Let's Assume the IS PVP. What kind of maps? | Forums

[meathead_79]

After having played GR:FS for 4 years, I am fairly tired of smaller maps. I would like to see the use of vehicles carry over to PVP, so maps closer to Battlefield size would be a welcomed PVP change for GR. There was hardly any real sniper locations in Future Soldier, so I would love to see that change.

[ES-Ulukai]

The fact that it's a open world could allow some good things for a pvp mode, reworking some areas of the map to fit pvp would be awesome.

I'd really like to see if there's pvp a assault mode using all the possibilities that the game offers. Don't forget that in BF maps area can be reduce depending on the server decided capacity "Large, Medium and small".

With all the landscapes that are in the game we can assume that it could give a good variety of maps maybe using the day/night rotation like in crysis.

But the most important is to have a classic pvp here and not some fancy new invention mixed mods.

But yes the game could offers great pvp maps.

[Lolssi]

Not that PvP is my priority but I wouldn't take anything smaller than full map.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

If they give us, few months after the realease of the game, an editor it would be awesone.
And the communitry could rework some areas of the map alone. The thread is not about an editor but I could make a thread just about it.
Then the variety of maps and gamemodes would be infinite !

[AI BLUEFOX]

Not that PvP is my priority but i wouldn't take anything smaller than full map.

Not sure I follow. You think PvP could work on the whole map?

[Lolssi]

Not sure I follow. You think PvP could work on the whole map?

Of course! Well maybe not on UBI servers...
Anyways these days you can have battles with 100+ players. And doesn't Arma often use whole map?

[AI BLUEFOX]

Yeah, don't think that scale would suit the Ghostly Reconnaissance aspect I like in PvP, LoL. Difficult to sneak up to a siege base and take out your opponents if there are 50 of you.

[Cortexian]

Of course! Well maybe not on UBI servers...
Anyways these days you can have battles with 100+ players. And doesn't Arma often use whole map?

ArmA often places objectives around the entire map, and it's up to helicopter pilots to shuttle people around for 5-10 minutes. Nothing wrong with that, but the scale of the engagements is much smaller than across the entire map.

Without hundreds of players, I couldn't see Wildlands implementing PVP combat across the whole map and having it be a good time... Unless they created some kind of mode in which one group of players took on the role of "bad guys" and then the other group of players was the "Ghosts". Then there could be something like a cat and mouse hunt for each other...

But alas, Ubisoft doesn't let people play as "the bad guys" in Tom Clancy games very often.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

Maybe it is too hard for a console player with reduced graphics, controller and not kbm
and not used of using Teamspeak/Mumble/etc with REAL team work communication with your squad/clan
but large scale mp pvp is fun

Just because CONSOLE users are LIMITED and not used to proper open world and HUGE MAPS
does not mean once again you have to RESTRICT AND LIMIT PC features

Wooow ok ... I think you just went too far.

Are you serious when you say this ?
How graphics have an influence on Teamplay ?!

On console they don't have mumble/TS/ ... ok but you can still really play as a team and tacticaly just with a team that have all a simple mike.
Bluefox did'nt say it's not fun. I mean your example of BF is also wrong ! BF4 32 vs 32 players on PC and Console.

I think your arguments are wrong and I'm a PC player

[Lolssi]

ArmA often places objectives around the entire map, and it's up to helicopter pilots to shuttle people around for 5-10 minutes. Nothing wrong with that, but the scale of the engagements is much smaller than across the entire map.

I was thinking also something like PlanetSide2. You easily found action with drop pods if you wanted. But yeah different game with respawns and all.