# 100 vs 100 for conquest or more **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [May 16, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358 "2016-05-16T19:24:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![OmGEod](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/o/c5a1d2/32.png) [@OmGEod](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/OmGEod)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/1 "2016-05-16T19:24:00Z")
I think that for conquest there should be 100 vs 100. I stress this mainly because the maps are huge and yes 64 is a lot but dont you guys think we could have more players. The ingame feeling of a war like battle going on would be the ultimate experience. Team death match could then use 32 vs 32. ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/2 "2016-05-16T19:27:00Z")
I’ll take “Things that will never happen” for $800, Alex. ---
**Author:** ![doctorrocktor](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/doctorrocktor/32/101751_2.png) [@doctorrocktor](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/doctorrocktor)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/3 "2016-05-16T19:29:00Z")
no 64 is fine,i know what your trying to say but 100 would become a clugged up mess. ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/4 "2016-05-16T19:35:00Z")
200 man metro. ---
**Author:** ![fr3d182](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/e0b2c6/32.png) [@fr3d182](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/fr3d182)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/5 "2016-05-16T19:39:00Z")
I don’t understand why people want more than 64 when the servers barely handle that kind of player at 30 tickrate. ---
**Author:** ![Brentlostak](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/brentlostak/32/101414_2.png) [@Brentlostak](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Brentlostak)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/6 "2016-05-16T19:41:00Z")
to all: don’t feed the troll ! ---
**Author:** ![Say\_Hellr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/say_hellr/32/103374_2.png) [@Say\_Hellr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Say_Hellr)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/7 "2016-05-16T19:43:00Z")
64 is already a mess, why would 200 be any better? I doubt the consoles could handle it anyways.. ---
**Author:** ![Turfschipper](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Turfschipper](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Turfschipper)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/8 "2016-05-16T19:46:00Z")
I would love it. The more players, the better. ---
**Author:** ![Brentlostak](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/brentlostak/32/101414_2.png) [@Brentlostak](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Brentlostak)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/9 "2016-05-16T19:48:00Z")
> [@Say\_Hellr](#): > > 64 is already a mess, why would 200 be any better? I doubt the consoles could handle it anyways.. he’s trolling, don’t fall into the trap! ---
**Author:** ![Jihad\_Jockey](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/jihad_jockey/32/102395_2.png) [@Jihad\_Jockey](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jihad_Jockey)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/10 "2016-05-16T19:55:00Z")
Only if they remove server browser and only allow quickmatch ---
**Author:** ![UnderbossNiko](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/cab0a1/32.png) [@UnderbossNiko](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/UnderbossNiko)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/11 "2016-05-16T20:11:00Z")
I understand the appeal of a bigger game match. The thought I’m sure has crossed every players mind at least once. Be it in a positive light or other wise. As for DICE or EA doing it? Most likely not going to happen. But we have seen players and server runners themselves implement such ideas on their own. Granted only on one of the worst maps to do so (Metro) but it showed that it worked decently enough and that was in BF3. So with BF1’s engine I’m sure it could be worked to handle it. If a player took the time to figure it out by himself. Which hopefully someone will do if they feel obliged enough. Plus it’s not like it would be the only game modes. You can still play base size 32v32. And smaller squad death matches. It’s all about just finding the right size for you. And thats what servers can do. ---
**Author:** ![smys123](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/5f8ce5/32.png) [@smys123](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/smys123)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/12 "2016-05-16T20:30:00Z")
The more the merrier, and realistic as well. Servers would have to he hulks and the rigs people play on would have to be pretty hard hitting as well. It would make for some crazy firefights though! ---
**Author:** ![Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Cryphisss)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:31pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/13 "2016-05-16T20:31:00Z")
100 vs 100 will bump the system requirements I believe by quiet a bit. Plus servers running such big matches won’t be that stable. ---
**Author:** ![Say\_Hellr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/say_hellr/32/103374_2.png) [@Say\_Hellr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Say_Hellr)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/14 "2016-05-16T20:33:00Z")
> [@Brentlostak](#): > > > [@Say\_Hellr](#): > > > > 64 is already a mess, why would 200 be any better? I doubt the consoles could handle it anyways.. > > he’s trolling, don’t fall into the trap! Most of these threads on this forum are troll ex COD players trying to make BF more like CoD… ---
**Author:** ![StaaleJonko](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/staalejonko/32/103597_2.png) [@StaaleJonko](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/StaaleJonko)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/15 "2016-05-16T20:39:00Z")
Bump it up to 70 so 5-man squads are possible. (if there will be 5-man squads of course) ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Solomon69](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Mr\_Solomon69](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Mr_Solomon69)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/16 "2016-05-16T20:41:00Z")
> [@Sir-xer21](#): > > I’ll take “Things that will never happen” for $800, Alex. ---
**Author:** ![ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thepoolshark/32/103801_2.png) [@ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ThePoolshark)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/17 "2016-05-16T20:43:00Z")
Game has already been confirmed for 64 players ---
**Author:** ![snavelaer](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/snavelaer/32/103541_2.png) [@snavelaer](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/snavelaer)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/18 "2016-05-17T00:41:00Z")
According to Dice 48 (24 vs 24) players is optimum in standard conqust. If you want more players than 64 it becomes a clusterf\*ck. Unless they implement a hierarchie and commandsystem that actually worked. I have plenty of ideas don’t worry. It will come in Battlefield:1944 hahaha ---
**Author:** ![Turfschipper](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Turfschipper](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Turfschipper)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 1:22am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/19 "2016-05-17T01:22:00Z")
El alamein 100vs100, lots of planes and tanks and stuff. Cant get any better than that. ---
**Author:** ![TheNerdAvenger](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@TheNerdAvenger](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/TheNerdAvenger)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358/20 "2016-05-17T01:28:00Z")
Everyone’s computer and console would crash harder than a biplane… [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/100-vs-100-for-conquest-or-more/101358.md?page=2)