I know many players who are tired of skirmish maps, because too much of the game is spent travelling between objectives instead of actually fighting.

Do you think that 32-player skirmishes should be restricted to 3 control points to promote more actual conflict instead?

Part of me believes the game was meant to be far larger than 16v16. Hopefully we'll one day get 32v32 to fill out those larger maps if CCP can manage to get around resource restraints.

Part of me believes the game was meant to be far larger than 16v16. Hopefully we'll one day get 32v32 to fill out those larger maps if CCP can manage to get around resource restraints.

I know many players who are tired of skirmish maps, because too much of the game is spent travelling between objectives instead of actually fighting.

Do you think that 32-player skirmishes should be restricted to 3 control points to promote more actual conflict instead?

No, more players per match needs to be implemented, some old patch notes stated the maps are unlocked for 24v24 yet where is it?

How is the game GÇ£massively multiplayerGÇ¥?

DUST 514 takes place in the massive, persistent EVE Universe, which has been thriving for nearly ten years, contains hundreds of thousands of EVE Online players, and spans thousands of solar systems and individual planets. A major war in the EVE Universe could involve thousands of players at once. DUST 514 can support 24v24 matches in a single battle in a single district on a single planet, and there can be multiple battles on a planet happening simultaneously, impacting each other in real time. The scale of DUST 514 is unprecedented.

I know many players who are tired of skirmish maps, because too much of the game is spent travelling between objectives instead of actually fighting.

Do you think that 32-player skirmishes should be restricted to 3 control points to promote more actual conflict instead?

I don't. I think they could put in more control points, though. i'd like an 8 objective map.

There's a reason most games use 3 capture points. 5 is annoying when you only have 12 to 16 players on your side. It's harder to coordinate things with so many points and too much time is spent traveling. Vehicles would be a great solution, except for a few facts.

>HAVs are slow as hell and expensive as hell.
>Dropships are expensive as hell and most people can't land them without crashing into a hill top.
>LAVs are pretty cheap and the only cheap, reliable and decent method of transportation.

When everyone has to murder taxi around the map like a Heavy just to get around, you know the maps are too big. Some maps have huge expanses, which are almost impossible to cross without a LAV. You can't have firefights there due to both the lack of cover and the gun ranges are too pathetic anyway.

I have the most fun in this game when I'm assaulting or defending a building or complex of some sort. Not running across desert or waiting for my RDV to drop my LAV.

All this promotes is circling where the two teams deliberately avoid one another and just cycle around the map rehacking each other. This isn't "tactical options", its simply "emptiness".

I can cross the map in like 30 seconds, going to all the points (unless there's a city, in which case takes a minute) in my Maddy. Slow? No.

I know many players who are tired of skirmish maps, because too much of the game is spent travelling between objectives instead of actually fighting.

Do you think that 32-player skirmishes should be restricted to 3 control points to promote more actual conflict instead?

If you want more focused combat then go to Domination. Personally I love the large maps that make vehicles actually necessary, I've done some great dropship transport on Border Gulch for example.

Well, I usually drive Soma's with a few armor plates and it takes WAY longer than that to hit all five points. You'd be lucky to hit all five in a LAV in a minute in my experience.