EA/DICE Patrick Soderlund said this regarding 128 players back when Battlefield 3 was announced:
After playing 2042 do you agree?
(granted, the terrible poor and all open flat gmod template maps we have in BF2042 does not make it better...)
@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.
@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.
@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.
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).
Posting old research quotes from the pre-Battlefield 3 era and using it for today’s narrative is disinformation at best. Since that pre-Battlefield 3 time period (where your quote was pulled from) we’ve had countless upgrades to hardware, internet speed, and code optimization. What was valid then isn’t still valid today.
The current problem with the Battlefield 2042 128 player gameplay is:
Map design,
Too few objectives for 128 players,
Not enough infantry cover,
No incentive for players to disperse across the map to hold/capture/fight multiple zones at the same time.
What applies to 64 player gameplay needs to be doubled for 128 players (not just map area).
Think of it like “ten pounds of manure in a five pound bag”, the excess needs a place to go and just leaving it out in the open without cover will stink everything up.
128 is just fine. Other factors and empty maps make game dull.
For 128 players to work at its best everything else has to be working perfectly. Like 10000000% more perfectly than a 64 player game.
With fewer players the maps, the vehicles, the balancing, the squads the flow and play dynamics for a single and multiple games and maps can all be a little less perfect.
but if you want double the players. Then it makes sense that all those players need to be working in harmony with each other. Players need to be much more coordinated, they absolutely need to be all working as a closely knit team and ideally multiple squads all need to be working together.
if that happens, then honestly I think 128 or even 256 player servers could be fricking amazing.
but…..but…..you can even get a single squad to work together, let alone a whole bunch of squads, because every single step from launching the game, to selecting a character, a map, a squad is fricking hosed.
why on earth would you think 128 individuals are going to make a good game if they can’t self organise.
absolutly incredible anyone thought otherwise.
Great point! But…
Like I stated above there is currently no incentive for players to disperse across the map to hold/capture/fight multiple zones at the same time. Communications are also a very key point but until the DEVs can see past the current 64 player objective layout for 128 players, even working coms won’t fix it.
Although the map playable area may be large it’s just not utilized to its fullest potential. Without better incentives in game for the larger 128 player count to disperse across the map and hold/capture/fight multiple objectives “at the same time” it won’t change. Using a 64 player game model and cramming twice the number of players into the same size capture zones is not outside the box thinking.
The entire idea of funneling or “pathing” 128 players to one or two nearby control points without team communications or enough cover on the map for everyone to utilize is flawed.
As things are now, your own team stacks up on top of each other in capture zones becoming walls that will block your bullets. Vehicles at “the start of rounds” stack up, ram, or flip each other over trying to get out of the single “pathed” starting area.
Don’t get me wrong, the intensity of 128 battles are just awesome but with that said, the current layout for the capture locations it takes place at seems to be suck in a 64 player layout mindset. I would hate to see them remove the 128 player games just because it was the easy thing for them to do.
