Is the 60 player count enough? - Discussion

Question

Apex has been out for almost 3 and a half years now and there is one thing that hasn't changed at all within the game which is the player count on all 4 of the maps.

Between the smaller maps like King's Canyon to the larger maps like Storm-Point the player count is the same.

In Ranked this usually isn't so much of an issue and players tend to spread themselves more evenly across the maps. However in pubs it's common to see a large amount of players all dropping in a specific part of the map, and a few fringe squads dropping elsewhere finding no real action until the end of the game.

I have a few questions to ask to gauge peoples thoughts on the matter:

Do maps need player counts relative to the size of the map to balance the level of action seen?
Should the devs introduce more AI controlled enemies (or even AI controlled teams) to create a more interesting environment for players that aren't in hotspots for action?
How does having more or less teams affect the overall difficulty of becoming champion? - For example in Duo's there are 30 teams instead of 20, if Quads were introduced then there would only be 15 teams.
Should all the maps just be made to be around the same size instead?
Would having a game with more players diminish the worth of certain badges like infamous 20-kill badge?

Please leave your responses below and if you have any additional thoughts for questions, I would love to hear those as well!

cheese9man · Answer

@Cabowse1. 60 is fine and the SP problem of not seeing anyone can be resolved by jump towers and more passages through some of the mountains. Respawn said that SP is the bigger map but if I’m not mistaken, WE still has the biggest playable space?
2. They just did in storm point and there is more PvE to come in that map.
3. Quads will never happen as per the devs. Solos maybe but never quads since they publicly said that the maps and the legends are built for 3 player squads max.
4. I like variety so no. As much as I hate stormpoint compared to the other maps, I still want it in the game rather than not existing.
5. The 20 bomb doesn’t mean much even now since smurf accounts can easily do it and it is being sold on some gray area websites.

The new KC proved that you don’t need to adjust the number of players in a lobby to reduce or increase fighting. You can adjust POIs, choke points, jump towers and nerfing/buffing mobility legends.

Appreciate threads like this. Thanks.

doyaseeme · Answer

Well, I don't think there's much of a benefit for a larger player count. There would be more third partying and the end of a public match would be more similar to a ranked one. I'm not convinced there would be a better spread, just more crowded hot drop areas, which would quickly turn into an issue. Would be interesting to experiment some 100+ player matches though.

But, there's a huge cost. Queues could become (even) less balanced, waiting times would increase, pressure on the network and hardware performance would increase significantly (maybe even exponentially), leading to a lot more issues than we already have. It's way better to spend this in a different direction (AI & other features complexity, etc.).

Considering these, here are my answers to the points:

I used to think that yes, maps could use player counts relative to their sizes, but now I think it won't make much of a difference, the latest ring changes have a much better effect than adding a few dozens of players to match's queue.
Yes, would be interesting, I'm all for more AI. However, many would complain a lot about it.
The chances for a win would probably be similar.
No. Pacing can be adjusted by tweaking the ring sizes and times, adding/removing jump towers, vehicles and other features.
I doubt it. 20 bombs are getting harder and harder to accomplish. More players per match would only bring the challenge back into the spotlight. Also, it could generate a demand for a 30 bomb badge as well.

reconzero · Answer

@Cabowse1. No. I would rather have larger maps that play slower and smaller maps that play faster. I'm tired of everyone trying to homogenize everything.2. No more AI needed in BR. But if they'd like to build a purely PvE game mode, or a whole new PvE game with Apex weapons and mechanics... I would LOVE that.3. Can't seem to wrap my brain around how these different scenarios would play out. For me I guess it would just be another variable to adapt to without having any material effect on the way I play the game.4. No. See #1.5. All badges are worthless, and the infamous 20k is the most worthless of all. If a single player personally destroys a third of a lobby then he should be auto-banned for life for cheating. That or he's a genuine predator who found his way into a rookie lobby, in which case Respawn needs to be sent to bed with no dinner to think about what they've done.

kyldenar · Answer

@reconzero &lt;&lt; 2. No more AI needed in BR. But if they'd like to build a purely PvE game mode, or a whole new PvE game with Apex weapons and mechanics... I would LOVE that. &gt;&gt;Yes please!

ccbathwater · Answer

1. No2. No3. Don't know. Maybe easier, as the Frag griefers will run out of loot really fast.4. No5. Those badges are already worthless due to glitches and teaming.

Forum Discussion

Is the 60 player count enough? - Discussion

5 Replies

About Apex Legends General Discussion

Community Highlights

Let’s talk about Apex Legends Matchmaking

Breakthrough in the Beast Mode Event

New Players Guide To Understanding Apex

Event Gifting | Find a Friend Here!

Recent Discussions

Apex keeps taking my money

Falsely banned and appeals get declined fast.

Further suggestions to improve QOL

Apex has let itself go. Same match every game.

Apex vs Fortnite