@LeMairyHuff warzone has game modes like rumble, king slayer, clash with 100 players all playing at once with unlimited respawns, condensed in an area far smaller than any bf2042 map (parachuting into the match actually lets you see basically everyone in the match at once, and the performance doesnt suffer), with vehicles. and there are bullet physics (velocity, drop, drag), explosions, terrain physics, weather effects, shadows, lighting, sound as well, and it still runs great. really dont want to defend warzone, never been a cod player, im a pure bf fanboy, just switched to warzone to bridge the gap between bfv's development end and bf2042, and now that bf2042 is out i played more warzone in the past 10 days than i did bf2042...
if the tckrate was doubled vs. bfv, i could understand that the client-side performance would suffer (this is eg. why cs/css/csgo never introduced 128 tick official public servers, but have them in most official leagues where there is a limited number of clients, all with equal high-end sytems), but the tickrate is 25% *less* than bfv in bf2042! and packet extrapolation worked in cs in 2000 already without overstressing single-core, single-threaded cpus 21 years ago, no reason why today's multi-core multi-threaded cpus with considerably higher ipc shouldnt handle it with some 2x-4x more players in a match. its just the engine, they forced 128 players mostly for marketing reasons without making sure the engine can handle it resp. developing a new frostbite engine that does, and even portal with 64 players doesnt run well, if it only was 128 players, portal should run as well as bfv does, but it doesnt at all, it is just slightly less unplayable, but still unplayable, compared to how it should run to be playable.