Forum Discussion

Seasoned Ace

Re: 128 vs 64 players

@Lancelot_du_Lac wrote:
I have stopped playing the 128 player maps, in favour of the smaller 64 player maps (Conquest).
IMHO, it is poor map design rather than the number of players that is the main problem (for me).

No, it is objectively the player number as well. Not saying that maps are good or even average, but CQ for 128 players cannot work in many cases if there is the possibility for the fight to be narrowed down to one or two flag points because of bad balance:

https://answers.ea.com/t5/General-Discussion/Substantial-research-showed-that-128-player-battles-just-aren-t/m-p/11331654#M91660

That's why it is ALWAYS bad for Breakthrough as this -- by definition -- is limited to a small number of flags. For CQ it sometimes works. Smaller maps with 64 players do not have this problem as much (even though 32vs32 at one flag is also too much for my taste, but not as bad as 64vs64.

It would reduce the number of vehicles in play (as there are fewer for smaller player count and maps), so in the end, much less chaos at the contested one flag.
It would make map development much faster if there is less 'map space' to design.
It would increase performance (as its obvious when comparing FPS numbers for the existing 128 and 64 player modes).

1 Reply

edgecrusherO0
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@DuaneDibbleyWorth noting: That was a decade ago with vastly different tech and tools. The problem is the complexity and skill required to make good maps with more players increases, and it doesn't seem like the current team has the experience/knowledge/skill to create good large-scale maps for combined-arms fights, maps are pretty garbage, weapon balance is garbage, and infantry vs. vehicle balance is garbage. These are all aspects that make any attempt at larger scale matches/maps feel like crap.

I mean, look at their "solution" for Breakthrough Kaleidoscope...they're literally narrowing the map even further and putting objectives closer to each other when they need to be doing the opposite. It should be an hourglass design, with two vertical (i.e. not stacked behind each other) capture points in the first zone, funneled into the single capture point in the second, and then back out into two more in the third. Instead it's a tiny killbox that's going to make 128 player battles even worse.

But that's not a problem with 128 players, that's a problem with DICE map designers apparently not playing their own game and having no idea what they're doing. Hence why the first 7 maps we've received are largely pretty poor quality.
Like, if they kill 128 player matches I'm completely out. That's a big reason I purchased this game, and if they don't have the talent to make it work then DICE is worse off than we thought. I'm already no longer buying anything from them given this garbage and their horrid behavior since, but it'll seal the deal that the current crew at DICE does not have the skill or talent to make good games anymore.