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
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.