It has to do with internet. Not everyone has the bandwidth to be sending all this information at high levels back and forth, so it is restricted. 64 is almost too high, but people would wig out if they lowered it.
But isn’t it because the whole complicated ballastic system undermines the whole game. Dice bragged about it during the Battlefield 4 Hypetrain.
Internet and people’s hardware and consoles hardware too. More players mean more explosions, more effects, more things to calculate.
I think 64 is fine on most maps. I think there is a point where more players just don’t add much to the experience since you can’t be everywhere at the same time. You think more players mean it would be more epic, well not necessarily.
Why stop there? 1000 vs. 1000 please.
To add on to my original post, updates could also help this alot, not right away but in this game it would be great. By battlefield working on their servers to become more stable with the updates that will come would give conquest a huge boost in players. Personally I love conquest, it’s just a great game mode, I don’t see how anyone could hate it. Teamwork is needed to win, isn’t that the whole point of battlefield?
Cannot wait for October everyone download the battlefield countdown app so you won’t miss out on the official release.
The size of Gomud is pretty on spot for 64p. Beyond 64p you are looking at tremendously higher slot costs and hardware upgrades. Even on a 64p server with every player under 75ms the average pc would get hit with sporadic lag. Beit in ms bursts it would still happen. 200p servers would be ridiculously expensive. The mere fact that 95% or more of the servers for every game with dedicated servers are not owned by the developer or publisher should tell you NOPE!
200p server would run around 5-6 $US per slot or more.
Planetside 2. You 'r welcome
Theres a reason BF4 has 64 players with 5 spaces available for each squad.
Its so that every 4 man squad has an extra slot so that one guy can quickly switch squads, spawn in, and then switch back and allow the rest of his squad to spawn on him.
At least thats the theory. This never happens in a pub game.
would be great but servers cant even hand 64 players so now is not the right time.
would only work if they trade in some looks but no way the fan base would like that since they want to dress up in pretty colours and what not.
MAG was not the best looking game but those 256 player game modes where freaking amazing.
It’s not going to happen, it’s unrealistic at this time. The Servers Can’t handle such a amount of players with all the vehicles, weapons and map size.
This is what Tiggr (David Sirland, DICE LA) said:
*"With the Holiday Update (released just before Holiday 2015) we included several features to improve upon these factors, both on the server load and bandwidth usage side. This enabled us to run several tests in which we filled up servers running various tickrates (45hz, 50hz, 55hz).
After looking these results, we decided to go with the more cautious choice (45hz @ 32 players). Even though higher rates works pretty well for most players, we need to make sure this change affects all players in a positive way.
WHAT ABOUT 64 PLAYERS?
We are not increasing the default rate for 64 player for the same reasons. We did see issues for both players, and sometimes the server in certain circumstances in our testing – even at small tickrate increases.
On top of this, we also crosschecked by looking at our data from 64 player servers used in the High tickrate PC beta (which share the same exact hardware setup), and this cemented our decision.
We did not feel confident that 64 players will work flawlessly on all maps for ALL players if we increase the default rate for 64 player games."*
PS4 & Xbox One High Tickrate Release
As we were testing the 45hz and 55hz Servers in the CTE for the Xbox One and later in retail game for PS4 it was clear that more than 32 players will not be the case for high tickrate servers. I mention this just to see the importance of a smooth running game, and with 100 players even at 30hz it’s gonna be a bad experience most likely!
Test period for high tickrate servers on console
Actually I prefer a well-organized 16v16 CQ small over a 32v32 CQ large lonewolf/tryhard-match any time… Especially the 3 flag maps like Shanghai or Floodzone where you will have a major concentration of the players…
Maybe we will see 100v100-servers in 5-10 years when our French and Libyian friends got better interwebz…
It’s not like we really get lonely with 64 players. If you want higher concentration of players there are small maps, if not there are larger maps. Fine as it is for me.
Actually I would agree with this. The reason I prefer rush to conquest is that as an infantry player you get a more consistent hectic experience. I find on conquest on certain maps I just travel from flag to flag kill 4 or 5 enemies and then move on to the next flag and kill 4 or 5 enemies. Sometimes certain flags just feel deserted with no-one defending them. More people (as long as the vehicle numbers are not increased) may mean people sticking to certain flags providing more interesting gun fights.
[quote=“PopoTooStronk”]would be great but servers cant even hand 64 players so now is not the right time.
would only work if they trade in some looks but no way the fan base would like that since they want to dress up in pretty colours and what not.
MAG was not the best looking game but those 256 player game modes where freaking amazing.[/quote]
Mag lel
70 of 35vs35 players total could work. Since ARK is already doing this in a large environment and that doesn’t even include random dinosaurs walking around.