What happened to 32v32 FPS?

[Bryf50]

except that people TK you over vehicles or completely ignore your requests for a ride so it is an issue, right?

but that's just 1 of my many complaints about the BF games. I play games that I find fun. If a game is a chore to play or not fun, guess what? i'm not going to fucking play it. I'm done with the BF series.

Why do you feel the need to crap in every single thread somewhat related to Battlefield. We get it you don't like the game. Move on.

 

[minmaster]

lol he really takes it personally when he doesn't get a ride, he's already mentioned it few times in this thread.

MAN GET OVER IT

 

[Capt Caveman]

except that people TK you over vehicles or completely ignore your requests for a ride so it is an issue, right?

but that's just 1 of my many complaints about the BF games. I play games that I find fun. If a game is a chore to play or not fun, guess what? i'm not going to fucking play it. I'm done with the BF series.

I replied to you in the BF3 that you decided to thread crap in also, was to find a well admin'd server that kicks/bans asshats. Like I mentioned, I only play on a handful of servers, either b/c I admin on it, know a bunch of players that play on that server or it's well admin'd and I agree with their rules.

Again, you're just a lonewolf player that should stick to single-player FPS's or stop pubbing on crappy servers.

 

[Darklife]

Not sure what sucked about it. It was fairly revolutionary for it's time, especially the netcode. Their servers still can run 250 players. It's not uncommon for the original JO to have over 190 players on a good holiday weekend in one server, and 600 players spread throughout the game rooms.

In fact the only reason I haven't bought any new games since JO and its expansions is that I'm a tactical gamer. I enjoy strategy to my games, and JO delivers that when you're hanging with your friends. Getting 80squad mates into a single map and commanding them all through all the different vehicles is engaging. Run and gun gets boring, and its tiresome. Americas Army had some of that right by making it so you couldn't respawn in a game, made people use their heads for once and learn they can't respawn infinitely after taking bullets. But I realise most people in the market want cheap entertainment that isn't realistic. But that's why me and my clan don't do run and gun nor allow it from new joins .

Exactly it was awesome. Well until Novalogic ruined the game beyond repair with the horrendous patching and mammoth bugs that went along with it.

 

[Maximilian]

except that people TK you over vehicles or completely ignore your requests for a ride so it is an issue, right?

but that's just 1 of my many complaints about the BF games. I play games that I find fun. If a game is a chore to play or not fun, guess what? i'm not going to fucking play it. I'm done with the BF series.

Thats why you need a squad of people you know on steam chat all together in one squad. Anyways you cant actively run over people who request a lift or try to take your tank anymore as servers ban you after 3 TK's :thumbsdown:

 

[VulgarDisplay]

MAG on the PS3 has 128 vs 128. It's pretty epic to have 128 man parachute assaults.

I have yet to play a 128 vs. 128 on MAG that isn't a slideshow. It just doesn't work. The 32v32 maps in MAG are fantastic. MAG on the PC would instantly be just about the best game ever. I think it plays like Counterstrike and BF2 had a baby.

 

[heymrdj]

Exactly it was awesome. Well until Novalogic ruined the game beyond repair with the horrendous patching and mammoth bugs that went along with it.

This is true . Honestly I wish Nova would get out of value games. Their war games have always been fairly high quality at initial release and bring alot of new elements that other companies seem to lack. They need to be a higher tier and get their talent back. They are one of the few companies I don't balk to pay 60$ to for a new game.

Anyone remember their sweet multi-game system that let maps be created for F-22 Lightening II/III, F-16 Multi-Role, and Abram tanks all in one game? 3 completely different games combined for ultimate late 90's warfare.

 

[Darklife]

This is true . Honestly I wish Nova would get out of value games. Their war games have always been fairly high quality at initial release and bring alot of new elements that other companies seem to lack. They need to be a higher tier and get their talent back. They are one of the few companies I don't balk to pay 60$ to for a new game.

Anyone remember their sweet multi-game system that let maps be created for F-22 Lightening II/III, F-16 Multi-Role, and Abram tanks all in one game? 3 completely different games combined for ultimate late 90's warfare.

Seriously, when I looked at Delta Force Xtreme 2 I was amazed that they're still using a 10 year old engine. The thing is I don't really get why it went to shit for them. I was under the impression that Joint Ops was a commercial success, so they surely had enough money for a sequel.

 

[Spike]

I can't wait for BF3. I played BF2 in organized tournaments for almost 2 years and it was a blast with that many people in game all working together with a good commander over them. BC2 is a crap ton of fun for running and gunning but BF3 is where it will be at, assuming it's not a bug-bitten POS.

 

[erikistired]

well no shit...because 32 vs 32 sucks ass

to house that many people the maps have to be huge. who wants to spend half the game walking/running to where the action is only to get sniped by the other team and have to do it all over again?

have you ever played battlefield 2? just curious.

 

[videogames101]

sucker born every minute and a fool and his money are soon parted adages prove to be true once again.

I heard Ad Hominems make you cooler and more correct.

Pontifex, drop the superior attitude, and accept that what you find fun isn't necessarily what everyone else finds fun.

 

[ussfletcher]

I'm a fan of either 16v16 or 24v24 (or somewhere in between) more players make the game too full, you cant do anything before being killed. Less players and you spend 90% your time trying to find someone.

 

[natto fire]

I'm glad you don't make games.

32v32 on BF2 had some of the most epic battles ever. That many people trying to get one point on a map was awesome.

Agreed, although I enjoyed the naval battles and shelling in 1942+Desertcombat even more. Those were maps that definitely needed 64 players, and when both teams were actually moving as armies, the battles were extremely epic of nature.

 

[SOSTrooper]

I loved those 24v24 servers in CODMW (from way back in the days). Such a huge spam fest but I'm a run and gun/grenade spammer so I had the upper hand in those servers. In the latest MW2 and Black Ops I find myself running and running trying to find people to shoot. Didn't Tribes 2 at one point had those 128 player servers? I didn't stick around long enough to really play in those servers.

 

[DangerAardvark]

I dunno. Bad Company 2 is bad enough about humping cover and having to shoot at a single brown pixel in the distance. I like to get up close and personal.

 

[Veliko]

There is nothing inherently better about having more and more players at once on the same map.

 

[shortylickens]

There is nothing inherently better about having more and more players at once on the same map.

Hello newb! WELCOME!

You may have not noticed the dates but we already resolved this issue last year.
Only console players would believe such nonsense as "smaller is better".

 

[Veliko]

Hello newb! WELCOME!

You may have not noticed the dates but we already resolved this issue last year.
Only console players would believe such nonsense as "smaller is better".

Hmmm non-sequitars, strawman arguments and a misguided feeling of self-importance. You must an Internet hero.

 

[minmaster]

There is nothing inherently better about having more and more players at once on the same map.

of course the maps need to be made to accomodate 64 players.
in previous PC BF games, they had maps with versions for different # of players.

 

[Red Storm]

There is nothing inherently better about having more and more players at once on the same map.

There is nothing inherently better about having less and less players at once on the same map.

 

[Veliko]

There is nothing inherently better about having less and less players at once on the same map.

Well yes of course. But this isn't a thread titled something like "what happened to all those great 1 vs 1 maps?" with people moaning about the dumbing down of... whatever the current bogeyman of choice is.

 

[Red Storm]

"What happened to..." implies that large maps and player counts were around before, and they were so the reason for their removal doesn't have anything to do with technical requirements, it seems it's tied to money making.

 

[Veliko]

"What happened to..." implies that large maps and player counts were around before, and they were so the reason for their removal doesn't have anything to do with technical requirements, it seems it's tied to money making.

Yes but then the OP went on about us being crocked and that we shouldn't be satisfied with the status quo, etc.

Perhaps there just isn't the demand for them that he thinks there is.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Here is a reminder what BF2 looked like (note the 'fog'), to support 64 players.
DICE has decided people would rather destruction, and see further, like, this, than have more players.

 

[Childs]

There might not be huge demand for 32v32 or 64v64, but when you actually get to play a game that does it, its a lot of fun. The best MP experiences I had over the last 5 years where from MAG, BF2, and BF1942. For BF3, I would see no harm in them allowing 64v64 or 128v128. If it isnt working out the people who run their own servers will drop the limit. BF maps are almost always 2-3 bigger than what you can actually play on, so they wouldnt really need to do a lot of extra work. 16v16 in BC2 has a lot of "running around and looking for people" on all the maps except for maybe Oasis.