PDA

View Full Version : Which do you prefer and why: 32 vs 64 player servers?


dannytanner
10-29-2011, 02:34 PM
Please discuss.

Zefar
10-29-2011, 02:45 PM
Well since you asked nicely.

For Rush most of the time I prefer 32 players. This is because with 100 tickets on 64 player mode it will just end in like 5 minutes or so. So it's really hard to win on 64 players.

Conquest should ONLY be played in 64 player mode as well.
Rush could work if the ticket count was increased to like 250 or 300 with 64 players on the server.

I'm like strictly sticking with Rush as it's so much fun so 32 player option is what I prefer at the moment.

Johnnykey
10-29-2011, 02:52 PM
Well since you asked nicely.

For Rush most of the time I prefer 32 players. This is because with 100 tickets on 64 player mode it will just end in like 5 minutes or so. So it's really hard to win on 64 players.

Conquest should ONLY be played in 64 player mode as well.
Rush could work if the ticket count was increased to like 250 or 300 with 64 players on the server.

I'm like strictly sticking with Rush as it's so much fun so 32 player option is what I prefer at the moment.

Is there even a Rush mode with 64 players? On non-hacked servers, I mean.

taodemon
10-29-2011, 02:56 PM
I have been avoiding he 64 player servers because of the amount of lag I was getting on them initially.

rupok2
10-29-2011, 03:15 PM
i prefer 64 players but they are laggy atm so avoiding them

Kaies
10-29-2011, 03:17 PM
i prefer the 48 player servers, not too many, not too little.

Paikuhan
10-29-2011, 03:24 PM
32 is fun

ballpoint202
10-29-2011, 03:46 PM
There's too much lag on the 64-player servers. Really hard to enjoy them.

Zareth
10-29-2011, 03:52 PM
Depends on the map. Seine crossing is painful on 64 players, but something like Firestorm can be great fun.

Heids24
10-29-2011, 04:03 PM
32 for me. Most of the maps are too chaotic with 64 players - which is unfortunate.

jim2point0
10-29-2011, 04:32 PM
The sweet spot for me is 48. This goes for all maps. Caspian, firestorm, and kharg island, which I believe are the biggest maps.

I have 8-9 really good servers in my favorites that are all 48 players, and they're all constantly full (ugh).

Sliph
10-29-2011, 04:33 PM
For lvling purposes 32 conquest on large maps cant be beat. Just run around capping flags nonstop while picking people off in the process. Easily get 6-9k+ per round. If im just playing for fun 64 conquest or 32 rush is the way to go. I have no issues running on 64 player maps so i dont get why others are.

kmrking
10-29-2011, 04:35 PM
40. yeah i said it, all my favourited servers are 40p. dont know why, i find it a nice balance

LostX
10-29-2011, 04:37 PM
i prefer the 48 player servers, not too many, not too little.

Same here.

Bulletooth
10-29-2011, 04:38 PM
64 for the few maps which are open and huge, 32 for linear rush stuff

GirlPower23
10-29-2011, 04:41 PM
I like them both, 64 for conquest and not rush. 32 for Rush/Small Conquest. 64 Player servers tend to be full of lag though.

MrChris
10-29-2011, 04:45 PM
even in conquest I prefer 48 man

since 64 is simply a cluster♥♥♥♥ on plenty of the maps

I like a bit of Rush though and don't mind 32 players on that since it works

doodlelots
10-29-2011, 04:52 PM
32 rush 64 large conquest.

Ace Quat
10-30-2011, 02:23 AM
64 players for all bigger maps (firestorm, kharg, caspian, noshahr) but also for larger infantry-focused maps (bazaar). however, typical chokepoint maps (metro, damavand) are just horrible with so many players

Chris2183
10-30-2011, 05:49 AM
32-48 on Conquest. Even the largest BF3 map feels too small for 64 players.

SkaP
10-30-2011, 06:02 AM
Anywhere near 64. The more the better.

Overt.Enemy
10-30-2011, 07:18 AM
Since the maps in BF3 aren't really the correct size to support 64 players I have to say 32 players.

laazrockit
10-30-2011, 07:21 AM
64 player conquest is the best, but the lag on some of the 64 player maps (like tehran highway) can make it really frustrating.

Since the maps in BF3 aren't really the correct size to support 64 players I have to say 32 players.

Caspian, Kharg, Nosharh, Operation firestorm all play better with 64 players.

tvih
10-30-2011, 07:22 AM
I've only played 64-player Conquest so far, but I have to consider downsizing if the lag issues doesn't get sorted. Just like with beta, I'm unsure if the problem is underpowered server hardware across all server providers, or if it is an issue with the server software implementation. The latter seems unlikely, but who knows.

Delicieuxz
10-30-2011, 07:25 AM
It depends on the map. In Battlefield 3, the maps aren't designed for 64 players, they're designed for 24 - around 48 players, so I prefer a suitable number of players depending on the map. But I like big maps with more players. Also, the lag in Bf3 is pretty awful, so more players can mean more lag.

jim2point0
10-31-2011, 06:22 AM
Caspian, Kharg, Nosharh, Operation firestorm all play better with 64 players.

I disagree. I find 48-52 to be perfect. 64 is too many once all bases are capped. The playable area is so small for that many players.

I'm fine with the maps not being big enough for 64 players... my problem is consistency. Some are perfect for 48. Some are actually too small for 48. If they redo the "back to karkand" expansion correctly, the maps will be perfect for 64. Then it will be even more imbalanced size-wise.

Lately I've been playing on a 24/7 caspian server with 42 max players. I'd like a few more players, but it's a trade-off. I can be bothered to play on servers which have the most terrible maps in the game in the rotation. A 48 player 24/7 caspian/firestorm/kharg/canals server would be perfect. I'd pay a monthly fee for that.

Warseth
10-31-2011, 10:31 AM
Well since you asked nicely.

For Rush most of the time I prefer 32 players. This is because with 100 tickets on 64 player mode it will just end in like 5 minutes or so. So it's really hard to win on 64 players.

Conquest should ONLY be played in 64 player mode as well.
Rush could work if the ticket count was increased to like 250 or 300 with 64 players on the server.

I'm like strictly sticking with Rush as it's so much fun so 32 player option is what I prefer at the moment.


Rush 32 yes...cause 64 mans end up being stalemates at chokes all game.

64 large conquest though is great...no less for that..i wish we had 100.

Otherwise 32-40 is ok..for all maps. 64 seems to show its ugly flaws with map design ..especially on rush.

NorthernKingdom
10-31-2011, 11:01 AM
i prefer the 48 player servers, not too many, not too little.

Agreed. 48-52 is the sweet spot.