OldGuys Server #1, Conquest. 64 or 48 players?

[error.exe]

We have tried 64 players and 48 players on our Conquest Legends server.
We all have personal opinions on wetter it should remain at 64 or get lowered to 48 players.

So lets have a poll.
The question is simple.

For our conquest server, 64 players or 48 players?
Please vote. Poll will run for a week, but replies to the topic are still possible after this run time.

[Macknetic]

48 players for sure, many of the maps become way too crowded with 64 player limit. Then the trademark Battlefield gameplay with constantly shifting fronts and flanking attacks goes out the window and it becomes a standoff around one flag.

[Yepp3r]

48 might be good for better gameplay, but I voted 64. It feels more "Battlefield" on 64 player servers.

[error.exe]

with currently a total of 14 votes down I guess we can already conclude that there is not a strong push for 64 players. If any, more people prefer 48 players.

I agree that with 64 players the actual 'battlefield vibe' is more present, but it all depends what maps you run on the server. On servers with Lancang Dam, Railway, Paracel Storm and other large jet maps.. the 64 players have my vote hands down. But on our current map rotation, with maps like Shanghai, Flood Zone and Dawnbreaker, my vote goes to 48 players. We tested the 64 players for two weeks now on OG #1, so we can all say we seen both sides of the coin.

So in the end, 48 players got my vote. But it is a poll for a reason, room for everyone to share its own opinion and vote.

[Darkness]

I dont play BF4 so I wont vote. But if I were to vote id say 48 since this was less of a clusterfuck in BF3

[Eindbaas]

48 players has my vote:

1. You have a better chance of getting to play with the vehicle (boat, tank, chopper) you want.
2. Games are more dynamic since flanking is easier.
3. I still have rubber band problems on 64 player servers sometimes
4. This could be a coincidence, but since the server is 64 players I have the feeling it is harder to fill up.

[PsychoEMT]

48, because 64 players is just too congested for some maps.

[FoxMulder]

48 MAX

Actually I prefer 32

64 players is just too chaotic.

For conquest

Rush: 16 or max 24 imo


with currently a total of 14 votes down I guess we can already conclude that there is not a strong push for 64 players. If any, more people prefer 48 players.

I agree that with 64 players the actual 'battlefield vibe' is more present, but it all depends what maps you run on the server. On servers with Lancang Dam, Railway, Paracel Storm and other large jet maps.. the 64 players have my vote hands down. But on our current map rotation, with maps like Shanghai, Flood Zone and Dawnbreaker, my vote goes to 48 players. We tested the 64 players for two weeks now on OG #1, so we can all say we seen both sides of the coin.

So in the end, 48 players got my vote. But it is a poll for a reason, room for everyone to share its own opinion and vote.

I agree. Maps used to be bigger in the older Battlefield. I remember playing Vietnam flying around with a fully loaded Huey for several minutes with an enemy in sight.
In BF4 1/4 of the time I get shot at while taking off.

BF1942 was even better than that. You can run/drive around for minutes from flag to flag without encountering resistance.

Every new Battlefield seems to be more "intense, faster action".

Sometimes I miss the Battlefield of old where you could drive/fly around without being shot at all the time.
I get it though, I recently play BF42 for free on origin and maps were bigger, but hardly any scenery compared to BF4 with all the buildings.