Blog Post

Battlefield Game Info Hub
6 MIN READ

Battlefield 2042 - Update #4.1

T0TALfps's avatar
T0TALfps
Icon for DICE Team rankDICE Team
4 years ago
No-Pats, Update 4.1 releases on May 19. The focus for this update is to deliver further fixes, and Quality of Life improvements, as well as to update our All-Out Warfare rotations, alongside some ...
Published 4 years ago
Version 1.0
battlefield 2042
patch notes
InsidiuZ's avatar
InsidiuZ
4 years ago

Now the 128 player modes are the best thing in the game? 128 has always been a problem. Since the launch I have seen criticism and more criticism to these modes and now suddenly they are the best, False. I have seen servers with barely people in these modes, where more than half are AI do not come to say that it is the most played mode. Curiously the modes of 64 or less in portal are the ones that stand out the most, when there was 64 conquest infantry, I never had problems of empty servers. now that it is gone, I enter conquest 128 and SURPRISE.... 3 minutes to start and when it does half or more are bot.

What the * is wrong with the community?

I know DICE has made many mistakes with BF2042 and I'm not defending that, I have also been annoyed with many things, but we as a community are not contributing much either, everything in this forum are complaints and more complaints, I give an example, months ago many cried and took the opportunity to throw hater because the game did not have VOIP, it already has it, now I ask, how many of you use it?

I am really happy with some of the changes that are coming, mainly the operators, although I think the idea of making the turret now detects for the whole team is a MISTAKE, for me it should not highlight the players or Boris, or anyone, there is already too much wallhack in the game. The change to Angel is also positive, since the game came out I complained about the issue of armor plates, for me they should not exist, but with this change I hope that the percentage of players with armor will drop a lot, I still think they need a tweak (reduce their advantage, not protect the head).

Let's stop criticizing for the sake of criticizing and let's contribute something.

edgecrusherO0's avatar
edgecrusherO0
4 years ago
@InsidiuZ 128 is a problem, yes. A problem that's solvable, or should be, by DICE with some good design work.

They sold this game on 128 players, now they're backing out of that.

It's not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, it's criticizing DICE for taking the easiest, and worst, "solutions" possible. The real solution is to spend some serious time revisiting map design, flag placement, and flow to update the maps so they're better played in 128 player modes.

Maybe that means 2-3 flags to capture in each sector to spread folks out a bit more. Maybe that means dramatically cutting a lot of the "extended map content" that's purely visual so they have more bandwidth for more complex geometry. There at tons of solutions, they just require creativity and effort - two things DICE seems to be in extremely short supply of.
  • InsidiuZ's avatar
    InsidiuZ
    4 years ago
    @edgecrusherO0 I understand your point of view, but this game is not ready for 128 players, neither for the design of the maps and especially for the performance.

    Currently playing at 128 is too heavy, plus the performance in those modes is horrible. I know many here are happy playing at 128 at 40 fps but I'm not. I'd rather decrease the number of players and have the game run better.

    The 128 maps are excessively large and therefore leads to worse sector distribution, I think it's better to design maps for less players, it would be easier to distribute the zones and not push the action too far away. If you cut the current 128 maps the chaos would be greater, as there would be many players together, if you add more buildings to the maps I think it worsens the performance by greater load of elements.

    So what is the ideal solution for 128 player modes?

    I wouldn't see bad to reduce the number to 80 players, I recently played a portal mode with that amount and the truth is that it felt good.
    • edgecrusherO0's avatar
      edgecrusherO0
      4 years ago
      @InsidiuZ So the solution is to fix/improve the maps/games so it is, not just remove it.

      How DICE got through all the testing and up to launch thinking the mode was fine, only to kill it 8 months later is beyond me.

      Absolutely clown-shoes incompetence. And you can't even get a refund from customer support now that this game is no longer the game DICE sold many of us who bought it specifically for 128p breakthrough.

      Guess I'm just out $100 and don't care to stick around for S1. Fine, that's the last money DICE will ever get from me. And is also firmly the end of me saying anything positive about the studio. Not gonna hate on them everywhere or anything, but I legitimately can't think of anything positive to say about the current team at DICE and the quality of their work.

      If they reduced it down to 100 players to try to make it more mangageable, while upping squad sizes to 5 (nice and easy, 10 squads on each team) I'd be fine with it, since that's still living up to the spirit of the massive battles. But 64 players ain't it, not by a longshot.