Battlefield 3 - Page 405

On February 06 2012 00:04 IveReturned wrote:
Hey guys I have made a map suggestion.

Would love to see your feedback!(Post there)

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654347876351905/1/

On February 06 2012 20:18 Mithhaike wrote:

Hmm im looking at it from a Conquest only player view

At first glance:-
looks kinda too big to walk. The middle valley infantry only looks like a death trap for those noobs who cant drive and will fall into it. its definitely suitable for a 64 conquest map.It gives me the feel of Operation Firestorm. With all those vehicles, it seems its going to be hard pressed to play as infantry, even if there's the valley and all those buildings.

i think those buildings are most probably destructible, thus vehicles are going to be way strong. i think just infantry supporting 2tanks on each lane will be able to cap most of the points.

my suggestion: reduce the total tanks from 4 to 2, but add in more jeeps/buggies for faster infantry travel to hotspots. those jeeps/buggies help, but wont turn the tide like tanks/armored vehicles can

EDIT2: Wow the US side has hilltop + peak, 2 extremely good high ground to control? thats pretty unfair. recons with soflam up there will control the ground totally. think back to wake island. airfield is kinda raised, not to the extent of peaks...and you know as well as i do how crazy SOFLAMs are on that map.

thus i think having high ground in the middle of the map is a pretty bad idea.

On February 06 2012 20:52 IveReturned wrote:


wow, thank you for the advice. this map will be three times big as firestorm (3.6km mains)

and the villages are biger than the oil refinery of firestorm. So entering the village-> bad idea i think.

It is too big to walk. Many maps were too big to walk in the past

reasoning of 4 tanks in main-> the map is too big and the vehicle density is quite enough in my opinion.

Also, can you bump the thread if possible?

On February 06 2012 21:04 HaXXspetten wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that every new BF has been worse than the previous one? Don't get me wrong, I think all of them are good, but... just not as good. 1942 is still without a doubt the best one so far imo

On February 06 2012 21:14 Mithhaike wrote:

Think which is the most popular map in BF3, its metro.

I also find firestorm boring, i practically just drive from point to point capturing without much killing done. Its one of the maps i dislike a lot just for the lack of action.

Also 4tanks doesnt really help vehicle density, lots of games you will see people each taking 1 vehicle, leaving half the team still stranded at the spawn area.
People dont wait for others to get on the jeep before driving away.Also what 4tanks do is when they come together in one direction, no defense is going to hold UNLESS the other team also has 4tanks / lots of engineers/ lots of air support(helis....however tanks with guided shell and CITV 3rd seat rapes helis). tanks are too good of a force multiplier in BF3 and needs to be taken into account, which is why i recommend 2tanks but lots of jeeps/buggies

I would like to restate the point that having high ground in the middle of the map is a pretty bad idea. Think wake island, airfield is only slightly raised but with soflams driving south/north base up is pretty impossible. Also one of the B2K map with the Hotel and aircraft carrier spawn... the Hotel makes it that all vehicular movement is nearly impossible. Trying to clear that spot out with air power is also impossible, you will be SOFLAMed+javelined to death before your aircraft can come close enough to do anything to them.

Have fun with your map.

On February 06 2012 21:38 Divine-Sneaker wrote:
So, does anyone have any good ideas as to cure a friend or two who for unknown and utterly retarded reasons swear by metro faggotry 24/7? They both got the game because I and another mutual buddy were playing it and we all played bc2 together. However they basically only want to do TDM on the miniature cityscape maps or 24/7 metro, which is absolutely and incredibly stupid, but understandable since they've both played MW2/BO/MW3 on Xbox.

We've brought them for all the different game modes with voice com, carried them around in vehicles so they could farm kills, shown them all the little tricks and stats as to the most efficient weapons etc. but they still have this sucky attitude.

Help us change it! :>

On February 06 2012 21:14 Mithhaike wrote:
For conquest:-
Okay if its 3times the size of firestorm, its too big. Even with 64players on Operation Firestorm, most of the time your already hardpressed to find people to fight, making games on that map extremely low scoring & boring. People play for fun, huge maps diminish the fun factor when it takes you 5mins to find someone to kill. Think which is the most popular map in BF3, its metro.

On February 07 2012 01:21 Rob28 wrote:


I agree with your basic premise that the larger the map is, the less combat you'll see. However, I'd argue that Caspian Border is more popular than Operation Metro, and it's a pretty damn big map. But it's not too big... it seems to have struck a perfect Battlefield size. Firestorm is a vehicle-centric map (hence the billions of tanks and air vehicles at spawn), whereas Caspian focuses on using the vehicles to initially capture points (so many jeeps at spawn), but then relying on infantry to hold those points. I think that's the sort of map the BF3 community needs more of. Karkand did a good job with this, as I find most Karkand maps are of a similar size to Caspian (maybe a bit smaller in the case of Oman or Sharqi). But generally, I'd use those maps as a guage to how big a custom map should be. The one being proposed, as Mith says, is just too big.

With regards to the unfair heigh advantages one team may have over another, I think a good example of what to emulate is Gulf of Oman, where there are a few areas with high spots scattered throughout the map, and the team that caps the objective gets the spot (especially on high back-and-forth ownership objectives). Also, with regards to Soflams, I've always found it a good idea to keep the high-altitude spots near the centre of the map, since Soflams can only point in one direction and can only cover a quarter of what it would cover if it were on the outside edge looking in.

My thoughts anyways. I like the use of the SC2 editor to make a model mock-up. Very nice touch.

On February 07 2012 08:06 Mithhaike wrote:


Yes im a new Battlefield player. BF3 is my 1st BF that i played. so you can take my view as a normal new player instead of a oldbie veteran

I totally agree with Caspian Border being a perfect battlefield size. there's places to use vehicles, they help but are not overpowering, and you can WALK to wherever you want to go. Maps that are unwalkable arent as interesting. I also think maps should be like what you said....use vehicles capture initial points but require infantry to hold / push up.

About the height advantages, from what i see of the map design, it still stands true. For example the Hill east of spawn, since your spawn is to the west, your only needing to cover the south & east of Hill with your soflam. Easily doable.

Peaks to the north is the Spawn, your safe from that angle, to the west is the forest which makes SOFLAMs unuseable anyway, again the only angles to cover is the south towards the bridge & east, which is also the likely places where enemy vehicles will attempt to move. As long as you cover south(bridges), a vehicle will be hardpressed to get inside the forest where it will be safe against SOFLAMs,but exposed against infantry with the cover provided by trees(im thinking Caspian Border Forest)

This makes SOFLAM extremely good on this map,when its a vehicle based map with all the tanks & jeeps.

On February 07 2012 14:41 askTeivospy wrote:
when is any map on a pub server anything more than a random combat fast

On February 07 2012 21:25 IveReturned wrote:
Big updates have come! Dont forget to check!

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654347876351905/1/



VoIP used to increase logic and organization level

Big maps would increase teamplay and natural logic level.

Now flags are so close that everybody can walk roads as individuals and natural logic level never goes beyond the example I wrote up.

Also, in this map, basic strategies wrote by text will have a longer time to be executed.

On February 08 2012 01:53 Rob28 wrote:
On the topic of Op Metro padding, I've had a great flash of insight: Instead of the standard 3 objective conquest, make 5 objectives like Conquest Large. Keep the ones where they are now, but add 1 objective to the stock exchange (RU spawn) and 1 further down the tunnel (around the US spawn). Then move the team spawn locations to small "off-tunnels" at either end of the tracks.

Boom, no more chokepoint spam clusterfuck!

Frankly though I don't know why I'm even writing this... we all know DICE will never fix Metro.

On February 08 2012 00:31 Necrophantasia wrote:


Can't say I like your map.

Your map resembles some sort of King of the Hill thing. The team that gets both caps on the mountain in the middle auto wins because of height advantage. Reaching those entrenched positions is going to be impossible. Normally the way around this would be to allow strategic flanking to make the hill harder to hold. But you go ahead and add the following:

1. Bridge choke on the left.
2. Forest to go through in order to complete a flanking maneuver
3. Impassable mountain pass on the right.

While they try and breach the hill, the team that did not capture the flags first will be at a 5-2 disadvantage. E.g. for US, if you hold the hill, you will likely hold both the forest, the village, and the area with the few buildings.

There will be no come back possible on this map. The side that starts out at a disadvantage will die from ticket bleed.