Even if its a small amount, enough to fill 7 full squads instead of 6.25 squads currently.
Battle Royale-style games are able to hold more than 64 players in one server so I believe it is possible, but not in the near future for the Battlefield franchise. If it does happen, I believe it will be following on from the success of another game that has successfully implemented it and created a demand for that style of play.
i believe there were mods for bf1942 that allowed more than 64p
I’d honestly rather not, as long as they keep the maps as cramped as they are. Adding more people would just make it worse.
You could try Planetside 2.
if you want really laggy sure.
Less is more to me. I’d rather have a smoother gameplay experience than more idiots on my team/sponges to shoot at.
I would love to see 50 vs 50.
If they can make 64 work, there’s no reason DICE can’t do 100 player Conquest
We don’t need more than 64. More players = more lag.
Well…maybe I’m part of the small % of players that rarely is effected by lag??
I run 200-300 down, 12 up.
Maybe if more people paid for better internet, right?
Yeah but then the people with McDonalds wifi would complain and DICE would punish you for having a good connection. Oh wait…
32 each is good enough for BF1, a great number and game experience, that u can have 32 squad, if each have one member only, so is it important to have certain number of squad in BF1??
i saw some do love to have only himself or two , like S&W tubers( i forget they full name)
Hey…this is 2018. Ya just have to pay for what’s a priority. If you’re a halfway serious gamer, you should have to pay for a decent connection. Stick all the mofos with crappy connections in their own servers if ya ask me
I hope the player count increases. More players equals bigger battles, and big battles is a major feature that sets Battlefield apart from most of the other shooter games on the market.
I was upset when the Bad Company series reduced the player count. I’m also not interested in playing Incursions due to it’s small player count.
50 vs 50 (or more!) would be great. They could start by adding it as another gamestyle like operations or Frontlines. Dont even have to make entirely new maps as they could just add a couple more flags to 3-4 existing maps and take it from there.
No, thanks. 64 is enough and even that can be a clusterfun on some maps. I can’t imagine how horrible more players would be. Also, the current technology can’t really support it. Obviously one of the big changes between titles is better graphics, but because consoles, specifically, have finite resources to work with better graphics means lower performance elsewhere. If we already get situations with lag, I can’t imagine how servers will be with 100 players and increased graphical strain.
Of course its possible. An old PC FPS used to have 128 back when i was using a PC rather than my PS4. Whether it’s needed is another thing though.
Will there ever be a BF game with modes and maps truly made for 64p?
Many maps were never made for 64p in BF1. Gameplay goes down the drain because of it.
I can imagine it but do not se the need,it is already pain to spawn anywhere and die instantly to spawnkiller,explosion etc.
I’ve played some games with 500vs500 it was lots of lag and bad hit reg
Ive wondered about not only that idea, but the idea of having more than two teams competing on a map.. Dont think either will ever happen tho..