I would like to start (yet another?) discussion on the 'best' player count for the Conquest game mode in BF2042.I am myself are strongly in favor of 64 players (even leaning towards less than that, say 48). I have good reasons why I personally think that this has many advantages over the 128 player modes we have now. I also think that many are objective and that even the best map design will not change the fact that 128 is too much.I know that many of you agree, but I also read the feedback that 128 is much better (but after I replied with the arguments why I think that this is just based on feeling, I never got good arguments why 128 indeed would deliver the better 'Battlefield experience').So, these are my arguments why I think 64 player maps will be the better and why 128 is definitely too much (for Breakthrough I think they are anyway leaning towards that, so would only discuss Conquest): For 64 players, we can reduce the map size, which would: give us better performance (I guess, nobody will disagree here as you can just try this out in game right now) andwould result in more maps for us to play in the end (it takes less time to make a smaller map, so you can make 2 or even 3 maps with the same effort it would take to make one of the huge map we currently have)It would make the fights less chaotic. Battlefield is not a milsim and more arcady than we care to admit, but once a match has reached a point where the fight focuses around one or two capture points (which is always the case for Breakthrough), there is no way a PTFO player will enjoy the fight anymore. The only people having fun by then are people shooting from far away into the contested flag area or using vehicles to harvest easy kills by randomly shelling the area almost the whole enemy team is by then located at.I personally enjoy a more fluid experience (with high FPS and less lag) -> see point 1), more content (aka maps) -> see point 1) and engagements I can control as much as possible -> see point 2). Because of that, I strongly favor 64 player modes on smaller maps.So, what is your favorite player count? If you think, 64 players is to way to go for Conquest as well, do you have other reasons than the ones I listed?In case you think 128 players is better, which of my points above do you think is wrong and especially: why?I am completely willing to admit that I might be missing something and that I am wrong about this, but I never read any good argument other than '128 players were promised, I want it, it is better!!!1!oneeleven!1!!'.So, if you have a good reason why 128 is better and why you thing I am wrong, I am looking forward hearing them!

Any player count is the right player count if the maps and game are designed properly for them. Current Battlefield game rules play better with a lower player count. 12v12 - 16v16. 64 players feels pretty messy and lack of gameplay facilitated organisation, I always felt 64 players was stretching it.128 players could work but they would need to rework the fundamentals of Battlefield gameplay, squads and communication for it to work.

@Noodlesocks wrote:Any player count is the right player count if the maps and game are designed properly for them. Current Battlefield game rules play better with a lower player count. 12v12 - 16v16. 64 players feels pretty messy and lack of gameplay facilitated organisation, I always felt 64 players was stretching it.128 players could work but they would need to rework the fundamentals of Battlefield gameplay, squads and communication for it to work.Exactly right @Noodlesocks !Unfortunately then the map designs across all maps in BF2042 are of such poor quality that even down at 64 players it will still be just silly chaos. "Chaos" can actually be really fun in the properly designed and weapons/vehicle balanced Battlefield sandbox, but anything and everything in the BF2042 pack is still so far away from making that possible.The map design, its size and contents, flanking routes and alternative attack lines all need to come together to make it ever lasting fun gameplay. And all these parameters and more (like the weapons and vehicles and their numbers) all in all decides then again what is the max player number still to make it fun long term on any given map.Also the game mode plays a big role in this, as we know from previous great games of aka Rush or Obliteration plays often very differently versus Conquest on the very same maps and with same weapons/vehicles. I know many may detest some of the all time favorite 'only infantry' maps like Locker or Metro. But if you have tried playing on them in different game modes and also with different max player numbers, you also recognize how dramatically different the game strategy and game play is. Aka Metro is very different with less than 32 players on it, more like just running and guinning, while when getting up to around 40-50 it tightens up and team play across the friendly squads then suddenly becomes determination in who wins the battle. And when going all the way from 54-64 players max, it becomes choked bottlenecks with brute force and extreme push on the flanks winning the game.The reason for the research done by EA/DICE team back in the BF3 days found that 128 Conquest was not so much fun as the 64 player version was actually also due to another aspect that is very hard to control and takes supreme map design and spawn rules/mechanics to truly master.It is because of the way the vast majority of players decide to play (if they are allowed to do so). Namely that players by default tend to prefer to spawn in with or just behind their own friendlies. And also to seek towards hot spots where any other friendlies and enemies already appear to be in combat with each other. And this is thne here where a certain number of teammates and enemies at a certain max number tend to become too many for the sake of 'fun' gameplay comes in. As when it starts to be overpopulated, then strategic gameplay/teamworks starts to be thrown out the window, as the shear magnitude of players simply overrun all options/alleys/sideways/flanking routes non stop all the time anyway.Its maybe "fun" for a very short while but it suffocates strategic gameplay/variation from happening from one round to the next. Hence, the gameplay quickly becomes stale and boring, and no fun to play long term at all.Many of you who have played prior BF games knows well the ultimate challenge of maybe pushing the enemy team all the way back into their spawn base. Its maybe 'fun' from time to time, but the gameplay for both the defending teamside trapped in their spawn as well as the attacking team side actually is very poor and boring. And that is the same problematic situation we have on most maps when the player count goes up over 50-60. It is no easy feat to make good maps and game mechanics to serve a fun game with 128+ players on board.

@DuaneDibbley With so many factors impacting gameplay it's really hard to say at this point.Outside of the obvious performance impacts anyway and on that note 128 player sucks when too much is going in one sector of the map.And hell for all I know that's just something going with the game itself and has nothing to do with the player count.Just a side note: I am playing on a brand-new monster PC my son built for me with all the new and "best" stuff and doodads.P.S. please don't tell the wife how much that cost 😬

Removed your post from our spam filter, for longer post it can be a bit over sensitive. @DuaneDibbley /Atic

I think that for 128 player games to get gud, and honestly I think they could(I’d wager even 256 could be amazing) . it requires more than just better map designs.Take one aspect of what a god map can do. Say tunnelling players through intuitive routes into a capture point. Say that was perfect. You still have to then coordinate multiple squads, to take those approaches. And with more players you get more squads which requires more coordination and communication.So you now need in game coms. Which we don’t have.BF has always also in someways supported self organisation. Be it swapping/ creating squads, supporting large player platoons and the ability of large friend groups to play together. As well as simple UI stuff like being able to see the destinations of other squads. All of that missing stuff is what makes 128 so chaotic, because all the team orientated functionality has been replaced with individualistic elements.The matchmaking- for individuals. The end game round, for individuals. Hell even specialists is a subtle driver to be an individual rather than team player. (Ok ok, I did say it was subtle).How on earth can a group of squads become organised enough and practiced enough to make good on 128 player severs when even an individual can’t get organised to work in a single squad? just not going to happen. So even 64 player servers without coms and decent squad mechanics are still going to pale into comparison to all prior BF games.This is why I find the whole, let’s fix maps a priority so obscure. Without putting this focus(maps) into context with all the other issues, Dice really are making a rod for there own backs.It makes me think that either fixing coms and all the team play elements is going to take at least 4-6 months or they aren’t going to fix it at all.

BR-DuaneDibbley

Seasoned Ace

4 years ago

What is the 'right' player count for Conquest in a Battlefield game (128 or 64)

I would like to start (yet another?) discussion on the 'best' player count for the Conquest game mode in BF2042.

I am myself are strongly in favor of 64 players (even leaning towards less than that, say 48). I have good reasons why I personally think that this has many advantages over the 128 player modes we have now. I also think that many are objective and that even the best map design will not change the fact that 128 is too much.

I know that many of you agree, but I also read the feedback that 128 is much better (but after I replied with the arguments why I think that this is just based on feeling, I never got good arguments why 128 indeed would deliver the better 'Battlefield experience').

So, these are my arguments why I think 64 player maps will be the better and why 128 is definitely too much (for Breakthrough I think they are anyway leaning towards that, so would only discuss Conquest):

For 64 players, we can reduce the map size, which would:
- give us better performance (I guess, nobody will disagree here as you can just try this out in game right now) and
- would result in more maps for us to play in the end (it takes less time to make a smaller map, so you can make 2 or even 3 maps with the same effort it would take to make one of the huge map we currently have)
It would make the fights less chaotic. Battlefield is not a milsim and more arcady than we care to admit, but once a match has reached a point where the fight focuses around one or two capture points (which is always the case for Breakthrough), there is no way a PTFO player will enjoy the fight anymore. The only people having fun by then are people shooting from far away into the contested flag area or using vehicles to harvest easy kills by randomly shelling the area almost the whole enemy team is by then located at.

I personally enjoy a more fluid experience (with high FPS and less lag) -> see point 1), more content (aka maps) -> see point 1) and engagements I can control as much as possible -> see point 2). Because of that, I strongly favor 64 player modes on smaller maps.

So, what is your favorite player count? If you think, 64 players is to way to go for Conquest as well, do you have other reasons than the ones I listed?

In case you think 128 players is better, which of my points above do you think is wrong and especially: why?

I am completely willing to admit that I might be missing something and that I am wrong about this, but I never read any good argument other than '128 players were promised, I want it, it is better!!!1!oneeleven!1!!'.

So, if you have a good reason why 128 is better and why you thing I am wrong, I am looking forward hearing them!

discussion

35 Replies

EA_Atic
DICE Team
4 years ago
Removed your post from our spam filter, for longer post it can be a bit over sensitive. @DuaneDibbley

/Atic
FlibberMeister
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
I think that for 128 player games to get gud, and honestly I think they could(I’d wager even 256 could be amazing) . it requires more than just better map designs.
Take one aspect of what a god map can do. Say tunnelling players through intuitive routes into a capture point.

Say that was perfect. You still have to then coordinate multiple squads, to take those approaches. And with more players you get more squads which requires more coordination and communication.
So you now need in game coms. Which we don’t have.

BF has always also in someways supported self organisation. Be it swapping/ creating squads, supporting large player platoons and the ability of large friend groups to play together. As well as simple UI stuff like being able to see the destinations of other squads.

All of that missing stuff is what makes 128 so chaotic, because all the team orientated functionality has been replaced with individualistic elements.
The matchmaking- for individuals. The end game round, for individuals. Hell even specialists is a subtle driver to be an individual rather than team player. (Ok ok, I did say it was subtle).
How on earth can a group of squads become organised enough and practiced enough to make good on 128 player severs when even an individual can’t get organised to work in a single squad?

just not going to happen. So even 64 player servers without coms and decent squad mechanics are still going to pale into comparison to all prior BF games.
This is why I find the whole, let’s fix maps a priority so obscure. Without putting this focus(maps) into context with all the other issues, Dice really are making a rod for there own backs.
It makes me think that either fixing coms and all the team play elements is going to take at least 4-6 months or they aren’t going to fix it at all.
Ironhead841
Hero
4 years ago
@DuaneDibbley
With so many factors impacting gameplay it's really hard to say at this point.
Outside of the obvious performance impacts anyway and on that note 128 player sucks when too much is going in one sector of the map.
And hell for all I know that's just something going with the game itself and has nothing to do with the player count.
Just a side note: I am playing on a brand-new monster PC my son built for me with all the new and "best" stuff and doodads.
P.S. please don't tell the wife how much that cost 😬
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@Ironhead841 wrote:
@DuaneDibbley
With so many factors impacting gameplay it's really hard to say at this point.
Outside of the obvious performance impacts anyway and on that note 128 player sucks when too much is going in one sector of the map.
And hell for all I know that's just something going with the game itself and has nothing to do with the player count.
Just a side note: I am playing on a brand-new monster PC my son built for me with all the new and "best" stuff and doodads.
P.S. please don't tell the wife how much that cost 😬
Please sir can you get your son to build me one too, !!!!!
Nice one mate. 😃
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@Ironhead841 wrote:
@DuaneDibbley
With so many factors impacting gameplay it's really hard to say at this point.
Outside of the obvious performance impacts anyway and on that note 128 player sucks when too much is going in one sector of the map.
And hell for all I know that's just something going with the game itself and has nothing to do with the player count.
Just a side note: I am playing on a brand-new monster PC my son built for me with all the new and "best" stuff and doodads.
P.S. please don't tell the wife how much that cost 😬
Just thinking, it must be so frustrating for you, having a top end rig and not being able to play the game. !!
Ironhead841
Hero
4 years ago
It is but I've been playing Hell Let Loose some Squad and a lot of BF4 here recently and it runs those like butter 😉
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@Ironhead841 wrote:
It is but I've been playing Hell Let Loose some Squad and a lot of BF4 here recently and it runs those like butter 😉
I bet it does, enjoy mate, glad you are able to get good use out of it while we wait for DICE to sort out BF2042.
Worryingly your new rig could be obsolete by then. 😬
Noodlesocks
4 years ago
Any player count is the right player count if the maps and game are designed properly for them. Current Battlefield game rules play better with a lower player count. 12v12 - 16v16. 64 players feels pretty messy and lack of gameplay facilitated organisation, I always felt 64 players was stretching it.
128 players could work but they would need to rework the fundamentals of Battlefield gameplay, squads and communication for it to work.
BR-DuaneDibbley
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@Noodlesocks

I personally don't see any way to make 128 players work. If you think it can be done, what exactly would they have to change in your opinion to make this work and still feel like a Battlefield game and not Squad or Hell Let Loose with huge capture zones that you would most likely never be able to clear (I don't play HLL or Squad myself and can only speak from watching gameplay footage)?

And also: even if those games CAN achieve it with 100 players, BF should not try to copy them of course (as the copy approach failed with trying to be an Apex Legends clone in the first place).

One thing that comes to mind would be huge capture zones, so that there will be less chaos in case there is one contested flag left where all the action will focus on. I still think it will be chaos, but this could be at least one approach to make it work.
EchoBeach
4 years ago
@DuaneDibbley 64 /with maps that are optimized for 64 players/