More than 64 players per map just isn't fun, says DICE
Do you agree?
Printable View
More than 64 players per map just isn't fun, says DICE
Do you agree?
Depends on map size. But mostly yes. Coz it turns into a spawn-rape fest. Spawn... walk 2 steps... DIE... Spawn... walk... DIE. NO FUN that.
I agree to many people just would be terrible.
It must also have something to do woth the size of maps I am sure if the maps are big enough and have enough flags to capture one can have more players. i do not think the SA net will be able to cope with it tho. Maybe I am wrong
64 Player combat is freakin' fantastic! It just feels like you're really part of a much bigger war than a deathmatch FPS. There's always something bigger going on than the small battle you're fighting with another player in a corridor, or the tank you're trying to RPG.
That's what makes Battledfeld 3 such a damn fun game. There's always some crazy shit going on all around you, and with 64 people playing, you will never know what to expect. With more players, more is possible, and that makes it all that much better than having less players.
More players would certainly make for some very interesting gameplay, but for now this will be good enough! :D
Oh there you are Tooken. I thought you were in a cryogenic freezer, waiting for tomorrow.
I know from BF2 experience that 64 players on a map is awesome, but more than that will have the losing team slaughtered while they spawn.
Definitely agree with Tooken on this one... If the map is big enough to make it fun it can be fun, because there are a lot of players, yes, but it's scattered all over the place etc..
But I think there should be a cap to it though and 64 just seems to be the right one. I think more than that it becomes a bit of a frenzy where you can just run and gun and be sure to hit something. Then die.
It all depends on the map size but 64 player was so much fun in BF2 and was the sweet spot for full vehicle and infantry warfare.