Forum Discussion
@Adamonic wrote:
They can't, it is an asset count limitation in the game engine.
If they add cover, they have to get those assets from somewhere else on the map. So the only way to do that is to shrink the map. Then you can only have so many assets in a specific area, or the game will become unplayable.
So there are development constraints.
Also, comparing BF1 or BFV maps to this is not really a good comp. Look at some of the larger BF3 and BF4 maps. Take Golmud Railway for instance. There is a ton of open space with no cover.
Maps should have cover, and a route with cover to and from points, but there needs to be open space for vehicles as well.
BF2042 seems to fail on both parts. Some maps have so many random rock outcrops that you can't drive 10 feet without hitting one, yet not enough cover for infantry where it counts.
Or the entire Armored Kill expansion in BF3
That gets my vote, I would love them to bring the Armored Kill expansion. 👍
- Ghostrider00673 years agoSeasoned Adventurer
The whole "asset limitation" thing, to me, sounds like an excuse and bad design. I mean, how can a 10 year old game like Planetside 2 keep adding new stuff that alters the map (mobile base building specifically) and not have issues? And with DOUBLE the player count and utterly massive maps by comparison to even the largest of what's been found in any BF game?
- cso77773 years agoSeasoned Ace@Ghostrider0067 Just look at all the Unreal Engine 5 demos, they are pretty wild and have a lot of 'assets'.
I know UE5 is a 'future engine' and will probably be pretty taxing on existing hardware, but still.
Frostbite looks nice, but it has become a limitation. It seems like it is still way too complicated to develop anything, the number of maps in 2042 is a total joke and the reworks are not fully done yet.
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 20 minutes ago
- 16 hours ago