12 v 12 servers seriously? we're nearly 10 years removed BF2 with 32v32 there are games on the way with 128 v 128 servers and we get 12 v 12? Did I read this wrong? Any hope that the on again off again BF3 might be at least 64v64?

Hey cmon it's actually a bit "cozier" with 12vs12. Though maybe i'd like more too.

MAIN.Zorobay wrote:Hey cmon it's actually a bit "cozier" with 12vs12. Though maybe i'd like more too.

Being that we're all cozy maybe we should put the guns down and play go fish

PC version will be 32 V 32 I believe.

But in gameplays I can't see... emptiness. I mean If the action is moving from one point to another, and all players must go there, so then even 12 vs 12 is not bad. 32 vs 32 on that Arica Harbor would be mess. I won't cry if it'd be 12 vs 12 on PCs, but 18 vs 18 would be perfect.

12 v 12 is NOT too little. The maps overall are larger than BF2 imo, but you only fight over sections at a time. Conquest should be interesting to see though, idk about that. If the whole map is open though, then you would need a minimum of 32v32, but so far, it's not open all at once.

12 v 12 is still larger than many console FPS games. (Halo 3: 8 v 8, CoDMW2: 9 v 9)

Still, I'd like to see a 20 v 20 console Battlefield game sometime in the near future.

Yeah I would want to see 24 v. 24.

The console have enough trouble running BFBC2 as it is. Any more players in a multiplayer game will only make the game laggy.

The PC version will be 16 vs 16 but I imagine the server admins will have that quite a bit higher (24 vs 24?) fairly quickly. Another reason why I love my PC games

Funny, I'd play a PC FPS game (SWBFII) and it'd lag as soon as one idiot with a huge ping joined. Same with consoles. Except consoles have better graphics, sounds, and communication than PC FPS games. Well, unless you spend way more money than any sane person should just to achieve the same amount of quality.

But this isn't a PC v Console thread, so don't respond unless you have no life and want to keep arguing over nothing.

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Theres 1000 topics on this... I don't wanna keep explaining.

Its Frostbite, much more work. Hard to run a full destruction game with 64 players leveling the map at the same time.

The game is made with the console in mind, the PC is almost an extra.

The number of players in this game is half that of other previous PC BF games, but everything else is doubled. Customization, gameplay mechanics, full destruction, not to mention a full campaign.

It really all comes down to map-size. Large maps lend themselves to more players and other vehicles besides just choppers and ground. I expect DICE wants to make BC2 more of a CQB skirmish with some window-dressing to make things look like you're fighting a larger battles.

I'm only pro high player-cap if they also make maps that are better built to support it. For example, in BF2, Kubra Dam was great with 64 players, but most of Karkand was a meat-grinder with that size...conversely, Shonghua Stalemate sucked with less than 32 people (even with the 32 player-scale running).

I loved the idea of scaling maps in BF2, but hopefully DICE will make a more adaptable map-size that expands and contracts between rounds based on how many players are on the server at those particular between rounds moments with a cutoff range decided server-side

For example:

run 16_player sized map when player count is <16

run 32_player sized map when player count is >16<32

and

run 64_player sized map when player count is >32

Thanks for the answers guys. I think I'll hold off and hope for BF3. And keep playing BF2. I see the advantages with the fully destructible environments and greater customization. I'd rather have a little less graphics and a little more people. I like having enemies around every corner and still having a huge map. I also do like the "Karkand meat grinder"

ps3.Ike262 wrote:12 v 12 servers seriously? we're nearly 10 years removed BF2 with 32v32 there are games on the way with 128 v 128 servers and we get 12 v 12? Did I read this wrong? Any hope that the on again off again BF3 might be at least 64v64?

One of those games with 128v128 is a waste of good game developer time. Plus its way to many players at one time. I should I was involved in that beta ordeal.

Games should not be larger then 32 players and I think 12v12 is fine for this game is they go up to 16v16 that would be fine but more then that no thank you.