Little disappointed...

[grep]

For a game that heralds so much content such as 20 different soldier types from 4 factions, more than 30 Star Wars weapons, more than 25 diverse ground and air vehicles, etc. I'm a little disappointed in the limited amount of players for online play.

 

All this great stuff, but who is going to be using it? What does "Multiplayer for up to 16 players (plus AI units) online" exactly mean? What is the exact amount, I thought it was 32 for the PC?? (don't care about xbox and ps2)

 

Don't get me wrong, I will definitely give SW:BF a good hard look, but the limited amount of players online is a little disappointing to say the least. The more the merrier, provided a server can handle it. If Novalogic can do 150 players online with Joint Operations, then SW:BF should at least be able to handle up to 64 players at the minimum.

 

What is the logic behind a limited amount of players?

[jdtech]

To help out those peeps with low end PCs and who don't have PS2/XBOX or dislike them.

 

I've got an Xbox but feel if I get SWBF for it, I'm not very good on the controller and I'm tons better with a keyboard & mouse. Republic Commando, on the other hand, I think I'll get on Xbox.

 

John

[Dragnarr]

Yeah but the way I see it 32 player is perfect, also it could be 64 players max aswell, but I personally like 32. In big games it gets utterly boring , yeah there's action going on alright but the game just tends to turn into a chaos where there's no real objective, like it doesn't much matter what you do in the field, except just kill the enemy of course. I like more tactical gameplay where slipping into enemy territory is essential and big games don't usually allow that kind of things

[jdtech]

More people to mess a game up...

 

John

[Whoopknacker]

When you have too many players and they all have voice chat, it can be utter chaos. I played Omaha Beach in BF42 with the Nvidia super servers and it was crazy. Not to mention that you tend to get that lag going as well. I do hope that they can increase the amount of players but more importantly is to increase the quality of players, thats up to us.

[Alegis]

LEC likes to put it "low", like for example JA. Not that its really low, but they play safe that way. You can however, bypass it. I could make a 64 server for battlefront, but that would just depend on how playable it is then.

 

As for more players on console, check out this topic

[JDKnite188]

LEC gives suggested limits, but they can be exceeded in certain cases.

[GhostfacedKilla]

this thread can become very debateable, Im fine with only 16 human players and 16 npc;s. Less players means more tactical play and more stategic thinking. think about socom-2(8on8), every player counted whether he was a noob or not, each player brought something the team. but as far bf1942 those huge games meant each player had almost little difference to each battle, you could just goof off and no one would care. and every time u engaged someone u died very quickly.

 

16vs16 is good

[grep]

Originally posted by Dragnarr

Yeah but the way I see it 32 player is perfect, also it could be 64 players max aswell, but I personally like 32. In big games it gets utterly boring , yeah there's action going on alright but the game just tends to turn into a chaos where there's no real objective, like it doesn't much matter what you do in the field, except just kill the enemy of course. I like more tactical gameplay where slipping into enemy territory is essential and big games don't usually allow that kind of things

 

Boring? I think searching for the enemy due to the limited amount of players is kind of boring. Sorry to say, but even with 32 playes on public servers, I don't think you find much tactic or objective, unless of course you are in a well-organized clan.

 

I guess my concern is more geared towards ground combat. For example, if the server is limited to only 32 players, but yet one particular map is draped with tons of vehicles, as noted in my original post, then everyone will "run" to those vehicles only to render ground combat useless. Everyone will be in some sort of fighter or vehicle that the ground troops will not stand a chance of survival. Unless the map itself limits the amount of vehicles in it and the map is smaller in nature, then 32 should be perfect. On larger maps, though, I don't want to be running "forever" only to be killed just because I decided not to hop into some sort of vehicle.

[Dragnarr]

Originally posted by grep

Boring? I think searching for the enemy due to the limited amount of players is kind of boring. Sorry to say, but even with 32 playes on public servers, I don't think you find much tactic or objective, unless of course you are in a well-organized clan.

 

I guess my concern is more geared towards ground combat. For example, if the server is limited to only 32 players, but yet one particular map is draped with tons of vehicles, as noted in my original post, then everyone will "run" to those vehicles only to render ground combat useless. Everyone will be in some sort of fighter or vehicle that the ground troops will not stand a chance of survival. Unless the map itself limits the amount of vehicles in it and the map is smaller in nature, then 32 should be perfect. On larger maps, though, I don't want to be running "forever" only to be killed just because I decided not to hop into some sort of vehicle.

 

Hence my tag, well organised clan but I like pub games aswell .

ANd with boring I ment usually kind a tight places ( not necessary in Battlefront it seems ), where two teams simply ram at eachother. This is supposed to be more tactical game so I doubt there won't be problems like that

 

At your other concern of too many vehicles compared to players. I totally agree. Even though I haven't seen the maps nor cannot say how many vehicles there will be, Im afraid that if this game isn't polished well we will end up in a Genosian war with nothing more than a big tank battle.

 

Of course the best system would be if the teams or players would have to EARN the vehicles. Doesn't it just seem kind a strange how vehicles just seem to pop out from nowhere, usually with only few seccond brakes. Perhaps some modding team would be interested in making another game type to the original game:

 

Objective: Destroy HQ. All teams start with HQ at their spawning point. It has certain ammount of health and can be taken out from inside aswell with multiple explosion packs ( sort of a Endors shield generator type ). Resource in the game is gold. Once you killed an enemy unit it drops gold and ammo. Also Capture points generate certain ammount of gold every seccond. With gold you can buy new unit types ( you start with normal infantry, then you can upgrade your unit to sniper or pilot or any of the extra classes with more cost, the more they cost the better they are. Those classes stats should be increased then of course ). You can also buy vehicles with gold from vehicle platform located all around the map ( vehicle platforms produce different vehicles dependant on factory and can be destroyed ). Buying large units like AT-AT require massive ammount of gold, so a whole team can contribute to this vehicle with pressing F1 - Yes or F2 - No, when the pop-up message shows up.

[ShadoWraith]

I think 12v12 is perfect.

[zenn]

I'm also a little disappointed by only 32 players max available on PC. I'll still probably buy the game, check it out, and hold out hope that some custom servers will somehow max out the game to 64 players (like in Enemy Territory).

 

I currently play Joint Operations and have played on servers with as many as 150 players, and those games are a blast. Sure, there are some noobs on there, but for the most part, most players are playing for the control points (called PSPs).

 

On one occasion, I played on this unlimited time server (meaning you have to outright win the map to move onto the next map) on an island map called Straits of Malacca. At one point we had something like 64 players all contesting one little island (out of several islands). The total number of players on the server at the time was 150, so 50% were off fighting other islands, while the other 50% of us were contesting that little island. It got so crazy (and fun), seeing all the troops and firepower raining down on that one island. I just thought that was incredible, even for a guy coming from BF1942.

 

I'm not trying to compare SW:BF to JO; I just was hoping for something along the line of at least BF1942 in terms of players. Maybe, as I said above, the servers themselves will be able to max out the games to 64 players.

[Mountainforest]

I don't know if more people is better. It kind of depends on the size of the maps.

[Neon]

And I think 16 vs 16 is the best

[Tyler_Durden]

I think the comparisons made to socom are insignificant as this is a much bigger game with maps that are much larger, plus the fact that all the soldiers (stormtroopers, clones, droids, etc.) stand out wherever they are, thus killing any tactical aspect that you think the game might have. Have any of you ever played a game like bf vietnam or 1942? Those games are anything but tactical. You got guys doing whatever they want when they want. hardly anyone follows orders or teams up to take a control point. in rare instances you'll get a small platoon of guys who will team up with you and fulfill objectives but mostly it's every man for himself trying to be rambo. This game will be no different, trust me. You got guys having knife fights while waiting for the helicopters to respawn, team killers, the list can go on. You can try booting some of them off but in reality you'd probably have to boot 95% of everyone playing on the server.

[Dragnarr]

True, but that's only in pub matches, in clan matches it's all different

[Azurik12x]

Because Battlefield 1942 always lagged with more than 32 players.

[S31 Apoc]

32 players is fine.. I run a 32 player BFV server & more thant that turns into a noob fest.. 28 to 32 good players over 40 or 50 stupid players...

 

If you act like a smacktard in our server you get the kick baby

[TK-8252]

More players, more team-killing.

[RoxStar]

You know how laggy Joint Ops is? At least the demo was for me. I got about 10 fps on it on low settings. With 100 people on one server.

[El Sitherino]

indeed. Besides the average max in most games for servers is 32. You will however find servers with more than that, I'm pretty sure about it.

[zenn]

A few points:

 

1. Having 64 players or more on a server is a preference for me. I also believe it is a preference for a lot of people (maybe not on this forum).

 

2. If other people like playing on smaller servers, then that's their choice. I'm not against that; in fact, I'm pro-choice. On BF1942 or BFV or even JO, there is a choice between smaller sized to bigger sized servers to play on.

 

2. I believe a part of BF1942 and JO's success is due to being able to play on larger populated servers. Not the only reason, but a good part of it. Why would BF1942 & JO advertise these features if it were not true?

 

3. I'm not here to push JO, but in response to an above reply, JO is not as laggy as the demo. I own the full version, and they have already patched it at least 3 times. The last patch really helped most people with their frame rates. And I don't have a high end machine (AMD 2400, Nvidia 5900XT, 1 Gig Ram, ...).

[I<3Stormies]

^^^^

 

Damn drugs. Do you HONESTLY not consider that a high end machine? Jesus H. Christ.

[DieStarWarsGeek]

Geeze, not happy with 32 players, huh? I think anything more than 16vs16 is pretty freaking ridiculous. Besides the lagging factor, Why the need for so many people? It takes away strategy and simply becomes a shooting fest. That crap's boring.

 

If you want a shooting fest, play another game. If you want to have fun, play SWB.

[S31 Apoc]

to many players makes the game a toss of the coin... Less players make for a better team game.... IMO