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...
Forum Discussion
@ZeveredGood post and agree with much of what you said. Upping the playercount and map sizes was a logical next step for Battlefield evolution. People screaming that it doesn't work and that it can never work is just stupid. It does work and I've had a blast playing CQ128 for most of my 1000 hours.
I'm sure the BF devs have for a long time wanted to upscale the experience even more, and modern tech is now allowing for it. DICE is just trying to innovate. Seeing so many morons screech that they instead want the same exact game remastered from years ago is a COD mentality.
I've played Battlefield 2042 on both PC and PS5. The 128 player game modes ran great on both platforms for me.
I've always said that 128 players was not an issue because every negative found in games with that many players was also present in matches with 64 and 32.
The lack of overall team focus in Battlefield game modes, and the disregard that so many seem to have for squad play is the reason why the the large scale game modes are a mess. Same as matches with lower player counts.
Add to this that the developers do not seem to think they need to do anything to encourage coordinated team play in their game. No clans on 2042. No commander. A commander who is a head coach for a large team that can direct the battle from the map seeing the big picture. Something that is severely needed in battles.
Also without going too long with this. To those that say 128 players does not work in Battlefield. How do you explain Hazard Zones failing in the same game?
Hello @Skill4Reel,
I agree with your point about the absence of features like a commander or clan support in Battlefield 2042. These elements have historically played crucial roles in fostering teamwork and strategic thinking in previous Battlefield titles. Without these features, the game misses out on opportunities to encourage and reward coordinated team play, which is essential for making large-scale battles engaging and meaningful.
I disagree with the notion that Battlefield should continue to push for 128-player game modes. In my experience and from observing the community feedback, it's clear that 64-player modes are more conducive to a balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience.
From a design perspective, Battlefield has traditionally thrived on strategic team play and tactical coordination. However, increasing the player count to 128 does not inherently enhance these aspects; in fact, it can detract from them by spreading player focus too thin and reducing the impact of individual contributions.
Best regards,
danisoff
I think it is possible to find a balance between map/player count.
I loved the original Hourglass and how the big distances felt with 128 players.
I recently played BF1 Sanai Desert and gave me the same vibes with only 64 players.
The key: don't design too small maps and 64 players will be ok.- @JOGAGATYA Wow, I have never seen so many people with diametrically opposed opinions. The only map I hated so much that I dared not play was the original Hourglass, because of the new, multi-sector areas introduced in 2042, there was no need to fight in the stadium and buildings area at all. The only areas involved in winning or losing were B, C, and D in the central city area. The map was representative of what was wrong with the multi-sector structure. Maybe they wanted to have some kind of strategy with the increased number of people, but multi-sector is one of the bad mechanics of the game.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
