To vehicle or not to vehicle - Page 2

**Thesleeper01** · 06-02-2008, 11:09 AM

I tend to agree with Rasta, I think that removeing vehicles should be done slowly much as titan inclusion.

**DaBrit** · 06-03-2008, 07:18 PM

From the BFCL 5v5 season, I can say that some maps like Tampa, Minsk, Verdun, Sidi, etc. can be an absolute blast without vehicles. I would love to see at least one IO version of most of the maps mentioned in this thread in the rotation.

In response to Rasta, I think it's important to realize that the server itself isn't going to become infantry only, just a handful of maps within the rotation, and I agree with sc1 that for every map we have an IO version of, there should be a full combat version as well.

sc1ence · 06-03-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasta-GR

But in the same logic, we can start discussing:

What about No Commander, No Orbital, No SL Beacons, No UAV, Tickets change, etc., the list is endless.

Actually, the list is quite short. We have two basic options to fool around with that the latest patch introduced. We can remove vehicles on a map by map basis, and we can change a few maps to assault lines from their normal conquest modes. For example, we could make command center on carebear an uncap until all other flags are capped (or eu base on camp gib, etc...) We are not going to enforce rules like the ones you are suggesting. The no vehicle is a per map option in the server settings introduced in the most recent patch. The things you mention are not server settings and would need to be enforced by rule.

**DaBrit** · 06-04-2008, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sc1ence

Actually, the list is quite short. We have two basic options to fool around with that the latest patch introduced. We can remove vehicles on a map by map basis, and we can change a few maps to assault lines from their normal conquest modes. For example, we could make command center on carebear an uncap until all other flags are capped (or eu base on camp gib, etc...) We are not going to enforce rules like the ones you are suggesting. The no vehicle is a per map option in the server settings introduced in the most recent patch. The things you mention are not server settings and would need to be enforced by rule.

It would definitely be interesting to at least give carebear and gib a try as assault lines maps. I would say more so for carebear than gib as EU already has enough of an advantage on gibraltar

06-02-2008, 11:09 AM	#16 (permalink)
Thesleeper01 Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 466	Re: To vehicle or not to vehicle I tend to agree with Rasta, I think that removeing vehicles should be done slowly much as titan inclusion.

06-03-2008, 07:18 PM	#17 (permalink)
DaBrit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Albany, NY Posts: 872	Re: To vehicle or not to vehicle From the BFCL 5v5 season, I can say that some maps like Tampa, Minsk, Verdun, Sidi, etc. can be an absolute blast without vehicles. I would love to see at least one IO version of most of the maps mentioned in this thread in the rotation. In response to Rasta, I think it's important to realize that the server itself isn't going to become infantry only, just a handful of maps within the rotation, and I agree with sc1 that for every map we have an IO version of, there should be a full combat version as well. __________________ TG-9th - By Any Means

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links