Yeah, that's a weird move I gotta say and I am no pilot...like at all...unless you're looking to lawn-dart all your air assets then I'm your man.
In previous BF titles (with only 64 players per match) there was considerably more air assets, armor, AA, boats etc. etc.
Almost every decision seems to be made to get farther away from what made a BF game and make it more like some COD bastardization.
I'm guessing that conquest 128 can't handle more vehicles, and that was the real reason why vehicle counts keep getting yanked by Dice.
That said, I'd suggest Dice add a 32x32 conquest in Official Portal to reduce CPU/GPU bottlenecks, and double or triple the vehicle counts and see if the customers like such a mode.
At the very least, some sort of official game mode needs to exist for vehicle mains, which is not something I do, but I think you will be neglecting a very large percentage of players with the current vehicle drought enacted by inefficient game coding that can't handle the vehicle counts being higher across five different platforms written in the middle of a pandemic from home without the proper equipment to test the code.
Trial and error...test, review, repeat using Official Portal....
@DeepSixxxxBro you acting like every single map
in the history of the franchise was full of aircraft and tanks 24/7. Quite the contrary. Many maps had few vehicles if any.
While vehicles are an iconic and essential part of the experience, a vast majority of players play as INFANTRY every single match. Catering every single experience to vehicle users isn’t Battlefield.
A solid map rotation with a good mix of infantry only experiences, infantry plus a tank or three(ZERO aircraft), then other maps that are all out combined arms warfare are what the quintessential Battlefield experience is all about.
DICE shoving Hind/Condor and stealth Helis down our throats EVERY SINGLE CONQUEST MATCH is bleeding what few players are left away from the franchise.This isn’t the successful formula that made Battlefield the iconic juggernaut it once was.
DICE seems to act like they have ZERO clue how to balance vehicle numbers when they have so many successful blueprints to draw from looking at vehicle numbers and map rotations from past BF games.
We need the formula of success from previous, VERY SUCCESSFUL Battlefield titles. Map rotations with a good mix of infantry only maps, ground vehicles plus infantry only, and other maps with aircraft and tanks.
Why are you continuing to push the failed 2042 vehicle formula DICE?? It’s not working and it’s not popular with the masses.
I apologize sometimes I go too far 😂
@Ironhead841 wrote:Yeah, that's a weird move I gotta say and I am no pilot...like at all...unless you're looking to lawn-dart all your air assets then I'm your man.
In previous BF titles (with only 64 players per match) there was considerably more air assets, armor, AA, boats etc. etc.
Almost every decision seems to be made to get farther away from what made a BF game and make it more like some COD bastardization.
If I may comment on this - one of the reasons I like BF over COD games is the EPIC SIZE BATTLES that can occur - the large maps, the numerous vehicles, etc.
I understand if they are trying to bring in more of the COD market; but I agree, keep it big, keep it numerous (maybe not 128 players lol) a lot like BF4 and BF3 was; and it'll be different and great! [Well, I'll like it a lot]
