Why not 200+ players? (Map size)

@Trokey66  I'm 99% sure 😉 bandwidth has little to do with it, Throttle your connection and see Blackout for example was fine under 1meg. Your only transmitting small data and not that often on console tick rate was 30hz.

All your sending is gunfire and player locations so its still a small file to transmit. If your router or network switch allows throttling speed check it out 🙂 

^depending if server side or client hit detection ofc so even less 😉

I wish but I doubt systems could handle it 

I would really like to see this but I doubt.

I guess the Frostbite Engine isn't able to handle this huge amount of informations yet and I don't think it will ever be.

Consoles are able to handle the huge amount of informations.

It is all about how the engines are written/coded, how streaming of assets works and how the netcode works when in a very rare case 1000 Players are on the exact same location. In other words it is about clever resource management. There are not many true MMOFP-Shooter availabe (I count as MMO at a Playercount 100+) and the most games that are MMOFPS are using mostly the same assets in just different colors with low detail models which is logical to offer a good performance if you reach a bussy area with a huge playercount.

I played MAG (Multi-Action-Game) on Playstation 3, it was fun but the performance was hell. I also played PlanetSide 2 on Playstation 4 and the Performance runs well but on costs of low graphics.

If I had to advice to get a MMOFPS get working I would count a few things like:

• Accessability (free-to-play, very low buy to play)
• performance and quality
• Microtransactions through Premium currency, Battle-Pass, skins & models (re-finance server & service costs, earning money)
• A very hard anti-cheat and an anti-cheat task force
• the right setting (medieval, Sci-Fi, present)
• a plot which explains the conflict and may the architecture

@Trokey66 You really overestimate how much bandwidth videogames need. Multiplayer shooters generally need 4Mbps or so. That hasn't change much over the years.

@OP: I really wonder how many people would like such big servers? Just imagine trying to chat in a game with 200+ players. It will just be full of spam. And how about a map that's linear like Operation Metro. Surely a map like that will be released again. It's just going to be an even worse spamfest with grenades and what not, making it virtually impossible for both sides to advance. Is that really what the majority of the gamers want?

I'm sure that's not what I want, but I'm aware I may be a minority here. 

The massive player counts are a bit of a gimmick to me to be honest. You can play on a massive map with 200 players or a more reasonable size map with 64 players and so long as the map is big enough to support distinct "areas" and the ratio of players:map area remains the same the game is going to play much the same.

The comparison to Planetside is a good example. Planetside 2 supports 2000 players per continent but each continent is massive and subdivided into distinct areas each of which is about the size of an average Battlefield map. The result is while yes the scale is much larger the moment to moment gameplay is similar to Battlefield in my experience, probably a bit faster paced when the server is actually full (but it's usually not).

@CloudMcRip  Loved MAG Why it didn't get new version I got no idea.

Maybe when I play the beta it will play ok. Why did they need Pubg sized maps anyways. I feel its like the current AC games way too big just to be big as a selling point.

Joint ops was a master piece of FPS gaming. I recall playing on those 120 player servers, which of course we're laggy, but the 64 player servers were fine. I had a lot of fun watching the TOW rocket destroy a tank. That game...a master piece.