Multiplayer Big maps vs Small maps

#1

Which one is better in design? Big/Small maps?
In video game Multiplayer (especially FPS/RTS) there can be:

Small maps, Small fast paced with Infantry based gameplay but with a lot of action (you can easily encounter others) and probably less playercount e.g.: Call of Duty, Counter Strike, etc

Big Maps, Big slower paced with addition of vehicles for easy transportation but with less action (Harder to encounter others) and support more playercount e.g.: Battlefield, Arma, etc

Which one is better? Fast Paced action? Slow paced action?

For me: idk? It gets pretty boring in a Black Ops match (especially nuketown) but can be slight frustating in an Arma 2 match (HUGE map damnit, it’s disturbing to try finding enemies only to get shot from out of nowhere) although Battlefield is quite balanced.
[COLOR=‘Black’]PS: I can’t really think of a minecraft deathmatch with random spawnpoint if a player can spawn a continent away from each other.

#2

It totally depends what game you are playing. I wouldn’t play UT99 CTF in one of APB’s districts, but I would hate to be playing APB on UT99’s Curse map.

#3

I loved the Battlefield 2 method of big maps with BTR-90s to drive across them. So much so that I wanted to include STALKER-esque inventories, octuple each dimension, and loop the edges of this 64x-larger world so you could fly/drive/walk forever. The squad system works well into this, like starting a little guild to play together in.

I can tell you’re an RTS fan, Nerdguy, so I’ll also explain that I also like big RTS maps so I don’t get rushed by the usual players. I’ve been unable to play RTS games online on a regular basis because every time I try, there’s someone building a thousand humvees, and I’m not interested in building a thousand humvees. Larger maps allow me to map out a base, perfect my defence, and develop an offensive strategy before getting attacked. I would prefer the map be so large that my location(s) be nearly ignored.

#4

Ultimately its entirely dependent on the game. Entirely.

#5

Not at all. Bigger is always better, at least for patient-minded folk (who can appreciate bursts of excitement heterogenized with lulls). A game of homogenous explosions is unappealing to those that refuse to see any Transformers movies.

#6

i bet you turtle like fuck and are that rts player everyone hates

#7

C&C Generals is fucking bullshit, why do the Americans have missiles that exceed the range of my minigun placements…

#8

because you suck
generals is one of the best online rts’s ever (until ea screwed it up)

#9

I prefer small maps with lots of action in Company of Heroes, and large to very large maps in games like Civilization V.

#10

Yeah, I love those games where it’s actually a bummer when you run out of room to expand peacefully. I like exploring where the locals don’t hate me.

#11

Oh, totally. It has to maintain similar levels of density. I like to use the example of HLDM’s boot_camp. It’s large (but not in the bounce sense of being wide open). It’s sprawling urbanesque combat where it’s easy to find a moment of peace… Even with 32 players, you could still survive for 60 seconds by hiding in a random corner.

#12

For C&C Generals;
Huge maps = A lot of GLA tunnel networks, build one behind an enemy base and just spam bomb trucks then finish it with a few tanks
Or,
USA AIR SUPERIORITY BITCHES

For Company of Heroes;
Small Maps: Panzer Elite Scorched Earth Doctrine: Roadblocks, Booby Traps, Sector Artillery, Mobile Assault Gun
Or,
British Commonwealth emplacement building (at every sectors)
Both tactics means they can’t find a safe place in the map to move without dying

#13

I want to argue some more about how awesome big maps are. Is there anybody that dissents?

#14

this is completely subjective and only related to the game it’s in. seems like a pointless thing to ask.

#15

No, you’re wrong, and big maps are absolutely objectively better if their area has proportionally more geometry than smaller maps have. It should be the game’s responsibility to remain playable with infinitely large levels.

#16

Not really. Different games just can’t work with bigger maps unless they, you know, change themselves to compensate, thus becoming a completely different game in the process. A game like CoD would never work if big maps were suddenly introduced to it, unless the player count was drastically upped and vehicles or transport were introduced. And then, boom, it’s Battlefield. I shouldn’t have to tell you how awkward and cramped small maps in Battlefield would be.

#17

Well, vehicles are always awesome in games. And no, Call of Duty would not suffer at all from Battlefield-sized levels. In modes like Team Deathmatch, players respawn in the vicinity of their teammates.

With teams the size of, say…

[align=center]
[COLOR=‘DimGray’]Actual screenshot of Call of Duty gameplay, taken by Comrade Tiki.[/align]

…it wouldn’t be hard to find out where the other team’s cluster is, and head toward it. By heading toward them, you are responsible for teammates spawning closer to the enemy. Call of Duty is, therefore, highly scalable. And it plays well across vastly different maps because of its scalability.

Extra room allows you the option, of course, of fleeing from battle until the enemy chooses to close in on you. That’s just another strategy, one which can already be employed on Call of Duty’s larger official maps.

Now clearly, infinitely large maps should allow infinitely more players to participate, but it stands that decent games should remain good when underpopulated.

#18

I could easily beat you if you just camped back and built emplacements. I’d just get artillery (Hummels if Panzer Elite, Nebelwerfers if Wehrmacht). PaK’s are also ideal for ‘sniping’ emplacements. Use snipers as spotters for the AT guns. Or I could just build some heavy tanks and blitzkrieg my way through your line then rape you from behind. Target MG nests first, then send in Panzer Grenadiers with Panzerschrecks to mop up the left overs. Also, if the axis have enough munitions they can just bomb the hell out of your position continuously while mortaring any engineers you might use to repair damaged emplacements.

#19

everything you just described is basically battlefield. teammates spawning near each other, large amounts of players (like in that picture). I’m not saying it wouldn’t be fun, it just would no longer be call of duty. Maybe that’s why it would be fun. :stuck_out_tongue:

#20

With the example of Battlefield 2 (great game, don’t get me wrong), sure, you can join a squad and spawn by your commander if he’s alive and not in a fully-occupied vehicle… but you have to pick where among a few locations to spawn. Most every map starts with about 2 spawn locations per team, with more fixed locations becoming available as they are captured. Fuck, even TFC could do that game mode (in a linear fashion) on Warpath.

Battlefield 2 is able to cover large maps pretty well, but it retains static objectives which mandate the action be focused at several areas - - the areas squadless members may spawn at, and the roads between them.

Dynamic gameplay is strictly limited by the restrictions of squad-spawning. Instead of spawning from a continuously adapting cluster, you spawn near an individual (whose motions may be more erratic or more static than a horde of players would be). The individual may be unavailable, in which case the squad feature is useless. The size of that individual’s squad is also limited to a small part of a full team.

I know that you’ve spawned at a base before which had nobody defending it and nobody attacking it (with the rest of your team on the offensive). Moments of solitude like that are good examples of how Battlefield is a static game.

Contrast it with how many times you’ve spawned alone in Call of Duty TDM. It’s very rare… because it is fascinatingly dynamic. It can handle big teams fighting in big cities as well as small teams fighting in big cities.

That was Call of Duty. :stuck_out_tongue:

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.