criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
July Community Calendar
Obi-Wan Kenobi Community Quests

Real quick, How many players will be in online matches?

Prev1
Now I know that smaller game modes will be in it, but for the big game modes, how many players will be in it? I really hope it'll be close to Battlefield's numbers or more, like 32 per team or more. Especially if it includes classic conquest or space combat.

I do believe that we won't actually get an answer on here, but it's fun to speculate. If the devs did drastically increase the player count, a good way to tease that is show in a trailer, all the rebels possible per team running by out of Echo Base, or some other era and base.
giphy.gif

Replies

  • Xantos
    2385 posts Member
    32 or 64 for big modes.

    For small ones I don't know, nor i care. Because small modes are a waste of resources.
    "Only 10% of our playerbase played old Battlefronts, so we are going to do a Battlefront, which is not a Battlefront" -Dice 2017
  • Must have 64 player modes
  • Stalemate
    3600 posts Member
    The more the merrier in the big modes!
  • Jrob122
    4638 posts Member
    16vs16
  • Xantos wrote: »
    32 or 64 for big modes.

    For small ones I don't know, nor i care. Because small modes are a waste of resources.

    I agree that small modes are just a distraction, for me, the bigger the better, so I hope its at least a 64 player lobby, especially if there isn't any destruction, like in Battlefield, then a large player lobby could be supported in Battlefront II
    giphy.gif
  • No one enters these matches "real quick"........loading times take forever.
  • Stalemate
    3600 posts Member
    That's true, hopefully BF2 is improved.
  • I would feel really comfortable if the devs confirmed in some way that the player count has been increased
    giphy.gif
  • I seem to be in the minority here however I personally enjoy the smaller modes just as much as the larger ones. The only issue I have with the smaller game modes is how much of a pain it can be to get a party into.
  • I seem to be in the minority here however I personally enjoy the smaller modes just as much as the larger ones. The only issue I have with the smaller game modes is how much of a pain it can be to get a party into.

    I love the smaller modes as well. And agreed......their party system is wack.
  • I seem to be in the minority here however I personally enjoy the smaller modes just as much as the larger ones. The only issue I have with the smaller game modes is how much of a pain it can be to get a party into.

    Thats because some of the small modes in battlefront are good like cargo, drop zone, hvv and extraction whereas the large modes were a huge dissapointment
  • WodiQuix
    4536 posts Member
    I'm hoping for both 40 and 64 player matches for large game modes.
  • Anoh
    8380 posts Member
    64 Clone Wars Space Battles ok thx bye
    Editor/Cinematographer - Anoh is pronounced: AhNo.
  • Anoh wrote: »
    64 Clone Wars Space Battles ok thx bye

    Thanks, I agree haha
    WodiQuix wrote: »
    I'm hoping for both 40 and 64 player matches for large game modes.
    I don't like the idea of splitting the player lobby, I think it should just be 64 players, don't know the benefit of having a 40 players too
    giphy.gif
  • I bet it will still be 40.
  • I bet it will still be 40.

    :'( I know but I don't want it to, I doubt that conquest will be fulfilling with only 40 players
    giphy.gif
  • Massman98 wrote: »
    Anoh wrote: »
    64 Clone Wars Space Battles ok thx bye

    Thanks, I agree haha
    WodiQuix wrote: »
    I'm hoping for both 40 and 64 player matches for large game modes.
    I don't like the idea of splitting the player lobby, I think it should just be 64 players, don't know the benefit of having a 40 players too

    This right here. No 20v20, 16v16, 12v12, 8v8, 6v6. Pick one for the big mode (possibly two) and one for small modes.
  • The bigger the player count the longer the lobby wait so hopefully 40 - Battlefield 1 can be soooo slow to start up with the big player count modes
  • The bigger the player count the longer the lobby wait so hopefully 40 - Battlefield 1 can be soooo slow to start up with the big player count modes

    Doesn't have to be that way, the selection of a big player mode can be the only option, or for each of the big game modes, so you can choose to play conquest, but dont get to choose what era or map, so the game lobby will be filled based on need alone, I would rather wait 2 minutes to play a 64 player match then wait 30 seconds for a 40 player match. All the devs have to do is limit the possible game modes so the lobby's for the main game modes stays saturated
    giphy.gif
  • I think the issue with developers now a day is that they are a not very willing to up the player count more than what they have done before. Call of Duty has always usually been around 12 and DICE has always been 64 or below. Honestly, I want them for once to go bigger then 64. I don't know if any of you have heard of a PS3 game called MAG, but it went up to 256 players. I loved that game, but the one issue was that it was not narrowly as open or dynamic in gameplay as DICE games. I would love to see more than 64 players in Battlefront II.
  • I think the issue with developers now a day is that they are a not very willing to up the player count more than what they have done before. Call of Duty has always usually been around 12 and DICE has always been 64 or below. Honestly, I want them for once to go bigger then 64. I don't know if any of you have heard of a PS3 game called MAG, but it went up to 256 players. I loved that game, but the one issue was that it was not narrowly as open or dynamic in gameplay as DICE games. I would love to see more than 64 players in Battlefront II.

    Im definitely on board for that, especially since battlefront lacks a lot of features that battlefield has, a higher player count shouldn't limit the gamefeed capability, But i would settle for at least 64, maybe 80 player lobby
    giphy.gif
  • ...out of interest what would 32 on a side bring to a game?Doesn't it increase the chance of meeting up with more non objective playing people/Trolls - Battlefield 1 is terrible for snipers and tank campers
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    The playercount should only go as high as it allows a solid 60fps on consoles. The 40 players of SWBF1 was to allow it to stay at 60fps. Framerate is more important, so if it needs to stay at 40 players that's fine with me.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    The playercount should only go as high as it allows a solid 60fps on consoles. The 40 players of SWBF1 was to allow it to stay at 60fps. Framerate is more important, so if it needs to stay at 40 players that's fine with me.

    Battlefield's framerate is 60fps, and it has destruction that adds a lot of strain against framerate, AND it's 64 players. So I bet battlefront II can be 60fps and have 64 player lobby's
    giphy.gif
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    Massman98 wrote: »
    SG-17 wrote: »
    The playercount should only go as high as it allows a solid 60fps on consoles. The 40 players of SWBF1 was to allow it to stay at 60fps. Framerate is more important, so if it needs to stay at 40 players that's fine with me.

    Battlefield's framerate is 60fps, and it has destruction that adds a lot of strain against framerate, AND it's 64 players. So I bet battlefront II can be 60fps and have 64 player lobby's

    Battlefield 1 only maintains a solid 60fps on the PS4 Pro. So unless you want the standard PS4 version of SWBF2 to have a bad framerate, it should stay at 40 unless they've managed to optimize the engine more.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    The playercount should only go as high as it allows a solid 60fps on consoles. The 40 players of SWBF1 was to allow it to stay at 60fps. Framerate is more important, so if it needs to stay at 40 players that's fine with me.

    MAG had 30 fps for 256 players back on the PS3, I 100% believe if MAG had been made on PS4 it would have had 60 fps. I believe they can do it with Battlefront II as well.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    SG-17 wrote: »
    The playercount should only go as high as it allows a solid 60fps on consoles. The 40 players of SWBF1 was to allow it to stay at 60fps. Framerate is more important, so if it needs to stay at 40 players that's fine with me.

    Battlefield's framerate is 60fps, and it has destruction that adds a lot of strain against framerate, AND it's 64 players. So I bet battlefront II can be 60fps and have 64 player lobby's

    Battlefield 1 only maintains a solid 60fps on the PS4 Pro. So unless you want the standard PS4 version of SWBF2 to have a bad framerate, it should stay at 40 unless they've managed to optimize the engine more.

    Didn't know that was the case^ I play battlefield on xbox 1, and I dont find a problem with the game quality, and remember, it's a more complex game, so if you're saying I can play battlefront II with a 64 player lobby with BF1's framerate, I'll take it.

    I don't want the only positive of this Battlefront to be "Oh it's beautiful" again
    giphy.gif
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    Framerate is CPU limited in most cases. CPU dependent processes include real-time updates of player positions and actions. So more players the more strain. Destruction I believe was actually optimized to me more GPU dependant with BF1.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    Framerate is CPU limited in most cases. CPU dependent processes include real-time updates of player positions and actions. So more players the more strain. Destruction I believe was actually optimized to me more GPU dependant with BF1.

    Do you think that the addition of 24 more players to the game that was made 2 years ago will not allow 60fps to be maintained on all platforms? I think the devs have a solid enough system, as well as our system's ability to support those extra players, espcially on a newer game with more updated systems
    giphy.gif
  • I just want to say that if fps dropping below 60 for a little in a game will ruin your experience I think that is sad. Now I'm coming from years a playing on the PS3 where everything was 30fps, so when I first got the PS4 back when it launched it was amazing how smooth and fast everything was. But I am also a PC player with 60 or above fps. But I mostly play on the console and I am used to the fps dropping below 60 every now and then. It happens sometimes when I am playing Battlefield 1, but it doesn't ruin the game for me. It's not like I would want to through my PlayStation against the wall just because of that.

    Having said that, if Battlefront II went above 64 players and if the fps drops below 60 every now and then, I would be very ok with that.
  • I just want to say that if fps dropping below 60 for a little in a game will ruin your experience I think that is sad. Now I'm coming from years a playing on the PS3 where everything was 30fps, so when I first got the PS4 back when it launched it was amazing how smooth and fast everything was. But I am also a PC player with 60 or above fps. But I mostly play on the console and I am used to the fps dropping below 60 every now and then. It happens sometimes when I am playing Battlefield 1, but it doesn't ruin the game for me. It's not like I would want to through my PlayStation against the wall just because of that.

    Having said that, if Battlefront II went above 64 players and if the fps drops below 60 every now and then, I would be very ok with that.

    I believe this is the same feeling for MOST people who will get the game
    giphy.gif
  • Massman98 wrote: »
    I just want to say that if fps dropping below 60 for a little in a game will ruin your experience I think that is sad. Now I'm coming from years a playing on the PS3 where everything was 30fps, so when I first got the PS4 back when it launched it was amazing how smooth and fast everything was. But I am also a PC player with 60 or above fps. But I mostly play on the console and I am used to the fps dropping below 60 every now and then. It happens sometimes when I am playing Battlefield 1, but it doesn't ruin the game for me. It's not like I would want to through my PlayStation against the wall just because of that.

    Having said that, if Battlefront II went above 64 players and if the fps drops below 60 every now and then, I would be very ok with that.

    I believe this is the same feeling for MOST people who will get the game

    I know, it's just that some people were talking about that and I want DICE to know that it's ok if it's not 100% always locked at 60fps.
  • Extraction was incredible. Incredible.
  • If Clone Wars is there then you've gotta have 64 player modes.

    That era is too large and big too have only 40 player modes.
  • Massman98 wrote: »
    I just want to say that if fps dropping below 60 for a little in a game will ruin your experience I think that is sad. Now I'm coming from years a playing on the PS3 where everything was 30fps, so when I first got the PS4 back when it launched it was amazing how smooth and fast everything was. But I am also a PC player with 60 or above fps. But I mostly play on the console and I am used to the fps dropping below 60 every now and then. It happens sometimes when I am playing Battlefield 1, but it doesn't ruin the game for me. It's not like I would want to through my PlayStation against the wall just because of that.

    Having said that, if Battlefront II went above 64 players and if the fps drops below 60 every now and then, I would be very ok with that.

    I believe this is the same feeling for MOST people who will get the game

    I know, it's just that some people were talking about that and I want DICE to know that it's ok if it's not 100% always locked at 60fps.

    Yup, I was reassuring that your point is agreed upon *cough cough* "Dice, GO FOR IT"
    If Clone Wars is there then you've gotta have 64 player modes.

    That era is too large and big too have only 40 player modes.

    Very Good Point, I don't like that the first BF set a precedent for 20 v 20, that needs to change here and now
    giphy.gif
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    Framerate is always more important than anything else.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    Framerate is always more important than anything else.

    Eh like this guy put it:
    I just want to say that if fps dropping below 60 for a little in a game will ruin your experience I think that is sad. Now I'm coming from years a playing on the PS3 where everything was 30fps, so when I first got the PS4 back when it launched it was amazing how smooth and fast everything was. But I am also a PC player with 60 or above fps. But I mostly play on the console and I am used to the fps dropping below 60 every now and then. It happens sometimes when I am playing Battlefield 1, but it doesn't ruin the game for me. It's not like I would want to through my PlayStation against the wall just because of that.

    Having said that, if Battlefront II went above 64 players and if the fps drops below 60 every now and then, I would be very ok with that.

    I have to agree with him, it isn't a deal breaker for me, and im sure they can manage it pretty well, not perfect, but pretty well
    giphy.gif
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    Thing is, the 2015 game has a perfect framerate.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    Thing is, the 2015 game has a perfect framerate.

    But why does it need to be perfect?
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    It hurts gameplay if it isn't.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    It hurts gameplay if it isn't.

    It does't hurt gameplay as much as you think
    giphy.gif
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    It hurts gameplay if it isn't.

    I'm not saying I want 30 fps, but gameplay ranging from 50 - 60+ fps is not bad.
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    Massman98 wrote: »
    SG-17 wrote: »
    It hurts gameplay if it isn't.

    It does't hurt gameplay as much as you think

    Have you tried playing Battlefield 4 on 64 player modes? That's a prime example of how a subpar framerate can hurt a game. It's unplayable unless you have a PS4 Pro and use boost mode. Battlefront 2015 spoiled me with its perfect 60fps.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    SG-17 wrote: »
    It hurts gameplay if it isn't.

    It does't hurt gameplay as much as you think

    Have you tried playing Battlefield 4 on 64 player modes? That's a prime example of how a subpar framerate can hurt a game. It's unplayable unless you have a PS4 Pro and use boost mode. Battlefront 2015 spoiled me with its perfect 60fps.

    Battlefield 4 was DICE's first game on PS4, they have learned a lot since then.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    SG-17 wrote: »
    It hurts gameplay if it isn't.

    It does't hurt gameplay as much as you think

    Have you tried playing Battlefield 4 on 64 player modes? That's a prime example of how a subpar framerate can hurt a game. It's unplayable unless you have a PS4 Pro and use boost mode. Battlefront 2015 spoiled me with its perfect 60fps.

    Thats too old to bring up, I play bf1 on xbox and its fine, occasionally drops down below 60 but its fine
    giphy.gif
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    The point is to show how a bad framerate can ruin an experience.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    The point is to show how a bad framerate can ruin an experience.

    Yeah, no i get it, but what Im saying, is that it is entirely possible to have 64 player lobby, AND have 60 fps
    giphy.gif
  • SG-17
    118 posts Member
    Maybe. If they can pull it off, great. If not they need to keep 60fps as the top priority. If that means 40 players, or 48, or 50, or 60 instead of 64 then so be it.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • SG-17 wrote: »
    Maybe. If they can pull it off, great. If not they need to keep 60fps as the top priority. If that means 40 players, or 48, or 50, or 60 instead of 64 then so be it.

    I could agree with that reasoning, we have different priorities but i get it
    giphy.gif
  • I honestly like the 40. Even in Battlefield, 40-ish players seems like the best balance for me
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!