# 64 Players... or more??? **URL:** \ **Category:** PC\ **Created:** [May 7, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794 "2016-05-07T02:22:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RaggaRootz](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e95f7d/32.png) [@RaggaRootz](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/RaggaRootz)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/1 "2016-05-07T02:22:00Z")
Hope PC gets some love with 50v50 or more!!! Thoughts ---
**Author:** ![FuZion-McNuts](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/fuzion-mcnuts/32/102024_2.png) [@FuZion-McNuts](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/FuZion-McNuts)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/2 "2016-05-07T02:27:00Z")
thoughts on 50v50 is it would be amazing but only on huge maps, having 50v50 lockers style maps is agony incarnate, but big open scale battles is an exiting premise ---
**Author:** ![ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thepoolshark/32/103801_2.png) [@ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ThePoolshark)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 6:24am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/3 "2016-05-07T06:24:00Z")
64 players is the player count ---
**Author:** ![Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Cryphisss)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 9:09am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/4 "2016-05-07T09:09:00Z")
If there is no 64 players, its not Battlefield. _personal post_ ---
**Author:** ![Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Rev0verDrive)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/5 "2016-05-07T20:47:00Z")
32v32 … confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thepoolshark/32/103801_2.png) [@ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ThePoolshark)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/6 "2016-05-07T21:16:00Z")
> [@Cryphisss](#): > > If there is no 64 players, its not Battlefield. _personal post_ I honestly don’t this viewpoint… I wish people would allow for what is fun instead of immediately expecting 64 players. ---
**Author:** ![Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Cryphisss)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 9:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/7 "2016-05-07T21:41:00Z")
> [@ThePoolshark](#): > > > [@Cryphisss](#): > > > > If there is no 64 players, its not Battlefield. _personal post_ > > I honestly don’t this viewpoint… I wish people would allow for what is fun instead of immediately expecting 64 players. I am not saying that game-modes with less player numbers are not fun at all. I do actually enjoy sometimes games with less than 64 players. I just think that having the 64 option is always good! ---
**Author:** ![ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thepoolshark/32/103801_2.png) [@ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ThePoolshark)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/8 "2016-05-07T21:52:00Z")
I know, but forcing 64 players is bad imo. If conquest is bad with 64, don’t use it. ---
**Author:** ![NoVa\_Dazs](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/nova_dazs/32/104924_2.png) [@NoVa\_Dazs](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/NoVa_Dazs)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 5:01am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/9 "2016-05-08T05:01:00Z")
I personally want 64 players, because I think it feeds to the epic scale. What I do not want is a cluster mess in choke points and grenade spam or something. If that was the case and maps are designed smaller, then I want a lower count. I really want a design model of the following: 1. When I spawn can I get to the action quickly within reason? 2. When I get to the action is it a cluster or mess? 3. When I arrive do I have options for strategy because the maps provides it? ---
**Author:** ![S1ngular1ty](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/s1ngular1ty/32/103340_2.png) [@S1ngular1ty](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/S1ngular1ty)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 5:15am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/10 "2016-05-08T05:15:00Z")
Guys it is already confirmed that it is 64 players max. The game details page in Origin even says this. /end of thread ---
**Author:** ![squrrel](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/squrrel/32/103591_2.png) [@squrrel](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/squrrel)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 2:26pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/11 "2016-05-08T14:26:00Z")
64 max again?! How can we reenact the Battle of Verdun with this max. cap?! ---
**Author:** ![stzufr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/stzufr/32/103637_2.png) [@stzufr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/stzufr)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 2:53pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/12 "2016-05-08T14:53:00Z")
I remember server test with 128 players on PC but not for console. But 64 players confirmed in the Origin Shop. ---
**Author:** ![DRMB\_Punisher](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/7bcc69/32.png) [@DRMB\_Punisher](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DRMB_Punisher)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/13 "2016-05-08T16:27:00Z")
I don’t think Frostbite/servers are ready for 128 yet. I think they wanted to initially but found that it was just too much to handle without screwing up hit detection etc. I think they made the right move. ---
**Author:** ![MystOfDeath](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@MystOfDeath](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MystOfDeath)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/14 "2016-05-08T16:36:00Z")
Removed- Let’s not act like that. ---
**Author:** ![ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thepoolshark/32/103801_2.png) [@ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ThePoolshark)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/15 "2016-05-08T16:41:00Z")
While we appreciate your extremely valuable insight… do not post it again. Learn how to be constructive ---
**Author:** ![ReDleGiThacK](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b5ac83/32.png) [@ReDleGiThacK](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ReDleGiThacK)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/16 "2016-05-08T16:59:00Z")
It must be 50v50 considering that typical WW1 battles had alot of infantry in it. ---
**Author:** ![TheLankySoldier](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thelankysoldier/32/103790_2.png) [@TheLankySoldier](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/TheLankySoldier)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/17 "2016-05-08T17:09:00Z")
It’s confirmed it will 64 players as usual. And why do we need more players? I rather have maps that are designed for 64. - Lanky - ---
**Author:** ![Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cryphisss](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Cryphisss)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/18 "2016-05-08T17:27:00Z")
> [@TheLankySoldier](#): > > It’s confirmed it will 64 players as usual. And why do we need more players? I rather have maps that are designed for 64. > > - Lanky - Aye. I hope servers can be set to 32/48/64 slots by choice too. ---
**Author:** ![ReDleGiThacK](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b5ac83/32.png) [@ReDleGiThacK](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ReDleGiThacK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 9:34am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/19 "2016-05-09T09:34:00Z")
Yeah but since we have much better PCs (Can handle SWBF maxed out no AA 64 players at 60 FPS. Just tried the trial) They should add more players. 64v64 is the minimum want. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Spider](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/ee59a6/32.png) [@Red\_Spider](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Red_Spider)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 9:39am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/20 "2016-05-09T09:39:00Z")
I will never understand the obsession with wanting more than 64 players.. Also, @ReDleGiThacK it isn’t just about having better PC’s you also have to take into account RSP hardware. Higher requirements per server instance mean RSP’s have to invest in higher spec hardware, which in turn means the cost for players to rent servers goes up. [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794.md?page=2)