criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

Raising The Player Count

Prev1
Alright so so far you've absolutely killed it. Every credit due, I'm actually pretty hype.

But this 40/24 player thing is pretty weak, it was one of the things I was hoping to see improvement on. There must be a way to bump that. Even if it isn't 64, even if we're talking 50, or 54, there's got to be a way to get this closer to Battlefield's scale.

I don't think I'm alone on this one, I've seen rumblings elsewhere.

Replies

  • Jrob122
    4638 posts Member
    Yeah they need to have at least 50 for ground battles and 30-40 in space. Like cmon we know that they can bump it up even a little
  • Is it because its too demanding on the engine? I mean with so much more detail and vehicles now, capital ships blowing each other to bits and the like. Seems to me that would be the only excuse for it being low
  • I was hoping for that too
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Is it because its too demanding on the engine? I mean with so much more detail and vehicles now, capital ships blowing each other to bits and the like. Seems to me that would be the only excuse for it being low

    I'm not sure, but Battlefield looks amazing with destructible environments, and that seems to manage ok.
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    They at least need to address why they player count is so low.
  • Frix wrote: »
    They at least need to address why they player count is so low.

    Oh yeah I'd totally accept it if they actually have a legit reason, as long as it isn't 'the servers are cheaper than Battlefield's, deal with it'

  • Frix wrote: »
    They at least need to address why they player count is so low.

    Oh yeah I'd totally accept it if they actually have a legit reason, as long as it isn't 'the servers are cheaper than Battlefield's, deal with it'

    agreed
  • Beaver
    1735 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Is it because its too demanding on the engine? I mean with so much more detail and vehicles now, capital ships blowing each other to bits and the like. Seems to me that would be the only excuse for it being low

    Frostbite has no problems with 64 player matches. Remember, these games are always developed for the lowest common denominator, which in this case would be the X-Box one, then is ported to the PS4, and then finally ported to the pc. Hardware, is the biggest limiting factor when it comes to what they can, and cant include in game.

    After watching the in engine footage of the trailer yesterday, its obvious that Dice is using higher resolution textures in Battlefront2 then they did in the original EA Battlefront. A prettier game is gonna come at a cost, there is only so much video ram to work with. My guess is that they went with a over all better looking game at the cost of player count.

    I'm not a developer, this is my common sense best guess.
  • On the Game.co.uk website it says "fly through Imperial Dock Yards and take down massive capital ships as you pilot legendary starfighters in high stakes dogfights with up to 24 players and 40 AI ships." So it looks like there will be alot of ships in the battle just some players have been replaced with AI. If this is the case then it will help resolve the problem of low player counts in servers making the game last longer
  • Beaver wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Is it because its too demanding on the engine? I mean with so much more detail and vehicles now, capital ships blowing each other to bits and the like. Seems to me that would be the only excuse for it being low

    Frostbite has no problems with 64 player matches. Remember, these games are always developed for the lowest common denominator, which in this case would be the X-Box one, then is ported to the PS4, and then finally ported to the pc. Hardware, is the biggest limiting factor when it comes to what they can, and cant include in game.

    After watching the in engine footage of the trailer yesterday, its obvious that Dice is using higher resolution textures in Battlefront2 then they did in the original EA Battlefront. A prettier game is gonna come at a cost, there is only so much video ram to work with. My guess is that they went with a over all better looking game at the cost of player count.

    I'm not a developer, this is my common sense best guess.

    They're using better textures for the trailer, but they'll have rendered all that in some ultra setting super rig that sets on fire without being cooled by a 12,000 gallon water tower. We'll see it scaled back in game.
  • Frix wrote: »
    They at least need to address why they player count is so low.

    It might be because they dont have dedicated servers like in battlefront, or not as strong, in which case that's bull****, and get ready for a lot of crappy connection. They need to address it, and more importantly, they need to address it and say they're upping the player count
    giphy.gif
  • Alvonator
    2510 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Is it because its too demanding on the engine? I mean with so much more detail and vehicles now, capital ships blowing each other to bits and the like. Seems to me that would be the only excuse for it being low

    I'm not sure, but Battlefield looks amazing with destructible environments, and that seems to manage ok.

    I agree that Battlefield 1 looks amazing, but its nowhere near the details and graphics of Battlefront.

    Regardless, I too would like anything more than 20v20.
  • Alvonator wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Is it because its too demanding on the engine? I mean with so much more detail and vehicles now, capital ships blowing each other to bits and the like. Seems to me that would be the only excuse for it being low

    I'm not sure, but Battlefield looks amazing with destructible environments, and that seems to manage ok.

    I agree that Battlefield 1 looks amazing, but its nowhere near the details and graphics of Battlefront.

    Regardless, I too would like anything more than 20v20.

    I'd take 46! I'm sure there must be some way of outdoing Battlefront 1, at least by a little.
  • I will demand no less than 64 players because Battlefront 2 is on the same engine as Battlefield 1 which supports 64 player conquest and Operations. DICE is totally capable of doing it. They're just choosing not to just like how Rush in Battlefield 1 is 24 players(smh).
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Yes please
  • WodiQuix
    4202 posts Member
    I'd love larger player counts for modes!
  • Warfan2001 wrote: »
    I will demand no less than 64 players because Battlefront 2 is on the same engine as Battlefield 1 which supports 64 player conquest and Operations. DICE is totally capable of doing it. They're just choosing not to just like how Rush in Battlefield 1 is 24 players(smh).

    Exactly, and people will say "Oh but battlefront looks better" yeah, it still doesn't have the destructive visuals of battlefield, so it will still look better. This is a failure of Dice and EA to not invest more in proper servers. In general, the game seems like a significant improvement, but this lack of upgrade will undercut all the changes made
    giphy.gif
  • DarthBatman42
    547 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    Star Wars isn't like that!!! 32vs32 gamemode are to large for the Star Wars universe! It has to be small and contained in 20vs20 to stay authentic.
  • Star Wars isn't like that!!! 32vs32 gamemode are to large for the Star Wars universe! It has to be small and contained in 20vs20 to stay authentic.

    Have you ever seen the prequels?! In the battles you can see hundreds of troops on either side battling. 32 v 32 is a lot more realstic to the Star Wars universe
  • DarthBatman42
    547 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    Willpated3 wrote: »
    Have you ever seen the prequels?! In the battles you can see hundreds of troops on either side battling. 32 v 32 is a lot more realstic to the Star Wars universe

    LOL, I had no idea someone would actually take me seriously.
  • Willpated3 wrote: »
    Star Wars isn't like that!!! 32vs32 gamemode are to large for the Star Wars universe! It has to be small and contained in 20vs20 to stay authentic.

    Have you ever seen the prequels?! In the battles you can see hundreds of troops on either side battling. 32 v 32 is a lot more realstic to the Star Wars universe
    Pretty sure that was sarcasm on his part. But yea, especially for Clone Wars we need 32v32.
  • DarthBatman42
    547 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    It's probably too late to add 32v32, the Alpha is already existent.
  • Willpated3 wrote: »
    Have you ever seen the prequels?! In the battles you can see hundreds of troops on either side battling. 32 v 32 is a lot more realstic to the Star Wars universe

    LOL, I had no idea someone would actually take me seriously.

    Sorry my bad :D
  • Im hoping for increased playercounts yeah, but if that someone in this thread said about AI is true, then im fine with it. Cant say id be upset about shredding through cannon fodder like in games such as titanfall
  • This is the one drawback on what we know about he game so far. Up it to 32v32 for large modes and this game appears flawless (so far). It might be a lot to ask, but they did add Skirmish smackdab in the middle of swbf1's lifespan. Please Devs, and a sincere thank you.
    PS I also really hope small competitive game modes like CTF/domination are returning!
    Just another sniping YouTuber.
  • I'm sure the player count is lower out of concern of full matches. The current game had a sharp dip after release which caused players in some areas having problems finding full matches or getting thrown in far off servers. If BF2 thrives, hopefully they'll consider upping the player count on the larger modes.
  • I'm sure the player count is lower out of concern of full matches. The current game had a sharp dip after release which caused players in some areas having problems finding full matches or getting thrown in far off servers. If BF2 thrives, hopefully they'll consider upping the player count on the larger modes.

    If the hype's anything to go off, fingers crossed they don't have any problems with player count. Even Angry Joe's talking about preordering.
  • This is the one drawback on what we know about he game so far. Up it to 32v32 for large modes and this game appears flawless (so far). It might be a lot to ask, but they did add Skirmish smackdab in the middle of swbf1's lifespan. Please Devs, and a sincere thank you.
    PS I also really hope small competitive game modes like CTF/domination are returning!

    it is almost flawless indeed,these additions could make it so
  • Really hoping for an increased player count.
  • I'm sure the player count is lower out of concern of full matches. The current game had a sharp dip after release which caused players in some areas having problems finding full matches or getting thrown in far off servers. If BF2 thrives, hopefully they'll consider upping the player count on the larger modes.

    If the hype's anything to go off, fingers crossed they don't have any problems with player count. Even Angry Joe's talking about preordering.

    Yeah that's something I'm most hyped for come November. First game was a flop in the general gaming community so it really didn't feel that good to be one of the best players in the game. I hope having a much larger player base means playing with and against better players since the population will be much larger and presumably more dedicated to the game. Very excited for that, and yes obviously we all want a larger player cap for large modes
    Just another sniping YouTuber.
  • Alright so so far you've absolutely killed it. Every credit due, I'm actually pretty hype.

    But this 40/24 player thing is pretty weak, it was one of the things I was hoping to see improvement on. There must be a way to bump that. Even if it isn't 64, even if we're talking 50, or 54, there's got to be a way to get this closer to Battlefield's scale.

    I don't think I'm alone on this one, I've seen rumblings elsewhere.

    same,I was also hoping for higher player count.but as you say so far great,every credit due-but one should hope the player count is raised.
  • as has been mentioned I can imagine AI as well,but only as a last resort if the player count remains the same
  • +1

    More players is ideal.
  • The player count needs to be higher, especially in space battles. The AI in the last game were just target paractice and if there are capital ships it's going to take more then 12 people to invade it and/or destroy it from the outside. If you have a ship take 6 people over to invade the enemies capital ship, you will be too vulnerable and will have barely any air support outside
  • RIFRIG
    480 posts Member
    If the game is going to have a 4K option for Pro & Scorpio the FB3 engine may not be able to deliver an acceptable performance for high count multiplayer modes thus the 40/24 decision being made.
  • RIFRIG wrote: »
    If the game is going to have a 4K option for Pro & Scorpio the FB3 engine may not be able to deliver an acceptable performance for high count multiplayer modes thus the 40/24 decision being made.

    I feel like this may be the reasoning, in which case its the WRONG PRIORITY
    giphy.gif
  • I would love to see something the same as (or similar to) Operations from Battlefield 1, as well as Rush. Just imagine, the game mode will focus on every planet from every era and war and those planets have multiple areas (large, medium, and small sized maps). For example, for the GCW, Hoth. The Empire advances to the shield generator near Echo Base by capturing two control points and soon the number rises. If they fail the first round and the Rebels succeed, the Empire will have capital ships and AT-ATs to assist with moving up to the generator. And for Geonosis for the Clone Wars, the Republic pushes up to destroy the Techno Union ships (you could destroy them in Pandemic Battlefront I) and they will have LAATs, Venator-class fleets, and AT-TEs to assist them in combat. And for the Second Galactic Civil War (sequel era)? Idk, I'll just say Starkiller Base, starting off with a space assault. And if the Resistance succeeds in the assault, they'll be able to land on Starkiller Base, pushing to destroy it.

    I made a thread about Operations and Rush and I've already talked about this. This would be a really cool addition to the Battlefront franchise, keeping the community alive and into the multiplayer and keeping the multiplayer alive until the next Star Wars multiplayer game or Battlefront. People would want to engage in each war and the stories of them. Multiple planets, multiple eras and wars, multiple stories and experiences to have and tell them to others.
  • I would love to see something the same as (or similar to) Operations from Battlefield 1, as well as Rush. Just imagine, the game mode will focus on every planet from every era and war and those planets have multiple areas (large, medium, and small sized maps). For example, for the GCW, Hoth. The Empire advances to the shield generator near Echo Base by capturing two control points and soon the number rises. If they fail the first round and the Rebels succeed, the Empire will have capital ships and AT-ATs to assist with moving up to the generator. And for Geonosis for the Clone Wars, the Republic pushes up to destroy the Techno Union ships (you could destroy them in Pandemic Battlefront I) and they will have LAATs, Venator-class fleets, and AT-TEs to assist them in combat. And for the Second Galactic Civil War (sequel era)? Idk, I'll just say Starkiller Base, starting off with a space assault. And if the Resistance succeeds in the assault, they'll be able to land on Starkiller Base, pushing to destroy it.

    I made a thread about Operations and Rush and I've already talked about this. This would be a really cool addition to the Battlefront franchise, keeping the community alive and into the multiplayer and keeping the multiplayer alive until the next Star Wars multiplayer game or Battlefront. People would want to engage in each war and the stories of them. Multiple planets, multiple eras and wars, multiple stories and experiences to have and tell them to others.

    Oh, I forgot to mention a revamped Instant Action that Pandemic had (instead of a weak Skirmish) and Galactic Conquest. ;)
  • avengerpat wrote: »
    Im hoping for increased playercounts yeah, but if that someone in this thread said about AI is true, then im fine with it. Cant say id be upset about shredding through cannon fodder like in games such as titanfall

    Yes.

    For space battles there will be 12 vs 12 plus 40 AI fighters so that effectively makes 64 player battles for the space maps.

    Perhaps they could do the same for the ground battles too.
  • So just as an observation, the player count worked well in Battlefront (2015) because the gameplay was a lot more fast-paced. I honestly think that it is a design decision. The engine can handle additional players and EA can absolutely support the server costs, so this is not a question of technical ability.

    I was fine with the player counts in the first iteration because of how the gameplay flowed. Everyone was a one-man army and was not too terribly team-based. With the advent of class-based combat, with each one serving a distinct purpose, I feel increasing the player count would be a prudent decision. We will see if they agree or disagree in the months to come.
  • DiscoverME wrote: »
    So just as an observation, the player count worked well in Battlefront (2015) because the gameplay was a lot more fast-paced. I honestly think that it is a design decision. The engine can handle additional players and EA can absolutely support the server costs, so this is not a question of technical ability.

    I was fine with the player counts in the first iteration because of how the gameplay flowed. Everyone was a one-man army and was not too terribly team-based. With the advent of class-based combat, with each one serving a distinct purpose, I feel increasing the player count would be a prudent decision. We will see if they agree or disagree in the months to come.

    Can't wait for E3 to hopefully see gameplay and get some answers on this topic
    Just another sniping YouTuber.
  • Alright so so far you've absolutely killed it. Every credit due, I'm actually pretty hype.

    But this 40/24 player thing is pretty weak, it was one of the things I was hoping to see improvement on. There must be a way to bump that. Even if it isn't 64, even if we're talking 50, or 54, there's got to be a way to get this closer to Battlefield's scale.

    I don't think I'm alone on this one, I've seen rumblings elsewhere.

    space is 64 if you count AI ships. but i wish the more ground bound modes were 32 or even 40 v
  • I was also hoping for higher player count, both in space&ground combat.
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    Chrille wrote: »
    I was also hoping for higher player count, both in space&ground combat.

    The description on origin says there will be 40 AI ships in addition to player in space battles. However it mentions nothing about AI on the ground. This is concerning.
  • Yeah the AI ships are ok, I'd rather there was someone in them, but as has been pointed out it's size of the boarding and defending parties that concern me.
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    thiago2103 wrote: »
    I absolutely hate AI ships , so useless .

  • I do not know why Battlefileds is way higher than Battlefronts. I play both and especially when I play Battlefront I envy how there is just way less players, And i do not believe they will make a drastic change to 64 players but at least raise it to 50 and add 10-20 bots or even keep it the same and add bots but not to much in which they rival the amount of players. 50 players 16 bots would be ideal.
  • I think after this game they feel the need to be conservative- it was often hard to find 20v20 games
    rWnfFLl.gif
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!