Page 2 of 2

Re: Burning Sands

Posted: 2013-12-27 17:09
by Rabbit
I know it may not be to popular, but I feel like it needs vehicle warfare. Either that or a ALT layer that has something like 5 tanks 2 trans helicopters and some jeeps. Always felt like it was a big thing missing in making the new Ejod desert.

Re: Burning Sands

Posted: 2014-01-01 13:44
by viirusiiseli
The city layout is really unrealistic atm, instead of the old working city this new one is filled with highways in places where there should be smaller streets. The older city layout was good because there was one highway running through the city which would be realistic, and the smaller streets and lots of courtyards provided more cover.

The whole city has become a playground for armor because infantry has no cover anymore. This didn't happen in the previous city, which is why the map was liked even by infantry players.

IMO the map has not been popular at all in 1.0 because of these changes.

Re: Burning Sands

Posted: 2014-01-01 14:10
by Rudd
IMO the map has not been popular at all in 1.0 because of these changes.
I can't seem to avoid it when I play...and is not reflected in the play stats

The changes to the layout etc were primarily about performance. There are many instances where I didn't want to make them, but they were necessary to ensure a stable and reasonable FPS play experience. The old city ran fine on my old computer but I literally used to receive several PMs a month from frustrated players with CPUs who couldn't handle the number of objects or RAM that couldn't handle the number of lightmaps.

In all honesty, I went too far with my puritanical performance-orientated cleansing. There are several things I would do differently if I made Burning Sands today, however the amount of time I would have to invest in resurrecting parts of the old city would be too great for me now. However...the map is playable and people clearly enjoy it by the number of full rounds it completes with a good population.

quite frankly if you can't handle 1-2 tanks on 64 or 128...then you need to practice with your AT more. - particularly since the number 1 piece of feedback I've received in-server (which I will not act on) is to add more tanks.

Re: Burning Sands

Posted: 2014-01-01 15:47
by K4on
Burning Sands is a lovely map. We play it often on the New Era Warfare Server, and everytime we have great fun securing the outskirts to the center and have pretty interesting, combined assault city fights.

Just keep the map Rudd, not every spot might be "perfect", but it's still an awesome AAS map!

Re: Burning Sands

Posted: 2014-01-01 18:18
by Xander[nl]
I feel quite the opposite, I like the new layout. It forces teams to use a combined (infantry-armor) approach to win over the city. Infantry and tanks or APCs working together do really well in the new bigger streets.

The map is no longer divided into an infantry fight inside the city and an armor/cas fight outside, but actually allows the use of combined arms now.

We always love to take an APC or Scimitar and roll around the city providing fire support for infantry squads.

Re: Burning Sands

Posted: 2014-01-02 17:13
by Pronck
I wouldn't mind some flag orders with more flags in the desert like in the past. Or more around the city instead of through the city. Although I prefer the old version I don't mind this version.

What I would like to see is a lay-out with no CAS and more tanks and APCs. This to have bigger tank battles because this map really suits tank battles in my opinion. However more tanks and CAS in one lay-out will be a huge overkill.