——The Official Battlefield 6 Thread——

arknor said:
BF series exists because DICE acquired the company who made this game, reskinned it and sold it as bf1942
Click to expand...


Nope, bf1942 was already in development at the studio that dice bought, they bought the company and the game was completed with dice being the new company owners
 
arknor said:
why because you can't charge around alone like Rambo capturing objectives?

maybe with more players, you also need more teams instead of the usual old 2...
Click to expand...
I mean I don't disagree on the last point, introducing 3 teams of 32 players might be a really interesting way to approach it.
 
t2na said:
Not sure I agree that more players is the direction the game needs to go in. More players doesn't necessarily mean a better experience and I'd worry that you'd feel like your contribution has less significance with more players.

I don't think 2042's use of 128 players is a good example as that game just had an identity crisis in general - but I always felt like 64 players was a great number to balance around for a game like Battlefield. With more you start to introduce so many more potential issues that I don't think improve or add to the BF experience.
Click to expand...
I found the 128 player servers were really just not fun at all. Fighting still ended up clustered in two or three areas but instead of having a dozen people from different sides you had 30 or so all Respawn ING and running round. You'd kill someone and then usually die within a second or two. The 64 player servers also ended up being more popular I believe so it seems others thought the same.
 
arknor said:
imagine the size of maps, the size f players on each size that modern tecxh is capable off..

then remember about 20 years ago we had 64 player servers... maybe even more than that.

gamings sooo stale when you think about it the only gains are in graphics really



surely technology sahould be able to handle like 256vs256 on some huge map by now, if not more..

CPUs, GPUs, memory etc 100x as fast as when people were used to 32 and 64 player servers... wheres the gaming evolution at?

surely we can handle a first person server with like 256-512 players doing a first person foxhole style game
Click to expand...
I'd probably pay for a Battlefield game like Planetside. A huge map, like 25km square, maybe even bigger with a persistent map and server that could migrate around the world with three factions all vying to conquer the map and defeat the others. It would need careful balancing as it wouldn't be fun to see a dozen tanks, 15 APC's and a couple of Apache Helicopters rocking up to your little control point, but it could have proper air bases that jets need to return to to prevent air from becoming too powerful and pilots would need to be very choosy about using their missiles or rockets.You could log off at 11pm one night and rejoin at 8pm the next night and the front would be in a completely different location or even have you completely hemmed in by both factions.
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
I'd probably pay for a Battlefield game like Planetside. A huge map, like 25km square, maybe even bigger with a persistent map and server that could migrate around the world with three factions all vying to conquer the map and defeat the others. It would need careful balancing as it wouldn't be fun to see a dozen tanks, 15 APC's and a couple of Apache Helicopters rocking up to your little control point, but it could have proper air bases that jets need to return to to prevent air from becoming too powerful and pilots would need to be very choosy about using their missiles or rockets.You could log off at 11pm one night and rejoin at 8pm the next night and the front would be in a completely different location or even have you completely hemmed in by both factions.
Click to expand...

The only way this would be viable would be if the server balanced players. Anyone who played Planetside 2 will have been through times where a certain faction would just steam roll the other sides due to imbalance of players on the other teams. I wouldn't expect this in the near future for Battlefield.
 
Gazanimal said:
The only way this would be viable would be if the server balanced players. Anyone who played Planetside 2 will have been through times where a certain faction would just steam roll the other sides due to imbalance of players on the other teams. I wouldn't expect this in the near future for Battlefield.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely, the server would need to balance people or not allow new joiners to choose which side they play on, but I think it would be epic to see your advance on an enemies ground over a couple of hours and then come back in the next day to see if you've managed to keep the ground you gained or have lost even more.
 
Dynamically rescaling the map per round could be a thing. Would be cool if you started a 16 v 16 then it queued up another x players if approaching peak times it opened a new section of the map. Like levolution but not terrible.
 
MissChief said:
Oh absolutely, the server would need to balance people or not allow new joiners to choose which side they play on, but I think it would be epic to see your advance on an enemies ground over a couple of hours and then come back in the next day to see if you've managed to keep the ground you gained or have lost even more.
Click to expand...
In theory it does sound good. Unfortunately players tend to want to join a "winning" side, so they'd leave a server it looks like they're "losing". Planetside 2 had you join one of the three factions which locked you in to that team, although you could have other characters on other servers in different Factions, but even then if you logged on and saw your faction being obliterated, you promptly left. If it worked, it would be great, but hard to achieve in practice. Definitely some good times on Miller (PS2 Server) back in the day.
 
Last edited:
So I was just trying to find an online fps to play to try and ease myself back into it again but every game still seems to be riddled with cheaters looking at various forums. I really hope they have thought about this aspect too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom