128 vs 64 players

Agreed, I like 128 players, the maps should be smaller regardless however, they're far too big for even 128 players

At this point, one of the problems is they have too many game modes available with such a low player base making it feel even lower. Have you tried to join a Hazard Zone match lately? The player base is so small that once you slice them up into smaller groups, you have even fewer players playing any one given mode. 

I know these aren't overall game numbers, but Steamcharts gives you at least apples-to-apples comparisons with other games on the platform.

Since 14 FEB, which was just over 2 weeks ago, this is what the player count has looked like on Steam (ATL = All-time low):

MON 14th - ATL 1946 players, first-time active concurrent players on Steam dropped below 2000 players at any given time since launch.
THU - 17th - ATL 1658 players
MON - 21st - ATL 1586 players
TUE - 22nd - ATL 1534 players
THU - 24th - ATL 1405 players
MON - 28th - ATL 1332 players
TUES - 1st - ATL 1260 players
WED - 2nd - ATL 1219 players

I get that you will have new all-time lows over time, but in the last 18 days we have seen 8 new ATLs with the low player count dropping close to 40% in those 18 days on a title released less than 4 months ago. There are more players playing Goose Goose Duck on Steam right now. 

It is crazy to think at times that the newest game in the franchise has fewer players than BF4, BF1, and BFV. 

I love having 128. I just wish when I played 128 it ran as smooth as 64 does

---

@ATFGunr wrote:
If the servers and players could handle 128 players without stuttering and lag, I’d be so happy with 128. The game is far more smooth with 64, regardless of settings (PC player). I think a good portion is server side. If we could pick a server that we know was in our area and see if there’s high ping players to avoid, it might help. Oh wait… we’d need a server browser to do that.

---

Yes you would indeed need a server to do that and we need DICE to add one asap.

---

@UP_Hawxxeye wrote:

I would like the 64 players on the 128 sized maps tbh

---

Me too. There's only 1-3 flags per sector. 64 players is more than enough for that.

To me it is strange how many players still consider 128 player modes to be better than 64.

But there are also players thinking 64 player Metro is 'fun', so I guess I have to accept that some people somehow enjoy unstructured chaos (or those are vehicle players that enjoy farming infantry on those last contested flags from afar).

Unless capture zones are the size thy are in Hell Let Loose or Squad (where 100 players work), 128 player matches will NEVER be better than 64 player versions in Conquest. It CANNOT work, even if maps are redesigned.

The ONLY way to make this work is to either:

• have a very good mid round balancer that ensures we never have the case that every action is focused around one or two flags
• have HUGE capture zones
• give a much stronger to re-capturing flags that are further away and make it possible for players to reach those flags, even if the rest of the map is held by the enemy team

But even then, having 128 players spread out far enough for this to NOT be chaotic would mean that this would then still FEEL like playing with 64 players on a smaller map. IMHO, 64 player versions are far better than 128 player matches and I would even like to have 48 player matches back on even smaller maps with clear lanes like we had before. But this might be just me.

@DuaneDibbley 

No, it's not just you. 👍