Dice said they actively went with 40 players to keep the experience how they wanted, aka not a massive Battlefield spam fest, also weren't the previous games 32 player anyway. People love riding the train of nostalgia and Dice hate.
Which after playing Battlefield 4 in classic Conquest 40 man servers I say is a bloody good thing, the team work really ramps up in those lower numbers and allow for more "tactical" behaviour.
As for space battles I'd rather a new X-Wing. Campaign can go run off a cliff, perhaps if BF4 didn't have one the multiplayer might've gotten the time it needed, focus on the multi man shoots. Battlefront 2s campaign was a steaming pile of ****e anyhoo, go back and play it and say it ain't so.
“It’s important to make the differentiation between Battlefield and Battlefront here,” Mcleod said. “Sixty four players worked really well for Battlefield, and we toyed with a lot of different numbers, and we found that for the experience that we wanted to give, and how we felt that the matches would play out, 40 players was actually the optimum number. Instead of putting 64 in there and just saying that for a number, and having it be too crowded and being a lesser experience, we’ve made it the most optimum number it can be.”
Which after playing Battlefield 4 in classic Conquest 40 man servers I say is a bloody good thing, the team work really ramps up in those lower numbers and allow for more "tactical" behaviour.
As for space battles I'd rather a new X-Wing. Campaign can go run off a cliff, perhaps if BF4 didn't have one the multiplayer might've gotten the time it needed, focus on the multi man shoots. Battlefront 2s campaign was a steaming pile of ****e anyhoo, go back and play it and say it ain't so.