# 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:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Darqul](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Darqul](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Darqul)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 11:55am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/21 "2016-05-09T11:55:00Z")
> @NoVa_Dazs said: > 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? For me it’s more of I died. . Now I need a minute to cool down. Well maybe not a minute but I should spawn somewhere where I can walk it off. 2142 was perfect in that regard. BF3 or BF4 were really bad. In 4 you died and you went straight to the action again without being able to cool down. While leads to insults in chat and so on because people get frustrated and need to vent. ---
**Author:** ![Reconpilot001](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/reconpilot001/32/103245_2.png) [@Reconpilot001](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Reconpilot001)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 12:54pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/22 "2016-05-09T12:54:00Z")
128 special map? just for stress testing maybe ? ---
**Author:** ![ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thepoolshark/32/103801_2.png) [@ThePoolshark](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ThePoolshark)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/23 "2016-05-09T16:28:00Z")
> [@Reconpilot001](#): > > 128 special map? just for stress testing maybe ? impossible if you still want vehicles, destruction, higher tick rates, etc. ---
**Author:** ![terrorFX](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/cab0a1/32.png) [@terrorFX](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/terrorFX)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/24 "2016-05-14T18:46:00Z")
64 players is probably the best experience… 32 VS 32 .. I played Mods back in the days when BF had Mod Kits and it was ridiculous! Anyone remember “Project Reality”? It was interesting, but way over the top to get a proper gaming experience, without losing the real objective. In the future, as maps get bigger and hardware is decent enough to allow for 64 vs 64, we may see this high player count, but with the current specs, it’s just not there yet. Let’s lock this thread, we are not ready to see this type of massive online player count, with the current specifications. Wishful thinking, and I don’t blame people for asking. More isn’t always better, especially right now. Perhaps in 5 years, and even then, it will be hard to enjoy such a massive amount of player count. Imagine if all 128 players decided to storm an objective at the exact same time… now you see what I mean? ---
**Author:** ![Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Rev0verDrive)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/25 "2016-05-16T23:23:00Z")
128p would require maps to be at least 2x times bigger. Probably have to adjust the effective range of all weapons and vehicles. Which would make cqc harder on most players. ---
**Author:** ![Offguts](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/offguts/32/104928_2.png) [@Offguts](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Offguts)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 3:26am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/26 "2016-05-17T03:26:00Z")
Agreed 64p is enough, more than enough pew pew for everybody!!! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![WognaTheNoob](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/bcef8e/32.png) [@WognaTheNoob](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/WognaTheNoob)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/27 "2016-05-28T21:38:00Z")
> [@Rev0verDrive](#): > > 128p would require maps to be at least 2x times bigger. Probably have to adjust the effective range of all weapons and vehicles. Which would make cqc harder on most players. > [@Offguts](#): > > Agreed 64p is enough, more than enough pew pew for everybody!!! 🙂 Agree, 64p is fine. We don’t need a 128p locker or metro cluster and in general maps would have to be much bigger and weapons adjusted accordingly - which means even less recoil than ie. in BF4. Also I’m pretty damn sure consoles can’t even remotely handle this player amount . They cut quite a few things in BF4 because of memory restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![xxxCoOlBr33zExxx](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/x/da6949/32.png) [@xxxCoOlBr33zExxx](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/xxxCoOlBr33zExxx)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 11:40pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/28 "2016-05-28T23:40:00Z")
They already announced the max will be 64 players. -CB ---
**Author:** ![MokkieZ](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/mokkiez/32/102839_2.png) [@MokkieZ](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MokkieZ)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2016, 10:48am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/29 "2016-06-01T10:48:00Z")
If you would like to have more then 64 players and realistic game blablabla. Go play ARMA! its already corfirmed man. /close ---
**Author:** ![Adridos](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/eada6e/32.png) [@Adridos](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Adridos)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 12:57pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/30 "2016-06-10T12:57:00Z")
> [@ReDleGiThacK](#): > > 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. Battlefield is a 64 player series. It is based on Tribes series of games which pushed more players with each iteration. The original was 64 players + massive maps + vehicles in 1998 which served as the basis of Halo, Battlefield, Quake Wars, UT2004,… The second game had 128 players in 2001. After that, they switched around to MMOFPS and made Planetside with 333v333v333 on a single map in 2003. That was followed by Planetside 2 on 2000 per map. Battlefield kept up its player count on 64 per map since its first iteration. It’s basically the series’ trademark and additional computational power will always go into more effects instead of more players. ---
**Author:** ![thatcrazyguy1234](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/thatcrazyguy1234/32/101585_2.png) [@thatcrazyguy1234](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/thatcrazyguy1234)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 12:16am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/31 "2016-06-14T00:16:00Z")
I remember during the BF3 BETA some of the servers were running 128 player metro. I believe there was one that was 256? It ran okay from what I remember. ---
**Author:** ![MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@MartinBabl](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MartinBabl)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/32 "2016-06-14T15:19:00Z")
64 players 32 players on each team 6-7 squads of ±5 members each on each team 6-7 squad leaders on each team 1 commander on each team With regards to having more players. Yes it is possible. But if we have no structure like a commander and squad leader system then it will become total chaos. The maps will have to be larger and not everyone’s computer is able to support that. If you die you should pay the punishment for dying and that is being out of Battle for at least 25 seconds. In that 25 seconds your teammates can revive you. In that 25 seconds you can think about how to attack better next time. Time to think which strategy you will use next. If everyone were to get back into battle instantly it will be a cluster f\*^%& With regards to the maps and strategy. It is in the best interest of DICE to first let the game designers to plan the basic layout of the map and then let the level artists do their thing to make the map look good. The game designers should look into making the map fun and full of strategic approaches. ---
**Author:** ![KetchupNCake](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/ketchupncake/32/102493_2.png) [@KetchupNCake](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KetchupNCake)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/33 "2016-06-14T17:01:00Z")
> [@RaggaRootz](#): > > Hope PC gets some love with 50v50 or more!!! > > Thoughts Yes, all out madness. I would love to try a 100 person server. ---
**Author:** ![pinchylillobster](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/pinchylillobster/32/103128_2.png) [@pinchylillobster](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/pinchylillobster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/34 "2016-06-15T00:10:00Z")
Did they ever announce what the default tickrate will be? Because if it’s not 60hz, then I suspect we’ll have the same hitreg issues on 64man servers that we did in BF4 ---
**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:** [June 15, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/35 "2016-06-15T01:54:00Z")
> [@Adridos](#): > > > [@ReDleGiThacK](#): > > > > 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. > > Battlefield is a 64 player series. > > It is based on Tribes series of games which pushed more players with each iteration. > The original was 64 players + massive maps + vehicles in 1998 which served as the basis of Halo, Battlefield, Quake Wars, UT2004,… > The second game had 128 players in 2001. > > After that, they switched around to MMOFPS and made Planetside with 333v333v333 on a single map in 2003. > That was followed by Planetside 2 on 2000 per map. > > Battlefield kept up its player count on 64 per map since its first iteration. > It’s basically the series’ trademark and additional computational power will always go into more effects instead of more players. UT 2004 was in no way related to Tribes. ---
**Author:** ![Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Rev0verDrive)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:19am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/36 "2016-06-15T04:19:00Z")
> [@Sir-xer21](#): > > > [@Adridos](#): > > > > > [@ReDleGiThacK](#): > > > > > > 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. > > > > Battlefield is a 64 player series. > > > > It is based on Tribes series of games which pushed more players with each iteration. > > The original was 64 players + massive maps + vehicles in 1998 which served as the basis of Halo, Battlefield, Quake Wars, UT2004,… > > The second game had 128 players in 2001. > > > > After that, they switched around to MMOFPS and made Planetside with 333v333v333 on a single map in 2003. > > That was followed by Planetside 2 on 2000 per map. > > > > Battlefield kept up its player count on 64 per map since its first iteration. > > It’s basically the series’ trademark and additional computational power will always go into more effects instead of more players. > > UT 2004 was in no way related to Tribes. I think he’s referring to Onslaught (ut version of CQ) and maybe vehicle ctf. /shrug ---
**Author:** ![I-Soldat-I](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/i-soldat-i/32/102250_2.png) [@I-Soldat-I](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/I-Soldat-I)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:31am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/37 "2016-06-15T04:31:00Z")
I would prefer a working game without the headaches when BF4 launched ---
**Author:** ![GazAlexander](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GazAlexander](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/GazAlexander)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 9:32am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794/38 "2016-06-15T09:32:00Z")
120+ please!! [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/64-players-or-more/103794.md?page=1)