Does size matter?

MasterNoth · Post by **MasterNoth** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:24 pm

We've all played on numerous maps. Included in those are maps like Endor, Bespin (Cloud City) and Geonosis. So, what makes for a good battle? Tight configurations, like Bespin? Or a looser-based map, like Endor? Do you like all the running or flying, or do you prefer close combat/CP's?

Post by **-_-** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:27 pm

as long as it's a good one

Post by **EraOfDesann** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:36 pm

I love it when a mapper makes each type of map. Take Rends for example. He's very good at coming up with something new and creative and always different from his last map. I enjoy playing all of his maps because of those two things.

I don't enjoy large maps because usually that means a lot of walking and sometimes the combat is stretched very thin. Big maps also usually mean less detail since it's so large. However I do enjoy large maps with interesting environments, plenty of vehicles, and action that isn't spread out. Another characteristic in large maps that I do like is if it's set up as one team defending and one team attacking. Take Hoth for example. These are usually more fun in multiplayer, but can cause lag because of their size.

I prefer medium to small maps. In medium maps I like having vehicles and lots of objects to make the map more interesting and appealing. It also needs a balance of vehicular combat and on-foot combat. In small maps, I prefer no vehicles and intense on-foot combat. This way, I'm always on my feet and never bored. However, if the map itself is boring then I may not like the map. I prefer creative maps with lots of objects (mostly buildings) like Jai Nollan and Italia. Also Dantooine.

So those are my preferences/dislikes. I'll be encorporating those into my upcoming maps (psst...I have three maps coming and completed version of Methlyn) and any other maps that I make for BF1 or BF2.

Kyross · Post by **Kyross** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:42 pm

Whatever happened to:

Insert Name Here says:
k i got to go do my homework

Chamboozer · Post by **Chamboozer** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:08 pm

i like medium sized maps because they can have intense on-foot combat, and still use bases, like kamino.

Post by **guru** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:09 pm

this is actually and interesting topic , if you take events like Battleweek for instance players that are UBER seem to prefer small melee maps with closely located CPs and nice upper lower levels for sniper/rocket attacks. Where in carefree everyday gamer aspect Ive seen players thrive on large , spread out maps like MOnt Edur , which lets you explore and use vehicles of all types as well as take cps and do the close fighting moves.

THats just from a solid year of SWBF playing that I have seen this, just my opinion.

MasterNoth · Post by **MasterNoth** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:12 pm

Very cool! So far there have been excellent responses. I only originally asked to help get a feel of what people like playing on. This will help me and others to build those types of maps. I hope more people provide input.

fruitymarshmallow · Post by **fruitymarshmallow** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:27 am

I like those Mid sized maps with diff areas, you know, an open area with some cover (oximoronic) and a close quarters area (urban warfare)

Bulldog · Post by **Bulldog** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:16 am

I like close quarters stuff, thought there's nothing necessarily wrong with large maps. Mont Edur is an example of a good large map- there's plenty of veriety, and spawn points are still reasonably close together so it's not too far to go to fight someone. By contrast there are some maps that are huge open areas that get boring very quickly. So in general I like small and mid-sized, but a well designed monster map is always welcome

CarbineImpulse · Post by **CarbineImpulse** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:25 pm

Yep, I also like large maps with plenty of variety, this gives you room to explore and find different methods of capturing CP's. The variety also means that the map is likely to have a longer lasting appeal than just an all out short battle. That being said a large map does need to be populated by a large amount of possibilities CP's etc... to allow close combat or long range sniping if wanted. a huge map with just wide open spaces is just kind of a waste. yep mont enur is a great example of this (there aremany others too).

Tyler_Durden · Post by **Tyler_Durden** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:04 pm

For me it's not about the size of the map, though I am partial to big maps. I like to think it's the gameplay involved in the map that makes it good or bad. It seems a few guys make maps just for size but put little to no thought into the gameplay which could use the size more effectively. Here's my idea specs - Huge maps should require many vehicles at least 2 or 3 of each vehicle, depending on what type of vehicle it is. Also big maps should at least have a minimum 45/45 ratio of units on the field at a given time. This makes for bigger battles, and much better gameplay. Also, a lot of mappers don't think about this too much but the terrain of the map should also play a part in a battle. If possible, there should be harldy any flat areas. A good example of terrain used effectively is battlefield 1942/vietnam/battlefield 2, etc. All these game use terrain in order to make the gameplay more interesting plus also providing areas for sniping and hiding places. This is something that current maps don't provide right now but could be worked on.

Gynt_Ryles · Post by **Gynt_Ryles** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:21 pm

You just described the secret map I'm working on (designing, really, because I haven't worked on anything because of my problems with Ord Mantell and my allergies).

Does size matter?

Does the size of the battlefield matter?

Does size matter?