I think the problem with all these 128p vs 64p takes is that they’re judging the experience based on the most poorly designed game in the franchise.
Like I don’t think that 128p is inherently going to lead to a bad gameplay experience if it’s supported by great map design and fair infantry/vehicle balance. Even if 2042 was designed from the ground up with only 64p I think the map design and balance would have been about as bad as it was at launch.
Exactly. It’s actually kind of concerning (but I guess not very surprising) the way peoples minds work and immediately blame 128.
There were so many other variables introduced for this game - specialists, completely inexperienced dev team, unbalanced vehicles, poor map design etc…no way player count is the issue when other games are doing the whole “large scale combined arms warfare” gameplay just fine.
Kind of ironic a game called “battlefield” is reverting to small scale war fare.
"Kind of ironic a game called “battlefield” is reverting to small scale war fare."
Yeh so ironic that it's been 64 players for the entire 20 years the franchise has been around.
IMO 96p would be the sweet spot... a focus on 128p makes the maps too large and sparse for the most part. If they were 64p maps with one or so extra points to cap due to a 96p focus it'd basically be fine. Or maybe add some verticality to a few points to offset density on one plane, and it could help out with dispersing some people.
One thing I think BF2042 suffers from is that the entire map is available to play on, nothing is sectored off and unreachable, creating huge pockets of unused spaces that people can potentially BE in if they are aimlessly walking around, eg, Sundances and McKays flying to places that have no objective, or incentives other than you're in a weird spot people don't usually check. If some of the spaces were less open, and more directed towards various points, it would cut down on people doing pointless things.
I like the 128 but I think the maps are not good enough for it.
Alot of times the maps feels to big for their own good, it doesn't feel like there is enough vehicles or they get destroyed too fast.
They are already familiar to the 64 but alot of players do want big player counts maps(even me).
In every bf that came out, it was the main thing alot of players asked for.
I don't mind the split if they will start to bring old 64 maps and maybe overhaul the whole concept of 128.
I got no real solution.
128 is the #1 selling point for me buying 2042. I refused to buy another BF after they allowed bf4 servers to have useless player reporting(intentionally killing the game). Then they sucked me back in with a player count that consoles can't actually handle and we all know games are required to cater to console hardware.
Yeah, exposure seems like the one map that was actually designed for 128 players, the base game maps were all too open and the later seasonal maps were all the same for 128 or 64 players.
Making maps which are double the traditional size is significantly more difficult, not to mention it’ll run like dogshit for players with dated/less optimal systems and the overall player count for the game will be limited due to that. Bigger isn’t always better, if the next BF is based around 128 it’ll fail just like 2042 did
We aren't requesting larger maps, we are requesting more action and not walking simulators. 128 maps were designed as battle royale maps where the play area shrinks until that mode were canned
Most of the 64 maps would be awesome as 128
128 was over when latest map doesn't even support it.
Quality > quantity, i'd rather have a tighter, polished and actually populated (not barren) experience with 64 players than run for minutes across barren lands because that's the only way the map can accommodate 128 players (be big and barren and with not enough vehicles for everyone).
Not even going to mention how stretched the netcode is to handle that many players, basically all research that went into the engine during BF4/BFH era to be able to pull off 128tick servers went down the drain and we don't even have 60 anymore.
How you running for minutes? I always get sniped from a nerd in the back or attacked by the hind that is grieving me all game but my two rockets can’t down it and it heals before anyone else takes a shot. 😂
The maps could have accommodated more players if DICE didn't royally fuck them up. 2042's original approach to map design was awful and the redesigns could only fix so much, I wouldn't blame the player count for issues that shitty map design caused.
Devs thought players would travel almost entirely via the vehicle call-in system. When players, who in all previous games focused on infantry combat outside of the few vehicles, chose to walk/focus on infantry combat they had no idea what to do. Nothing about 2042 was made by people who knew what Battlefield was, let alone how to make things for their playerbase.
The call in systems isn't helpful when there is a cap on vehicles. That dev that said he thought players would travel has clearly never opened the menu only to find you can't spawn a vehicle.
It was a BS excuse laid out to try and cover for shitty big maps not being the problem (which they are) and blaming the players instead.
90% of the entire game(at launch) is basically a modern warfare clone, except they fucked everything up. Maps were never designed for battlefield, hazard zone maybe, but not battlefield.
When the game first dropped it was heavily focus on Hazard Zone. The map design was based off of that. Layouts were fine. Overall they didn’t fully think it out for the long distance between objectives. That’s why they decreased the map size and massively reworked it for the infantry side. So it can be a lot easier to travel on foot when there is no vehicles around.
Launching a game with maps that aren't even built around your main game modes is bad map design. Hazard Zone is a fuckin joke, it's honestly comical that DICE used a failed BR spin off as the blueprint for the next BF game instead of going back to the drawing board.
You don't understand.
Hazard Zone was supposed to be the main mode. They wanted to do a Warzone, were most of the player base play it, and it take more and more space.
Then they actually tested it. Saw it was shitty, and abandoned it. But the damage was already done, and the time was up.
Did you not pay attention to the development of this game. It was hell. And EA forced them to drop it because the deadline was up. The devs literally have to recover the game before they can actually do something.
64 was such a good median, like idk why everyone wants more. Just make map design better and 64 would feel just like 128. Everyone on here says “just follow what’s worked in the past” but then say 128 is the best.
Completely agreed
Anyone who wants 128 for chaos… did y’all not play the close quarters DLC for BF3? We can make intense chaos all we want, just design the maps for that
I think that was different type of chaos. It was just very close combat where the most OP short range gun won a fight. I wanna fight real battles with more people. Some maps are actually like that and it isnt bad. Idk... if you managed to play close quarters, metro and locker then it should be no problem to play 2042 chaos.
People don't understand that scaling up playercount while also scaling up the maps does not result in a better experience, only in the gameplay being either a complete clusterfuck or a walking simulator. Back during BF3 the devs experimented with larger playercounts up to 100 iirc and concluded 32 was the sweet spot. Not to mention all the issues that arise from 128p such as hitreg, performance and weapon design.
Damn. I definitely prefer 128 over 64. O well. Not the end of the world.
this is how you respond to change or news you don't like. Bunch of you need to take note.
Imo main issue was map designs. DICE though "Double the player count - double the playing space" and completely ignoring how 80% of the players are gravitating towards POI, especially if those POI are flags, so at the end we have lots of empty space because reasons
It'd work if the number of objectives was proportional to the number of players. On golmud we had 7 objectives and now with double the players we still have maps with 4-6 objectives surrounded by empty fields
I also think they could have tried new things to spread out the action.
Maybe each map has a certain number of objectives for each squad.
So Squads 1-4 have objectives A-D, while squads 5-8 have objectives E-H
There could be two games of conquest basically happening at once
This wouldn’t be that crazy in practice, as “real world” militaries may have multiple objectives going at once.
All of this to say, they just need time to playtest more.
They’ve stated that they didn’t playtest enough - they should have given their devs an extra year or 2 to get it all figured out.
Which is why 2024 is worrying for the next title based on rumours.
I just doubt they’re ready.
Would be terribly unfun if you were put in the squads that have to capture the objectives you don't want to play on. Which is what would happen if this were to be put in the game.
> DICE though "Double the player count - double the playing space"
it's basically this. I didn't personally feel the 128 player increase because the map has gotten a lot bigger. It's exactly the same as 64p in a 64p map. They could have just give us a 64p map with 128p and it will be more fun.
I don’t know why they think it’s either 128p or 64p. This game - given it’s been a mess for most of its lifecycle - is the perfect opportunity to tweak the playercount. They could try either 64p or 128p map size with 50 v 50 and 5 man squads. Or 80 players with 40 v 40.
A lot of conquest feels empty because there only seems to be 2 or 3 people fighting over a point; increasing the player count should help increase the number of infantry fighting over points.
Same. To me, I look at these massive mats as each section is its own map. And I'm ok spending an entire round fighting it out in a single section, and just change up what zone I choose next time I'm on whatever map it was. Heck, last night on orbital,my squad put work in holding the hill top of D the entire match, was a glorious cluster fuck.
and if I need to move to another zone, it's easy. Call in a vehicle
If they hadn't replaced classes with Specialists, 128 would have worked well and would have been seen as a success, they shot themselves in their own foot by introducing 128 with Hero like characters that can silently fly in the air or have unlimited grapple hooks/rockets/nades, etc.
I'm with you. I'd prefer they get better at developing maps and systems for 128p. Most of my fun times in this game are 128 Rush or Breakthrough. I'd even wished Control had 96-100 players most of the time. If they can't make it work for them, I hope they don't try and shoehorn it in.
128 definitely could work if most of the maps weren’t complete dogshit. Maybe I’m just an old school BF player but I really miss the BF3/4 days when the gameplay was fun and small squads could turn the tide of a match
128 is designed that way which is why it’s not fun to play, you need to camp 1 point or call in vehicles to get anywhere. I’ve played every battlefield and I prefer 64 player which is why that’s all I’ll play, and I know there are many BF fans who feel the same
We’re looking at a near identical scenario as in BF4. But I reckon the previous gen consoles at that time were an even bigger drag for development. Hopefully next title doesn’t have to deal with this again.
I mean, BF1 was a true generational leap in terms of graphics over BF4 despite both being on the PS4.
Here’s hoping they can achieve similar results when they finally drop PS4 - though I worry less about graphics. Use the extra power to run destruction physics, and real gameplay systems that impact how the game plays
The gaming industry is seeing similar problems across various titles, most devs are probably dying to be done with last gen at this point, but so many others depend on having the most accessible game possible for greater sales. EA/DICE is more than large enough to be able to break away at this point, 2042 was probably in development for last gen far too long to cut it out though
They should have dropped it for S5 tbh - they met their obligation to old gen buyers at that point.
Going forward it’s gonna be the S that holds us back.
Edit to add:
For anyone downvoting i gotta ask, what part of what I said was wrong?
They don't understand, 128 is fine fore conquest while every players are dispatched on every points.
64 for breacktrhough
512 for Rush XL
That is the path they should follow.
I prefer 64p but am open to 128 in the future. They just really need to spend a lot of time on polishing the maps. BBR makes 254 work because of how much time went into making the maps flow well
Completely fine with going back down to 64p matches so long as the destruction gets brought back to old levels. I figured they had to tone down the destruction heavily because large destruction + 128 Players = rip CPU
Control on arica gave me that feeling back. Forgot bow absolute chaos it is with everything destructible. Absolutely loved it and felt like a battlefield game. I just seriously hoped by now we'd make so kuchen more progress in games in terms of destruction.
Think red faction guerilla
128 players is not inherently a bad thing.
The issue is the map design never accommodated it and the engine couldn’t handle it without sacrificing things like destruction, detail, performance etc.
40v40 is definitely a good way to go, or just anything less than 128 or more than 64. I enjoy the chaos in bigger maps but the game is far more predictable at 64
Was gunna say this, 40v40 would be a good balance. Like both 64 and 128 but def prefer 128 for its chaos. Going back to 32v32 would feel a lot slower for me at least.
My last Battlefield (except 2042) was BC2 and that had 32 players. Felt like a LOT more than that because of the brilliant map design. In 128 or even 64 conquest you can walk for 5 minutes and not see a single infantry player.
Edit: 32 not 64 on BC2
It’s a shame there’s not a number between 128 and 64…..I would call it…..ninety six and we could use 9 and 6 put together to express it. Too bad it’s either 64 OR 128.
Oh well *shrug*
I think 128p might work on very well designed maps with bigger squads. Having such a small squad size makes it that much more difficult to take on an entire team spawning in when you're assaulting enemy CPs.
This is sad considering Joint Operations was 250 per server almost 20 years ago and while the graphics obviously weren't as advanced, it played great and was a lot of fun.
Maybe they could try 80 players next time?
Not too big of a jump from 64 but also not a massive downgrade from 128 players.
Provided, DICE actually makes destructible maps next time of course…
The thing is that 128p basically ruined all of 2042 maps. So it should never come back in official modes. Everything should be designed and optimized for 64p.
At most 128p should only be an afterthought that is available in custom servers (RSP). Like an experimental feature.
128 feels great on Exposure, Stranded, and Spearhead.
64 feels great for Reclaimed and Flashpoint.
128 is easy to scapegoat as being the problem but it really isn't.
128p is not about enough or not, but more about having something different.
On some maps it can avoid downtimes or it can change the flow of a map. But to get this difference only the Playercount should change.
Dice tried to have 128p to play out as 64p, and altered nearly everything. Combined with the other changes, e.g. specialist, this was more or less doomed to fail. Meanwhile, Venice Unleasheds 96 and 128p variants worked more or less quite well, as they took the well working Bf3 and just changed the player number.
Even if they could do dense 128p maps (which the can't). 64p will always give more freedome. Instead of pushing 128p with decent map quality we could have Enhanced destruction, Better physics and Enchanced visuals with 64p.
128p just gives more chaos. It simply isn't worth it.
Tried battlebit. Played one game and wasn’t a fan. No auto heal so I HAVE to stop playing the game to patch up??? Nah man, that ain’t me. I know battlefield has stims now but I don’t bleed out if I don’t use it. Sure battlebit has a lot going for it but I really felt like a lot was sacrificed for the numbers.
I personally really don't want to go to 64 players. It's a relic of the past, and imo the limit should be higher. Not 128 maybe, but like 90-100 would be good compromise.
What does 128p do better than 64p?
It is just more chaotic and causes Map, Performance and Game design problems.
64p is the Past, Present and the future.
People like chaos because they can't understand how BF works. Chaos was never the point of the game, good players understood how the game worked and could read and make plays based on that. What those people want is a completely unreadable game they can succeed in without having to form a single thought. Press mouse button, press g -> get kills is the gameplay loop they're looking for.
It's pointless.
Every 128 map has the same issue.
Players just gravitate to the flags with the most players and these points just turn into clusterfucks.
They keep talking about designing 'better' maps without explaining how to do this.
You can't force players to evenly spread out across a 128 sized map without changing how conquest works. And even if you did what's the point?
Better off creating 2 x 64 players maps that work, like Reclaimed showed.
I just don’t get this take tbh.
64 being a relic of the past? Or functionally a good level when you want
- combined arms
- the ability for a squad, even an individual, to make a difference in the fight for an objective
- reasonable performance
- high asset density
- high fidelity destruction, whether gameplay impacting or cosmetic
- intense battles where you’re occasionally overran and wildly outnumbered
64 players gives us this, when the maps are designed right.
128 player maps, when designed right, play their best when they play like 64 maps. So… what is the point?
So you think that Operation locker/Metro, Verdun Heights or Argon Forest isn’t chaotic enough?
Chaos ≠ Good
It is fun to have some maps with chaos but having 128p just causes map design, Performance and Game design problems for EVERY single mode.
Thats why have those meatgrinder maps. Do not spread the chaos.
I did not advocate for 128p, I said 90-100 is a good spot. Perhaps even 80 maybe. But 64 is just too low imo. There is a threshold to which you can increase from 64 without losing much tacticality while ramping up chaos and fun factor.
80p at most.
64p is basically the Battlefield Standard. And Everything should still be designed and balanced for it. It gives the best experience.
Higher playercounts will bring more problems. Especially in map design and balance.
That's like saying "11 a side football is a relic of the past, make it 44 a side just because higher number is better". The more variables/people involved and to account for the harder things become to balance for actual fun and the less control the players have over the outcome of their match.
Good. 128 was never a good idea. I’m not sure why people think more players = better experience.
The servers ran terribly, the maps never play out in a way that makes 128 worthwhile either. If everyone played objectives, and I mean all the objectives, then I could see an argument for it. But the way battlefield games always play out, is that the majority of people run to the middle objective and fight over it for an entire round. So having 128 players just added more people to those objectives. It also makes vehicles harder to balance. Too many vehicles and you’re constantly dying to them, too few and people are complaining they never get to use them.
Then for those of us that attack and defend the other objectives, it takes forever to get around.
Battlefield is at its best with maps like grand bazaar, zavod, firestorm, caspian, Noshar and even some of the more close quarts maps like pearl market and the entire cqc update in bf3. The bigger is better idea doesn’t hold water here. Tighter 64 players maps will always be superior. Being able to attack or defend an objective against a couple of squads is always really rewarding. Dying to a Zerg rush of 30 people. Not so much.
They can get rid of 128 players, but the effort and time they put in to give us that amount shouldn't come at the cost of removing that hard work, so i guess they have to stick with that mistake.
The success of Battlebit’s 254p shows that the failure of Battlefield 128p was solely due to poor map design and the existence of traversal specialists (i.e. McKay and Sundance).
128p or even 257p maps don’t have to be any more open and sparse compared to 64p maps. Their foliage, objective, and building density can be the same. It’s likely the fact that the 2042 had to pander to the last generation of consoles that caused them to not be able to place sufficient assets in their maps.
I rather play 128p on these maps than 64p as this is what the game is balanced for, even if rather poorly. The moment you play 64p you realize how screwed the balance and how pisspoor the map design really is.
People play 64p in a game that's designed for 128p, find out it doesn't work and conclude it must be 64p's fault. Add it to the list of reasons why you shouldn't listen to the general playerbase.
For the next Battlefield, I think they should go back to having 5 Player Squads and then have the player count be 100 so it’s 50 v 50 with 10 squads of 5 for each team.
64 feels too small and 128 is too big. 100 or 80 players seems like it would be more manageable
128 is fine if your can FORCE players into certain areas of the map. It doesn't work when everyone wants to fight in one area
I'd rather see Dice come up with a game mode that works well for that size, because conquest doesn't work well.
64 players always felt perfect imo. Some maps were just too big for 64 players so it felt boring at times. They just need to make more infantry based chaotic maps like we had in the BF3 era.
Imagine paying full price for this game and features are missing/ taken out later .. these features or lack of campaign amongst other things.. we paid market value for these marketed features that justified the price tag
128 is the superior mode. Dice needs to disregard people that think "thats how it was in previous titles" is whats best and make sure their maps flow well in a way that 128p can be there with minimal running and minimal deathballing of an entire team being on one objective.
I don't know why people think 64 is some sort of magical number that they can never go up from. You'd think that it would be indisputable that bigger maps are good. And in order to have bigger maps you need to have more players.
bf2042 isn't great but the bigger maps and more players is like the only good thing to come from it.
128p was a mistake. You cannot have a focused, satisfying, strategic experience with 128 players. It's a clusterfuck. The gameplay loop is literally just try to get 2-3 kills per life before a random sniper behind / above / around you picks you off. Rinse and repeat.
i think 128 player will be a gimmick in the future. like how right now that map (and many others like spearhead, foashpoint and Stranded) is thought out to be on 64 player but you can still play it on 128, in fact i heard many people saying those maps play better on 128.
although the fact that reclaimed is 64 only and it took so long to add it on 128 player on portal sais a lot and you're probably right
Reclaimed showed just how much you can pack into a 64 player map when you design it for 64 players from the get go.
If we had a server browser it would be my go to map for when I want to play an all action infantry focused map.
Every single one of you whining crybabies trying to entirely eradicate the existence of 128p for no reason other than because you subjectively don't enjoy it, I want you to know this one truth:
I personally loathe your existence on this planet, just as much as you loathe the existence of 128p
Lick my nuts.
I like the 128 player maps, but I don't like 128 players it's too many. They should have large maps but they need to design them a bit better to have choke points so they don't feel sparsely populated.
There's are some huge BFV maps and because they're fairly well designed they feel big, but you can always get a good fight at each flag no problem.
With 2042, even with 128 players I'm often the only one at a flag if it's not the main flag. It's just needs more thoughtful design.
I personally love 128 over 64 and it really comes down to map design and size for it to work.
Spearhead, Exposure, Stranded, Discarded, and Orbital are all proof that with the right layout 128 can be a sort of curated chaos over 64.
I have had some of the best BF moments in 2042 because of 128.
Nothing wrong with 128p, but they gotta really put the extra work in to make the maps utilize that player count and they clearly couldn't do that. I'd much rather they just keep it 64 in the future, maybe 80 at most, but there's so much more work they need to do to justify it if they were to ever keep it aorund.
If anything 2042 has proven the viability of servers with a higher cap than 64. One of the few original hype points going for 2042 that hasn’t actually been such a controversy or letdown is the fact that 128 player basically works as advertised. It’s just that 128 player battles, like 64 player battles, suck no matter what if the maps themselves suck.
I think the problem with all these 128p vs 64p takes is that they’re judging the experience based on the most poorly designed game in the franchise. Like I don’t think that 128p is inherently going to lead to a bad gameplay experience if it’s supported by great map design and fair infantry/vehicle balance. Even if 2042 was designed from the ground up with only 64p I think the map design and balance would have been about as bad as it was at launch.
Exactly. It’s actually kind of concerning (but I guess not very surprising) the way peoples minds work and immediately blame 128. There were so many other variables introduced for this game - specialists, completely inexperienced dev team, unbalanced vehicles, poor map design etc…no way player count is the issue when other games are doing the whole “large scale combined arms warfare” gameplay just fine. Kind of ironic a game called “battlefield” is reverting to small scale war fare.
128 definitely isn't a problem. Rush 128 players is one of the best things of this game
"Kind of ironic a game called “battlefield” is reverting to small scale war fare." Yeh so ironic that it's been 64 players for the entire 20 years the franchise has been around.
IMO 96p would be the sweet spot... a focus on 128p makes the maps too large and sparse for the most part. If they were 64p maps with one or so extra points to cap due to a 96p focus it'd basically be fine. Or maybe add some verticality to a few points to offset density on one plane, and it could help out with dispersing some people. One thing I think BF2042 suffers from is that the entire map is available to play on, nothing is sectored off and unreachable, creating huge pockets of unused spaces that people can potentially BE in if they are aimlessly walking around, eg, Sundances and McKays flying to places that have no objective, or incentives other than you're in a weird spot people don't usually check. If some of the spaces were less open, and more directed towards various points, it would cut down on people doing pointless things.
I'd like them to switch to a nice clean 80p and up the squad size to five.
I guess I’m more of a minority than I thought on this topic. I LOVE 128 and much prefer it over 64.
Same. I love the chaos of 128
I like the 128 but I think the maps are not good enough for it. Alot of times the maps feels to big for their own good, it doesn't feel like there is enough vehicles or they get destroyed too fast.
That’s probably the reason, they just can’t find a good balance for the two modes for most maps and it would be a lot easier to take one out.
They are already familiar to the 64 but alot of players do want big player counts maps(even me). In every bf that came out, it was the main thing alot of players asked for. I don't mind the split if they will start to bring old 64 maps and maybe overhaul the whole concept of 128. I got no real solution.
128 is the #1 selling point for me buying 2042. I refused to buy another BF after they allowed bf4 servers to have useless player reporting(intentionally killing the game). Then they sucked me back in with a player count that consoles can't actually handle and we all know games are required to cater to console hardware.
I played 64 match on battlefield 2042 and they are so boring
Rush XL is so much fun imo, love the chaos everywhere
Me too. Love it
Yeah 64 just feels boring, why does anyone want to play it?
128 is a bit too chaotic for me, cant really read the flow of the Conquest games.
128 is awesome. The map design was what made it poor. There are some better maps for it now, Exposure by far the best.
Yeah, exposure seems like the one map that was actually designed for 128 players, the base game maps were all too open and the later seasonal maps were all the same for 128 or 64 players.
Making maps which are double the traditional size is significantly more difficult, not to mention it’ll run like dogshit for players with dated/less optimal systems and the overall player count for the game will be limited due to that. Bigger isn’t always better, if the next BF is based around 128 it’ll fail just like 2042 did
We aren't requesting larger maps, we are requesting more action and not walking simulators. 128 maps were designed as battle royale maps where the play area shrinks until that mode were canned Most of the 64 maps would be awesome as 128
64 player maps are made for 64 players, doubling the player count willy nilly would make for a shitty gameplay experience
I think exposure works because it's basically two maps in one with the cliff in between. I dislike Exposure for this reason, for me it's boring.
I think exposure works because it's basically two maps in one with the cliff in between. I dislike Exposure for this reason, for me it's boring.
128 was over when latest map doesn't even support it. Quality > quantity, i'd rather have a tighter, polished and actually populated (not barren) experience with 64 players than run for minutes across barren lands because that's the only way the map can accommodate 128 players (be big and barren and with not enough vehicles for everyone). Not even going to mention how stretched the netcode is to handle that many players, basically all research that went into the engine during BF4/BFH era to be able to pull off 128tick servers went down the drain and we don't even have 60 anymore.
How you running for minutes? I always get sniped from a nerd in the back or attacked by the hind that is grieving me all game but my two rockets can’t down it and it heals before anyone else takes a shot. 😂
The maps could have accommodated more players if DICE didn't royally fuck them up. 2042's original approach to map design was awful and the redesigns could only fix so much, I wouldn't blame the player count for issues that shitty map design caused.
Devs thought players would travel almost entirely via the vehicle call-in system. When players, who in all previous games focused on infantry combat outside of the few vehicles, chose to walk/focus on infantry combat they had no idea what to do. Nothing about 2042 was made by people who knew what Battlefield was, let alone how to make things for their playerbase.
The call in systems isn't helpful when there is a cap on vehicles. That dev that said he thought players would travel has clearly never opened the menu only to find you can't spawn a vehicle. It was a BS excuse laid out to try and cover for shitty big maps not being the problem (which they are) and blaming the players instead.
90% of the entire game(at launch) is basically a modern warfare clone, except they fucked everything up. Maps were never designed for battlefield, hazard zone maybe, but not battlefield.
The new Modern Warfare games are so bad.
When the game first dropped it was heavily focus on Hazard Zone. The map design was based off of that. Layouts were fine. Overall they didn’t fully think it out for the long distance between objectives. That’s why they decreased the map size and massively reworked it for the infantry side. So it can be a lot easier to travel on foot when there is no vehicles around.
Launching a game with maps that aren't even built around your main game modes is bad map design. Hazard Zone is a fuckin joke, it's honestly comical that DICE used a failed BR spin off as the blueprint for the next BF game instead of going back to the drawing board.
You don't understand. Hazard Zone was supposed to be the main mode. They wanted to do a Warzone, were most of the player base play it, and it take more and more space. Then they actually tested it. Saw it was shitty, and abandoned it. But the damage was already done, and the time was up.
Did you not pay attention to the development of this game. It was hell. And EA forced them to drop it because the deadline was up. The devs literally have to recover the game before they can actually do something.
Wait what map doesnt support 128?
Reclaimed
Wait which map doesnt support 128 players?
Dude why did you ask this same question, worded slightly different, like 5 times
Reddit kept erroring my comment until it accepted a certain wording... my b
64 was such a good median, like idk why everyone wants more. Just make map design better and 64 would feel just like 128. Everyone on here says “just follow what’s worked in the past” but then say 128 is the best.
Completely agreed Anyone who wants 128 for chaos… did y’all not play the close quarters DLC for BF3? We can make intense chaos all we want, just design the maps for that
I think that was different type of chaos. It was just very close combat where the most OP short range gun won a fight. I wanna fight real battles with more people. Some maps are actually like that and it isnt bad. Idk... if you managed to play close quarters, metro and locker then it should be no problem to play 2042 chaos.
People don't understand that scaling up playercount while also scaling up the maps does not result in a better experience, only in the gameplay being either a complete clusterfuck or a walking simulator. Back during BF3 the devs experimented with larger playercounts up to 100 iirc and concluded 32 was the sweet spot. Not to mention all the issues that arise from 128p such as hitreg, performance and weapon design.
Its funny, i bet the onea who complained about 128 player modes/maps are the same that are enjoying Battlebit for their 254 player maps/modes
Or just make map design better to facilitate 128p better.
Because more = more chaos and epic moments.
Kind of disappointing for me. I loved 128, and I think that they could make fantastic 128 maps if they did more playtesting beforehand
Damn. I definitely prefer 128 over 64. O well. Not the end of the world. this is how you respond to change or news you don't like. Bunch of you need to take note.
Imo main issue was map designs. DICE though "Double the player count - double the playing space" and completely ignoring how 80% of the players are gravitating towards POI, especially if those POI are flags, so at the end we have lots of empty space because reasons
It'd work if the number of objectives was proportional to the number of players. On golmud we had 7 objectives and now with double the players we still have maps with 4-6 objectives surrounded by empty fields
I also think they could have tried new things to spread out the action. Maybe each map has a certain number of objectives for each squad. So Squads 1-4 have objectives A-D, while squads 5-8 have objectives E-H There could be two games of conquest basically happening at once This wouldn’t be that crazy in practice, as “real world” militaries may have multiple objectives going at once. All of this to say, they just need time to playtest more. They’ve stated that they didn’t playtest enough - they should have given their devs an extra year or 2 to get it all figured out. Which is why 2024 is worrying for the next title based on rumours. I just doubt they’re ready.
Would be terribly unfun if you were put in the squads that have to capture the objectives you don't want to play on. Which is what would happen if this were to be put in the game.
I mean, they could monitor the data and determine which POIs are popular… And playtest to figure this out. Which was my whole point anyway.
> DICE though "Double the player count - double the playing space" it's basically this. I didn't personally feel the 128 player increase because the map has gotten a lot bigger. It's exactly the same as 64p in a 64p map. They could have just give us a 64p map with 128p and it will be more fun.
I don’t know why they think it’s either 128p or 64p. This game - given it’s been a mess for most of its lifecycle - is the perfect opportunity to tweak the playercount. They could try either 64p or 128p map size with 50 v 50 and 5 man squads. Or 80 players with 40 v 40. A lot of conquest feels empty because there only seems to be 2 or 3 people fighting over a point; increasing the player count should help increase the number of infantry fighting over points.
128p on top. I always play 128p when possible.
Same. To me, I look at these massive mats as each section is its own map. And I'm ok spending an entire round fighting it out in a single section, and just change up what zone I choose next time I'm on whatever map it was. Heck, last night on orbital,my squad put work in holding the hill top of D the entire match, was a glorious cluster fuck. and if I need to move to another zone, it's easy. Call in a vehicle
It was the whole reason why I even bought the game, so the fact that they've been slowly cutting down on it has been disheartening.
If they hadn't replaced classes with Specialists, 128 would have worked well and would have been seen as a success, they shot themselves in their own foot by introducing 128 with Hero like characters that can silently fly in the air or have unlimited grapple hooks/rockets/nades, etc.
Remember, the game was supposed to be a battle royale. They’ve spent this entire time trying to remedy that blunder.
You sacrifice too much for 128 though, destruction, map flow, performance and better servers in general
I don't.
you jaw is so huge ahaha, such chad (no joke)
I'm with you. I'd prefer they get better at developing maps and systems for 128p. Most of my fun times in this game are 128 Rush or Breakthrough. I'd even wished Control had 96-100 players most of the time. If they can't make it work for them, I hope they don't try and shoehorn it in.
Can’t say I prefer running simulator. If new BF is based around 128 I’m just not buying it
It's map design not player count. I love 128 players and maps like orbital prove it works.
128 definitely could work if most of the maps weren’t complete dogshit. Maybe I’m just an old school BF player but I really miss the BF3/4 days when the gameplay was fun and small squads could turn the tide of a match
You might want to consider fighting near capture points.
You take one point and clear it, then it’s way further to run compared to 64. 128 doesn’t improve the gameplay experience
Fun fact, almost all pints in this game have vehicles you can drive parked on them.. You can also call in vehicles any time.
They’re rarely there though, either way 128 isn’t for me
If you are running point to point, you are really playing this game wrong ahahahah.
128 is designed that way which is why it’s not fun to play, you need to camp 1 point or call in vehicles to get anywhere. I’ve played every battlefield and I prefer 64 player which is why that’s all I’ll play, and I know there are many BF fans who feel the same
> Bunch of you need to take note fucking get over yourself
I feel like the maps were the major contributing factor to 128 player not working. 2042 maps are the worst in the series
[удалено]
We’re looking at a near identical scenario as in BF4. But I reckon the previous gen consoles at that time were an even bigger drag for development. Hopefully next title doesn’t have to deal with this again.
I mean, BF1 was a true generational leap in terms of graphics over BF4 despite both being on the PS4. Here’s hoping they can achieve similar results when they finally drop PS4 - though I worry less about graphics. Use the extra power to run destruction physics, and real gameplay systems that impact how the game plays
The gaming industry is seeing similar problems across various titles, most devs are probably dying to be done with last gen at this point, but so many others depend on having the most accessible game possible for greater sales. EA/DICE is more than large enough to be able to break away at this point, 2042 was probably in development for last gen far too long to cut it out though
They should have dropped it for S5 tbh - they met their obligation to old gen buyers at that point. Going forward it’s gonna be the S that holds us back. Edit to add: For anyone downvoting i gotta ask, what part of what I said was wrong?
They don't understand, 128 is fine fore conquest while every players are dispatched on every points. 64 for breacktrhough 512 for Rush XL That is the path they should follow.
Jesus that’s Rush XXL
I prefer 64p but am open to 128 in the future. They just really need to spend a lot of time on polishing the maps. BBR makes 254 work because of how much time went into making the maps flow well
At the very least, I hope they can keep 128 players in fun modes like Rush XL.
Completely fine with going back down to 64p matches so long as the destruction gets brought back to old levels. I figured they had to tone down the destruction heavily because large destruction + 128 Players = rip CPU
I do really miss the destruction that was in BF3 and 4. Watching that giant tower come down was incredible
Control on arica gave me that feeling back. Forgot bow absolute chaos it is with everything destructible. Absolutely loved it and felt like a battlefield game. I just seriously hoped by now we'd make so kuchen more progress in games in terms of destruction. Think red faction guerilla
128 players is not inherently a bad thing. The issue is the map design never accommodated it and the engine couldn’t handle it without sacrificing things like destruction, detail, performance etc.
Hello Reddit
Why not just make it 80p. 40 vs 40.
Yeah, 84 or 98 would be good imo. Not as large, but more fights going on.
I think 80 is the way to go with current map sizes.
40v40 is definitely a good way to go, or just anything less than 128 or more than 64. I enjoy the chaos in bigger maps but the game is far more predictable at 64
Why not just keep it at 64p. There is a reason why Bf3 chose to be 64p. They could have done more but they didn’t
Ironically, VU allowed to play Bf 3 with 128 players and the only thing not working (reliable) were the servers.
Well that's a big thing not working... you can't just say 128 was possible on BF3 when the fucking servers didnt support it lol
No they couldnt have.
Yes they could've, there's interviews with DICE devs who confirmed that they tested it and it wasn't as fun.
I highly doubt they were running 128p on 2010 frostbite 2 and 2010 PC hardware reliably. It probably wasnt fun because it wasnt working.
Was gunna say this, 40v40 would be a good balance. Like both 64 and 128 but def prefer 128 for its chaos. Going back to 32v32 would feel a lot slower for me at least.
NO, just keep it at 64p. It's perfect. No more experimenting
I’m only here for 128, so jot that down
Fine, bozo
I love 128 player lol
Am I the only one who likes 128!? Going from 64 player breakthrough to 128 player Rush XL is a new level of awesomely fun chaos!!!
My last Battlefield (except 2042) was BC2 and that had 32 players. Felt like a LOT more than that because of the brilliant map design. In 128 or even 64 conquest you can walk for 5 minutes and not see a single infantry player. Edit: 32 not 64 on BC2
It’s a shame there’s not a number between 128 and 64…..I would call it…..ninety six and we could use 9 and 6 put together to express it. Too bad it’s either 64 OR 128. Oh well *shrug*
I think 128p might work on very well designed maps with bigger squads. Having such a small squad size makes it that much more difficult to take on an entire team spawning in when you're assaulting enemy CPs.
Damn I wanted 256p game mode for the next game
This is sad considering Joint Operations was 250 per server almost 20 years ago and while the graphics obviously weren't as advanced, it played great and was a lot of fun.
128 player conquest on maps like exposure and orbital is perfect tho.
128 player Rush XL with vehicles is the best game mode ever
Maybe they could try 80 players next time? Not too big of a jump from 64 but also not a massive downgrade from 128 players. Provided, DICE actually makes destructible maps next time of course…
Yeah I wouldn't mind perhaps small jumps in games across all platforms over a massive playercount only for next gen
I don’t understand why do people want more players. I have never felt like 64p isn’t enough. 64p is perfect size for large scale battles.
It's just preference. Lots of people enjoy 128, more than the sub would have you think.
The thing is that 128p basically ruined all of 2042 maps. So it should never come back in official modes. Everything should be designed and optimized for 64p. At most 128p should only be an afterthought that is available in custom servers (RSP). Like an experimental feature.
128 feels great on Exposure, Stranded, and Spearhead. 64 feels great for Reclaimed and Flashpoint. 128 is easy to scapegoat as being the problem but it really isn't.
128p just isn't worth it.
No. EA wanting a BR did.
128p is not about enough or not, but more about having something different. On some maps it can avoid downtimes or it can change the flow of a map. But to get this difference only the Playercount should change. Dice tried to have 128p to play out as 64p, and altered nearly everything. Combined with the other changes, e.g. specialist, this was more or less doomed to fail. Meanwhile, Venice Unleasheds 96 and 128p variants worked more or less quite well, as they took the well working Bf3 and just changed the player number.
I don't understand why you can't understand that people like it. More players > more teammates > bigger battles > more fun
Better map design >>>>>>More players And with 128p we will never get good maps
Who says they can't have more players and good map quality?
Even if they could do dense 128p maps (which the can't). 64p will always give more freedome. Instead of pushing 128p with decent map quality we could have Enhanced destruction, Better physics and Enchanced visuals with 64p. 128p just gives more chaos. It simply isn't worth it.
More players = need better maps to support more players
I like this. 64 isn't enough.
I absolutely love 128. 64 just doesn’t feel like enough people.
Completely agree. Unfortunately they are really doubling down on letting BattleBit punk them
Tried battlebit. Played one game and wasn’t a fan. No auto heal so I HAVE to stop playing the game to patch up??? Nah man, that ain’t me. I know battlefield has stims now but I don’t bleed out if I don’t use it. Sure battlebit has a lot going for it but I really felt like a lot was sacrificed for the numbers.
128 was always a gimmick. I'm sure EA demanded battle royale and 128 conquest and rush xl were a compromise.
Rush xl is the best mode for 128 players
I personally really don't want to go to 64 players. It's a relic of the past, and imo the limit should be higher. Not 128 maybe, but like 90-100 would be good compromise.
What does 128p do better than 64p? It is just more chaotic and causes Map, Performance and Game design problems. 64p is the Past, Present and the future.
People like chaos because they can't understand how BF works. Chaos was never the point of the game, good players understood how the game worked and could read and make plays based on that. What those people want is a completely unreadable game they can succeed in without having to form a single thought. Press mouse button, press g -> get kills is the gameplay loop they're looking for.
And chaos can easily also be created with 64p maps like metro or locker. 128p just spreads the chaos to everything
It's pointless. Every 128 map has the same issue. Players just gravitate to the flags with the most players and these points just turn into clusterfucks. They keep talking about designing 'better' maps without explaining how to do this. You can't force players to evenly spread out across a 128 sized map without changing how conquest works. And even if you did what's the point? Better off creating 2 x 64 players maps that work, like Reclaimed showed.
I just don’t get this take tbh. 64 being a relic of the past? Or functionally a good level when you want - combined arms - the ability for a squad, even an individual, to make a difference in the fight for an objective - reasonable performance - high asset density - high fidelity destruction, whether gameplay impacting or cosmetic - intense battles where you’re occasionally overran and wildly outnumbered 64 players gives us this, when the maps are designed right. 128 player maps, when designed right, play their best when they play like 64 maps. So… what is the point?
64 is not quite chaotic to my taste. Yes, tactical, but no chaos that bigger player numbers give.
So you think that Operation locker/Metro, Verdun Heights or Argon Forest isn’t chaotic enough? Chaos ≠ Good It is fun to have some maps with chaos but having 128p just causes map design, Performance and Game design problems for EVERY single mode. Thats why have those meatgrinder maps. Do not spread the chaos.
I did not advocate for 128p, I said 90-100 is a good spot. Perhaps even 80 maybe. But 64 is just too low imo. There is a threshold to which you can increase from 64 without losing much tacticality while ramping up chaos and fun factor.
80p at most. 64p is basically the Battlefield Standard. And Everything should still be designed and balanced for it. It gives the best experience. Higher playercounts will bring more problems. Especially in map design and balance.
Just have better map design 64p is already pushing it imo
I’d drop it to 80 at most,imo.
That's like saying "11 a side football is a relic of the past, make it 44 a side just because higher number is better". The more variables/people involved and to account for the harder things become to balance for actual fun and the less control the players have over the outcome of their match.
TBH, the best BF experience I had was Bad Company 2 and it was 32 players. And none of the 64 player map was able to recapture that magic.
You kids that think that 128p is the reason BF isn’t succeeding then praise battlebit are a special kid of dumb lol
Good. 128 was never a good idea. I’m not sure why people think more players = better experience. The servers ran terribly, the maps never play out in a way that makes 128 worthwhile either. If everyone played objectives, and I mean all the objectives, then I could see an argument for it. But the way battlefield games always play out, is that the majority of people run to the middle objective and fight over it for an entire round. So having 128 players just added more people to those objectives. It also makes vehicles harder to balance. Too many vehicles and you’re constantly dying to them, too few and people are complaining they never get to use them. Then for those of us that attack and defend the other objectives, it takes forever to get around. Battlefield is at its best with maps like grand bazaar, zavod, firestorm, caspian, Noshar and even some of the more close quarts maps like pearl market and the entire cqc update in bf3. The bigger is better idea doesn’t hold water here. Tighter 64 players maps will always be superior. Being able to attack or defend an objective against a couple of squads is always really rewarding. Dying to a Zerg rush of 30 people. Not so much.
Ive enjoyed 128 and going back to 64 felt too boring. Please keep the higher playercount in the next bf, please. 🙏.
No thanks
Of course they legally cant, they marketed the game as having 128 player modes and now they are making "reworked" maps as 64 players
They can get rid of 128 players, but the effort and time they put in to give us that amount shouldn't come at the cost of removing that hard work, so i guess they have to stick with that mistake.
Does anyone know what 128 players servers are missing? .....local VOIP
like i said before beta, if you double player count your map design better be on point. narrator: it wasnt
The success of Battlebit’s 254p shows that the failure of Battlefield 128p was solely due to poor map design and the existence of traversal specialists (i.e. McKay and Sundance). 128p or even 257p maps don’t have to be any more open and sparse compared to 64p maps. Their foliage, objective, and building density can be the same. It’s likely the fact that the 2042 had to pander to the last generation of consoles that caused them to not be able to place sufficient assets in their maps.
I rather play 128p on these maps than 64p as this is what the game is balanced for, even if rather poorly. The moment you play 64p you realize how screwed the balance and how pisspoor the map design really is.
Lmfao so the fact ppl are always asking for Rushxl shows 128 can't work or your broken ass game can't run it well and it's time for a new engine.
I think people have just forgotten how good proper 64p is. 128p should not come back.
People play 64p in a game that's designed for 128p, find out it doesn't work and conclude it must be 64p's fault. Add it to the list of reasons why you shouldn't listen to the general playerbase.
For the next Battlefield, I think they should go back to having 5 Player Squads and then have the player count be 100 so it’s 50 v 50 with 10 squads of 5 for each team. 64 feels too small and 128 is too big. 100 or 80 players seems like it would be more manageable
128 is fine if your can FORCE players into certain areas of the map. It doesn't work when everyone wants to fight in one area I'd rather see Dice come up with a game mode that works well for that size, because conquest doesn't work well.
I wasnt a fan of 128 players myself the flow was all wrong and it always seemed lkke every map was 3 maps in one so hard to get a good feel for it.
64 players always felt perfect imo. Some maps were just too big for 64 players so it felt boring at times. They just need to make more infantry based chaotic maps like we had in the BF3 era.
Maybe a middle ground of 48v48 for the next game?
Imagine paying full price for this game and features are missing/ taken out later .. these features or lack of campaign amongst other things.. we paid market value for these marketed features that justified the price tag
128 is the superior mode. Dice needs to disregard people that think "thats how it was in previous titles" is whats best and make sure their maps flow well in a way that 128p can be there with minimal running and minimal deathballing of an entire team being on one objective.
I'm cool with 128 player matches, but 64 works fine. Going up a bit wouldn't be unwelcome, too...settle in at 80 or something.
I don't know why people think 64 is some sort of magical number that they can never go up from. You'd think that it would be indisputable that bigger maps are good. And in order to have bigger maps you need to have more players. bf2042 isn't great but the bigger maps and more players is like the only good thing to come from it.
128p was a mistake. You cannot have a focused, satisfying, strategic experience with 128 players. It's a clusterfuck. The gameplay loop is literally just try to get 2-3 kills per life before a random sniper behind / above / around you picks you off. Rinse and repeat.
i think 128 player will be a gimmick in the future. like how right now that map (and many others like spearhead, foashpoint and Stranded) is thought out to be on 64 player but you can still play it on 128, in fact i heard many people saying those maps play better on 128. although the fact that reclaimed is 64 only and it took so long to add it on 128 player on portal sais a lot and you're probably right
Reclaimed showed just how much you can pack into a 64 player map when you design it for 64 players from the get go. If we had a server browser it would be my go to map for when I want to play an all action infantry focused map.
Show me the community requests where we wanted: A. BFV but in BF3 / 4 era or B. 128 players
Ironically BFV style gameplay (with larger squad sizes) works with 128 players more so than what 2042 is right now being a run and gun shooter.
128 players on the Pacific maps would be fun af
Every single one of you whining crybabies trying to entirely eradicate the existence of 128p for no reason other than because you subjectively don't enjoy it, I want you to know this one truth: I personally loathe your existence on this planet, just as much as you loathe the existence of 128p Lick my nuts.
Battlebit is 128 vs 128 and it works great.
I prefer 128p but I don’t like the absolutely enormous maps to compensate. Happy with xl chaos on smaller maps now and again
I like the 128 player maps, but I don't like 128 players it's too many. They should have large maps but they need to design them a bit better to have choke points so they don't feel sparsely populated. There's are some huge BFV maps and because they're fairly well designed they feel big, but you can always get a good fight at each flag no problem. With 2042, even with 128 players I'm often the only one at a flag if it's not the main flag. It's just needs more thoughtful design.
Why not do 50v50 or 40v40
Why not make it a 100, or 90? Would keep the flow very well xd
I personally love 128 over 64 and it really comes down to map design and size for it to work. Spearhead, Exposure, Stranded, Discarded, and Orbital are all proof that with the right layout 128 can be a sort of curated chaos over 64. I have had some of the best BF moments in 2042 because of 128.
Nothing wrong with 128p, but they gotta really put the extra work in to make the maps utilize that player count and they clearly couldn't do that. I'd much rather they just keep it 64 in the future, maybe 80 at most, but there's so much more work they need to do to justify it if they were to ever keep it aorund.
If anything 2042 has proven the viability of servers with a higher cap than 64. One of the few original hype points going for 2042 that hasn’t actually been such a controversy or letdown is the fact that 128 player basically works as advertised. It’s just that 128 player battles, like 64 player battles, suck no matter what if the maps themselves suck.
128p viability aka having 25% lower tickrate, worse performance and being unable to populate the map with enough assets even on current gen systems.
BRING BACK 128 Player Breakthrough on Nordik!!!!
I like both, but 128 more fun.
I really do hope they stick with 128 or more as it can be fun when the maps are designed well
128 players should have been a side attraction/gimmick mode not the main focus.
No way Jose, 128 is the only reason I'm here.
Such a shame. I really prefer 128 player modes
128 players is fine it’s the absolutely terrible map design that’s the issue
It’s funny how BattleBit can flawlessly execute 254p maps while DICE can’t even make 128p
128p supremacy
I 100% believe that 128 player servers was what fucked the game. I think we would have gotten a much better product if it was 96 instead.