64-Player maps design

[F-1]

Today it was my first time to try to command Dragon Valley 64 Player map.
That map has a dozen of spawn points. It is a huge mess! What is even worse is when you have squads that do not listen to the commander (assuming you have a good commander!!!).

My complaint is: What were DICE thinking of when they made a dozen of spawn points in that map?? I believe a map should not have more than eight spawn points AT MOST under any conditions. Even eight is a lot. The winner at the end will be kind of randomly chosen. Commanding skill and the players skills are almost worthless. Most of the time more than half of the spawn points are empty:no friendlies or enemies. So all it takes is for one guy to take a helo and keep going around to capture the empty spawn points.

Is it only me who is thinking this way?! If you disagree then please let us know what is the best strategy to win those huge maps? and HOW TO COMMAND THEM???

I personaly like the 32-players maps. I almost execlusively play 32-player maps, but it will be nice to discover more fun in the other 64-players maps.

For example Karkand-64 map is a very nice one. Sharqi is also a nice one. Both of them have around ~8 spawn points which is conceivable I think.

[vbl]

Re: 64-Player maps design

Yea, most of those maps have no focus or flow - just a bunch of people running from point to point. There's really no such thing as a "front".

I'd love to see a diagram that tracked the movement of each player during the course of a round, just to see the utter chaos of people crossing paths and running everywhere.

[HicRic]

Re: 64-Player maps design

I wish supply lines mode was in the game-where you could only take the next flag if you had the one before it. It'd create a constant front and there'd always be tense, massive fighting going on, since you couldn't go and cap a rear flag. Awesome. Think about the huge running battles you get sometimes on Karkand's train accident bridge...I love it when that happens, so enjoyable.

[Gerle]

Re: 64-Player maps design

But the need to cap flags in a specific order would totally ruin the feel of a modern, fluid way of fighting, with air mobility, quick moves, constantly trying to outmaneouvre your opponent, leaving them one step behind...

[imported_Mutrino]

Re: 64-Player maps design

The freedom to cap any flag in any order is one of the things that makes this game interesting. I dont like games that are linear and where you always have to do 'this' before you can do 'that'. It adds a sense of realism.

[Big_red_Cube]

Re: 64-Player maps design

But the need to cap flags in a specific order would totally ruin the feel of a modern, fluid way of fighting, with air mobility, quick moves, constantly trying to outmaneouvre your opponent, leaving them one step behind...

disagree....that is exactly what happened in Iraq.....first the coallition took Basra, secured the supply line then moved north to Baghdad

[SupUnd]

Re: 64-Player maps design

But the need to cap flags in a specific order would totally ruin the feel of a modern, fluid way of fighting, with air mobility, quick moves, constantly trying to outmaneouvre your opponent, leaving them one step behind...

Even today, you can't hold and control an area without bullets, food, gas, etc. If you drop some soldiers behind enemy lines to perform a quick demolition mission and then pick them up again, that's one thing. If you drop them off and then simply expect them to be an independent, unsuplied fortress upon themselves is just silly.

[apreasher]

Re: 64-Player maps design

Anyone remember what DICE said before ? That the maximum player for server would be 128 and then reduce to 64 when release .
I think these 64 maps was design for 128 players .

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Re: 64-Player maps design

imagine how laggy it would be with 128 players :S

[Raxor]

Re: 64-Player maps design

i actually think the maps are too small for 64 players (too cramped for my liking) thats why i only play on 40-50 man servers, plus more of a chance to get a vehicle

[Gerle]

Re: 64-Player maps design

Even today, you can't hold and control an area without bullets, food, gas, etc. If you drop some soldiers behind enemy lines to perform a quick demolition mission and then pick them up again, that's one thing. If you drop them off and then simply expect them to be an independent, unsuplied fortress upon themselves is just silly.

Camp Rhino and Kandahar Airport.

[SupUnd]

Re: 64-Player maps design

Camp Rhino and Kandahar Airport.

I know a little bit about that battle. I'm not following how control was established without supplies. Could you elaborate a bit?

[Gerle]

Re: 64-Player maps design

Originally I wrote "But the need to cap flags in a specific order would totally ruin the feel of a modern, fluid way of fighting, with air mobility, quick moves, constantly trying to outmaneouvre your opponent, leaving them one step behind..." in response to "I wish supply lines mode was in the game-where you could only take the next flag if you had the one before it. It'd create a constant front and there'd always be tense, massive fighting going on, since you couldn't go and cap a rear flag."

I do not recall the MEU having to "cap flags" all the way from the coast all the way to Kandahar, the same happened in GW1 with the airborne element flying in on the left flank, showing up out of nowhere...

Nowhere did I say anything about not having supply lines, but with initial supply being handled with rotary and fixed wing assets you can skip "flags" inbetween your objective and the start point. Hence my referring to air mobility.

The other part of my statement, about fluidity and high tempo etc refers to bypassing some areas and just look for areas of weakness for your forces to flow through until you get to where you can really hurt the enemy.

Leaving them one step behind deals with trying to outpace, always have the initiative, make them react to your actions vs you having to adapt to them, have a quicker OODA-loop.

Mayeb we were talking past each other, I think we both understand what is needed, but were referring to different issues, I am very aware of the logistics issues of our highly technically advanced force.

All that aside, elaborate on the op if you will, maybe by PM? Were you there, or did you mean you have read about it? I wasn't there but know one of the guys that was.

[BigBadBob]

Re: 64-Player maps design

I wish supply lines mode was in the game-where you could only take the next flag if you had the one before it. It'd create a constant front and there'd always be tense, massive fighting going on, since you couldn't go and cap a rear flag. Awesome. Think about the huge running battles you get sometimes on Karkand's train accident bridge...I love it when that happens, so enjoyable.

There was a map like that in DC. Medina Ridge. The US rarely ever got past the 1st flag. The first 5 times i played it, i didn't know Oppo had a base on the other side of the mountains.

It was totally retarted, probably why it was rarely in server rotations.