2042 is not a Battlefield game; This is why BF5 will have more and more players.

So many people taking about "muh feels! It's not a battlefield game"...

This is entirely subjective and highly influenced by emotional factors. If you look objectively at core features of Conquest throughout the series, however, it's strongly consistent:

• Objective-oriented gameplay. Rounds are won or lost through control of territory.
• Resource management. The prevalence of resupply/health is extremely important, influencing how, when, or even whether you engage enemy. BFV is notable in this regard, as early player reeeee! feedback led to the attrition system being heavily scaled back, to the point where it was largely meaningless.
• Weapons with strengths and weaknesses that heavily influence engagement range.

I wonder whether many people are salty because they simply aren't very good at it yet, having learned the games they came from over years. If each installment played the same as the last, there would be little compelling reason to release it, and no reason to buy it.

• If you go from BF4 to BF2042 expecting them to play them same, you're going to have a bad time.
• If you go from BFV to BF2042 expecting them to play the same, you're going to have a bad time.

With regard to BF4, there's been 7 years of changing trends in the games industry. If you've played nothing else in the Battlefield series in between, you're doing both of the games and yourself a disservice with the comparison.

As for BFV, the change in map size and player count, along with the shift in balance away from semi-automatic weapons towards full auto rifles and the return of lock-on weapons makes comparisons difficult. The expectations of BFV will get you killed. Often.

I had a hard time the first few weeks finding a loadout that reflects my playstyle and helps me succeed (close support and spotting.) The absence of fixed classes means you have to develop your own. Now I've found my niche, I'm doing much better:

• Falck
• MP9 with heavy suppressor/cq sights/extended mag + cq rounds/laser
• Prox sensor
• SOFLAM

My squadmate(s) run Boris/McKay/Sundance and the recoilless M5. They kill the armour, I revive them and pick off infantry at close quarters. If I'm playing alone, I choose a flag/area to contest and stay there, painting targets when not pewepewing. A little flexibility also helps. If no one is reacting to my painting targets and I see others are using the SOFLAM, I'll switch to the M5. If there's no SOFLAM or rockets going up, I'll switch to the ammo crate. Sometimes I'll switch to C5 and blow things up.

Generally, I've noticed, over the six weeks or so since the game came out, that people are starting to defend flags a lot more than in other BF titles. This leads to some really fun, intense battles on A, C or D on Orbital, for instance.

It works for me and "feels" like Battlefield. I get both BF2 and BF4 vibes depending on the map and its infantry/armour balance.

Sure, I can do without the awful voice lines at the end of the round, but the reaction to specialists and much freer loadouts suggests to me that many people just don't want to think all that much about their loadout. This is a real shame, as the opportunities for team play afforded by the changes are, in my view, much richer than before.