Weekly Debrief

Firestorm Player Count to 128?

«13
THE_EVO_COMMANDO
104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
I don't know about you guys, but on a map that giant, with only 16 squads in total, Firestorm might get a little boring if its almost impossible to find anyone. Increasing the player count would make sense, more players on the map = more action. I don't really want to spend 30 min. looting to only run into one squad at the end of the game lmao. Plus BFV would have bragging rights on having one of the highest player counts in a BR. Hell, maybe even push it to 256. Now wouldn't that be epic...

Comments

  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1359 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, because it's so simple. Just up the player count! How come I've never though of that. I'll get on the phone with DICE and tell them to just flip the player count switch, and while I'm at it I'll also tell them to flip the crossplay switch so we can have PC, Xbox, and PS all playing together!
  • fakemon64
    898 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The map actually doesn't seem that big to me. They tried to compare it to hamada, but, I don't even think that map is necessarily large compared to some past bf maps.
  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It's called Firestorm. The ring of fire gets smaller and smaller until the end so who knows how long before its a small map.
  • r3cklesshate23ps
    36 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I don't know about you guys, but on a map that giant, with only 16 squads in total, Firestorm might get a little boring if its almost impossible to find anyone. Increasing the player count would make sense, more players on the map = more action. I don't really want to spend 30 min. looting to only run into one squad at the end of the game lmao. Plus BFV would have bragging rights on having one of the highest player counts in a BR. Hell, maybe even push it to 256. Now wouldn't that be epic...

    Na just means all 16 squads could have a chance at getting a really epic combined arsenal
  • MassE4A
    4 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The old frostbite engine was capable of 256 players, I agree it would be nice to have 128 atleast, I dont want to loot the whole game. Sheesh atleast test it Dice.

    So they might have a switch to just turn on 128 players ;)

    https://news.softpedia.com/news/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Supports-Up-to-256-Players-189097.shtml
  • xKusagamix
    996 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 19
    MassE4A wrote: »
    The old frostbite engine was capable of 256 players, I agree it would be nice to have 128 atleast, I dont want to loot the whole game. Sheesh atleast test it Dice.

    So they might have a switch to just turn on 128 players ;)

    https://news.softpedia.com/news/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Supports-Up-to-256-Players-189097.shtml
    Old Frostbite engine doesn't host servers with 64hz as default.
    The more tickrate and players the more work for your CPU to proccess.
    And not many can afford a 6c/12t CPUs. With 64 players in a 64hz servers as it is right now in BFV, a slight increase can possibly make 4c/8t CPUs become obsolete.
  • MassE4A
    4 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Well then they need to work on it. I would be glad to test it lol
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Maybe but if you try to say the frostbite engine can't handle it, thats BS.
  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1359 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Maybe but if you try to say the frostbite engine can't handle it, thats BS.

    That article only mentions that DICE tested it internally with 128 players. Obviously they used a closed system and test PCs are normally extremely high end so they can test the limits of the game, so those things probably made it possible. Also, no specs on the type of build they used were given. For all we know they tested a version of the game that looked like Minecraft. I highly doubt DICE could just double the player count, even on just PC, with zero problems.
  • MassE4A
    4 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Nobody know what they used except them, but it would be cool either way if it is still possible:)
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Honestly, the majority of people playing BFV are probably running higher spec pc's anyway. We know even the weakest console (Xbox One) can handle it.
  • wiazabi
    511 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    For those that played it MAG on PS3 with 64 128 256 players was amazing and worked really good and the maps designed around it was amazing, like on 256 the attackers were spread out on 4 sides and had to break through the first "zone" and could choose to go help the other sides and when you got to the final place it was just 128 vs 128 chaos :D.

    I really wish DICE would prioritise making the gameplay as fun as possible without making client + server performance suffer, destruction is great and everything but if it strains to much on server / client all its good for is a nice Trailer to show off the game.
  • MassE4A
    4 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    wiazabi wrote: »
    For those that played it MAG on PS3 with 64 128 256 players was amazing and worked really good and the maps designed around it was amazing, like on 256 the attackers were spread out on 4 sides and had to break through the first "zone" and could choose to go help the other sides and when you got to the final place it was just 128 vs 128 chaos :D.

    I really wish DICE would prioritise making the gameplay as fun as possible without making client + server performance suffer, destruction is great and everything but if it strains to much on server / client all its good for is a nice Trailer to show off the game.

    MAG was awesome, just wish they made MAG 2, but heard the studio got closed. But I figure if PUBG could get 100 players The Frostbite engine should easily push it. PUBG is fun an all, but crappy developers cant make a solid game without glitches. :)
    I got hope with you DICE, just need the impossible, GOOD EA SERVERS. Lol
  • xKusagamix
    996 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 20
    MassE4A wrote: »
    wiazabi wrote: »
    For those that played it MAG on PS3 with 64 128 256 players was amazing and worked really good and the maps designed around it was amazing, like on 256 the attackers were spread out on 4 sides and had to break through the first "zone" and could choose to go help the other sides and when you got to the final place it was just 128 vs 128 chaos :D.

    I really wish DICE would prioritise making the gameplay as fun as possible without making client + server performance suffer, destruction is great and everything but if it strains to much on server / client all its good for is a nice Trailer to show off the game.

    MAG was awesome, just wish they made MAG 2, but heard the studio got closed. But I figure if PUBG could get 100 players The Frostbite engine should easily push it. PUBG is fun an all, but crappy developers cant make a solid game without glitches. :)
    I got hope with you DICE, just need the impossible, GOOD EA SERVERS. Lol
    Frostbite engine can do up to 100 players and even more, and they can test and prove that it work, but release it is another story. Because yes, they'll work, it's not the engine limitation, but it'll require at least like a 8 core/16 thread CPU to work properly with that kind of massive players count and physics/destructions that need to be proccessed in a 64hz server, and it'll require one heck of a server to be able to withstand that massive work, that's the reason why most BR games are hosted with low tickrate servers.

    Not much of people are playing games with 6 core CPUs nowaday, the game needed to be playable for most people so i doubt it'll happen anytime soon. We may see it when 6c/12t CPUs are the norm. 64Hz servers mean in a single second your CPU need to processed all that data of 64 players in a map and then send it to the server then receive back all that information from the server to sync up with other players.

    Just because 100 players are doable in other BR games so it'll work just fine with Frostbite engine, it's not the engine itself, but more of a hardware limitation. For the vast majority of people to enjoy, it'll need to be toned down.
  • SirTerrible
    1710 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The game struggles with just 64 players. Unless they've made some huge optimizations for Firestorm you'd probably need a supercomputer to get 60+ FPS with 128 players.
  • someguy12121
    467 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    How about some new core maps and core content and not a gimmick?
  • Trokey66
    8534 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    How about......

    And I know this is some really crazy far out thinking here but......

    How about we wait till we play the bloody thing and see what it's like?

    Just a thought.
  • someguy12121
    467 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    How about......

    And I know this is some really crazy far out thinking here but......

    How about we wait till we play the bloody thing and see what it's like?

    Just a thought.

    Its BR, why would I play something that is being forced into a game purely to go after a very small percentage of the player base?
  • Trokey66
    8534 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    How about......

    And I know this is some really crazy far out thinking here but......

    How about we wait till we play the bloody thing and see what it's like?

    Just a thought.

    Its BR, why would I play something that is being forced into a game purely to go after a very small percentage of the player base?

    It's a new game mode in BF, why wouldn't you?
  • xKusagamix
    996 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 21
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    How about......

    And I know this is some really crazy far out thinking here but......

    How about we wait till we play the bloody thing and see what it's like?

    Just a thought.

    Its BR, why would I play something that is being forced into a game purely to go after a very small percentage of the player base?

    It's a new game mode in BF, why wouldn't you?
    Because you must hate it to show that you're a true "core-elite-veteran Battlefield long time fan", get it?
Sign In or Register to comment.