@Stew360 There are a lot of people who would disagree with your definition of "stable" and the fact that you need to qualify it says that performance/optimization was not done right.
I am here to try and prevent BF from becoming the Hero-Shooter / BR DICE/EA are forcing. My hope is that another company picks up what EA/DICE dropped and runs with it but as of right now it is better to try and salvage BF than wait for someone to try and break into the market (WW3 might be able to turn a corner, but it's dodgy at best right now).
I really doubt millions of players are playing this game, but seeing that we don't get direct access to analytics (I wonder why DICE/EA haven't put that narrative to bed by showing their numbers) we are going to have to just agree to disagree on the player count. I also highly disagree that games like battlefield have a 2 week lifespan...that just sounds like justifying 2042's drop-off rate.
The 128 player choice was also a terrible one. Let this sink in....they, did, not, test for 128 players. How could they properly design a map, check for flow, and ensure proper performance when they didn't even bother to try it themselves? 256 would be even worse (both in performance and combat experience for the players). If you thought dying randomly, almost instantly as you try to cover 80 acres of open land to the next objective was annoying...you're only doubling that experience.
The best part is you just showed exactly WHY EA/DICE want BF2042 to be their hero-shooter live service. They want that return player $$$$ and Battlefield was their avenue.
