64 players or bust?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dronetek
    Member
    • Sep 2005
    • 364

    #16
    Re: 64 players or bust?

    Im surprised I'm the only one who wont play it at all. BC is nothing like the familiar BF series games, even with 64 players.

    Originally posted by Mo0by
    64 player servers a generally chaos, no matter what map the combat becomes to condensed and there are no vehicles for most :rawr
    Thats why you play in organized tournaments like Bf2combat.

    Comment

    • =)BiT(= Evant3k
      Member
      • Aug 2007
      • 1426

      #17
      Re: 64 players or bust?

      Originally posted by Deesies
      Sure if you're one of those people who play nothing but karkand infantry only.
      Have you looked at my stats or are you just assuming?

      Comment

      • Deesies
        Member
        • Jun 2007
        • 1021

        #18
        Re: 64 players or bust?

        Originally posted by =)BiT(= Evant3k
        Have you looked at my stats or are you just assuming?
        Honestly, I don't care enough to bother.

        Comment

        • =)BiT(= Evant3k
          Member
          • Aug 2007
          • 1426

          #19
          Re: 64 players or bust?

          Ok then then don't make assumptions, 64 player servers lack any tactical movement just meat grinding - spawn and run at the enemy. Unless its a map as big a Zetar Wetlands or Highway Tempa there is not much to it.

          Comment

          • iQue
            Member
            • May 2007
            • 4925

            #20
            Re: 64 players or bust?

            Originally posted by =)BiT(= Evant3k
            Ok then then don't make assumptions, 64 player servers lack any tactical movement just meat grinding - spawn and run at the enemy. Unless its a map as big a Zetar Wetlands or Highway Tempa there is not much to it.
            Even 64 player maps like Zatar tends to get a bit spammy sometimes. Mainly because there isn't anything to hide in outside a flag, and you get raped by jets and choppers so easily.

            32 players is the sweet spot for BF, in my opinion.

            Comment

            • Deesies
              Member
              • Jun 2007
              • 1021

              #21
              Re: 64 players or bust?

              Originally posted by =)BiT(= Evant3k
              Ok then then don't make assumptions, 64 player servers lack any tactical movement just meat grinding - spawn and run at the enemy. Unless its a map as big a Zetar Wetlands or Highway Tempa there is not much to it.
              Sooo it depends on the map after all?

              Comment

              • jesus
                Member
                • May 2007
                • 2413

                #22
                Re: 64 players or bust?

                Originally posted by =)BiT(= Evant3k
                Ok then then don't make assumptions, 64 player servers lack any tactical movement just meat grinding - spawn and run at the enemy. Unless its a map as big a Zetar Wetlands or Highway Tempa there is not much to it.
                Project reality says hi

                Comment

                • imported_Tim
                  Member
                  • May 2007
                  • 167

                  #23
                  Re: 64 players or bust?

                  Big 64 player maps is what Battlefield IS... or at least was. That's all there is to it people. Don't give me this crap about less players and tactics. All us old BF players like those big maps with people to actually fill them.

                  Comment

                  • Minmaster
                    I DON'T PLAY CS!
                    • Nov 2006
                    • 4112

                    #24
                    Re: 64 players or bust?

                    exactly, give us 64 players max, then 48, 32, 24 player fans can play in the smaller size servers and 64 players can play theirs 64 player servers. everyone's happy then. limit it to 24 or 32 then 64 fans aren't happy. it's simple logic!

                    Comment

                    • Sudano

                      #25
                      Re: 64 players or bust?

                      I think they had a chance to make a good battlefield game after BF2 but they blew it. They are getting worse and worse, I don't even care about the news because every few months it seems they release some BS booster pack with 2 levels and something else new, and they call it a new game. The only reason I have BF2 installed is so my friend can play it, hes not a huge gamer, he just plays for fun, and so I can play PR. Battlefield Bad Company was ok, but they could have made it way better. BF should be PC only, not gaybox 360 or ps3, I'm my opinion at least. If you took BF2, took away all the gay crap about it, made the graphics amazing, and changed around some other stuff, and listen to the community about a few things, there you go, the best BF game ever. Screw Dice or ea or who ever makes them.

                      Comment

                      • Deesies
                        Member
                        • Jun 2007
                        • 1021

                        #26
                        Re: 64 players or bust?

                        2142 is my favourite in the series.

                        Comment

                        • iQue
                          Member
                          • May 2007
                          • 4925

                          #27
                          Re: 64 players or bust?

                          2142 was definitely an improvement over BF2 overall, whether you like the setting or not. Improved squad mechanics, more balanced classes (even if I personally don't like the medic/assault merge), different game modes, air vehicles don't rape everything, and so on.

                          Comment

                          • [ptg]chef_uk
                            Member
                            • Apr 2007
                            • 164

                            #28
                            Re: 64 players or bust?

                            80 Slots, end of.

                            Comment

                            • Minmaster
                              I DON'T PLAY CS!
                              • Nov 2006
                              • 4112

                              #29
                              Re: 64 players or bust?

                              wow i'm surprised by the surge of votes for "don't care, i won't be playing this console port" it barely had any votes just the other day... hmm..

                              seems like everyone wants more than 24 though, that's for sure.

                              Comment

                              • David Champion
                                Member
                                • Apr 2006
                                • 469

                                #30
                                Re: 64 players or bust?

                                32 for President

                                Comment

                                Working...