Some maps too small for amount of players?

[Evil_T0NY]

I was wondering, aren't there some maps, (Esp. the fall of Berlin) a wee bit too small for 64 players, forming bottle necks on the map?

I think the majority of the time the Russian Side is stuck near the spawn area, and heck, it's not even fun even on the WINNING side after a while. :laugh:

[Iwantcable]

They were made for 48, I'm pretty sure anyways.

[Rebiv4]

All of the maps were made for 64. The only reason Titan was "restricted" (I say this with quotes because you can make it 64 very easily) was because titans could move before the last patches.

EA has stated that they are working on making titan 64 again, and are going to test extensively since the titans dont move.

But to the effect of Berlin being slightly one-sided: I agree. The PAC should have either more options to get to the EU side of the map, more vehicles, or the balance should be permanently on the PAC side (i.e. make it a 1.25/1 player ratio on that map only, which won't happen)

[Micster]

Wait, Titan, not for 64 players? Since when did that happen? I've played a 64 player Titan server before. Unless of course my memory serves me wrong.

Anyway, 48 and above for Fall or Berlin is Bottleneck Chaos. As commander I have to constantly use Orbital Strikes to scatter the enemy so my PAC team can capture the flag.

[goldennova]

Wait, Titan, not for 64 players? Since when did that happen? I've played a 64 player Titan server before. Unless of course my memory serves me wrong.

Anyway, 48 and above for Fall or Berlin is Bottleneck Chaos. As commander I have to constantly use Orbital Strikes to scatter the enemy so my PAC team can capture the flag.

There are VERY few 64 titan maps. There may be SOME, but really small amounts. EA even has tips which suggest AGAINST 64 titan maps since many comps either can;t handle it or the lag would be extreme. Sorry for the capped words but the emphasis IS neccessary.

[Aedus]

That was only when servers lagged to crap with over 20 people defending with the titan moving due to idiot commanders, should be okay now though

[Micster]

There are VERY few 64 titan maps. There may be SOME, but really small amounts. EA even has tips which suggest AGAINST 64 titan maps since many comps either can;t handle it or the lag would be extreme. Sorry for the capped words but the emphasis IS neccessary.

Oh I see, thanks for the heads up. :)

[BahamutZ3RO]

Fall of Berlin is an awesome 64 player map.

[Seppuku]

All of the maps were made for 64.

false. in fact, there is some thread on these forums that includes a post by colin from DICE in which he mentions that the 2142 map designer was initially horrified to learn that this very map (berlin) was being played with 64 players, but then was gratified to learn that people liked it. you can search for it if you want. it's here. somewheres....

personally, i think that map is a joke with 64 people. i won't touch it. actually, i think all the city maps suck at 64. but to each his own.

[Drevor]

Mmmmm ... the title mad me think ... wouldnt it be great if the server where able to adapt the mapsize accoring to the connected players? ... no more "waiting for 16 players to join..." >_>

[Jeffro420]

You dont consider Camp of Gilbralter a bottleneck map? They did that on purpose so people are forced to fight instead of being p****ies.

[Haemogod]

I was wondering, aren't there some maps, (Esp. the fall of Berlin) a wee bit too small for 64 players, forming bottle necks on the map?

I think the majority of the time the Russian Side is stuck near the spawn area, and heck, it's not even fun even on the WINNING side after a while. :laugh:

The roadbloack neets to be neutral, or if the roadblock isnt the first one you know what i mean.

[Iwantcable]

false. in fact, there is some thread on these forums that includes a post by colin from DICE in which he mentions that the 2142 map designer was initially horrified to learn that this very map (berlin) was being played with 64 players, but then was gratified to learn that people liked it. you can search for it if you want. it's here. somewheres....

personally, i think that map is a joke with 64 people. i won't touch it. actually, i think all the city maps suck at 64. but to each his own.

Ha! I know I heard it somewhere :)

[Deesies]

some maps are only made for certain amount of players.

A very poor design strategy considering servers won't be able to change player count for every map that comes up.

[EyeofG]

I was wondering, aren't there some maps, (Esp. the fall of Berlin) a wee bit too small for 64 players, forming bottle necks on the map?

I think the majority of the time the Russian Side is stuck near the spawn area, and heck, it's not even fun even on the WINNING side after a while. :laugh:

almost all Conquest maps (fall of Belin, Belgrade, and others) are made for 48. Why not make them 64? I have not idea. Why EA would only make servers up to 48 now, is just odd, because BF2 worked fine in a 64 player server. Why not put more 64 player servers for conquest? (Titan mode would lag SO bad!)

[Merlin]

I was wondering, aren't there some maps, (Esp. the fall of Berlin) a wee bit too small for 64 players, forming bottle necks on the map?

I think the majority of the time the Russian Side is stuck near the spawn area, and heck, it's not even fun even on the WINNING side after a while. :laugh:

IMO Berlin the worst map in the game, so boring when your team cant even get out your base for the whole round :mad:. Simlar to minsk conquest YAWN.

[EyeofG]

IMO Berlin the worst map in the game, so boring when your team cant even get out your base for the whole round :mad:. Simlar to minsk conquest YAWN.

I aguee. It's a Big chock point for the PAC. IT's not problem for EU to get all flags and keep the PAC in one spot

[evilzucchini]

All of the maps were made for 64. The only reason Titan was "restricted" (I say this with quotes because you can make it 64 very easily) was because titans could move before the last patches.
This is a false statement. When talking about glitching and getting on the rooftops and whether or not it was an exploit, a DICE member came in and talked about how the game was intended vs creative uses of their engine. One of the stories he told to demonstrate how fun was more important than using as intended, he EXPLICITLY said that Berlin was made for 48 players max and when the creator heard that it was being used for 64 players, he was "mortified" (I am pretty sure that is the exact word he used) but decided that as long as people were having fun, it was okay with him.

Personally, I can't stand Berlin with more than 48 players. It is nonsense. IMO, it is designed well for 32 players and 48 is REALLY pushing it.

I thinkt he same thing happens with gibraltar too. YOu start putting too many people on it and the levels begin to suck.

[Haemogod]

You dont consider Camp of Gilbralter a bottleneck map? They did that on purpose so people are forced to fight instead of being p****ies.

What is that :censored: word?

[[gT]Seb565]

In BF2 everyone loved to play 50+ people on Karkand 32. Squeezing lots of people on small maps means lots of kills and intense action (although I prefer 48s to 64s). The only city map that seems like it may have been designed to support 64 players is Belgrade.