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

Misapplied argument to the 40 player max debate

Recently one of the devs said that they didnt increase the player count because they didnt need to, htat they played this model of battlefront (galactic assault) and 64 player battlefield conquest and they found that they saw an enemy more often in battlefront... which is probably true... BECAUSE, theyre playing conquest compared to a linear pto based game mode, Id like to see the "intensity numbers" of 40 player galactic assault versus 64 player operations

Just thought Id bring that to attention, Dice you have to admit that at the very least, phase 1 is slow, empty, and underwhelming, based off the gameplay I saw, so can you at least add AI pilots to phase 1? maybe add some automated turrets or AI infantry to only phase 1
giphy.gif

Replies

  • bfloo
    15034 posts Member
    Frontlines would be a better comparison.

    Operations can end up with 75% of the players sniping.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Pratore
    653 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    Completely agree, Battlefield 1 has larger and less linear maps, also has a 10+ second spawn delay. Battlefront has linear maps, linear gamemodes and instant respawn times. You cant compare those games in that category. In Phase 1 it is quite dull im not sure whether it is the first objective with the ion cannons which makes the gameplay dull or whether the map is too wide. I think they should just reduce the width of the map and keep the player count.
  • bfloo
    15034 posts Member
    Pratore wrote: »
    Completely agree, Battlefield 1 has larger and less linear maps, also has a 10+ second spawn delay. Battlefront has linear maps, linear gamemodes and instant respawn times. You cant compare those games in that strategy. In Phase 1 it is quite dull im not sure whether it is the first objective with the ion cannons which makes the gameplay dull or whether the map is too wide. I think they should just reduce the width of the map and keep the player count.

    Maps being too narrow was part of the problem with the 1st game.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Pratore
    653 posts Member
    bfloo wrote: »
    Frontlines would be a better comparison.

    Operations can end up with 75% of the players sniping.

    Very annoying, DICE need to work on their class balancing. I play operation a lot and theres always 15+ snipers on one team on any operation, its so ridiculous and ruins gameplay. They need to include a sniper limit and somehow buff the medic class. I once played an operation with only one medic which was me
  • Pratore
    653 posts Member
    bfloo wrote: »
    Pratore wrote: »
    Completely agree, Battlefield 1 has larger and less linear maps, also has a 10+ second spawn delay. Battlefront has linear maps, linear gamemodes and instant respawn times. You cant compare those games in that strategy. In Phase 1 it is quite dull im not sure whether it is the first objective with the ion cannons which makes the gameplay dull or whether the map is too wide. I think they should just reduce the width of the map and keep the player count.

    Maps being too narrow was part of the problem with the 1st game.

    Well if you only have 40 players narrow maps is the best way to make it feel populated. Even if they include linear gamemodes some people dont even play the objective and wander off. Maps shouldn't feel narrow but having narrow maps is necessary for Battlefront I beleive
  • bfloo
    15034 posts Member
    Pratore wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    Frontlines would be a better comparison.

    Operations can end up with 75% of the players sniping.

    Very annoying, DICE need to work on their class balancing. I play operation a lot and theres always 15+ snipers on one team on any operation, its so ridiculous and ruins gameplay. They need to include a sniper limit and somehow buff the medic class. I once played an operation with only one medic which was me

    This is why I'm against snipers for Battlefront.

    I want a Star Wars game, not another Sniper Wars.

    This isn't so much a Dice issue, it happens in a lot of games.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • bfloo wrote: »
    Pratore wrote: »
    Completely agree, Battlefield 1 has larger and less linear maps, also has a 10+ second spawn delay. Battlefront has linear maps, linear gamemodes and instant respawn times. You cant compare those games in that strategy. In Phase 1 it is quite dull im not sure whether it is the first objective with the ion cannons which makes the gameplay dull or whether the map is too wide. I think they should just reduce the width of the map and keep the player count.

    Maps being too narrow was part of the problem with the 1st game.

    Yeah definetly, They need to make the maps wider that arent able to have players kill enemies all the way across the width of the maps, so the opening to theed, id say, is a nice layout, but they need a buffed player count, or add AI support units, pilots- Im serious, to make it feel more intense, for phase one especially
    giphy.gif
  • bfloo wrote: »
    Pratore wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    Frontlines would be a better comparison.

    Operations can end up with 75% of the players sniping.

    Very annoying, DICE need to work on their class balancing. I play operation a lot and theres always 15+ snipers on one team on any operation, its so ridiculous and ruins gameplay. They need to include a sniper limit and somehow buff the medic class. I once played an operation with only one medic which was me

    This is why I'm against snipers for Battlefront.

    I want a Star Wars game, not another Sniper Wars.

    This isn't so much a Dice issue, it happens in a lot of games.

    Yea I'm worried that a lot of players are just going to be camping/sniping. They really should've added an engineer class or something else instead. I can't stand to play Battlefield anymore because there are so many dang snipers which makes playing the game no fun at all.
  • 64 players isn't about the number of players on your screen but the scale of the battle.
  • ....The elephant in the room is of course EA lag compensation and matchmaking .... so 64? no thanks unless there is a dramatic improvement in both areas
  • What feels more like a large battle? 20vs20 with 2 tanks on 1 frontline or 32 vs 32 with 6-8 tanks on multiple frontlines?
    When you only create linear and scripted modes with only one frontline then it's possible to lose the understanding for the customers feedback.
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • bfloo
    15034 posts Member
    What feels more like a large battle? 20vs20 with 2 tanks on 1 frontline or 32 vs 32 with 6-8 tanks on multiple frontlines?
    When you only create linear and scripted modes with only one frontline then it's possible to lose the understanding for the customers feedback.

    That isn't the point, comparing WA to Conquest for statistics is an apples and oranges comparison.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Pratore
    653 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    bfloo wrote: »
    What feels more like a large battle? 20vs20 with 2 tanks on 1 frontline or 32 vs 32 with 6-8 tanks on multiple frontlines?
    When you only create linear and scripted modes with only one frontline then it's possible to lose the understanding for the customers feedback.

    That isn't the point, comparing WA to Conquest for statistics is an apples and oranges comparison.

    +10 I think Dennis Brannval knows this, they cant compare something like that not knowing they're completely different. If they compared walker assault to operations, that would be a good comparison.
  • Ahsoka_Tano
    7341 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    bfloo wrote: »
    Pratore wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    Frontlines would be a better comparison.

    Operations can end up with 75% of the players sniping.

    Very annoying, DICE need to work on their class balancing. I play operation a lot and theres always 15+ snipers on one team on any operation, its so ridiculous and ruins gameplay. They need to include a sniper limit and somehow buff the medic class. I once played an operation with only one medic which was me

    This is why I'm against snipers for Battlefront.

    I want a Star Wars game, not another Sniper Wars.

    This isn't so much a Dice issue, it happens in a lot of games.

    Snipers could be limited by classes, for instance only 4 sniper per team are allowed like in the original Battlefront with Droidekas etc.
    Alternatively, 40 players can still increased to 64 with 24 NPCs.
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • If they have too many players then not everyone will get a decent turn as a hero or other reinforcements.

  • TMachine97 wrote: »
    If they have too many players then not everyone will get a decent turn as a hero or other reinforcements.

    In that case you can play it offline with a friend or something like that. 4 heroes at the same time or heroes only modes would compensate this problem.
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • bfloo
    15034 posts Member
    TMachine97 wrote: »
    If they have too many players then not everyone will get a decent turn as a hero or other reinforcements.

    That might be an issue if all the games are short again as well.

    @Ahsoka_Tano

    I've been arguing for limited snipers like that for a while now.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Pratore
    653 posts Member
    TMachine97 wrote: »
    If they have too many players then not everyone will get a decent turn as a hero or other reinforcements.

    Well 40 players is quite a bit already, The best players should receive the heroes more often and heroes and villains are weak so they die much quicker

    I also dont think there is a limit on the amount of special reinforcements.
  • I don't think they will limit snipers as Devs try to appeal to as big a pot. Player audience as possible .Sniper types being one grouping. Battlefield one is just a joke of place with Snipers ....big complaint on latest night map too. Devs build for Snipers IMO
  • Pratore
    653 posts Member
    [/quote]

    @Ahsoka_Tano

    I've been arguing for limited snipers like that for a while now.[/quote]

    Same, operations is filled with snipers. Game has turned into Sniperfield 1
  • bfloo
    15034 posts Member
    I don't think they will limit snipers as Devs try to appeal to as big a pot. Player audience as possible .Sniper types being one grouping. Battlefield one is just a joke of place with Snipers ....big complaint on latest night map too. Devs build for Snipers IMO

    They build for snipers and corner campers :(
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Pratore wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    What feels more like a large battle? 20vs20 with 2 tanks on 1 frontline or 32 vs 32 with 6-8 tanks on multiple frontlines?
    When you only create linear and scripted modes with only one frontline then it's possible to lose the understanding for the customers feedback.

    That isn't the point, comparing WA to Conquest for statistics is an apples and oranges comparison.

    +10 I think Dennis Brannval knows this, they cant compare something like that not knowing they're completely different. If they compared walker assault to operations, that would be a good comparison.

    Walker assault and operations are entirely different. Turning point is more similar but lacks scale from vehicles, heroes and player count.
  • Pratore
    653 posts Member
    Pratore wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    What feels more like a large battle? 20vs20 with 2 tanks on 1 frontline or 32 vs 32 with 6-8 tanks on multiple frontlines?
    When you only create linear and scripted modes with only one frontline then it's possible to lose the understanding for the customers feedback.

    That isn't the point, comparing WA to Conquest for statistics is an apples and oranges comparison.

    +10 I think Dennis Brannval knows this, they cant compare something like that not knowing they're completely different. If they compared walker assault to operations, that would be a good comparison.

    Walker assault and operations are entirely different. Turning point is more similar but lacks scale from vehicles, heroes and player count.

    Walker assault and operations are very similar?

    Same linear gamemode with two objectives the attackers have to reach. Both have vehicles and include linear maps.
  • bfloo
    15034 posts Member
    Pratore wrote: »
    Pratore wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    What feels more like a large battle? 20vs20 with 2 tanks on 1 frontline or 32 vs 32 with 6-8 tanks on multiple frontlines?
    When you only create linear and scripted modes with only one frontline then it's possible to lose the understanding for the customers feedback.

    That isn't the point, comparing WA to Conquest for statistics is an apples and oranges comparison.

    +10 I think Dennis Brannval knows this, they cant compare something like that not knowing they're completely different. If they compared walker assault to operations, that would be a good comparison.

    Walker assault and operations are entirely different. Turning point is more similar but lacks scale from vehicles, heroes and player count.

    Walker assault and operations are very similar?

    Same linear gamemode with two objectives the attackers have to reach. Both have vehicles and include linear maps.

    Good point.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    haters gonna hate
  • Kerduk782
    455 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    Listen... We need to stop making statements regarding how the maps were designed to justify having 32v32 (64) Player mode. Alright? First and foremost, EA/DICE is not that ignorant. Because they've made plenty of high-capacity player games like Battlefield for example.
    These maps were -intentionally designed- for a smaller amount of players. This was -not- what EA/DICE should've done.
    What EA/DICe -SHOULD- have done, was to simply do what they successfully did in their other headline games, like Battlefield. They should've made maps specifically designed for 64 Players, then simply taken that map and -scaled them down- to appropriate sizes for smaller player modes. It's really -not- that complicated.
    But instead... EA/DICE decided against their normal map model, and they went to custom-tailor each map specifically for 40 Players max. This is an error, and a disappointment, and I've stood up and spoke out against this since the Battlefront I Beta.
    And guess what? EA/DICE said that Battlefront I was supposed to be a -multiplayer only- game. So if this was the premise for developing their game, did they truly deliver upon a huge -multiplayer only- experience? No they did not. If you skimp out on the 32v32 (64 Player) modes, you skimp out on content.

    When you think of Star -WARS- you think of huge battles, not some kind of CoD Fishbow with like 8v8 or 12v12 matches. It's truly pathetic and this mindset needs to stop. EA/DICE needs to deliver a game based upon Battlefront's predecessors to truly capture that grand scale of combat. Because a war is fought in the City of Theed, not a Street of Theed. Get it?
    _________________________________________________________________________
    bfloo wrote: »
    This is why I'm against snipers for Battlefront.
    I want a Star Wars game, not another Sniper Wars.
    This isn't so much a Dice issue, it happens in a lot of games.

    I said this back in the Battlefront I Beta. Sniper rifles, even like the Cycler shouldn't have existed even for brief 1-time use. Because then players just use it like this one-shot musket at close ranges as well. It's smacktardation at it's finest.
    If EA/DICE wants a suggestion, then the most that should've been offered is a Marksman Class which is merely a soldier that has a slower rate of fire but more accuracy. Because Star Wars is about fast-paced gameplay with lasers flying all over the place. It should be -fun-. -NOT FRUSTRATING-.
    There truly shouldn't be -any- Snipers in Battlefront. Because Snipers in function, generally slow down the pace of gameplay and it causes players to be more cautious. It's also infuriating to be killed by something far, far away which is camping a long and narrow corridor, or sighting up on a single doorway. It doesn't take skill, it's just a typical exploitation of a game class, thus making it nothing more than simply being cheesy.
    There's no need for snipers in Star Wars. Pistols, Blasters, Light Blaster Cannons, Heavy Blaster Cannons, Marksman Blasters, they're all fine. But Sniper Rifles? No... get out of here with that please.
    Let's keep the gameplay fast and fun. No Sniper Rifles, thank you.
    Battlefront I Beta Tester - I hope Battlefront II will be amazing by delivering; Space Battles w/ Infantry Boarding Parties, Stormtroopers w/ Helmets, 64 Player Mode, Hardcore Mode (Lightsaber 1HK), Fixed Squads, In-Game VOIP, Server Browser/Filter, Private Server Hosting, Mod Support and Clan Support.
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!