Forum Discussion

Joffnot's avatar
4 years ago

Why is there only 128 ppl matches in conquest

Its just a storm of bullets, planes, trains and automobiles. Will there be conq with 64 or 32 ppl? Tactics and * you know, like BF2 small matches on cramped areas, you had to be clever and guess the enemys next move or chew your own *. In a squad with cooperation. Thats BF for me, if it is supposed to be like now, turned down to an arcade bulletstorm i got no interest in playing it.

9 Replies

  • @JoffnotI enjoy the chaos, but having options for smaller games of conquest through official channels would be good, not everyone has hardware to play with 128 players.

    Infact the very reason bf2 had the options was so people with different hardware could enjoy the game.

  • Didn't we go through this already with Battlefield 1?  People wanted Operations with less than sixty four player.  They got it and it was still the same crap going on in the forty player servers as the large scale.  I remember people that were playing BF3 on PS3/XB360 demanding sixty four player because then they thought more players would increase teamwork.  Well here we are 2021 and people want less players.  LOL.  Player count does matter. It is who the people on the servers are and how they want to play that does. 

  • Joffnot's avatar
    Joffnot
    4 years ago
    @R1ckyDaMan19 Yeah it would be nice to have the option for smaller battles. As of now everyone is Rambo. It works, but less satisfying and no feeling of accomplishment whatsoever.
  • Joffnot's avatar
    Joffnot
    4 years ago
    @Skill4Reel I would like the option for less player matches. I can enjoy 128 but not everytime. Would not be hard to implement.
  • R1ckyDaMan19's avatar
    R1ckyDaMan19
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago

    @Skill4ReelTbh bf3 on 360 was a ghost town on maps compared to pc, I switched to pc a while into bf3's lifespan and the difference was massive, chaos everywhere, took me off guard at the time, 360 certainly had more small scale cat and mouse style tactical gameplay.

  • GrizzGolf's avatar
    GrizzGolf
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago

    I feel like this game is more focused on Armor warfare than infantry warfare. I cant rack up kills with my rifle and I get taken out by armor or nighthawks trying to find someone to battle with 

  • Joffnot's avatar
    Joffnot
    4 years ago
    @GrizzGolf 16 vs 16 Iwo Jima, Bf2. Me and my squad of randoms managed as US to get to their main base, by boat, undetected, cap it and hold it long enough for reinforcements. 2 hours or smth back and forth. We lost that match but man that was exiting.
  • mihasha89's avatar
    mihasha89
    Seasoned Hotshot
    4 years ago

    128 players - I like . They need just to make maps more adaptive for infantry - more shelters or buildings . 

  • Skill4Reel's avatar
    Skill4Reel
    4 years ago

    @R1ckyDaMan19 wrote:

    @Skill4ReelTbh bf3 on 360 was a ghost town on maps compared to pc, I switched to pc a while into bf3's lifespan and the difference was massive, chaos everywhere, took me off guard at the time, 360 certainly had more small scale cat and mouse style tactical gameplay.



    I remember capturing flags all by myself in BF3 on PS3.  This did not change when the player count went up to sixty four.  Heck, I was playing Breakthrough in BF2042 tonight.  I died, we lost the sector, and I saw on my map only one teammate at the first objective while the rest of the team was on the other.  I have seen consistent player behavior no matter what the player count is.   

Featured Places