• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

BF2 Poll. Large maps VS Small maps

Map size preference ...

  • 64 man

    Votes: 49 36.8%

  • 32 man

    Votes: 54 40.6%

  • 16 man

    Votes: 13 9.8%

  • I like them all ...

    Votes: 17 12.8%
  • Total voters
    133
I

Isaacav2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
1,487
The 64 and 32 man size maps In my opinion are too big with too much down time before you see any action. Not to mention the general chaos and lack of teamwork. I prefer the small maps and for right now I prefer to play bots.

Witch maps do you prefer?

Also, how do you switch from single shot to fully automatic and visa versa on some of the guns? Its making me mad, I cant figure it out.

Thanks
 
32 is my favorite, but both 64 and 16 can be lots of fun depending on the people you're with.


To switch firing modes hit the weapon number again. (Pressing 3 brings up your rifle, press 3 again to make it semi auto)
 
32 man with 64 players rocks, as long as the ticket count is set above 150...
 
Akuma said:
32 is my favorite, but both 64 and 16 can be lots of fun depending on the people you're with.


To switch firing modes hit the weapon number again. (Pressing 3 brings up your rifle, press 3 again to make it semi auto)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help. What is Ticketcount?
 
i prefer the 32 maps, favority map as of now is strike at karkand, i'd like to see more city/urban style maps vs the jungle style maps. hopefully they come out with some new stuff soon cause im really getting bored, playing the same maps, with the same weapons over and over. my global rank is 2900 damn its going to take forever getting to 10000 global points. i wish they would shorten it.
 
For ground fighting, i like the 32 player maps. 16 is just tiny, its like playing a CS level...

When I'm in the skies, 32 player maps are too small. If I'm not dead center in the map, a lot of evasive manuevers push me out of bounds. I'd -love- to see a No Fly Zone map for BF2.
 
I prefer the 32player Urban maps, as I dont really like getting bombed by jets and helicopters 24/7 while protecting the base.
 
C|ip$3 said:
I prefer the 32player Urban maps, as I dont really like getting bombed by jets and helicopters 24/7 while protecting the base.
Click to expand...

i second that, i like a map that has no helis or planes, those get old after a while
 
16 player maps sucks, half the damn points including bases, aircraft carriers, airports ect..ect.. are missing, whats the fucking point?
 
NitrouseXpress60 said:
64 players on a 32 player map playing strike at karkland 24/7 :cool:
Click to expand...

Makes the tanks slightly less intimidating when there are 18 AT rockets flying at it...
 
J-Mag said:
Makes the tanks slightly less intimidating when there are 18 AT rockets flying at it...
Click to expand...

nope, not that many people play AT in that server. most rockets i've seen come at me was 2. :eek:

on a full server (64 players) also
 
NitrouseXpress60 said:
64 players on a 32 player map playing strike at karkland 24/7 :cool:
Click to expand...


I did not know that this was possible.... sounds interesting. My biggest gripe with the game is when you are walking... and walking... and walking... then you see someone, then you get bombed.
 
NitrouseXpress60 said:
nope, not that many people play AT in that server. most rockets i've seen come at me was 2. :eek:

on a full server (64 players) also
Click to expand...

Hmm.. thats good then. Whats the IP addy of this server? I usually only play on sub 50ping servers, but the extra dumbasses playing might make the lower ping worth it...
 
32 and 64 player Mashtur city is almost as fun as Karkland, but bring some rockets for those pesky Blackhawks :)
 
Map size doesn't matter too much as long as you have enough people to actualy play/cover the map.
 
I like 64 man servers when only 16-20 people or so are playing. Brings a "hunting" aspect to the game.

Really each map size has its place. The downtime on some maps is good for organizing ambushes or some tactical manuvering.
 
I think that a slightly underpopulated server is perfect. 24 on a 32 player map, or 35 or so on a 64 player map.

This is a great game when just a modest shift in borders changes the tactics completely....well, not if your tactics include mining all exits to our armor spawn point, or lining up for a helecopter :rolleyes:
 
There are only three good maps in the game

Strike at Karkand
Sharaqi Pens.
Gulf of Oman
 
weebling1 said:
32 and 64 player Mashtur city is almost as fun as Karkland, but bring some rockets for those pesky Blackhawks :)
Click to expand...

Love playing Mashed Potato City ... in fact, I like most of the urban maps. Nothing like intense building to building, block to block action.
 
I refuse to play on 64-player servers and usually stick with 16-player maps if at all possible.
 
I prefer 32.

16 players is too few and 64 is just way too many. The game becomes more about luck than skill once you get so many people playing at once.
 
I voted 64, if I wanted to play 8v8 I would play CS:S. I got this game because of the size of it, the ability to play 32v32 is amazing, and the graphics are out of this world considering how much is going on.
That said, the graphics are not thebest, they are a compromise to get the game to run on 64man servers, and make it playable (which until more patches come out is still questionable). So you get good graphics and giant maps. I will take this over great graphics and tiny maps anyday.
 
The 32 player map size is fun. Better is 64 people on a 32 map size. It renders vehicles almost useless, then the skill of players/squads really shows.
 
i only played the demo, but i found the map too big... maybe i have to buy the game and play some smaller maps or something.. i dunno :p
 
I am very puzzled as to why people buy a game like Battlefield 2 and complain about large maps and such when that is one of the strong points of the game. The whole idea is to diversify the battle and gameplay using tanks, anti-air land based vehicles, APV's, planes and choppers. There are countermeasures for all of them, stationary TOW's, Stingers and even kit components such as C4, Anti-Tank mines and even an Anti-tank class of fighter (which is pretty useless IMO, that needs to be adjusted).

I have played on servers that have 64 people on 32 and even 16 man map sizes. IMO, its retarded. Most of the game is spawn...die.....spawn....die....spawn, take two steps....die...change to another spawn (which is very limited due to small map size)...spawn...maybe get a couple of shots off, maybe kill someone...die....spawn...die....

You get the point.

I believe another appealing factor is to run in a squad, get together, diversify your player classes, take spawns and defend, move to another etc. They did a good job on balancing the player classes, but some tweaking is in order. We will see if they come through. They have released specs. of their upcoming 1.3 patch, go to EA's BF2 site and check it out.

If you want to play fast gameplay with constant non stop killing and barely a hint of teamwork, it is my opinion you should go play CSS or UT or something.
 
mjz_5 said:
i only played the demo, but i found the map too big... maybe i have to buy the game and play some smaller maps or something.. i dunno :p
Click to expand...
That is one of the smaller maps. The big ones are very big.

One of the problems of why I hate big maps so much is that there is no teamwork usually and that the game can not run 64 players without lagging like hell. Once that is fixed, maybe big maps with 64 people will be acceptable.
 
64 players seems to depend a lot on the server running it. I've played some that get really bad as they near 64 players, and a few that just run sweet.
 
Isaacav2 said:
The 64 and 32 man size maps In my opinion are too big with too much down time before you see any action. Not to mention the general chaos and lack of teamwork. I prefer the small maps and for right now I prefer to play bots.
Click to expand...

You are playing on the wrogn servers. I like the ECGN servers, especially server #1. It is well admin'd, people get booted/banned for being smacktards and there is teamwork when you play with a lot of the regulars.

Plus, they do not allow blackhawk whores to flag cap.
 
now, the 32 man maps are the best i think, there is plenty to drive, fly and plenty to kill. 64 man maps are good sometimes only, as for 16 man, i ahte them too small.
 
I prefer the 32 player versions of most maps, although personally I find that they can easily feel a little bit underpopulated. Then again, I haven't played 64 player maps anywhere near as much as there aren't many servers here in NZ with those settings or the players to utilise them.
What I would love to see is more large urban maps. There's nothing like a good infantry battle in BF2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top