Operation Metro 1944?

Comments

  • Callahan44er
    5062 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Loved it on console on bf3,hated 32vs32 in bf4. The flooded tunnels only made it harder for the already weaker side,against a somewhat competent team it was almost impossible to get up the stairs.
    Without some real improvements and not just one flanking route that is just as easy to protect as the existing routes i dont want a remake. But it wouldnt feel like the real metro anymore then probably.
  • VincentNZ
    2714 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It would fit and would be easy to implement (like many maps you could just reinterpret them for any setting), but it would not translate well into the gameplay features. Right now there is no way to play it with less than 32 players which just creates an immensly stupid and monotonous gameplay experience. Basically like every Frontline map.
  • ragnarok013
    3083 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I don't think metrolovers is a major part of bf community no matter what you think. And Dice shouldn't pander to them. Maps should be fun for everyone and not only for a specific part of playerbase.

    There are different segments of the players base who like different things so it's impossible for all maps to be fun for everyone. The infantry centric metro crowd won't like a map like Armored Shield or Heavy Metal and tankers won't like an infantry map like Metro or even Seine Crossing. All maps don't need to be generic one size fits all 0 that's where BF4 and BF1 fell short; some of the best maps in the BF franchise were game mode\play style specific like we saw in BC2's rush or BF3's DOM.
  • MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    No this map style is bad and it should feel bad, it has almost no chance of flanking.

    Thats what makes it unique. Its a meat grinder, and its just fun (most of the time). Having 1 close quarters map wouldn't ruin the game

    It's a mess, like Fort De Vaux. It's extremely mindless.

    I personally have meat grinder map fatigue.

    Meat grinders are like playing the lottery. You and five other people stand on one side of the door way, while 6 enemies stand on the other side. Both throw their explosives in and see what comes out.

    I don't understand the appeal.
  • LinkZeppeloyd
    788 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Metro should be a mode, not a Conquest map. Metro style is the antithesis of Battlefield and has no place in 64p Conquest.

    But don’t worry OP, DICE will include a horrific brain dead meat grinder in a straight line, its flat out guaranteed.
  • Noodlesocks
    2785 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I wouldn't put it past them adding this map to boost sales because there are addicts out there who would absolutely buy a game for that map.
  • Bluemoon2393
    166 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    This is a WW2 game. Why would you add a unrealistic map into the game. Most cities had very little electricity and lots had blackouts meaning you couldn't even light up a lighter without getting told off.

    So definitely don't add Metro into the game. It would kill the games atmosphere and feel.
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This is a WW2 game. Why would you add a unrealistic map into the game. Most cities had very little electricity and lots had blackouts meaning you couldn't even light up a lighter without getting told off.

    So definitely don't add Metro into the game. It would kill the games atmosphere and feel.

    Because its a fun, fan favorite map? I don't understand why some people complain about lack of realism, but then shoot down an idea like this because they dont like the map. Metro with a 40s setting and WWII weapons would be so cool
  • Metro is one of the worst maps in the history of BF. Please do not do this DICE.
  • Imabaka70
    2432 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    While I bought bf4 after bf1 and only played it a little bit before bf4 ticked me off I just played metro and lockers on rotation. It was pure chaos and carnage. 870mcs was and still my fav shotgun
  • Woodlbrad
    622 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    No go play bf4 if you want metro I want new ww2 maps in my new ww2 game.
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Imabaka70 wrote: »
    While I bought bf4 after bf1 and only played it a little bit before bf4 ticked me off I just played metro and lockers on rotation. It was pure chaos and carnage. 870mcs was and still my fav shotgun

    Weird that all you got was Metro and Locker rotations. Plenty of other servers. I love the 870, but I'm a M1014 guy.
    Woodlbrad wrote: »
    No go play bf4 if you want metro I want new ww2 maps in my new ww2 game.

    I dont understand why people are so against more maps. BF3 and 4 had DLC packs that were updated maps from a previous game (BF2 and 3 specifically), so why not get a map or two updated for BFV? I'd love to see Metro and Wake Island make an appearance in the future.
  • Imabaka70
    2432 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Imabaka70 wrote: »
    While I bought bf4 after bf1 and only played it a little bit before bf4 ticked me off I just played metro and lockers on rotation. It was pure chaos and carnage. 870mcs was and still my fav shotgun

    Weird that all you got was Metro and Locker rotations. Plenty of other servers. I love the 870, but I'm a M1014 guy.
    Woodlbrad wrote: »
    No go play bf4 if you want metro I want new ww2 maps in my new ww2 game.

    I dont understand why people are so against more maps. BF3 and 4 had DLC packs that were updated maps from a previous game (BF2 and 3 specifically), so why not get a map or two updated for BFV? I'd love to see Metro and Wake Island make an appearance in the future.

    Oh I played other maps but this was my favorite time waster was to find the server with only those two maps
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Imabaka70 wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Imabaka70 wrote: »
    While I bought bf4 after bf1 and only played it a little bit before bf4 ticked me off I just played metro and lockers on rotation. It was pure chaos and carnage. 870mcs was and still my fav shotgun

    Weird that all you got was Metro and Locker rotations. Plenty of other servers. I love the 870, but I'm a M1014 guy.
    Woodlbrad wrote: »
    No go play bf4 if you want metro I want new ww2 maps in my new ww2 game.

    I dont understand why people are so against more maps. BF3 and 4 had DLC packs that were updated maps from a previous game (BF2 and 3 specifically), so why not get a map or two updated for BFV? I'd love to see Metro and Wake Island make an appearance in the future.

    Oh I played other maps but this was my favorite time waster was to find the server with only those two maps

    Ohhhhh, I getcha now. Metro is great if you just wanna play a couple 15 minute rounds. I used to play 2 or 3 games of Metro in BF3 before I had to leave for school. Good times
  • VincentNZ
    2714 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I do not get all the Metro/Locker hate. Obviously 64p is simply stupid, and a meat grinder, but that is not something new to the franchise. I recall there being a thousand BF2 servers that would only play Karkand inf only and with only fighting between the two market and hotel flags allowed.
    If played with 32 players or less it offered quite a tactical approach to conquest because capturing a certain flag could instantly turn the whole game. Metro in particular was also had quite asymmetric balance especially in BF4. US were easier to spawntrap, but getting constant pressure on flag A was much easier to do and could only be defended with much greater numbers. On the other hand a Russian squad holding the first escalator downstairs could deny all secondary access to point B and A, while also covering your mates up there and funneling them onto the second escalator.
    Locker had the interesting concept of two parallel lanes with access points on each flag. Also flag E with a T-UGS on the ground and a dedicated squad of two or three could almost indefinitely hold this flag. Zavod was similar in that aspect, which gave defending a real role. Paracel with the A-B axis, too.

    Many bigger maps are just totally devoid of that kind of tactical depth because the sheer amount of flags is too big to have an impact when defending, or individual flags and areas just do not have the same relevance.
  • FierceBrosnan007
    1006 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    There are already two versions of metro to choose from. Absolutely no need for another. Would much rather see Dice put their time into developing all new maps which provide new experiences for everyone. New game.. new maps .. fresh surroundings.
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    I do not get all the Metro/Locker hate. Obviously 64p is simply stupid, and a meat grinder, but that is not something new to the franchise. I recall there being a thousand BF2 servers that would only play Karkand inf only and with only fighting between the two market and hotel flags allowed.
    If played with 32 players or less it offered quite a tactical approach to conquest because capturing a certain flag could instantly turn the whole game. Metro in particular was also had quite asymmetric balance especially in BF4. US were easier to spawntrap, but getting constant pressure on flag A was much easier to do and could only be defended with much greater numbers. On the other hand a Russian squad holding the first escalator downstairs could deny all secondary access to point B and A, while also covering your mates up there and funneling them onto the second escalator.
    Locker had the interesting concept of two parallel lanes with access points on each flag. Also flag E with a T-UGS on the ground and a dedicated squad of two or three could almost indefinitely hold this flag. Zavod was similar in that aspect, which gave defending a real role. Paracel with the A-B axis, too.

    Many bigger maps are just totally devoid of that kind of tactical depth because the sheer amount of flags is too big to have an impact when defending, or individual flags and areas just do not have the same relevance.

    In BF4 at least, Russia had a huge advantage over the US, since they got to B flag about 5 seconds faster (I had the exact times memorized at one time), and the escalators are just punishing kill zones. But that's part of why I like playing it ao much. It feels So good to push up that objective as the US side. And as far as spawn traps though, I think it's actually easier for the US to take back their "home flag", since the close corridors make explosives, shotguns, and LMGs so powerful. The Russian spawn trap forces you out over so much open ground thats exposed from so many angles, its hard to escape. I don't totally agree that the bigger maps don't have as much strategy as Metro/Locker, but I see your point.
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    There are already two versions of metro to choose from. Absolutely no need for another. Would much rather see Dice put their time into developing all new maps which provide new experiences for everyone. New game.. new maps .. fresh surroundings.

    Nothing wrong with a update to a fan favorite map. I mean, Halo has had Blood Gulch or a variant of it (Vallhalla included) in nearly every game. If a map is tried and true, why not add it in for fun?
  • VincentNZ wrote: »
    I do not get all the Metro/Locker hate. Obviously 64p is simply stupid, and a meat grinder, but that is not something new to the franchise. I recall there being a thousand BF2 servers that would only play Karkand inf only and with only fighting between the two market and hotel flags allowed.

    You just said yourself Metro was a **** map. It’s 64 players and a pure meat grinder. So why are you questioning the hate?

    Trying to compare an out of the box map to one with customized settings doesn’t help your argument dude.
  • MacaqueX
    674 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    I do not get all the Metro/Locker hate. Obviously 64p is simply stupid, and a meat grinder, but that is not something new to the franchise. I recall there being a thousand BF2 servers that would only play Karkand inf only and with only fighting between the two market and hotel flags allowed.
    If played with 32 players or less it offered quite a tactical approach to conquest because capturing a certain flag could instantly turn the whole game. Metro in particular was also had quite asymmetric balance especially in BF4. US were easier to spawntrap, but getting constant pressure on flag A was much easier to do and could only be defended with much greater numbers. On the other hand a Russian squad holding the first escalator downstairs could deny all secondary access to point B and A, while also covering your mates up there and funneling them onto the second escalator.
    Locker had the interesting concept of two parallel lanes with access points on each flag. Also flag E with a T-UGS on the ground and a dedicated squad of two or three could almost indefinitely hold this flag. Zavod was similar in that aspect, which gave defending a real role. Paracel with the A-B axis, too.

    Many bigger maps are just totally devoid of that kind of tactical depth because the sheer amount of flags is too big to have an impact when defending, or individual flags and areas just do not have the same relevance.

    Metro cq is not that good imo bc it leads in many games to spam up/down stairs on ticket, but metro 64p rush in BF3 is amazing.
Sign In or Register to comment.