Forum Discussion
I have not been able to easily find an active match/server for 128-player Conquest in All Out War since the last update when DICE made the incredibly stupid decision to make 64-player Conquest the default option.
There is a great TED Talk by behavioral economist Dan Ariely discussing the consequences of basic opt-in vs opt-out systems. The main point is that whichever choice is made the default will always be the one most often selected by the super majority of people because they're either lazy or simply unaware that there are other choices available.
This is what is going on with 128-player Conquest now. Most everyone is simply queing into the 64-player version by DEFAULT. This makes even less sense considering you need more players to start a 128-player server.
The main selling point of BF2042 was the increased scale for this next generation of Battlefield. That DICE are now completely walking back on that design choice is a major disappointment, and I will not continue playing this game. If I wanted to go back to 64-players, I'd just go play an older Battlefield.
STOP TRYING TO CATER TO PLAYERS THAT CAN'T EVEN RUN YOUR GAME ON MODERN HARDWARE. (I.e., old gen console players.)
AND STOP TRYING TO CATER TO HATERS THAT WERE NEVER COMING BACK.
- RMEChief4 years agoLegend@Anarchiesx this is a concerted effort to kill the game. No one has asked for the changes they are making.
- X-Sunslayer-X4 years agoSeasoned Ace@Anarchiesx it might just be me but i take improved map readability, better performance and balance anyday of the week over the massive mistake 128-players has turned out to be...
we could've had 60HZ servers like BF1 or BFV but no lets instead sacrafice any semblence of a functioning product for an advertising punch-line...- Anarchiesx4 years agoRising Veteran@X-Sunslayer-X
Wtf are you talking about. The 128-player versions of maps on Conquest have always been playing just fine for those of us on modern hardware. Never had performance issues.
I bet you were part of the nonsensical crowd complaining how this game was a running simulator, completely ignoring available vehicles and call-ins.- 4 years ago@Anarquíasx DICE, I WANT TO PLAY IN 128 PLAYERS. I bought a Playstation 5 just to play BF2042, and in 64 I prefer to go to BF5 and BF1 with a Playstation 4.
- 4 years ago@X-Sunslayer-X It works perfect on PS5, DICE already has to forget about old generation and low performance PC. I want 128 players, which is what they sold me.
And now every day and Saturday night is also WAITING FOR 31 PLAYERS TO JOIN- X-Sunslayer-X4 years agoSeasoned Ace@borroma31 if you have that much trouble to fin 128-players then that should be enough evidence that the mode is not that popular across the community....
funny how that works out eh=?
- 4 years ago
I have the world problem. WAITING FOR 31 PLAYERS TO JOIN in Conquest 128 when before * Thursday the servers were always full. It can't be that there isn't one more person!!
Something has been changed so that people only play Conquer 64 and then they say "People don't play 128"...and of course IT SAYS...because you don't allow it...because no one asked you for that change,
I bought the BF2042 and a PS5 just for this!!! And now I can't play 128??? DICE is doing the easy thing to improve performance, changing ground textures and shrinking maps!!
Now we play in 64 players, same as BF1 and BF5 but with bad graphics???? In Next Gen?? What are they doing????
- 4 years ago@Anarchiesx I wouldn't blame old gen folks because all they've ever had available is 64 players. However I do blame them for holding portal back. For whatever reason we're unable to make 128 player portal matches.
Except for the first few updates, I haven't had any problems running 128 player games.- 4 years ago
Fun fact...the 30 second countdown stops if someone quits and then you get forced back into "Waiting for X Players" again...🤔
At least it doesn't reset to 30 seconds, it resumes the countdown at the previous count so "Yea Dice"....🙌
- GrizzGolf4 years agoSeasoned Ace
I havent had any issues finding 128 games.
- GRiPSViGiL4 years agoSeasoned Ace@Anarchiesx the map reworks and less players is terrible. Maps feel barren and flag points are spread out to far. 128 was great. The chaos of it was so much bigger and better.
- Roadmay4 years agoNew Ace
As my opinion the last patch ruin everything , nobody play 128-player conquest in my region now , vehicle combat become a joke , tank is a big joke , gun balance is joke , weapon attachments is joke too . What else next ?
- 4 years ago
They are effectively trying to phase out 128 players that’s very obvious but that was one of its selling points 😂😂😂
- 4 years ago128 was a mistake. Now they try to metigate the damage as much as they can. Can't blame em for that. I still find smaller modes more entertaining.
- 4 years ago
They phasing out 128 player modes by moving the playerbase to Exodus Conquest.
Once the 128 player modes have been completely removed, the server tickrate and client update rate can be increased to 60hz.
- sgtPoulton4 years agoNew Veteran
Game becomes worse and worse with every update.
Seriously, I enjoyed it much more on release date with all bugs and crashes. Now everything is ruined
Weapon balance is no more
Game modes completely destroyed
They keep "balancing" things with every patch and every time it becomes only worse
Played today to see 10 mins rounds with 64 players using LCMG
Days before it was K30 everyone
SFAR-F now trashed. AK trashed.
The release version with decent noticable recoil on guns and 128p maps was much better
- 4 years ago
Yup I agree with you too! Every update has ruined AOW experience. I had more fun playing 128 conquest on release up to update 4.0 minus the bugs.
- 4 years ago@Anarchiesx same with there choice of vehicle reduction in aow. Doesn't feel like battlefield game anymore, but call of duty. I didn't buy game for infantry gameplay only... i already stopped playing..only come back on for some weekly missions. Otherwise they killed my favorite mode 128 conquest
- Anarchiesx4 years agoRising Veteran@thepuppetmaster7 I agree, reducing the vehicle count to appease noobs was nonsense.
- 4 years ago
They never thought about how to implement 128 players into the game so every step has been a backwards one in order to find some semblance of balance to the game! Just making large maps is not enough
Should have had sectors locked in so you can only move to another sector once it is fully captured.
Limited ammo for vehicles not as drastic as BFV's tank ammo pool but enough that they have to return to base.
Limit kit selection. Insurgency sandstorm does this well. SO you have limited snipers and RPGs
Vehicles spawn at base or at captured flags
There's so many key elements that where not thought about
- 4 years ago
@thepuppetmaster7 You’re acting like every map in the Battlefield franchise has tons of vehicles every single match. You and I both know this isn’t true. Some maps have zero vehicles, some only have ground vehicles, and some have a good mix of air and ground vehicles.
Stop with the gaslighting.- GrizzGolf4 years agoSeasoned Ace
I just wish it played more like other BF games
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 36 minutes ago
- 2 hours ago
- 4 hours ago
- 4 hours ago