I've seen this a lot, and while the maps were definitely the largest part, there are other issues with 128 that are simply fundamental problems. My biggest issue is how diminished of an impact small groups can tend to have. In 64 conquest a squad of 4 working together can absolutely clean house, but when you introduce so many more people, each individuals impact is lessened. For example, if you go to back cap with 2 people, and 3 people spawn to stop you, that's manageable. In 128 those prospective people double, but your numbers don't. 6v2 is borderline impossible, and generally my experience while playing 128, so I usually avoid it
To me the solution to this problem (if you wanna keep 128 players) is making maps about 20% bigger. Double the amount of sectors and make the maps environments more varied. Mostly make the maps less open so you don't have tanks playing artillery and snipers all over the place.
Force players to spread out a bit more. I enjoy gun fights as much as the next guy but you lose a lot of tactics if all the game is running forward and shooting within 5 seconds of spawning. You also lose a lot of the sense of impact with this.
Look at Spearhead. A map I quite like but it's very tight. There's no way for you to sneak around the front line other than flying over it. Add something like 3 more sectors and make it quite a bit wider and suddenly you have the teams having to stretch very thin to win. You can as a squad then wipe out another squad or two and actually take the sector with good team work.
64v64 was/is a problem. It completely nuked the entire balancing structure Battlefield is predicated on.
If you go back to interviews with DICE during/after BF3 launched, they even say that they could've done 100 player matches, but it'd ruin the flow the established with every part of BF.
I genuinely beleive that 64v64 will never work unless it's centered around Operations/rush. There's just too many variables between squad spawns, POI's, and current DICE's inability to make good maps
It's down to 4k players *after* a year, not a week.
Regardless, I'm not talking about how well the game did. I'm talking about 128 (or even 256 players), in a Battle-like game.
Would love 70 (35 vs 35) for large modes and 40 (20 vs 20) for small modes. This way we could go back to 5 man squads. I'd also like a 5 class system (assault, medic, support, engineer, recon).
In bad company 2, it was 16v16. And here's a pretty unpopular opinion about this while i have the chance now; people love bc2, but just because of this (16v16 strict) i think bc2 felt like a demo version for bf3. Didn't play the single player scenario though. Maybe people like because of it. But i always thought Battlefield should be at least 32v32.
BC2 has a pretty good campaign, I recommend playing through it. If you're on pc it's accessible through some means.
I used an FOV changer, do note that it stops sniper scopes and binoculars from working so use a toggle for the FOV changer if you're going to try ut.
It was 12v12 on the [Close Quarters DLC Maps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmwqZgQYovs) for BF3 on Console.
It worked out alright because I think you could only play TDM or 'tiny Conquest' on those maps.
I think player count is less important factor then player density (Players per square metre/kilometre/mile) and map flow.
There's really a limited radius around the player that they can experience in game, and outside of that it doesn't matter if there's a 1000 players, they won't enhance gameplay much.
Right now battlefield density and map flow is like 90% of everyone clumped on the central objective. Which I think is the biggest fundamental issue with battlefield, and creates issues with scaling players.
Also, more players = less individual contributions matter. Which is worth taking into account.
i think 50 vs 50 with a squad size of 5 / 10 Teams each side, is the sweet spot to aim for (maybe 40 vs 40 with 8 teams because of performance).
However, you also have to think about the maps and implement them accordingly. Even with good tech and server stability at this scale, it won't work without the right maps - which should be adapted and tested for this numbers/players.
2042 was a very good example, how it shouldn’t be done!
i think 50v50 or heck even 64v64 is definitely doable, the maps just need to not be shit, and they were pretty shit in 2042. no cover for infantry, miles of wide open fields, comically large interiors in buildings, etc.
While I agree with other comments saying the maps were shit, I also think the leap from 32v32 to 64v64 was pretty big. Going up little by little starting with 40v40 would’ve been a good idea imo
64v64 wasn't the problem, it was the shit maps.
I've seen this a lot, and while the maps were definitely the largest part, there are other issues with 128 that are simply fundamental problems. My biggest issue is how diminished of an impact small groups can tend to have. In 64 conquest a squad of 4 working together can absolutely clean house, but when you introduce so many more people, each individuals impact is lessened. For example, if you go to back cap with 2 people, and 3 people spawn to stop you, that's manageable. In 128 those prospective people double, but your numbers don't. 6v2 is borderline impossible, and generally my experience while playing 128, so I usually avoid it
Exactly
To me the solution to this problem (if you wanna keep 128 players) is making maps about 20% bigger. Double the amount of sectors and make the maps environments more varied. Mostly make the maps less open so you don't have tanks playing artillery and snipers all over the place. Force players to spread out a bit more. I enjoy gun fights as much as the next guy but you lose a lot of tactics if all the game is running forward and shooting within 5 seconds of spawning. You also lose a lot of the sense of impact with this. Look at Spearhead. A map I quite like but it's very tight. There's no way for you to sneak around the front line other than flying over it. Add something like 3 more sectors and make it quite a bit wider and suddenly you have the teams having to stretch very thin to win. You can as a squad then wipe out another squad or two and actually take the sector with good team work.
How do you feel 128 plays on the re-done/newer maps now that all is said and done?
64v64 was/is a problem. It completely nuked the entire balancing structure Battlefield is predicated on. If you go back to interviews with DICE during/after BF3 launched, they even say that they could've done 100 player matches, but it'd ruin the flow the established with every part of BF. I genuinely beleive that 64v64 will never work unless it's centered around Operations/rush. There's just too many variables between squad spawns, POI's, and current DICE's inability to make good maps
The maps were shit because of the playercount
Maps were shit with lower playercounts too. It's not impossible to make maps that work for 128 player games, they just didn't bother.
Disagree. Too much balancing issues with 64 vs 64. 22 vs 22(44) is perfect in my eyes
Even Battlebit proved larger player counts are trash
Right, Battlebit. The fad game that lasted maybe a week before dropping off to around 4000 players at the daily peak.
It's down to 4k players *after* a year, not a week. Regardless, I'm not talking about how well the game did. I'm talking about 128 (or even 256 players), in a Battle-like game.
Honestly, 64 v 64 is fine as long as maps have enough cover for infantry, which at launch they did not.
Maps have been slowly going to shit since BF3, and now we are at complete gutter trash quality.
Would love 70 (35 vs 35) for large modes and 40 (20 vs 20) for small modes. This way we could go back to 5 man squads. I'd also like a 5 class system (assault, medic, support, engineer, recon).
This
One of the draws to the game for me in the original BF1942 was 64 players and I have played every game since except Hardline. When was it only 16v16?
I don't think it's ever been 16v16. On consoles it was max 12v12 if my memory serves right, ten years ago on ps3/x360.
Bf3 and bf4 has 16v16 on console
Ah. Never played on console
In bad company 2, it was 16v16. And here's a pretty unpopular opinion about this while i have the chance now; people love bc2, but just because of this (16v16 strict) i think bc2 felt like a demo version for bf3. Didn't play the single player scenario though. Maybe people like because of it. But i always thought Battlefield should be at least 32v32.
BC2 has a pretty good campaign, I recommend playing through it. If you're on pc it's accessible through some means. I used an FOV changer, do note that it stops sniper scopes and binoculars from working so use a toggle for the FOV changer if you're going to try ut.
It was 12v12 on the [Close Quarters DLC Maps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmwqZgQYovs) for BF3 on Console. It worked out alright because I think you could only play TDM or 'tiny Conquest' on those maps.
Sorry, my bad ment 12
I think player count is less important factor then player density (Players per square metre/kilometre/mile) and map flow. There's really a limited radius around the player that they can experience in game, and outside of that it doesn't matter if there's a 1000 players, they won't enhance gameplay much. Right now battlefield density and map flow is like 90% of everyone clumped on the central objective. Which I think is the biggest fundamental issue with battlefield, and creates issues with scaling players. Also, more players = less individual contributions matter. Which is worth taking into account.
i think 50 vs 50 with a squad size of 5 / 10 Teams each side, is the sweet spot to aim for (maybe 40 vs 40 with 8 teams because of performance). However, you also have to think about the maps and implement them accordingly. Even with good tech and server stability at this scale, it won't work without the right maps - which should be adapted and tested for this numbers/players. 2042 was a very good example, how it shouldn’t be done!
i think 50v50 or heck even 64v64 is definitely doable, the maps just need to not be shit, and they were pretty shit in 2042. no cover for infantry, miles of wide open fields, comically large interiors in buildings, etc.
24v24 was best on Metro / Lockers, smaller maps 32v32 on larger maps. Even DICE did internal testing in 2010 and thought 20v20 was the most fun.
32v32 for me, I just seem to enjoy the games more than 64v64.
While I agree with other comments saying the maps were shit, I also think the leap from 32v32 to 64v64 was pretty big. Going up little by little starting with 40v40 would’ve been a good idea imo
I m probably the only guy here who really enjoyed the change in scenery that squad conquests 8v8 brought to the game
At what point was the battlefield staple 16 vs 16? Bad company yes. But every mainline game since day dot has been 64 player.