64 players are too many to fully enjoy some maps! 32 player servers?

V1k1n6-666
70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
I feel like some maps would be MUCH better if there weren’t as many players as there are now on the servers. Take Devastation: in 64 players you get waves of 20 players attacking a single flag which means no matter how good of a defensive spot you have you will get overrun no matter what. With the current TTK/TTD it is extremely difficult to survive 2/3 firefights. Now, when the servers are half empty you feel like the pace is a little slower and a good 4 man squad can defend a flag against 4-6 people no problem. If there are only 16-20 players on each side the possibility of meeting more than 6 people on a flag decreases and it’s way more tactical and fun.

Will there be 32 players Conquest servers? Will they let us rent servers and change the number of players? Even if they were standard sizes to avoid 3v3 servers on Conquest to stat pad I would be really happy.

Anyone else feels the same?

Comments

  • RaXha
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If you join the "infantry centric" game types they will be 32 player servers. :-)
  • Cyberhonk_GER
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    I fully support V1k1n6-666s point of view. With 64 players you do not have any influence on winning or losing the match. At times of Desert Combat and BF2 I played in several leagus 8 on 8. I would love to have any worth strategic component back in BFV conquest. Right now it is very frustrating not beeing able to make a difference.
  • R1ckyDaMan19
    554 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I agree, 64 player conquest is great for lots of action and chaos but the same maps with 32 players would be alot more tactical, part of the reason I missed bf3 on 360 when I moved to pc was the tactical combat induced by the lower player count.
  • gallant2362
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I hate 64 player only servers on bf4. It seems there are only 64 player normal/ hardcore servers now. Ill literally have started playing bf4 24 player servers on the xbox 360 because its so much less chaotic. I can actually stay alive for more then 5 minutes.
  • gallant2362
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If battlefield creators see this i hope they create the next battlefield 4 with 32 player normal/ hardcore servers. Because in 2020, its all 64 player servers and tactical game play has gone out the window.
  • Man_ILoveFishing
    305 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I feel that i want 128 players :D. No for real, as a recon player it feels delightful when you shoot at the crowd and take them down one by one and maybe 2 by one shot. But yes, there are some situations when you massively get overrun. Usually i just fall back when its looking nasty and feels like "welp this place is gonna be crowded". You can kinda feel it before happening. Good tip is, just run in so bizarre area where no one would even think of wasting flare and sit in bush for like 1-2 mins without 0 movement. What will happen is, they will run past/on you without seeing you. Works 2 our of  3 times, it only depends what direction you choose. :)
  • losthunter340
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I fully support V1k1n6-666s point of view. With 64 players you do not have any influence on winning or losing the match. At times of Desert Combat and BF2 I played in several leagus 8 on 8. I would love to have any worth strategic component back in BFV conquest. Right now it is very frustrating not beeing able to make a difference.

    This is not true at all, ofc you can make a difference, 1 squad of 2-3 can easly hold one objective for a long period of time.
  • Porter3KK
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I fully support V1k1n6-666s point of view. With 64 players you do not have any influence on winning or losing the match. At times of Desert Combat and BF2 I played in several leagus 8 on 8. I would love to have any worth strategic component back in BFV conquest. Right now it is very frustrating not beeing able to make a difference.

    This is not true at all, ofc you can make a difference, 1 squad of 2-3 can easly hold one objective for a long period of time.

    No ) (unless 4 highlytrained basement gamers lan/voice communication with at least 2 AssaultClass and a godlike Medic + noscope callofdutykid )

    However im with you since i rly dont want 32 servers back its boring... I love all 64player maps/modes

    Can we have 128 servers in 10 years mby ? And the game must feel like bf V. And all the maps must look beautiful like the bf1 beta map or Hanamura from BfV just bigger more points more vehicles aaaaaand less cheaters.
    Cheers
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    2630 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I hate 64 player only servers on bf4. It seems there are only 64 player normal/ hardcore servers now. Ill literally have started playing bf4 24 player servers on the xbox 360 because its so much less chaotic. I can actually stay alive for more then 5 minutes.

    That's how Bad Company 2 is for last gen XBOX 360.  Also back then more mic's were used for communication.  Now days most people have mic turned off or not connected or in party chat with others and excludes the rest in the squad. Smaller servers feels like you get to know the community more.  Also less enemies to focus on.  Back then with less players felt like more team work.  Yeah could still lone wolf.
  • Blackidus
    355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I want "Scaleable" maps from BF2 back. Back then there whas 16, 32 and 64 player versions of all maps.
    16 player maps had 3 flags, 32 had up to 6 if i remember and 64 could have up to 8 flags.
  • trip1ex
    5212 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    more tactics with 32 players.  more trying to outmaneuver the enemy.  

    also game runs better with 32.  64 is over-rated.  

    maybe have 40 players since a few are always coming and going.  


  • GrizzGolf
    1372 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I like a 64 player server. I love the chaos. 
  • Shadow0nTh3Sun
    146 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Domination and frontlines is your mode then.  They are a lot of fun.  Sadly team balance problems are MUCH worse on 32p servers (when your team is down 4 players 12-16 it really hurts).  No one wanted to stick around for that.
  • MSY
    12 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    32 player better experience
  • losthunter340
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Porter3KK said:
    I fully support V1k1n6-666s point of view. With 64 players you do not have any influence on winning or losing the match. At times of Desert Combat and BF2 I played in several leagus 8 on 8. I would love to have any worth strategic component back in BFV conquest. Right now it is very frustrating not beeing able to make a difference.

    This is not true at all, ofc you can make a difference, 1 squad of 2-3 can easly hold one objective for a long period of time.

    No ) (unless 4 highlytrained basement gamers lan/voice communication with at least 2 AssaultClass and a godlike Medic + noscope callofdutykid )

    However im with you since i rly dont want 32 servers back its boring... I love all 64player maps/modes

    Can we have 128 servers in 10 years mby ? And the game must feel like bf V. And all the maps must look beautiful like the bf1 beta map or Hanamura from BfV just bigger more points more vehicles aaaaaand less cheaters.
    Cheers

    Then I guess me and my friends are really higly trained!

    We often play 1 assault/1 medic sometimes 2 medics and we can hold objectives preatty alright! So thanks for the compliment I guess ;)
  • JediMastaWyn
    583 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Maps like Alsundan could do with more than 64 players. Far too many flags are empty 

    Maps overall are poor 
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    2630 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    64 players is okay with a well designed map.  But 64 players means a ton of tickets to burn through.  A ton of tickets can make for along game.  Becomes work to put great effort in for a long match.  You can get burned out after a couple matches of Battlefield these days.  I don't remember ever getting burned out with Bad Company 2 at all. I remember the rent a servers for BF4 and people would have max tickets for Metro.  Yeesh that match could last over a hour or more.  That burn you out quickly.
Sign In or Register to comment.