128 Players Is Too Much

I feel like it can, and occasionally does work just the * porr map design exaserbates the issue, especially when some * * decides to put breakthrough objectives on a * rooftop. Which * decided on that? I leave because it is more or less an autoloss for the attackers and i don't find that fun.

Conquest is OK-ish with this playercount imo, but breakthrough is crazy. It's barely possible to move on the point as an attacker. 

A flag on a rooftop is hopeless for the attackers. And add the fact you can airdrop a fricking tank on there, is absolutely ridiculous. The attackers need more room to move up on the skyscraper. Staircases on the inside and ropes on the outside. Even 64 players is too much with this design.

I agree, 128 is absolute madness... i just play marksman or sniper to stay away from the caos of the frontline. I don't understand how are you supposed to move in the conquest point with an army of jumping ants running all over the place... while hovercraft run all around pancaking people

---

@robbocroft wrote:

I agree, 128 is absolute madness... i just play marksman or sniper to stay away from the caos of the frontline. I don't understand how are you supposed to move in the conquest point with an army of jumping ants running all over the place... while hovercraft run all around pancaking people

---

Thats my biggest issue. They didnt do enough to have areas where people can have gun fights like this 

Always said without structure you can't just have over 100 players running care free on the map. but people moan and say this is not a Mil-sim. 

Well, this is what you obviously get. It's like they never thought it through or just bow down to casual cod gamer pressure 

What this game is missing is bikes and quads, in GREAT NUMBERS like the old games. That way people wont have to run so much.

The connected problem to the "too many players" is "too much running, not enough gunning"

Long distance running is not the most fun we can have.
Long distance running needs to be eliminated.

A tighter map, with no GIANT open empty spaces (and less players) is more fun.

COD is the polar opposite. A happy medium needs to be set, with BF7, I suppose, as its too late for this game now... to have smaller maps. I spend a lot of my time in 2042 feeling I could be doing something better with my time, than playing this game, which I want to love, when I hate the long distance running.

It may tick the boxes of being more realistic (more people, larger map) but the giant empty spaces detract from the gaming experience.

I want a level to be jam packed with objects and beautiful detail.

I also dont want to spend hours jogging to objectives back and forth, if I want to go to an objective I can help capture, and the time it takes to get there has let others capture it, and I find myself now wondering which new direction to start jogging in.

I hate almost nothing about the game, but I strongly hate the maps because of their unnecessairily big size, which detracts from the gaming experience and does not add to it.

Smaller 70 player maps would be ideal!

128 players should have NEVER got past the early prototype. 

It's the KILLER ISSUE with 2042. DICE in the past KNEW 128 wasn't fun so why stick with it now?

For me, not only have 128 players been the cause of all the other issues (large bland maps, never any vehicles to spawn or deploy in, no scoreboard < likely)...

... it's the main problem it causes that really saddens me, it makes YOUR CONTRIBUTION or EFFORT to the match much less important. You're now just 1 grunt in 64 so any choice YOU make has little effect on anything, the tide of the round is gonna go where it goes and you will NOT change that nor HARM it if you do nothing or try hard... FUTILE.

64 players was pushing it in BF4, I always preferred the 32 players or.. 40-48 is ideal on the larger maps. You could still alter the course of a round if you PTFO and focussed, getting to points was NEVER an issue either. And you felt like you could really count - so you got a psychological reward for playing (well). Here in 2042 if you TRY HARD and play your socks off... you don't feel great or that it was time well spent, you're still halfway down the board (if you could even see it), it was still unfulfilling because you know you could have just sat on a hill and the same result would have happened.

2042 makes you feel more like you're a barely interacting/passive spectator in a SHALLOW battle. BF4 (my favourite) makes you feel like you're IN the battle and every move, every minute counts if you want it to.

That is my overall worst issue with 2042 after playing it since the 19th... it does have some very good points, some awesome atmosphere (graphics and FX) on my PC on ultra (12900k + RTX 3080 at ultrawide)... but it feels so futile and often boring, because the 20 mins you spend in a match is mostly dead time, and when you reach action it's a meat grinder where you're just killed constantly cos we don't have eyes in the back of our heads to make up for 64 enemies on the map.

I hope DICE:

1. Add in 64 player servers on the main screen

2. Alter the maps removing some of the dead space between objectives OR corden off some far objectives (For 64 player mode)

3. Add in 1/3 more vehicles (yes even with less players there's still not enough vehicles)

4. Add in a TDM mode (not portal) so INFANTRY can have some visceral FLOWING fun instead of the all or nothing boring 'gameplay' right now on 2042's maps

5. Make some TDM maps from the best areas in the current maps (My vote: B1 and B2 on manifest - circle off this hills section and make a 32 vs 32 MAX TDM mode with it!!)

6. ALLOW US to select which map we want to play on!!! it's not HARD... the times I have to keep cancelling matcmaking cos it's bringing up the SAME MAP I just played 8 times in a row.. it took me 4 days of playing before I even saw Orbital (since the beta) cos it's a flawed system!! Allow us to choose the MAP fgs!!

Doing the above would bring back some FUN gameplay BF style instead of the drudgery we are seeing in most maps!

For sure need smaller server options... 16, 32 and 64... bare minimum 32 and 64.