The type of game you are playing should determine map size. Maps such as Berlin Wall, Hazard, Silo, should be scaled to the game type. Say in objective games such as Domination, CTF, and Array the map would be normal size, but in TDM the map gets scaled smaller to make faster pace of play. We will take Berlin Wall for example, in TDM take out one of teh end streets making it only a two way in/out and take away a few of the building entrances.
Me, I personally think NO TDM map should be bigger than Firing Range. It's called team deathmatch, not team hide and go seek.
Still would like to see the OP elaborate on this. One interesting thing that struck me. I see constant complaints about Camping in CoD. It seems larger maps would lead to more camping... but you think possibly the larger maps are detrimental to camping somehow? Would be interested in hearing more.
Simple logic does not flow well with certain people. Larger maps DO make for more camper friendly play. The people who like to complain about campers are the players who never check corners or can't hit a player standing still. All big maps make for are long drawn out games and lower scores. Simply put, the more places people can hide the more people will do it.
This is mainly because of how I thought they'd be implimenting all of the different drones. If stuff like the Rotor and Claw are in the game, we need big maps to accomidate them.
Small Maps + Kill streaks = clusterf*ck.
I also had what the first poster had in mind, that these maps would only be available on Ground War. IW tried to do it with designing Face Off- Only Maps(Which was a stupid idea.) They just need to make maps Starting Large on Ground War and scaling down as per game type.
Ground War- Map is Large, Full sized.
6v6 Gametypes- Some of the Larger-scale maps are cut down to size, so the gameplay isnt slowed down.
4v4/3v3(Team Tac, etc)- Maps are the size of Face Off maps.
As for why I suggested Older maps, its mainly just because I wanted to give examples. These maps wouldnt be part of Elite, rather just an extra Map Pack we can get.
I like the idea of big maps.. but why not give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt and give them the chance to create their own big maps before we go requesting old ones...
However, on the topic of old maps, I would like to see CoD have the 4 map packs that they usually come out with of new maps, and then have a "flashback" map pack where they bring back a couple of popular maps from previous CoD's for free.. because, after all, we have already payed for them; and, it would be nice to play some of the older maps EXACTLY as they are but with the features of the new game (that way they don't require any work from the developers except a type of "copy-paste" technique).
This is just my opinion though.. some may be against it..
That's my point.. We already paid for them. Don't request maps that are old, because we already own them. As I said before, I wouldn't mind seeing a "flashback" DLC that was available for free that consisted of maps pretty much exactly as they were. This concept is kind of seen by pre-ordering BO2 and receiving Nuketown 2025. Perhaps they could bring back previous Treyarch maps in the last DLC that could be from WaW and BO for free. I'm sure most people wouldn't even care if they were the exact same as they were in previous Treyarch titles.
Yeah, but they will never do it as long as microsoft is involved. Valve wanted to release a free map pack on the 360 on left 4 dead microsoft wanted to charge, bbc iplayer was free on pc,free on wii,free on ps3 but microsoft wanted to charge people who did not have gold a fee. Free is not in microsofts vocabulary.
I'm all up for larger maps. Especially if they're going to be doing all of these drones and vehicles- that NEEDS large playspace to work.
And don't bring back old maps- pick a classic and remake that (Nuketown, already done) and the rest, make completely new.