Bring Back 128 Player Breakthrough
Conquest in 2042 is boring. I spend more time running around the map looking for fights compared to actually having gunfights. With 128 players breakthrough was chaotic, but there was never a dull mo...
Forum Discussion
It's literally the only game mode I play. This game was advertised and hyped around 128 player modes. And now you go and remove one of the 128 player modes? The maps are giant and empty, Conquest is more running around than engaging in points. At least in Breakthrough, there is a specific direction, and you're not running around aimlessly.
Again, this game was advertised and hyped around the 128 player modes. I was finally getting back into the game with 4.0, but if this mode remains removed, I might never return to the game again.
Please reconsider this.
- @AOD_MGsubbie DICE: Don't be sad, that's just how it works out sometimes.
But real. I'm done with 2042 and DICE after this. This isn't Battlefield anymore, and DICE's fairly apparent contempt for their community is impossible to ignore.
They straight up dislike us.- They technically didn't remove 128 breakthrough completely. Only a few of the maps. sizes for specific maps:Discarded, Manifest, Orbital, Kaleidoscope will play the 128 layout versionHourglass, Breakaway, Renewal will play the 64 player layout version
@CantGetRightNo. 128 player breakthrough is 100% gone. You are reading the notes wrong. It’s 64 players on all maps. The 128 player layouts will be used for some, and 64 player layouts will be used for the others, but all maps will be 32 vs 32
Their lazy, incompetent devs also never adjusted ticket counts on the 128 player layouts so I’ve read some games are dragging on for over an hour. It’s the blind leading the blind with this special group of developers.
Oh, and tons of reports of micro stuttering now. Worse than ever before. Glad I’m done playing this POS but I wanted to point out how incompetent DICE continues to be. Game is going backwards, losing content, performance getting worse. Literally feels like intentional sabotage.
- @AOD_MGsubbie It makes you wonder, is this purposeful sabotage?
Like, are they purposefully trying to run players off???
I tried to consider DICE/EA point of view on this and I arrived at two conclusions:
#1. They truly do want the game to die-off, plan to do the bare-minimum to meet their contractual obligations, and in turn want to decrease overhead/costs for the game as much as possible. Removing something like 128 player Breakthrough cuts down on server costs and runs off a significant portion of the player base. Hazard Zone likely next up on the chopping block.
#2. Very few developers remain, and coding/designing for 4 total modes has to be a pain for new/upcoming maps and content. So instead of designing maps for 128/64 Breakthrough and 128/64 Conquest, let's remove one of the 4 modes. Which of the 4 modes can we realistically remove to focus on 3 instead of 4? Can't touch Conquest because that's the legacy of the game, and we can't touch Breakthrough 64 because that's what the old-gen consoles can play on. So who gets the short end of the stick? Breakthrough 128 is expendable, so off you go. We don't have the time to continue to develop for all 4 modes, so 3 it is and TOO BAD if you like 128 player breakthrough.
TLDR: DICE/EA is trying to minimize costs and removing 128 Breakthrough does exactly like this. It has nothing to do with what the players want, what's best for the game, etc. This decision was made before we filled out the recent survey, even though they specifically asked us questions about these modes in it.
This decision was made like every other corporate decision. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's all these greedy, unethical executives care about.
So stop giving it to them.@AvocadoPabloThey probably looked into fixing the performance issues on current-gen and realized they literally couldn't without making major changes to the maps, lol. Cheaper, faster, and easier to just disable the mode which is totally a "fix" because it won't run badly anymore!
GG planning ahead by DICE. GG scoping out technical limitations given that they knew exactly what the hardware specs on PS5/XSX is.
They make college game jams where people are building their first game look like a bunch of professionals.- @AvocadoPablo this has a ring of truth about it.
I was going to post this topic as well.
The main thing that "breaks" a Breakthrough 128p server, is the lack of real players. When a server is half empty, defense will get rolled because of AI bots that dont really counter vehicles.
Conquest 128p on the other hand is an absolute mess. It has no cohesion and its only popular because its the "Default" game mode.
People only play Conquest until Breakthrough servers have enough players.
If they want to "fix" the state of play, remove Conquest 128p instead. That will push more players to Breakthrough.
And saying its unbalanced tactically, I just lost attack on 3 Breakthrough 128p's in a row because of full servers.
I literally paid $200 for a 2 year VPN subscription to specifically play Breakthrough in a region that its actually playable (US West), because Breakthrough 128 is completely dead in Oceania and Breakthrough 64 only gets players at about 9pm NZST *if* it does at all. At least killing Conquest 128p would help us smaller regions to get Breakthrough games which are actually somewhat meaningful, as they have direction to them.
So not only did I pay $150 for a dead game, but now I paid $200 to be able to actually play said game and you're taking that away from me.
Are you going to refund my $200 VPN subscription?
What part of this entire release hasn't been a mistake? Game is still garbage and they are dead set on making it worse.
