Make the maps smaller.

[Swedish Person#SörtifajdJeanyus]

The player concentration is poor. Nothing ever happens. It doesn't at all feel like I'm on a battlefield. I'm not talking battlefield small but about the size of hell let loose. Hell let loose is basically post scriptum but works way better because of the smaller maps.

[nolaJeff]

I disagree. If you follow your orders (i.e. defend or attach the current objective) You will will often find large concentrations of enemy and/or friendly troops.

I have not played HLL yet but I've seen 3 or 4 different live streams of it at length. I never saw any concentration of troops larger than may 15 fighting for any one objective. Every time someone brought up a map you could see how spread out friendly units were and I can emphatically say that it is no more concentrated than PS. Of course, this also depends on the map and setup of it. For example, Arnhem bridge in PS can be super concentrated because everyone is at or near the bridge.

Also, a huge advantage of larger maps is that the developers can easily make multiple setups/objectives. This makes 1 map very re-playable. You might be on the same map but you're not always fighting over the same ground. Smaller maps will mean less options for setup. The Best map is a good example of this issue - it's so small that even if they did multiple setups of it, you'd basically be fighting over the same ground that you did in other setups.

Another huge plus is that larger maps give attackers tactical options. If you want to move your squad to the enemy's flank or rear and attack from that direction, then that's a completely valid option.

[Swedish Person#SörtifajdJeanyus]

Originally posted by nolaJeff:

I disagree. If you follow your orders (i.e. defend or attach the current objective) You will will often find large concentrations of enemy and/or friendly troops.

I have not played HLL yet but I've seen 3 or 4 different live streams of it at length. I never saw any concentration of troops larger than may 15 fighting for any one objective. Every time someone brought up a map you could see how spread out friendly units were and I can emphatically say that it is no more concentrated than PS. Of course, this also depends on the map and setup of it. For example, Arnhem bridge in PS can be super concentrated because everyone is at or near the bridge.

Also, a huge advantage of larger maps is that the developers can easily make multiple setups/objectives. This makes 1 map very re-playable. You might be on the same map but you're not always fighting over the same ground. Smaller maps will mean less options for setup. The Best map is a good example of this issue - it's so small that even if they did multiple setups of it, you'd basically be fighting over the same ground that you did in other setups.

Another huge plus is that larger maps give attackers tactical options. If you want to move your squad to the enemy's flank or rear and attack from that direction, then that's a completely valid option.

Flanking etc is a valid option in HLL aswell because the maps are still huge and still leaves a lot of strategical options for attackers. In PS the maps are just huge so that everything happens slower. I see the same strategies in HLL as in PS and all of the times so far HLL has had a lot more action and a lot less dissapointment in the chats. In ps almost everyone goes negative in KD meanwhile that doesn\t happen in the same stretch in HLL. Its essentially the same game with a lot less of the boring stuff.

[Big Boss]

Shhh your not allowed to say HLL is better in these forums dude

[Krupp]

Same what nola.jeff said.

[Andy]

Hell Let Loose doesn't play particularly tactical for me.
That's not entirely down to map size at the minute, but i'm not sure i'd want maps that narrow coming to PS. They're very small when comparing them to maps from other contemporary tactical shooters.

I'll admit the 8km and 5.6km maps seem a little excessive for me. But, the 4X4 maps seem to work very well.

And, i'd rather we had 2 games that played differently. Different horses for different courses. Than trying to bring 2 games that play differently together fighting for the same space.

You want more action, play HLL. You want more tactical gameplay. Play PS. No sense having them both directly compete.


Not entirely sure the map sizes will stay in HLL anyway. No ones talking about it though, so can't be sure. But they only narrowed the maps to improve player density on a now removed multi cap game mode.
In the Alpha maps were 2X2km with 25 sectors.
Now it's 1.2km wide with 5 caps with an AAS style gamemode.

So, it's entirely possible they will revert to the 2km map. As all players will directly or indirectly be attacking the same cap anyway so player density won't be an issue. (if it ever was... )

[Yamantaka]

If PS feels boring and "nothing ever happens", then maybe you're playing wrong game. If you want a game with more arcadish action and smaller maps, then other games do the trick better for you. Nothing wrong with that either. I find it only positive that there're different kind of games and there is plenty of room for both. Comparing games is fine, but it's always better to have variety rather than same old similarity among games.

Large scale WW II warfare makes PS what it is and I certainly hope it will stay that way, because it makes PS unique experience.

[Sir Clavius]

Originally posted by Yamantaka:

If PS feels boring and "nothing ever happens", then maybe you're playing wrong game. If you want a game with more arcadish action and smaller maps, then other games do the trick better for you. Nothing wrong with that either. I find it only positive that there're different kind of games and there is plenty of room for both. Comparing games is fine, but it's always better to have variety rather than same old similarity among games.

Large scale WW II warfare makes PS what it is and I certainly hope it will stay that way, because it makes PS unique experience.

I support this guy.

[Kersch]

I have to say that this game isn’t meant for you if you think the maps are too big.

[Kersch]

Originally posted by TAW | Max:

Originally posted by nolaJeff:

I disagree. If you follow your orders (i.e. defend or attach the current objective) You will will often find large concentrations of enemy and/or friendly troops.

I have not played HLL yet but I've seen 3 or 4 different live streams of it at length. I never saw any concentration of troops larger than may 15 fighting for any one objective. Every time someone brought up a map you could see how spread out friendly units were and I can emphatically say that it is no more concentrated than PS. Of course, this also depends on the map and setup of it. For example, Arnhem bridge in PS can be super concentrated because everyone is at or near the bridge.

Also, a huge advantage of larger maps is that the developers can easily make multiple setups/objectives. This makes 1 map very re-playable. You might be on the same map but you're not always fighting over the same ground. Smaller maps will mean less options for setup. The Best map is a good example of this issue - it's so small that even if they did multiple setups of it, you'd basically be fighting over the same ground that you did in other setups.

Another huge plus is that larger maps give attackers tactical options. If you want to move your squad to the enemy's flank or rear and attack from that direction, then that's a completely valid option.

Flanking etc is a valid option in HLL aswell because the maps are still huge and still leaves a lot of strategical options for attackers. In PS the maps are just huge so that everything happens slower. I see the same strategies in HLL as in PS and all of the times so far HLL has had a lot more action and a lot less dissapointment in the chats. In ps almost everyone goes negative in KD meanwhile that doesn\t happen in the same stretch in HLL. Its essentially the same game with a lot less of the boring stuff.

What strategy in HLL, 90% of the people don’t even talk.

[nolaJeff]

Originally posted by Kerscher:

What strategy in HLL, 90% of the people don’t even talk.

Exactly. HLL is like every other WW2 shooter out there (albeit prettier) - a bunch of individuals running around and not communicating, trying to score kills because they want to inflate their ego.

Meanwhile, games like Squad and PS are offering the online FPS crowd something new - a system design to cooperate and coordinate with your squad and team with the goal to out-plan, out-maneuver and overcome the enemy.

HLL has a squad chat but every stream I've watched, it's barely used at all ! I don't get it. It's the community that's keeping me from playing it. The lone soldier S**t gets boring after a while. I've done that already in RO1, RO2, Darkest Hour, every COD and BF game ever made. BORING - no challenge - same formula on small and confined maps where you have few if any tactical choices.

[Gad Bateway]

Originally posted by nolaJeff:

I disagree. If you follow your orders (i.e. defend or attach the current objective) You will will often find large concentrations of enemy and/or friendly troops.

I have not played HLL yet but I've seen 3 or 4 different live streams of it at length. I never saw any concentration of troops larger than may 15 fighting for any one objective. Every time someone brought up a map you could see how spread out friendly units were and I can emphatically say that it is no more concentrated than PS. Of course, this also depends on the map and setup of it. For example, Arnhem bridge in PS can be super concentrated because everyone is at or near the bridge.

Also, a huge advantage of larger maps is that the developers can easily make multiple setups/objectives. This makes 1 map very re-playable. You might be on the same map but you're not always fighting over the same ground. Smaller maps will mean less options for setup. The Best map is a good example of this issue - it's so small that even if they did multiple setups of it, you'd basically be fighting over the same ground that you did in other setups.

Another huge plus is that larger maps give attackers tactical options. If you want to move your squad to the enemy's flank or rear and attack from that direction, then that's a completely valid option.

You also have a lot of time to mingle with the community when you're waiting/hunting for the enemy. I love picking medic and doing nothing but reviving people and talking to them while spotting enemies with my binocs. I'm not really good enough to reliably win firefights yet but the teamplay is just fun on its own.

[BUD GRAY]

Not smaller. No way. The only thing I would suggest is for the current maps to be more utilized. On the "meet in the middle" maps, I'd like to see far more of the lanscape used. There are some really beautiful maps and it is a shame we don't get to use the entire map.

[Wabbit]

The Smaller maps recently have been fun and a good contrast to the earlier larger maps but I have to say I have the best tactical play throughs on the larger maps. They are by far my favourite maps. More large maps I say! They are better for tanks and combined arms too. Smaller maps make it too easy for FoB's to be found and MSP hiding places are very few. Tanks suffer from all the short range engagements, excessive cover and ditches.

Driel, Heelsum, Doorwerth and Oosterbeek are the best maps. Grave is awesome too but the river cuts the tactical play down to more linear play throughs. The new Veghel Layers seem ok but not played them enough yet.

[Waffen84]

I love the large maps, I can flank walk 5 to 10 min to get around the enemy and attack from behind or set up for ambush. I am sick of the narrow maps as it just feels to same thing day in and day out type of play. Kids these days want the instant kill count and cant seem to wait for the kill and the hunt. Thats the best the hunt and the being hunted trying to outsmart the enemy.

[Wabbit]

Honestly when you section lead it gets really tough to do your job and fight, you need a nice walk to calm down LOL. Wide flanks offers a welcome break from the intense fire fights and gives you time to regroup, plan and move out again.