Re: Ask the [Dev]s a (?)
Posted: 2012-12-26 02:53
From my experience more than 1/2 the team on Falklands 8k map use the assets making for weak pitiful infantry fights.
impossible, at most, there are 7 jets, and two helicopters on the argentine side, and about the same for the brits, and the scorpion. In either case, thats far less than many maps. Further still the actual parts of the map in play for infantry arent larger than what would normally be in play for the 4KM maps. In fact, in it's current layer I would argue the islands should be much bigger for a good reason.tankninja1 wrote:From my experience more than 1/2 the team on Falklands 8k map use the assets making for weak pitiful infantry fights.
In my opinion the reason the infantry suffer on the falklands are multiple flags, and flags that are too small. On top of that a total lack of overgrowth to hide in, a total lack of static trenches, and the time it takes to set up FOBs make infantry combat mostly "coverless", and a nightmare.
What I found occurred were three gameplay flaws with the infantry combat in PR. Firstly, with multiple flags in play per side, oft one flag was simply undefended. This is just not how the game is supposed to work. A linearized layer would be appropriate, where only a single flag is in play at once, this would serve for much more focused infantry combat, where teams dont get overextended. In fact, the smaller "Std" layer would be probably be best for this, as 120+ servers would be appropriate to have enough inf to occupy 3-4 flags at once.
Secondly, some flags are too small. TEal inlet is no more than 3 small buildings, a grenade's throw from mount malo. Mount malo itself is just a small little hill. Basically, assaulting them, is a guaranteed capture. You know precisely where the enemy is, they lack entrenchment, and youre right next to them. When Malo is captured by the british, as it usually is right at the beginning of the game, the argentines have just barely arrived at teal to capture, and hold it. THey have no time, or cover to set up defenses, and have little place to hide. This results in objectives that are nearly impossible to uphold, which does not serve the game at all. The teal inlet flag, is simply not sufficient to be worth fighting over and does not facilitate good gameplay. The best option, in my opinion is to simply throw it out, and not have it as a flag. Even though it was fought over in the real falklands war, the island is too small to have it sufficiently far away enough from malo, and the too small to have a decent sized town worth fighting over in the PR version.
Finally, the lack of entrenchment is confusing infantry combat where death is assured. In the real falklands war, im sure that both sides regularly dug out trenches at various points of fighting. Static trenches, like the one seen in project normandy maps could be added. Further still foxholes that are fully built as soon as they are deployed, or take literally 2 or 3 shovels would match the actual pace that the enemy faces you. Because of so many flags, that are so close, and so small, it is difficult to set up anything before being heavily assaulted by air, and land. Goose green does not have much cover, but it has some grass, which allows prone players to not stick out so much. If it were possible it, would be brilliant to have some shin high grass on falklands.
Overall, a lot of the "criticism" for falklands are just bad players unwilling to think, and adapt to a new game. I LIKE falklands, it is DIFFERENT, and thats GOOD. Different requies players to devise new tactics, to think, and keeps the game from becoming boring, and stale. New weapons, and voices are pretty, but using them the exact same way as weapons before is almost nothing new. A new map, and assets that are radically different from before are what will keep PR great. However, there is a fine line between "challenging" and "broken". The falklands infantry combat is bordering on broken, but still has much potential to be good.
