Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post Reply
Bluedrake42
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2009-07-23 17:52

Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Bluedrake42 »

I wish there was less desert inbetween everything, and the city, towns, bunkers, rigs and all the flags were closer together, so that way the infantry have something more to do. This map would be great if you could get like 100+ people on it, but as it is its kind of sparse even with a full server =/

Iron Eagle is freaking fantastic tho.
Kain888
Posts: 954
Joined: 2009-04-22 07:20

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Kain888 »

It's the main advantage of this map. A lot of desert. :) And inf on this map is quite awesome experience. Shame this map is so bugged.
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 21225
Joined: 2007-08-15 14:32

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Rudd »

^ don't worry I've done work to fix the bugs, was the last thing for me to do before I get green tags.

RUDD'S TIP OF THE DAY FOR INFANTRY ON BURNING SANDS

Walk through the desert, stay spread out, look around, you may notice that the ground is slightly uneven, in fact you can see where the ground has dips because thats where the grass and bushes grow (seriously)

Now, stand in one of those dips and crouch, the bottom third of your body is now covered.

Now, go prone

No one can see you

Now, lets apply this to a ingame situation.

Your squad is advancing as a scout for an armoured squad (OMG, you actually have to work with armour on this map? OMG! think less, you are ONE team, not 2 squads who don't interact!)

You are engaged by a BMP3, you all go prone, your squad leader marks the enemy armour on the map, you stay down until you receive support.




-----


Though I do empathise about the size, bf2 limitations do suck. The only solution I'm afraid is to have fewer, large flags imo. so, each round you have say...2 big flags, and thats it, lots of fighting in one part of the map for the duration of that round, then next time you play its 2 other flags. Would you prefer that system instead?
Image
Psyko
Posts: 4466
Joined: 2008-01-03 13:34

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Psyko »

heres another tip. solo a HAT on the cement factory rooftop and the crane in the city.
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 21225
Joined: 2007-08-15 14:32

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Rudd »

Psykogundam wrote:heres another tip. solo a HAT on the cement factory rooftop and the crane in the city.
sometimes that works, but whenever I ask my squad "anyone know where the sniper is" everyone immediately gets that binocs out and looks at....the crane
Image
Tim270
PR:BF2 Developer
Posts: 5166
Joined: 2009-02-28 20:05

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Tim270 »

But there is so much armour to give you a ride!

Use the radio and call for a apc, or ask a chopper to move your squad. Especially on MEC, there is nothing more awesome than having a T72 + 2xbtrs moving inf around or vice versa with chally2s and warriors. To be honest Burning sands has really out-done Kashan in armour as it apcs and lighter vehicles have a lot of room to manoeuvre with cover.

Love the map, hate the huge memory consumption that means I can never go near the city :(
Image
Murphy
Posts: 2339
Joined: 2010-06-05 21:14

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Murphy »

I've only had a chance to play roughly 20 minutes before admins tire of the constant rubber banding. I did have a lot of fun with long range fire fights but waiting around 5-10 minutes for supplies/ride out seems to be standard on this map. Co-ordination is key, which might also contribute to the apparent desire to map switch when this one comes up on a pub.

Looking forward to getting a full round on this map.
Image
Farks
Posts: 2069
Joined: 2007-01-20 00:08

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Farks »

I like that it is a plain map. It makes armor combat more interesting and based on movement and flanking rather than camping on a hill. The infantry should problary head for the city asap to avoid getting steam rolled by enemy (or even friendly) armor. The only thing I don't like is the attack helicopters. Please don't kill me for saying that but I think they work better on maps with more hilly enviorments, since it allows both them and ground forces to use the terrain as cover from each other.
Bazul14
Posts: 671
Joined: 2009-06-01 22:23

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Bazul14 »

Farks wrote:I like that it is a plain map. It makes armor combat more interesting and based on movement and flanking rather than camping on a hill. The infantry should problary head for the city asap to avoid getting steam rolled by enemy (or even friendly) armor. The only thing I don't like is the attack helicopters. Please don't kill me for saying that but I think they work better on maps with more hilly enviorments, since it allows both them and ground forces to use the terrain as cover from each other.
So buildings don't hide stuff better than wide, giant , uncovered hills?
jimbobjim
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-11-03 15:39

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by jimbobjim »

Burning Sands is my favorite new map and I think that the open desert is perfect for armor engagements. I love going engine off and using thermals to play cat and mouse with enemy armor. First time I played I made an Armor squad which consisted of 1 tank, 1 BMP and 1 MTLB "sthurmthinger". We moved north along the east side of the map and set up an ambush in the area north the the palm groves with the broken buildings where you can sit low in the terrain to reduce your silhouette. We took out two CR2's without being seen. Later we fought an epic CQB tank battle in the palm grove. I also love the burnt out wrecks which make for a immersive and sometimes confusing experience.
kstep
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-01-29 21:04

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by kstep »

[R-DEV]Rudd GJ dude, thanks for the map. But! will u do smth with its skirmish version? FE: fix the bug with MEC ticket bleed and a create a couple of new flags? (in pub servers firefights reduce to little areas instead whole map, everyone forget about huge cap area)
Why skirmish maps become more buggy and unbalanced from release to release?!
skirmish <3. nothing else but rifle, mates, mumble and skill.
Image[/img]
dtacs
Posts: 5512
Joined: 2008-12-07 23:30

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by dtacs »

Not sure what it is, but Burning Sands causes my FPS to stutter uncontrollably, so bad that it got up unto the point where I literally Alt-F4'd out of frustration. Had a decent squad too so it should show how absolutely terrible it was. Run all settings on high (textures, geo, terrain etc) except for lighting and AA, but for some reason I would turn my character and spin around 3 times. The squad looked at me helplessly as I sat there for about 20 seconds at a time turning and waiting for it to settle down.

Performance problems aside its still the map that I was expecting to be absolutely awesome when it was first developed, however the lack of flags in the city in different games gets really annoying as the city combat is very intense and well done. At any one point there should be at least 2 flags in the city, and with the random DoD's removed, it should welcome in armor to clear out the infantry as well.
Kendt888
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-12-02 18:26

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Kendt888 »

Havent really tried the amour version of this map, but the inf one is pretty EPIC.
Image

"Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong" - Murphys law
zloyrash
Posts: 408
Joined: 2009-11-08 10:25

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by zloyrash »

kstep wrote:[R-DEV]Rudd GJ dude, thanks for the map. But! will u do smth with its skirmish version? FE: fix the bug with MEC ticket bleed and a create a couple of new flags? (in pub servers firefights reduce to little areas instead whole map, everyone forget about huge cap area)
+1. Burning Sands skirmish is unplayable now. I know that skirmish mode is not so popular, but infantry tacktics is still the main and important component of any successful attacks in PR. Finally, infantry make it all.
We really want to see many balanced and finished maps in PR (inc. skirmish ver.)
I think it is necessary to spend more time creating skirmish version of map; to improve balance and gameplay.
FE: at Burning Sands you can choose another part of the city to make a skirmish layout, cause the MEC Internal Security Building (at left side of map pic) is ruins all of balance. Also need to add more flagzones and so on.
I think Korengal Valley Skirmish is the example of welldone and interesting skirmish map for 6x6 up to 12x12
Thank you!

Image
Last edited by zloyrash on 2010-12-09 15:01, edited 3 times in total.
Image
Farks
Posts: 2069
Joined: 2007-01-20 00:08

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by Farks »

Bazul14 wrote:So buildings don't hide stuff better than wide, giant , uncovered hills?
Inside the city, yes. But that's only one part of the map.
dunem666
Posts: 559
Joined: 2009-06-02 13:04

Re: Burning sands is too freaking huge!

Post by dunem666 »

BlackMagikz wrote:^^^OMG REALLY!?!?!?! , Armour working with Inf !?!?! , what planet are you from :P
make a mech infantry squad (machanized infantry), this is allowed on most servers, it entitles u to an apc and 4 foot patrol
dunem
ImageImage
ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Maps”