Thread is locked.

Why do people like air maps?

nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-12 17:12
BF3 is probably the best-selling Battlefield game for many reasons, but for all those who played 1942 and BF2, why do you like having a massive map where it takes ages to find anyone? Don't you find it unbalanced and frustrating that there are planes, helis, tanks, jeeps and infantry all combined but very little action? If there was dogfighting or tank only then fair enough but I don't understand the appeal of large maps with lots of players and vehicles. Close Quarters is the Call of Duty killer in my opinion, but I just can't quite work out the mentality of someone who likes to have a score per minute of below 200. Bad Company was OK because there weren't jets and the maps weren't stupidly large, but any bigger and it would have sucked. Bad Company 2 seems to be more action packed than BC1 and BF3's large maps but from my experience Battlefield is an extremely slow game unless played on small maps with infantry and light armor only. Even playing 64 man Caspian Border is a ghost town. I'd rather have a 5v5 close quarters domination or search and destroy than the novelty of a "Battlefield".
FuT-Fourzero
Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-12 17:14
Where's your Flame suit?
nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-12 17:14
FourTwoFour said:
Where's your Flame suit?


What do you mean?
j1mmyzt3mpur4
US Enlisted: 2012-05-26
2012-09-12 17:15
nO_d3N1AL said:
FourTwoFour said:
Where's your Flame suit?
What do you mean?


I wanna see your trolltage video.
We should remove all jets from the game and replace them with the F35.
RaRaAv1s
GB Enlisted: 2011-10-28
2012-09-12 17:16
Big maps = teamwork and tactics, Small maps = who has best aim and quickest finger.

Well from my pov they are.
monkeyhunter2142
BE Enlisted: 2011-12-18
2012-09-12 17:17
By trying to take the red flag you run into plenty of enemies. Not on a cod scale but more then enough.
Unless you're on console...
nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-12 17:18
j1mmyzt3mpur4 said:
nO_d3N1AL said:
FourTwoFour said:
Where's your Flame suit?
What do you mean?
I wanna see your trolltage video.


You think I'm trolling? Man some people are so pathetic, can't tell a genuine query from a real troll
crimsomrider
HR Enlisted: 2011-10-28
2012-09-12 17:20 , edited 2012-09-12 17:21 by crimsomrider
I see you don't have AK so I'll clarify. Battlefield is made for big maps with vehicles. It's a semi-realistic war game so you're supposed to move to the action instead of waiting for it. I don't know about your "Ghost towns" for Caspian, but I find it very action packed. Tanks, enemies all over the objectives. I'm not a camper, but always mobile so I don't know how you play. Also, the player who cares about his Score Per Minute is not a battlefield player obviously. I'm not playing for stats at all. I'm here to have fun playing BF so if I get 20 deaths and 4 kills I really don't care.

For example, I was looking at my stats and my Skill dropped by 120 after playing with a sniper soflaming so my teammates could use Javelins. But I don't really care. I helped my teammates win the match with those target designations and that's all that counts. Unfortunately m8, you're playing Battlefield wrong. BF is not for small maps, but big maps. :)
" I will take what is rightfully mine, with fire and blood! " - Daenerys Targaryen (Game Of Thrones)
A_Harmless_Panda
Enlisted: 2011-10-25
2012-09-12 17:22
Twitch shooters like tight space and non-stop actions. Tactical players like well designed maps(not necessarily super large) and teamwork. People like DIFFERENT things. What's so hard to accept that?

-----------------------------------------------
Commander and VOIP for BF4
B_Sisko
US Enlisted: 2011-10-25
2012-09-12 17:22 , edited 2012-09-12 17:30 by B_Sisko
The maps in BF1942-BF2142 were big yes but they weren't ridiculous. Some of the maps required a vehicle like a jeep to get around but even then a infantry player could still find ways to stay alive. To me the draw of those maps was that it allowed for spontaneous action and required you and your team to know where they enemy was at all times. It played as you expect from a sandbox FPS as you weren't funneled to certain key points.

The previous battlefield games had slower pace it wasn't about instant run and gun. It was lot of fun to be able to plan strategies with your teammates or squad mates. This is something that has been lost over the last couple of games. The game BC-BF3 feels like it has been sped up a bit probably because of how the spawns are handled. The maps in BF2 were huge yes but they had lots of variety to them to allow for different styles of play
lIlhustlelIl
CA Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-12 17:23
Well said I agree with the op.
[Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4.4GHZ]..[Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3]..[G.Skill Trident X 16GB DDR3-2400]..[2 x 120GB Samsung 840 Pro Raid 0]..[SLI EVGA GTX780Ti 03G-P4-2884-KR ]..[Corsair HX1050 PSU]..[Benq XL2420TE 144hz]..[ASUS Xonar Essence STX]..[AKG Q701]..[Corsair K70 blue]..[Roccat Kone Pure Optical]..[Windows 8.1 Professional 64-bit]..[Corsair Carbide 500R]
nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-12 17:26
crimsomrider said:
I see you don't have AK so I'll clarify. Battlefield is made for big maps with vehicles. It's a semi-realistic war game so you're supposed to move to the action instead of waiting for it. I don't know about your "Ghost towns" for Caspian, but I find it very action packed. Tanks, enemies all over the objectives. I'm not a camper, but always mobile so I don't know how you play. Also, the player who cares about his Score Per Minute is not a battlefield player obviously. I'm not playing for stats at all. I'm here to have fun playing BF so if I get 20 deaths and 4 kills I really don't care.

For example, I was looking at my stats and my Skill dropped by 120 after playing with a sniper soflaming so my teammates could use Javelins. But I don't really care. I helped my teammates win the match with those target designations and that's all that counts. Unfortunately m8, you're playing Battlefield wrong. BF is not for small maps, but big maps. :)


Again, people's obsession with "realism". I can't understand how spending minutes trying to get to the action can be "fun". BF3 would be better and have more teamwork if there was more than just domination for objective modes. I wouldn't mind Rush if the maps were smaller. CTF would be nice in close quarters too. I don't think anyone can play an online game without getting frustrated if they care about stats, but the mentality of a "Battlefield" player is a mystery to me. Where's the fun in spending ages getting to the flag when in CQ you can cap all three within a minute? Traditional Battlefield is far too slow. I don't get how anyone can like a slow paced game.
B_Sisko
US Enlisted: 2011-10-25
2012-09-12 17:27 , edited 2012-09-12 17:29 by B_Sisko
There are plenty of arcade cod-style games out there. Not every game needs to fit that type of instant action mold.
Trialsnorth
CA Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-12 17:28
Playing on 64 player Caspian Border servers aren't ghost towns, there are continuous battles throughout the map. The action in the larger maps are generally at specific objections not spread out across the whole map. One thing I don't like about AK is that if you don't have a vehicle you'll be running for awhile, I think the jeeps and ATVs should respawn faster.
doktorvonwer
GB Enlisted: 2011-10-28
2012-09-12 17:29
OP, we 'Battlefield players' don't play Battlefield for fast action and being shot in the back constantly and mindless, random chaos. If we wanted that, there are any number of small-map, fast-action games available.

We're looking for a team experience of combined warfare, working towards objectives, and having the freedom to try whatever we want on open maps with variable terrain features.


It's rarely if ever 'slow paced' even still. I would suggest that you erroneously seem to think CoD/CQ super-fast chaos styled gameplay is 'normal', when in reality it's tactic-less, mindless deathmatch on a super-fast scale.
TwilightBl1tz
NL Enlisted: 2011-10-26
2012-09-12 17:31
RaRaAv1s said:
Big maps = teamwork and tactics, Small maps = who has best aim and quickest finger.

Well from my pov they are.


Teamwork? Tell that to the medics that i revive over and over again and then just let me die and don't even bother to revive me. or the ammo dude that only thinks about his own ammo.
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-12 17:31
B_Sisko said:
There are plenty of arcade cod-style games out there. Not every game needs to fit that type of instant action mold.


CoD is more successful than BF because it has action, and greater variety in game modes. If MW3's online wasn't as bad as it is BF3 would have sold half of what it has done.
crimsomrider
HR Enlisted: 2011-10-28
2012-09-12 17:33 , edited 2012-09-12 17:34 by crimsomrider
nO_d3N1AL said:
crimsomrider said:
I see you don't have AK so I'll clarify. Battlefield is made for big maps with vehicles. It's a semi-realistic war game so you're supposed to move to the action instead of waiting for it. I don't know about your "Ghost towns" for Caspian, but I find it very action packed. Tanks, enemies all over the objectives. I'm not a camper, but always mobile so I don't know how you play. Also, the player who cares about his Score Per Minute is not a battlefield player obviously. I'm not playing for stats at all. I'm here to have fun playing BF so if I get 20 deaths and 4 kills I really don't care.

For example, I was looking at my stats and my Skill dropped by 120 after playing with a sniper soflaming so my teammates could use Javelins. But I don't really care. I helped my teammates win the match with those target designations and that's all that counts. Unfortunately m8, you're playing Battlefield wrong. BF is not for small maps, but big maps. :)
Again, people's obsession with "realism". I can't understand how spending minutes trying to get to the action can be "fun". BF3 would be better and have more teamwork if there was more than just domination for objective modes. I wouldn't mind Rush if the maps were smaller. CTF would be nice in close quarters too. I don't think anyone can play an online game without getting frustrated if they care about stats, but the mentality of a "Battlefield" player is a mystery to me. Where's the fun in spending ages getting to the flag when in CQ you can cap all three within a minute? Traditional Battlefield is far too slow. I don't get how anyone can like a slow paced game.


You don't understand. It's not about capping all 3 flags at once. It's about the journey, not the goal... progress to the objective. You're asking how anyone can like a slow paced game ... I'm sure you are aware that every person on this planet has unique thinking and likings. Everyone has their tastes and loads of people that bought BF obviously like it. I played COD to Modern Warfare 2. Was a great fast paced game, but got boring after a while. I love Battlefield as a slow paced game because I don't need to have my reflexes on maximum while playing COD or Close Quarters. I can take a nice drive in a tank / chopper / jet and do what I feel like doing at that moment in the game. That's why people like it. It gives you the feel of real war. And yes, it's realistic. MAIN REASON why most people play Battlefield. REALISTIC!
" I will take what is rightfully mine, with fire and blood! " - Daenerys Targaryen (Game Of Thrones)
TheRulesLawyer
US Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-12 17:33 , edited 2012-09-12 17:34 by TheRulesLawyer
Big maps allow for maneuver and require more situational awareness. Small maps favor twitch shooters. Its a different game. However some of my favorite moments in BF2 were when I was sneaking around enemy lines and wrecking havoc in rear bases. That's something you can't really do on a congested map.

Different strokes for different folks. I just wish the people who like CQ games like COD, etc would stop trying to change the battlefield series into another clone. Its okay for there to be some choice in the market.
SturzAdler
DE Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-12 17:33 , edited 2012-09-12 17:33 by SturzAdler
but I just can't quite work out the mentality of someone who likes to have a score per minute of below 200.

SPM below 200 when playing air maps you say?
 
Thread is locked.
Thread is locked.