MarasdF Loron
Fatal Absolution
Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
1152
   |
Posted - 2017.05.26 03:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Richard Gamerich-R wrote:"Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys.  Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy.
Let me start off by saying that it's your game and you call the shots. However let me give you a few examples of why different sized game modes could work and could be lots of fun as well, and bring different kinds of tactics and strategies.
5v5-8v8, this player range is the sweetspot for arena type maps, I guess CS:GO would be a perfect example of this even though I don't really play that game myself because I don't like it myself (each to their own, right?) but I bet that most people know this game and can relate to it.
It gives the possibility of squad vs squad or 2 squads vs 2 squads, highly tactical infantry game mode.
10v10-16v16, medium map size, for example BF4 Rush game mode, here you have one team defending 2 different targets away from each other and another team attacking those targets and if the attacker is successful they then have to make a push for new targets elsewhere on the map, mostly infantry with occasional vehicles on some maps.
If you go above 32 total players it easily becomes too crowded to accomplish anything remotely tactical in this game mode.
16v16-32v32, large map size, if I try to imagine BF4's Golmud Railway, which is a large open map with hills and pretty much completely destructible village in the middle of the map and a partially destructible factory on the southern part of the map, with less than 32 total players all I can think up is this completely desolate map with simply running around through the whole match trying to find your enemy.
So 64 players works perfectly on large maps with vehicles and infantry, there's something to shoot at most of the time and you have to think a little bit how you want to advance to the next capture point if you want to make it there alive.
This game mode gives me the feeling of being in an actual battle, because in a real battle nobody is in full control of what happens, a little chaos is what truly brings the battlefield alive: "Oh sh--! There's an enemy there?! I didn't expect that!"
36vs37v37, Arma 3 King of the Hill, huge map with a town in the middle of the map that 3 teams compete to bring under their control, in this game mode a lot of different kinds of fights can happen and you really need to use teamwork and strategy to even get to the AO, not to mention actually controlling that AO, so there's no spawning into the AO, instead you have to always respawn at your base which is a few km away from the AO and you then have to decide on how to get back to the AO.
Awesome game mode that supports all kinds of vehicles and infantry gameplay, can become a little onesided if one team is using strategy and tactics and the other two teams are not.
Anyways this is just a few examples that I could give without taking a full day to write examples of why different sized matches can really work, you don't necessarily have to decide on a single match size and stick to it for all game modes.
|