As the title says what's your feedback on Update 4.1.It's very obvious from the various threads created so far that removing 128 Breakthrough mode is by FAR the most unpopular change.For everyone who played this as their main go to mode it is totally understandable and it makes me wonder why DICE just didn't add in a 64 player option for anyone who wanted it and keep the 128 player mode.The game needs more content not less.!For me DICE not adding a Server Browser / Persistent Servers was a disappointment but not unexpected, I can only hope that it is added in Season 1 (due to release in early June if they stick to that timeline) The other minor changes / fixes do not really do a great deal to change / improve the game imho.I did play one match since updating and noticed intermittent rubber banding which may have been down to server issues after updating, it was mentioned a lot in the in game chat hopefully it will not be a permanent issue.I can't see the 4.1 update adding any new players or attracting players back quite the opposite probably.Season 1 would need to be something really special if BF2042 is to have any possible chance to survive. If new maps are to be added then players will need to be able to play them, with the current MM set up that will not be possible. !

"why DICE just didn't add in a 64 player option for anyone who wanted it and keep the 128 player mode."But they already did! There already is 32v32 Breakthrough! Seriously, I played quite a bit with update 4.0, I was becoming optimistic about the game's future, now I just don't want to play anymore.

@cso7777 wrote:@Sc0tch_WhiskeyYeah, but in reality they are the only specialists that resemble anything from earlier games (Support/Medic).I think they are ok, BF should never have had body-armor in the first place (just like passive spotting/shooting turrets, robot-dogs, wingsuits, zip-lines etc, also are "fails"). We need team-play not "heroes" running around lone-wolfing.None of these things reduce team play. We get team play in Battlefield like we always have, and that is when players go into the game mode and server willing to play this way. Which is why platoons should always be a part of these games. Edit: Most Battlefield players prioritize getting kills over winning the game mode that they are playing. Even sacrificing the win to get easy kills. I see it game after game from the way the vehicles are used and also how defenders avoid the capture/defend area. Unfortunately instead of calling these things out. The devs will continue to make unnecessary changes to an already struggling game.

@AOD_MGsubbie wrote:"why DICE just didn't add in a 64 player option for anyone who wanted it and keep the 128 player mode."But they already did! There already is 32v32 Breakthrough! Seriously, I played quite a bit with update 4.0, I was becoming optimistic about the game's future, now I just don't want to play anymore. You seem to be one of a very large majority who are totally disillusioned with this patch which is definitely not going to help with player retention that's for sure.

Yes, I'm pretty sure this move will have the opposite effect of what they're hoping for. (Less modes meaning more players per mode.) The people who did not like 64v64 BT will not suddenly start playing the game again. But everyone who loves it might stop playing it.

@RayD_O1I agree, but removing a badly balanced and laggy mode as BT 128 definitely was with the intention to bring those players over to the other modes -- to increase player count PER MODE -- is maybe the only option they have left. It will definitely increase the number of players playing BT 64, even if not all players will make the switch.

What's your feedback on Update 4.1

89 Replies

AOD_MGsubbie
Seasoned Vanguard
4 years ago
"why DICE just didn't add in a 64 player option for anyone who wanted it and keep the 128 player mode."

But they already did! There already is 32v32 Breakthrough! Seriously, I played quite a bit with update 4.0, I was becoming optimistic about the game's future, now I just don't want to play anymore.
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@AOD_MGsubbie wrote:
"why DICE just didn't add in a 64 player option for anyone who wanted it and keep the 128 player mode."

But they already did! There already is 32v32 Breakthrough! Seriously, I played quite a bit with update 4.0, I was becoming optimistic about the game's future, now I just don't want to play anymore.

You seem to be one of a very large majority who are totally disillusioned with this patch which is definitely not going to help with player retention that's for sure.
AOD_MGsubbie
Seasoned Vanguard
4 years ago
Yes, I'm pretty sure this move will have the opposite effect of what they're hoping for. (Less modes meaning more players per mode.) The people who did not like 64v64 BT will not suddenly start playing the game again. But everyone who loves it might stop playing it.
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@AOD_MGsubbie wrote:
Yes, I'm pretty sure this move will have the opposite effect of what they're hoping for. (Less modes meaning more players per mode.) The people who did not like 64v64 BT will not suddenly start playing the game again. But everyone who loves it might stop playing it.

That's vey true and BF2042 cannot definitely not afford to lose any more players.
BR-DuaneDibbley
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@RayD_O1
I agree, but removing a badly balanced and laggy mode as BT 128 definitely was with the intention to bring those players over to the other modes -- to increase player count PER MODE -- is maybe the only option they have left. It will definitely increase the number of players playing BT 64, even if not all players will make the switch.
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@RayD_O1
I agree, but removing a badly balanced and laggy mode as BT 128 definitely was with the intention to bring those players over to the other modes -- to increase player count PER MODE -- is maybe the only option they have left. It will definitely increase the number of players playing BT 64, even if not all players will make the switch.
Yeah I understand what you are saying but isn't it a really sad state of affairs that they are having to take away players favourite modes to solve the problem, it just seems so wrong.
BR-DuaneDibbley
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@RayD_O1

It's true that it is sad that they had to remove it. But it was clear that they were not able to make the mode balanced and run with a decent performance and acceptable amount of lags (as any amount can be considered 'acceptable' -- but this is how far things have come that we even put up with some lag to be able to play at all).

And as things stand, they have to consolidate the player base and reducing the available modes from 4 to 3 (by removing a mode that was broken AFAIC as laggy servers and being overrun is not fun) is was manybe the only thing they could do at this point. They might have to to the same with Conquest as well.

And yes, without servers that provide a proper map rotation, even this will not save the game.
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@RayD_O1

It's true that it is sad that they had to remove it. But it was clear that they were not able to make the mode balanced and run with a decent performance and acceptable amount of lags (as any amount can be considered 'acceptable' -- but this is how far things have come that we even put up with some lag to be able to play at all).

And as things stand, they have to consolidate the player base and reducing the available modes from 4 to 3 (by removing a mode that was broken AFAIC as laggy servers and being overrun is not fun) is was manybe the only thing they could do at this point. They might have to to the same with Conquest as well.

And yes, without servers that provide a proper map rotation, even this will not save the game.
Sad times indeed, what has become of the BF franchise. ☹️
Skill4Reel
4 years ago
The 128 All Out War modes were one of the major selling points for this game. One of the main things that made this game an upgrade over previous entries. Mostly all that I have played is 128 player Breakthrough because Conquest without proper team coordination seems like a waste of time. This update gets no praise from me. I personally did not ask for this. It seems like an easy change for the devs to say they did something but it doesn't improve the overall experience.
RayD_O1
Hero
4 years ago
@Skill4Reel wrote:
The 128 All Out War modes were one of the major selling points for this game. One of the main things that made this game an upgrade over previous entries. Mostly all that I have played is 128 player Breakthrough because Conquest without proper team coordination seems like a waste of time. This update gets no praise from me. I personally did not ask for this. It seems like an easy change for the devs to say they did something but it doesn't improve the overall experience.
It was a major selling point and I can fully understand why you would have no praise for the update as 128 Breakthrough was your go to mode.
Time will tell on the impact this will have on player numbers going forward, if it makes matters worse then maybe 128 Breakthrough could be reinstated in a future update.

Forum Discussion

What's your feedback on Update 4.1

89 Replies

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Recent Discussions

Weekly Missions - Week 6

Suggestion: Spectator Mode and Kill Replay to combat cheats

Which Tier 1 items are you working on?

Is the visual recoil of the weapon AK5C normal now?

If you have a problem with the BF 2042 game then don’t play it or don’t buy it?