Re: Why do you keep enforcing 128 player on us ?
Nobody is forced to play 128 players. If you don't like 128 player AoW stop being lazy and make a portal server of the maps you want with 64 players and advertise it to folks in various places.
Forum Discussion
8 Replies
- @protoman23 In other words create a server for an almost dead part of the game and hope to fill it up. Makes sense if portal wouldn't be so dead.
Getting kinda sick of waiting, this game has been released for over a year and we get the content we want sometimes but not all the time...... clearly a huge part of the community is sick of 128 chaos in a game where many weapons are laser beams, with insane damage over range, where you are spotted 24/7, console aimbot is overtuned and vehicle spam is just insane with gunner seats being the most powerful they have ever been.
This marketing focused forced gameplay every since EA came up the new Battlefront is fun for litterly 2 weeks and you get sick of the chaotic nature, you have no control, everything is messy and unpredictable everything you dont' want in a video game. Yes the first 2 weeks of 2042 I was amazed with the feeling of chaos of war and action but it get's really annoying when you are just a pawn in this chaotic mess. This game has one gamemode and it's called chaos nothing else.
For me personally
Conquest3 flag 16/24 players
5 flag 32/48 players
7+ flag 64 players
And no sections
When I play 2042 I get Planetside vibes sometimes and I think that’s a big fail for Battlefield, that or being compared to COD.
- @doubleome Well said!
Interestingly on the latest podcast we learnt that Flashpoint was designed for 64 players.
128 player is like an albatross dragging Dice down at this point to the point that the last 2 maps are clearly not fit for 128 player conquest but it's what they sold the game on so we are stuck with it. I remember the complaints about 64 players being too many players for Operations in Battlefield 1. So 40 player servers were created and the same stuff that people complained about with the larger player count was still happening in those.
Player count is not the issue. The problem is Battlefield refusing to evolve beyond the sandbox trap that it is stuck in. 24 player matches in BFBC and BF3 back on PS3 and XB360 all suffered from chaos, poor team chemistry, and one sided matches.
I remember how console players back then were wanting 64 players because they thought that the increased player count would make all of these issues go away. Well. They were wrong.
How many games and artificial upgrades and downgrades is it going to take before Battlefield players understand that it does not matter how many players are on the servers as much as it does who these players are.
When DICE figures out that the PTW (Play To Win) players need their own space away from the people that are doing other things. Only then will things improve.
- @Tank2042Man
Having had the chance to play the 64 player Flashpoint yesterday I must say it played much better imho. - Absolutely!
Is there any petition we can sign to make the 64 player mode a permanent one? Withholding the only good maps (Valparaiso, Caspian, Noshar and -- were it not for the ridiculous vehicle count -- Arica Harbor) except Spearhead was a VERY bad decision. The 64 player playlist should definitely always be available. World Tour is back for anyone who is wanting a decent 64 player mode.
Conquest / Rush maps from various era's.
Some maps I like the 128
