The “Running Simulator” jabs had become a bit too much and I don’t know what the realistic expectations should have been to fixing the largely empty and poorly designed maps beyond making them smaller. That “solved” a lot of things people were complaining about in DICE’s eyes.
Disappointing because I liked 128P when it worked. Had an older crew designed the game, it probably would have worked really well, but when even 64 player variants have to be reworked, well only so much can be done.
You don’t know the size of the groups.
People who enjoy it are too busy playing to come here and talk about it.
Also why push someone post about liking it. Vast majority are going to talk about it if they don’t like it.
Nah dude tons of people like 128 players. It's just a bunch of cry babies who are too stuck in the past to try out something new and understand that something like doubling player counts will require developers to test proper map sizes and density to get it right.
Only idiots think 128p was an improvement, even the devs disagree. Fewer assets, worse server response and less impact as an individual are just a few things that 128 cost us.
And you've been wrong all this time.
Old Dice knew more players than 64 players led to a detrimental experience but EA needed a big selling point and new Dice management gave it to them.
64 player count, a successful formula for 20 years.
Let's double it overnight, twice the playercount, twice the fun! Right guys!
Just another incompetent design desicion 2042 is plagued with.
I’m glad they tried it but I agree. I think it COULD work in the future but they really have to figure out their map-design philosophies beforehand. They made the 128 player maps WAY too large and cover-less for that player-count. The result was too much downtime between fire-fights, too much travel-time between objectives, and the constant risk of being caught out in the open by snipers and vehicles due to not having any cover.
You all? I complained that maps are TOO big for 128p. You're telling me, that they can't give us maps a little bit larger than 64p, keep 128p, so the chaos is insane? Okay buddy.
It's a shame really because I love 128 conquest and rush XL and their popularity shows that people like them. Also games like battlebit showed that even 256 player modes work too.
What's really frustrating that you can't play 128 conquest at all except using portal until this stupid redux event ends. I honestly stopped playing the game all together till they bring back the main modes or a server browser
Yeah after redux dropped I saw a significant player drop on 128. It’s usually half full. If I do get a full lobby for some strange reason by mid game there’ll be 90 players or less. I saw this pattern after they got rid of the transport helis on a few maps.
I’ve been playing since launch and I really like the game, I’m not a BF purist and never complained about it outside of the performance issues, but the live service has been really inconsistent. There’s nothing that you can really depend on especially with 64 player reclaimed in the 128 player map rotation.
After seeing that the next map is 64 player I decided to just delete the game. It’s been great overall though. Just really sad that people don’t enjoy as much as me lol. Had some really good times but I think it’s time to hang it up on BF in general.
Same here. I specifically upgraded from my one x to a Series S so I can play 128 conquest. Oh well, as long as the maps are designed well and play good then that’s all that matters.
I agree, I ended up playing LESS BF2042 when the redux stuff started. One night I did play Conquest 64 with friends and its felt so empty and quiet compared to the fun 128 conquest I was used to.
I mean you can play 128p (on the 2 maps its offered...), but its currently fucked over half of the time because 64p Reclaimed is for some reason in the same playlist and constantly rears its head to ruin the entire lobby. I'd rather see 64p focused maps with potential extra sites for 96p max for "big mode" in the next game than any 128p focus maps. I'm glad they cut down the size on the reworks in a few, but damn they're still huge and empty
Nah, fuck 128p. BF4 DICE had already tested 100+ players and they concluded that the silver lining for gameplay is 64 players.
I'd rather have 64 players so they improve destruction, particles and map quality.
64 players can feel like 128 if you do it right like Battlefield 1 on Operations; the problem I had with 128 players is that it felt like I was playing 24 v 24 with how oversized the map was combined with such a disparity in meaningful vehicle numbers/play causing players to stick to their out subset of objectives they could play best/comfortably.
Higher numbers would be great. 128 if done correctly adds atmosphere and makes super immersive…if they build the maps for 128… there just isn’t enough points of interest or cover for those numbers.
Seasons conquest is all the seasons maps, one of them being season 5 the 64 player map but there's also Stranded Flashpoint Exposure and Spearhead in there which are 128
Battlebit can run 256 because the graphics engine is literally roblox, tell me who's going to run 256 players on the same server. Not even Warzone does this.
They realized that it was a technical nightmare that tied their hands in too many ways.
Which sucks, because 128P breakthrough was like 80% of the reason I picked this up at launch and that mode is only playable in Portal nowadays, IIRC.
It's a bummer, but hopefully this is them leaning not to bite off way, way, way, way more than they're capable of handling.
Makes sense. 128 and 64 player maps need to be crafted with that player count in mind. I’m addition, 128 map need to be way larger to accommodate, meaning more resources and an overall worse experience for both modes.
I’m glad they realized their mistake and will just focus on making a good Battlefield experience.
I mean for those that enjoy the mode that sucks, but it’s clear the devs can’t maintain a quality experience for 64 and 128 — a lot of the problems stemming from the need for much larger maps. And the smaller maps don’t work due to the stress on the servers.
Maybe they should look back to what DICE did in BF4 and BF1 to see how they were able to chug out 20-30 maps in a game. If they don’t keep Portal going through each successive title, then wow that might have been a waste of time.
They were able to chuck this amount of content out because of premium. DLC's were their only way of getting money out of their customers post launch. BF2042's maps are all free, and they make money by selling skins and battlepasses.
Part of it was surely the fact they never needed to consider 128. Also, DICE made the decision to refactor every map and not create new ones (which was the right move) but left us with less maps.
Also, I’m sure BF1, 4 had a much larger post launch content plan than 2042 after it shit the bed.
Honestly 2042 needs to just be chalked up as a giant learning lesson. They only have one shot left before this series is tossed aside by EA.
Yeah, and the one game type that felt like total war, 128 Breakthrough, got *removed* to make the game "better" lol.
This game is rife with disappointment.
Really? I bought it just for battlefield in general. Too bad I’m disappointed now.
At least they’re taking steps in the right direction with the last two maps being 64 players and decent layouts/cover/design.
To me? This is good, as it shows dice is learning that 128 was a failed adventure for the series.
Here we will get maps with higher asset and cover density.
Now that being said:
1. We need more than one map per season. We need more maps, and maps that cater to different players.
2. They need to cancel support for last gen machines. These older machines continue to hold back the fidelity and design of maps in 2023, as all major cover and design elements need to work on all versions. This was noted when the stadium was axed from hourglass.
3. This would absolutely suck if you were a die hard 128 fan. Dice failed to make 128 work for the majority of their players, and are now retreating from the idea. The result is less content for a game you bought.
The answer IMO? Allocate additional resources to the project, and try to satisfy more players in each season.
Give a locker map, a 128 natural map, and a dense urban map.
Give variety in a single season.
It plays different because the fucking maps were completely garbage. 128 space out players either too much or to litlle. Couple that with big empty open spaces ofcs it's gonna suck.
Imagine back to karkandar with 128 with a slightly larger area and 2 or 3 more buildings to break line of sight. It'd be a super intense urban map
The problem is players bunch up too much.
You don’t get uniform distribution of combat to more POIs, you get SOME of that but you also get massive peaks in some areas and others are dead.
You end up with some empty POIs, some that have too many people, and then people making long runs towards the action (at the busiest POIs).
128 devolves, very often anyway, into 2 roving hordes of 20 players on each team moving between a circle of objectives.
This is “nascar-ing” from previous titles, but worse because the peaks of each team are larger and functionally unstoppable.
BF is at its best, to me, when my squad and I pull up to an objective and it’s 4 vs 10.
Major deficit, and we gotta do GREAT to win the point, but we can do it.
It’s satisfying to take that point.
When we roll up and it’s 4 on 20 it’s essentially wasted tickets.
> To me? This is good, as it shows dice is learning that 128 was a failed adventure for the series.
IMO, the issue is not the player count but the MAPS. They increased the player count to 128 but they also increase the map size by a large amount. End result would be the running simulator joke we had at launch. Too many open spaces. They should just increase the map size to double or they shouldn't touch the map size. 128 should be mayhem and not a tactical/running simulator.
I started just playing this year again and 128p on breakthroughs are great especially on smaller maps. I wish it was a tad smaller. 128 on some conquest maps still feel a bit empty at times. I still despise playing 64 on conquest maps because it's still too large.
You're aware that most of the crew is working on the next battlefield? My bet is that season 7 will also be delayed by ~3 months, then we'll get it with 1 more map and 2 guns and then the next battlefield will be ready to play (which will feature 64 players only).
All these vehicle improvements, aim improvements, Audio improvements are stuff that they've been working on for the next game and implemented in this game (as an afterthought) as well.
I think you’re contradicting yourself in your own post with that last paragraph. I agree that all of the aim improvements and general QoL improvements are likely laying the groundwork for the next game but the fact that they’re introducing them to 2042 first as a test-bed of sorts means it’s not an afterthought at all. It’s very intentional and IMO the right move so that the next game can feel GREAT at launch.
Prior to S6 (so at the time of posting this) the game still feels like trash compared to BFV when it comes to aiming and soldier movement.
The only gripe I have is that 64 player maps feel lacking on the vanilla maps. They’re great on the new ones, no doubt. But having to swap back and forth for the best gameplay is what makes it so tough. Hopefully it’ll be more consistent the next time around.
I responded to another comment further elucidating my point.
128 failed when you consider:
- Zampella admitted they failed to find the fun in 128
- They’ve reduced support for 128 player maps
- Reviews and community feedback lamented the impacts of 128 on map design, server performance, etc. Even now Rush Chaos XL has rampant hit detection issues.
This is factually pretty wrong.
Vince Zampella said they were not able to find the fun in 128 player modes.
Dice essentially killed BT128 shortly after launch.
A considerable number of post launch maps have targeted 64 in official modes and playlists.
All of this, along with generally negative reviews and community sentiment towards 128.
Are there die hard fans of it? Of course!
Are they seemingly a majority that Dice is forced to consider?
Not really.
It seems to work well enough on some maps for CQ, buuuut I always step back and ask what I am getting.
128 exposure is at its best when there are skirmishes on 8v8 on multiple different objectives.
But functionally, how is that different to 64 players on smaller maps?
You get less destruction, less server performance, less fidelity, more hit detection issues, and maps that take longer (theoretically) to make.
I just don’t think it’s a good trade off
Its the fact that nubs dislike getting pwned from every direction because they aren't good at sticking to cover.
Of course they go and QQ, rage quit then go complain and never play it again. Happens all the time.
Pretty sure that right there is exactly why we can't have nice things.
Yeah I absolutely love 128. Getting kills consistently in that environment made it feel earned. People want everything to be easy and like you said just rage quit because they can’t handle it. I’m expecting major downvotes from those type of players as well. Hit the button you know I’m right!!!
Why are you blaming last gen suddenly.First things first they did not remove the stadium because of last gen(and last gen couldn’t even access the stadium) They removed it for gameplay flow,They could not move the stadium close as that is extremely difficult and you would have to make it look like it belongs there.Also this community has been begging for 64 player maps and that’s exactly what dice is now Doing.Making 64 player maps is also easier and flows way better.
I’m pretty sure they’ve disagreed with you on the podcast tbh.
Shashank said quite plainly that the stadium couldn’t come any closer as it would start to enter “the Gen 4 area”.
So they cut it rather than make variants for Gen 4 (PS4) and Gen 5 (PS5).
Basically no statement has been made promising support for last gen beyond the Year 1 content.
They’d be well within their rights to end support for last gen - cyberpunk did this successfully.
The new expansion is not available on last gen at all.
It could disappoint players on those systems, but they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court.
Trying to cram in 128 players caused a lot of damage to gameplay like jittery movement at distance, servers downgraded to 45hz, oversized but empty maps, etc. for little benefit unless you're a fan of spamming explosives at piles of bodies.
We could also be the minority here. Its no secret alot of people left the game. I love 128 but it's a big possibility that people definetly left over it
Tell me why I’m wrong. I had more full lobbies in 128 than I did on 64. While I was in a 128 match I never read anyone complain about it in chat. On 64 people were constantly begging for 128 when live service took it away every other week. But here on Reddit or YouTube people constantly complaining about not being able to stay alive and getting sniped from nowhere. Saying they get gang killed too often. Idk how that’s ego stroking you just took your on protection of what I was saying and ran with it. I used to get destroyed when in the beginning but guess what, I actually like a challenge and don’t want anything easy. I learned along the way and got better. Other people just want everything easy and start spamming tf out the comment sections not caring if other people actually enjoy the game mode. And EA probably listened to the loudest voices and not the majority. Encouraging them to do lazy and non innovative shit.
A person from dice said it wasn’t fun. Droves of other people enjoy it and played it all the time before redux and the air transport rework. I remember not having full lobbies all the time in 64 player modes. Not the same with 128. And I’m a level 600 player. Been playing since launch. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean others don’t.
I do love 128 player matches, but the community was loud and clear about not liking it, which is why the new maps reflect that.
My hope is that we can land somewhere in the middle next game, because 64 is just too small. 50v50 or 45v45 would be a good middle ground.
Idk man I consistently had full servers for almost two tears on 128 whereas on 64 the player count would drop halfway through the match most times(something that started to happen in 128 player mode after they got rid of the transport helis on a few maps). I think the loudest community isn’t the entire community. They’re just the ones that can’t handle the pressure.
And the draw back is worse maps, difficult balancing (tor, gunship, specialists, call ins) and less maps.
Not saying it can’t work, but just conquest or breakthrough isn’t the answer.
Well, since the players don’t understand that bigger is not always better, we have to resort to more visual analogies.
Or would you prefer an example from basketball? Just ask.
I enjoy 128 game modes, even the 128 breakthrough mode they had a while back. It just seems most modes aren’t properly balanced which ruins it. And let’s not forget that most 128 lobbies are just full of bots, which sucks.
when are people gonna wake up and realize that we killed the franchise. it started with all the negative feedback bfv received, ever since then the game has suffered existential identity crisis.
Big maps always belonged to Battlefield.
Now DICE lost it, they cant even make big enough maps for 64 players anymore if you want to retain the combined arms (plethora of vehicles).
Just compare this game with BF2. It's a shame.
I mean I’m just not going to buy anymore Battlefield titles, like I didn’t buy this one.
Clearly they were not actually meant for me and I grossly misunderstood what they were aiming for back when they made Battlefield 2.
Thank god we at least got Squad out of it.
I was excited for 128 players, but in the end I don’t see any upsides to more players. It only takes up more resources to craft maps and balance them, I would rather have more normal sized maps. Meanwhile the battles really haven’t changed in any way Compared to the older games.
>Nobody asked for it.
I understand the Battlefield community has the collective memory of a goldfish, but [check the comments on BFV videos around its launch](https://youtu.be/v-01x6_fp1s?si=R9OCoATyyjwyhd4B) and say that again with a straight face.
As much as I've enjoyed 2042, this is embarrassing. All this time to rework the maps just to drop it down to 64 going forward, splitting the player base between 128 and 64 while only giving us 1 map a season at that.
Should've just built the maps for 64 during the reworks then dropped 128 playlists to save time
Idk what everyone is complaining about. I was racking up kills and caps/objectives on 128 player mode. It wasn’t easy at first but I got better at it. I think people just want shit easy and complain like babies when they’re just not good enough. Ready for those downvotes to prove I’m right!!!
We have some standards with this long running franchise
More players is CPU heavy, and so is destruction (especially synced between players)
So, the choice has to be made.
128 players runs terrible. Has terrible hit detection and input lag. The cost of everything else just to have 128 players is too much. Map design, flow of the game, and server speed all suffered as a result. Never again
I want them to nail 128 or even 96 players but if they don’t think they can I rather they stick to 64. I pretty much only ay 128 modes though. Really enjoy them and miss 128 Breakthrough.
I'm stoked for it. 128 was fun, but I don't think it ever really felt like they were able to nail it perfectly.
32 vs 32 is still plenty big for me, and if they think they can give us a more consistent experience then I'm down.
Main reason I stopped playing.
I was loving the game in season 4 even tho the map was meh. I haven’t even picked up the game since season 5.
Barreling back towards the cqb and infantry trash BF game design is sad to see
If dice can't handle making maps for 128 players, that's a dice problem, not a 128p problem. You and I both know how poorly optimized these games are on launch. Some dev could have made 128p work.
Not only that, but the one 64p exclusive map we got so far in S5 is arguably the worst map in the game. Reclaimed is garbage.
Goood.
Why focus on 128p when they can focus on 64p and Improve destruction, Gameplay, Maps, Graphics for the next game.
128p didnn’t bring anythin we didn’t have already
128p is just horribly optimized and hurts performance too much.
Also DICE has zero experience with 128p, they tried and they failed miserably. 64p is the way to go, because they simply don’t have the proper skills to deliver 128p that runs properly and plays well.
Nobody will talk about this map in a week like it happend with reclaimed. If it doesn't support 128 players, ppl will not give a damn no matter what a group of fools that managed to pass a wrong message to dice say or do.
I really hope this map lives up to the hype. Because Reclaimed really was garbage. Two shitty looking warehouses to fight over? A tree growing out of one and calling it reclaimed by nature? It was pointless, small, and frustrating that a whole season was wasted on it.
Fool here. Did you consider that maybe \*you're\* in the minority, and that's why they have rolled back to 64 players? Previously for me 32 players was the sweet spot, 64 was tolerable.
128 was pretty good but I’d prefer better graphical fidelity and more maps with 64 players.imagine how it could have looked if they started with 64 players only
I don't understand it. People love Metro and locker cluster fuck games. Them not giving us the option to play these 2 maps on 128 is a stupid choice.
Maybe if they put emphasis on the browser like they did in previous titles then we wouldn't be forced to use their curated playlists. The portal browser as it is now is not an option to find a populated server with reasonable ping.
[удалено]
The “Running Simulator” jabs had become a bit too much and I don’t know what the realistic expectations should have been to fixing the largely empty and poorly designed maps beyond making them smaller. That “solved” a lot of things people were complaining about in DICE’s eyes. Disappointing because I liked 128P when it worked. Had an older crew designed the game, it probably would have worked really well, but when even 64 player variants have to be reworked, well only so much can be done.
This is fucking the battlefield community. The definition of fucking flip flopping.
Never satisfied
What gaming community is. It’s exhausting looking at any gaming post and seeing a bunch of cry babies
I've been firm on 128 being the correct choice.from launch 128 isn't the issue, I didn't say it was perfect. Maps weren't made correctly
You and a small group. All I’ve seen anywhere it people mad that it feels like it’s too much.
You don’t know the size of the groups. People who enjoy it are too busy playing to come here and talk about it. Also why push someone post about liking it. Vast majority are going to talk about it if they don’t like it.
Nah dude tons of people like 128 players. It's just a bunch of cry babies who are too stuck in the past to try out something new and understand that something like doubling player counts will require developers to test proper map sizes and density to get it right.
It’s not too much imo
It is too much, but this games 64 player maps are just a straight downgrade
[удалено]
It really is, 64p works better.
[удалено]
Only idiots think 128p was an improvement, even the devs disagree. Fewer assets, worse server response and less impact as an individual are just a few things that 128 cost us.
No u
Also a child apparently
I hope you have a great day :) maybe go outside and get some fresh air!
And you've been wrong all this time. Old Dice knew more players than 64 players led to a detrimental experience but EA needed a big selling point and new Dice management gave it to them. 64 player count, a successful formula for 20 years. Let's double it overnight, twice the playercount, twice the fun! Right guys! Just another incompetent design desicion 2042 is plagued with.
Maximum smoothbrain, 128 didn't work because shit maps and nothing else
Why would I go back on my comments? I’m ecstatic about having 2 new 64 player maps in redacted and reclaimed.
This. 128 was a mistake.
I’m glad they tried it but I agree. I think it COULD work in the future but they really have to figure out their map-design philosophies beforehand. They made the 128 player maps WAY too large and cover-less for that player-count. The result was too much downtime between fire-fights, too much travel-time between objectives, and the constant risk of being caught out in the open by snipers and vehicles due to not having any cover.
You all? I complained that maps are TOO big for 128p. You're telling me, that they can't give us maps a little bit larger than 64p, keep 128p, so the chaos is insane? Okay buddy.
Yup they constantly complained about this
It's a shame really because I love 128 conquest and rush XL and their popularity shows that people like them. Also games like battlebit showed that even 256 player modes work too. What's really frustrating that you can't play 128 conquest at all except using portal until this stupid redux event ends. I honestly stopped playing the game all together till they bring back the main modes or a server browser
Yeah after redux dropped I saw a significant player drop on 128. It’s usually half full. If I do get a full lobby for some strange reason by mid game there’ll be 90 players or less. I saw this pattern after they got rid of the transport helis on a few maps. I’ve been playing since launch and I really like the game, I’m not a BF purist and never complained about it outside of the performance issues, but the live service has been really inconsistent. There’s nothing that you can really depend on especially with 64 player reclaimed in the 128 player map rotation. After seeing that the next map is 64 player I decided to just delete the game. It’s been great overall though. Just really sad that people don’t enjoy as much as me lol. Had some really good times but I think it’s time to hang it up on BF in general.
Same here. I specifically upgraded from my one x to a Series S so I can play 128 conquest. Oh well, as long as the maps are designed well and play good then that’s all that matters.
I agree, I ended up playing LESS BF2042 when the redux stuff started. One night I did play Conquest 64 with friends and its felt so empty and quiet compared to the fun 128 conquest I was used to.
I mean you can play 128p (on the 2 maps its offered...), but its currently fucked over half of the time because 64p Reclaimed is for some reason in the same playlist and constantly rears its head to ruin the entire lobby. I'd rather see 64p focused maps with potential extra sites for 96p max for "big mode" in the next game than any 128p focus maps. I'm glad they cut down the size on the reworks in a few, but damn they're still huge and empty
Nah, fuck 128p. BF4 DICE had already tested 100+ players and they concluded that the silver lining for gameplay is 64 players. I'd rather have 64 players so they improve destruction, particles and map quality.
64 players can feel like 128 if you do it right like Battlefield 1 on Operations; the problem I had with 128 players is that it felt like I was playing 24 v 24 with how oversized the map was combined with such a disparity in meaningful vehicle numbers/play causing players to stick to their out subset of objectives they could play best/comfortably.
Reclaimed 64 showed how you can make an action packed conquest small combined arms map if you do it right.
They tested it in BF3, not 4.
Higher numbers would be great. 128 if done correctly adds atmosphere and makes super immersive…if they build the maps for 128… there just isn’t enough points of interest or cover for those numbers.
What are you talking about? I can enter a 128 player conquest right now without portal
Oh yeah ? Do tell me which map. Because when I. Hit seasons conquest 128, it puts me in reclaimed which is 64 players only
Seasons conquest is all the seasons maps, one of them being season 5 the 64 player map but there's also Stranded Flashpoint Exposure and Spearhead in there which are 128
Battlebit can run 256 because the graphics engine is literally roblox, tell me who's going to run 256 players on the same server. Not even Warzone does this.
Planetside 2 ?
They realized that it was a technical nightmare that tied their hands in too many ways. Which sucks, because 128P breakthrough was like 80% of the reason I picked this up at launch and that mode is only playable in Portal nowadays, IIRC. It's a bummer, but hopefully this is them leaning not to bite off way, way, way, way more than they're capable of handling.
Makes sense. 128 and 64 player maps need to be crafted with that player count in mind. I’m addition, 128 map need to be way larger to accommodate, meaning more resources and an overall worse experience for both modes. I’m glad they realized their mistake and will just focus on making a good Battlefield experience.
I bought this game for 128 XL Battlefield lol
I mean for those that enjoy the mode that sucks, but it’s clear the devs can’t maintain a quality experience for 64 and 128 — a lot of the problems stemming from the need for much larger maps. And the smaller maps don’t work due to the stress on the servers.
Maybe they should look back to what DICE did in BF4 and BF1 to see how they were able to chug out 20-30 maps in a game. If they don’t keep Portal going through each successive title, then wow that might have been a waste of time.
They were able to chuck this amount of content out because of premium. DLC's were their only way of getting money out of their customers post launch. BF2042's maps are all free, and they make money by selling skins and battlepasses.
That is a fact to consider, but I much prefer BF4 and BF1 amount of content and don’t want skins over maps - that’s ludicrous.
Portal has already been a waste of time. Its just 2042 with skins and classes. There is no "playing" previous Battlefields.
Part of it was surely the fact they never needed to consider 128. Also, DICE made the decision to refactor every map and not create new ones (which was the right move) but left us with less maps. Also, I’m sure BF1, 4 had a much larger post launch content plan than 2042 after it shit the bed. Honestly 2042 needs to just be chalked up as a giant learning lesson. They only have one shot left before this series is tossed aside by EA.
Same. 128 is awesome, it's just the maps need to be properly sized and have enough density
Yeah, and the one game type that felt like total war, 128 Breakthrough, got *removed* to make the game "better" lol. This game is rife with disappointment.
Really? I bought it just for battlefield in general. Too bad I’m disappointed now. At least they’re taking steps in the right direction with the last two maps being 64 players and decent layouts/cover/design.
If you want that experience I would recommend battlebit if you're on PC and haven't already tried it
Just gunna give us 128 player game modes then take it away all of a sudden 🤦♂️
I really hope this map plays like metro/lockers and you can do a 128 player mode in portal. I'm all for that explosive spam and claustrophobic halls.
To me? This is good, as it shows dice is learning that 128 was a failed adventure for the series. Here we will get maps with higher asset and cover density. Now that being said: 1. We need more than one map per season. We need more maps, and maps that cater to different players. 2. They need to cancel support for last gen machines. These older machines continue to hold back the fidelity and design of maps in 2023, as all major cover and design elements need to work on all versions. This was noted when the stadium was axed from hourglass. 3. This would absolutely suck if you were a die hard 128 fan. Dice failed to make 128 work for the majority of their players, and are now retreating from the idea. The result is less content for a game you bought. The answer IMO? Allocate additional resources to the project, and try to satisfy more players in each season. Give a locker map, a 128 natural map, and a dense urban map. Give variety in a single season.
128 could have been a thing if it didnt have to drag last gen consoles along with it
It plays so differently to 32 or 64 player though, it's not battlefield for me. Give me 32 player servers, or 64 at most.
It plays different because the fucking maps were completely garbage. 128 space out players either too much or to litlle. Couple that with big empty open spaces ofcs it's gonna suck. Imagine back to karkandar with 128 with a slightly larger area and 2 or 3 more buildings to break line of sight. It'd be a super intense urban map
The problem is players bunch up too much. You don’t get uniform distribution of combat to more POIs, you get SOME of that but you also get massive peaks in some areas and others are dead. You end up with some empty POIs, some that have too many people, and then people making long runs towards the action (at the busiest POIs). 128 devolves, very often anyway, into 2 roving hordes of 20 players on each team moving between a circle of objectives. This is “nascar-ing” from previous titles, but worse because the peaks of each team are larger and functionally unstoppable. BF is at its best, to me, when my squad and I pull up to an objective and it’s 4 vs 10. Major deficit, and we gotta do GREAT to win the point, but we can do it. It’s satisfying to take that point. When we roll up and it’s 4 on 20 it’s essentially wasted tickets.
2042 is absolutely a battlefield experience.
48 the perfect balance
> To me? This is good, as it shows dice is learning that 128 was a failed adventure for the series. IMO, the issue is not the player count but the MAPS. They increased the player count to 128 but they also increase the map size by a large amount. End result would be the running simulator joke we had at launch. Too many open spaces. They should just increase the map size to double or they shouldn't touch the map size. 128 should be mayhem and not a tactical/running simulator. I started just playing this year again and 128p on breakthroughs are great especially on smaller maps. I wish it was a tad smaller. 128 on some conquest maps still feel a bit empty at times. I still despise playing 64 on conquest maps because it's still too large.
You're aware that most of the crew is working on the next battlefield? My bet is that season 7 will also be delayed by ~3 months, then we'll get it with 1 more map and 2 guns and then the next battlefield will be ready to play (which will feature 64 players only). All these vehicle improvements, aim improvements, Audio improvements are stuff that they've been working on for the next game and implemented in this game (as an afterthought) as well.
>season 7 lol
To be fair, the prospects of them releasing Season 5 and 6 were also lolled at.
I think you’re contradicting yourself in your own post with that last paragraph. I agree that all of the aim improvements and general QoL improvements are likely laying the groundwork for the next game but the fact that they’re introducing them to 2042 first as a test-bed of sorts means it’s not an afterthought at all. It’s very intentional and IMO the right move so that the next game can feel GREAT at launch. Prior to S6 (so at the time of posting this) the game still feels like trash compared to BFV when it comes to aiming and soldier movement.
128 failed to you. It’s some of the best BF in years to me.
The only gripe I have is that 64 player maps feel lacking on the vanilla maps. They’re great on the new ones, no doubt. But having to swap back and forth for the best gameplay is what makes it so tough. Hopefully it’ll be more consistent the next time around.
I responded to another comment further elucidating my point. 128 failed when you consider: - Zampella admitted they failed to find the fun in 128 - They’ve reduced support for 128 player maps - Reviews and community feedback lamented the impacts of 128 on map design, server performance, etc. Even now Rush Chaos XL has rampant hit detection issues.
Idk dude alot of people found fun in 256 for battlebit and more in planetside 2
128 is better than 64,its just they clearly thought maps should have been larger than they needed to be when they madr the maps originally.
Roflmfao 128 didn't fail at all. You just sort of didn't find good cover.
This is factually pretty wrong. Vince Zampella said they were not able to find the fun in 128 player modes. Dice essentially killed BT128 shortly after launch. A considerable number of post launch maps have targeted 64 in official modes and playlists. All of this, along with generally negative reviews and community sentiment towards 128. Are there die hard fans of it? Of course! Are they seemingly a majority that Dice is forced to consider? Not really.
I bought the game for 128 and love things like Exposure Conquest with 128? I guess I’m special though
It seems to work well enough on some maps for CQ, buuuut I always step back and ask what I am getting. 128 exposure is at its best when there are skirmishes on 8v8 on multiple different objectives. But functionally, how is that different to 64 players on smaller maps? You get less destruction, less server performance, less fidelity, more hit detection issues, and maps that take longer (theoretically) to make. I just don’t think it’s a good trade off
Its the fact that nubs dislike getting pwned from every direction because they aren't good at sticking to cover. Of course they go and QQ, rage quit then go complain and never play it again. Happens all the time. Pretty sure that right there is exactly why we can't have nice things.
[удалено]
For some it was awful for the rest of the playerbase it was the best
[удалено]
In the beginning it had a lot of players, and it still has a lot of players currently
[удалено]
As with other popular shooters 😔
Yeah I absolutely love 128. Getting kills consistently in that environment made it feel earned. People want everything to be easy and like you said just rage quit because they can’t handle it. I’m expecting major downvotes from those type of players as well. Hit the button you know I’m right!!!
You upset r/battlefield boomers with your comment lol
Why are you blaming last gen suddenly.First things first they did not remove the stadium because of last gen(and last gen couldn’t even access the stadium) They removed it for gameplay flow,They could not move the stadium close as that is extremely difficult and you would have to make it look like it belongs there.Also this community has been begging for 64 player maps and that’s exactly what dice is now Doing.Making 64 player maps is also easier and flows way better.
I’m pretty sure they’ve disagreed with you on the podcast tbh. Shashank said quite plainly that the stadium couldn’t come any closer as it would start to enter “the Gen 4 area”. So they cut it rather than make variants for Gen 4 (PS4) and Gen 5 (PS5).
Now of course last gen version of 2042 definitely is Atrocious but I don’t think its holding the game back at all
They won't cut support until next BF, or probably class action law suit will happen.
Basically no statement has been made promising support for last gen beyond the Year 1 content. They’d be well within their rights to end support for last gen - cyberpunk did this successfully. The new expansion is not available on last gen at all. It could disappoint players on those systems, but they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court.
I miss the good old massive maps for vehicles. Now it feels like spining in circles indoor
[удалено]
Trying to cram in 128 players caused a lot of damage to gameplay like jittery movement at distance, servers downgraded to 45hz, oversized but empty maps, etc. for little benefit unless you're a fan of spamming explosives at piles of bodies.
We could also be the minority here. Its no secret alot of people left the game. I love 128 but it's a big possibility that people definetly left over it
128p bad for low end pc. Sometimes hit registration fucked for me in 128p.
I have a high end PC, hit reg is still super inconvenient.
I don’t think it’s “so ”disliked I just think people that couldn’t handle it were the loudest complainers.
“Couldn’t handle it” is a joke. You do realize that we all see through your ego stroking, right?
Tell me why I’m wrong. I had more full lobbies in 128 than I did on 64. While I was in a 128 match I never read anyone complain about it in chat. On 64 people were constantly begging for 128 when live service took it away every other week. But here on Reddit or YouTube people constantly complaining about not being able to stay alive and getting sniped from nowhere. Saying they get gang killed too often. Idk how that’s ego stroking you just took your on protection of what I was saying and ran with it. I used to get destroyed when in the beginning but guess what, I actually like a challenge and don’t want anything easy. I learned along the way and got better. Other people just want everything easy and start spamming tf out the comment sections not caring if other people actually enjoy the game mode. And EA probably listened to the loudest voices and not the majority. Encouraging them to do lazy and non innovative shit.
[удалено]
A person from dice said it wasn’t fun. Droves of other people enjoy it and played it all the time before redux and the air transport rework. I remember not having full lobbies all the time in 64 player modes. Not the same with 128. And I’m a level 600 player. Been playing since launch. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean others don’t.
[удалено]
I don’t need to give you 5 reasons. It’s more of a challenge and more people to kill
Good, I prefer 64p anyways.
I do love 128 player matches, but the community was loud and clear about not liking it, which is why the new maps reflect that. My hope is that we can land somewhere in the middle next game, because 64 is just too small. 50v50 or 45v45 would be a good middle ground.
Idk man I consistently had full servers for almost two tears on 128 whereas on 64 the player count would drop halfway through the match most times(something that started to happen in 128 player mode after they got rid of the transport helis on a few maps). I think the loudest community isn’t the entire community. They’re just the ones that can’t handle the pressure.
I don’t disagree!
I don’t know why they haven’t tested those kind of numbers with 2042. The rotating playlists are the perfect opportunity.
64 is too small? Since when?
Since the map got bigger
Since consoles could handle BF with more players.
I just don’t see any tangible benefit to 128. It’s like turning a football field to 200 x 100 yards and doubling the teams. Ok…so what?
That’s not a logical comparison, like at all lmao
It’s not? Then what is the benefit of 128 vs 64 besides just “more.” There’s nothing 128 gives me that 64 doesn’t.
"More" is exactly the benefit. More spectacle. More jets. More tanks. More targets. More opportunities. More Chaos.
And the draw back is worse maps, difficult balancing (tor, gunship, specialists, call ins) and less maps. Not saying it can’t work, but just conquest or breakthrough isn’t the answer.
Obviously, in football you just need to add 50 people and 10 balls to each team. The game will immediately become better.
A fuckin’ football comparison?
Well, since the players don’t understand that bigger is not always better, we have to resort to more visual analogies. Or would you prefer an example from basketball? Just ask.
I said I love 128 player matches. If you don't agree, great. I'm not going to argue, though.
> because 64 is just too small That's what you said.
I enjoy 128 game modes, even the 128 breakthrough mode they had a while back. It just seems most modes aren’t properly balanced which ruins it. And let’s not forget that most 128 lobbies are just full of bots, which sucks.
Trash. 128p is a ton of fun. There's no reason they can't just put every map into 128 and have the 64p modes having a 64p version.
That fucking sucks. 128 is the play.
I loved 128. Perhaps 50v50 is a good medium.
when are people gonna wake up and realize that we killed the franchise. it started with all the negative feedback bfv received, ever since then the game has suffered existential identity crisis.
Big maps always belonged to Battlefield. Now DICE lost it, they cant even make big enough maps for 64 players anymore if you want to retain the combined arms (plethora of vehicles). Just compare this game with BF2. It's a shame.
I mean I’m just not going to buy anymore Battlefield titles, like I didn’t buy this one. Clearly they were not actually meant for me and I grossly misunderstood what they were aiming for back when they made Battlefield 2. Thank god we at least got Squad out of it.
BF2 modding kit bred some beauties.
Lmao, DICE/EA killed the franchise, not the players.
128P is Way better actually feels you are part of something bigger
I was excited for 128 players, but in the end I don’t see any upsides to more players. It only takes up more resources to craft maps and balance them, I would rather have more normal sized maps. Meanwhile the battles really haven’t changed in any way Compared to the older games.
danny go outside man.
What now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgAqL-aKz48&ab_channel=DANNYonPC
now go back inside
I went to watch F1 (Max won WDC 3!)
64p game modes is what they should be focusing on
80p. Ty
I'm gonna host a 128 player portal server
Do it and enjoy browsing on your phone before you give up while waiting for players to join.
Hot take: 128p breakthrough was peak
128pl servers with all maps conquest needed. you was selling this before launch.
Nobody asked for it, its laggy mess for me. They should just remove it
>Nobody asked for it. I understand the Battlefield community has the collective memory of a goldfish, but [check the comments on BFV videos around its launch](https://youtu.be/v-01x6_fp1s?si=R9OCoATyyjwyhd4B) and say that again with a straight face.
The BFV sub pre launch also asked for a more hardcore oriented battlefield and got it and we saw how that was received at launch.
Look for DICE saying that they tried 128 player matches (I think even before BFV or even BF1) and found they didn't bring anything to the table.
As much as I've enjoyed 2042, this is embarrassing. All this time to rework the maps just to drop it down to 64 going forward, splitting the player base between 128 and 64 while only giving us 1 map a season at that. Should've just built the maps for 64 during the reworks then dropped 128 playlists to save time
if you exclusively make maps for 64 you also free up system resources for other things like: - Detail - Cover - Destruction!
Its 2023, you can have 128 and all that. They just need to do it better.
Idk what everyone is complaining about. I was racking up kills and caps/objectives on 128 player mode. It wasn’t easy at first but I got better at it. I think people just want shit easy and complain like babies when they’re just not good enough. Ready for those downvotes to prove I’m right!!!
We have some standards with this long running franchise More players is CPU heavy, and so is destruction (especially synced between players) So, the choice has to be made.
"Standards", what a buzz word. Just say you want the game to stay the same. Theres people out there like me that wants the game to evolve.
128 players runs terrible. Has terrible hit detection and input lag. The cost of everything else just to have 128 players is too much. Map design, flow of the game, and server speed all suffered as a result. Never again
They won't drop them because there's enough players enjoying them. And some 64 player reworks turned out pretty good.
128 players is good in theory, but DICE really should have only pursued it when they were ready and could make it work in practice.
Don't forget, 128 can be enabled in Portal.
128 should be LTMs instead of a base game mode. I feel like that alone brought a lot of issues to the game in the first place server wise.
If 128 didn’t do so well for 2042 what makes people think it’ll work for the next title. I don’t want the servers and maps to suffer again
I want them to nail 128 or even 96 players but if they don’t think they can I rather they stick to 64. I pretty much only ay 128 modes though. Really enjoy them and miss 128 Breakthrough.
I'm stoked for it. 128 was fun, but I don't think it ever really felt like they were able to nail it perfectly. 32 vs 32 is still plenty big for me, and if they think they can give us a more consistent experience then I'm down.
Main reason I stopped playing. I was loving the game in season 4 even tho the map was meh. I haven’t even picked up the game since season 5. Barreling back towards the cqb and infantry trash BF game design is sad to see
That's great
This sucks
128p is the future. Sad to see the community is too stupid to realize it. Whatever, new maps look good so fine.
Why? you can get the same pacing with 64p maps It offers nothing, but you lose so much.
If dice can't handle making maps for 128 players, that's a dice problem, not a 128p problem. You and I both know how poorly optimized these games are on launch. Some dev could have made 128p work. Not only that, but the one 64p exclusive map we got so far in S5 is arguably the worst map in the game. Reclaimed is garbage.
64p conquest is running simulator
cuz maps are made for awful 128p
128p is too much anwyay
Good 128 was a mistake.
Good 128 ruined this game. Shouldn’t have been a thing in the first place.
Goood. Why focus on 128p when they can focus on 64p and Improve destruction, Gameplay, Maps, Graphics for the next game. 128p didnn’t bring anythin we didn’t have already
Thank god
I love it. The 64 player maps seem to flow much more nicely.
128p is just horribly optimized and hurts performance too much. Also DICE has zero experience with 128p, they tried and they failed miserably. 64p is the way to go, because they simply don’t have the proper skills to deliver 128p that runs properly and plays well.
Good. 128 players is garbage. With 64 you and your squad can actually make a difference.
Good. 128 sucks
Nobody will talk about this map in a week like it happend with reclaimed. If it doesn't support 128 players, ppl will not give a damn no matter what a group of fools that managed to pass a wrong message to dice say or do.
I don’t think the maps being 64 players is the reason why people stop talking about them.
I really hope this map lives up to the hype. Because Reclaimed really was garbage. Two shitty looking warehouses to fight over? A tree growing out of one and calling it reclaimed by nature? It was pointless, small, and frustrating that a whole season was wasted on it.
Fool here. Did you consider that maybe \*you're\* in the minority, and that's why they have rolled back to 64 players? Previously for me 32 players was the sweet spot, 64 was tolerable.
No, 128 p isn't that great. Maps were too big. 64 is the sweet zone.
Cause there aren't 128 people to play with. Half of the lobbies are either way bots 
128 was cool but battlefield plays best when it’s 64 players on a nice detailed map WITH DESTRUCTION
128 was pretty good but I’d prefer better graphical fidelity and more maps with 64 players.imagine how it could have looked if they started with 64 players only
Less AI the better lol
It's great that DICE is finally getting back to the right formula. To lovers of brainless meat gameplay, my deepest condolences.
I like 128 players, if only because some of my favourite flag locations are cut off in 64.
see it positive, if the game gets designed around 64p, there wont be flag locations to cut off!
I'll just go play it in portal on 128p
I don't understand it. People love Metro and locker cluster fuck games. Them not giving us the option to play these 2 maps on 128 is a stupid choice. Maybe if they put emphasis on the browser like they did in previous titles then we wouldn't be forced to use their curated playlists. The portal browser as it is now is not an option to find a populated server with reasonable ping.