Forum Discussion
54 Replies
He was absolutely right
128 player battles are fun and great players have the situational awareness to thrive in the chaos. There's nothing tactical about a 64 player match with matchmaking with a bunch of random blue dots. Anything less than 64 players means you just die less, and you shouldn't be scared to die in a game where you respawn anyways.
- Trokey664 years agoSeasoned Ace
Yes!
Regardless of map quality, 128 players just doesn't work for me in Battlefield.
I don't blame DICE for trying it, but would chalk this one up to experience.
DICE crams the same numbers of vehicles from
128 player Conquest match into a 64 player Conquest. It’s like they never played a previous Battlefield game.
If you’re going to halve the number to total infantry, shouldn’t you also halve the number of total vehicles?We should see 1 condor and 1 hind for all 64 player game modes. Add more pure transports. Import the light jeeps and Blackhawk helicopters from BF3 portal. Also add a quad runner to every objective and allow us to call in the light jeeps and quad runners.
Also 30mm, 40mm and 50mm cannons have no place in game being mounted on any transport. That’s for both air and land transports. These weapons are low skill bar, splash damage weapons that easily farm infantry from all ranges. Miniguns or .50 cal machine guns only for all transports!
I do not agree and I also do not see any evidence in the countless 64 player matches played that less players is more fun or creates more tactical options for players.
Removing 128 player Breakthrough in my opinion was a cop out by the developers as they have failed to do what was necessary to make 128 player matches successful.
No new tools for squad accountability and communication. The developers seem to be fine with their squad leader role constantly being ignored and the majority of players in objective based game modes treating them like large scale team death match.
Back to squad accountability though. As the player count increased, so should what is expected from squads during matches. Before release I thought that commander role would make a return because with as uncoordinated as 64 player matches already were in previous titles. There had to be a plan to improve upon this in BF2042 with 128 players, right?
Maybe it is the typical thing to do in game design. Keep increasing and decreasing a numerical value that leads to the same results when the real work to improve the overall large scale Battlefield experience seems to never get done.
- DaveTheBrave_USA4 years agoSeasoned Ace@Skill4Reel Yep, you got dat right!
- TrasteTh3 years agoSeasoned Ace@CyberDyme Whatever, just bring back 128 player Break Through with cap points on the roof tops. (and potentially wall climbing hoovers). :D
I do not agree. Player count has no impact on fun. Twenty four player battles were a frustrating experience on PS3/XB360 when people kill chased, camped and avoided objectives. Well it is no different in forty, sixty four, and one hundred twenty eight player Battlefield matches now.
Instead of making player count the point of focus. DICE should be asking themselves why their squad feature is ignored by most playing the game? Why most squad leaders loathe the role?
Also why do these developers believe that teamwork is going to magically happen in matches between individuals going into the game modes with different goals? I am tired of playing conqest matches where one team seems to just sit at a single objective for the entire match. This is not something that is happening in All Out War conquest because the player count is high. This happens because team structure is abysmal.
Edit: As I have said before. Blaming the player count is an easy out where serious issues plaguing this series continue to get pushed to the back unresolved.
LOL. I did not realize that this was the same topic from before until now. I had already ranted in here once. Sorry.
- ATFGunr3 years agoLegend@Skill4ReelI agree with what you’re saying. Let’s say they fix the large open areas and giant maps. Let’s say they fix the vehicle balance. Let’s say that modern hardware (both PC and current gen consoles). That leaves us with the desync caused by the servers. I want 128 players. I think it works ok on conquest and was working in breakthrough. Some of these items are in the realm of correction, but expecting EA to pay for better servers and to provide a browser so we can choose to play in local servers without having high pings players stuffed in, is insane. They’ll never do it.
“Research” from who? His daughter again? From the guy that royally * up BFV and then resigned? Absolute clown.
64 players isn’t some magical number that makes everything perfect. You think Metro and Locker were organized or structured? Or how about Altai Range? Then there are trash maps like Lancang Dam and Hainan Resort which are terrible no matter how many players there are. Battlefield has never been a coordinated game. People that say it is are delusional.
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 2 hours ago
- 3 hours ago
- 8 hours ago