DLC - bigger and new maps

[roberthammer 582]

Hello guys,

I like to see in the future some big maps for OA , something like this

uCxalPsosiY

When i saw this , i was just WOW - thats what ArmA 2 OA need , alot big nice maps

[maddogx 13]

New maps would be great. :D

[ziiip 1]

200 square km is enough for me. :)

[AnimalMother92 10]

New? Absolutely, I would love maps as DLC.

Bigger? Only if the performance is good, no point in a huge map hardly anyone can run.

[dm 9]

I voted no, purely because developing game-quality terrains takes a fricken AGE.

I'd much rather have new content to tromp around the existing maps than to have to wait 12 - 18 months (about the time it took to develop Sahrani and Chenarus) for a new terrain.

The cost vs content would be way out of whack too. You'd easily be looking at $20 for a terrain DLC, vs $8 - 10 for content.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I would say that a 100kmx100km (or greater) map could be good for an expansion or new game = DVD release. Paid DLCs with islands/maps only - I vote no.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

No thanks. When terrains become as flat and uninteresting as those, I think I'll switch to something else. The "narrowed down" Takistan seems like a much better landscape than those. Even Chernarus and Sahrani looks more interesting. I'm not very fond of towns and villages placed on a flat surface. It just gets, I don't know, boring.

[giorgygr 61]

I wouldn't mind at all having "Geo specific" maps.

For me at least..i want via gaming to visit real places of world without

having to travel over there.

I said..IMHO..

[icebreakr 3159]

I would just love to see new maps!

<grin>

[SyNcRoNiCzZ 0]

RH why bigger Map´s ?

I mean Chernarus and Takistan are too big (for my). Walk the complete from N° to S°. :p What man you why long you walk/run ?

- 10 min.

- 1 hours.

- 2 hours.

- 3 hours.

I honestly do not know, but i think a loooooooong Time. :D

[kylania 568]

Planes. Also you don't walk/run in these larger maps, you fly. Transport helos and whatnot. The large maps aren't for the CounterStrike/CoD crowd, they are for the realism crowd who want to engage in realistic, in scope and scale, missions and 100x100 maps would certainly help with that. :)

[Pain0815 10]

Yeah +1 for 10000 km² maps!

[roberthammer 582]

Big maps are great for Warfare or big dynamic coop missions - like Domination or other

Yea , am the fly man or hammer man /tank/ :D

Edited September 1, 2010 by RobertHammer

[Pain0815 10]

The biggest arma2 map was 61x61 thats 3721 km² but thats only sand with no good textures and no settlements.

Such big maps would be cool. But plz no domination on them with teleporting and stuff on such maps, hehe.

[wolfbite 8]

I wouldnt mind a big map like that to do Cap missions on.....

[skyman 10]

I would prefer a better and bigger campaigns and missions on the DLC

[SASrecon 0]

A huge winter map!!

Like a ski-resort or something would be great :D

and maybe BIS could add a summer-version with a reskin and a few tweaks etc. :rolleyes:

[dragon01 902]

I'd like a simple, huge desert map with a few villages, millitary bases, oil fields and airfields, optimized for aircraft missions. I wouldn't pay for it though.

[nodunit 397]

A vast map would be great even if it is mostly flat and not very mountainous, hell even if it is flat it would have superb sim potential but we're talking about VBS2 here, it has a different aim than Arma2.

[Cotala Studios 10]

well thats a no brainer... OF COURSE

[icebreakr 3159]

I don't understand why you need maps bigger than 10x10km, unless you're doing air combat? My team usually plays demanding missions, even 2 hours+ long with respawn enabled at HQ (FOB). You need at least 5 minutes to reach the battlefield even on a 5-7 km distant target. With 1-2 pilots constantly providing transport.

So, can someone explain why you guys need bigger maps? I believe any bigger distances in mission can seriously ruin the gameplay.

[NoRailgunner 0]

IceBreakr for those people whole like to be a part of combined operations with tanks, helicopters, planes, and artillery. Many missions are mostly infantry type because of the design of small islands/maps, performance issues with bigger maps or simply because of urban warfare/MOUT fans. ;)

[roberthammer 582]

Big maps are fun and realistic - not the flat ones :D - not need 200x200km huge map ,but at least 25x25km

As i said before for warfare and big long coop missions are great

Edited September 2, 2010 by RobertHammer

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Indeed. Big maps are needed. I'd love a map where you can actually use planes properly etc.

I'm actually making one now but given the time it takes to sort out the config, satmask, textures etc I don't think I'll be releasing it any time soon :)

[Pain0815 10]

At those small maps atm you need no supply lines to keep your troops fighting before they run out of ammo or fuel.

On such big maps (without teleporting and such shit) there is a need for teamwork to get troops, ammo, equipment,fuel and other supplies to your front troops.

Examples:

You need to provide a refuel and rearm point for your attack choppers to make sure you have constant air support (as long the chopper survives) instead of choppers need to rtb for 100km to get new ammo.

Jets have to get in the operation area on standby position for a limited time to help their troops on their requests for cas. If they reach the PNR they had to get back to base to refuel.

AA sites are useful and harder to find, to get rid of them little teams need to take them out to make sure the airspace is safe to fly over.

Troops need to work together:

apcs/choppers need transport the inf, and inf need to protect their supporting vehicles.

You need big planes to fly stuff like humvees to your troops.

Bigger maps means more teamwork aspects are needed. But you need good missions too for that which includes those things and dont have teleporting...

All vehicles/troops only spawn at mainbase.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Pain0815