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 😬
@Ironhead841 wrote: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. !!
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 😉
@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. 😬
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.
