bit-gamer.net

Battlefield 3 limited to 24 players for TDM

Battlefield 3 limited to 24 players for TDM

EA has confirmed that Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch mode will support only 24 players.

Dice and Electronic Arts have confirmed that upcoming shooter Battlefield 3 will support only 24 players in Team Deathmatch Mode. The limitation affects all platforms.

Team Deathmatch, or TDM, will also lack vehicles as part of an effort to focus on smaller, infantry battles according to the BF3blog.

Other modes such as Conquest and Rush will support up to 64 players in the PC version, reportedly.

The PC version of Battlefield 3 still looks to be the definitive version of the game, with console versions suffering smaller player counts in multiplayer and a framerate cap.

Battlefield 3 will be released for Xbox 360, PC and PlayStation 3 on October 25, 2011.

Check out our Battlefield 3 preview for more information on the game, or the trailer below if you're in a rush. Then, let us know your thoughts in the forums.

63 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Jake123456 24th August 2011, 12:34 Quote
Bahhh, Conquest is where it will be at :)
Kasius 24th August 2011, 12:38 Quote
64 player rush is going to be intense!
Paradigm Shifter 24th August 2011, 12:40 Quote
Pretty much all I play is Conquest anyway...
Stewb 24th August 2011, 12:40 Quote
I heard in an interview (the 14m one posted in the BF3 thread IIRC), that TDM is merely designed as a stepping stone for new people to get used to the game, not that bothered personally. Although you would expect a stepping stone would introduce all aspects of the game, so it is slightly weird there isn't a single vehicle.

EDIT: To clarify, I would be very happy if there were a TDM mode with 64 players, but it isn't really a great loss IMO.
XXAOSICXX 24th August 2011, 12:43 Quote
TDM is designed to appeal to the CoD playing masses and, imo, isn't even true "Battlefield" gameplay.

Conquest is where it's at.
Aracos 24th August 2011, 12:45 Quote
This doesn't bother me, Team deathmatch has always been a really boring game mode on multiplayer games and is really only for those that like to get the most kills on the entire match and 24 players is enough. That said I do look forward to 64 player conquest and seeing all us bit-techers playing together.
V3ctor 24th August 2011, 12:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasius
64 player rush is going to be intense!

God hear ya!! I really want to rush in an immense map with other 63 dudes, that will be epic... I like it with 32 players, I can't imagine how it could be with 64
DriftCarl 24th August 2011, 12:56 Quote
is the BF version of TDM the one where you run around in squads of 4? Or is it proper TDM with I assume faster spawn rates.

If it is the squad version then 6 teams of 4 wont be too bad.
I personally will be playing Rush and Conquest maps anyway. I will probably never even touch the single player game either :D
Vo0Ds 24th August 2011, 12:57 Quote
No vehicles in deathmatch, thank God.
will_123 24th August 2011, 13:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
TDM is designed to appeal to the CoD playing masses and, imo, isn't even true "Battlefield" gameplay.

Conquest is where it's at.

its bringing another game to the table its hardly a bad thing.
Tokukachi 24th August 2011, 13:02 Quote
Hopefully all the guys who just want to lone wolf and scream abuse into the mic will play this and leave the rest of us alone. I'm fed up with playing Rush with 20 guys playing recon sitting at the back screaming abuse when they lose...
MiT 24th August 2011, 13:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by V3ctor
God hear ya!! I really want to rush in an immense map with other 63 dudes, that will be epic... I like it with 32 players, I can't imagine how it could be with 64

twice as much fun
Bonzo45 24th August 2011, 13:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasius
64 player rush is going to be intense!
I was under the impression that Rush is limited to 32 players, even on PC. I haven't seen anywhere official that says otherwise.
Parge 24th August 2011, 13:43 Quote
Fine by me! More than 24 TDM would be stupid anyway.
MiT 24th August 2011, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonzo45
I was under the impression that Rush is limited to 32 players, even on PC. I haven't seen anywhere official that says otherwise.

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/Default.aspx##
Quote:
Episode II takes a closer look at the co-op mode together with Producer Patrick Liu, while the third one is mainly about our 64-player multiplayer mode. You can watch them all below.
Quote:
You asked for it, and you got it. Battlefield 3 fans have been clamoring for more multiplayer footage, asking to see the large-scale maps of Battlefield 3. With that in mind, we launched a new trailer, featuring one of the 64-player vehicle warfare maps from Battlefield 3: Caspian Border. 64 players? We’ve got that covered in this beautiful, expansive map. Dogtags? As evidenced by the poor chump who got knifed, yup. Those are accounted for. Vehicles? Tanks, APCs and helicopters can fit that bill, right? Jets? Oh, you’d best believe there’s a dog fight going on. Don’t take my word for it! Check out the Caspian Border gameplay trailer for yourself!
Phalanx 24th August 2011, 13:46 Quote
64 Player Rush! Just saying it gives me the shivers!

I can only imagine the anarchy that will ensue when you have a single MCOM left on the map! BRING IT!
Rustypouch 24th August 2011, 13:47 Quote
I've read else where that TDM Maps will be smaller and more intesnse. I'm all about the Conqeust and Rush maps.
Stewb 24th August 2011, 13:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx
64 Player Rush! Just saying it gives me the shivers!

I can only imagine the anarchy that will ensue when you have a single MCOM left on the map! BRING IT!

Unfortunately those shivers are all you'll get.

List of confirmed gametypes:

Conquest
Conquest 64
Rush
Squad Rush
Team Deathmatch
Squad Deathmatch

Only conquest will have 64 players atm.

http://bf3blog.com/2011/08/battlefield-3-gamescom-news-roundup/

EDIT: @Wuyanxu below:

Nope, 64 players only in conquest, rush is 32, though I think you get that judging by your final line, just typo'd.
wuyanxu 24th August 2011, 13:50 Quote
so it's:

64: Conquest/Rush
32: smaller conquest
24: TDM
16: SQDM
8: SQRush


would want larger maps for Rush though. Op Metro is really more suited to 32 players, 64 player on that map would be insane.

to be honest, im fine with 64 player Conquest, no rush.
Ending Credits 24th August 2011, 13:54 Quote
TDM is better with fewer people unless you really like being killed for no reason.
Parge 24th August 2011, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
so it's:

64: Conquest/Rush

I think its just 32 for rush, no?
Jehla 24th August 2011, 14:05 Quote
A nice feature to help new people would be vehicle school, I came into BC2 a few months ago, and felt so bad while learning how to fly the chopper.
wuyanxu 24th August 2011, 14:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
I think its just 32 for rush, no?

im not sure. i'd prefer 32 player Rush because 64 player will NOT work on Op Metro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jehla
A nice feature to help new people would be vehicle school, I came into BC2 a few months ago, and felt so bad while learning how to fly the chopper.

practice on empty server. job done.

when the server is empty, i sometimes go on it and practice my circle strafing.
Bede 24th August 2011, 14:12 Quote
64 player rush would be win, imho it won't happen.
wafflesomd 24th August 2011, 14:23 Quote
Lost interest after I heard that they're sticking with the battle log web browser server browser.
XXAOSICXX 24th August 2011, 14:28 Quote
I've been waiting for BF3 with such anticipation (like many have) for such a long time. I started with 1942 (and all the add-ons), then Vietnam, moved onto BF2 (and Special Forces), had a year on 2142 (and Northern Strike) and then went back to BF2 and stayed there.

Bad Company 2 (a sequel to a console only game) simply didn't appeal to me. I still play BF2 every single day and all I wanted from BF3, honestly, was BF2 with better graphics...that really, really would have been amazing.

Unfortunately, everything I'm hearing (from EA and on BT) is that everyone is talking about this like it's a sequel to Bad Company 2 and not a sequel to Battlefield 2 which, from the name "Battlefield 3" you'd expect it to be.

So, "Team Deathmatch" and "Rush" modes hold absolutely zero appeal to me whatsoever. Losing the commander, reduced squad sizes, no in-game lobby etc make this game a clear successor to Bad Company 2. This game should just be called Bad Company 3.

Reintroducing things we already had that were taken out in the last game or two in the series is merely the removal of an anti-feature. We always had it - it's hardly a matter for celebration when they come back - they should never have left! (think CoD:MW3 and Dedi Servers).

I want to love BF3....I've been waiting for so long....and I'm still going to buy it, I'm just a little more disheartened week after week each time a new statement from EA/Dice comes out about the decisions they've made.

Hopefully, Conquest will still be as amazing as it is in BF2 and that, I think, will be enough.
fingerbob69 24th August 2011, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jehla
A nice feature to help new people would be vehicle school, I came into BC2 a few months ago, and felt so bad while learning how to fly the chopper.

I still haven't ...after 5months... not even tried!
runadumb 24th August 2011, 14:51 Quote
I would like to see a 64TDM derver just for the craic :)

Also, please don't spit on me for this but joypad support for vehicles would be very welcome.

*Is instantly covered in spit*
keir 24th August 2011, 14:56 Quote
I'm sure a lot of other long standing BattleField players would agree there not bothered about TDM anyway.
mongpong 24th August 2011, 15:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
I would like to see a 64TDM derver just for the craic :)

Also, please don't spit on me for this but joypad support for vehicles would be very welcome.

*Is instantly covered in spit*

Actually I've never even thought about it but I reckon joypad support for vehicles would be fantastic. But I would only use for the choppers/jets. Anyone who plays the whole game with a joypad is going to get nailed anyway...can't beat a keyboard and mouse for fps.
mongpong 24th August 2011, 15:46 Quote
Don't think i've even played TDM on Bad Company 2. Rush and Conquest both have their merits but Rush wins it for me.
greypilgers 24th August 2011, 16:12 Quote
Heh heh heh... 64 player Rush and Conquest? So if it's anything like some of the Bad Company 2 maps, it'll be 2 or 3 Assault/Medic/Engineer peeps, and 61 bloody Snipers!
Bungletron 24th August 2011, 16:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greypilgers
Heh heh heh... 64 player Rush and Conquest? So if it's anything like some of the Bad Company 2 maps, it'll be 2 or 3 Assault/Medic/Engineer peeps, and 61 bloody Snipers!

Ah, the promised 'mexican standoff' mode, this game just gets better and better!

BTW way cool sig!
the_kille4 24th August 2011, 16:43 Quote
I would love to play a small game with only using the DAO-12....that would be chaotic as well as being awesome
Dwarfer 24th August 2011, 17:30 Quote
Yup Conquest is what holds the Battlefield franchise!
Hamfunk 24th August 2011, 17:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
I've been waiting for BF3 with such anticipation (like many have) for such a long time. I started with 1942 (and all the add-ons), then Vietnam, moved onto BF2 (and Special Forces), had a year on 2142 (and Northern Strike) and then went back to BF2 and stayed there.

Bad Company 2 (a sequel to a console only game) simply didn't appeal to me. I still play BF2 every single day and all I wanted from BF3, honestly, was BF2 with better graphics...that really, really would have been amazing.

Unfortunately, everything I'm hearing (from EA and on BT) is that everyone is talking about this like it's a sequel to Bad Company 2 and not a sequel to Battlefield 2 which, from the name "Battlefield 3" you'd expect it to be.

So, "Team Deathmatch" and "Rush" modes hold absolutely zero appeal to me whatsoever. Losing the commander, reduced squad sizes, no in-game lobby etc make this game a clear successor to Bad Company 2. This game should just be called Bad Company 3.

Reintroducing things we already had that were taken out in the last game or two in the series is merely the removal of an anti-feature. We always had it - it's hardly a matter for celebration when they come back - they should never have left! (think CoD:MW3 and Dedi Servers).

I want to love BF3....I've been waiting for so long....and I'm still going to buy it, I'm just a little more disheartened week after week each time a new statement from EA/Dice comes out about the decisions they've made.

Hopefully, Conquest will still be as amazing as it is in BF2 and that, I think, will be enough.

I too felt exaclty this way until i played the alpha.

As the alpha was rush mode only, i can only compare it to BC2, which i enjoyed to pass the time but didnt fill the BF2 void.

Bringing back prone changes the pace of the game completely from BC2. Also the weapons feel less arcadey that BC2 and the sniping has been nerfed.

I'm sure a lot will change before the final release, but rest assured it is not just an expansion or sequal to Bad Company 2. I'm not get over excited just yet, they could still make a botch job of it, but at the moment i am remaining positive and the alpha was more re-assuring that concerning.
Neogumbercules 24th August 2011, 18:31 Quote
Deleted* stupid phone.
Elton 24th August 2011, 18:53 Quote
I've always wondered why sniping was so frustrating. Why can't it be a OHK?

At any rate though, conquest was always where it was at, 64 player rush would be insane except in the largest of maps. 1 MCOM station left? It'd be a stalemate at best.

On the other hand, I'd still like to see more than a 32 player Rush map. 48 perhaps?
XXAOSICXX 24th August 2011, 19:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamfunk
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
I've been waiting for BF3 with such anticipation (like many have) for such a long time. I started with 1942 (and all the add-ons), then Vietnam, moved onto BF2 (and Special Forces), had a year on 2142 (and Northern Strike) and then went back to BF2 and stayed there.

Bad Company 2 (a sequel to a console only game) simply didn't appeal to me. I still play BF2 every single day and all I wanted from BF3, honestly, was BF2 with better graphics...that really, really would have been amazing.

Unfortunately, everything I'm hearing (from EA and on BT) is that everyone is talking about this like it's a sequel to Bad Company 2 and not a sequel to Battlefield 2 which, from the name "Battlefield 3" you'd expect it to be.

So, "Team Deathmatch" and "Rush" modes hold absolutely zero appeal to me whatsoever. Losing the commander, reduced squad sizes, no in-game lobby etc make this game a clear successor to Bad Company 2. This game should just be called Bad Company 3.

Reintroducing things we already had that were taken out in the last game or two in the series is merely the removal of an anti-feature. We always had it - it's hardly a matter for celebration when they come back - they should never have left! (think CoD:MW3 and Dedi Servers).

I want to love BF3....I've been waiting for so long....and I'm still going to buy it, I'm just a little more disheartened week after week each time a new statement from EA/Dice comes out about the decisions they've made.

Hopefully, Conquest will still be as amazing as it is in BF2 and that, I think, will be enough.

I too felt exaclty this way until i played the alpha.

As the alpha was rush mode only, i can only compare it to BC2, which i enjoyed to pass the time but didnt fill the BF2 void.

Bringing back prone changes the pace of the game completely from BC2. Also the weapons feel less arcadey that BC2 and the sniping has been nerfed.

I'm sure a lot will change before the final release, but rest assured it is not just an expansion or sequal to Bad Company 2. I'm not get over excited just yet, they could still make a botch job of it, but at the moment i am remaining positive and the alpha was more re-assuring that concerning.

Good to hear!

And...jealous, you jammy git......I wanted alpha access!
Bede 24th August 2011, 19:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungletron
Ah, the promised 'mexican standoff' mode, this game just gets better and better!

At least the Mexicans shoot at each other in the middle of the town, rather than from different bushes 200m away from the action!
Kylevdm 24th August 2011, 20:30 Quote
Really could not care less... I have always enjoyed conquest more than all the other play modes, although rush has been growing on me with BC2 actually made the game more enjoyable.
GravitySmacked 24th August 2011, 20:38 Quote
Not interested in TDM in BF3 anyway so I'm indifferent.
Sloth 24th August 2011, 20:43 Quote
64 players just isn't for everything, actually pretty pleased that DICE is taking note of this rather than making everything 64 player capable simply to spite games which have smaller player caps.

Conquest has the ability to scale with the player count, just keep adding more and more objectives and you can keep on increasing the player count. Your chances of all 32 enemies hanging around on a single objective are pretty slim, particularly when compared to the chance of 32 enemies hanging around their final MCOM station.
b1candy 24th August 2011, 22:31 Quote
64 players? Pah, bring on 128.
The_Beast 24th August 2011, 23:02 Quote
What the ****, no 64 man rush?
serial_ 25th August 2011, 00:55 Quote
I love everything I'm hearing about the game, but if it's not on Steam I won't be buying it.
Elton 25th August 2011, 01:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
What the ****, no 64 man rush?

That'd be a 64 player ****fest come the final MCOM.
The_Beast 25th August 2011, 01:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
That'd be a 64 player ****fest come the final MCOM.

4 m-coms per stage, attackers need 2 m-coms blown to move to the next stage so there would never really be a 32v32 on one m-com
Elton 25th August 2011, 01:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
4 m-coms per stage, attackers need 2 m-coms blown to move to the next stage so there would never really be a 32v32 on one m-com

It would make for some pretty awesome matches I must admit. But it's all down to strategy and map placement. The maps would have to be quite large though.
The_Beast 25th August 2011, 05:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
It would make for some pretty awesome matches I must admit. But it's all down to strategy and map placement. The maps would have to be quite large though.

And the problem with large maps would be? :)
Elton 25th August 2011, 05:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
And the problem with large maps would be? :)

When your team mates decide to take all the vehicles. >_>
The_Beast 25th August 2011, 06:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
When your team mates decide to take all the vehicles. >_>

Lot of vehicles and faster vehicle respawns
Elton 25th August 2011, 06:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
Lot of vehicles and faster vehicle respawns

Trust me, I've played with some proper idiots. I don't think I'll run out of vehicles, but there's been times where that's happened. And trust me, on a map like Harvest day, it becomes a pain.
MiT 25th August 2011, 08:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
When your team mates decide to take all the vehicles. >_>

I hate it when they don't wait for you. Were all on the same team and heading in the same direction.
Dwarfer 25th August 2011, 08:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by serial_
I love everything I'm hearing about the game, but if it's not on Steam I won't be buying it.

Whaaaa Whaaa Whaaaa
sp4nky 25th August 2011, 08:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by b1candy
64 players? Pah, bring on 128.

That reminds me of Joint Operations... now there was a decent battlefield-type game. Huge maps, 128 players, those were the days.

Oh wait, it was only 125 players... per side
wuyanxu 25th August 2011, 10:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
And the problem with large maps would be? :)
more work for DICE.

even though they have set PC as lead platform, they have only done BF2 conquest. for 64 player rush, ALL maps will need to be re-designed. it won't be as well balanced as 32 player rush, BFBC2 32 player is already chaotic when all those maps are balanced for 24 players console rush.
Dwarfer 25th August 2011, 11:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Trust me, I've played with some proper idiots. I don't think I'll run out of vehicles, but there's been times where that's happened. And trust me, on a map like Harvest day, it becomes a pain.

You think that maps large, you should install BF1942 & play El Alamein :)
2bdetermine 25th August 2011, 20:20 Quote
This is what EA EULA has in store for PC user under their new game service (Origin). Under the title of “Consent to Collection and Use of Data”, you give EA permission to “collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer, operating system, application usage, software, software usage and peripheral hardware.”

http://xsreviews.co.uk/news/industry/eas-origin-takes-your-cake-and-eats-it-too-smallprint-madness/
XXAOSICXX 25th August 2011, 21:35 Quote
And a little research later....those same clauses have been in EAs EULA for more than 7 years. Hardly big news now, then.
CrazyJoe 26th August 2011, 02:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
And a little research later....those same clauses have been in EAs EULA for more than 7 years. Hardly big news now, then.

It's big news for people on the bandwagon, let them have their fun. :D
XXAOSICXX 26th August 2011, 12:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
And a little research later....those same clauses have been in EAs EULA for more than 7 years. Hardly big news now, then.

It's big news for people on the bandwagon, let them have their fun. :D

Lulz.
fingerbob69 26th August 2011, 21:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by serial_
I love everything I'm hearing about the game, but if it's not on Steam I won't be buying it.

Care to explain why? Otherwise that is a particularly dumb statement to make.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums