Why are multiplayer FPS maps and/or servers so small?

[Zebbeee]

Which FPS games allow more than 100 players on their map? And which has a map large enough with no loading zones, to actually make it worth?

Hell let loose, H&G. Battlefield V... All these remain small playground with small amounts of players, like we had 20 years ago.

Why are these only improving graphics and not the gameplay experience by the size of their maps and the amount of simultaneous players on it?

Does only World War II Online has it for the past 20 years or did I miss a good title?

[Electric Cupcake]

Look through CS:GO user maps.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=574515071

[Zebbeee]

By huge I mean 100 000 km x 100 000 km
And by a lot of players I mean at least 1000 on a single server

[Your_White_Knight]

Originally posted by Zebbeee:

Why are multiplayer FPS maps and/or servers so small?

Which FPS games allow more than 100 players on their map? And which has a map large enough with no loading zones, to actually make it worth?

Hell let loose, H&G. Battlefield V... All these remain small playground with small amounts of players, like we had 20 years ago.

Why are these only improving graphics and not the gameplay experience by the size of their maps and the amount of simultaneous players on it?

Does only World War II Online has it for the past 20 years or did I miss a good title?

Well even with the advancement of tech like 5G for phones... internet connections still are "meh" at best... when a game is MMO it still needs to take the highest Ping and the lowest Ping level and try to match them software wise on the server to keep the hit boxes at the same frame rate... so it's harder to match up 100 Ping levels then say 20 Ping levels and get everyone close in order for "good" gameplay for everyone without people lagging or rubberbanding all over the place...

As for the WWII genre... I've played them all... was playing H&G in 2015 and still today... it has small amounts of players because it's just not popular... it's a niche market, developers are only going to put in what they can get out of it, the need for "better gameplay" and "bigger maps" only come after the growth of playerbase... not the other way around.

TLDR; The "if you build it they will come" only works in movies... supply only comes after demand. ( IE, huge numbers of people wanting it )

[Walach]

What I know is that the game "Planetside" had/has the largest battles in any multiplayer game.
I played it many years ago and I had the best multiplayer experience there.

Defending a base to the last man, that was me one time, backed into a corner just unleashing all my ammo into the only 2 doors leading in. Slowly the enemy was gaining area, first the door, then the area with some crates and then they surrounded me, but I did never surrender, there wasn't a gameplay ability to do so! ;P

EDIT: And, technically, doesn't space games have extremely large maps? ;P

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

It's easier and peoples still play PVP games with the small maps as much then the games which have larger and more complex maps.

[VC'Fox]

cod4 still had 64 player shipment servers, so much fun.

[EmotionallyBroken]

Originally posted by Zebbeee:

Why are multiplayer FPS maps and/or servers so small?

I would guess probably so they're shooters rather than running simulators.

[628]

Ever tried Battlefield games? Not V ♥♥♥♥ but great ones like 2 to 4?

[AustrAlien2010]

Small worlds are sometimes better to play for duels. Also, large maps with hundreds of players aren't very interesting to me, because I like to focus on a nemesis, and be able to hunt down that nemesis. That's sort of impossible with hundreds of players.

Half of the time, I am not even aware of who plays in them, or I simply can't find the enemy, or find any interesting players to be hunting. It's all very anonymous.

[Cpt Buckshot]

even Planetside FPS has over 100

[Zebbeee]

Most if not all are limited to 100 players or a bit more. No one trying 500 or 1000, even with a local visual limit.