The player cap has been at 64 since 1942. Other games that are FPS massive shooter are above 64 FPS. This needs to be raised as 1942-2142 had a player cap of 160 with the SDK.
Especially if there’s going to be less content like less guns, attachments. Camo, and maps which we all know there will be.
Yea its a shame. We have been playing BF for years since 1942, and the cap is still 64. Don’t the devs see by the mods we always end up playing is above 64 players?
Can’t they just make a PC only version so the player cap can be over 64 since the consoles hold us back so hard? Our computers can run a 100vs100 player match and that is exactly what BF should be after seeing it myself in Forgottenhope 2 mod on BF2. We had a ohama beach match with 268 ppl. It was the greatest sight I have ever seen in my gaming history. And I play star citizen ffs.
This is a needed update for BF. The player base is the most important factor in a FPS. You can have nice graphics all day and have a experience when the player cap is low.
FEAR C.O.M.B.A.T proved that fact long ago. High graphics and accessories don’t make a game last.
I am going to guess here, but i think they have choosen to stick with 64 for FPS reasons on both consoles & pcs. BUT I wonder and i would like to see sometime a video of DICE just messing around and testing 128 players or something
In battlefield 4 there were already perfomance issues, even on 2x780 sli.
Issue was with servers above 32 players, don’t remember what the problem was.
Still if there are more players on small map it becomes unplayable, i never like metro above 24 players, maybe 32 max, you can’t flank and overrun, u can only camp.
And if map becomes bigger, there wouldn’t be to many players on same place and it would be same like for 64 players, when you encounter 5 players here, 10 there.
Or if one team would capture whole map, there would be like one big battle, like if you capture metro from one side, second team can’t move out.
It is already to messy at 64.
In planetside there are 128 player battles even more and it is not fun, u can’t move from place, or you meet 10 players here and there and you won’t see diffrence between 64 and 128.
Well I do just fine in planetside 2 and on max settings at 129 FPS even in 200vs200 biolab matches I own ppl with good FPS.
Metro I do the most damage as my FPS is a 170 on a full server. WE play PR that has a player cap of 100. Sounds like you need to upgrade you’re CPU.
I even run BF3,4 on 3 screens with 87 frames and still do good. player cap being raised is not the server issue but the user issue. That’s why its not a Pc exclusive as they think ppl will get a upper hand on high end PCs.
im using a gtx660 and i get a good 40 fps in an area with around 100-200 players in planetside 2. No idea what you’re talking about, its super fun.
BF obviously is not MMO and I can’t see it going to that direction. You like MMOs, okay cool, no need to change BF into one of them though.
The maps in BF1 aren’t probably any bigger than in BF4, at least the one they have shown us in the stream. Imagine 200 players on that map or any other BF4 map for example. It wouldn’t be all that enjoyable.
Yeah - I’d say that if 64 players has been working for near 15 years now, that there’s no need to change it. 64 seems to be great.
I also regularly play Planetside and things in 200v200 player battles can get way too hectic for my blood. I think 64 is a sweet spot when the BF devs get their map design down right. There would be some AMAZING BF maps that would have been totally ruined if there were 100+ players running around. I think there is a limit on “too much chaos”, at least for this franchise. 64-player Metro is where I draw the limit, personally. BF doesn’t need to be that chaotic, and adding 40+ more players to maps designed to support 64 would just turn any map into a Metro/Locker situation.
Either less stuff and more players, or what you got in this game. You can’t have both.
my problem comes with squading / perks
back in BF3 4-man squads kinda sucked(32/4=8 good squads) friend wise always short of room
but Bf4 still sucks because of the odd man out (32/5= 6 good squads and 2 left in the wind)
Looking online they say its gonna be 5 man squads later maybe
I don’t think adding 3 to each team would be bad (actually I want the plus 3 because being in a 2 man squad sucks)
nor would adding 8 to each team break anything
not to mention privet squads and other squad BS
but the issues I see comes from people wanting to live on locker/meteor type maps
and my thing is they already cap certain modes even lower making some maps feel empty to me
ex: domination,tdm, rush&cqs@(32) other then cql why are these still 20 player
(yes balance “nearly 15 years” and cant make progress)
Im not suggestion the remake the wheel but testing it out couldn’t hurt anything
if they added like 3-5 more points in good areas on avg maps it would be fine
(honestly if you look on most maps most have a decent amount of dead space)
That’s all good and well, but it seems most people are interested in bringing BF into near Planetside levels, where there’s over 100 players fighting on the Battlefield.
I don’t think that most people who want to raise the playercount of BF mean “raise the player count” in terms of only adding a few more slots.
My issues were actually with other maps - playing a map with 100+ people that’s designed for only 64 people would suck. It would have made maps that I had some of the best experience in this franchise on suck something quite fierce.
I’m sure there is a reason for dead space inbetween and around objectives on most maps - there doesn’t have to be a gunfight on every square inch of the map.
People are bringing up games like Project Reality and Planetside which feature multi-hundred player matches, but forget to bring up that those games are purposefully designed AROUND that playercount, their systems and maps are developed with multi-hundred player battles in-mind - Battlefield is not and never has been. Hell, Project Reality is inherently slower than BF because it’s almost forcibly a milsim no matter what instance you’re playing it in. And 200v200 player battles on Planetside can be downright chaotic to the point where it’s almost too much to take in and it’s literally a bunch of people standing in front of each other from 100 or so meters away and spamming fire at each other.
That would be a significant change to the Battlefield franchise, and it doesn’t necessarily sound like, imo, that it would be for the better.
I’d like to see a higher cap but the maps would have to be better. I think the maps have to get better anyway.
Well I personally don’t mind a bit more chaos. But I’m weird in that regard. If people want 100v100 though. I’m sure some server admin will find a way to make it so for his server. As for the general feel at the moment? With 5 man squads, perhaps raising it to the potential of 40v40 may not be bad because than you could go back to having 8 squads per team like in BF3 and have just a few more guys added to make it a bit more packed. but not overly so.
This is nothing new. There have been people who have used the Planetside argument. But, Planetside doesn’t have to take into account the destruction and bullet physics that goes on in a Battlefield game. 64 has been the sweet spot. Now that old consoles don’t have to be supported, look at how much they amped up the destruction. It’s good the way it is.
As long as it runs smoothly I’ll be content. And as I’ve said. Surely if someone wants it bad enough they’ll work out a way to make it so their server can run it.
Sorry but at the current state of Bf with smaller maps than bf2,non working hitreg and server performance issues and low tickrate,i think the player cap should actually be reduced to 48
Raising it would make everything even worse