Why do you keep enforcing 128 player on us ?
Please tell me the reason why there isn't a CQ128 and CQ64 permanently together ?! I can't enjoy this 128 game mode constantly getting shot in the back in the side or running into a horde of enemies....
Forum Discussion
@doubleome Well said!
Interestingly on the latest podcast we learnt that Flashpoint was designed for 64 players.
128 player is like an albatross dragging Dice down at this point to the point that the last 2 maps are clearly not fit for 128 player conquest but it's what they sold the game on so we are stuck with it.
Interestingly on the latest podcast we learnt that Flashpoint was designed for 64 players.
128 player is like an albatross dragging Dice down at this point to the point that the last 2 maps are clearly not fit for 128 player conquest but it's what they sold the game on so we are stuck with it.
I remember the complaints about 64 players being too many players for Operations in Battlefield 1. So 40 player servers were created and the same stuff that people complained about with the larger player count was still happening in those.
Player count is not the issue. The problem is Battlefield refusing to evolve beyond the sandbox trap that it is stuck in. 24 player matches in BFBC and BF3 back on PS3 and XB360 all suffered from chaos, poor team chemistry, and one sided matches.
I remember how console players back then were wanting 64 players because they thought that the increased player count would make all of these issues go away. Well. They were wrong.
How many games and artificial upgrades and downgrades is it going to take before Battlefield players understand that it does not matter how many players are on the servers as much as it does who these players are.
When DICE figures out that the PTW (Play To Win) players need their own space away from the people that are doing other things. Only then will things improve.
