NEED 256 PLAYERS ON SOME MAPS...

Can another big publisher make an alternative battlefield game with 128/256/512 player counts so Dice can stop wasting resources providing this brain-dead gameplay in our beloved franchise?!

I always wanted huge player counts in games but then MAG happened and ehhh I just don't know lol. There have been a few ups and downs with 128 players in 2042 but I think with a few extra tweaks to maps and modes, we can make this the norm going forward.

For this to work, they'd have to add a few things.  As examples, I'll refernce 2 games that have successfully done large scale combat (MAG on PS3 and Planetside 2 on PS4/5 and PC):

1. More capture points and points of interest on the maps in the vast wide open areas that aren't being used.  They have to spread things out.  Really that needs to happen even with 128, but especially with 256.  MAG on PS3 had 256 players, but they were spread across 4 sections of a large map where for the most part it was 32v32 in most cases.  Planetside 2 features hundreds of players but spread across a massive continent.
2. A much better command structure.  Both MAG and Planetside 2 feature in game platoon/squad systems far superior than anything DICE has been doing since Battlefield 2142.  Splitting the 256 players/128 per side you should have per team:
   • 1 commander
   • 4 platoon leaders, each platoon 32 players
   • each platoon split into 4 8-man squads with a squad leader
   • Squad leaders can talk to platoon leaders who can talk to the commander.

You throw 256 players at these maps in the current game and it will be a mess.  Its already basically that way with 128 as the action just doesn't spread out.  You end up with too many players in an area the size of a medium Battlefield map.

we could always try :D