Firestorm Player Count to 128?

2

Comments

  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1495 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    xKusagamix wrote: »
    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?

    Or, and here's a thought, not everyone likes BR, and obviously no one got into this franchise because of that. Battlefield has always been a team oriented game with large scale warfare, BR is pretty much the complete opposite of that.
  • Hawxxeye
    6698 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    xKusagamix wrote: »
    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?
    Or because it detracts resources from the main BF game?
    If it does end up having vehicles that are not available outside of firestorm I will be pretty displeased
  • Trokey66
    8737 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    xKusagamix wrote: »
    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?

    Or, and here's a thought, not everyone likes BR, and obviously no one got into this franchise because of that. Battlefield has always been a team oriented game with large scale warfare, BR is pretty much the complete opposite of that.

    Not everyone likes TDM, a game mode that is arguably (at least for random pubs) the least 'team' orientated game mode out there but it is in Battlefield.

    And resources?

    That boat has sailed, budget was allocated and spent.
  • xKusagamix
    1063 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    xKusagamix wrote: »
    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?

    Or, and here's a thought, not everyone likes BR, and obviously no one got into this franchise because of that. Battlefield has always been a team oriented game with large scale warfare, BR is pretty much the complete opposite of that.
    I don't play BR either, i love Conquest but as much as i hated Metro/Locker or any meat grinder maps/modes, its still just a part of a game that some may enjoy, and both you and i don't have any right to tell them to stop loving it.
    Battlefield with Conquest mode is still there for those who enjoy it since the beginning of Battlefield franchise, and Firestorm is an addition for those who would love to see a Battle Royale mode done by Battlefield way.
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    xKusagamix wrote: »
    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?
    Or because it detracts resources from the main BF game?
    If it does end up having vehicles that are not available outside of firestorm I will be pretty displeased
    As Trokey66 said, that boat has sailed, budget was allocated and spent before Battlefield V officially launch. If you don't like it or hate it so much, just don't play it, or you can give it a try to decide its enjoyable or not like me.
    But hating something before it even come out let alone playing it just sound ignorant. And it's funny that most people hating Firestorm don't even like Battlefield V either.
  • JediMastaWyn
    564 postsMember, Battlefield 3, 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...

    I doubt you will ever have the whole map available. Probably get parachuted into a different section of the map each time!
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Actually, I'm a hardcore fan who's been playing since bf 1943, and I love Firestorm. Just cuz you don't like it doesn't mean you need to trash it.
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    idk though maybe
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    what do u mean

  • TropicPoison
    2421 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, 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.

    I had always wanted to buy a PS3 just to play that game but didn't ever have the money for one, I did really enjoy warhawk though...I played it on my uncles I had at the time on their PS3.
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Ya if it was only better
  • ragnarok013
    3610 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Thread moved to the highly requested Firestorm forum section.
  • Woodlbrad
    715 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    No there's already enough ppl I've seen some pretty contested drops with other squads its common.
  • CaptainHardware
    303 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    They'll never increase the player count, it'd have a dramatic affect on the tic rate and thus gunplay experience. EA will never allow it.

    What they could do though if enough people wanted more action is just make the initial circle smaller. This would also avoid creating more matchmaking problems in the low population regions. Indeed it'd actually improve them since the rounds would go faster.
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Why not, we already know the frostbite engine is capable of handling up to 256 players, and no ones playing BF5 on Xbox360s anymore.
  • shallowtech
    64 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    more players would be great as long as the performance/stability stays the same. it would be cool to start with the entire map, 100 or more players and then reduce it.
  • THE_EVO_COMMANDO
    104 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    i agreee
  • shallowtech
    64 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    They'll never increase the player count, it'd have a dramatic affect on the tic rate and thus gunplay experience. EA will never allow it.

    What they could do though if enough people wanted more action is just make the initial circle smaller. This would also avoid creating more matchmaking problems in the low population regions. Indeed it'd actually improve them since the rounds would go faster. 

    Well if this is truly the reason and they do not want to spend the money for faster hardware then leave it the way it is. The gun mechanics, synchronization, hit detection is great in BFV and I would hate to see issues just to add more players.

  • shallowtech
    64 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hmmm, used quote and it put my comment in the quoted boarder... 
  • CaptainHardware
    303 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hmmm, used quote and it put my comment in the quoted boarder... 
    You have to look out for that dim bar on the left and put your reply below it, with the way they changed the forum software its very easy to make that mistake.

    But indeed the server refresh rate and player count are the issue. Black Ops got 80 people in it's battle royale, but the reason that worked is the refresh rate drops to 10-20hz early in the game, then increases as people die until it hits 60hz. No way around that, the consoles cannot process more data, and a lot of PCs couldn't either. Battlefield V always runs at 60hz, and can do so with 64 players. But you go any further? It's gonna drop hard and fast.

    People made mods for battlefield 2 back in the day that supported 100+ players, and the original Operation Flashpoint too, and Tac Ops (and no doubt other games I didn't play) but they always performed like crud because they ran at about 20hz and that's a BEST case update time, the average updates plummeted.

    Even as recently as battlefield 1 the console servers ran at 30hz with 64 players, it's only by dropping the earlier console support that they got this number up at all for BFV.

    Also a side factor is, the more people you have the more and more the players with bad connections will become visually obvious problems, and the developers can't really do anything about that. A lot of BFV netcode issues are directly the result of the game not handling packet loss well, the 'look back in time' compenstation feature that exists in all good games isn't entirely reliable.

    Add more players and play quality will decline rapidly. The gun play design of BFV will fall apart real fast. A more arcade shooter like BF1 with lots of bullet spread would be far more viable with low tic rates. But I don't think anyone would play firestorm at all if it had BF1 style guns. Smooth gunplay is the only universal positive BFV seems to have.
  • Splosky
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I don’t think there should be more players in firestorm, mainly cause you can choose where to drop and you already know where the hot spots are. One of the points of BR is the possibility to decide which kind of game you want to play “hardcore from the start” or “stealthy”. And also, you can hunt players simply by hearing them shooting.
Sign In or Register to comment.