[Grind]

I don't think they'd move it down to 20 vs 20 because of lag or because that was the best number for PvP fighting.

There is an interview somewhere out there that says Webzen actually thought of having battlefields hold more than 200 people for larger than 100 vs 100 fights. But after doing a lot of testing (or maybe they just thought about it and did some kind of crazy research) they found out that 100 vs 100 worked the best and was the most fun.

So it's not the technology that would hold the game back, which is why I think they're still going to have 100 vs 100 battles.

It's not like there are going to be 200 people jumping and dodging around in a 10x10 foot box, shooting missiles in every direction and not even bothering to aim.

These will be teams of 100 controlled by end game guilds, spread out through a VERY large map. In the area capture game mode (that resembles the Battlefield series, capturing areas and gaining points etc), each squad could be going after different areas in completely different parts of the map.

Then maybe at some point in the game larger battles take place in a sort of choke point of the map. who knows?

There are plenty of games out there that support far more than 100 vs 100 battles. RF online boasted thousands of players fighting in epic PvP battles. Even back when WoW was first starting out, you could get 40-50 vs 40-50 without having much trouble. and that was back when they had HORRIBLE servers that crashed all the time for no reason.

Sorry I'm kind of rambling, I just see no reason for them to make it 20 vs 20 as the max number for battlefields. So I assume it's just a mistake/misunderstanding.