64p Conquest feels empty and boring.

Question

After giving 64p conquest the benefit of the doubt and trying a few rounds, I can’t for the life of me understand why this mode is picked over 128.

64p conquest works in other games because the maps are designed for it, they flow well and are balanced https://omegle.onl/ https://xender.vip/ .

In 2042, the 64p versions of the maps are absolutely horrible. Even though they scaled down the maps, it feels like there’s still so much open space and moments where you’re just not interacting with the enemy at all.

I totally understand the frustration some players have had with them removing 128p again, it’s just a bore fest without it.

forumuser · Answer

@iec9szw535jaCQ64 is BY FAR the superior experience. Furthermore, the good maps are not even available in a 128p format. The only thing that is really bad is the vehicle balance because Dice 'forgot' (my assumption is: on purpose) to balance the vehicle counts for those maps.Why on earth does it need that many helicopters on Arica Harbor for instance. One transport per side would be sufficient. Maybe a jet. The same goes for vehicles. Not sure about the exact count, but it's clear that they are at least twice as many as the map can support. The same goes for almost all other maps in the CQ64 pool.If you are missing interactions with other players then you should not camp in your spawn. If you actively engage at flags that are contested there is plenty of action on those maps as well.

forumuser · Answer

@AnobixDefinitely not. For the BC2 maps for one simple reason that there was no CQ at all, only Rush. With asymmetric vehicle counts as well as completely other vehicles in the first place.No, those counts were 'invented' by someone at Dice -- in all likelyhood some intern as a placeholder and then never touched again, even now that its clear that those numbers are much too high.

anobix · Answer

@ForumUser&nbsp;wrote:@AnobixDefinitely not. For the BC2 maps for one simple reason that there was no CQ at all, only Rush. With asymmetric vehicle counts as well as completely other vehicles in the first place.No, those counts were 'invented' by someone at Dice -- in all likelyhood some intern as a placeholder and then never touched again, even now that its clear that those numbers are much too high.https://battlefield.fandom.com/wiki/Battlefield:_Bad_Company_2#GametypesCQ and Rush were in BC2, just no Breakthrough [that wasn't until later games anyway].&nbsp;With that said, I do remember in previous games when there were asymmetrical vehicle counts and larger differences based on the map

karen0202 · Answer

@iec9szw535ja You should play Breakthrough maps. Always action

grizzgolf · Answer

@ForumUser&nbsp;wrote:@iec9szw535jaCQ64 is BY FAR the superior experience. Furthermore, the good maps are not even available in a 128p format. The only thing that is really bad is the vehicle balance because Dice 'forgot' (my assumption is: on purpose) to balance the vehicle counts for those maps.Why on earth does it need that many helicopters on Arica Harbor for instance. One transport per side would be sufficient. Maybe a jet. The same goes for vehicles. Not sure about the exact count, but it's clear that they are at least twice as many as the map can support. The same goes for almost all other maps in the CQ64 pool.If you are missing interactions with other players then you should not camp in your spawn. If you actively engage at flags that are contested there is plenty of action on those maps as well.Agree! Also I wish they would cut the helicopters count down on the older maps&nbsp;

Forum Discussion

64p Conquest feels empty and boring.

7 Replies

Featured Places

Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Recent Discussions

TTK / TTD & shooting player & seeing players through walls.

Battlefield 2042 ps4 no updates

People are using the switch team feature to stack and stomp games (LTM)

DICE and EA; we need this in portal!

EA banned me for nothing, ignored me for more than a month, closed my case