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.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,282)

Posts: 2,700

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

41

Friday, July 6th 2018, 10:42am

All this talk of conveyor belts is idiotic, the game is more fun when there are more players, you get more kills, it's more dynamic, there is more action and more complexity, the opposite of boring, if you like small controlled environments that's fine, but 64 players is much more stimulating to the vast majority of players.


I see your point, but there are more things to consider. Since Conquest basically is a game where attacking flags comes more naturally than defending and where you usually choose the nearest flag to attack you get a certain flow to maps. That is why the clash on Locker will always be on C, which will make the game moste stable at a certain frontline, which is where the conveyor belt concept comes in. In BF4, tactically you would break this up by attacking and holding a back flag, like E and therefore creating a new flow where resources need to be redirected. With BF1 backcapping was rather eliminated, streamlining every game more to a point of one everwaging frontline.

And naturally, with more players, creating a new dynamic by tactical decisions that are out of the box is harder and less likely. So yes 64 players can work, but the deciding factor is map design that needs to create a certain flow. It is true though that many players do not want that kind of tactical component, but in that case you would not need a gamemode like conquest at all. Like Metro that never was about taking flags when played with more than 32 players. 64 players right now is absolutely not dynamic and not more complex it is the same thing every round and that is the appeal to many players.

Forger21

for all your voodoo needs

(512)

Posts: 194

Date of registration
: Jul 2nd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

42

Friday, July 6th 2018, 4:07pm

I would argue that, assuming 64 player conquest is known to be a feature of every map in the game from the start of development, the presence of maps that are inappropriately linear and narrow for their maximum player count, is a failure of map design to conform to the player count rather than a failure of player count to conform to the map design. After all, if the entire map were a narrow alley like the middle flag area on BF3's Grand Bazaar, even 16 player conquest would be crowded. Conversely, maps can be designed for 64 players.

I hope that the fact that both Conquest and the new version of a linear gamemode, Grand Operations, are both designed for high 64 person player counts, means that we won't see a repeat of maps that seemed designed primarily to accommodate 32 player rush being used for 64 player conquest with little or no additional playable area being included to make them less linear in that gamemode. There have always been some linear maps in Battlefield games, even before the inclusion of a 32 player rush gamemode and the need to allow for the length that gamemode uses (I can picture Camp Gibraltar from 2142 very clearly in my mind even now), but the practice of shoehorning conquest onto linear rush maps reached a bit of a low point with some of the vanilla BF1 maps, really hurting that game's appeal on launch in my opinion, especially when combined with slow but high health armor that could outrange it's counters. Also, the worst BF3-4 offenders (metro/lockers) served to divide the player base in a way, channeling many infantry combat focused players into 24/7 metro or lockers servers and vehicle combat focused players into servers with the most open vehicle heavy maps, and leaving few servers playing the balanced infantry/vehicle maps.

I suppose we'll see soon enough if Narvik, with it's neatly spaced 2 by 3 grid of conquest flags, is representative of other maps in BFV.
2143

This post has been edited 8 times, last edit by "Forger21" (Jul 6th 2018, 5:42pm)