Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

[CptainCrunch]

old sch00l brought up a great question that deserves a thread of its own.

Would you guys sacrifice destuction for no. of players\map size?

Source is the SP2 Frost engine, Tank map from Armoured Fury

[Spik3d]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I would and I don't even play the new BF's.

All the big shooters nowadays are spray and pray (for the most part).

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Thats a very good point Spik3d. Larger maps really slow down the spraynpray players.

Crunch

[Kylee!]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I would and I don't even play the new BF's.

All the big shooters nowadays are spray and pray (for the most part).

BC2 is better in that regard. You can spray and pray but you won't be as accurate.

I think I would actually opt for bigger maps though.

[bradino27]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

All depends if there are jets or not. No jets, same size maps with destruction. Jets included, larger maps with at least some destruction.

[Beav=OTF=]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I think it would be nice to have larger maps with more players, but with limited destruction. Some structures will be susceptible to certain ammo and others will not be destroyable. This could keep people guessing for a while on which structures are safe to stay in and which ones will be a death trap.

Please understand I came straight from Joint Ops to BC2 and it was a completely different world!

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I'd buy a BF game with just an up-to-date (graphically) version of Kubra Dam 64 and no other maps before I'd buy one with 30 different maps of BC2's size, destructible environments or otherwise. The destruction gimmick was fun for a while, but in BC2 it came at the cost of good gameplay. The only map I even have a desire to play on BC2 anymore is Atacama Conquest, and I'd take just about any BF2 map in 64 player mode over that any day of the week (and I mean actual BF2, sans destruction and with 2005 graphics). The rest of the maps are linear chokepoint spamfests. BC2 is proof that gimmicks and graphics don't equal a great game.

Crunch said in the other thread that even though BF2's maps were bigger that people still had the same routines and the same paths and went down the same roads over and over again. Well that may be true, because as with anything once it's played enough by enough people they're going to learn the quirks and tricks of a map - nothing will be able to change that short of having maps that keep getting refreshed and having the old ones disappear. But I've only played BC2 for 125 hours (not including about 10 hours of beta) and I already would just as soon use the disc as a coaster to hold my drink while I play another game instead. This long into BF2's life (6 months) I already had easily 500 hours clocked and I still wasn't tired of it. With a bigger map you're at least not forced to travel the same routes and use the same tactics again and again. In BC2 'trying something different' means using a different gun and maybe using mortar strikes instead of C4. In BF2 'trying something different' could pretty much make it a brand new game all over again.

tl; dr - Destructible environments can go have aerial intercourse with a motivated pastry for all I care. Give me big maps with lots of vehicles and lots of players. That's the only kind of BF game I'll ever buy again.

[iQue]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

As fun as the destruction in BC2 is (it does add a fair bit to the game) I'd rather have larger maps instead.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I have to admit, Im a bit surprised. I didnt think there would be such a one sided decision. When I played the MoH beta I didnt like it for many reasons, but one was because of the interaction with the environment. I see destruction as being the next step. Of course small maps and player count is a step back, so I can understand why people want larger maps/player count.

Crunch

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I have to admit, Im a bit surprised. I didnt think there would be such a one sided decision. When I played the MoH beta I didnt like it for many reasons, but one was because of the interaction with the environment. I see destruction as being the next step. Of course small maps and player count is a step back, so I can understand why people want larger maps/player count.

Crunch

You have to remember, though...most of the people on this forum have been here since BF2 was in its heyday and we have come to appreciate the epic matches we all have had in that game that simply haven't been matched by anything BC2 and it's destructible environments have delivered. If they could find a way to make destructible environments AND keep the maps epic-BF2-sized, then all the better, but when choosing either epic gameplay over gimmicky features it's safe to say epic gameplay is what keeps people coming back to the game. Does anyone really think that BC2 will have 8000 people playing online (BF2's average online player count) at any given time in 2015 (five years after release)? I'd probably still be playing BF2 if the patches hadn't completely gummed up the game.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I understand that. I go way back to 1942 and I lurked here for 2 years before registering. I think I know what my issue is...Its that I very seldom play on large servers. I dont like them. Everythingis rushed, even BF2, and end so quickly.

With BC2, sometime last week, I was being hunted by someone from a flag I took. They saw me and were trying to catch up. I went into a building with bad guys, fought my way through it and was trapped, until I took C4 and blew a hole in the wall and ran around to the entrance and was able to kill a couple guys thinking I was upstairs before I was gunned down. That was pretty epic. I cant even go into most buildings in BF2/142 unless its special forces, which was awesome in itself.

But anyway, there is no right or wrong in this. Its all a matter of opinion and I can fully understand how most want to drop destruction for larger items.

Crunch

[Kylee!]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I understand that. I go way back to 1942 and I lurked here for 2 years before registering. I think I know what my issue is...Its that I very seldom play on large servers. I dont like them. Everythingis rushed, even BF2, and end so quickly.

With BC2, sometime last week, I was being hunted by someone from a flag I took. They saw me and were trying to catch up. I went into a building with bad guys, fought my way through it and was trapped, until I took C4 and blew a hole in the wall and ran around to the entrance and was able to kill a couple guys thinking I was upstairs before I was gunned down. That was pretty epic. I cant even go into most buildings in BF2/142 unless its special forces, which was awesome in itself.

But anyway, there is no right or wrong in this. Its all a matter of opinion and I can fully understand how most want to drop destruction for larger items.

Crunch

Well obviously it would be awesome to have both, honestly I love the destruction... It adds such an impressive dynamic and awesomeness to the game, but it just isn't as fun in my eyes.

[Vreki]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Not really. I actually like the size of BC2 maps, they seem well suited for mixed arms combat.

[Kylee!]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Not really. I actually like the size of BC2 maps, they seem well suited for mixed arms combat.

It all depends really.

[dfour]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

The main thing im worried about is plane jocks just bombing random buildings to get random kills on people hiding inside (easier than attacking armour) leaving us PBI with no cover to be mopped up later by armour et all.

Ide want both but with not every building destroyable.