...is the fact that the '64 player maps' are in fact designed for >100 players (BF2 should have had 100 player support, but later they cancelled that). That is my opinion and I would like the community to respond to my statement.
-
-
That would be nice. -
Wrong, YOUR ****ING WRONG (sorry, I can't sleep... I'm pissed) But anyways..... if your correct with your asumtions... the reality of it is 128 players, not 100.
Remember 8,16,32,64,128,256 and on blah..... yeah you get the point, 128 not 100 retard...Comment
-
Yeah, 100 players would be interesting......since 64 is quite intense now.......Comment
-
Omfg! It Was Never Going To Be 100 ****in Players! It Was Going To Be 128 Players! God Damn!..Comment
-
yep agreed, some of the maps are way to big for just 64 players. When dice decided they werent gonna go ahead with supporting 128 players they should have reduced the amount of control points.Although at least the servers can play 32 or 16 size maps with 64 players.Comment
-
64 player servers lag a lot more than 32 playe servers, which means that 128 will lag even more. They canceled it due to poor performance i bet.Comment
-
Prolly.Comment
-
Well they said it was 100 players (but at the time I ALSO had hopes it would become 128 players). But don't call me a retard, trust me I am not. In fact it doesn't matter if it was 100 or 128.
THE POINT IS: In my opinion the 64 player maps are too big/have too much vehicles to have a lot of action going on. I wished they had 128 player support so we could have action ON THE ENTIRE MAP, not only on a few points.Comment
-
sounds even more annoying than the random deaths and impossible to take over flags in 64 man servers.Comment
-
yea not to mention 90% of the wervers would explodeComment
-
so karkand with 100 people would just mean the noob cannon users would get twice as many kills :PComment
-
noob cannon havent heard that name sence raven shield. (just a better version of CS).Originally posted by sinclesComment
Comment