Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

    http://bf3blog.com/2011/04/dice-bf3-...eve-ever-made/

    The game is still early in development, but I can tell you that Battlefield 3 will have the largest maps we have ever made
    Do big maps make for good or bad gameplay?

    All of the BF2142 "large" maps were pretty terrible for an infantry squad. Infantry could not advance from flag to flag on its own. The fights were localized to flags, and in between was a giant expanse of empty space, with some armor dotted in the distance. Realistic? Sure. Fun? Hell no.

    The standard round would usually involve an initial frantic rush with jeeps, then a long standoff (camp-fest) with armor, interrupted by some jeeps rushing for an empty back flag. An infantry squad that actually fought and took flags was pretty much a waste of time on large maps -- either it made a jeep rush to an occupied flag (suicide, as they'd be easily seen coming and likely confronted with armor), or a jeep rush to an empty back flag (boring, as nothing would fight them there. No matter how you look at it, if you weren't in a piece of armor on a large map, you were not having a lot of fun.

    Is the "big maps" reveal actually good news?

  • #2
    Re: Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

    It all comes down to design, bad or good. And whatīs "large"? Difficult to relate to if you donīt put some number to it. I think 2kmX2km is large, but some might think that as small.
    sigpic


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

      For some it's good, for others its bad. Nothing wrong with large maps in PR.. Yes it's a different game but compared with the tiny BC2 maps, I'd rather a bigger map.
      BF3 Soldier: DrSparky



      "Cum bellum clamavit, respondivi"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

        In PR large maps are major win. In 2142, yes it wasnt good at all. it all depends on the how the design/gameplay will be like.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

          OFP had 2 km squared maps and is still a blast to play. Twitch isn't so important on larger scale maps and tactics and comms are more in evidence as you move across larger fields. All in all I'd say that larger maps are great news.
          Forewarned is Forearmed




          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

            Too early to tell, although I do agree with Zhohar that most likely large maps turn into armor fests which hinders infantry movement.

            Personally I'd like to see them balance it out by having a large section of the map (with half the flags) as city to encourage infantry fighting while have the outskirts more open so the armor can duke it out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

              Thats a hell yeah for Tank Battles!!

              For the PoE2 crowd,, Matador anyone???

              I deserve a ribbon for Mortar Specialist

              Artillery conquers and infantry occupies.
              J.F.C. Fuller

              Proud to have been a member of the 5th, 71st and my beloved 19th

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bach: "largest maps we have ever made"

                <patiently await's greasy's input here>

                There's so much you can do w/ map design to make a large map more playable. You can create places on the map that are worth attacking/defending even if there's no flag there... high-ground, bridges, rivers, choke-points, etc, etc, etc. The other thing that spacing gives you is options at the flag... attacking from multiple directions, and each direction provides a totally different style of fighting. I'm thinking of maps in PoE2 like Carpathian Mountains:



                Take the north cabin flag (top center) for example. You could attack up the road, with or without armor support - and that gave a frenzied, BC2-rush-style, frontal assault. You could also try flanking around the north-west, and occupying the high-ground above the flag - waiting for your moment to charge in to the cap-radius. Or you could sneak beneath the canopy of the forest to the south and go for a stealthy back-door cap. All that requires a bigger map. (Actually, every flag on that map has the same design... lots of different attack angles and tactics... what a great map :))

                The trick is what's in the open space. The problem w/ 2142's big maps, IMO, is there's basically just a giant, open parking-lot between flags. There's no strategic importance to it, and it doesn't unlock any tactical opportunities... the only point of having the distance is to keep people from sniping flag-to-flag.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bach: &quot;largest maps we have ever made&quot;

                  I think it's ok as long as they fill the large maps with interesting stuff. Buildings, trees, mountains, just give me cover if I happen to be on foot between flags. Also I really hope they're not linear maps like Heavy Metal in BC2 or that long road map in POE2 (ha ha, sorry don't know any map names in that game). At the very least, I think the large maps claim should allay peoples fears and indicate that this game will not be Bad Company 3.
                  "Looking for brahs to come fight crime with me" - Unload



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bach: &quot;largest maps we have ever made&quot;

                    Re above, spot on.

                    What I have seen of 2142's large maps is that they were just small maps stretched with little or no thought to the terrain between flags, hence you got the gameplay that Zhohar describes. Basically really lazy map design.

                    PR wasn't always as 'slow' as it is now, nor were there so many big (ie 4k by 4k) maps. Back in the day you had a lot of maps that were larger than BF2 but they had a lot of thought put into them. You had routes the inf could take utilizing terrain features as cover, buildings that weren't flags etc. That is where the game evolved for me and became more strategic. It became about controlling he strategic ground around a flag rather than just rushing forward to stand in a hotspot.

                    Ironically now PR is finding that you need more players for huge maps, ie 128 for a 4 by 4 map.

                    However the point stands, its all about map design. A small map only gives limited options and inevitably can lead towards spammy games. Now whilst a larger map isn't inherently better if designed with thought it at least gives flexibilty, gives you the option for differing gameplay. You can make a big map 'smaller' with clever design, focus and layout. You can't make a small map bigger.

                    For me its good news, same as player count going back to 64. It's hopefully a sign they intend to separate pc gaming from the console 'spam in a shoebox' titles that have hampered pc development for the past few years. I didn't buy a pc so I could play multiformat titles hamstrung by the lowest common denominator.

                    Please note I am not advocating BF3 should be like PR, if I want to play PR I can, merely citing an example of map design.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bach: &quot;largest maps we have ever made&quot;

                      Highway to hell is the road map Voodoo, but I think you guys played the 32 version which is really linear. 64 has 2 more flags and playable area. Still pretty open though.

                      Korengal valley is a good example of how to make a "small" map bigger. With lots of hard to traverse elevation changes and large amounts of concealment/cover. The high view distance mitigates it, but it was still impressive how far away you could feel from your enemy at 100m.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FunRaLXd8tA



                      I am interested in higher player counts and multiple options for maneuvering to objectives. Being forced into a particular path or action takes away a lot of what I enjoy, so on the surface this announcement is pleasing, but the real show will be actually touring the maps and understanding how gameplay works in conjunction with them.
                      |TG-12th| Namebot

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bach: &quot;largest maps we have ever made&quot;

                        Yes I intentionally omitted the only option for increasing the perceived size of a 'small' map, the vertical, simply because so few maps use this method. I fully agree with you on korengal, one of my favourite maps of all time, any title.

                        Another thing I neglected to mention, that a larger map may increase the importance of transports on a map, which adds yet another layer of complexity and interest. It can create another tactical layer and add to the diversity of roles people can take on the battlefield.

                        If its done right this can only be a positive thing imo. As previously stated, till we get some dimensions and more importantly 'boots on the ground' we won't know.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bach: &quot;largest maps we have ever made&quot;

                          Originally posted by A.WICKENS View Post
                          What I have seen of 2142's large maps is that they were just small maps stretched with little or no thought to the terrain between flags, hence you got the gameplay that Zhohar describes. Basically really lazy map design.
                          bingo.

                          wow.. just looking back through the list... http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/.../Maps/standard ... pretty good stuff there (I'd half forgotten how many flags there were on some of those maps!)..

                          what the hell happened to DICE's map-designers?! :icon_lol:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bach: &quot;largest maps we have ever made&quot;

                            It is not the size of your map but how you use it!

                            Again, it all goes back to design. My biggest lesson learned from previous BF games and modding is finding a good balance of combined arms on the SAME map so people have multiple useful and effective roles to play be it on foot or in vehicles. I also can not stress enough the importance of player to flag ratios. I truly believe DICE 'gets that' but at the same time those maps are the most difficult but rewarding maps to pull off.
                            Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bach: &quot;largest maps we have ever made&quot;

                              Don't forget that there will be jets, attack choppers and all sort of air transport. I think larger maps is good thing as long there are no empty spaces with no cover for infantry like on some maps in 2142.
                              sigpic


                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X