Forum Discussion
@tyl0413 wrote:
@Trokey66Even if that was true which it isn't, they should put it in there anyways so when hardware gets there we can play the game forever without having to rely on EA wanting to keep the game servers open.
I give up......
@Trokey66 I highly doubt that processing power of modern computers is a limiting factor.
We were playing onslaught with 32 bots in Unreal Tournament 2004, almost 20 years ago with single core CPUs.
And before you dismiss the AI, just consider that the game had vehicular combat with both ground and air vehicles as well as objectives and a power node network that needed to be conquered, linked up in the correct order and defended in order to gain access to a final reactor that needed to be destroyed.
The same was true for Unreal Tournament III from 2007.
If single core CPUs from 2004 could handle this gracefully, I'm sure today's CPUs would handle 128 bots without much difficulty.
Even if that wasn't the case. the number of AI could be reduced to a more manageable level for self hosted OFFLINE matches vs. bots.
Excuses like these really don't hold up to scrutiny in a world with multi-core CPUs with hyperthreading.
- ChrisAWJBethel4 years agoSeasoned Ace@Strelok_1284 Yeah, That's what they did in Battlefront II. And they shrank the maps to accommodate for the reduced bot count!
- Trokey664 years agoSeasoned Ace
@Strelok_1284Doubt or know?
Whilst yes, computers are developing at a pace, comparing 2004 era 'bots' to artificial intelligence that will allegedly learn is a bit of a stretch.
Fact is there are numerous reasons why there won't be an offline mode with 'bots' but you guys fail to accept any of them, simply kissing them off to continue your self entitled demands for it.
I care not a jot for such a mode as I am unlikely to play it and it wouldn't bother me if one is eventually included, I am simply being realistic and open possible on reasons why it is not included.
There will be technical, planning, resource and/or financial reasons why but you lot seem to think it has been excluded just to hack you off. - tyl04134 years agoSeasoned Veteran@Trokey66 Control is what it's all about, unless they reverse their decision (which is unlikely by this point) best i can hope for it that one day modders make a private server. Real shame to turn an otherwise good looking game into disposable garbage to be killed in a few years. Remember SimCity 2013? They tried to pull the same thing and people told them to cut the * and they had to give up their "parts of the game are rendered on the server" lie once the game flopped. Darkspore too. If you got nothing to say then just don't. If you can't be bothered to care cool, go play the game despite the problems, don't actively defend them for creating the problems though.
- 4 years ago@tyl0413 Yes my friend, good. without bots, more precisely Conquest mode with offline bots, the game dies. Because they will shut down the servers in 3-4 years and create a new game. And people who bought the game will no longer be able to play normally. It turns out not buying a game but renting. Therefore, I want bots to be added to Battlefield 2042 so that it all pays off and people know what they are paying for.
- Trokey664 years agoSeasoned Ace
@tyl0413What is there to defend?
No one knows the definitive reason for why there is no offline 'bot' mode but there will be several no doubt.
I am defending no one per se, just being realistic.And it is really to simplistic and nieve to expect DICE to simply 'reverse their decision. Assuming it is technically possible, what are the budgetary and planning implications. What impact will it have on existing plans and how would it affect current targets and milestones?
- Jesse1654 years agoSeasoned Ace
@tyl0413@ChrisAWJBethel
We are not actively defending them for making it online only!
However we are smart enough to understand why it's online only because of the progression system and probably because of the Anti-Cheat.
Yes I do want offline Bot Matches as well.
But I understand it might be too hard on our hardware to do that without causing problems.
If this is the price to pay to be able to play 128 player sized Bot Matches (which we can with Battlefield Portal) and still be able to level up than So Be It. - ChrisAWJBethel4 years agoSeasoned Ace@Jesse165 You're talking about PC. I'm talking about console. Though it does exist, hacking/cheating is not a problem in console Battlefield. As for the progression, DICE can very easily turn off progression and enable all weapons/vehicles/gadgets/etc. like they did for Battlefront II. They can also cap the bots at a reasonable number for last-gen consoles, like 40. I say last-gen because I play on Xbox One, and I know there's people who can't afford an Xbox Series X.
- Jesse1654 years agoSeasoned Ace@ChrisAWJBethel No I was talking about BOTH consoles and PC. I suggest you stop assuming things that are completely wrong.
Yes I agree that turning off progression and unlocking everything would work.
But even if/when they do add it I can guarantee it wont be at launch and would instead be in later updates just like when we got Instant Action for Battlefront 2. And nothing you say would make it sooner.
As I said I want offline matches as well. But you still have to be reasonable about it. - ChrisAWJBethel4 years agoSeasoned Ace@Jesse165 Agreed, though if I recalled correctly, people said the same thing concerning bots in Battlefield V.
- tyl04134 years agoSeasoned Veteran
Let me clarify:
Why should you care?
1. More choices in the present, being able to play offline against bots is an option, so is playing in LAN, so would be being able to host your own server either on rented hardware or on your own, or playing on the official servers. It's more ways to play the game making it accessible to more people. If your only choice is playing on the official servers causes several problems you wouldn't have if you had more choices to play whenever there's something wrong with the server or your connection.
2. Preserving the game for the future. Always online games are built to be killed, every single one of them will be become completely unplayable forever one day once the servers are shut down. If you are not forced to rely on them because there's offline mode and ability for anyone to make their own server this ensures the game will live on forever, good examples of these games would be DOOM, Quake and Unreal Tournament for example, this used to be the norm when people cared.
Yes this is all about control and here's why:
Since the business model started shifting away from monetizing copies sold to monetizing game time it's in EAs interest to kill this game once they don't feel like it's a worth while investment, and while it is the game experience will suffer because they will mess with the gameplay in various ways to incentivize purchase of additional content, they have many patents registered like the ones that artificially change the difficulty of the game (yes even in multiplayer) to make you spend more time in the game and therefor more money. This provides a bad or at least worse player experience than games that don't do this therefor it's in their interest to limit your choices because if anyone could just spin up a server without these drawbacks everyone would play on there have more fun while spending less money which is bad for EA. Perfect example is the older Battlefield games, many players prefer playing on the community servers where admins kick the cheaters and other type of undesirable players which provide a better experience than official servers. It's important to note though that servers can not be hosted on your own hardware or any cloud provider in these titles either, they can only be rented through EA's systems which ensure they can still add undesirable things into the game but it's still better than nothing having the choice at all like in Battlefield 2042. Though being able to self host servers and playing against AI offline would be obviously better. Just like real mod tools would be significantly better than Portal but then again if modders can make a better game than EA for free it's in their interest to not let that happen.
To the ones saying "EA is not a charity, they wanna make money this makes them more money" Yes you're 100% right, i've just explained above, I though do no work for EA nor own shares of them therefor their profits are not anything of interest to me, I'm just someone who wants to have fun playing games and it's in my best interest to call out decisions like this from the developers that negatively affect player experience. Why should they listen to me? They probably shouldn't as long as people keep paying them no matter the quality of the product but i will not unless at least some of the things i suggested aren't implemented in some capacity, Battlefront 2 bots come to mind again, that's a decent compromise. I can not purchase a product that can at any second be completely taken away from me though and that's that.
- Trokey664 years agoSeasoned Ace
@tyl0413You have used this several times now so I need to ask.....
How do you spin up and host servers when you are offline?Also, pretty much everything that can be bought will have an expiration date sooner or later.
How long do you expect to be playing it?
Let's assume BF2042 eventually gets offline, what happens when BF7 eventually comes out without offline, are you going make the same song and dance about it or be happy you can carry on playing your 2,5 or 10 year old game offline?
(we all know the answer to the last one)
- tyl04134 years agoSeasoned Veteran
@Trokey66
1. On a LAN, just multiple PCs connected to each other but not to the internet, again something you can easily do with games like Quake or Counter Strike (even Global Offensive and it doesn't even interfere with their F2P business model which is further proof even with the most anti-consumer business models you can find a way to implement the features i suggested without hurting profits, if they did i'm sure Valve would remove it).
2. Those games do not have an expiration date, as long as there exists a machine that can run them or emulate them in the future they'll be playable, they were developed in a way that makes it very easy to preserve them. Always online ones sometimes can be preserved if a private server emulator can be developed but that's significantly harder and therefor rarely happens.
3. I personally? That doesn't really matter. I already got to play many of now shut down always online games and even if i never again wanted to touch them it's really sad that now the decision that i or anyone else can't make for themselves because it's been made by the developers for us that no one can ever again play.
4. Yes, i play loads of games released 2,5,10,20+ years ago
Games do not go bad as time passes. Graphics or certain mechanics will age but a good game will always be a good game and worth revisiting, it's quite sad if you think these days games don't offer anything that's worth keeping around in the future, or are strait up so bad you're okay with them being killed. If that's the case why play them now. Thought you have a point, sports or modern mobile games are certainly not something most people will miss but even with that i'd rather them not be killed. I or anyone else shouldn't be the one to decide for you if you should be able to play a certain game or not. - lzilchetl4 years agoSeasoned Ace
@tyl0413I really don't mean to sound callous, and I admire your passion, but, for me offline play is not something I'm worried about and I've not ever played a BF game after the release of the newest version.
I've also never driven a car at 120mph and would not worry if I had a car that could not go that fast. Others might think it important, but I am sure no-one would try to convince me that my car manufacturer should produce a car that should do 120mph, when it is not something I care about. Even less would they expect me to support a campaign to persuade the manufacturer to build that car just because they wanted to go that fast. - ChrisAWJBethel4 years agoSeasoned Ace@lzilchetl Other people enjoy playing games offline. Why should they have to suffer because the majority of players play online?
- tyl04134 years agoSeasoned Veteran@lzilchetl and that's totally okay, if you're happy with the game the way it is that's great, this thread is for those who are not but it kind of turned into a war between those that want offline and those that don't care.
Coming to this thread with "why do you care/well idc so it doesn't matter" is really not helping anyone. - lzilchetl4 years agoSeasoned Ace
@ChrisAWJBethel wrote:
@lzilchetlOther people enjoy playing games offline. Why should they have to suffer because the majority of players play online?Its hardly suffering is it mate? Its a computer game.
What do you really want to happen here? Is trying to make a load of random people on this forum care about something that does not matter to them the best way of achieving that? I'm not fussed if you fight for it or even if you manage to achieve it. But trying to convince me and others on this thread is not going to make any difference is it? Have you thought about writing formally to EA or organising a petition, or putting together a YouTube to spread the word?
Personally, I think you are fighting a futile battle, happy for you to prove me wrong. Good luck with that.
- lzilchetl4 years agoSeasoned Ace
@tyl0413Fair comment. I'll back out of the thread and leave the topic alone. I think the point,some including me, have been trying to make is that the AI soldiers that feature in 2042 are not bots as you know them. They are probably the biggest bit of innovation Dice have produced in a long time. They have to be as they will play alongside you, follow orders, jump in vehicles and have a skill level similar to real players. KDR will be allocated the same with the AI soldiers as with real players, The concept of the game will fall over if they to not measure up to real players. The bots we have seen until now have been cannon fodder. It is a significant change. The vast majority of computers/consoles have nowhere near the processing power to run even a partially populated local server with bots with that sophistication. This relies heavily on cloud processing, its not something that can just be turned on for offline mode, online access is an essential part of the architecture of the game. My point has always been that the game would need to go back to the drawing board if you are going to get your offline not very AI "bots" and that is certainly not going to happen before launch, if ever. I am completely impartial and have no reason to try and scupper your chances of achieving this, but I , and others become frustrated because some have unrealistic expectations and then seem to become indignant when we try to point that out.
But, go for it.
I'm out (I promise) - 4 years ago@tyl0413 Yes my friend. offline mode with bots will give us unlimited time to play. An eternal game in which we will not be sad but rejoice that she will live forever. Because everyone is sad to see the closure of old Battlefield the semblance of BBC2 and more. But games that have offline map creation with bots live a long time and it was the cherry on top in the life of Battlefield. Which they have removed since the release of the Frostbite engine. Offline bots will give eternal life to the game.
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 10 hours ago
- 11 hours ago
- 12 hours ago