I don't know, I'd like to see teams have the ability to be a little larger. They don't have to be 256 or 128....even just a little bump....like 80, 40 players on each side, I think that would add a whole new element. BF has had 64 players since 1942...maybe time for an upgrade.
I don't think having more players equates to all servers having them maxed out....the best thing about dedicated servers is you have the choice on how you want to set it up. I think a lot of people want larger teams, but again a lot of people don't...that's great, why not have the option for both?
What kind of system would the pc gamers need to play on a server with 256 players? And what kind of server would you need? The minimum req would go way up. 256 is simply not practical for the game. As somebody said I also play more 48 player servers in 2142 rather than 64.
Consoles were able to do with with MAG.
I think the trick that they use is to only render the portion of the map that you are in. So really, the battle of the other side of the map between 40 players could basically be in another game.
They didn't mention that it would cause hardware problems, only that it just didn't fit.
They said they only playtested 128 players (64 per team). But said the engine was capable of 256. Don't understand why they didn't just give us the option of 128 players if it worked, their excuse was it wasn't "fun"... Also if they playtested 128 players, maybe they made bigger maps for it too?
actually, maybe thats why. While I trust the maps are going to be bigger than BC2, I dont think they are big enough for that many. Also, I think the bigger the number of maximum players, the less servers of smaller sizes there will be, especially in places like Aus where the number of servers are lower.
One person talked about their time playing BF2 on large maps and most the time it was hopping from one flag to another and missing the action. They described it as taking a flag to have another flag across the map taking then going over to that flag only to have the flag you just took being taken. They werent the type to wait at a flag to defend it. I remember a number of games going just like that in BF2 and 2142.
Another person brought up the point of Base Rape (which rape is NOT awesome btw) where once 32 players converge on your uncap, it was hard to impossible to break out. So crank that up to 64 and with more vehicles.
The only way to overcome that part that I could think of would be to have two uncaps per team and/or a nogo zone over the uncaps.
Patrick didnt go into details on why DICE didnt think it was fun, but maybe thats what it was. In the end the armies fought over one flag most the time and/or were base raped into submission.
They said they only playtested 128 players (64 per team). But said the engine was capable of 256. Don't understand why they didn't just give us the option of 128 players if it worked, their excuse was it wasn't "fun"... Also if they playtested 128 players, maybe they made bigger maps for it too?
Remember, they have to make maps that are small enough for 24 players on the console to play too.
Comment