2 years ago

128 players never was the problem.

It has been bugging me for years ever since they made the announcement back in like 2022 that 128 players just isn't as fun for players as compared to 64, 40. 32 etc.

I think everyone can agree that the 128 players really never was the problem with BF2042.

The maps were poorly designed, especially for 128 players, the lack of content early on (i.e. weapons, vehicles, attachments, maps), the bugs (oh the bugs), the network issues, hit registration, weapon balancing etc. etc. I mean everyone knows they fudged up the launch and should've waited at least another 6 months to give the poor devs some more time. But blaming a big portion of their botched launch that players didn't like 128 players?

128 players was never the main issue with this game and there are tons of other games with +100 players and the battles are epic. Hell Let Loose, Planetside 1/2 etc. I haven't played this in a long time but I felt that I had to put something here for the records. Personally I feel like this is the right direction for Battlefield, it was what was fun back in the day as well, bigger maps, more vehicles, capturing areas and holding them whereas most other shooters packed you into tiny maps and everything was about kills or short rounds.

Imagine BF1, BF3, BF4 or BFV for example with bigger maps and more people, it would've been amazing. Focus in BF2042 was how do we bring in Fortnite heroes and sell cosmetics instead of how do we make a fun Battlefield game? Please EA for the next one, let CoD be CoD and BF be BF, there's a reason they were competitors in the military shooter market before and the fanbases are split and solid for both sides. If I wanted a CoD clone I'd go play CoD. 🙂

Tired of seeing big corps throwing out strawmen and shifting focus from what was wrong with a product to "The players didn't like X", then listen to the players to begin with and you don't end up in this mess again and again. Stop building a cash shop around a trend and then trying to force a game in around it and instead build a great game and players will just eat it up. Monetize it afterwards if you want to make money off a good product instead of the cash grabs. The customers don't care about your shareholders bonuses, they just want to have fun.

discussion

21 Replies

sk1lld
Legend
2 years ago
@Zevered

Great post and I agree on most of it, but my opinion is the game engine just wasn't able to handle the load.

JMHO
danisoff
Hero
2 years ago
Hello @Zevered,
I can see your point, but honestly for me the golden spot is 64 players. I truly think that they should keep it at 64 players going forward, I think they made the right call.
Best regards,
danisoff
OskooI_007
Seasoned Ace
2 years ago
I realize now after 2042 that the more players there are the harder it is to design maps. It's easier to design a map for 32v32 than it is for 64v64.
It's also harder to fill a 128 player server and a bunch of bots end up filling the server which makes the gameplay boring.
I always advocated for 128 player Battlefield but after seeing the map designs in 2042. I think 64 player maps is easier for DICE to design.
ChusmaConArmas
2 years ago
It's not harder, you only have to keep the same proportions of number of players, distances between objectives, traversal times and the amount of vehicles available.
the number of players don't affect the gameplay.
danisoff
Hero
2 years ago
@ChusmaConArmas,
Expanding to 128 makes no sense in any way except for a marketing ploy. I would even argue that 64 player multiplayer is a core part of Battlefield and it should stay like that.
Best regards,
danisoff
FlibberMeister
Seasoned Ace
2 years ago
128 only works if you have self organising clans and teams, decent squad sizes, comms etc.
even poor maps could work a bit with proper basic structure in place.

But what did we get instead?

Legacy players, clans, platoons kicked to curb and curb stomped. Instant death to 128 EVER working even remotely a bit.
4 player squads.
squad reset after ever match
Forced map choice.
No server browser, official hardcore clan managed servers.

What did anyone expect?
2042 is a disgrace and quite frankly offensive.
Hudson1531
Seasoned Ace
2 years ago
@Zevered

Ive played 128 conquest since launch, if i couldn't get a game i would drop into 64 conquest.

128 conquest with full players and no AI is amazing but bare minimum players and the rest AI is woeful.

I will agree some maps are not made for 128 players this includes some maps with air support, and getting into 128 games can be harder.

Well we know next bf will only be 64 players, hopefully they dont screw thst one up.
BownrInSweatPanz
Seasoned Veteran
2 years ago
@Zevered128 players is possible, but it requires a LOT to execute flawlessly, DICE would need a lot of time and resources to get it up to 64 player standard, but DICE lacks the Manpower, Time, Competency, and Funds to make 128 as comparable to 64 players with so many cut corners such as Tick Rate, Map and gameplay design, Performance and more due to the goal of 128. DICE is also Infamous for their execution of Ideas and Solutions to be horribly though out whenever a problem arrise, and 128 complicates it further

At this point 64 is the max amount of players they can design for that should be no issues for that 128 created or features sacrificed.
GrizzGolf
Seasoned Ace
2 years ago
I liked 128
But if we can get more maps than Ill gladly go back to 64
UP_Hawxxeye
Legend
2 years ago
128 man does not work for Battlefield because of:
1) The server tickrate takes a hit. Did you notice that they disable the TUGs in Rush Chaos because it makes the game for anyone in the area more laggy?
2) DICE cannot balance it properly and we have had too many infantry and too few vehicles.
3) They have failed to make maps that work well with how much 128 people can spread everywhere.