Forum Discussion
@AdamonicYes. And we understand the limitations from 60 to 45 in costs with 128 players per map for the 300 k players they expected simultaneously, but now, with the actual numbers being 10 times lower than the projections, the LEAST they could -- because I don't want to have brutal expectations -- is up the 20 Hz to 30.
The BEST they could do is put it at 45 Hz. We would appreciate that.
Well, I wrote a lot about vehicles balance, I just want to show DICE that I presented reasons to review:
64 vs 128 players maps design choices
How classes changed vehicle presence
Why vehicles need to have more defined roles (changing repairs won't cut it)
How hybrid maps don't work well for both 128 and 64 players. Too crowded and too empty. These maps could be fixed by removing the first two flags on each side on the 64 p version, and the vehicle rebalance would fix the excessive chaos on 128 p version.
Vehicle presence must be toned down again.
@Straatford87 Could you, please, bring these topics to your next development round table?
- RMEChief3 years agoLegend@A-RAF2019 the map problem is an interesting one. They can easily change the number of objectives, sectors, and reshape some boundaries to make the maps play better based on the player count.
- RAF20423 years agoRising Ace
Despite the broken Ingrish and long sentences, can someone, please, give me a nod?
Just toss in the balance discussion the wildcat range in 64 p maps (in Kaleidoscope it won't matter), 64 p in general, and hybrid maps, 20 Hz and vehicle balance, vehicle role and overall vehicle presence, which feels very different after classes. Just a few lines in the whiteboard.
Some solutions are really simple and won't take more than a man before it is tested, and there you go, you got something to do for Season 5 (or after that) to keep the game alive and refreshed.
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 4 hours ago
- 15 hours ago
- 2 days ago
- 3 days ago