@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).
