Forum Discussion

V1kingH4mster's avatar
4 years ago

128 player just why?

128 player servers? I mean just why console has had 64 players for like 2 bf games so what was the need to jump up to 128? the maps are so empty because of this and just too big IMHO, surly 64players and amazing maps would have been so much better, I can't say I even like the maps they are just a clusterfuck of vehicles everywhere.

 maps that had more defined roles would have been better, older bf games maps had this you knew what type of gameplay was going to be in the map because of the map.

2042 maps feel like they are trying to appease every playstyle in every map and IMHO it just doesn't work.

think metro or lockers you knew it was infantry and it was going to be chaotic 

Caspian or strike at Kirkland would be more vehicle centric

2042 just doesn't take this into account and just throws you in with open maps with no cover hoping to stay alive long enough to gain map control for a few seconds before the next barrage of vehicles comes in.

12 Replies

  • RaginSam's avatar
    RaginSam
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @carsono311 Hopefully they will give us some smaller infantry based maps. I agree with having more than one spawn point too. If your team has control of the closest flag, it can be quite a hike to the next one.

    I’m a big fan of 24/7 Metro back in the day. I might be alone on this one, but I think Provence is one of the best maps in BFV. You can move relatively safely using the building side to get from point to point. Then you have a more open area better suited for vehicles. That’s
  • @V1kingH4mster To me, 128 player count in BF 2042 is an head scratcher. If PS3's MAG can have 256 player count, so can BF 2042 (even try to have 150 or 200 player count). But, I do understand not wanting the game to be an cluster.

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Battlefield 2042 in the community forums.16,141 PostsLatest Activity: 2 hours ago