Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

[Elxx]

Today, we present the third and final part of forum member troybob's essay about the history and future of the Battlefield franchise. This time, he tackles the much-debated 24 player limit imposed upon Battlefield 1943.

Why 64 players are better than 24?

This is one of those Coke vs. Pepsi type arguments. However, one thing that made Battlefield great was that you didn’t have to have a 64 player server if you didn’t want to have one. You could set the number lower if you wanted. There is nothing stopping a person from creating a 24-slot server in a 64 player-capable game. Why is EA telling us that what used to be an option is now a limitation? It’s like giving us a battlefield of fantastic possibilities and then telling us not to dream big. Oh wait it’s not like that at all. That is what they are telling us. What is worse is they are saying that it is better this way.

Wait….what? How is 24 better than 64? Isn’t 24 better than 12? Isn’t 64 better than 24? I guess not.

Ok now let’s get real for a second. There should be limitations. Wake Island would be stupid with 512 players. The point is that when you design maps, you design them around hardware and network limitations of the day. Even then you try to optimize everything to be able to squeeze more people into the maps. You don’t take pull a number out of the air and say it’s best for teamwork and build your maps on that. That’s setting a limitation arbitrarily and then creating a game around it. And what studies did you do to say that a 24 player limit is perfect for an online game? No more (but maybe less) right? C’mon how dumb do you think we are? Don’t pee on our leg and say it’s raining. I don’t think too many people would be up in arms if it wasn’t for the fact that you didn’t just come out and say “Reason X is why we went with 24 players and it’s a limitation and that’s why we did it but it’s only ten bucks and we’ll think you’ll love it”. Instead we got you waving a pendulum in our faces chanting “24 players is the best for online games.”

Continue Reading...

Huge thanks to troybob for the awesome editorial. Be sure to check out this and other Editorials, posted straight From the Editors' Desks. And feel free to submit your own!

[Teuvo]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

Nicely put. :)

[BLNKY]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

After several years of painstaking research (and numerous budget overruns) I have reached the conclusion that troybob must be eavesdropping on my thoughts via satellite. This darn tin foil cap isn't helping at all. STOP WRITING WHAT I THINK!!! ARRG!!!



..or put differently - :salute:

[imported_Master Shake]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

Well said TB, this is my largest issue with 1943 and BFBC 2 or anything else out there they may be working on.

Instead of saying 24 player server lets look at it like this.

12 vs 12
or
32 vs 32

Plus the larger maps leave more options open, we did not have maps designed with "choke" points in 1942, they were all open and the you could have a "choke" point over any flag from any direction depending on how the battle was flowing.

The maps in BF2 and 2142 are over planned to promote "choke" points and now everyone knows what flag to capture or what place to set up your defense that will most likely win you the map. In 1942 you had no idea which flag the battle would hinge on or what direction the attacking force was coming from. Not so in BF2 and 2142, and also the stupid UAV gives everyone's position away.

More players = more unique minds = more unique tactics and capabilities = more diversity = more challenge = more fun = longer lasting quality experience = BETTER GAME.

64 people bring more to the battlefield that 24 ever could, even if half of them are blithering idiots.

[jesus]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

Good article. I agree with pretty much all of it. Especially the part about DICE trying to get around saying the truth by saying things like full 64 slot servers were never as popular as smaller servers... what a joke. Not to mention the fact that, just like in BF2, the 64 limit made everyone happy because if you wanted to play with 32 people you could, easily, and with the same maps but just limited. Unfortunately it's not backwards compatible. You can't take a map made for 32 players and make it hold 64 players. That's why it annoys me when people say "Oh I'm ok with only 32 player limit. I never played 64 slot servers anyway"... well guess what? you can still play with only 32 players even if the limit is 64... look at BF2

[Greasy_Mullet]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

Karkand was popular for several reasons but one of the main ones was the ability to get a lot of points really fast. This is BF2's "grinder" map. You grind out points because lets face it, the map is a meat grinder. Now that does not mean the map is not fun or it does not have good choke points because it is a good map that was well thought out. It just means for those maps where players want to see a lot of action and get high scores, this is your map.

In 1942 the most popular map was not Berlin. It was maps like El Al! Points really only mattered realitive to the others on the server. So if the top player walked away with 30 points, that was just good enough for them. But on BF2 where you have all the unlocks, rankings, etc points DO matter.

When maps that are the core of the BF world are not doing well then that should be a huge red flag that something is wrong. Personally I believe the issue is with a lot of the design decisions in BF2 gameplay, the way rankings/stats was implemented, and in some cases poor map design. All that together is was a good map like Karkand became "THE MAP" of BF2.\

On the commander issues, I love the concept, absolutly HATE how they implemented the commander. UVA, Scan, and Arty were 3 of the so called features which really took away from the game. Instead of doing things to support your own team, the commander was more geared to screwing over the other team NO MATTER HOW SMART they played. In an online game it should always require skill on both parties to do anything. Even at least a little skill or risk. But the commanders stuff requires no skill to use and the defender can not use any skill to evade and pretty much discourages anyone from defending.

[Simo Glock]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

I agree with pretty much evey thing you say.

However with 1943 It doesnt worry me what they do, unless its a huge hit.
I doubt it will be, Plus you wont be able to rent it or trade it back in later so sales will probably be kinda low.

Stop shooting artillery for us. Stop finding enemies for us. Stop flying the UAV for us.

Motion sensors are about the only thing thats a ruin in BC1. The red dots over spotted enemies by other players hurts abit too. but it keeps the pace up as lots of people like to run or move fast if they arent shooting.

We do shoot the arty in BC so im sure BC2 and BF3 will have that because it works well. The mortor strike isnt too powerful for an auto blast and the laser target is darn good too.

Flyable or remote drones like frontlines would be a great addition and maybe we will get something like that.

BTW End of the line would be a great map for 32 on 32 so we know Frostbite even on 360 can handle large maps. I have a feeling future DICE BF's will be well worth the wait. Even if 1943 isnt much to dream of.

[[51P]bigcracker]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

I think dice really needs to up the people to atleast 32,there is a lot of INF only servers that play 32 max and is just fine,and if they really wanna make us happy 42 player servers.

[Dronetek]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

100% dead on! Everything that needed to be said, has been brilliantly articulated ere. Good job!

That being said, I doubt DICE listens.

Also, some great points made by Greasy Mullet.

In 1942 the most popular map was not Berlin. It was maps like El Al! Points really only mattered realitive to the others on the server. So if the top player walked away with 30 points, that was just good enough for them. But on BF2 where you have all the unlocks, rankings, etc points DO matter.

[M0t0rBreath]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

I agree with him. It should be an option to how many players you want on a server and what kind map size you want. This allows different strategies for the different map sizes. DICE should know that most ppl like more players, it should be there starting point as to how to create a map and what they should add to. As for xbox360, 24 is the limit the xbox can handle i think(not 100% sure), they need to do the best to make it a battlefield game. For the PS3, we know it can handle more players so they need to have bigger map sizes, more vehicles, etc. As for the PC, we know that more players is better, not in all the maps but we had the option to what we wanted. I think DICE should make the best game for each platform. If xbox can only handle 24p, then make the best game for the xbox. For the PS3, make the best game the ps3 can handle. And the PC, its an endless things you can do. I honestly think DICE can become one of the most succesful Companies in the industry if they followed these rules. I also think something big is awaiting the PC community.

[**L96A1**]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

I do hate U.A.V's in this game completly, as long as the enemy has a commander then your days of hiding are numbered, i really like to hide in games too,not for all round, but just for a min or two just to see who i can get the'' jump ''on.

Take away U.A.V's and i will be very happy.

[imported_Smooth]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

The real reason behind the smaller player number is that there is a so much more data for servers and bandwidth to deal with, because there are so many destroyable objects. So more players= more lag. I dont belive that EA would just want torture us with smaller player numbers. Its just a compromise between quality and performance. They aren't just capable to optimize it so much, to make it playable.

[imported_antihero]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

How are you guys playing BF1943? I'd like to play as well so I too can make judgments about the gameplay and player count! Oh wait, you haven't so how about you all STFU! Oh right, you're the b***h squad sponsored by TotalGamingNetwork and encouraged by the Moderators (bet they moderate this post)!

I used to love this place back in the day, but now it is just a miserable place to try and learn about BF games filled by self-righteous pompous jerks. And before you say don't come here then, I do find it amusing to see each one miserable people cry about a video game as if you have nothing else in you life that matters... LOL! Plus sometimes they have good articles about BF.

Edit: This obviously doesn't apply to all members here, unfortunately they don't post very often. :-(

[Simo Glock]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

The real reason behind the smaller player number is that there is a so much more data for servers and bandwidth to deal with, because there are so many destroyable objects. So more players= more lag.

So you think that bandwidth is the overall issue?
If that is the case then the PC is just as limited as the consoles and we wont be seeing many more players overall.

Again tho, player count isnt a big deal to me in BC1 I really dont notice a difference to the old BF games when im sucked into combat.

Maybe they need some new code, Heres a quote from Rockstar about getting so much data onto a single disk for GTA4.

How do you fit so much detail for such a large city onto a single disc?

Garbut:We have some very sophisticated compression algorithms that are working some black magic on the data. We're used to squeezing a lot onto a disk.

As far as this gos

How are you guys playing BF1943? I'd like to play as well so I too can make judgments about the gameplay and player count! Oh wait, you haven't so how about you all STFU!

Player count is an issue because its the same as Bad Company and most PC only guys hate the fact that its a console only title and that it doesnt support 64 player battles.

Gameplay should be close to the same as Bad Company aswell..

I cant wait to fly planes in Frostbite, so I'd buy 1943 even it was a single player campaign only game. I dont even like singleplayer games or buy them very often.
"Mirrors Edge" "GTA4" "COD4"

[troybob]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 3 (Editorial)

I used to love this place back in the day, but now it is just a miserable place to try and learn about BF games filled by self-righteous pompous jerks. And before you say don't come here then, I do find it amusing to see each one miserable people cry about a video game as if you have nothing else in you life that matters... LOL! Plus sometimes they have good articles about BF.

gaming is our hobby. this is a gaming website. we like to discuss our hobby.

its not big deal really. get over yourself.

[sarcasm] even my mom says you need to be nicer and she doesn't come down to the basement very often. [/sarcasm]