64p Conquest feels empty and boring.
After giving 64p conquest the benefit of the doubt and trying a few rounds, I can’t for the life of me understand why this mode is picked over 128. 64p conquest works in other games because the maps...
Forum Discussion
@iec9szw535ja
CQ64 is BY FAR the superior experience. Furthermore, the good maps are not even available in a 128p format. The only thing that is really bad is the vehicle balance because Dice 'forgot' (my assumption is: on purpose) to balance the vehicle counts for those maps.
Why on earth does it need that many helicopters on Arica Harbor for instance. One transport per side would be sufficient. Maybe a jet. The same goes for vehicles. Not sure about the exact count, but it's clear that they are at least twice as many as the map can support. The same goes for almost all other maps in the CQ64 pool.
If you are missing interactions with other players then you should not camp in your spawn. If you actively engage at flags that are contested there is plenty of action on those maps as well.
CQ64 is BY FAR the superior experience. Furthermore, the good maps are not even available in a 128p format. The only thing that is really bad is the vehicle balance because Dice 'forgot' (my assumption is: on purpose) to balance the vehicle counts for those maps.
Why on earth does it need that many helicopters on Arica Harbor for instance. One transport per side would be sufficient. Maybe a jet. The same goes for vehicles. Not sure about the exact count, but it's clear that they are at least twice as many as the map can support. The same goes for almost all other maps in the CQ64 pool.
If you are missing interactions with other players then you should not camp in your spawn. If you actively engage at flags that are contested there is plenty of action on those maps as well.
@ForumUser wrote:
@iec9szw535ja
CQ64 is BY FAR the superior experience. Furthermore, the good maps are not even available in a 128p format. The only thing that is really bad is the vehicle balance because Dice 'forgot' (my assumption is: on purpose) to balance the vehicle counts for those maps.
Why on earth does it need that many helicopters on Arica Harbor for instance. One transport per side would be sufficient. Maybe a jet. The same goes for vehicles. Not sure about the exact count, but it's clear that they are at least twice as many as the map can support. The same goes for almost all other maps in the CQ64 pool.
If you are missing interactions with other players then you should not camp in your spawn. If you actively engage at flags that are contested there is plenty of action on those maps as well.
Agree! Also I wish they would cut the helicopters count down on the older maps
- @GrizzGolf
What I don't get is the reasoning behind not immediately fixing this. It is so OBVIOUS that those counts are too high and the effort to correct this by cutting them at least in half is so miniscule (how long would this take, 10 minutes?) that at least I have a REALLY hard time to wrap my head around why this was not addressed already (a long time ago actually).
@ForumUser wrote:
@GrizzGolf
What I don't get is the reasoning behind not immediately fixing this. It is so OBVIOUS that those counts are too high and the effort to correct this by cutting them at least in half is so miniscule (how long would this take, 10 minutes?) that at least I have a REALLY hard time to wrap my head around why this was not addressed already (a long time ago actually).In reality though, aren't those the numbers of vehicles that were available on the older maps? It's been a while since I played BC2, and remembering that, wasn't it a 32Player maximum instead of 64?
- @Anobix
Definitely not. For the BC2 maps for one simple reason that there was no CQ at all, only Rush. With asymmetric vehicle counts as well as completely other vehicles in the first place.
No, those counts were 'invented' by someone at Dice -- in all likelyhood some intern as a placeholder and then never touched again, even now that its clear that those numbers are much too high.
Featured Places
