Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

[-Shifty-]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

I'm glad many PC servers are removing the bad maps from their rotations. I haven't played Tehran or Damavand in a while. Unfortunately, I feel like all the servers are now running Firestorm, Kharg, and Capsian 24/7. Great maps, but I'd like some infantry maps too. Unfortunately most of the infantry maps suck.

Grand Bazaar, Metro (between Ticket Booth and Café), Damavand (mostly on Rush), and Seine Crossing offer a great infantry combat experience in my opinion. EA needs to make DICE create more maps after Back to Karkand, because the current 9 just aren't cutting it.

I never enjoyed this game until I got a bunch of friends with mics that regularly played, and that goes for every multiplayer game I've ever owned. Playing by myself is like watching a static CRT TV screen going BSSHHHHHHHH, I find no entertainment in it whatsoever.

@Eagle101:

I play on the 360 and there's just as many servers as ever.

[Eagle101]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

No no there are servers but population is missing, i will take a screenie maybe even create another thread sorry OP!

[Anarchy1]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

Grand Bazaar, Metro (between Ticket Booth and Café), Damavand (mostly on Rush), and Seine Crossing offer a great infantry combat experience in my opinion. EA needs to make DICE create more maps after Back to Karkand, because the current 9 just aren't cutting it.

Well you play on the 360. I've played 24 players on these maps before and it was perfect. As in, the map was clearly designed for that number of players. None of the maps are too spammy or anything. 32 players is also fine, but that's too sparse on the bigger maps like Caspian.

But then imagine Metro with 64 players. Or the Damavand tunnel. It is just ridiculous and I find that I just can't play because I don't find walking into rocket spam is fun.

[Eagle101]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

32 or smaller works best in damdavand, bazaar, and metro. 64 is justa clusterfuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[-Shifty-]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

I have a SPM of 375, I can't imagine how much higher that would be with all the reviving and resupplying I'm always doing.

64 player Métro sounds like hell on earth! Damavand sounds ok since it's so much wider, but Bazaar would be too small as well. It's a large map, but it's very focused.

[Infernalis]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

I saw Kain (the stat padder from BF2142) he plays Metro 64 all day long, his SPM is ~970 and he has like 40k of M320 kills... 32 players is the max on that map, if you have a decent team pushing on B as US you may win.

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

I think too much destruction takes away from game play.

Shooting trees down with your rifle? Trees or some little bush. You don't shoot trees down with rifles, that's just dumb.

[Eagle101]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

ok then branches.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

The way to win as US on Metro is for the entire team to take B first and hold it. Forget about A. Let the noobs in the back get that one.

Thats the only way I have won on the US. At spawn as squad leader select B and tell your entire team that we need B first. When you lose, rub it in their faces that we had to do that, because if you lost, you didnt do that. They'll do it the next round

[Delta_Fixer]

Re: Destruction 2.0 a tone down?

I loved the destruction in BC2. Most of the maps were set in small towns which had mostly small buildings, and the fact that nearly any of them could be completely leveled was awesome. The downside, though, was that the maps were smaller and the gameplay was just different than previous BF games.

But the mass destruction was great.

I especially liked the craters that rockets, tank shells, etc. left in the ground and I wish they'd add that into BF3 at some point. Just the fact that the battlefield continually evolved in BC2 bade it fun. I think we need more of that in BF3.

DF