Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Map size: BF3 vs BF2

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

  • Map size: BF3 vs BF2

    Visser posted a link to some BF3 level maps (http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...-strategy.html)
    And that got me thinking about how cramped they all feel. Particularly when flying, but the effect is there on foot as well. When the full 64 players are on something feels wrong about the mess that results.

    The following are a few of the map comparisons I slapped together to try to quantize the difference from BF2.
    These should be the most accurate of the bunch since they all contain a US carrier which I could scale to match - though, that of course assumes that the carriers between the games are identical. (Seems like they pretty much are.)

    These two are actually pretty close.
    KhargIsland_vs_GulfofOman_2.jpg

    But when compared to BF2's truely vehicle based map it starts looking quaint.
    KhargIsland_vs_KatarWetlands_2.jpg

    Noshahr Canals is easily the worst offender in terms of size for a map sporting jets and looks positively miniscule on top of the wetlands.
    NoshahrCanals_vs_KatarWetlands_2.jpg

    But even regardless of physical size it is the number of control points that really stands out of me as lacking in BF3. Even with Kharg close to the Gulf in size, the CP count is 5 vs 7. And if any of you remember Dragon Valley from BF2, that actually had 10! Which tbh was probably going too far - The point is that in BF3 a full 32 player team is 8 squads, meaning that in general you're just short of 2 squads per CP. That's just un-wieldy; 2 squads doing separate, uncoordinated things to take or protect a single goal.
    IMO there need to be larger maps with more CP or squad sizes need to be at least 6. (Preferably both.)
    Combat is very simple, there is a first place and a second place. Second place is laying face down in the mud...sometimes, so is first place.
    [age-c1]
    [eng][air]

  • #2
    Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

    Good work. I personally think the future is going to have to be lower player counts due to the map sizes, and in that case, I think it's better that there are fewer CPs.

    3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

      Yeah, that is the more likely reality. Probably something like 48 player cap for the current maps.

      Sad though, I'm there with all the other guys that tend to sort servers by player count. =P
      I'm not generally good enough of a twitch shooter to carry a smaller team, but I really enjoy being a small part of a large battle.
      Combat is very simple, there is a first place and a second place. Second place is laying face down in the mud...sometimes, so is first place.
      [age-c1]
      [eng][air]

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

        Don't get me wrong.. I would love to play on a 128 player server if the maps were big enough. But they're not, so we have to make the best with what we have. :(

        3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

          These maps are not designed for 64 player conquest. A few will 'work' but they are all designed as 24 player Rush maps. The maps are not up to DICE's legendary standards but when you play Rush, all the deisgns make a lot more sense and you can see where they chose to 'detail' maps etc. I guess we just need to find what is the acceptable sweet spot for TG based on these designs.
          Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

            Originally posted by Tempus View Post
            Don't get me wrong.. I would love to play on a 128 player server if the maps were big enough. But they're not, so we have to make the best with what we have. :(

            What if both teams, in a situation, were to focus on the same flag? 128 players..

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

              Originally posted by DoubleHelix View Post
              What if both teams, in a situation, were to focus on the same flag? 128 players..
              Hopefully both sides would realize other flags were left unguarded and would quickly abandon said meatgrinder for lower hanging fruit. Even with the lackluster overhead map in BF3 I think situational awareness alone will tell you when two or more BluFor squads are at at CP you move elsewhere.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

                Originally posted by DoubleHelix View Post
                What if both teams, in a situation, were to focus on the same flag? 128 players..
                ^^^
                Operation Metro: Flag B?
                .
                "Young gamers assault while Older gamers flank."
                "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

                  Originally posted by Greasy Mullet View Post
                  These maps are not designed for 64 player conquest. A few will 'work' but they are all designed as 24 player Rush maps. The maps are not up to DICE's legendary standards but when you play Rush, all the deisgns make a lot more sense and you can see where they chose to 'detail' maps etc. I guess we just need to find what is the acceptable sweet spot for TG based on these designs.
                  I wish Dice had planned it so the maps for conquest were huge, but could be broken up into 2 different version of the map for rush. So you would have a KhargIsland Rush A version, a KhargIsland Rush B version, and the 2 of those would be put together for a 64 player version of Conquest, or just one of the 2 versions would work for a 32 player version. The consoles would stick to the 32 player version.

                  LINKS

                  * *


                  Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.

                  -Carlos A. Urbizo-

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

                    Is it possible that some of the map size ratios are off? the first picture must be off, I know the bf2 maps is much bigger
                    |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Map size: BF3 vs BF2

                      BF2 maps felt much bigger, there just seemed to more ground to cover or use to flank. BF3 maps all feel small and compact regardless of actual size

                      My name: Adept a skilled or proficient person Abyss a deep, immeasurable space, gulf, or cavity
                      So I'm a very skilled deep hole :D

                      Comment

                      Connect

                      Collapse

                      TeamSpeak 3 Server

                      Collapse

                      Advertisement

                      Collapse

                      Twitter Feed

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X