You want 64 player conquest? Dice want to know.
On Seasons Maps for now. Let them know here! https://twitter.com/BattlefieldComm/status/1633135468538626048?s=20
Forum Discussion
@Tank2042Man DICE Don't care about what we want. Is useless to ask and say.
I think it's interesting that the last three maps have had the same layout whether 64p or 128p. (Stranded, Spearhead and Flashpoint).
Stranded and Flashpoint I much prefer just 64p.
Spearhead I could go either way.
If I had to vote considering all maps I'd say 64p offers the better experience.
@AngrySquid270 wrote:I think it's interesting that the last three maps have had the same layout whether 64p or 128p. (Stranded, Spearhead and Flashpoint).
Stranded and Flashpoint I much prefer just 64p.
Spearhead I could go either way.
If I had to vote considering all maps I'd say 64p offers the better experience.Frankly, I'm glad they don't mess with these and create smaller 64 player versions. There's no reason to make smaller versions like they did with the launch maps.
The launch maps may be technically large, but no one goes to 40% or more of the maps anyway. Huge areas no one uses. So the actual played area is fine for 64 players. No way I can be convinced they play bigger than Dragon Valley 2015, Silk Road, Golmud Railway, and other large maps from BF4.
I absolutly want a permanent 64 player playlist on the large versions of the maps.
128 players is horrible. Especially on breakthrough where they funnel people through specific places with stupid map boundaries. I constantly run into these stupid things when i am trying to play the game.
I simply want to have options instead of others deciding the player size for me in AoW
The legacy portal maps that are for 64 players still manage to have more vehicles than the 2042 maps with 128 players
