Substantial research showed that 128-player battles just aren't fun to play!

Absolutely!

And with BF2042 and the abysmal performance on 128 modes even more so. I personally prefer 48 player modes, but also on maps that are not as huge. But in any case and given only the to options 64 or 128 player I would take 64 player ANY DAY.

I think it is not possible to get a clear research to this point, because the game has so many other things, which doesnt make fun. 

For me it would be a dream to play a small map with 256 players.

All the "research" DICE has done resulted in a game like Battlefield 2042, which nobody wants to play. So maybe you make another research.

@CyberDyme

Totally agree that the current maps are poorly designed and not fun.

I mean they said it themselves :

"You've got to make a game that's fun to play"  (I personally think BF2042 currently lacks the fun factor)

"We've done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it's not fun" (BF2042 is currently not fun to play with 128 players on these map layouts)

You just wonder therefore how we arrived at where we are today with BF2042. ?

Regarding the quality / design of the current 7 AOW maps, some are so bad they probably wouldn't be fun with any number of players. 🙂

Which is probably why there are so few players playing them. !

Don't agree.

Hell let loose go up to 100 and it's good. Because the overall gameplay design and especially map design was made using a brain.

Which isn't the case for 2042 which could give the impression that 128 can't work, well it could, they just showed  they don't have the skill to do proper 128 game design 

No voice just adds to the chaos, no real classes doesn't help either.

I imagine the quote for BF3 is in regards to what they could set up at the time to work on most computers and given average network speeds at the time.

Now they would have a lot more overhead to work with, so they would be able to try a greater variety of map sizes, layouts and game design elements whilst achieving acceptable network functionality. Essentially I imagine the Dice team of old, given the opportunity now, could get 128 players to work.

Both Squad and Hell Let Loose have 100 players and they play well but they lean into the milsim genre.

128 Players can work if the maps are set up well and it would work even better if there was some proper squad / team co-ordination systems, like the commander mode from BF2 and BF4.

This could be further cemented if points on the scoreboard were awarded for completing commander / squad orders beyond capturing points.

- ie points awarded for moving to a particular location - points could be awarded based on the distance travelled to get to that location so there would an incentive to do squad / commander orders even when being asked to move a significant distance.

Similarly you could have points awarded for completing a requesting transport order issued by another squad / player / commander and points awarded for delivering another squad to a location; so there would be incentive to use scout / transport heli's for transport rather than just as team / squad spawn locations.

The problem is 128 players with no classes, worse netcode, hitreg and bugs than any other BF game, maps with no flow, little cover, bad spawn locations, poor squad management / few systems for coordinating team play, and the current lack of a proper scoreboard / current scoring system doesn't help give a good impression of 128 players.

At this point it is basically 128 rambo's all running, jumping and flying around like its team death match, and since everyone just wants kills (because this is essentially the only info you get) all players tend to concentrate in one location.

I hope the do continue to develop 128 players; there have been times that the spectacle of 128 players has been amazing, but everything else just hasn't been thought through.

---

@Ga-Knomboe_Boy wrote:

I imagine the quote for BF3 is in regards to what they could set up at the time to work on most computers and given average network speeds at the time.

Now they would have a lot more overhead to work with, so they would be able to try a greater variety of map sizes, layouts and game design elements whilst achieving acceptable network functionality. Essentially I imagine the Dice team of old, given the opportunity now, could get 128 players to work.

Both Squad and Hell Let Loose have 100 players and they play well but they lean into the milsim genre.

...

---

I don't know if my posts are too long or if nobody reads them -- so, important part in BOLD.

Performance problems with higher player counts completely aside: the problem with 128 players cannot be solved by better map design. The issue is NOT when the players are distributed over the map. Then it CAN work, but if players are distributed over a large map, then there is -- for the individual soldier -- virtually no difference when compared to fewer players on a smaller map.

The problem arises when (e.g. due to bad balance) everything conglomerates around one or two flags. Then the best map design does not help. Then you will have 64vs64 players and ALL vehicles allowed on a big map in ONE SMALL AREA. Independent of map size.

You can argue that player 'could just try to move to other flags' and try to capture those, which almost never happens and I don't think you can teach players not to fight at the one flag they can join on but try to move to other flags in such scenarios.

And when it comes to other games like Squad or HLL with more players: they work with such numbers PRECISELY because the action never focuses on one single capture point.

@DuaneDibbley yep I was agreeing with you, adding that with proper structured squad / commander communications and scoring systems that going to other flags can be incentivized.

By points I was referring to xp, as in points earned on the scoreboard (although I did refer to a flag capture area as "capture point" once, so my mistake about the confusion).