Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 23:47. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Posts: 25

Date of registration
: Dec 31st 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

21

Tuesday, February 14th 2012, 5:54am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

I don't like to think of it being at the fault of the maps themselves, but rather the placement of the flags and deployments. Caspian Border is an excellent example of bad objective placement on consoles, and even in Rush. There is simply not enough vehicles to go around and most of the time kills never really go above ten. I always think about how some maps would play if the deployments and objectives were moved around a bit or better, giving teams more than one deployment like on Wake Island Conquest. I'd definitely enjoy Caspian a lot more in its current state if they moved the flags around a bit and made Border Patrol and the Gas Station secondary infantry deployments for the US and RU respectively and would speed up the combat a lot. Same with any map with an aircraft carrier because half the time on something like Gulf of Oman, you end up being trapped on the boat.

Then there's some maps where the flag locations in comparison to the ones on PC just don't make sense. Seine Crossing on console can only be played on the Russian side of the river in Conquest with the flags being in very camp heavy spots even though the entire play area can easily support 24 players if they were moved around just a bit and put more emphasis on the actual crossing instead of just keeping it as a deployment. Grand Bazaar can only be played with three flags on console which isn't really that bad, but even on console having flags on the street corners opposite the deployments would add a lot more variety instead of making it a hallway-clusterfuck-occassionally-cap-their-sides-flag match every game.

Some maps are fine though. Karkand and Tehran are two maps I can think of that work well in their current state for 24 players, MAV lifters aside.

Posts: 20

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

22

Tuesday, February 14th 2012, 7:05am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

I've played like 100 hours on PS3 and about 80 hours on PC and I can honestly say I much rather the normal Conquest maps as oppose to the large ones. I do however prefer 32 player to 24 player. To me 64 player is a bit of a clusterf*** on any map and having to deal with like 8 enemy vehicles is a real pain. Also just the sound of 32 enemy players constantly shooting rpgs, mortars, tanks, helis, 320s etc gets on my nerves after a while. BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM and screen constantly shaking everywhere.

However, my pet peeve is the PC servers in regards to map choices and instant vehicle spawn times. Console servers are great, you choose a game type and it runs through ALL the maps. I'm sick of all these servers with like 1-3 maps only. There are no bad maps in my opinion and I when I play I want to see them all. Also when instant vehicles are on I generally find your team's helis being camped on by an enemy one and killing you as soon as you get in. Really annoying.

I'm talking about Australian servers by the way. The server choices are fairly limited on Aus servers. US servers are probably a completely different story.