Simple solution to many problems. You are welcome, devs

There’s been a LOT of discussion, since a very long time about the infamous grey zone and how it hurts gameplay.

  • It allows tank snipers to camp, and sometimes even spawn kill
  • it sometimes make rally points irrelevant since starting zones are really close (not often, rp are almost always a necessity but you get the idea)
  • It heavily restrict gameplay strategy to a mere “which team zergs in the most troops in a straight line”

All of this is already known as it has been discussed over and over again.

What I’m bringing in here is a NEW incentive for the devs to consider pushing back grey zone borders, in addition to solving the points above:

A bigger playing field could potentially reduce power creep of some campaigns, vehicle wise.
How you ask?

Let’s take Normandy as our canvas. Right now, vehicle wise it’s definitely the shittiest campaign of all, balance wise, whatever faction you play. Most maps have small playing fields disallowing strategy and merely putting some vehicles vs others in straight lines, no flanking possible. By pushing grey zone back a lot in all direction… STARTER LIGHT VEHICLES would still be a very viable option, even late game! The Puma could easily outmaneuver the jumbo shitter now that it couldn’t sit it’s fat ass in grey zone anymore. (Same for Stuart vs big cat)

And since maps would be “larger” the devs could finally remove, or at least make the artificial vehicle speed cap higher. Armoured cars not going faster than 30kmh? No more. They’d be good, even at lvl 30+.

See, dear Devs. Help us help you; make playing field larger, and lighter vehicles a bit faster.

Edit: Oh yeah. Also a great opportunity for you guys to implement mechanized units. You know, sweet apcs requested by the community.

So:

disney-moana

14 Likes

Actually most maps are quite “ok” in terms of width. Lenght / depth is the biggest problem (lack of it to be precise).

Take d-day for example. Those bunkers on hills of left and right are quite nice places to fight. Sadly any tactic that is not “zergrush the objective” is not a win tactic.

3 Likes

To be honest I avoid dday entirely. I just don’t like it, I’ve seen countless versions in so many ww2 games, and all the time it’s either: “mow allies with mg42, or storm axis with superior numbers”…

It’s really a poor map for fun tank play, too :thinking:

1 Like

Also, if they are going to expand the map, they should relocate the attacker respawn points, which are close to the capture points, on some maps. Many times it happened to me that I was just finishing building my meeting point and they are already entering the point.

It’s not that bad.
Allies actually have to use their brain to cap the 1st point (it’s a rarity to use brain in this game) and moving down allies with MGs is possible only if you play vs complete idiots that don’t know how to pull the trigger.

A map that is a corridor with no place to manouver is bad for tanks.
[Insert surprised Pikachu]

Over all this game has about as much tactical depth as “operation metro” from BF3 and BF4.

2 Likes

Cool idea, but simply pushing the greyzone back would create spawncamping problems, and sure as hell wouldn’t solve tank campers on maps like Beloe lake or Quarry.

The map is fine but the people who play it are dumb.
Snipers should destroy the MGs, engineers should build rally points.
Only abuse is that the german tanks can go up the hill (f.e. next to the costal artillery bunker) and shell the whole beach.

1 Like

Not just one side. The width as well for some maps. Meaning tanks could “go around” to take on the pesky t50 sniper in quarry.

As for spawn campers, there’d be LESS than there is now, because larger playing field could also mean the devs could move spawn points somewhere else, inside new grey zone border. safer. Rally points would be more necessary now, too.

In the end if spawn point is farther away, a tank won’t be able to stay in grey zone and snipe it. Not anymore. It will have to move dangerously forward, where enemy infantry would just surround and tnt it.

3 Likes

I like the idea of bigger maps / bigger playable area but I see the need of increasing the playercount drastically to keep the density of the fight.

See? Another added bonus!

And with larger maps there is space for Paratroopers :wink:

2 Likes

Seriously people come with more an more ideas that could be options and possibilities for the devs, if they simply made the playing field a bit larger… They got nothing to lose doing so eventually.

2 Likes

Devs decided to make no-AI gamemode in a game about AI squads so unless they’ve learned something, we may see even ww2 mario cart.

1 Like

Mariocart at the airfield ? i like it

3 Likes

Natural terrain still wouldn’t allow that. Trying to get a tank through a forest is a nightmare and everywhere else the camper sees clearly.

And since noone builds them games would be even more enraging if your team has almost no engineers.
And I believe engi is already a strong enough class, it doesn’t need to be even more meta. Especially since on some camapigns (the ones without SF rifles) bringing engis instead of a different squad can severly affect your overall combat capabillities. And low level players, which should bring them, don’t bring them, cause it doesn’t give them enough xp and they also probably don’t understand the value of engineers.

Not unless you change the map. Sure, the tank will have to move forward a bit more, but it’ll still be camping on the other side of a lake or on a cliff across the map.

German France invasion force laugh at you in their panzers through the Ardennes forest.

That’s why I hinted the possibility of apcs. See, so many possibilities! Better than the tiny map right now.

But not in a grey zone. Which means infantry or even light tanks will be able to reach it. More easily than right now anyway.

1 Like

Well, I’d like to see them do it when their tanks don’t have the engine power to knock down a 2m high tree.

Yeah. Larger maps, more players, more reinfocements. Now we just have to get people to play the game so that the teams aren’t filled with bots or players who play even worse than bots.

The grey zone itself isn’t as big of a deal as a lake or a giant cliff and the entire enemy team.
So while you could sneak up on them, by the time you get there, the match is over.

I still dont believe “gray zone camping” is that big of a problem, since tanks should stay behind the infantry force and give support fire.

I think “spawn killing” is a problem tho, so the maps themselves should be indeed build in a way that no 1 can shoot into someone’s spawn area - which will result that said spawn area also wont allow you to shoot out of , and as a natural consequence… which would eliminate what you call “grayzone” camping anyways.

Not only that but also that German tanks have the high ground. Although I hate the Jumbo I can partly understand that it is unsexy to get instant spawnraped on the first and second cp by Obi Wan. German tank spawns of second and third cp are not really “safe” either. (There is also no point to be on the beach as German tanker)
Just another example why the “we always need tanks and planes” meta sucks.

3 Likes