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
@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. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's all these greedy, unethical executives care about.
So stop giving it to them.
Like, are they purposefully trying to run players off???
I tried to consider DICE/EA point of view on this and I arrived at two conclusions:
#1. They truly do want the game to die-off, plan to do the bare-minimum to meet their contractual obligations, and in turn want to decrease overhead/costs for the game as much as possible. Removing something like 128 player Breakthrough cuts down on server costs and runs off a significant portion of the player base. Hazard Zone likely next up on the chopping block.
#2. Very few developers remain, and coding/designing for 4 total modes has to be a pain for new/upcoming maps and content. So instead of designing maps for 128/64 Breakthrough and 128/64 Conquest, let's remove one of the 4 modes. Which of the 4 modes can we realistically remove to focus on 3 instead of 4? Can't touch Conquest because that's the legacy of the game, and we can't touch Breakthrough 64 because that's what the old-gen consoles can play on. So who gets the short end of the stick? Breakthrough 128 is expendable, so off you go. We don't have the time to continue to develop for all 4 modes, so 3 it is and TOO BAD if you like 128 player breakthrough.
TLDR: DICE/EA is trying to minimize costs and removing 128 Breakthrough does exactly like this. It has nothing to do with what the players want, what's best for the game, etc. This decision was made before we filled out the recent survey, even though they specifically asked us questions about these modes in it.
This decision was made like every other corporate decision. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's all these greedy, unethical executives care about.
So stop giving it to them.
@AvocadoPablo this has a ring of truth about it.
Featured Places
