No mention that this was pretty much already in Crysis 2 and was called Crash site?
Wow, 8v8.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;48644894]Wow, 8v8.[/QUOTE]
Why are people so desperate for 64v64 or 32v32 battles? They sound great in concept but in reality are just a clusterfuck with no sense of personality since you're just another drop of rain in the sea. I'd rather a smaller number of players but lots of BOTs since each player will have a significant impact on the game and it'll be a bit less clusterfucky and a little more skill based.
I know this isn't Dice's reasoning, but that's why I'm ok with smaller PLAYER numbers, nobody ever did big scale battles in Battlefront anyway it was maximum 4v4 with loads of BOTs.
Yeah, huge battles in games were always more of a spectacle deal to me. I always prefer smaller skirmishes with some semblance of cooperation rather than two massive clusterfucks throwing themselves at each other.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48644958]Why are people so desperate for 64v64 or 32v32 battles? They sound great in concept but in reality are just a clusterfuck with no sense of personality since you're just another drop of rain in the sea. I'd rather a smaller number of players but lots of BOTs since each player will have a significant impact on the game and it'll be a bit less clusterfucky and a little more skill based.
I know this isn't Dice's reasoning, but that's why I'm ok with smaller PLAYER numbers, nobody ever did big scale battles in Battlefront anyway it was maximum 4v4 with loads of BOTs.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with that, when you've got more than 20 people per team, you start to lose perspective on what your actions are actually accomplishing.
I do kind of wish they'd go the Titanfall route and have tonnes of really poor AI wandering the battlefield as well.
As far as really large-scale online play goes, MAG on PS3 was a great example of how to do 128v128 games and have them be coherent.
If Mag were a great example of anything, it'd still be alive
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48644958]Why are people so desperate for 64v64 or 32v32 battles? They sound great in concept but in reality are just a clusterfuck with no sense of personality since you're just another drop of rain in the sea. I'd rather a smaller number of players but lots of BOTs since each player will have a significant impact on the game and it'll be a bit less clusterfucky and a little more skill based.
I know this isn't Dice's reasoning, but that's why I'm ok with smaller PLAYER numbers, nobody ever did big scale battles in Battlefront anyway it was maximum 4v4 with loads of BOTs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sure. I always played 1v1 with my friend on opposite sides. Here's the thing. Do we even know if bots are included at all? That's the trouble I'm having. I have a horrible feeling this is just going to be completely lackluster.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;48645037]As far as really large-scale online play goes, MAG on PS3 was a great example of how to do 128v128 games and have them be coherent.[/QUOTE]
I think Resistance 2 did it well. Since it divided players up into squads and gave each squad their own objective. So there was a big 32v32 battle going on but it wasn't just one big blob vs another blob since you would spread out over the map.
[QUOTE=revan740;48645493]Yeah, sure. I always played 1v1 with my friend on opposite sides. Here's the thing. Do we even know if bots are included at all? That's the trouble I'm having. I have a horrible feeling this is just going to be completely lackluster.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they've ever outright said yes or no, maybe I'm wrong. Still no BOTs, no buy for me
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48644958]Why are people so desperate for 64v64 or 32v32 battles? They sound great in concept but in reality are just a clusterfuck with no sense of personality since you're just another drop of rain in the sea. I'd rather a smaller number of players but lots of BOTs since each player will have a significant impact on the game and it'll be a bit less clusterfucky and a little more skill based.
I know this isn't Dice's reasoning, but that's why I'm ok with smaller PLAYER numbers, nobody ever did big scale battles in Battlefront anyway it was maximum 4v4 with loads of BOTs.[/QUOTE]
8v8 is just too small for me. Even old ass Delta Force in the 90's on 56k had 32 player servers. 32 players seems about the right number 90% of the time if the map isn't shoebox sized, and only if the map is wide open like Battlefield maps is 64 a good size
[QUOTE=TheTalon;48645862]8v8 is just too small for me. Even old ass Delta Force in the 90's on 56k had 32 player servers. 32 players seems about the right number 90% of the time if the map isn't shoebox sized, and only if the map is wide open like Battlefield maps is 64 a good size[/QUOTE]
Each to their own, just even when you remove the clusterfuck element bigger sizes leads to less personal games and worse level design.
8v8 isn't bad considering how many times you and your team-mates will be dying along with the bots
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48644958]Why are people so desperate for 64v64 or 32v32 battles? They sound great in concept but in reality are just a clusterfuck with no sense of personality since you're just another drop of rain in the sea. I'd rather a smaller number of players but lots of BOTs since each player will have a significant impact on the game and it'll be a bit less clusterfucky and a little more skill based.
I know this isn't Dice's reasoning, but that's why I'm ok with smaller PLAYER numbers, nobody ever did big scale battles in Battlefront anyway it was maximum 4v4 with loads of BOTs.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. 64 players are way too many for the scale of Battlefield (Grand Bazaar or Metro 64 jesus god no.), especially with the total lack of organisation. Even in Project Reality with its 4x4km maps, 100 player battles were a bit too much for my liking depending on the specific map and layer - saturate the map with enemies and it's a fast-burn sort of thing, but keep encounters spaced out and it adds an element of tension as well as opening the maps up a bit more, giving you some room for planning beyond "run face-first into a wall of enemies" for the millionth time. Plus, performance where sub-£5,000,000 rigs are concerned.
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;48649132]8v8 isn't bad considering how many times you and your team-mates will be dying along with the bots[/QUOTE]
If there are even bots, they haven't said one way or the other as far as i know.
[QUOTE=madmanmad;48649386]If there are even bots, they haven't said one way or the other as far as i know.[/QUOTE]
The trailers had huge battles going on, but that's not really a confirmation. I'd be disappointed if there was no bots.
the game will probably suck anyway
I got this game and the new hitman for 32% off!
So if I can get ~20 hours in this game, I say money well worth it!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
