criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

Mode Replay-ability

I think this game's success is really going to hinge upon how good its modes are. Just like everyone else, I LOVE the fact that we're getting 12 different locations at launch, and I'm thinking we'll get at least two maps per location to cover both Galactic Assault and Strike/BlastHvV... plus Star Fighter Assault having it's own maps (much like Fighter Squadron in the first game).

All of this seems like exciting news on the surface, but I started thinking about it compared to the last game. While we only had 4 locations to choose from, we had 9 base game modes, plus Turning Point as free DLC soon after release. What that did was it gave each of the maps replay-ability. Sick of Walker Assault? Join Supremacy or Turning Point? Sick of Blast? There's Cargo, and Drop Zone and a few others to keep the game varied.

With Battlefront II we literally have 1 big game mode (Galactic Assault), 2 small game modes (Strike & HvV), and 1 space game mode (Star Fighter Assault). If we get bored of any of these there aren't any back options to keep things from being redundant.

I thought EA's original Battlefront did a pretty good job keeping me engaged in online gameplay. I hated online beforehand and clocked well over 100hrs online with BF, but I diversified my gameplay pretty frequently. I trust DICE's experience when it comes to online gameplay, but thought that this topic was good food for thought and am interested in seeing if other people have thought about this too.

Replies

  • I like how each map on Galactic assault has a different objective. It should shake up things as opposed to the same uplink locations in WA
  • I like how each map on Galactic assault has a different objective. It should shake up things as opposed to the same uplink locations in WA

    But does a map get too redundant if you're only doing one thing on it?

    I'm not sure, but am curious to find out.
  • RogueKarp wrote: »
    I like how each map on Galactic assault has a different objective. It should shake up things as opposed to the same uplink locations in WA

    But does a map get too redundant if you're only doing one thing on it?

    I'm not sure, but am curious to find out.

    As long as there are multiple unique ways to reach the goal, they should be golden. It worked for them in Battlefield.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • RogueKarp wrote: »
    I think this game's success is really going to hinge upon how good its modes are. Just like everyone else, I LOVE the fact that we're getting 12 different locations at launch, and I'm thinking we'll get at least two maps per location to cover both Galactic Assault and Strike/BlastHvV... plus Star Fighter Assault having it's own maps (much like Fighter Squadron in the first game).

    All of this seems like exciting news on the surface, but I started thinking about it compared to the last game. While we only had 4 locations to choose from, we had 9 base game modes, plus Turning Point as free DLC soon after release. What that did was it gave each of the maps replay-ability. Sick of Walker Assault? Join Supremacy or Turning Point? Sick of Blast? There's Cargo, and Drop Zone and a few others to keep the game varied.

    With Battlefront II we literally have 1 big game mode (Galactic Assault), 2 small game modes (Strike & HvV), and 1 space game mode (Star Fighter Assault). If we get bored of any of these there aren't any back options to keep things from being redundant.

    I thought EA's original Battlefront did a pretty good job keeping me engaged in online gameplay. I hated online beforehand and clocked well over 100hrs online with BF, but I diversified my gameplay pretty frequently. I trust DICE's experience when it comes to online gameplay, but thought that this topic was good food for thought and am interested in seeing if other people have thought about this too.

    I think your spot on, excellent post. Everything looks good on the surface but I agree with you, that’s not many modes to choose from and even less variation that bf15. My question is how long has EA been working on this game, did they start back in 15 or was it after the last dlc dropped? How good can a game be with less than a year of work, guess it depends on how big the dev team is. Cod claims each of their games are 3 years in the making, so ww2 was in the works back in 2014. We’ll see soon enough.
  • RogueKarp wrote: »
    I think this game's success is really going to hinge upon how good its modes are. Just like everyone else, I LOVE the fact that we're getting 12 different locations at launch, and I'm thinking we'll get at least two maps per location to cover both Galactic Assault and Strike/BlastHvV... plus Star Fighter Assault having it's own maps (much like Fighter Squadron in the first game).

    All of this seems like exciting news on the surface, but I started thinking about it compared to the last game. While we only had 4 locations to choose from, we had 9 base game modes, plus Turning Point as free DLC soon after release. What that did was it gave each of the maps replay-ability. Sick of Walker Assault? Join Supremacy or Turning Point? Sick of Blast? There's Cargo, and Drop Zone and a few others to keep the game varied.

    With Battlefront II we literally have 1 big game mode (Galactic Assault), 2 small game modes (Strike & HvV), and 1 space game mode (Star Fighter Assault). If we get bored of any of these there aren't any back options to keep things from being redundant.

    I thought EA's original Battlefront did a pretty good job keeping me engaged in online gameplay. I hated online beforehand and clocked well over 100hrs online with BF, but I diversified my gameplay pretty frequently. I trust DICE's experience when it comes to online gameplay, but thought that this topic was good food for thought and am interested in seeing if other people have thought about this too.

    I think your spot on, excellent post. Everything looks good on the surface but I agree with you, that’s not many modes to choose from and even less variation that bf15. My question is how long has EA been working on this game, did they start back in 15 or was it after the last dlc dropped? How good can a game be with less than a year of work, guess it depends on how big the dev team is. Cod claims each of their games are 3 years in the making, so ww2 was in the works back in 2014. We’ll see soon enough.

    I remember the DICE devs saying that a good chunk of the team was working on BFII before the Scarif DLC came out (and maybe even the Death Star DLC). I don't think they've had CoD amount of time, but they've had a good chunk. Motive and Criterion's parts will hopefully be super polish given the fact that they've had longer time with the game.

    It'll be interesting to see how good 'DICE's part' is. One one hand they have a boat load of online shooter experience. On the other hand, it looks like they've rebuilt the entire game: classes, new eras, new maps, new hero system (and new, gorgeous looking models, even for the first game's heroes) and new modes. I'm trying to remain optimistic, while also keeping my expectations in check.
  • RogueKarp
    1003 posts Member
    edited September 2017
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    I like how each map on Galactic assault has a different objective. It should shake up things as opposed to the same uplink locations in WA

    But does a map get too redundant if you're only doing one thing on it?

    I'm not sure, but am curious to find out.

    As long as there are multiple unique ways to reach the goal, they should be golden. It worked for them in Battlefield.

    I wonder if there are. Did it seem that way when watching the Theed lives tream, because I didn't think so?
  • RogueKarp wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    I like how each map on Galactic assault has a different objective. It should shake up things as opposed to the same uplink locations in WA

    But does a map get too redundant if you're only doing one thing on it?

    I'm not sure, but am curious to find out.

    As long as there are multiple unique ways to reach the goal, they should be golden. It worked for them in Battlefield.

    I wonder if there are. Did it seem that way when watching the Theed lives tream, because I didn't think so?

    The linear nature of the map doesn't help matters. If i'm also correct it doesn't look the locations of the Disruptor Rifles are random, so I believe you're correct in your statement. There's not a lot that can change in a match of Theed.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
  • RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
  • RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.

    That’s exactly right if it’s like that, I had no idea it was. If so that would make it feel more forced imo, giving less of a choice.
  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    edited September 2017
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.

    It's 11 separate modes. 1 mode per map. 11x1 is 11 variations.

    EAfront1 launched with 4 maps and 2 big modes. 4x2 is 8 variations. 7x3(current) is 21 variations.
  • You forgot blast also.
  • I feel like galactic assault will be like galactic conquest where every play thru is a little different so replay will be better
    Emotion yet Peace, Ignorance yet Knowledge, Passion yet Serenity, Chaos yet Harmony, Death yet the Force
  • Lonnisity
    1941 posts Member
    edited September 2017
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    I like how each map on Galactic assault has a different objective. It should shake up things as opposed to the same uplink locations in WA

    But does a map get too redundant if you're only doing one thing on it?

    I'm not sure, but am curious to find out.

    This is a weird question because it implies that Walker Assault was ever more than taking down an AT-AT via uplinks for EVERY single map. For every map in this game, there's a different objective. Each map is, in essence, it's very own mode. If that gets boring to anyone they need to develop a better attention span, especially with the devs adding more FREE maps, and by extension, more modes
    "Yeah, I'm responsible these days. It's the price you pay for being successful."
  • Lonnisity wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    I like how each map on Galactic assault has a different objective. It should shake up things as opposed to the same uplink locations in WA

    But does a map get too redundant if you're only doing one thing on it?

    I'm not sure, but am curious to find out.

    This is a weird question because it implies that Walker Assault was ever more than taking down an AT-AT via uplinks for EVERY single map. For every map in this game, there's a different objective. Each map is, in essence, it's very own mode. If that gets boring to anyone they need to develop a better attention span, especially with the devs adding more FREE maps, and by extension, more modes

    It's not that weird of a question. I'm super excited about Galactic Assault and am glad each map has its own kind of story based objective to it. I read all of the details on this site for how each map kind of plays out. The new Hoth sounds kind of similar to the old WA l, which makes sense. The point is to his question will people get tired of that map or any other because each map will be the same when you come back around to it?

    I already showed the math, but 11 maps is more than 7 maps and 11 modes is more than 3 modes, but there aren't 121 variations of what can happen on those 11 maps. There are 11 variations where the old EAfront has 21. It doesn't mean the old 21 variations are better than the new 11, we just don't know, yet.
  • I don't get this sites f***ing censoring or editing. Anyway, if the game later adds another big mode, but it's all the same, say something like Supremacy or Conquest then yes that playlist would only be 1 mode on the 11 maps, but it'll double the variable of what you can do on each map, which would be nice for down the road.

    And I edited fudging myself.

    I don't even know what the site edited last time. I thought it was the word game. Whatever.
  • Laser921 wrote: »
    I feel like galactic assault will be like galactic conquest where every play thru is a little different so replay will be better

    That is the ultimate hope :)
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.

    It's 11 separate modes. 1 mode per map. 11x1 is 11 variations.

    EAfront1 launched with 4 maps and 2 big modes. 4x2 is 8 variations. 7x3(current) is 21 variations.
    Chopped logic but still 11 is greater than 8


  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.

    It's 11 separate modes. 1 mode per map. 11x1 is 11 variations.

    EAfront1 launched with 4 maps and 2 big modes. 4x2 is 8 variations. 7x3(current) is 21 variations.
    Chopped logic but still 11 is greater than 8

    Chopped logic? It's basic math. Once again, I'm happy about Galactic Assault and agree with the following statements.

    11 maps is more than 7 maps.

    11 modes is more than 3 modes.

    However, my only point I'm trying to convey is 1 mode per map isn't as nice as 3 modes per map. It'd be nice to at least have 2 modes per big map in BF2, assuming they soon add a Conquest or Supremacy type mode not too long after launch to have 22 variations instead of 11.

    As for 11 being greater than 8 when dealing with the states of each games Launch, EAfronr2015 was abysmal at launch. Saying BF2 has a better launch is the most obvious thing in the world.
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.

    It's 11 separate modes. 1 mode per map. 11x1 is 11 variations.

    EAfront1 launched with 4 maps and 2 big modes. 4x2 is 8 variations. 7x3(current) is 21 variations.
    Chopped logic but still 11 is greater than 8

    Chopped logic? It's basic math. Once again, I'm happy about Galactic Assault and agree with the following statements.

    11 maps is more than 7 maps.

    11 modes is more than 3 modes.

    However, my only point I'm trying to convey is 1 mode per map isn't as nice as 3 modes per map. It'd be nice to at least have 2 modes per big map in BF2, assuming they soon add a Conquest or Supremacy type mode not too long after launch to have 22 variations instead of 11.

    As for 11 being greater than 8 when dealing with the states of each games Launch, EAfronr2015 was abysmal at launch. Saying BF2 has a better launch is the most obvious thing in the world.

    Well said, I would also like to see maps used for more than one mode. Maybe cargo and drop zone or some other new modes will fit in later as they add dlc.
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.

    It's 11 separate modes. 1 mode per map. 11x1 is 11 variations.

    EAfront1 launched with 4 maps and 2 big modes. 4x2 is 8 variations. 7x3(current) is 21 variations.
    Chopped logic but still 11 is greater than 8

    Chopped logic? It's basic math. Once again, I'm happy about Galactic Assault and agree with the following statements.

    11 maps is more than 7 maps.

    11 modes is more than 3 modes.

    However, my only point I'm trying to convey is 1 mode per map isn't as nice as 3 modes per map. It'd be nice to at least have 2 modes per big map in BF2, assuming they soon add a Conquest or Supremacy type mode not too long after launch to have 22 variations instead of 11.

    As for 11 being greater than 8 when dealing with the states of each games Launch, EAfronr2015 was abysmal at launch. Saying BF2 has a better launch is the most obvious thing in the world.

    Well said, I would also like to see maps used for more than one mode. Maybe cargo and drop zone or some other new modes will fit in later as they add dlc.

    Indeed, a Big Team Drop Zone like in Bespin or Big Team Cargo would be a lot of fun, imo. I wouldn't be surprised if Supremacy makes a comeback, though. It's an easy mode to program for since it's basically a linear king of the hill tug of war. Plus it was popular in BF2015. I'd think more people want Conquest over Supremacy, but it seems doubtful since DICE wants to keep that for Battlefield.

    Big Team Drop Zone and Supremacy was the closest thing we got to Conquest in the 2015 game. Maybe they could somehow combine the two ideas where you have to capture all posts and a certain amount of Pods for the game to be over
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.

    It's 11 separate modes. 1 mode per map. 11x1 is 11 variations.

    EAfront1 launched with 4 maps and 2 big modes. 4x2 is 8 variations. 7x3(current) is 21 variations.
    Chopped logic but still 11 is greater than 8

    Chopped logic? It's basic math. Once again, I'm happy about Galactic Assault and agree with the following statements.

    11 maps is more than 7 maps.

    11 modes is more than 3 modes.

    However, my only point I'm trying to convey is 1 mode per map isn't as nice as 3 modes per map. It'd be nice to at least have 2 modes per big map in BF2, assuming they soon add a Conquest or Supremacy type mode not too long after launch to have 22 variations instead of 11.

    As for 11 being greater than 8 when dealing with the states of each games Launch, EAfronr2015 was abysmal at launch. Saying BF2 has a better launch is the most obvious thing in the world.

    Well said, I would also like to see maps used for more than one mode. Maybe cargo and drop zone or some other new modes will fit in later as they add dlc.

    Indeed, a Big Team Drop Zone like in Bespin or Big Team Cargo would be a lot of fun, imo. I wouldn't be surprised if Supremacy makes a comeback, though. It's an easy mode to program for since it's basically a linear king of the hill tug of war. Plus it was popular in BF2015. I'd think more people want Conquest over Supremacy, but it seems doubtful since DICE wants to keep that for Battlefield.

    Big Team Drop Zone and Supremacy was the closest thing we got to Conquest in the 2015 game. Maybe they could somehow combine the two ideas where you have to capture all posts and a certain amount of Pods for the game to be over

    Supremacy is a no brainer to me. To be honest, it's a no brainer to have in Arcade Mode too.
  • RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    RogueKarp wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    Every map on Galactic Assault is like a separate mode.

    Which potentially makes every map redundant after awhile. Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong.
    ?

    That's like saying every gamemode will become redundant because they are all different.

    not really - when we played Walker Assault we had multiple maps to choose from, making the mode less redundant.

    By having 'every map be a mode' the idea that redundancy can set in is even more likely, because there's only one way to play each map.

    In EA BF 1 every mode had multiple maps and every map had multiple modes, keeping things relatively fresh.
    Still not getting it.

    In the first game you played Walker Assault a very similar way on all maps.

    In the next game you play galactic Assault differently on all maps. So it's almost like 11 separate modes

    And if the mode is well done (conquest on battlefield) then few others are needed.

    It's 11 separate modes. 1 mode per map. 11x1 is 11 variations.

    EAfront1 launched with 4 maps and 2 big modes. 4x2 is 8 variations. 7x3(current) is 21 variations.
    Chopped logic but still 11 is greater than 8

    Chopped logic? It's basic math. Once again, I'm happy about Galactic Assault and agree with the following statements.

    11 maps is more than 7 maps.

    11 modes is more than 3 modes.

    However, my only point I'm trying to convey is 1 mode per map isn't as nice as 3 modes per map. It'd be nice to at least have 2 modes per big map in BF2, assuming they soon add a Conquest or Supremacy type mode not too long after launch to have 22 variations instead of 11.

    As for 11 being greater than 8 when dealing with the states of each games Launch, EAfronr2015 was abysmal at launch. Saying BF2 has a better launch is the most obvious thing in the world.

    Well said, I would also like to see maps used for more than one mode. Maybe cargo and drop zone or some other new modes will fit in later as they add dlc.

    Indeed, a Big Team Drop Zone like in Bespin or Big Team Cargo would be a lot of fun, imo. I wouldn't be surprised if Supremacy makes a comeback, though. It's an easy mode to program for since it's basically a linear king of the hill tug of war. Plus it was popular in BF2015. I'd think more people want Conquest over Supremacy, but it seems doubtful since DICE wants to keep that for Battlefield.

    Big Team Drop Zone and Supremacy was the closest thing we got to Conquest in the 2015 game. Maybe they could somehow combine the two ideas where you have to capture all posts and a certain amount of Pods for the game to be over

    Supremacy is a no brainer to me. To be honest, it's a no brainer to have in Arcade Mode too.

    I agree. Truthfully, I think we will see Supremacy after about a month. I'm pretty sure all the small maps will be in Blast, Strike & HvV.

    However, big maps only have GA. Granted, each map is different objective wise so it's like 11 modes, but only 1 mode per map. Since the small maps have 3 modes per map, I feel it's safe to assume in due time the big maps will have 2 modes per map.

    Supremacy makes the most sense due to its popularity from 2015 and its probably relatively easy to design within each map the 5 Capture points. I'd rather see Conquest, but don't think we will and I'd still be happy about Supremacy.

    If Supremacy comes to the online after a month or two and then in early 2018 they say big maps are coming to Skirmish, I'd think they'd mirror offline Supremacy over GA. It'd be much easier to program for the AI, plus we know for the 2015 Skirmish they worked on both an offline WA and Supremacy, but we only got WA. Supremacy was supposedly never finished for Skirmish.

  • If Supremacy comes to the online after a month or two and then in early 2018 they say big maps are coming to Skirmish, I'd think they'd mirror offline Supremacy over GA. It'd be much easier to program for the AI, plus we know for the 2015 Skirmish they worked on both an offline WA and Supremacy, but we only got WA. Supremacy was supposedly never finished for Skirmish.

    Supremacy is so close to what Instant Action was in the original games that I would be super happy with just having that as the 'big map' offline, Arcade mode.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!