Make The Game More Tactical Please

[Cybrupt]

The main problem I have with Renegade X is that for the most part its a massacre. People just shoot at each other at choke points all day. I think there needs to be more strategies that players can do to win on their own. Get behind enemy lines, take out key structures on their own, etc.Yes you can do that now but it's too hard and stupid to do usually. Like driving a apc through the front door of the enemy base or getting lucky and making it through a backdoor when no one is caring. i dont like coming up with ideas but...

Maybe have it so you can air drop into the enemy base. Everyone gets the ability to c4 one shot kill structures, etc. Maybe have it so you have to hack enemy structure doors rather than have proximity mines and an alarm goes off and the structure starts flashing red or something. the whole spy crate was a good idea honestly but its all luck based which is lame. I just do not enjoy this game because i feel like a grunt being slaughtered at a choke point all day only to afford a higher level character or vehicle and have it die by a luck shot or fail to rush the enemy base. Its pointless to grind away for 15+ minutes until something happens or doeskin happen.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Cybrupt

[boxes]

Have you been playing on the 60 player server?

[Cybrupt]

8 minutes ago, CampinJeff said:

Have you been playing on the 60 player server?

ya but even when renegade x first came out it seemed pretty retarded. i even remember thegunrun making videos and watching him get raped in the island tunnel all day and knew this game was not gonna last.

[boxes]

Well there's still a playerbase after 2+ years with limited media exposure/distribution and development is still in progress, so it definitely has something going. I understand what you mean though, but it's particularly because this game lacks any sort of tutorial, resulting in people going lone wolf in tunnels and dying over and over and not having fun. At different points during a game there's specific things you do that would prove more effective than others, but people aren't going to know that on their own. For example there's anti-tank infantry resistant to explosives, so if you're bored of using a tank to regain field control you an use one of those instead. The veterancy system also makes every little thing you do more worthwhile (repairing, disarming, attacking), but again I realized that some people don't even know such a system exists or how it works. 

And I mentioned the 60 player server because in that situation you are definitely correct with it being a massacre

[Madkill40]

8 hours ago, Cybrupt said:

Yes you can do that now but it's too hard and stupid to do usually.

You admit that it can be done but complain that it is too hard, so you want key structures to be massively easier to take down? If paradrops were added then you would need roof access to all buildings which... yada yada yada...

You haven't thought about the other consequences of your suggestions, some of which have been debated before. [Possibly all] 

Since your reasoning is "it's too hard" that just says how little you've played the game and how unwilling you are to learn the game and how to play the game itself. 

I came into this thread expecting debatable tactics, not to read some mediocre whining about the games learning curve and how you don't enjoy a challenge but want to be spoonfed your victories. Would you like an achievement every time you place 20 mines? Or maybe a credit refund after dying in the first 5 minutes of using a Tier 2 or 3 character? 

Yikes.

[Hohndo]

It's a team based game, man. You need to work with people and sometimes that means you can't always do what you want to do.

Since the CT server has been updated to 60 players it makes solo sneaking significantly harder, though. But, it is entirely doable. I'm going to try to make the point of it getting reduced down to 52 players because I feel that is around the point some maps like Walls and Islands start to break since they were never designed for that many players and those are two of the more common maps people like to play.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Hohndo
Victim of auto-correct

[RoundShades]

5 minutes ago, Hohndo said:

It's a team based game, man. You need to queen with people and sometimes that means you can't always do what you want to do.

Since the CT server has been updated to 60 players it makes solo sneaking significantly harder, though. But, it is entirely doable. I'm going to try to make the point of it getting reduced down to 52 players because I feel that is around the point some maps like Walls and Islands start to break since they were never designed for that many players and those are two of the more common maps people like to play.

*Obligatory "I told you so" about raising it to 60 instead of hosting 32 on two servers instead*

[Fffreak9999]

@YagiHige except people never joined a second server, since people always wanted to join the full one.

[vandal33]

11 hours ago, Cybrupt said:

I just do not enjoy this game because i feel like a grunt being slaughtered at a choke point all day only to afford a higher level character or vehicle and have it die by a luck shot or fail to rush the enemy base. Its pointless to grind away for 15+ minutes until something happens or doeskin happen.

If you dislike being a frontline grunt that dies at choke points everyday then how about change tactics, you don't end up being slaughtered all day unless you play like a cannon fodder grunt. Getting a higher tier character or vehicle shouldn't be easy, if people want something expensive, they have to earn it the hard way. That's what the lower tier troopers are for, being at the bottom of the food chain supporting the higher tier classes. If you don't like it, then there are other ways to earn money like being an engineer providing base/field repairs (this is very useful and can make a difference), play as the lower tier AT soldiers and slowly grind some points/credits, or capture/watch tech buildings while waiting to get a high level character. Your enemy is the same, they too need to do some grunt work before they could afford high level characters.

11 hours ago, Cybrupt said:

Maybe have it so you can air drop into the enemy base. Everyone gets the ability to c4 one shot kill structures, etc. Maybe have it so you have to hack enemy structure doors rather than have proximity mines and an alarm goes off and the structure starts flashing red or something.

People airdropping in enemy base? You can do that with the transport heli on flying maps. Advanced engineer has the ability to demolish structures on their own, frontline grunts or the higher tier "commando" units don't need them because they're good at something else and leave the demolition job to the engineers. Having a character that does everything would suck. As for another security system instead of proximity mines, it's been discussed a lot before. The end result of the discussion if I still remember is sticking to the current mine system.

[Hohndo]

2 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

@YagiHige except people never joined a second server, since people always wanted to join the full one.

In the original Renegade you could add a player minimum before bots were automatically added to the game. Do you think that could be implemented here? I don't remember if that was a standard feature or not, but I remember a lot of servers doing it. That might help. Not everyone knows how to add bots. At night, I fairly consistently see at least one person ask to add them.

 

One of the negatives of adding a higher amount of players is you start taking strategy out of the game and it basically becomes a contest of brute force. Which depends on your perspective on if its a good or bad thing. I would say bad, mostly because I like having my options open.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Hohndo

[Agent]

Regarding player limits:

What do you guys think about raising the max players allowed to 64, and leaving the default max players at 40? This would eliminate the need for servers to run a mutator.

In addition (and arguably much more importantly), what do you guys think about adding a "soft max players"? Basically if MaxPlayers was set to 64 and SoftMaxPlayers was set to 50, and there were as an example 60 players, the server population would be split into two separate servers at the end of the match with 30 players being in each server. There would also be a check so that players will only be sent to other servers with the exact same mutator and level list; if there's no matching server, then the population is not split.

Thoughts?

[Xtractor]

1 hour ago, Agent said:

...............

Thoughts?

That's sound good to try ..wouldn't be surprise that both servers will go up beyond 30 after the split

the only con I see is what if someone will want to play with hes friends and end up in 2 different servers

Edited February 13, 2017 by Xtractor

[Hohndo]

I like that idea. I don't believe that 60 should be the limit, though. Just because as I said, it makes some popular maps broken. Which may be a problem with  the map list.

It would require a bit of work, but maybe we could tweak Walls and Islands and have a version for higher player counts in the future. I have some ideas in that department, but nothing I have the know how to do yet.

[Sn4ke]

15 players per fraction is the most balanced amount of players for RenX (my opinion ).

If Jessica can realise that I would really appreciate the mentioned soft max. player addition

Edited February 13, 2017 by DarkSn4ke

[Madkill40]

3 hours ago, Agent said:

Regarding player limits:

What do you guys think about raising the max players allowed to 64, and leaving the default max players at 40? This would eliminate the need for servers to run a mutator.

In addition (and arguably much more importantly), what do you guys think about adding a "soft max players"? Basically if MaxPlayers was set to 64 and SoftMaxPlayers was set to 50, and there were as an example 60 players, the server population would be split into two separate servers at the end of the match with 30 players being in each server. There would also be a check so that players will only be sent to other servers with the exact same mutator and level list; if there's no matching server, then the population is not split.

Thoughts?

Players voting for a map that only half would get to play would probably rub some players the wrong way and most likely confuse them, if both the servers the players are split to/from boot into the same map then that would help otherwise 30 players will end up in a server just to be met with another vote menu which could undermine what you're trying to accomplish here.

That's the only issue I can imagine that would even be seen as a real problem, but I find it quite minor in the grand scheme of things and could always be sorted after the initial take-off of "soft max players" which you should totally do.

[Henk]

Could it also be possible to show different map vote options based on how many players are connected to the server?

The server owners should ofcourse be able to enable or disable this themselves. But on low-pop hours it would be nice to play maps that are more suited for low player counts. low pop (think 14 or less) is simply not doable on most maps, it makes a lot of people quit when there's not enough players until there's nobody left. However Deck, Valley, Sand, Snow (somewhat) work well on these low player counts.

Maybe we can add some more deathmatch maps like DM-Complex. Set a points goal like @Madkill40 mentioned here: https://renegade-x.com/forums/topic/75307-new-mode-cc-infantry-only-mode/

So these rounds probably won't take more than 15 minutes, if by the end of that round the player count has reached > 20, then only show normal/C&C mode maps. And when it's below a certain value you can show these infantry only/DM/small maps, alongside the regular maps, or just those.

 

PS: Sorry for going off-topic, maybe we should continue this in Madkills topic: https://renegade-x.com/forums/topic/75307-new-mode-cc-infantry-only-mode/

[OTT]

Just now, Agent said:

Regarding player limits:

What do you guys think about raising the max players allowed to 64, and leaving the default max players at 40? This would eliminate the need for servers to run a mutator.

In addition (and arguably much more importantly), what do you guys think about adding a "soft max players"? Basically if MaxPlayers was set to 64 and SoftMaxPlayers was set to 50, and there were as an example 60 players, the server population would be split into two separate servers at the end of the match with 30 players being in each server. There would also be a check so that players will only be sent to other servers with the exact same mutator and level list; if there's no matching server, then the population is not split.

Thoughts?

yeah ,great idea

60 players server is cancer IMHO,as to the idea of voting for maps for each server,maybe have it in the vote menu after the map ends so that you can vote for which server to join and pick which map to play on that server,good idea if not everyone wants to play lakeside for example  though I'm not sure if what I said above is even possible to do.

Personally,I prefer games with 10-15 players at most on each team,but 40 players server is still ok.

EDIT: didn't read Henk's post

Edited February 13, 2017 by ObeliskTheTormentor

[RoundShades]

16 hours ago, Agent said:

Regarding player limits:

What do you guys think about raising the max players allowed to 64, and leaving the default max players at 40? This would eliminate the need for servers to run a mutator.

In addition (and arguably much more importantly), what do you guys think about adding a "soft max players"? Basically if MaxPlayers was set to 64 and SoftMaxPlayers was set to 50, and there were as an example 60 players, the server population would be split into two separate servers at the end of the match with 30 players being in each server. There would also be a check so that players will only be sent to other servers with the exact same mutator and level list; if there's no matching server, then the population is not split.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? I suggested if this was possible before. It's ambitious, but Fuck the Hell Yeah! If you can do this, then by jove Agent, do it! We need this yesterday. And I'm very appreciative if you would!

I can handle 50 and 64, if it's a one-match deal that populates a server afterwards.

This is like eating a taco, over another tortilla! If you stuff your taco too full, stuff falls out, so when you're done eating, BAM! Another taco.

ASK FOR OTHER SUGGESTED NON-PROBLEMS: If friends wanted to play together, leave and rejoin server with their friend. If player wants to play map, leave and rejoin map. I'm not saying, once split, ban them from the other server. I'm saying split it, and let nature now take it's course. It's at the end of a game, so it's not like anyone was in the middle of something when it happens. Though, a notice that it's splitting would be nice, and "telling the other server to host the map from the first server" would be a plus. I hear the bot can push maps to servers, but I heard it's to ALL the servers. Perhaps make an individual server map push feature?

(also, hate making 64 players max allowed, but there's already a mutator, so since you opened Pandora's mutator by allowing CT to use it, you might as well not try to police it, and make it in the regular game.)

[RypeL]

I dont know of any dev or community dev decission to raise the limit to 60. So i kinda kindly ask you to remove that mutator. Reminder: Long agi and after carefull consideration Devs made the decision to limit it to 40 to preserve the intended gameplay. And 40 was already a compromise. I dont know why that decisions shouldnt stand anymore and i could police it if i have to. I still run the backend for the server listings and i can add filters to it, no matter what mutator you run. And seeing the situation i kinda dont know why i shouldnt. So pls reconsider. 60 for an evening or so should be fine, but a permanent 60 is against the one rule we made regarding serversettings.

[Hohndo]

1 hour ago, RypeL said:

I dont know of any dev or community dev decission to raise the limit to 60. So i kinda kindly ask you to remove that mutator. Reminder: Long agi and after carefull consideration Devs made the decision to limit it to 40 to preserve the intended gameplay. And 40 was already a compromise. I dont know why that decisions shouldnt stand anymore and i could police it if i have to. I still run the backend for the server listings and i can add filters to it, no matter what mutator you run. And seeing the situation i kinda dont know why i shouldnt. So pls reconsider. 60 for an evening or so should be fine, but a permanent 60 is against the one rule we made regarding serversettings.

I would tend to agree. I mean there are maps out there now that support more than that, so I feel maybe those won't ever get used in this case.

I did kind of like the idea of only allowing certain maps based on how many players are in the server. I really feel like that would help a lot with that problem.

46-48 was still a good number to sit at. It didn't throw the balance off much if at all. I've been doing my best to keep track of the trends based on how many players have been in it. I just think 60 is way too much. Might be okay on the weekends as you say if you restrict to larger maps.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Hohndo

[Ukill]

The benefit of an 40+ player server is that more players play this game, instead of going to an other activity. 
I think this is one of the most important reasons to raise the current hardcap limit. I have not seen this many players as last weekend.

Now, there are more than 80 people online on the same time. 
I am totally not satisfied with this amount, because I will never be, when there is some higher goal that is capable of being achieved =).

I think the max player can be a tool to gain more people on the servers, since I have seen more Americans join the server because there a slot free in the evening compared to just being stuck at 40 players and people not bothering to wait for a slot. 

For myself the performance of the game decrease a little bit, and some maps were definately not designed to handle that many but I accept that is a price I have to pay to help the community to build back up.

I have uploaded a good number of mutators to help promote different play styles and gameplay methods, and they are available to everyone, this included breaking the player cap to try playing with large bot count servers.
I think people should be allowed to make the servers whatever size they feel their server can handle since not everyone has a server that can handle even 32 players.

I think the acceptable limit is somewhere around 64 (previous hard cap), but even then I don't advise to just run a 64 player server, since not every server can run that many, but... there are servers that can handle it.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Ukill

[Madkill40]

3 hours ago, RypeL said:

I dont know of any dev or community dev decission to raise the limit to 60. So i kinda kindly ask you to remove that mutator. Reminder: Long agi and after carefull consideration Devs made the decision to limit it to 40 to preserve the intended gameplay. And 40 was already a compromise. I dont know why that decisions shouldnt stand anymore and i could police it if i have to. I still run the backend for the server listings and i can add filters to it, no matter what mutator you run. And seeing the situation i kinda dont know why i shouldnt. So pls reconsider. 60 for an evening or so should be fine, but a permanent 60 is against the one rule we made regarding serversettings.

A post of this velocity comes across as a developer-only conversation needs to be made to clarify recently made changes.

Personally, the way in which you are coming across is anti-community and is borderline unjustified when you consider the initial reasons why a 60 player-slot server currently exists, especially if you consider Agent's suggestion which not only partly enforces your point but also makes the compromise of the current 60-slot server(s) existing in the first place.

[RoundShades]

3 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

A post of this velocity comes across as a developer-only conversation needs to be made to clarify recently made changes.

Personally, the way in which you are coming across is anti-community and is borderline unjustified when you consider the initial reasons why a 60 player-slot server currently exists, especially if you consider Agent's suggestion which not only partly enforces your point but also makes the compromise of the current 60-slot server(s) existing in the first place.

We really do need the 60 player, just to sustain the community. I can see the importance of not policing it. I'd implore to not filter server listing beyond 60.

It does need a long-term solution, and the idea of a soft-limit, if Agent is sure it can be done in due time, really "grandfathers" and "obsoletes" the archaic limit of 40, it's a BRAND NEW mechanic and would require 60.

If it's to be done, it needs 60 player limit, and the "soft limit" can be used to take any game over 24v24 (I'd say 48 anyway), and split it into 12v12 and 12v12.

So effectively, to "Evolve" the game, we "Need" 60, 52 at the VERY least, for any hope of a mechanic to "Split" large servers into smaller servers, and help "Populate" the vast empty server wasteland.

At the bare minimum @RypeL, we need to negotiate to raise the old agreement, to 52. 52, still keeps problems to a minimum, and it still gives hope to divide full servers into 2 at a future date.

If we can discuss this and come to an agreement, I'd appreciate it, because the limit needs raised for possible feature additions, as well as player loss from lack of server space, and the gameplay can handle slightly over 40.

[RypeL]

When a server split feature like Agent suggested could be implemented then sure higher numbers could be allowed to suppport that feature.

@YagiHige: If you want to suggest raising the limit to 52 i think it should be done the proper way with a CD/Dev discussion in the CD section. You could open a thread there. Discussion in this thread could continue aswell to see if people find some proper arguments for raising it.

60 players in a server is cancer and also gave us bad press from new players. Some didnt like the decision against it back then and unsuprisingly some wont like it now. That doesent change the fact that it was a clear dev decision and that it would need a clear dev decision again to change this.

[Canucck]

>40 is ridiculously boring, there's no room to actually play the game.

Watching the irc feed you can see the same people asking for high player count complain about how stale the gameplay is, "omg there's always 12 defenders roaming the base" etc...

Edited February 15, 2017 by Canucck

[RoundShades]

3 hours ago, RypeL said:

@YagiHige: If you want to suggest raising the limit to 52 i think it should be done the proper way with a CD/Dev discussion in the CD section. You could open a thread there. Discussion in this thread could continue aswell to see if people find some proper arguments for raising it.

60 players in a server is cancer and also gave us bad press from new players. Some didnt like the decision against it back then and unsuprisingly some wont like it now. That doesent change the fact that it was a clear dev decision and that it would need a clear dev decision again to change this.

I was way ahead of you. Also, I agree with you and Canucck, i've compained about it since before. I just know there's a lot of support both ways, just because I can't stand anything more than a 16v16, doesn't mean there aren't good reasons. Which is why it does need further discussion before anything rash is done.

[Madkill40]

5 hours ago, RypeL said:

When a server split feature like Agent suggested could be implemented then sure higher numbers could be allowed to suppport that feature.

@YagiHige: If you want to suggest raising the limit to 52 i think it should be done the proper way with a CD/Dev discussion in the CD section. You could open a thread there. Discussion in this thread could continue aswell to see if people find some proper arguments for raising it.

60 players in a server is cancer and also gave us bad press from new players. Some didnt like the decision against it back then and unsuprisingly some wont like it now. That doesent change the fact that it was a clear dev decision and that it would need a clear dev decision again to change this.

Wouldn't there have been a drop in players if this was so bad? As opposed to a consistently full 60-slot server during peak times? If 20 players on a 60 slot server want to fill an alternative server I think most players should welcome this.

The excess 20 players wouldn't join an empty server when they saw 40/40, so as a short-term solution to raise the limt from 40 to 60 can appease people feeling left out or unsure if there's a point in trying to fill another server. A soft split should hopefully combat this issue as a long-term solution but RenX should also consider the modern era of gaming and not be too limited to its past.

CT has the strongest community when it comes to player loyalty, other communities need to encourage the majority of their players to play on their own server to also further the population of more than one server. They can be supported in this as it's for RenX's sake.

One 60-slot with a soft-split would be a good long term goal and I really hope Agent can pull this off.

[Hohndo]

I would love to both see server split and map selection based on how players are in the server.

I'd love to see 60 players playing all at once, but my problem with it is solely that some maps don't translate well to this that we still play with that amount of players. Thats why Snow was one of the first booted from this change because that map is absolutely broken with that many players. But it is a fun map that I enjoy..I just don't ever get to play it anymore now.

[RoundShades]

19 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

Wouldn't there have been a drop in players if this was so bad? As opposed to a consistently full 60-slot server during peak times? If 20 players on a 60 slot server want to fill an alternative server I think most players should welcome this.

The excess 20 players wouldn't join an empty server when they saw 40/40, so as a short-term solution to raise the limt from 40 to 60 can appease people feeling left out or unsure if there's a point in trying to fill another server. A soft split should hopefully combat this issue as a long-term solution but RenX should also consider the modern era of gaming and not be too limited to its past.

CT has the strongest community when it comes to player loyalty, other communities need to encourage the majority of their players to play on their own server to also further the population of more than one server. They can be supported in this as it's for RenX's sake.

One 60-slot with a soft-split would be a good long term goal and I really hope Agent can pull this off.

People are complaining about 60. They also are NOT filling an empty server at 40. Because people are difficult to get to listen about it.

I suggested, that while we're working with 60, keep 2 32-player servers open, and when the player limit reaches 50s, tell players the server is closing at match end so join the other servers, and then close the server at match end. Requires a server admin to monitor it and do it, but at least that breaks the 1 server curse.

Since it's easy to "watch for 50 players, then give server message, then turn off server at map-change", it could EVEN be automated. Soon. Like, real soon. I'd say, that is the most important immediate approach, while built-in is worked on. Is having some sort of automated macro kick in at 50 players, upon game-end.

Server crashes tell us, that players are willing to manually migrate. Wouldn't lose any more than who would already leave at game-end anyway.

[Redarmy]

On 2/13/2017 at 11:32 AM, Agent said:

In addition (and arguably much more importantly), what do you guys think about adding a "soft max players"? Basically if MaxPlayers was set to 64 and SoftMaxPlayers was set to 50, and there were as an example 60 players, the server population would be split into two separate servers at the end of the match with 30 players being in each server. There would also be a check so that players will only be sent to other servers with the exact same mutator and level list; if there's no matching server, then the population is not split.

This is possible? That'd be pretty cool. Part of the reason I quit playing in the public servers mostly is due to 60/60, each map is going to be miserable and last for 2 hours. Walls should never last 2 hours....

[Madkill40]

Quote

People are complaining about 60. They also are NOT filling an empty server at 40. Because people are difficult to get to listen about it.

People didn't listen when it was a 40 slot either, that's why it's 60 slots now.

 

@YagiHige Your suggestion could just make players switch off, it is not a good solution

Edited February 16, 2017 by Madkill40

[Agent]

It's certainly possible, and shouldn't even require that much code. That said there's no chance that I'm going to be working on it anytime soon (as in, the next couple weeks).

[Madkill40]

@Ukill, make "soft max players" into a mutator plz. Maybe introduce it as an additional vote option if that's even possible? I hear it shouldn't even require that much code. idk.

False-hope Jessica be false hopin' us.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Madkill40

[Fffreak9999]

There are too many different variables to take into account. I wouldn't recommend trying this as a mutator, and leave this to the Devs.

[Agent]

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

make "soft max players" into a mutator plz

This can't realistically be done in the form of a mutator -- it requires some minor out-of-game networking work.

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

False-hope Jessica be false hopin' us.

Some people have real life things to contend with.

[Madkill40]

Just now, Agent said:

This can't realistically be done in the form of a mutator -- it requires some minor out-of-game networking work.

Some people have real life things to contend with.

 

[RoundShades]

14 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

@YagiHige Your suggestion could just make players switch off, it is not a good solution

There were server crashes before, at 40 player, and the next server that people flocked to, filled to 40 players, 3 and 4 times, when crashes were BAD. Doing it ONCE a day, at 50 players, is unlikely to make players switch off. They'll migrate.

[Calvin]

60 player fights are awesome. I think it's great right now and i don't ever see people complaining about 60 players anymore i personally think that some maps aren't made for it but that's about it.. 30 players would be boring for players that like these intense fights in the game such asmyself  If you guys wanna change the playerlimit i would say go back to 40 or 50. but not 30 or anything lower 

[Sn4ke]

3 hours ago, poi ❄ said:

If you guys wanna change the playerlimit i would say go back to 40 or 50. but not 30 or anything lower 

well bibi, not everyone got your skilllevel

but about changing playerlimit. even if I didnt read the whole topic, I dont think anyone wants to limit the max. player amount to 30. (guess most of the 60 playerslot objectors want the 40 / slot servers back)

e.g. I just posted that I like 15 -vs- 15 the most.

[j0g32]

Yes, make playerlimit map specific, or add different mapversions depending on playercount. E.g. block/add new routes as in Field/Under Redux.

Would love to see epic 64 player battles but not on bottleneck maps...

 

See good old battlefield 2 which offered 16,32,64 Map layouts