What's your feedback on Update 4.1
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...
Forum Discussion
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
- @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.
@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. ☹️
@DuaneDibbleyI understand your point about moving players to different modes. But if that’s the reason here then you might as well remove hard zone. Remove portal all together except for the weekly modes they always rotate in. I saw more players in 128 than in those modes I mentioned. Also remove 64 conquest because I have yet to even see anyone play that.
@Sc0tch_Whiskey wrote:@DuaneDibbleyI understand your point about moving players to different modes. But if that’s the reason here then you might as well remove hard zone. Remove portal all together except for the weekly modes they always rotate in. I saw more players in 128 than in those modes I mentioned. Also remove 64 conquest because I have yet to even see anyone play that.
I can fully understand your disappointment as I know you have enjoyed the 128 Breakthrough mode (when MM allowed you access) so having it removed was not what you needed on top of the other issues you were having before the update.
- @RayD_O1 To me all that they are doing is putting a bandaid to a big issue. They won’t bring server browsers and I believe that. Even tho I’ll always make my opinion on that. Player count is low for certain reasons and they are not addressing that. Removing game modes isn’t the answer to bringing back players. It’s fixing the game where fans and players can say wow I’m having a great time and glad I have this game.
Dice should replace Breakthrough 128 mode with an uninstall button...🙌
@DeepSixxxx wrote:Dice should replace Breakthrough 128 mode with an uninstall button...🙌
Sadly that may well be what a lot of players do and BF2042 cannot afford to lose any more players.
So basically now that angel doesn’t give out armor, if you play as Faulk and equipped with ammo box, angel and and Faulk is pretty much the same lol
@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.
- @DuaneDibbley That’s a great observation, I totally agree with you. I played it, it was fun, but it was laggy and the balance was poor. Made winning a D that much better but that was a rare feeling lol. 64 was empty often but I’m not sure it will drive players to other modes, some will just walk away. Bad move for Dice if that was their plan.
Featured Places
