@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.
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@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.
I have always felt that the squad system that Dice Sweden has been using since Bad Company has held Battlefield back. The squad spawning system was designed for a game that was max 24 players and was designed for Rush (conquest not even being available in BC1 until after launch) which was a more linear, head-on affair. With the greater freedom in conquest, the wider maps and 360 degrees of approach to an objective, I feel the squad spawning system favours the attackers more than the defenders when the advantage should be with the defenders.
On small conquest maps; linear conquest maps it works okay but as maps get bigger and objectives spread further apart, it actually becomes more beneficial to the team for squad members not to play together because spreading out across the map provides better spread of spawning options. If a squad sticks together, that's essentially just one area to spawn from between the 4-6 members in the squad. If they spread out, play together with other non-squad members then that's 4-6 entirely separate spawn options across a map. Essentially, if no squads are playing together with their squad mates, that's 32+ different spawn locations the enemy has to deal with in 64 player games. 64+ different spawn locations in 128 player games.
In pre-frostbite games there was no squad spawning. In 2 and 2142 you could spawn on squad leader only and squad leader and squad leader beacons in 2142. Before those games there were no squads at all so players could only spawn on flags. What this provided was very clear front lines between objectives. There was less of this round about, flag hopping gameplay that has plagued frostbite conquest because your path to the next objective was the enemy's path to yours. Flanking was still possible but it was also riskier because if you lost your squad leader and he hadn't placed a beacon, you'd either be cut off or you'd have to start again from the previous objective if it was still yours.
What it did was provide structure not only to squads but the game itself. Conquest played how it was designed to play because the rules of the game was designed specifically for conquest. It's why even if you played on the modded 128 player servers, it was still a very structured experience and less of the zerg type of gameplay that frosbite conquest has suffered from.
To be clear, I'm not saying that 2042 needs to bring back squad leader only spawning. There isn't any one factor of design that is the singular cause for conquest or 128 players not working well. The point is is that the rules of those games were written and designed specifically for the game mode. The game rules were built entirely around conquest. What Dice Sweden doesn't seem to understand is that you can't just copy paste gameplay mechanics from one game mode to another or expect gameplay mechanics designed for 12v12 to play the same as 64v64. What Dice Sweden needs to do is build a set of rules designed specifically for conquest. Specifically for Breakthrough or Rush or whatever game mode they want to make. If they want Battlefield to be 128 players, they need to design the game from the ground up for 128 players, not just copy paste game design intended for 12v12 rush, smash 128 players into it and call it a day.
@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.
