Community ManagerThis discussion is a good example of how player preferences can differ.
Some players want the map to feel faster and more action-heavy, while others may prefer more space, slower pacing, or room for flanking and vehicle play.
Out of curiosity, how would everyone feel if the player count for this map was increased?
I would move to Hell Let Loose game series. Don't make favours for Call of Duty and Fortnite crowd. Do favours for Battlefield crowd. Play Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 to understand what is core of Battlefield experience.
Here's playlist of Battle(non)sense named YT channel who has insightful videos about how to make great Battlefield. Watch and learn!
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfOoCUS0PSkXztZhHu0b8tG3zVMe_VhOg&si=7VSsygEbkdmfGqQ6
If the player count is increased, start small with 48 vs 48. The map already has issues with transportation, or rather, lack there of. Adding more players will just make it worse.
I'd hate to see you jump straight to 64 vs 64 and have the community revolt instantly. Then you cross player count off the list completely.
As with all updates, you should take baby steps, then see how it plays out. But I think the map is too small for 64 vs 64. And definitely not enough transport vehicles to support that many players.
Community ManagerThank you for the feedback and suggestion, especially for pointing out concerns about whether there are enough transport vehicles to support a higher player count.
Not sure if player count should be increased, but big maps like golmud railway and tsuru reef are a must for enjoyable vehicle (esp aircraft) experience. I think there should be infantry hotspots on those huge maps
Why does every response from the community manager sound like it's an AI generated response? It's such a weird sounding and corny response.
Community ManagerWhen I’m replying to multiple points from different posts, I try to summarize the feedback without simply copying and pasting what others have said. I also try to keep the wording objective. That's why it may come across that way.
Anyway, I am a real person.
Out of curiosity, how would everyone feel if the player count for this map was increased?
First, I have to say it's really early for that question. I know some people have had immediate reactions to the map, but really, it takes a bit of time before people get used to it and combat starts unfolding in a more predictable way.
The being said, I'm really not sure player count is much of an issue here. What I like about Goldmud and Contaminated is that the travel distance between two points is reasonable (it can still be long-ish for some points in Golmud, but that's fine), but the lanes are well-built: I will often meet people on the way, and there are interesting hot-spots where in-between objectives fights will focus.
Right now, on Tsuru, I can travel quite a while and meet no one. And if I do, there's not necessarily anything interesting close-by to fight around. Mostly the shooting not at objs happens in the bare open. Again, big caveat that this may change as players get used to the map.
I think the size of the map can be fine, it depends a lot more on how the points are distributed and how the landscape in between objectives contributes to gameplay.
Community ManagerThat’s a great angle, thank you for explaining it.
How about increasing player count little by little to know what size is best? Right now, it's boring that I spend most of my time running than shooting. It's like hide and seek game. As you increase map size, you should also increase player count.
Please no. If people don't like this map then they can just filter it out of rotation. Us battlefield vets love it as is
