Forum Discussion

Ironhead841's avatar
Ironhead841
Hero
4 years ago

Re: Substantial research showed that 128-player battles just aren't fun to play!

@edgecrusherO0 wrote:

Back then, sure, especially since it was more technically taxing on the hardware nearly a decade ago vs. what we have now. But I like 128 player breakthrough, so y'all trying to kill one of the big reasons I bought BF2042 - 128 player matches being available - is pretty freakin lame. Leave the options for 64/128 in, if DICE can't figure it out or thinks it's too hard then they should have changed the match sizes before selling 128 players to the public.

Easy there little fella we're just having a discussion here, if you like/want 128 players good for you some see issues with it.

To each their own, your personal opinion isn't any more valid than anyone else's.

And for the record I wasn't advocating for removing 128 players I was merely adding my opinion (which isn't any more valid than anyone else's to be clear) to a topic relating to what the OP started.

5 Replies

  • edgecrusherO0's avatar
    edgecrusherO0
    4 years ago
    @Ironhead841 My frustration is more than DICE seems to be hinting that they may abandon 128 players because they don't have the talent to make a decent game and were far, far, far too arrogant in what they thought they were capable of pre-launch, apparently.
  • Ironhead841's avatar
    Ironhead841
    Hero
    4 years ago
    @edgecrusherO0 wrote:
    @Ironhead841My frustration is more than DICE seems to be hinting that they may abandon 128 players because they don't have the talent to make a decent game and were far, far, far too arrogant in what they thought they were capable of pre-launch, apparently.

    Fair enough, I'm hoping they are gonna turn it around but to be honest it's getting harder to see a scenario where that happens.

  • RayD_O1's avatar
    RayD_O1
    Hero
    4 years ago
    @Ironhead841 wrote:
    @edgecrusherO0 wrote:
    @Ironhead841My frustration is more than DICE seems to be hinting that they may abandon 128 players because they don't have the talent to make a decent game and were far, far, far too arrogant in what they thought they were capable of pre-launch, apparently.

    Fair enough, I'm hoping they are gonna turn it around but to be honest it's getting harder to see a scenario where that happens.

    I hope they turn it round too I really do but if I am being totally honest it's getting harder every day to remain optimistic regarding this games future.

  • Psubond's avatar
    Psubond
    4 years ago
    @RayD_O1 i haven't played the 128 player battles (i refuse to pay a scalper for a series X and i don't have time to camp stores/websites so i am on xbox one) but for the most part i think the 64 player count breakthrough is good. i do think that the maps could use some work though because a couple maps are basically spawn traps for the attacking team (looking at you renewal and discarded) if the attackers aren't VERY aggressive.
  • Adamonic's avatar
    Adamonic
    Legend
    4 years ago

    The problem is the game lacks communication methods and other features that would make 128 appealing like VOIP, Commander Mode, better squad management, platoons, and map design (choke points, key terrain). 

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Battlefield 2042 in the community forums.15,974 PostsLatest Activity: 3 hours ago