Battlefront3.net

[ctrooper]

So ive been reading some of the maps topics and everyone a lot of maps. And i was thinking why not combine some of these maps to make on massive map? Like say Coruscant. There is the jedi temple, the outer city, the area around the temple and (assuming there is seamless space-ground transition) the space battle. Instead of having different little maps of these areas just combine them into one massive map. What does everyone think?

[Kelevra]

Depends.

Too big of a map and you risk dispersing the players so much that big firefights rarely happen, or the whole thing becomes a sniper fest. So, I'd say keep the maps sized to a point that supports the number of players.

If Battlefront 3 went MAG style, sporting 256 players in a single match, I'd say go for it. But I'm not sure if every platform is capable of supporting it. (I'm sure the PC could if they wanted it to, but I'm not too sure about the 360, much less the Wii.)

[Scott]

Too big of a map and you risk dispersing the players so much that big firefights rarely happen, or the whole thing becomes a sniper fest. So, I'd say keep the maps sized to a point that supports the number of players.

If you provide enough cover and don't have large inclines for snipers to take advantage of then it would be fine.

If Battlefront 3 went MAG style, sporting 256 players in a single match, I'd say go for it.

I would say don't go for it! Battlefront would not work well in a MAG like game. MAG is what it is because it was made for that number of players. If you had to take over a command post when you had 128 players defending it that would suck. MAG has similar objectives as BF does, but it was setup in a way that it works.

But I'm not sure if every platform is capable of supporting it. (I'm sure the PC could if they wanted it to, but I'm not too sure about the 360, much less the Wii.)

Every platform could support but the Wii just because the processor would have trouble rendering 256 players.

[Kelevra]

I wasn't saying "make Battlefront exactly like 2, but with 256 players" That would be hell, as you said. They'd have to make a good number of changes to make it work.

But I'm sticking with my earlier comment. Battlefront is mainly focused on pretty intense battles, and if everybody is scattered all over the place, it kind of negates the feel. I recall playing a downloaded Battlefront 2 map called "Concord Dawn" it was absolutely massive, but it took forever to get anywhere. And once you got killed you went back to your post and had to run ALL THE WAY BACK. it got annoying fast. And you barely ever got to fight anybody outside of their spawn zones since everybody was too far apart.

[ctrooper]

Well i guess you have a point. But still, if there were as many players as MAG i think it could definetely work. But i hate how there 3 lvls for tatooine 3 lvls for bespin etc.. I think combining them into a big ma would just cut down on all thesse maps.

[Scott]

Well i guess you have a point. But still, if there were as many players as MAG i think it could definetely work. But i hate how there 3 lvls for tatooine 3 lvls for bespin etc.. I think combining them into a big ma would just cut down on all thesse maps.

Have you played MAG though? The game modes are different then those of BF. Also, the classes in BF are very strong so the firefights would be boring in a large battle anyway. They shouldn't go higher than 32, 64 tops.

Remember how bad the multiplayer was/is already? If they added more players that won't help...

[Legion 2.5]

Not a bad idea since I do believer the original concept for BF3 was big large scale battles from the leaked footage and combining maps would work.

[noodledrama]

Wouldn't be laggy?

[Scott]

Wouldn't be laggy?

Assuming it is as good as MAG then no.

[noodledrama]

Ah I just asumed so because I used to play Frontlines: Fuels of War on my 360 and it was extremely laggy just with 50 players. Good idea though!

[Scott]

Ah I just asumed so because I used to play Frontlines: Fuels of War on my 360 and it was extremely laggy just with 50 players.

That's more the developers fault. They should have found a more efficient way for player data to be transfered. You, or someone playing could have also just had a poor connection.

[spartan64]

I think its best keeping the maps apart.

But if there is only one space map (If the ground to space transition technology is used) then there could only be one complete ground map.
Unless each ground map has its own space map.

So I thought of:
When moving your forces to an enemy planet, you get to choose what section (map) of the planet you want to attack. Controlling all these locations would give you complete control of the planet.

They really should add the Naboo underwater city.