4 years ago

128-player 'massive maps'? 🙄

Hi peeps,

A big selling point of this game was the supposedly humongous map sizes and the ability to host 128 players on next-gen / PC. But are the so-called '128-player maps' really that massive? I don't think so.

I find most of the new maps in 2042 a bit bland, linear, devoid artistic detail and lack atmospheric immersion. I also find these are the same size maps as past Conquest Large maps.

Anyway, without getting my virtual clicking measuring wheel out and walking from one end of the map to the other (with a nonchalant look on my face) and comparing 2042 maps with say, Battlefield 4 Rogue Transmission, I can't definitively say whether or not the new 128-player maps are bigger or not. But, to me, they feel not much different at all.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that 128 players placed onto a map twice the size of a previous Conquest Large map would be fine. But when you put 128 players on a map the same size as a previous Conquest Large map, it begins to feel more like CoD Ground war. The tactical element has been stripped away by 50%

I know there's currently a time limited 64 player Conquest game mode. I assume this is a world-wide test to see how popular the game mode is, but even this is not perfect legacy 64-player gameplay. It's 64 players on smaller (yes, smaller) maps; it's not 64 players on the massively massive '128-player' maps!

Apologies for the cynicism but I'm not keen on the current direction this game is taking. To me Battlefield was the pinnacle of war game respectability. It was like M&S vs Tesco (UK reference). But it seems to be taking a bit of a tacky CoD / Fortnight nosedive... could go on, but will end there!

Is it just me, or do other folk also find the maps not massively massive at all!?

discussion

11 Replies

Matty101yttam
4 years ago
I think they're only slightly bigger mostly, only 1 was "4x" the size of older maps, that old map being hamada which was supposed to be the biggest HOWEVER that also had large sections of out of bounds areas chopped out of the middle of it.
So it's really them just talking in technicalities to make it sound good, keep in mind player speed had also increased a fair bit in the last game meaning maps felt smaller but the amount of cover and places people could be meant you still played at a slower pace. In this game with almost zero cover and large open spaces you can only go full speed or die in the open and the higher speed makes 300 meters seem like 70.
BizzyVaping
4 years ago
@ItsTheBritishGuy

They are a lot smaller than I was expecting. My main dislike about the game is how open the maps are though.

You have one empty wasteland after the other with little to no cover that you have to cross to get between objectives.

It's like the lead map designer is someone who really likes to play as sniper or vehicle driver/pilot and build the maps to cater to those things exclusively
Noodlesocks
4 years ago
By the numbers they might be much bigger than older maps but they don't feel much bigger than a lot of the maps from BF5. There's a lot of dead space in the 2042 maps.
ItsTheBritishGu
4 years ago
@Noodlesocks Which numbers are these?
Zoikon
4 years ago
@ItsTheBritishGuy Maybe bigger in area , space between flags and points of interest. But the content is the same or even less. It feels too open and flat.
Noodlesocks
4 years ago
@ItsTheBritishGuy wrote:
@NoodlesocksWhich numbers are these?
... Length and width.
mikogibo
4 years ago
not enough people playing this game, so just move on to the next * release by a * company
ArchAngeL-PCX
4 years ago
@ItsTheBritishGuy There is no way I can be convinced these maps are bigger. Orbital is about the only one that even makes good on using the space, but no way is it bigger than Golmud, Giants of Karelia, Dragon Valley or the large maps of BF4. There is SO much wasted space on these maps. And yeah, dropping 128 players into these maps just clogs the works. I got this game to check out the 128 players and how they mechanized it. This game might be the most pedestrian way possible. Even with recent history, I never saw this coming.
DCAT627
Seasoned Veteran
4 years ago
@BizzyVaping I think there is reasonable cover on the ground from others on the ground by contours, vegetation, and structures. The problem is there is little cover from the air either from air vehicles or the too-numerous easily-reached high structures.
Kazzak
4 years ago
Personally the issue with the 128 player maps (especially when compared to the 64 that we have been able to play this week) is that the distance between the points it too great. The number of times i have sat at the spawn screen with my buddy and we are both just looking at where we can spawn and then how long we will be running before we get to anywhere exciting.
For me, the maps need more points to capture. There are great points to fight over in 64 which are just 'dead space' on 128. The two that come to mind at the hydroponics buildings on Renewal C & D I believe which are great but completely useless on 128.