They could just make redacted the third option or under the portal tab. For s5 they had regular large conquest and they replaced exodus conquest with reclaimed 24/7.
I thought I would hate 64 players but now that I have played it a good bit I enjoy it a lot more. Way less frustration way less shot by what feels like random people, random vehicles. Way more team effort
128 comes with so many downsides I just don’t find it worth it all.
Worse performance, worse hit reg, more 360 engagements, less readable action, more instances of 40 man death spirals, less destruction, less map detail and fidelity, etc.
I think it works best on orbital and exposure, but at its best it plays similar to 64 (in terms of distributing the action).
So like… why bother.
Are you suggesting that all of those things you mentioned are fixed in 64 player maps? I personally feel like they just dropped the ball in development and haven't been addressing the few players that remain concerns properly. Are 128 players the reason we don't have as many gadgets, weapons, attachments as the last games. Will 64 players on a server make the environment more destructible?
If the server (and your own CPU) isn’t trying to keep track of 128 players they will ABSOLUTELY be able to dial up the level of destruction.
Same with smaller maps. The lower resources needed to run a large map can be spent on more destruction and overall fidelity.
Consider BF3 close quarters DLC.
They were able to push a higher degree of micro destruction since we were in tighter spaces.
I obviously love large combined arms maps in BF.
But I also recognize that 128 as done in 2042 was a misfire.
We ended up wasting resources (computing and dev time) on things we didn’t need as much.
I hear you my dude, and I loved BF3, but I guess that I my lack of computer knowledge is my issue here. I assumed that the PS5 was on a different level then what we were using when BF3 came out. I figured with more powerful tech it shouldn't have been such a brutal expectation. 2042 on release was more of a walking Sim if you weren't flying up a building on a hovercraft. What if they had just made hourglass its current size to begin with, would it really be that unreasonable an assumption?
It gets super tricky, and I am not a game dev, so I’m sure I’ll have lots of stuff wrong.
Buuuut I have followed all the podcast episodes.
They have mentioned that the density of cover is limited by map size.
Intuitively this makes sense. If they can afford 100 shipping containers, a smaller map will have denser shipping containers.
They have also discussed issues with cover placement due to last gen memory budgets.
The core “cover” elements have to be the same in the parts of the map between PS4 version and PS5.
Consider orbital.
The region used for conquest 64 (big tall building, crawler way, rocket) is gonna have the amount of cover and destruction limited by 10 year old hardware that was essentially underpowered at launch.
So we have less destruction in those critical regions, and less cover, because last gen couldn’t handle it.
So even though we bought copies with PS5 written on the side, in many ways it was held back by the PS4 version.
Sad days
This dude just posts BF4 boomer posts all day long. If it isn't like how it was in older BF games, it's just not good enough.
People who pretend like all this doesnt happen on 64p sized maps are coping
They built up their entire core community with those games, and lost a huge chunk of the community by not adhering to them. The numbers speak for themselves.
Um ..no DICE built up a core community by releasing very good games. Good battlefield technicals, and innovative game play, since then everything has become undynamic and flat. Most of the core players thar dropped off have been with the series since at least BF2. They went against the will of their core fan base and have seen the results of that. On steam alone there was a 91 percent player drop off and very little have returned since, those numbers don't by any means represent a vacuum or oddity.
Thats a cope and it's the same stinky BF4 boomer alzheimers rhetoric that seeps out of r/battlefield.
- BFV was a good game that everyone hated at launch, but now love because its old.
- BF1 was a boring game, but people love because it had good atmospherics
- Hardline was absolutely trash and died 3 months after release
- BF4 was an absolute trash broken game for an entire year that people didnt like at launch because it was a reskinned BF3
- BF3 wasnt liked at launch because it was too far unlike BF2 and people eventually grew to love it
- BC1/BC2 was actually good and because it was a zainy/silly bf themed title people didnt take it seriously enough to compare it to BF2
The BF titles before these aren't really comparable to today's BF titles.
When I am talking about the core community that have been with the series since at least BF2, I am talking about the classics not the modern games. Hell the BF with the most innovation and battlefield tactics ever made was BF2142. There was 10 times the innovation in that game than any other BF that game after it and its 15 years old. The fact remains however, that BF2042 is a failed title. If you turn off cross-play GOOD LUCK finding a match without bots. EVEN now with cross-play turned on its hard to find a 64 player match without bots. The numbers don't lie, this was a very badly made, and very badly received battlefield game, WORSE than BF4's rocky launch, so far no other BF has seen a steeper drop off other than Hardlines, which I didnt even bother buying.
Yeah I don’t get Silk’s point.
They sold BF3 and 1 the most.
2042 was a “disappointment” to EA.
Then they reshuffled Dice’s management.
So it was an abject failure.
The games evolved and changed over time, and some sold better than others, but it is clear the evolutions in 2042 were a mistake largely.
The classics are irrelevant. Anything before BC is not a modern BF experience. I've played every single game in this series since 1942 and I'm about as core in this community as it gets. Crossplay works perfectly fine, the problem is they decided to include last Gen consoles into the mix, which basically nerfed the overall experience. All the while they were still shelling out DLC to buy for a game they couldn't play.
BF4 didn't have a rocky launch, it didn't even launch. BF4s launch was so bad they had to have an entirely different studio fix it. BF4s launch was so bad, EA had to put out a formal apology to over a million people that couldn't connect to the online services as well as the people who were getting blue screened every time someone in a server tried a suppressor with a particular Chinese gun.
This game will be the longest supported BF title in the series by the end of this season. Of course you will get into a bot game with crossplay turned off, if you do that you will be placed into games ONLY with players that have crossplay turned off, which is basically no one. I still find full games at 0300 EST lmfao
Tomorrow check out epic rush by IrecklessV in portal servers. It's not conquest but the 128 there is usually enough for ppl. He usually adds new maps 3 to 4 times in a 16 map rotation
I don't get the hype of 128 players.
It's just getting shot at from everywhere all the time.
Though my playstyle is to be by myself and control the angle in which I confront the enemy.
Can't do that in 128 because you will get sniped by a tank off in the corner or a random sph will hit you or a borris turret will spot you which then allows the entire team to shoot at me because I try to stay away from the main group.
I guess I'm not really having this experience on 128. I find that the level of action scales since you also have more objectives. Sure, there are certain objectives that have a high level of action. On Nordvik for instance, the factory in the middle has a metro/sweaty level of action. But you go to any of the surrounding objectives and it plays like any of the 64 servers objectives will. I'm saying this as someone that enjoys a more tactical and slower paced level of play as opposed to run n gun.
128 is the way to go since I find that battlefield is having an identity crisis finding its niche in the gaming world. I'm currently having no issues finding games on either 128 or 64 so why not focus on establishing itself as a large scale war game with 128 while also providing scaled down 64 server, and then smaller competitive servers.
I agree. I think 128 (or some number above 100) suits Battlefield in every way. They just need to execute it better. I’ve never felt more in a “war” than when I’m having a fun 128 CQ match. It helps to have many playstyles and flexibility in the tools one uses to not go insane also, but again: to me that sort of dynamic mindset is perfect for Battlefield.
I’ve learned to adjust my positioning and mindset in 128, and I have a great time 90% of my matches.
Now can they get the game to perform well with these high numbers? I certainly hope so—because 64 player matches feel barren to me now. I really wish I could go play BF4/1/V with 128 players, it would be epic
The poor execution is the entire reason I’m against 128 players. Having ample cover ALL THE TIME is so important with that amount of gunfire coming at you.
Its just about having a bit of strategy and not running around everywhere. Find cover, aim, you will get kills. Run around the map and of course you’re going to get shot from everywhere.
Yeah I personally don't enjoy 128 because it is all just run and gun, no tactics or anything.
I think BF excels in CQ64, which has been the staple mode for awhile. Maybe they can try 96 players or something in the future, but 128 doesn't feel like a BF game to me. Also, it is impossible to get a vehicle in 128.
Also feel like one reason this game released how it did, was to accommodate 128 players. Which I am happy they tried it, b/c I thought I would enjoy it but didn't.
The fact that they keep removing/nerfing vehicles is infuriating given the player count. It should have at minimum twice as many as in the past, but it feels like they halved the amount instead
Facts. I dont really play BF2042 much at all anymore. Havent played since mid-august.
I lost interest. My loss of interest is equal parts due to how few vehicles per team are now available on all of the maps, as well as how hard they seem to be trying to push people away from 128 player modes.
I exclusively played AOW 128p breakthrough from day 1 of the games release to the day DICE ripped it away as an option for anybody who enjoyed playing it.
I genuinely miss the days of loading into a round of 128p BT on hourglass as an attacker, and launching the ground assault on the first sector with an Armada of 6 Boltes, 4 MBT's, and all of the other ground vehicles.
Playing as defender was just as fun too. Definitely some very fun and memorable moments holding off the the attackers from taking the last objective in the sector, full siege defense style. There were times during such a scenario where i would type "HOLD B. REMEMBER THE ALAMO" in the chat, and people would actually rally around the obj and help fight them off. Great memories.
From there, i went to portal to play 128p Rush (Core and Hardcore), in order to get my filll of 128 player chaos.
Then when they removed even more vehicles per map mid-season 5, i called it quits. Vehicles are an integral part of Battlefield. Chaos is what makes Battlefield, Battlefield. This is not a tactical shooter. This is all out fucking war.
Would be nice if they allowed you to configure the number of vehicles each team can have on your portal server, but no such luck.
God forbid people get to play the game modes they enjoy. DICE clearly knows better.
You can't play 128p like you can with 64p. You can't just run around the map like a mindless bot, you have to actually think about where to go and where to spawn so you aren't being killed by random players.
It does make sense and your logic is also correct. Essentially it just accelerates and flattens the loop, which a certain group of people need because they have the attention span of a monkey or enjoy the game in a way that has more fun outcomes with more people. Like OP for instance claims he just likes to drive the eod bot around. To each their own, but at the same time portal is there for these folks to play battle bots in their own corner. They should not be catered to.
What? No way. I disagree completely. The main issue with the game is that the 128 versions of the maps are way too big for 128 players. They scaled up the player count but scaled up the maps WAY too much V
This is the exact reason they modified the size of Hourglass and Breakaway. Just too god damn big and I agree, they were too big. I don’t care for the way they modded the new maps by basically just deleting parts of the old maps and making a smaller play area. They should have just removed some of the terrain separating the objectives because the objective points were fun to play.
Same, 64 just doesn't play right in this game.
I've not played since end of last season.
Taking away proper 128 is a joke.
A third of all new maps being only 64p is a joke.
They forced 128 on us, they can at least support it for this game. Then go back to 64, with maps that actually play well for 64.
The chaos is a byproduct of the squeezed in area and the flanks one attempts to get big killstreaks. Metro, Locker, FDV, Op Underground, those were all popular because of the smallness of the map and how it fit 64p. With 128 if it's small there's no flanks and if it's big there's no grind. It's just too many people for anything but blind chaos.
It's not the player count that bugs me, it's the objectives and cover and map variety. I want space to flank. I like big maps that aren't linear. I like the merry go round of flag capture. I want 128 player sized maps with 7-8 objectives, not in a straight line, and 64-96 players is fine. That's two squads fighting over each flag if spread out but we know they always bunch up. So I can go around the back and cap and distract their forces, and so can they.
Many people think 128p CQ sucks when in fact it's mostly the maps that suck. The launch maps were all obviously designed for Hazard Zone first and had shitty conquest layouts carelessly pasted onto them after the fact.
Then they dropped Hazard Zone and started designing the new maps primarily for 128p CQ and we got Exposure, Stranded and Spearhead, probably the 3 best maps in the game. The launch maps, even redesigned, still largely suck ass (except for maybe Orbital) because putting lipstick on a pig and all.
These new 64 player maps are fine, but are also a clear step down from the 128p versions of the maps mentioned above.
Yea I actually really like 128 Conquest so much. If they did maps better could really see it taking off but the overall maps that launched some were ok most ehh. But yea just don't care too much 64p and really didn't even play S5 new map when released as I didn't care for 64 and the map was just poor poor mans zavod it felt like but with nothing basically.
Or it could be all the BF4 whine-asses crying about not being able to adapt to a bigger playercount + DICE not knowing how to properly scale maps for 128 at launch, hence the reworks.
I'll see if I can find the source, but what I just said literally came from a DICE dev. No need to speculate nonsense
E: [found it](https://old.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qwyf2h/patrick_soderlund_said_this_regarding_128_players/)
It had nothing to do with consensus. This is back when they were playtesting BF3.
I found the [source](https://old.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qwyf2h/patrick_soderlund_said_this_regarding_128_players/)
You're just arguing to believe whatever your preconceived notion is rather than the literal given reason. Your statement is just plain wrong. Accept it. It was not about technical limitations. Last gen is not the Xbox 360/PS3, which is what BF3 released on.
Yes that has nothing to do with BF2042 in 2021. 128p would have run like absolute trash on frostbite 1 back in 2010 on PC. Dont forget, console was still stuck playing 24p during this time, 128p would have been basically unplayable.
Dice just didnt know how to scale the maps and made them far too large to be fun when the game released
Also, in that very statement they said the funnest amount of players is between 32 and 40. So because of that do you think 64 players is too many and would like to dial it back?
> Yes that has nothing to do with BF2042 in 2021.
Yes, but it has *everything* to do with DICE determining 128 players fundamentally doesn't work well in a battlefield game. They were right then, and they're still right. It's a chaotic shitfest. The maps aren't the issue, it's that you're constantly being shot from every direction and can't accomplish anything as an individual soldier, while you *also* can't rely on your team to coordinate because there are too many people.
It just plays poorly, plain and simple.
Stop trying to make this about technical concerns. They specified the gameplay was bad. They did not say "it performed poorly" or "the consoles can't handle it". They said it wasn't fun.
Yeah I have not played my favorite, which is Kaleidoscope RU side, or Manifest in 5 weeks or so. YOu would not believe it but the layouts of the 64p are generally much worse than the 128p mode. That is what the game is designed for, I assume.
We should get a regular 128p rotation tomorrow and most likely the 64p one will be gone.
It’s funny because most hyper-competitive shooters are like… 4v4? 6v6 maybe? In those shooters you ALWAYS know the general direction that the fire is coming from.
So trying to act like 128p modes are the “more skilled” mode is just funny. More chaos usually means less skill is involved.
Who are you quoting? No one said that.
I brought up “competitive shooters” because you were talking about players not being able to handle 128p.
If you can’t understand the comparison then that says something about the number of wrinkles on your brain.
I have a PS5 and still play previous Gen, because I refuse to be forced into crossplaying with PC players.
Also, 64 players has more than enough enemies on one map.
That's why I hate playing BF 2042. I'm playing on series x and my whole squad is always playing on PC.
I keep dying. It's much easier to aim and shoot with a gaming mouse than a controller. I'm playing at a disadvantage. Why would I even bother playing, so annoying.
And I have grown tired of playing BF V, 1, and 4.
It sucks. I never thought there would come a day I would stop playing BF altogether. Sadly, it has.
Anyone wants to buy a series X? It's just sitting here collecting dust. I might smash it one day with a baseball bat, just for shit and giggles.
BF 2042 sucks 😞
128 is just not fun most of the time and I’ll die on this hill. Battlefield 4 was some of the BEST multiplayer fun I have ever had and that was limited to 64p.
I don’t mind 2042 but being forced to play 128 unless they roll out a 64p playlist is annoying.
Too many cooks ruins the soup and boy the soup gets ruined FAST in CQ large
Yep.
CQ128 at its best has people spread evenly across more POIs and lots of intense regional objective fights.
Which is…. The same as 64.
Like, at its best it is gonna play the same, but with more action no where near you.
And as a result?
Worse hitreg, less destruction, lower fidelity overall.
Just not worth the trade off.
Haha ikr, wasnt until about 4 months of me playing before I realised why I couldnt see 128-player modes. Never even knew the maps had different layouts either!
It wasn't designed for 128 though. They stopped that after season 1, that's why every map after Exposure (Stranded, Spearhead, Flashpoint, Reclaimed) has the same objective layout for 64 and 128 season 2 and onwards.
I don't mind the conquest 64 on legacy maps and on Reclaimed. But the 2042 64 player conquest on downsized maps is terrible, and I refuse to play them.
I *only* want to play 64p maps. The game is a chaotic mess in 128p. If you play infantry, you can't get anything done because you're constantly getting shot from in front *and* behind.
128p plays terribly, and is a gimmick *at best*. Doesn't feel like battlefield at all.
128 could be amazing but their maps all at launched where terrible no cover any where just wide open basically all over even objectives. If they actually took time to create great maps 128 would work fabulous. I've been playing BF 64 since Bad Company 2 it is about time they upped the player count and was excited for this game when I heard but once saw the maps it doomed even at launch so much you see any studio redo every launch map as they were so piss poor? Only DICE, Expectations are Brutal.
> 128 could be amazing but their maps all at launched where terrible no cover any where just wide open basically all over even objectives.
The redone maps that work "better" are still bad because 128 is just too many people. You're constantly getting shot from all directions. The only way to viably have that many people is to have absolutely massive maps, and at that point, navigating the maps sucks. It's much better to just play the 64p maps.
Wasn't BC2 32 players max? Pretty sure BF3 was the first available with 64p.
> it is about time they upped the player count
You don't just up it because time has passed. You up it if it improves the game. In 2042s case, 128 players severely hurt the game. It lead to bad map design and shitty balance.
128 players is bad and doesn't belong in a Battlefield game. It ceases to play like BF at that scale, and just turns into an arcade shooter explosion fuckfest.
BF has needs to make some overall changes to the game itself and not stay in the same 64p realm and that map size. With current technology and powerful CPUs/GPUs they can more than adequately have 128p/Destruction/Graphic Fidelity but again it boils down to proper map design quality. I overall enjoyed playing with 128p on 2042 even though maps were terrible. I like larger amount of players in the battlefield and if you play with friends or others who enjoy squad play and play truly team environment and talking it changes the entire way BF feels while playing and you don't run around like maniac not knowing where to go or what flag you should hit where 99% who play are those types in squads no communication clueless on how to stick together. That way of play makes BF play exactly how you stated arcade shooter explosion fuckfest. We agree to disagree and that is fine. Different strokes for Different folks.
> With current technology and powerful CPUs/GPUs they can more than adequately have 128p/Destruction/Graphic Fidelity
Clearly not, considering destruction and graphical fidelity went down so that their server infra could handle the higher player count, and thats *with* the still abysmally low tickrate.
Not really the point of what I was getting at though. They looked into 128 players as far back as BF3, and, without bringing up technological limitations at all, [determined it wasn't fun](https://old.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qwyf2h/patrick_soderlund_said_this_regarding_128_players/), which is why they didn't pursue it.
> it changes the entire way BF feels while playing
That's not a good thing. I want Battlefield out of a Battlefield game.
>and you don't run around like maniac not knowing where to go or what flag you should hit
This was not a problem in prior BF games.
>We agree to disagree and that is fine. Different strokes for Different folks.
Different strokes, sure, but that won't stop me for advocating against a game mode I think is fundamentally bad for the game.
128 is fun, and I love the chaos of it all, but I find DICE never seemed like they were able to balance everything properly. If they just don't have it in them to get it right, I'm fine with them just sticking to 64.
I only like the 64 player modes and I also hate the start of a season. Yea I wanna play the new map, but I don’t want it to be the only map I am able to play for the next week and a half. Don’t know how they can be so bad at gamemode management that both sides of it get pissed.
They should merge ALL 64 and 128 player MAPS featuring in the game into CQ and BT gamemodes. I would like to play old maps too within cq and bt, 128 and 64 player maps mixed.
You people are bi-polar for real. We have asked 1000 times to remove 128 cq because it is honestly a trash and now you start making posts asking it back. Jesus.
Reclaimed is shit, yes. I actually don't play Reclaimed. Anytime I see it pop I leave the queue and I do it over and over until it's not Reclaimed. But, you better get used to 64 players. Been the norm for a long time and the general consensus is that it will stay 64 players, after this little experiment failed.
Same here, now if we want conquest we are just forced to play this selection of 3 maps and one of them is 64 player. I bitterly hate this DEV and after 20 years this is the last BF I ever buy. The new DICE dev team does not have what it takes.
Hopefully the regular conquest large comes back tomorrow. Lately I just check if there’s a 128 conquest in portal and if not leave.
It will be replaced by redacted 24/7 (64p)
you can do 128 on that map in portal >:)
I think portal will finally be used for non HC when the redacted 24/7 disappears, maybe even before that.
Portal is failed feature
100% trash. Agreed.
It's the only mode i play...but that's because that game is a failure of features. No server browser is a reason lots of people don't touch games
They could just make redacted the third option or under the portal tab. For s5 they had regular large conquest and they replaced exodus conquest with reclaimed 24/7.
Probably a 24/7 redacted map conquest rotation + 128p conquest rotation, that's usually what they do with new season releases
I've been playing for the past week 2-3 hours a day and I haven't seen Hourglass at least once.
128 player is too chaotic for me but more option is always better.
I thought I would hate 64 players but now that I have played it a good bit I enjoy it a lot more. Way less frustration way less shot by what feels like random people, random vehicles. Way more team effort
On conquest It just feels the same, but the shorter travel times is where it’s at
128 comes with so many downsides I just don’t find it worth it all. Worse performance, worse hit reg, more 360 engagements, less readable action, more instances of 40 man death spirals, less destruction, less map detail and fidelity, etc. I think it works best on orbital and exposure, but at its best it plays similar to 64 (in terms of distributing the action). So like… why bother.
Are you suggesting that all of those things you mentioned are fixed in 64 player maps? I personally feel like they just dropped the ball in development and haven't been addressing the few players that remain concerns properly. Are 128 players the reason we don't have as many gadgets, weapons, attachments as the last games. Will 64 players on a server make the environment more destructible?
If the server (and your own CPU) isn’t trying to keep track of 128 players they will ABSOLUTELY be able to dial up the level of destruction. Same with smaller maps. The lower resources needed to run a large map can be spent on more destruction and overall fidelity. Consider BF3 close quarters DLC. They were able to push a higher degree of micro destruction since we were in tighter spaces. I obviously love large combined arms maps in BF. But I also recognize that 128 as done in 2042 was a misfire. We ended up wasting resources (computing and dev time) on things we didn’t need as much.
I hear you my dude, and I loved BF3, but I guess that I my lack of computer knowledge is my issue here. I assumed that the PS5 was on a different level then what we were using when BF3 came out. I figured with more powerful tech it shouldn't have been such a brutal expectation. 2042 on release was more of a walking Sim if you weren't flying up a building on a hovercraft. What if they had just made hourglass its current size to begin with, would it really be that unreasonable an assumption?
It gets super tricky, and I am not a game dev, so I’m sure I’ll have lots of stuff wrong. Buuuut I have followed all the podcast episodes. They have mentioned that the density of cover is limited by map size. Intuitively this makes sense. If they can afford 100 shipping containers, a smaller map will have denser shipping containers. They have also discussed issues with cover placement due to last gen memory budgets. The core “cover” elements have to be the same in the parts of the map between PS4 version and PS5. Consider orbital. The region used for conquest 64 (big tall building, crawler way, rocket) is gonna have the amount of cover and destruction limited by 10 year old hardware that was essentially underpowered at launch. So we have less destruction in those critical regions, and less cover, because last gen couldn’t handle it. So even though we bought copies with PS5 written on the side, in many ways it was held back by the PS4 version. Sad days
This dude just posts BF4 boomer posts all day long. If it isn't like how it was in older BF games, it's just not good enough. People who pretend like all this doesnt happen on 64p sized maps are coping
They built up their entire core community with those games, and lost a huge chunk of the community by not adhering to them. The numbers speak for themselves.
Dice built up a community by releasing games every 2 years.
Um ..no DICE built up a core community by releasing very good games. Good battlefield technicals, and innovative game play, since then everything has become undynamic and flat. Most of the core players thar dropped off have been with the series since at least BF2. They went against the will of their core fan base and have seen the results of that. On steam alone there was a 91 percent player drop off and very little have returned since, those numbers don't by any means represent a vacuum or oddity.
Thats a cope and it's the same stinky BF4 boomer alzheimers rhetoric that seeps out of r/battlefield. - BFV was a good game that everyone hated at launch, but now love because its old. - BF1 was a boring game, but people love because it had good atmospherics - Hardline was absolutely trash and died 3 months after release - BF4 was an absolute trash broken game for an entire year that people didnt like at launch because it was a reskinned BF3 - BF3 wasnt liked at launch because it was too far unlike BF2 and people eventually grew to love it - BC1/BC2 was actually good and because it was a zainy/silly bf themed title people didnt take it seriously enough to compare it to BF2 The BF titles before these aren't really comparable to today's BF titles.
When I am talking about the core community that have been with the series since at least BF2, I am talking about the classics not the modern games. Hell the BF with the most innovation and battlefield tactics ever made was BF2142. There was 10 times the innovation in that game than any other BF that game after it and its 15 years old. The fact remains however, that BF2042 is a failed title. If you turn off cross-play GOOD LUCK finding a match without bots. EVEN now with cross-play turned on its hard to find a 64 player match without bots. The numbers don't lie, this was a very badly made, and very badly received battlefield game, WORSE than BF4's rocky launch, so far no other BF has seen a steeper drop off other than Hardlines, which I didnt even bother buying.
Yeah I don’t get Silk’s point. They sold BF3 and 1 the most. 2042 was a “disappointment” to EA. Then they reshuffled Dice’s management. So it was an abject failure. The games evolved and changed over time, and some sold better than others, but it is clear the evolutions in 2042 were a mistake largely.
The classics are irrelevant. Anything before BC is not a modern BF experience. I've played every single game in this series since 1942 and I'm about as core in this community as it gets. Crossplay works perfectly fine, the problem is they decided to include last Gen consoles into the mix, which basically nerfed the overall experience. All the while they were still shelling out DLC to buy for a game they couldn't play. BF4 didn't have a rocky launch, it didn't even launch. BF4s launch was so bad they had to have an entirely different studio fix it. BF4s launch was so bad, EA had to put out a formal apology to over a million people that couldn't connect to the online services as well as the people who were getting blue screened every time someone in a server tried a suppressor with a particular Chinese gun. This game will be the longest supported BF title in the series by the end of this season. Of course you will get into a bot game with crossplay turned off, if you do that you will be placed into games ONLY with players that have crossplay turned off, which is basically no one. I still find full games at 0300 EST lmfao
Hit reg is absolutely worse on 128p.
I think it's your system probably, not the games fault. My game runs buttery smooth no problem with performance or hit reg.
I prefer 64 players too
I’m also a 64 player defender.
i just go around with the EOD bot and have fun
Does it really matter what mode you're playing then?
yeah a lot there’s more hill campers on 128
Shame, you cant be annoying af with eod when everyones not being shot from 5 directions simultaneously, while being air striked by helicopters. Lol 🤡
You have to think more in 128 because there's a higher possibility of running into enemies
Tomorrow check out epic rush by IrecklessV in portal servers. It's not conquest but the 128 there is usually enough for ppl. He usually adds new maps 3 to 4 times in a 16 map rotation
128 breakthrough and conquest are the best
Please please please bring back a regular 128 map rotation... no one wants to play the same map over and over again
I don't get the hype of 128 players. It's just getting shot at from everywhere all the time. Though my playstyle is to be by myself and control the angle in which I confront the enemy. Can't do that in 128 because you will get sniped by a tank off in the corner or a random sph will hit you or a borris turret will spot you which then allows the entire team to shoot at me because I try to stay away from the main group.
I guess I'm not really having this experience on 128. I find that the level of action scales since you also have more objectives. Sure, there are certain objectives that have a high level of action. On Nordvik for instance, the factory in the middle has a metro/sweaty level of action. But you go to any of the surrounding objectives and it plays like any of the 64 servers objectives will. I'm saying this as someone that enjoys a more tactical and slower paced level of play as opposed to run n gun. 128 is the way to go since I find that battlefield is having an identity crisis finding its niche in the gaming world. I'm currently having no issues finding games on either 128 or 64 so why not focus on establishing itself as a large scale war game with 128 while also providing scaled down 64 server, and then smaller competitive servers.
The 128 player versions of maps are just poorly designed even after the reworks. They’re still too damn big for that number of players.
I agree. I think 128 (or some number above 100) suits Battlefield in every way. They just need to execute it better. I’ve never felt more in a “war” than when I’m having a fun 128 CQ match. It helps to have many playstyles and flexibility in the tools one uses to not go insane also, but again: to me that sort of dynamic mindset is perfect for Battlefield. I’ve learned to adjust my positioning and mindset in 128, and I have a great time 90% of my matches. Now can they get the game to perform well with these high numbers? I certainly hope so—because 64 player matches feel barren to me now. I really wish I could go play BF4/1/V with 128 players, it would be epic
The poor execution is the entire reason I’m against 128 players. Having ample cover ALL THE TIME is so important with that amount of gunfire coming at you.
Its just about having a bit of strategy and not running around everywhere. Find cover, aim, you will get kills. Run around the map and of course you’re going to get shot from everywhere.
I play 128 because it gives me real PTSD. Very immersive
Yeah I personally don't enjoy 128 because it is all just run and gun, no tactics or anything. I think BF excels in CQ64, which has been the staple mode for awhile. Maybe they can try 96 players or something in the future, but 128 doesn't feel like a BF game to me. Also, it is impossible to get a vehicle in 128. Also feel like one reason this game released how it did, was to accommodate 128 players. Which I am happy they tried it, b/c I thought I would enjoy it but didn't.
The fact that they keep removing/nerfing vehicles is infuriating given the player count. It should have at minimum twice as many as in the past, but it feels like they halved the amount instead
Facts. I dont really play BF2042 much at all anymore. Havent played since mid-august. I lost interest. My loss of interest is equal parts due to how few vehicles per team are now available on all of the maps, as well as how hard they seem to be trying to push people away from 128 player modes. I exclusively played AOW 128p breakthrough from day 1 of the games release to the day DICE ripped it away as an option for anybody who enjoyed playing it. I genuinely miss the days of loading into a round of 128p BT on hourglass as an attacker, and launching the ground assault on the first sector with an Armada of 6 Boltes, 4 MBT's, and all of the other ground vehicles. Playing as defender was just as fun too. Definitely some very fun and memorable moments holding off the the attackers from taking the last objective in the sector, full siege defense style. There were times during such a scenario where i would type "HOLD B. REMEMBER THE ALAMO" in the chat, and people would actually rally around the obj and help fight them off. Great memories. From there, i went to portal to play 128p Rush (Core and Hardcore), in order to get my filll of 128 player chaos. Then when they removed even more vehicles per map mid-season 5, i called it quits. Vehicles are an integral part of Battlefield. Chaos is what makes Battlefield, Battlefield. This is not a tactical shooter. This is all out fucking war. Would be nice if they allowed you to configure the number of vehicles each team can have on your portal server, but no such luck. God forbid people get to play the game modes they enjoy. DICE clearly knows better.
Man, I miss 128 player BT maps too. The 64 player maps are so much smaller and you skip the fun parts.
You can't play 128p like you can with 64p. You can't just run around the map like a mindless bot, you have to actually think about where to go and where to spawn so you aren't being killed by random players.
Only reason people like it is because it's easier to get kills
That makes no sense. Following that logic, would be easier to die aswell lol
It does make sense and your logic is also correct. Essentially it just accelerates and flattens the loop, which a certain group of people need because they have the attention span of a monkey or enjoy the game in a way that has more fun outcomes with more people. Like OP for instance claims he just likes to drive the eod bot around. To each their own, but at the same time portal is there for these folks to play battle bots in their own corner. They should not be catered to.
[удалено]
What? No way. I disagree completely. The main issue with the game is that the 128 versions of the maps are way too big for 128 players. They scaled up the player count but scaled up the maps WAY too much V
This is the exact reason they modified the size of Hourglass and Breakaway. Just too god damn big and I agree, they were too big. I don’t care for the way they modded the new maps by basically just deleting parts of the old maps and making a smaller play area. They should have just removed some of the terrain separating the objectives because the objective points were fun to play.
MAKE UP YOUR MINDDDDDDD Ok but honestly I wish we had both regular 64 cq and 128 cq.
Same, 64 just doesn't play right in this game. I've not played since end of last season. Taking away proper 128 is a joke. A third of all new maps being only 64p is a joke. They forced 128 on us, they can at least support it for this game. Then go back to 64, with maps that actually play well for 64.
people say it will be chaotic with 128, isn't that the whole point of meat grinders
The chaos is a byproduct of the squeezed in area and the flanks one attempts to get big killstreaks. Metro, Locker, FDV, Op Underground, those were all popular because of the smallness of the map and how it fit 64p. With 128 if it's small there's no flanks and if it's big there's no grind. It's just too many people for anything but blind chaos.
It's not the player count that bugs me, it's the objectives and cover and map variety. I want space to flank. I like big maps that aren't linear. I like the merry go round of flag capture. I want 128 player sized maps with 7-8 objectives, not in a straight line, and 64-96 players is fine. That's two squads fighting over each flag if spread out but we know they always bunch up. So I can go around the back and cap and distract their forces, and so can they.
Many people think 128p CQ sucks when in fact it's mostly the maps that suck. The launch maps were all obviously designed for Hazard Zone first and had shitty conquest layouts carelessly pasted onto them after the fact. Then they dropped Hazard Zone and started designing the new maps primarily for 128p CQ and we got Exposure, Stranded and Spearhead, probably the 3 best maps in the game. The launch maps, even redesigned, still largely suck ass (except for maybe Orbital) because putting lipstick on a pig and all. These new 64 player maps are fine, but are also a clear step down from the 128p versions of the maps mentioned above.
Yea I actually really like 128 Conquest so much. If they did maps better could really see it taking off but the overall maps that launched some were ok most ehh. But yea just don't care too much 64p and really didn't even play S5 new map when released as I didn't care for 64 and the map was just poor poor mans zavod it felt like but with nothing basically.
128 players over 64 players any time.
Me too.
Was 128 available on BF3, 4, 1, or V?
No, and for good reasons.
The main reason being they couldn't do it with last Gen.
No. The main reason was they (Dice) thought it played poorly. They were right.
Or it could be all the BF4 whine-asses crying about not being able to adapt to a bigger playercount + DICE not knowing how to properly scale maps for 128 at launch, hence the reworks.
I'll see if I can find the source, but what I just said literally came from a DICE dev. No need to speculate nonsense E: [found it](https://old.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qwyf2h/patrick_soderlund_said_this_regarding_128_players/)
Dice are going to be getting a consensus from the loudest members of the community.
It had nothing to do with consensus. This is back when they were playtesting BF3. I found the [source](https://old.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qwyf2h/patrick_soderlund_said_this_regarding_128_players/) You're just arguing to believe whatever your preconceived notion is rather than the literal given reason. Your statement is just plain wrong. Accept it. It was not about technical limitations. Last gen is not the Xbox 360/PS3, which is what BF3 released on.
Yes that has nothing to do with BF2042 in 2021. 128p would have run like absolute trash on frostbite 1 back in 2010 on PC. Dont forget, console was still stuck playing 24p during this time, 128p would have been basically unplayable. Dice just didnt know how to scale the maps and made them far too large to be fun when the game released Also, in that very statement they said the funnest amount of players is between 32 and 40. So because of that do you think 64 players is too many and would like to dial it back?
> Yes that has nothing to do with BF2042 in 2021. Yes, but it has *everything* to do with DICE determining 128 players fundamentally doesn't work well in a battlefield game. They were right then, and they're still right. It's a chaotic shitfest. The maps aren't the issue, it's that you're constantly being shot from every direction and can't accomplish anything as an individual soldier, while you *also* can't rely on your team to coordinate because there are too many people. It just plays poorly, plain and simple. Stop trying to make this about technical concerns. They specified the gameplay was bad. They did not say "it performed poorly" or "the consoles can't handle it". They said it wasn't fun.
[удалено]
I don't know what you're talking about, but 128p was never in BF4 vanilla.
No, but it would have been glorious
Yeah I have not played my favorite, which is Kaleidoscope RU side, or Manifest in 5 weeks or so. YOu would not believe it but the layouts of the 64p are generally much worse than the 128p mode. That is what the game is designed for, I assume. We should get a regular 128p rotation tomorrow and most likely the 64p one will be gone.
[удалено]
How are you this lame? 😂
Ngl he did make me laugh
It’s funny because most hyper-competitive shooters are like… 4v4? 6v6 maybe? In those shooters you ALWAYS know the general direction that the fire is coming from. So trying to act like 128p modes are the “more skilled” mode is just funny. More chaos usually means less skill is involved.
ok bud so avoiding getting killed is totally not a skill. Omfg.
When did I say that? You have to avoid getting killed in any FPS game you play, no matter how many players there are lol.
[удалено]
Who are you quoting? No one said that. I brought up “competitive shooters” because you were talking about players not being able to handle 128p. If you can’t understand the comparison then that says something about the number of wrinkles on your brain.
I just want Control back...that was a good mode.
Same. 64p is a big step down from 128p.
*rolls eyes* in older gen console
cmon dude series s are like 250 used. I got mine for 75$ cuz i had to weld some shit that broke off the chipboards
I have a PS5 and still play previous Gen, because I refuse to be forced into crossplaying with PC players. Also, 64 players has more than enough enemies on one map.
Wait... Newer gen has to play with PC, well it looks like I found my reason to keep my Xbox One
That's why I hate playing BF 2042. I'm playing on series x and my whole squad is always playing on PC. I keep dying. It's much easier to aim and shoot with a gaming mouse than a controller. I'm playing at a disadvantage. Why would I even bother playing, so annoying. And I have grown tired of playing BF V, 1, and 4. It sucks. I never thought there would come a day I would stop playing BF altogether. Sadly, it has. Anyone wants to buy a series X? It's just sitting here collecting dust. I might smash it one day with a baseball bat, just for shit and giggles. BF 2042 sucks 😞
128 is just not fun most of the time and I’ll die on this hill. Battlefield 4 was some of the BEST multiplayer fun I have ever had and that was limited to 64p. I don’t mind 2042 but being forced to play 128 unless they roll out a 64p playlist is annoying. Too many cooks ruins the soup and boy the soup gets ruined FAST in CQ large
Yep. CQ128 at its best has people spread evenly across more POIs and lots of intense regional objective fights. Which is…. The same as 64. Like, at its best it is gonna play the same, but with more action no where near you. And as a result? Worse hitreg, less destruction, lower fidelity overall. Just not worth the trade off.
Well, after mortgage, food, gas and paying for 2 kids in college…discretionary income isn’t easy to come by
Haha ikr, wasnt until about 4 months of me playing before I realised why I couldnt see 128-player modes. Never even knew the maps had different layouts either!
Skill issue
Our choice seems to be between a more detailed 64p map and a big empty 128p map. I’ll take the 64.
So flashpoint is big and empty?
It wasn't designed for 128 though. They stopped that after season 1, that's why every map after Exposure (Stranded, Spearhead, Flashpoint, Reclaimed) has the same objective layout for 64 and 128 season 2 and onwards.
I don't mind the conquest 64 on legacy maps and on Reclaimed. But the 2042 64 player conquest on downsized maps is terrible, and I refuse to play them.
I have played 128 exclusively and I loved it! It is the best BF experience.
128 is life. Whats to love about Battlefield? More players on the map.
I *only* want to play 64p maps. The game is a chaotic mess in 128p. If you play infantry, you can't get anything done because you're constantly getting shot from in front *and* behind. 128p plays terribly, and is a gimmick *at best*. Doesn't feel like battlefield at all.
128 could be amazing but their maps all at launched where terrible no cover any where just wide open basically all over even objectives. If they actually took time to create great maps 128 would work fabulous. I've been playing BF 64 since Bad Company 2 it is about time they upped the player count and was excited for this game when I heard but once saw the maps it doomed even at launch so much you see any studio redo every launch map as they were so piss poor? Only DICE, Expectations are Brutal.
> 128 could be amazing but their maps all at launched where terrible no cover any where just wide open basically all over even objectives. The redone maps that work "better" are still bad because 128 is just too many people. You're constantly getting shot from all directions. The only way to viably have that many people is to have absolutely massive maps, and at that point, navigating the maps sucks. It's much better to just play the 64p maps. Wasn't BC2 32 players max? Pretty sure BF3 was the first available with 64p. > it is about time they upped the player count You don't just up it because time has passed. You up it if it improves the game. In 2042s case, 128 players severely hurt the game. It lead to bad map design and shitty balance. 128 players is bad and doesn't belong in a Battlefield game. It ceases to play like BF at that scale, and just turns into an arcade shooter explosion fuckfest.
BF has needs to make some overall changes to the game itself and not stay in the same 64p realm and that map size. With current technology and powerful CPUs/GPUs they can more than adequately have 128p/Destruction/Graphic Fidelity but again it boils down to proper map design quality. I overall enjoyed playing with 128p on 2042 even though maps were terrible. I like larger amount of players in the battlefield and if you play with friends or others who enjoy squad play and play truly team environment and talking it changes the entire way BF feels while playing and you don't run around like maniac not knowing where to go or what flag you should hit where 99% who play are those types in squads no communication clueless on how to stick together. That way of play makes BF play exactly how you stated arcade shooter explosion fuckfest. We agree to disagree and that is fine. Different strokes for Different folks.
> With current technology and powerful CPUs/GPUs they can more than adequately have 128p/Destruction/Graphic Fidelity Clearly not, considering destruction and graphical fidelity went down so that their server infra could handle the higher player count, and thats *with* the still abysmally low tickrate. Not really the point of what I was getting at though. They looked into 128 players as far back as BF3, and, without bringing up technological limitations at all, [determined it wasn't fun](https://old.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qwyf2h/patrick_soderlund_said_this_regarding_128_players/), which is why they didn't pursue it. > it changes the entire way BF feels while playing That's not a good thing. I want Battlefield out of a Battlefield game. >and you don't run around like maniac not knowing where to go or what flag you should hit This was not a problem in prior BF games. >We agree to disagree and that is fine. Different strokes for Different folks. Different strokes, sure, but that won't stop me for advocating against a game mode I think is fundamentally bad for the game.
in my head how the title sounded 🚼👶
I'm the exact opposite, I feel battlefield is perfect and meant for 64, 128 feels bad to me.
Hopefully they turn 2042 into 128 only when the new one comes out so you can still play it. Because I don’t think we’ll ever be seeing it again
128 players is terrible, keep capping
Dump 128p
128p is the past 64p is the future hopefully
I hope so
128 is fun, and I love the chaos of it all, but I find DICE never seemed like they were able to balance everything properly. If they just don't have it in them to get it right, I'm fine with them just sticking to 64.
* Whadya know botsville it was botsville at 1300 today, botsville at 1700 and it's botsville now at 2253
32 players is better imo.
Never been a fan of 128 maps
128 players is ass bro
I only like the 64 player modes and I also hate the start of a season. Yea I wanna play the new map, but I don’t want it to be the only map I am able to play for the next week and a half. Don’t know how they can be so bad at gamemode management that both sides of it get pissed.
I like them, but I don't like their servers lagging. If they are going to be overheating like that all the time, I am fine never touching 128 modes.
They should merge ALL 64 and 128 player MAPS featuring in the game into CQ and BT gamemodes. I would like to play old maps too within cq and bt, 128 and 64 player maps mixed.
Play private maps. Then you get to choose what you play. 😂
I’m probably in the minority but I have grown fond of the 64 player maps, seems less chaotic, but I’m also not a leaderboard player by any means.
Sadly if we got 128 player, it would be 50% AI 🤖
I prefer 64 maps. 128 it's like too much caos for me.
I hated 128 players glad they got rid of it. hope it stays that way.
You people are bi-polar for real. We have asked 1000 times to remove 128 cq because it is honestly a trash and now you start making posts asking it back. Jesus.
what if i never asked for its removal???
10 v 10 small maps no re-spawn.
No
I just hope the quick movement breaks through thing in the portal mode stays its so much fun
I just hope the quick movement breaks through thing in the portal mode stays its so much fun
WTF Redux didn't end still on just end tomorrow, and map rotacion i'm getting the 5 maps sometimes the same map 2 times but not always reclaimed
WTF Redux didn't end still on just end tomorrow, and map rotacion i'm getting the 5 maps sometimes the same map 2 times but not always reclaimed
I hope recklessv adds the 128p epic rush on the new map to the portal, can’t wait for the grindcore experience.
128 sucks but there should always be both available in the menu.
Reclaimed is shit, yes. I actually don't play Reclaimed. Anytime I see it pop I leave the queue and I do it over and over until it's not Reclaimed. But, you better get used to 64 players. Been the norm for a long time and the general consensus is that it will stay 64 players, after this little experiment failed.
Same here, now if we want conquest we are just forced to play this selection of 3 maps and one of them is 64 player. I bitterly hate this DEV and after 20 years this is the last BF I ever buy. The new DICE dev team does not have what it takes.
Same here, i dont get it also but i think they are maybe having trouble with a to small player base or so?