I did allude to that, but the point really does remain about the actual combat of it being the same every time. It stands that the majority of public games follow a predictable pattern of who advances where with what assets when. vbf2 was more hectic and traded any semblance of organization for flat out action. And don't get me wrong, flags are necessary, you need to have focal points, otherwise it turns into team deathmatch with no objectives, which is boring.[R-MOD]Jigsaw wrote:I really disagree with this.
Vanilla BF2 yes had flags which could be capped in any order but consider the size of the maps in comparison to PR. When you do have to cap flags in order in PR (which itself is a simulation of a moving front in a battle) at the very least you have the freedom, due to map size, to choose where you attack from. There has to be some direction (just look at CnC in the current version) or there will be very little action due to the size of the map.
Mmm, CnC. Though CnC needs maps bigger than 4km and playercounts larger than 32 to really shine. A pity, really.
Shiny edit before I get further misconstrued
AAS > loltardrush of vbf2.
New maps MUST be designed with Random AAS in mind or not be allowed to use RAAS, otherwise we wind up with hideous failures like Qwai, where the Chinese are handed all the advantages and have to work hard to lose.
That is all
Not a whole lot can unfortunately, insurgency has some very deep seated issues stemming from being conceived when PR as a whole was a lot smaller, and instead of being reworked every now and then, just gets fixes tacked on with nails and tape. All of the immediate and easy fixes have been implemented already.[R-MOD]Jigsaw wrote: With regards to insurgency each map has at least a couple hundred different cache locations (afaik) and their selection in-game is completely random. Not a lot that can be done about the scenario you describe with a random system.













