Re: The 32 v 32 - 64 v 64 problem

---

@pickpickdxd23 wrote:
@Agent10_AlexReally? I dont dislike them but why do you?

---

It makes certain fun sectors worthless and that detracts from gameplay in my opinion 

64v64 is probably too many for a tactical shooter that requires some coordination. However, 32v32 sometimes feels small. So what is stopping them from going 48v48 with 12 squads per team or 50v50 with 5-player squads x 10?

---

@Adamonic wrote:

64v64 is probably too many for a tactical shooter that requires some coordination. However, 32v32 sometimes feels small. So what is stopping them from going 48v48 with 12 squads per team or 50v50 with 5-player squads x 10?

---

I think it ultimately comes down to map balance with vehicles and infantry in-mind. The hard part of course is jets/air vehicles, where if they don't have the room to roam (and feel like they are turning around constantly) it's incredibly boring, but the amount of scale needed to make that interesting is gigantic for boots-on-the-ground gameplay that 99.9% of the players will be interacting with. 

128CQ I found to be too large for the most part, everything was either a zerg rush from point to point or you felt alone in the world opposite of every other action on the map. There was rarely a fun time defending the satellite on Breakaway for instance, just felt like it was two choppers taking turns capping and flying away. 

I could see 48v48 or some similar number being used.

Agreed with another poster that trying to force BF into what really appeared to be a Battle/Extraction Royale map was just an idea born into failure.