you like snow vs desert, cold vs hot, hills vs flat, linear vs non linear, which flags has the best fights, not so great fights and why etc. etc.

Allthough we have our thoughts about all this, it is important to hear your views.

If you can - post why you think what you think about these things instead of "I just love this" or "this thing sux", and no reason why you have that oppinion.

Thanks! :)

[Fingulfin]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

Woah, a DICE guy...

Glad to see you guys still care 'bout 2142 :)

[BandoIruka]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

hmm... cqf maps i don't mind, but if the chokepoints are too tight and map design favoring the defenders more, i'd prolly won't like it too much. One thing i didn't like about campG and cerbere is how the ground between pac spawn and the first cappable point is an uphill battle. EU will have the high ground to pound the attackers from.

CampG and cerebere i feel don't have enough gaps for attackers to exploit, but then again i guess some maps are only suited for only a certain number of players.

Maybe a large 64player cqf map with more directions of attack. Maybe even similar to the old Sharqi peninsula that i've once spent countless hours playing on. Belgrade had the right idea, but the main spawns are somewhat too close together plus the entrance to the city in limited to two directions from the main bases.

[Shazanelli]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

Keep discussing. Usefull thread if you can go in detail like some of you have done here.
How do you like snow vs desert, cold vs hot, hills vs flat, linear vs non linear, which flags has the best fights, not so great fights and why etc. etc.

Allthough we have our thoughts about all this, it is important to hear your views.

If you can - post why you think what you think about these things instead of "I just love this" or "this thing sux", and no reason why you have that oppinion.

Thanks! :)

hello babe :p

[Skates]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

Keep discussing. Usefull thread if you can go in detail like some of you have done here.
How do you like snow vs desert, cold vs hot, hills vs flat, linear vs non linear, which flags has the best fights, not so great fights and why etc. etc.

Allthough we have our thoughts about all this, it is important to hear your views.

If you can - post why you think what you think about these things instead of "I just love this" or "this thing sux", and no reason why you have that oppinion.

Thanks! :)

Snow vs. Desert - I personally like the snow, although if you are going to do desert the palm tree/oasis that break up Tampa are nice. One problem with the snow maps is the falling snow on Verdun. It bogs down some of the slower computers and actually doesn't look as nice as a map like Bavaria.

Hills vs. Flat - Variation in the terrain is nice, but not too much. Totally flat is boring.

Linear vs. Non-Linear - Really it needs some of both. Completely linear and you end up with choke-point nade spamming. Totally Non-Linear and you run in circles trying to engage the enemy.

Some of the best battles as far as infantry goes I have seen take place in between Ruins and EU on Gibraltar. There are multiple ways to get to each flag and with the building in between them it makes for all kinds of possible strategies. Getting a couple of squads working together to push on the flag, reviving each other and covering as you go is a real adrenaline rush. Note I am talking on a 32 man version of Gibraltar, I don't think you would ever get the same fighting on a 64 man version. The problem you have is that you are trying to please those that hate armor and want I/O and those that like the armor included. Belgrade is a good attempt at mixing the two, but the 32 man map just has too many CP's and you spend too much time looking for the enemy and not enough fighting them. I would love to see a map like Suez where you have a mini version of a Gibraltar type map covering the area from Outer Bridge to Trash Dump that vehicles CAN'T GET IN. It allows for open armor battles and Infantry fighting in the city. Make it so that there are CP's that are open to attack from the armor and that there are some the armor can't play a role in, just prowl around the edges.

[Eriksson]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

What I’d like to see personally is a map with a reduced number of CP’s. If there’s too many you end up running around in circles trying to cap the points, we all are looking for combat whether it be CQC or combat at a distance. With fewer CP’s you’d have larger battles and a more challenging experience. Something around 3 or 4 Capable points would give way to some pretty intense battles.

Just a thought.

[ZinZ]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

Nade spamming only happens on 48s sometimes, and 64s. It's lame as hell, but there are many different ways to deal with it. I like Gibraltar because there aren't many vehicles to deal with, are tons of spots where you can take out campers and the like, and it looks pretty sick on high graphics =)

[Guest]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

hmm... cqf maps i don't mind, but if the chokepoints are too tight and map design favoring the defenders more, i'd prolly won't like it too much. One thing i didn't like about campG and cerbere is how the ground between pac spawn and the first cappable point is an uphill battle. EU will have the high ground to pound the attackers from.

CampG and cerebere i feel don't have enough gaps for attackers to exploit, but then again i guess some maps are only suited for only a certain number of players.

Maybe a large 64player cqf map with more directions of attack. Maybe even similar to the old Sharqi peninsula that i've once spent countless hours playing on. Belgrade had the right idea, but the main spawns are somewhat too close together plus the entrance to the city in limited to two directions from the main bases.

The key word on Cerbere is teamwork. I actually prefer to play PAC on this map just because of the challenge it provides to break open the defense. When that happens, the battle changes character completely.

The thing with Cerbere is that it looks really unfair for PAC at first glance, but if you look into it:

1. PAC has the only walker, provided to help breaking through the defenses and bust a stalemate situation.

2. EU's command center has all the EU commander assets stationed in a capturable base. Capture and keep it as PAC, and you will cripple the defending team by spawning at the center and demolish the commander assets when needed. If a hero squad can take it, you can turn the tables on the defenders and get them pinched. Personally I prefer to be PAC on that map just because it is so sweet to turn the tables on the defending team that desperately defends the hill.

3. All EU bases can be captured, and that heightens the desperation to defend. EU are often completely capped out when teamwork is proper on the PAC team.


Ideal number of players is between 32 and 48 players. At 64 players, you really need a few hardcore teamwork squads familiar to the map in your team to win as PAC. It can become a nightmare to break through on a 64 player match if the defense force has a couple of skilled veteran squads. But then again - it is even sweeter when you can sneak that back flag for your team while your teammates grinds at the ruins and you just got them that much needed reinforcements coming in behind the enemy lines. A true Battlefield moment.

[ZinZ]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

Cebrere and Minsk are biased. Especially the 16man version ones. Minsk isn't so bad, as you have lots of ways to get around EU's insanely useful bunker. But Cerbere is uphill for one, and the EU have lots of easy ways to getting to where PAC is trying to sneak around or rush.

[RichardDawkins]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

face it, large conquest maps make all but the engineer and recon class useless, whereas carebear and camp gibraldo give every class its raison d'etre ergo make for a better experience all round

edit- what pirelli said

[iQue]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

face it, large conquest maps make all but the engineer and recon class useless, whereas carebear and camp gibraldo give every class its raison d'etre ergo make for a better experience all round

edit- what pirelli said

Just the fact that noone else plays as medic on the big conquest maps can give you tons of points by the way

And Pirelli - you rarely post here but when you do you totally make sense

[RichardDawkins]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

mmm i'm not so sure. i certainly wouldn't expect to get many points on a large conquest map even with every available medic point as the sole saviour. whereever there are v wide open places which make sniping viable, there should be some sort of cover from vehicles at least. this is the only reason i can handle playing berlin, of all the vehicle-laden maps, because there is still a playable infantry game if you stick to the buildings and use a bit of mettle. there is room for all classes on berlin, but IMO none of the other large conquest maps.

[FPS[SONIC]]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

I've played as Medic or Support on large maps like Shuhia with great success. But, I change kits to fit the current need, so I'm not saying that I didn't spend a lot of time as Engineer, too.

IMO it's about the current needs of the squad. Sure, that problem equates to a number of Engies, but that doesn't make for a complete squad.

[imported_Field]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

nah you can get plenty of bank on large conquest as assault/support you just have to know where to hang out

its not really the number of points you get..its how fast you get them that changes more

[Twizzz]

Re: What's with the Camp G fetish?

I avoid 24/7 Camp G servers like the Fuzz on a Friday night.

My three favorite maps would be, Cerbere Landing, Tunis Harbor and Port Baravia.

Cerbere Landing, Tunis Harbor;
Rarely plays out the exact same twice. Sure, it has the same fights between certain flags, but there's several ways to attack and defend each flag. Multiple paths and different tactics can be used through out the map. Snipe one round, go toe-to-toe the next, it's all there, as far as infantry game play. Also the armor doesn't always own all.

Port Baravia. (Northern Strike)
In my opinion, one of the best "Battlefield" maps. It's a perfect mix between infantry and armor. Neither infantry or armor have a distinct advantage or disadvantage, due mostly to the (covered, infantry only) paths and multiple levels. Infantry can battle it out, armor can brake through stale mates and all around wreck havoc, yet find cover when needed. Best of all, there's plenty of work for all four classes.

I'd love to see a larger scale version of the 16 player Verdun map. The normal 16 player maps just a little too small and the rounds go by quickly before you get a chance to get set (same can be said for 16 player Tunis) and the armor tends to dominate the normal 16 player map. The area around Church, with the buildings, would be a awesome area to sneak around and set up ambushes. Also, nice elevated platforms around the outer edges to snipe from. The flat-ish and barren land between the main bases keeps the attention centered around the objective.