I keep tryin but

I keep tryin to like this game. Simply the maps are just to big.  You spend way more time running around than shooting.  Then they are not busting the cheaters fast enough.  Game hard enough.  This version not equaling a good time.  Guess I will wait for the next.

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 3, 2018 Views 0 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

Yeah I hate the big maps too unless I am playing with my buddies. I think for consoles, there should always be a jeep available at spawn for you to take to the enemy base. Nobody should have to walk 500 yards by themselves only to get picked off by a sniper laying prone way in the back of the map.

[

The big maps were obviously intended for 60 players. Us consolers got the short end of the stick and it really shows.

The only map I dislike due to size is Caspian Border. All the others are just right (in size).

This is why I stop paying Conquest. I would run to flag B and all the fighting would be down, so now I have to run to A flag. It got repetitive.  

um, cant u spawn on your squadmates?

Thats how BF has always been , its a slower paced game although it can have some fantastic intense moments , if you dont like it play something else , its really as simple as that its not for everybody :)

The game has really intense maps and really slow maps. Even the bigger ones can be intense. I had a game on operation firestorm earlier today that really got my blood pumping.

It can get intense on all maps,On Caspian Border A and C can get pretty hottly contested,Firestorm has the action if you go to the right places.If the whole team are going for the objectives and trying to win like they should be then there should be no lack of action.

[quote user="EYEB4LL95"]

It can get intense on all maps,On Caspian Border A and C can get pretty hottly contested,Firestorm has the action if you go to the right places.If the whole team are going for the objectives and trying to win like they should be then there should be no lack of action.

[/quote]

I wouldn't call the swapping of flags every few minutes "intense".  You can go trhough an entire game on Caspian Border without seeing a single enemy foot soldier, maybe not even a tank.

I think that map is just too big for 12v12 

Yea, the maps are awesome, but the player count is too low for the map size. I play with some pretty strong killers and we can have 6 guys in a match and still have none of us break 10 kills on the bigger maps. Its boring as heck.

I play solo (without friends) and I find this to be circumstantially true.  For example most maps that are symmetrical you go for the A, then the B,  last the C. Instead in these weird instances 1 or 2 squads rush the C while enemies move forward grabbing  C B A.  Then fall back B to A.  Locking half of the team in a loosing battle for C.  Trying to get a tank past A and B without back up is daunting as there are usually engineers waiting to cut you off.  In these instances the maps feel too big as these losers lose focus and spread team resources to thin.  I'd imagine with sixty players I could still foresee the ratio of players becoming lopsided like I said but with 60 players you would see action where with 24 there would be none.  Rush is better for unorganized players learning squad mechanics.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.