Map Sizes

(Macavity) #1

Am I the only one who feels like the maps are too small?

It’s like every single map has a bottleneck on nearly every corner and there’s no way around it, except banging your head against the enemy to try to bruteforce your way through.

I personally feel like this is the biggest problem with the game currently. I feel like if maps were 2x or 3x the size overall, there would be way more room for actual tactics and strategies. The maps needs to be bigger and more open.

I think a good size for comparison would be something like the medium-sized maps from BF:BC2 where the maps weren’t too huge, but they weren’t too small either and you sort of had multiple approaches to everything and you were able to wrap around the enemies if you played smart.

(The99thProblem) #2

I do see where you are coming from mate. But, to be honest snipers can already snipe on the current size of the maps that we have now. Give them a wider more open field, and it will be a snipers playground. Ducking for cover is supposed to be a option at almost every part of the map. If you have to run a mile just to get behind cover, your a dead man. Sometimes when its a 3 on 1 fight, you have to get to cover and wait for back up; if your all alone in the open in a map 3x the current sizes, your a dead man.

(Macavity) #3

Bigger maps will probably make more people play snipers, that’s true, but snipers aren’t even that big of a problem in this game due to not being 1-hit-kill except for headshots and the fact that you can revive and heal pretty quickly.

The extremely small and linear maps simply don’t allow for enough tactics/strategies when there’s several chokepoint corners on nearly all maps without any way around, so you’re forced to bang your head against the enemies to bruteforce through.

(sKy-e.belst) #4

its true, maps are pretty small. at least the first stages are, since you cannot go to the yet blocked areas.

Like on terminal. As a defender, you have no way to get behind the wall, before it is blown up. in comparison in oasis in ET you have. since you can spawn back.

afaik there is no map, where the whole map is accessible right from the beginning. like eg: goldrush in ET.

(prankishKing) #5

I dont like small maps, i prefer rush all the time, but some times got nice spot to snipe is kind of cool xD

(yakcyll) #6

Aye, I think for now this set of maps can work very well, since it allows for rapidly testing and trying out different sets of features in a fairly quick manner (matches, or most of them, last no longer than 15 minutes), but for the final release, unless we get a way to add new maps (which Unreal Engine might not allow for, it’d require a, hm, very sophisticated piece of software to be built from scratch; correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m p.sure no common solution has been built yet), there ought to be maps of varied paths and, most importantly, sizes - I personally am longing for those long, drawn out battles over wide-spread objectives (idk how many of you enjoyed playing Radar, but I sure as hell loved it).

(neg0ne) #7

well, yes there have been some great “slightly- bigger” maps in ET and ETQW but the advantage of smaller maps is you get right into the action wich is good for a fast pace shooter like DB. if maps were bigger there needs to be another spawnsystem. i personaly am fine with the size of maps and would vote more maps over bigger maps.

(Szakalot) #8

Map sizes are optimized for 5v5, and they are quite fine at this amount of players. It all starts to fall apart a little at 8v8, but if you have ever played oasis at 32+ servers, you know that there isn’t much that can be done with this issue.

(Nail) #9

64 slot Radar was the most crazy I ever saw in W:ET