128 players never was the problem.
It has been bugging me for years ever since they made the announcement back in like 2022 that 128 players just isn't as fun for players as compared to 64, 40. 32 etc. I think everyone can agree that...
Forum Discussion
I realize now after 2042 that the more players there are the harder it is to design maps. It's easier to design a map for 32v32 than it is for 64v64.
It's also harder to fill a 128 player server and a bunch of bots end up filling the server which makes the gameplay boring.
I always advocated for 128 player Battlefield but after seeing the map designs in 2042. I think 64 player maps is easier for DICE to design.
It's not harder, you only have to keep the same proportions of number of players, distances between objectives, traversal times and the amount of vehicles available.
the number of players don't affect the gameplay.
Expanding to 128 makes no sense in any way except for a marketing ploy. I would even argue that 64 player multiplayer is a core part of Battlefield and it should stay like that.
Best regards,
danisoff
128 only works if you have self organising clans and teams, decent squad sizes, comms etc.
even poor maps could work a bit with proper basic structure in place.
But what did we get instead?Legacy players, clans, platoons kicked to curb and curb stomped. Instant death to 128 EVER working even remotely a bit.
4 player squads.
squad reset after ever match
Forced map choice.
No server browser, official hardcore clan managed servers.
What did anyone expect?
2042 is a disgrace and quite frankly offensive.
