64 PLAYERS HOLY ♥♥♥♥

[Aquanaut]

I can't begin to describe what a step up it is in gameplay...

Mind. Blown.

[Kermit the Frog]

They made all the public matches 64!?!?!?

[KoRv]

Grand Overseer Luna a écrit :

They made all the public matches 64!?!?!?

No, they created one on the us server as it was requested

[Aquanaut]

Kaiser KoRv a écrit :

Grand Overseer Luna a écrit :

They made all the public matches 64!?!?!?

No, they created one on the us server as it was requested

I really hope this goes across the board, I lost like a couple frames and nothing else. Gameplay is so much better.

[KoRv]

Aniallator a écrit :

Kaiser KoRv a écrit :

No, they created one on the us server as it was requested

I really hope this goes across the board, I lost like a couple frames and nothing else. Gameplay is so much better.

I strongly disagree with gameplay being better, but I'm to tired to bother argue about this topic again.

[Teflon Don]

Kaiser KoRv a écrit :

Aniallator a écrit :

I really hope this goes across the board, I lost like a couple frames and nothing else. Gameplay is so much better.

I strongly disagree with gameplay being better, but I'm to tired to bother argue about this topic again.

We can compromise. You will still all have a plethora of 32 player servers, and there will be one 64 player server to satisfy the players who would like that. Everyone gets exactly what they would like that way.

[xBCxRangers]

Abu Hajaar a écrit :

Kaiser KoRv a écrit :

I strongly disagree with gameplay being better, but I'm to tired to bother argue about this topic again.

We can compromise. You will still all have a plethora of 32 player servers, and there will be one 64 player server to satisfy the players who would like that. Everyone gets exactly what they would like that way.

Well, i guess a question i would ask, is how would there be a plethora of other servers, with maybe only100 people in total playing the game as a whole?

I think it's great the tinker around, but splitting the base with something like that would be an understatement. So idk if i would blame folks who are concerned.

I mean if you had a couple thousand players at most given times, absolutely, but not now. I mean if they keep at with private matches, i guess that would work.

[KoRv]

Abu Hajaar a écrit :

Kaiser KoRv a écrit :

I strongly disagree with gameplay being better, but I'm to tired to bother argue about this topic again.

We can compromise. You will still all have a plethora of 32 player servers, and there will be one 64 player server to satisfy the players who would like that. Everyone gets exactly what they would like that way.

I got nothing against it that the devs creates a public 64 player match when a community member requests it. Nor have I anything against there being a possiblity to create private 64 player matches. I think both are good things.

I simply disagree with OP that the gameplay is better. I was trying to not turn the thread into a flame war

[Lazarus]

Well it's in a rough state. There is no balance to call ins and no balance to the time extension. Constantly being suppressed by friendlies. So some things don't work as well. It does add and greater sense of scale.
Playing regular 32 player matches feels like some fighting broke out on a section of the front. 64 players feels like we are in the midst of an offensive. I really enjoy it though I tend to not do as well.

But yeah, our trouble is our small community. I think we'd see a lot more attention on this, but there just ain't enough warm bodies on the front.

[Teflon Don]

Kaiser KoRv a écrit :

Abu Hajaar a écrit :

We can compromise. You will still all have a plethora of 32 player servers, and there will be one 64 player server to satisfy the players who would like that. Everyone gets exactly what they would like that way.

I got nothing against it that the devs creates a public 64 player match when a community member requests it. Nor have I anything against there being a possiblity to create private 64 player matches. I think both are good things.

I simply disagree with OP that the gameplay is better. I was trying to not turn the thread into a flame war

Ok, neither do I want to start a war. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Sassy The Sasquatch]

I agree that the gameplay is way better this way . I also think there needs to be no "balance for call ins" since they work just fine . I do agree that there needs to be rework on the timer however and how fast you can take a trench and stuff . But in overall the 64 player matches are way better . You also wouldnt split the player base since its not some sort of DLC , thats like saying you split the player base with Attrition . It's good to have it in the game and people enjoy Attrition over Frontlines and the other way around , and you will still have plenty of people who play 32 player matches but maybe want to switch to a 64 player match every once in a while and the other way around . Having one server dedicated to 64 player matches would be a great feature

[Aquanaut]

Shifty a écrit :

Playing regular 32 player matches feels like some fighting broke out on a section of the front. 64 players feels like we are in the midst of an offensive.

This describes it pretty well.

The greater sense of scale was deeply beneficial to gameplay IMO. 20+ people charging across NML together felt a lot more like WW1 than ~10 people all spread out. The only ♥♥♥ is twice the number of call-ins; on one hand is was more immersive, artillery going off all the time, but on the other hand it was a little over the top. Resolved by increasing cooldowns times for 64. Argonne was also a bit too small, but all the other maps were fine. It felt more alive. Certainly the best rounds I've had in a long time.

I see no problem with retaining 32 players servers, but maintaining one 64 player server would be fantastic. There were 100+ people on when I played and besides the 64 there were also two partially filled 32 servers, so for those looking for a smaller experience it's still available.