Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

[Hu.Z_of_PLA]

Since all three variants of maps have similar capacity handling the maximum number of players (64!), why don't we change the current label to, for example

-Karkand-infantry focus
-Karkand-combined armes
-Karkand-vehiclar-mayhem

this thread is inspired by Bfa variable's complaint about too much vehicles being in early game. The way I see it, it's because most server tend to play 32/64 sized map only. 16 person map have NO trouble supporting 64 people and infact, the infantry action is quite fun on those maps (think Kubra Dam 16, successor of a never-released DC dam map, I thought it would have produced the best infantry combat in BF2, but people rarely play it)

In Conclusion, I hope EA change the name of those maps to mapname-infantry focus (16), mapname-combined arms(32) and mapname-vehiclar mayhem(64), with

-no heavy vehicle (only small transports and AA tanks as anti-infantry) in the infantry focus version. infantry fight will be intense with the only small amount of flags available.

combined arms map is the current 32 player size map, each side gets one helicopter, one/two fighters, one tank and one LAV, infantry combat should still exist

in vehiclar mayhem map, I would like to see a player to vehicle ratio of at least 2:1, that is, there should be at least tanks per side, 4 attack helicopters each side, 4 AA, and 2 x fighter + 2x bombers each side.

[IntensivCareBear]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

i agree with you on 16 player kubra with 64 players, it would actually be fun, which it aint now.

also the EF maps should have at least double the number of players suggested by its number.

oh yeah, they should actually add WATER to kubra dam. novel concept eh?

[vbl]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

I just wish they'd design the maps so there are areas where folks can be infantry-oriented, areas for vehicular action, and areas where both can clash together.

It's always so polar with the BF2 maps.

[Hu.Z_of_PLA]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

I just wish they'd design the maps so there are areas where folks can be infantry-oriented, areas for vehicular action, and areas where both can clash together.

It's always so polar with the BF2 maps.

wake is such map, but before US gains foothold on the island it's a slaughter

[IntensivCareBear]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

if wake were balanced it would be great. no tanks on the beaches, thats the main thing.

also wake island a bit too big for foot slogging, not quite enough light vehicles for everyone. but great with 64 players.

the new EF maps you can ALWAYS get a light vehicle. hell you can almost always get a tank. thats why theyre so good.

some maps like kubra dam have NO vehicles. i always end up foot slogging for miles there, for no kills.

[Hu.Z_of_PLA]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

really hope EA can listen to this idea.

[USARANGER]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

that is a great idea, but remember that not everyone's internet connection is good enought to play on a server with 64 people. I am not one of them ( comcast- pings rarely over 60 : ) ), but i'm just thinking about the less fortunite lol

[Roger Smith]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

i agree wholeheartidy. although, wake island is in no way a 64 player map.

[unununium]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

oh yeah, they should actually add WATER to kubra dam. novel concept eh?

The dam isn't finished, adding water during construction of a dam is generally a bad idea.

[Kayback]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

You know I always thought the large hole in the base of the dam was for looks.

But seriously, there should at least be a rive running through it. Where do they plan to get the water to fill the damn dam?

KBK

[$kelet0r]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

if its under construction then the river is probably dammed miles up river
I cant think of any maps where there isnt the opportunity for infantry only combat if thats your thing - people seem to take the easy way out and avoid playing on the higher difficulty level and more rewarding maps like Dragon, Kubra and Daqing

[18Zulukiller]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

if its under construction then the river is probably dammed miles up river
I cant think of any maps where there isnt the opportunity for infantry only combat if thats your thing - people seem to take the easy way out and avoid playing on the higher difficulty level and more rewarding maps like Dragon, Kubra and Daqing

lol of topic i know but nice avatar im sick to death of karland myself

[Kayback]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

Skeletor, true about the river thing, it's just neither side looks like a river could come down it

But I also prefer mostly infantry maps. which is why I play on the SGS urban server thats Karkand, sharki and mashtur. I personally think the jets are overpowered. (re arming at 300kts? @ 50'?)

I'd like to see some maps that are serious house to house street fighting. Close quaters stuff FTW.

KBK

[HowieMandel]

Re: Instead of labeling maps 16/32/64...

I'd like to see a two flag map.
Like karky...with just the hotel, and say, train accident. Where an imaginary line is drawn, with each sides only chance of winning is to actually conquer.
I mean, really the fun, (for me anyways) is when my team is down to its last flag. And we are chatting away about how to get out of dodge, or how to defend what we have.
And, of course its fun when im on the opposite team in that scenerio as well. I mean we are trying to get that last flag, and they got it locked up like fort knox.
Thats where this game truely shines.
Not when some spam SU drops 5 bombs and takes out 2 tanks and an apc. That seems like......."oooook....." Or when an apc is sitting and fireing like an idiot at one spawn point killing 30 people as they spawn. Again, I think...... "oooook....."
Stupid. Give us a 2 flag, king of the mountain type deal. And let the blood spill.