look, I’m not asking for 64 vs 64 because I know that would be to many, but I think 40 vs 40 would be a good start for experiment since it’s 2016 already, and we have been on 64 player for so long
@namvn said:
look, I’m not asking for 64 vs 64 because I know that would be to many, but I think 40 vs 40 would be a good start for experiment since it’s 2016 already, and we have been on 64 player for so long
I guess the issue is console server providers may not like that and 64 slot on some maps is already crazy. Would be interesting on some of the larger maps though 
No it would not be fun at all on those levels, BF is about large scale battles anyway and If Im correct many youtubers apart of the gamechangers program have said they will support and only support a max of 64 players.
64 is too much on some maps as it is 80 or a 120 would not work at all.
128-players would have been cool theoretically, even huger maps, but it probably would have been too much. Even 80-player matches would have been stretching it. It’s already been confirmed that the largest game modes are 64-player battles anyway, and coming from Battlefield 4, its perfect to me.
I feel like 64 player servers are already a little out of hand. I constantly get killed as soon as i spawn in. It gets a little over whelming at times.
I’d be fine with 80+ players for a map design JUST for 80+ players. Other than that, 64 is perfect
64 players is already awful on most maps. Why would you want even more? Bigger != Better.
80 player servers would never work… Brazil would make sure of that.
xXBrShovelGodBrXx grab the gt before its gone!
Operation Locker + 80 players, would be almost impossible to play. For largest map would be cool.
I totally understand all the points, hence my suggestion, we could increase the map border, add 1 more flag, more routes, 2 more fast vehicles each side, destroy 2 out of 4 Mcom each base to move on.
You could also get more players to work if you made a new multiplayer mode that was more structured. Maybe a mode where players have to fill certain roles in order for the their team to take an objective…
I agree with op, if you’re gonna do ww1 you have to capture the scale of the fighting.
I expect a 64 player game
I think larger numbers would be to much server stress
You should try Planetside, it can become a clusterfuck, even more so than BF
Then I guess you’ll have to keep expecting as 64p has already been confirmed.
128 players would be chaotic, not to mention the requirements to run this lag free would be astronomical.
@LuciAssassin said:
You should try Planetside, it can become a clusterfuck, even more so than BF
I did play PS2, and I know 64 player confirmed, but my point stands, not this time, but maybe in the next DLC or next BF game. 80 is safe to begin with, we may adjust here and there as time goes by. I mean by all the logic, you guys just happy stay on 64 player forever?
64 player count is still not mastered when it comes to 60/120hz servers too. I think it will be a bit too chaotic.
I expect people to play the objective and have team work… but we can’t always get what we want
this
As for OP, it’s possible but the time has not just reached yet. I agree that it would be very epic to have a 40 VS 40 player conquest or rush, but the requirements are not there yet. Heck i don’t even think the consoles can handle that too. It would probably lag unless it’s just locked region… idk.
Just like you said, i also think it’s a good idea to release a experiment beta just to try this out for the consoles but it’s most likely that it wont perform well for both consoles and the majority of PC’s.