I expect 80 player game

«1
namvn
171 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
look, I'm not asking for 64 vs 64 because I know that would be to many, but I think 40 vs 40 would be a good start for experiment since it's 2016 already, and we have been on 64 player for so long

Comments

  • Cpt_Ironsoldier
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    > @namvn said:
    > look, I'm not asking for 64 vs 64 because I know that would be to many, but I think 40 vs 40 would be a good start for experiment since it's 2016 already, and we have been on 64 player for so long

    I guess the issue is console server providers may not like that and 64 slot on some maps is already crazy. Would be interesting on some of the larger maps though ;)
  • ChickNFoot
    1627 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    No it would not be fun at all on those levels, BF is about large scale battles anyway and If Im correct many youtubers apart of the gamechangers program have said they will support and only support a max of 64 players.

    64 is too much on some maps as it is 80 or a 120 would not work at all.
  • tommmyboiii
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    128-players would have been cool theoretically, even huger maps, but it probably would have been too much. Even 80-player matches would have been stretching it. It's already been confirmed that the largest game modes are 64-player battles anyway, and coming from Battlefield 4, its perfect to me.
  • RejournXbox
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield
    I feel like 64 player servers are already a little out of hand. I constantly get killed as soon as i spawn in. It gets a little over whelming at times.
  • Say_Hellr
    265 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield Member
    I'd be fine with 80+ players for a map design JUST for 80+ players. Other than that, 64 is perfect
  • No1StingerUserUK
    171 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited May 2016
    64 players is already awful on most maps. Why would you want even more? Bigger != Better.
  • jayrobinsonshow
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield
    80 player servers would never work..... Brazil would make sure of that.
  • jayrobinsonshow
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield
    xXBrShovelGodBrXx grab the gt before its gone!
  • BlacKw0oD
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield
    Operation Locker + 80 players, would be almost impossible to play. For largest map would be cool.
  • namvn
    171 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2016
    I totally understand all the points, hence my suggestion, we could increase the map border, add 1 more flag, more routes, 2 more fast vehicles each side, destroy 2 out of 4 Mcom each base to move on.
  • mgreider89
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    You could also get more players to work if you made a new multiplayer mode that was more structured. Maybe a mode where players have to fill certain roles in order for the their team to take an objective...

    I agree with op, if you're gonna do ww1 you have to capture the scale of the fighting.
  • Bohunk_l
    463 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I expect a 64 player game


    I think larger numbers would be to much server stress
  • LuciAssassin
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    You should try Planetside, it can become a clusterfuck, even more so than BF
  • Red_Spider
    419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, EA Live QA, Battlefield V
    Then I guess you'll have to keep expecting as 64p has already been confirmed.
  • Red_Spider
    419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, EA Live QA, Battlefield V
    edited May 2016
    tommmmytom wrote: »
    128-players would have been cool theoretically, even huger maps, but it probably would have been too much. Even 80-player matches would have been stretching it. It's already been confirmed that the largest game modes are 64-player battles anyway, and coming from Battlefield 4, its perfect to me.
    128 players would be chaotic, not to mention the requirements to run this lag free would be astronomical.
  • namvn
    171 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2016
    > @LuciAssassin said:
    > You should try Planetside, it can become a clusterfuck, even more so than BF

    I did play PS2, and I know 64 player confirmed, but my point stands, not this time, but maybe in the next DLC or next BF game. 80 is safe to begin with, we may adjust here and there as time goes by. I mean by all the logic, you guys just happy stay on 64 player forever?
  • Cryphisss
    3110 postsMember, Developer DICE, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V
    64 player count is still not mastered when it comes to 60/120hz servers too. I think it will be a bit too chaotic.
  • ThePoolshark
    2502 postsMember, Game Changer, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Game Changer
    I expect people to play the objective and have team work.... but we can't always get what we want
  • Mr_Raaawwwrrr
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield Member
    I expect people to play the objective and have team work.... but we can't always get what we want

    this

    As for OP, it's possible but the time has not just reached yet. I agree that it would be very epic to have a 40 VS 40 player conquest or rush, but the requirements are not there yet. Heck i don't even think the consoles can handle that too. It would probably lag unless it's just locked region... idk.

    Just like you said, i also think it's a good idea to release a experiment beta just to try this out for the consoles but it's most likely that it wont perform well for both consoles and the majority of PC's.
  • namvn
    171 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member


    I was there in a 80 player server and I assure the only problem is the map design, not to mention Metro / Locker / or those kinds of map are not the true BF map anyway. Just twist the map a bit and it we are all good

Sign In or Register to comment.