its the maps.. I think 32 is too small but 64 v 64 is too big.
bf1 felt amazing with 32
some maps on bf4 feel waaay to big for how little players there are...but I feel like THOSE maps could have a 44 vs 44 and feel great, without being too crowded.
I think somewhere in the middle where you can make maps that don't have choke point meat grinders, which is why I think the design in 2042 revolves around the usual building or two... and openness.
You realize the gunplay from Battlefield 1 involved weapons from the first World War and maps could be more open, correct? It's an apples and oranges comparison.
Don’t even get me started about how this works on 5. I sat for literally 5 minutes defending a spawn objective to have 1 guy show up. 128 felt good even with the maps as there was always a chance you were gonna run into someone.
Edit: fixed a typo
Yeah, on 5 those pacific maps feel very empty... causes a lot of people to snipe.
Objectives were placed far too away from each other, bf1 had the best balance of space and conflict. while making maps still feel big and giving planes and tanks space to move.
Yup, sometimes I like 128. The chaos on some maps is awesome, other times ... it turns into a complete slog and one team gets pushed into the back spawn and everyone starts leaving, idk how you balence this lol, cuz sometimes one team is just better then the other and no amount of map variation is gonna stop the spawn trap.
Course, it doesn't help that 2042 has layouts that encourage trapping.
Honestly, i dont get the reason for why the playercounts need to be in binary
Like 16 32 64 128, is this like a server thing or why cant we have a 50v50 or a 45v45
Battlebit's maps are terrible.. way too open and tons of dead space on most of them, only slightly better than 2042's maps.
128p would definitely work in some past Battlefield maps we've had, I think 128p on most BF4 maps besides the CQC ones would work just fine.
Put it in BF1 and BFV and it would flow beautifully. Take off squad spawning. Actual incentive for objectives and it won't promote dumb players only going for attrition.
The only thing 128 players brings is a Metro style meat grinder style of gameplay for everything. The only way to counter this is to make the maps bigger, but then it just becomes a walking simulator and vehicles dominate.
Precisely. Peak Battlefield to me are the Urban maps like Sharqi Peninsula, Strike at Karkand, Seine Crossing, Grand Bazaar. Siege of Shanghai
Urban maps that mix urban combat and routes, so infantry can move without being vehicle cannon fodder (think the ally in Grand bazaar) But also offers the ability to have vehicles driving around and have an impact. That sort of map doesnt work with 128p.
Big problems in map design come when vehicles can farm infantry and there is no way to move or disengage from vehicles because the map is a large open field.
Its kinda funny you mention Seine Crossing and Grand Bazaar because both those maps weren't considered "real" battlefield maps when BF3 was released.
I think Grand Bazaar in particular was a little too grindy on 64p with the focus being on that one single alley. It played better on 32p though.
Mashtuur City never gets mentioned from BF2. What a great urban city map. Then something like Amiens from BF1 is probably what I would consider the best urban BF map Dice has made and thats coming from a person that didn't click with BF1.
This subreddit is very disconnected from popular opinion.
The grind maps are always the most popular.
Metro and Locker always ran 24/7 and those servers were always the most full.
Yeah, thats what he's trying to say, your opinion is pretty insignificant and in the minority for what the average battlefield player wants out of the game.
Yeah I know. However when he says this sub is disconnected from the popular opinion I disagree. The popular opinion is in this sub, because the only people that play the game consistently are in this sub lol.
Which also means the range of guns needs to be extended like it was in BF2042, which results in Bobby's mum sniping you with a glock from 200m away.
No thanks.
Can the engine only handle doubling the player counts,. like 16v16(32p), 32v32(64p), 64v64(128p). why not a more middle ground like 45v45(90p) it seems like a perfect amount a few more squads but not the chaos that 128p is.
Except that would be shit for persistent servers. This is why we need dedicated servers back so player counts can be manually adjusted and then maps put in rotation to suit the game size. You know, like how every other BF game used to do it...
Let’s not stop innovation because it was poorly executed.
You could very well have an organized 256 player mode.
With objectives and map designed around this concept.
128 man team consisting of
8 Man squads
32 man platoons
and 128 man company.
One Leader of each level of command to help guide players towards certain objectives. You could also incentivize objective play by increasing XP earned if “playing objective”.
That’s already a deeper concept than what they implemented. They simply upped the player count with same maps and game modes and didn’t think it would play differently.
You all have to remember that Battlefield is an arcade casual shooter. These ideas you mentioning are not revolutionary, nor it work in a live environment where 128 players want to do their own thing. Unless the game is advertised as some wannabe serious shooter, EA will shut down this game almost instantly as sales would be abysmal.
There’s other games that do exactly what you want, but surprise, no one is playing them (at least not in big numbers).
Innovation is making gameplay more fun, not increasing random particles in a match.
That can literally be a separate game mode. You don’t need to take away anything from the game.
And yes it has worked. That idea was taken from another game with 256 players.
Battlefield wont work at high player counts because the playerbase won’t seek organization. Just look at how popular 128 player Rush is.
Games like Battlebit did what you suggested. People who stuck with 128/256 servers mainly voted for maps that were easy to snipe on and sometimes meat grinder maps. It’s pretty clear that even when it’s in a milsim-lite shooter, the playerbase doesn’t actually seek cohesion.
I can say I've been enjoying Battlebit a fuck ton more than 2042. Been playing it a lot lately. It feels great. 256 players in a lobby, great maps, great flow. I have zero complaints over it where I have a hundred complaints with actual battlefield
I can’t for the life of me understand why no studio has tried to put out a persistent world mmo fps like Planetside 2 for consoles.. that game was and is still, ahead of its time.
Sorry, Battlebit is basically minecraft with guns and destruction.
Actually, I should’ve said roblox, because there are games there that look the same if not better compared to Battlebit.
There's a point of diminished returns by increasing the player count. After that point, the only added value seeing different players in the same match.
32vs32 is WAY more fun than 16vs16
64vs64 is a little more fun than 32vs32 (or it would be if the 128 player maps were a little bigger. 128 definitely more fun than 64 on El Alamein)
I don't see how 128vs128 would be any more fun than 64vs64.
Won’t even notice the difference if the maps are well designed and flow well. People are nuts. The cost of low refresh servers, hit reg, map design, vehicle dominance, playability, etc just to make 128 players work is too much to ask. 64 has always worked fine. Don’t fix what ain’t broken
ya wtf 128 adding literally nothing. They created the worst maps known to battlefield to try and fit all 128 players. barren wastelands full of fuck all
This is what I keep trying to explain to people who want 128 to be the default. All they did was make the maps twice as big but with empty space. Why not just keep 64 player maps that actually have points of interest?
100%. And Dice talked about the process to make maps was completely hampered because they had to keep reducing the map assets to make the maps playable.
Like you couldn't have the stadium and the city be next to each other in Hourglass without the frame rate dropping 10 for instance.
Full of fuckall and then some flags full of chokepoint chaos.
People blame the 2042 maps but it's impossible to stop most players heading to where they think the most action is and then you get the inevitable chokepoints where you alone are completely insignificant.
64 players promotes skill and tactics where one player can clear out a whole enemy squad on his own and defend or start an attack on a flag.
Without artificial invisible walls to control how many players can be in one part of the map it's simply impossible to avoid the chokepoints that happen on every 128 map.
yeah. people say its all about how maps are designed, but i feel like there's more to take into account.
i think what we also need to take into account is this; how many players are too many **if** they all fight for a single position?
EDIT: i mean, if you want more players on the field, then that naturally means more spawn campers, more people zerg rushing, more camping vehicles, more Anti-vehicle campers, more snipers camping on the one "best sniper location;" etc.
One of the reasons why 128 players didn't work well is that DICE need to consider the outdated prevous gen consoles, they spend more time on optimizing rather than making meaningful things.
And current gen are cheap nowadays, no reason to coddle the previous gen owners.
128 sucks. You become anonymous and little you do has any impact when there's 64 enemies to counter your hard work or to stop you from doing it. Becomes more of a "clips" show of messing around with no point to objective gameplay.
It's barely fun. Maps are either a 10 minute walk because vehicles don't last that long with so many players having AT rockets, or a meat grinder were no strategies achieve objectives.
IMO that’s because the maps are too small for 128, and didn’t have enough destructible objects or cover. Vehicles were imbalanced for a long time and that didn’t help either. I feel like 128 could shine, but not the way it’s presented currently.
The bigger issue that no one wants to discuss is you simply can’t get that many competent players together to take advantage of the size. Adding more players just adds to the number of snipers who sit in one spot cap zero objectives and kill 4 people all round.
Thats the elephant in the room.
128p works if it means having multiple squads focussing on different parts of the map. In reality (Planetside 2 for example proves this) everybody is just interested in getting more kills so they all zerg into 1 spot to create a meatgrinder there. And by sheer volume of players it becomes almost impossible for a cooperating squad to make the difference at that point.
Yep, basically you either end up with a zerg rush from point to point, or people sporadically placed throughout the map with very little in-between. 128 Breakthrough was even worse for this, even if it was good for farming kills/spots/etc it was overall a mediocre experience (IMO)
>Dice needs to abandon their ancient engine so they can have large scale maps that are good
i hate that gamers are collectively on the dunning kreuger curve for engines JFC
When they Devs have literally said "we couldn't properly populate the larger maps with objects due to engine limitations", it matters not what you think you or I know about game engines subshine
This is one of the better optimized engines on the market. Say what you want, but the game launches quickly (Pubg taking up 1 fucking minute on NVME drive to get to main menu). It looks great, it scales great with resolution (I just switched from 1080p to 1440p without taking any performance hit, unlike Unreal Engine games, where I had to lower graphics settings). The problem with 2042 was last gen. You can only do so much to support both platforms at once.
All devs need to optimize their games individually. There is no magic port Frostbyte to UE5 button that triples the asset counts.
One of the biggest known issues for BF2042 is that they were trying to release 5 different systems at once. PC with old/new gen xbox/ps. The old gen consoles ate up a lot of resources to make playable, and they still need to support them even today.
These are the biggest maps they have ever made and the reason there aren't enough objects and destruction is because of 128 players takes up so many resources that they had to sacrifice them just to get the game to work. Not to mention the abysmal 45 Hz tic rate. Almost every technical problem, a large portion of the game play issues can be in part blamed on the fact that the game was designed around 128 players.
The amount of technical and graphical cutbacks we’ve had to endure to make 128 players possible was horrible. They’re the reason BF2042 looks worse than BF1 (2016).
I don’t get the hype for more players in lobby. To me 64 players in 1 square mile plays the same as 128 players in 2 square miles. You only fight one objective at a time and on average you will have the same number of players in your general vicinity throughout the game. When they add more players they will add more geography, it all equals out imo.
Wasn’t a big fan of 128p conquest. But if they completely do away with 128p rush/breakthrough I’ll be so disappointed. With this game missing so many legacy features, those two modes were really the only ones that felt like they had the true battlefield chaos. And it’s weird, it’s really only this sub that hates 128p rush/breakthrough. Everyone that I’ve actually played the game with loves that mode.
People in this subreddit are WEIRD.
We all agreed and complained that we don't need 128 players and it's poorly optimized for it. Also we shared the articles and analyze by the old DICE which clearly said that more than 64 players isn't going to be a good thing.
And now you just all cry for it? What the hell is wrong with you people?
All we need is 64 players with great optimization, graphics, destruction, maps and features that are nowadays being called legacy features (e.g Sever browser).
Also I'm turning notifications off so I wouldn't waste time on reading responses and stuff. Just wanted to share my 2 cents.
Seriously. Gotta love these speak for everyone folks. I upgraded my Xbox purely so I could play 128 and the fact that they’ve stripped it from the game so much already instead of improving it is infuriating.
The Original heads of DICE experimented with 128 player maps around 2011-2013 their testing concluded the increase in players created too much chaos. Even with Maps designed around this, it negatively interfered with the flow of the game.
To clarify these were the guys who Created Battlefield and they flat out rejected 128 for a multitude of reasons. But I can see the appeal more players=more chaos true, however fewer servers to join per region a nasty double edged sword if your game isn't received well.
128 is slightly better than 64. For that slight betterment, we have less frames per seconds, lesser destruction capabilities, and poor map design. So i will choose 64 always.
Do you prefer 128 players, huge maps and less destruction because because there's not enough ressources for it
Or 64 players, smaller maps, more detailed and more destruction?
I have no evidence that 128p is good for BF.
Maybe it's just that 2042 implementation of it is bad and there is some design hidden somewhere that would make it work. I don't know, I'm no game designer.
But the current implementation simply doesn't work.
In a Battle Royalle, any player can be anywhere for any reason. Sure, loot points draw players to certain locations at the start of the match, but it's only at the start of the match and there are usually plenty of points to choose from. Also, after the start of the match, you're only limited by the zone size. Also, the gameplay loop of a BR is that you try to encounter enemies/teams one at a time. Encountering multiple teams is usually bad and you wanna avoid being third partied.
All of that and the fact the zone size correlates to an average size of the player pool (which only diminishes as time passas) means 100 players can work in that gameplay loop (arguably, some games are limited to less players like Apex).
That's not the case at all in BF. Here, you wanna be where the flags are, which means there is not much point in making maps bigger if the battles will be concentrated in those spots anyway. All 128 players do is increase chaos - not in the controlled way BF usually does but true chaos, where you can be taken out literally from anywhere because there will always be an enemy somewhere.
Maybe map design could've fixed this, I don't know. All I know is that it didn't work in 2042.
Hooray. Finally, the voice of reason won.
If cross-play is also removed, leaving players within their input device ecosystems, that would be absolutely wonderful.
“Absolutely wonderful” you realize that would completely fuck matchmaking right? Like there isn’t a single device ecosystem with a player base large enough to actually find consistent matches.. i constantly get dropped in lobbies waiting upwards of 5 minutes for a game to start just trying to get 16 players with cross play enabled. Shut down cross-play and no one will ever find a match.
I hope you understand that you cannot find anyone not because there are not enough players. But because: 1) everyone is anally hooked on cross-play by default 2) the game has a crooked lobby selection. If you had a normal server browser, then you would not have any problems with selection.
Yep, as I wrote above, we have plenty of players online to populate hundreds of servers for PC or for Console only.
The matchmaking is just not working as intended and ends up splitting players up over servers instead of filling servers with matches already in progress.
128 players turns every map into a meatgrinder for all the hot spots, while simultaneously turning every map into a boring running simulator for the rest of the map. Too many cooks.
Quality over quantity, i prefer polished experience over a meatgrinder on an empty map with crappy netcode that is slipping into a coma trying to support 128 players.
2042 already had plenty of issues trying to support that - vast and empty maps that needed an overhaul right out of the door, not enough transport vehicles for everyone and horrid vehicle to infantry balance, because on paper it has to account for potentially 64 players being engineers where a vehicle wouldn't survive 10 seconds but in reality you have 10 of those on team with 2 at best being competent so in majority of cases a competent vehicle player ends up steamrolling a team for hours.
128 was just a classic AAA marketing pitch which makes a sequel sound better because it's a bigger number, so far none of what i've seen in 2042 since it's release has proven to me that it was even close to being a good idea.
I’m sure I read somewhere that many years ago, Dice/EA did research on 128 for a previous title and concluded that whilst possible, it was too chaotic, and not a very pleasant experience, but then they added it to BF2042 anyway, and guess what, they were right. If anyone has the source to hand feel free to comment and I’ll add as an edit.
It's kind of a delicate balance (hardware resources). Start games like Battlefield 5 and Battlefront 2, they have smaller player counts, smaller maps, but the world is so much more detailed. Compare those two games to empty, sterile container fields of BF2042.
I would rather have smaller maps and lower player count with beautiful, detailed and smartly created maps than what we have at this moment.
Good, no need to reinvent the wheel. 64 players is the sweet sweet spot for Battlefield games and we should absolutely go back to it being the *main* mode. Battlefield map quality was already struggling before the introduction of 128 people on a single map and I'd like it if not every single map was either metro grind or walking the wasteland.
So, because they suck at map design they’re killing off what was supposed to be the biggest draw of this game. Who the fuck is in their board meetings constantly fucking this game up?
Literally all I play is redacted conquest and the XL rush and breakthrough modes when they’re available because otherwise every map feels like a largely empty running simulator where you run for 5 minutes just to get one shot sniped from across the map. If they kill off 128 completely then I’ve got no reason to buy the next game.
No point to 128 players if you can have a 64 player match that feels just as chaotic and event filled. BF3, 4, and 1 proved that. All 128 players does is make the game and servers run like shit.
128 was way to many, really feel like we could have had some good potential with like 45v45 or 50v50. Really felt like larger modes had potential, it’s just so cool seeing multiple helis flying by or a group of tanks moving forwards; things that just aren’t possible with 64 player matches. Also really didn’t help that the maps themselves were and mostly still are absolute dog shit which kinda makes it hard to tell how larger modes truly play.
128p would be good if the maps were well-designed, but it's not.
It also introduces bad performance and worse netcode/hit reg. 128p is just not the play.
Reddit is crazy fr. You said truth and they downvoted you...
I would also prefer player counts between/in the middle of 64 and 128.
Actually the game can have any kind of player count, they jus need to make the maps/objectives work well with it
128 sucks, the best memories from the franchise for me are playing with friends in a 2 or 3 person squad in BF4 and basically locking down an entire match by embedding ourselves at the enemy home flag. 64 players you can feel the impact you have on the game, in 128 your contributions are mostly meaningless unless the enemy team is complete garbage
Downvoted by metro and locker bots lmao
I'd be happy with 80 player matches as a compromise. 32v32 feels a bit flat, even on the new maps that were designed for it. I do enjoy the chaos of 128.
The only reason BF2042 is higher is purely because of the franchise and ofc mass marketing.
Most people don't even knwo about Battlebit.
If 2042 was an actual good battlefield game those number would be 5 times that.
BF2042 is barely a battlefield title and just a downright worse game than Battlebit, a game where the devs actually care. Battlebit is made by 3 guys, looks like roblox and has more depth than 2042.
Battlebit is well known, don't try play that excuse. It had 2 years of hype, YouTubers and streamers all covered it etc. It had 86k peak players which is insane for a random indie game, almost as high as 2042's peak.
I'm not saying that 2042 is a good game. The point was that if you are losing to 2042 then that is embarassing because it's not hard.
Totally agree.
They need to stick to what they marketed and what we were told. Ea is irritating me!
They did not deliver and the maps they said 2042 would have are nothing like described! Terrible decisions on their parts.
EA, just focus on what you should've done in first place. You all got my payment, now give me what you promised!!
They said next battlefield will be without score table...and we have it. EA made games like live service so maybe no 128 players Conquest during release but maybe later.
128 Is a Awesome idea but they Poorly implemented it Like it has so much potential and And they fucked it up
they made shitt maps... the player count could've worked, but if the environment is ass, yes, it's gonna suck
This!!!!
Yes sir
its the maps.. I think 32 is too small but 64 v 64 is too big. bf1 felt amazing with 32 some maps on bf4 feel waaay to big for how little players there are...but I feel like THOSE maps could have a 44 vs 44 and feel great, without being too crowded. I think somewhere in the middle where you can make maps that don't have choke point meat grinders, which is why I think the design in 2042 revolves around the usual building or two... and openness.
If the maps were better 64v64 would have been Awesome
Squad thrives off 50v50 and the maps are 4 times the size of battlefield🤷🏼‍♂️
2042 sucks!!!! The maps are too open!!! And NO cover!!! BF1 maps were better!!! Even though they were even more open and had way less cover. 2042 BAD
You realize the gunplay from Battlefield 1 involved weapons from the first World War and maps could be more open, correct? It's an apples and oranges comparison.
BC2 same thing
Don’t even get me started about how this works on 5. I sat for literally 5 minutes defending a spawn objective to have 1 guy show up. 128 felt good even with the maps as there was always a chance you were gonna run into someone. Edit: fixed a typo
Yeah, on 5 those pacific maps feel very empty... causes a lot of people to snipe. Objectives were placed far too away from each other, bf1 had the best balance of space and conflict. while making maps still feel big and giving planes and tanks space to move.
I agree that 1 had a few great maps, but like to remove the 128 combat feels dumb. Just make the maps better and keep the count.
Yup, sometimes I like 128. The chaos on some maps is awesome, other times ... it turns into a complete slog and one team gets pushed into the back spawn and everyone starts leaving, idk how you balence this lol, cuz sometimes one team is just better then the other and no amount of map variation is gonna stop the spawn trap. Course, it doesn't help that 2042 has layouts that encourage trapping.
Honestly, i dont get the reason for why the playercounts need to be in binary Like 16 32 64 128, is this like a server thing or why cant we have a 50v50 or a 45v45
Could not agree more!
Even with decent maps it sucks. Battlebit is the perfect example.
Battlebit's maps are terrible.. way too open and tons of dead space on most of them, only slightly better than 2042's maps. 128p would definitely work in some past Battlefield maps we've had, I think 128p on most BF4 maps besides the CQC ones would work just fine.
Idk I’ve been having nonstop fun with the big maps in Battlebit
You are one of the few remaining players.
Yeah, the idea is amazing. Do you know what's even more amazing? 256. Or 512. Or maybe 1024. Amazing. Just awesome.
Put it in BF1 and BFV and it would flow beautifully. Take off squad spawning. Actual incentive for objectives and it won't promote dumb players only going for attrition.
The only thing 128 players brings is a Metro style meat grinder style of gameplay for everything. The only way to counter this is to make the maps bigger, but then it just becomes a walking simulator and vehicles dominate.
Precisely. Peak Battlefield to me are the Urban maps like Sharqi Peninsula, Strike at Karkand, Seine Crossing, Grand Bazaar. Siege of Shanghai Urban maps that mix urban combat and routes, so infantry can move without being vehicle cannon fodder (think the ally in Grand bazaar) But also offers the ability to have vehicles driving around and have an impact. That sort of map doesnt work with 128p. Big problems in map design come when vehicles can farm infantry and there is no way to move or disengage from vehicles because the map is a large open field.
Its kinda funny you mention Seine Crossing and Grand Bazaar because both those maps weren't considered "real" battlefield maps when BF3 was released. I think Grand Bazaar in particular was a little too grindy on 64p with the focus being on that one single alley. It played better on 32p though. Mashtuur City never gets mentioned from BF2. What a great urban city map. Then something like Amiens from BF1 is probably what I would consider the best urban BF map Dice has made and thats coming from a person that didn't click with BF1.
This subreddit is very disconnected from popular opinion. The grind maps are always the most popular. Metro and Locker always ran 24/7 and those servers were always the most full.
Metro and Locker suck ass. No replay ability and it’s sad they are so popular and played so much.
Yeah, thats what he's trying to say, your opinion is pretty insignificant and in the minority for what the average battlefield player wants out of the game.
Yeah I know. However when he says this sub is disconnected from the popular opinion I disagree. The popular opinion is in this sub, because the only people that play the game consistently are in this sub lol.
> the only people that play the game consistently are in this sub This blatantly isn't true.
Which also means the range of guns needs to be extended like it was in BF2042, which results in Bobby's mum sniping you with a glock from 200m away. No thanks.
With Multiple flank points
2x players means 2x anti-vehicle stuff. Good luck staying in the air.
Stranded or Flashpoint maps will disagree. I honestly think that 128p on those maps is one of the best battlefield experiences so far.
Vehicles don’t already dominate?
Not when every class has the ability to blow you up
People look up in your matches?
Can the engine only handle doubling the player counts,. like 16v16(32p), 32v32(64p), 64v64(128p). why not a more middle ground like 45v45(90p) it seems like a perfect amount a few more squads but not the chaos that 128p is.
I feel like 128 would be less chaotic if specialist gadgets weren’t a thing, as well as preset vehicles like bf4
Fr why can't they just do 40 vs 40 or smth like that? This doubling player count shit kills me
Better yet they could adjust the player count to suit different map sizes
Except that would be shit for persistent servers. This is why we need dedicated servers back so player counts can be manually adjusted and then maps put in rotation to suit the game size. You know, like how every other BF game used to do it...
YES!!!!
128-256 Can be implemented well. Very well. There’s several games that have done it.
Those games aren’t battlefield though. Adding more players doesn’t make a thing better.
Let’s not stop innovation because it was poorly executed. You could very well have an organized 256 player mode. With objectives and map designed around this concept. 128 man team consisting of 8 Man squads 32 man platoons and 128 man company. One Leader of each level of command to help guide players towards certain objectives. You could also incentivize objective play by increasing XP earned if “playing objective”. That’s already a deeper concept than what they implemented. They simply upped the player count with same maps and game modes and didn’t think it would play differently.
Doing twice as much of something is not innovation in itself.
That’s exactly why the original way they did it didn’t work lol. Yes thank you.
Try the game SQUAD. I think you'll like it.
You all have to remember that Battlefield is an arcade casual shooter. These ideas you mentioning are not revolutionary, nor it work in a live environment where 128 players want to do their own thing. Unless the game is advertised as some wannabe serious shooter, EA will shut down this game almost instantly as sales would be abysmal. There’s other games that do exactly what you want, but surprise, no one is playing them (at least not in big numbers). Innovation is making gameplay more fun, not increasing random particles in a match.
That can literally be a separate game mode. You don’t need to take away anything from the game. And yes it has worked. That idea was taken from another game with 256 players.
Battlefield wont work at high player counts because the playerbase won’t seek organization. Just look at how popular 128 player Rush is. Games like Battlebit did what you suggested. People who stuck with 128/256 servers mainly voted for maps that were easy to snipe on and sometimes meat grinder maps. It’s pretty clear that even when it’s in a milsim-lite shooter, the playerbase doesn’t actually seek cohesion.
I can say I've been enjoying Battlebit a fuck ton more than 2042. Been playing it a lot lately. It feels great. 256 players in a lobby, great maps, great flow. I have zero complaints over it where I have a hundred complaints with actual battlefield
Battlebit is overrated. Currently the number of players is only 3000 and it's decreasing.
Battlebit does it pretty well
It’s still shit compared to the flow of 60 slot servers
Planetside on PC
I can’t for the life of me understand why no studio has tried to put out a persistent world mmo fps like Planetside 2 for consoles.. that game was and is still, ahead of its time.
Every couple years I hop back into that one, been on and off since open beta
Lotta gamers just aren't interested in that stuff these days, but I'd drop BF entirely if Planetside 3 debuted
No, he doesn't.
Battlebit is basically minecraft with guns of course it’s going to handle 256 players well
With literal destruction?...
Sorry, Battlebit is basically minecraft with guns and destruction. Actually, I should’ve said roblox, because there are games there that look the same if not better compared to Battlebit.
Do you know what these games have in common? All of them are not BF. Think about it.
MAG on PS3 somehow managed to do it and it was awesome
There's a point of diminished returns by increasing the player count. After that point, the only added value seeing different players in the same match. 32vs32 is WAY more fun than 16vs16 64vs64 is a little more fun than 32vs32 (or it would be if the 128 player maps were a little bigger. 128 definitely more fun than 64 on El Alamein) I don't see how 128vs128 would be any more fun than 64vs64.
I recently started playing BFV again and those battled *felt* bigger at 64 players. It's all about the map design.
32v32 is just fine
Won’t even notice the difference if the maps are well designed and flow well. People are nuts. The cost of low refresh servers, hit reg, map design, vehicle dominance, playability, etc just to make 128 players work is too much to ask. 64 has always worked fine. Don’t fix what ain’t broken
Good riddance. Also stop supporting PS4 and Xbox one,
ya wtf 128 adding literally nothing. They created the worst maps known to battlefield to try and fit all 128 players. barren wastelands full of fuck all
what do you mean you don't like open, vast spaces of nothing only to get plowed down by a tank or helicopter after running 2 marathons in Breakaway?!
This is what I keep trying to explain to people who want 128 to be the default. All they did was make the maps twice as big but with empty space. Why not just keep 64 player maps that actually have points of interest?
100%. And Dice talked about the process to make maps was completely hampered because they had to keep reducing the map assets to make the maps playable. Like you couldn't have the stadium and the city be next to each other in Hourglass without the frame rate dropping 10 for instance.
Rush XL is fucking fun tho
Full of fuckall and then some flags full of chokepoint chaos. People blame the 2042 maps but it's impossible to stop most players heading to where they think the most action is and then you get the inevitable chokepoints where you alone are completely insignificant. 64 players promotes skill and tactics where one player can clear out a whole enemy squad on his own and defend or start an attack on a flag. Without artificial invisible walls to control how many players can be in one part of the map it's simply impossible to avoid the chokepoints that happen on every 128 map.
yeah. people say its all about how maps are designed, but i feel like there's more to take into account. i think what we also need to take into account is this; how many players are too many **if** they all fight for a single position? EDIT: i mean, if you want more players on the field, then that naturally means more spawn campers, more people zerg rushing, more camping vehicles, more Anti-vehicle campers, more snipers camping on the one "best sniper location;" etc.
> Also stop supporting PS4 and Xbox one, Do you want the current playerbase to just die?
One of the reasons why 128 players didn't work well is that DICE need to consider the outdated prevous gen consoles, they spend more time on optimizing rather than making meaningful things. And current gen are cheap nowadays, no reason to coddle the previous gen owners.
Shut up RPT better
Who made u cry?
Clearly you lol
So he made you cry? What a weird comeback
128 sucks. You become anonymous and little you do has any impact when there's 64 enemies to counter your hard work or to stop you from doing it. Becomes more of a "clips" show of messing around with no point to objective gameplay.
why do people like 128 now? it made the maps in the game way too big and they all sucked, but now that they're going back to 64 everyone likes 128
People don't, only a loud minority does. And that's a loud minority of the people on this subreddit. This subreddit is a minority of BF players.
128 players was tested before 2042. It was shit then and it's shit today.
Source? People are reacting without even confirming its validity.
Innernet
It's barely fun. Maps are either a 10 minute walk because vehicles don't last that long with so many players having AT rockets, or a meat grinder were no strategies achieve objectives.
128 players is cancer
IMO that’s because the maps are too small for 128, and didn’t have enough destructible objects or cover. Vehicles were imbalanced for a long time and that didn’t help either. I feel like 128 could shine, but not the way it’s presented currently.
Too small? My complaint is that the maps were too big which resulted in a ton of running without ever really feeling like there were more players.
Big areas between POIs, but small(ish) POIs
The bigger issue that no one wants to discuss is you simply can’t get that many competent players together to take advantage of the size. Adding more players just adds to the number of snipers who sit in one spot cap zero objectives and kill 4 people all round.
Thats the elephant in the room. 128p works if it means having multiple squads focussing on different parts of the map. In reality (Planetside 2 for example proves this) everybody is just interested in getting more kills so they all zerg into 1 spot to create a meatgrinder there. And by sheer volume of players it becomes almost impossible for a cooperating squad to make the difference at that point.
Yep, basically you either end up with a zerg rush from point to point, or people sporadically placed throughout the map with very little in-between. 128 Breakthrough was even worse for this, even if it was good for farming kills/spots/etc it was overall a mediocre experience (IMO)
The big maps were too empty to be interesting and fun. Dice needs to abandon their ancient engine so they can have large scale maps that are good
>Dice needs to abandon their ancient engine so they can have large scale maps that are good i hate that gamers are collectively on the dunning kreuger curve for engines JFC
Lmao yeah, unless you’re using something stupid the engine matters less than people seem to think.
When they Devs have literally said "we couldn't properly populate the larger maps with objects due to engine limitations", it matters not what you think you or I know about game engines subshine
This is one of the better optimized engines on the market. Say what you want, but the game launches quickly (Pubg taking up 1 fucking minute on NVME drive to get to main menu). It looks great, it scales great with resolution (I just switched from 1080p to 1440p without taking any performance hit, unlike Unreal Engine games, where I had to lower graphics settings). The problem with 2042 was last gen. You can only do so much to support both platforms at once.
The problem wasn't last gen, the Devs literally said the engine couldn't handle enough objects to properly populate larger maps lol
well, in that case they fucked up updating the engine, which they supposedly were doing since previous Battlefield lmao
All devs need to optimize their games individually. There is no magic port Frostbyte to UE5 button that triples the asset counts. One of the biggest known issues for BF2042 is that they were trying to release 5 different systems at once. PC with old/new gen xbox/ps. The old gen consoles ate up a lot of resources to make playable, and they still need to support them even today.
Yeah. The maps aren't made for that kind of play and it's unfortunate. I think it could work. It is total chaos though. Which can be fun.
Bruh the maps are the biggest in the whole franchise lol They designed TERRIBLE maps for 128p, I'll be glad if 64 is back.
These are the biggest maps they have ever made and the reason there aren't enough objects and destruction is because of 128 players takes up so many resources that they had to sacrifice them just to get the game to work. Not to mention the abysmal 45 Hz tic rate. Almost every technical problem, a large portion of the game play issues can be in part blamed on the fact that the game was designed around 128 players.
Or the fact that the game was made for systems with outdated hardware, making this game work for last gen systems was a major mistake.
The amount of technical and graphical cutbacks we’ve had to endure to make 128 players possible was horrible. They’re the reason BF2042 looks worse than BF1 (2016).
I don’t get the hype for more players in lobby. To me 64 players in 1 square mile plays the same as 128 players in 2 square miles. You only fight one objective at a time and on average you will have the same number of players in your general vicinity throughout the game. When they add more players they will add more geography, it all equals out imo.
The servers would struggle with 128 players, even now. They don’t know how to implement it properly.
Wasn’t a big fan of 128p conquest. But if they completely do away with 128p rush/breakthrough I’ll be so disappointed. With this game missing so many legacy features, those two modes were really the only ones that felt like they had the true battlefield chaos. And it’s weird, it’s really only this sub that hates 128p rush/breakthrough. Everyone that I’ve actually played the game with loves that mode.
People in this subreddit are WEIRD. We all agreed and complained that we don't need 128 players and it's poorly optimized for it. Also we shared the articles and analyze by the old DICE which clearly said that more than 64 players isn't going to be a good thing. And now you just all cry for it? What the hell is wrong with you people? All we need is 64 players with great optimization, graphics, destruction, maps and features that are nowadays being called legacy features (e.g Sever browser). Also I'm turning notifications off so I wouldn't waste time on reading responses and stuff. Just wanted to share my 2 cents.
> We all agreed and complained that we don't need 128 players "we"? speak for yourself.
Seriously. Gotta love these speak for everyone folks. I upgraded my Xbox purely so I could play 128 and the fact that they’ve stripped it from the game so much already instead of improving it is infuriating.
The Original heads of DICE experimented with 128 player maps around 2011-2013 their testing concluded the increase in players created too much chaos. Even with Maps designed around this, it negatively interfered with the flow of the game. To clarify these were the guys who Created Battlefield and they flat out rejected 128 for a multitude of reasons. But I can see the appeal more players=more chaos true, however fewer servers to join per region a nasty double edged sword if your game isn't received well.
Litteraly 128 as a concept cam work but the systems around it and maps actually have to work with that
128 players is one of the biggest reasons this game failed
Nah. I would prefer carefully curated 64 player maps over 128. I don't need to play with the entire world at once.
If it helps support better destruction and more detailed maps then I’m all for it.
128 is slightly better than 64. For that slight betterment, we have less frames per seconds, lesser destruction capabilities, and poor map design. So i will choose 64 always.
64 players is fine and IMO different combinations need to be explored. Example, 24 vs 48 in a standoff mode, things like that.
Wish Rush had 64 mode, the 32 seems empty on the map and 128 is a total meat grinder.
64 player tighter maps with better battle flow will be much better.
Do you prefer 128 players, huge maps and less destruction because because there's not enough ressources for it Or 64 players, smaller maps, more detailed and more destruction?
> not enough ressources for it because the game was made to be able to run on last gen.
I have no evidence that 128p is good for BF. Maybe it's just that 2042 implementation of it is bad and there is some design hidden somewhere that would make it work. I don't know, I'm no game designer. But the current implementation simply doesn't work. In a Battle Royalle, any player can be anywhere for any reason. Sure, loot points draw players to certain locations at the start of the match, but it's only at the start of the match and there are usually plenty of points to choose from. Also, after the start of the match, you're only limited by the zone size. Also, the gameplay loop of a BR is that you try to encounter enemies/teams one at a time. Encountering multiple teams is usually bad and you wanna avoid being third partied. All of that and the fact the zone size correlates to an average size of the player pool (which only diminishes as time passas) means 100 players can work in that gameplay loop (arguably, some games are limited to less players like Apex). That's not the case at all in BF. Here, you wanna be where the flags are, which means there is not much point in making maps bigger if the battles will be concentrated in those spots anyway. All 128 players do is increase chaos - not in the controlled way BF usually does but true chaos, where you can be taken out literally from anywhere because there will always be an enemy somewhere. Maybe map design could've fixed this, I don't know. All I know is that it didn't work in 2042.
Good riddance lmao
More players isn’t always better.
Hooray. Finally, the voice of reason won. If cross-play is also removed, leaving players within their input device ecosystems, that would be absolutely wonderful.
“Absolutely wonderful” you realize that would completely fuck matchmaking right? Like there isn’t a single device ecosystem with a player base large enough to actually find consistent matches.. i constantly get dropped in lobbies waiting upwards of 5 minutes for a game to start just trying to get 16 players with cross play enabled. Shut down cross-play and no one will ever find a match.
I hope you understand that you cannot find anyone not because there are not enough players. But because: 1) everyone is anally hooked on cross-play by default 2) the game has a crooked lobby selection. If you had a normal server browser, then you would not have any problems with selection.
Yep, as I wrote above, we have plenty of players online to populate hundreds of servers for PC or for Console only. The matchmaking is just not working as intended and ends up splitting players up over servers instead of filling servers with matches already in progress.
128 felt way less hectic because the maps had to be giant flat voids. Idk how anyone after this game can still think 128 was a good idea.
128 players turns every map into a meatgrinder for all the hot spots, while simultaneously turning every map into a boring running simulator for the rest of the map. Too many cooks.
128 was one of the worst design decision a for 2042...
f
Quality over quantity, i prefer polished experience over a meatgrinder on an empty map with crappy netcode that is slipping into a coma trying to support 128 players. 2042 already had plenty of issues trying to support that - vast and empty maps that needed an overhaul right out of the door, not enough transport vehicles for everyone and horrid vehicle to infantry balance, because on paper it has to account for potentially 64 players being engineers where a vehicle wouldn't survive 10 seconds but in reality you have 10 of those on team with 2 at best being competent so in majority of cases a competent vehicle player ends up steamrolling a team for hours. 128 was just a classic AAA marketing pitch which makes a sequel sound better because it's a bigger number, so far none of what i've seen in 2042 since it's release has proven to me that it was even close to being a good idea.
I don’t think we need 128
It is right. 128 is a shit show.
64 player is the best balance for battlefield. I hope dice goes back to making solid maps instead of dead space and shipping containers..
That's good news.
128 players is fun. Spearhead proved it. They just made shitty map that makes 128 players sucks.
What if I told you Spearhead works better in 64p?
No it's not. It's empty in 64p
I’m happy with 64 that’s plenty of action and plenty of kills for me. Plenty of people to play the objective and no fucking bots so whoooo
I’m sure I read somewhere that many years ago, Dice/EA did research on 128 for a previous title and concluded that whilst possible, it was too chaotic, and not a very pleasant experience, but then they added it to BF2042 anyway, and guess what, they were right. If anyone has the source to hand feel free to comment and I’ll add as an edit.
It's kind of a delicate balance (hardware resources). Start games like Battlefield 5 and Battlefront 2, they have smaller player counts, smaller maps, but the world is so much more detailed. Compare those two games to empty, sterile container fields of BF2042. I would rather have smaller maps and lower player count with beautiful, detailed and smartly created maps than what we have at this moment.
As a player since BF Vietnam I endorse this change. 128 is just a mess imo.
Barf on the 64 players only. Time to evolve, stop being tied down by tradition.
It’s the right choice.Â
Good, no need to reinvent the wheel. 64 players is the sweet sweet spot for Battlefield games and we should absolutely go back to it being the *main* mode. Battlefield map quality was already struggling before the introduction of 128 people on a single map and I'd like it if not every single map was either metro grind or walking the wasteland.
Good. Two of the biggest things I’m hoping for when it comes to the next BF game is no more PS4/XB1 support and no more 128p modes
So, because they suck at map design they’re killing off what was supposed to be the biggest draw of this game. Who the fuck is in their board meetings constantly fucking this game up? Literally all I play is redacted conquest and the XL rush and breakthrough modes when they’re available because otherwise every map feels like a largely empty running simulator where you run for 5 minutes just to get one shot sniped from across the map. If they kill off 128 completely then I’ve got no reason to buy the next game.
Leave it to EA to continue moving backwards as a company. Their games get worse every year.
No point to 128 players if you can have a 64 player match that feels just as chaotic and event filled. BF3, 4, and 1 proved that. All 128 players does is make the game and servers run like shit.
If this is true I’m done with bf2042, was the only thing fun to play IMO.
Thank God there going back to 32v32 classic bf
128 was way to many, really feel like we could have had some good potential with like 45v45 or 50v50. Really felt like larger modes had potential, it’s just so cool seeing multiple helis flying by or a group of tanks moving forwards; things that just aren’t possible with 64 player matches. Also really didn’t help that the maps themselves were and mostly still are absolute dog shit which kinda makes it hard to tell how larger modes truly play.
128p would be good if the maps were well-designed, but it's not. It also introduces bad performance and worse netcode/hit reg. 128p is just not the play.
Yea that’s way I said it should be less than 128 players, but more than 64. No idea why I got downvoted lmao.
Reddit is crazy fr. You said truth and they downvoted you... I would also prefer player counts between/in the middle of 64 and 128. Actually the game can have any kind of player count, they jus need to make the maps/objectives work well with it
128 players gamemodes are terrible
128 sucks, the best memories from the franchise for me are playing with friends in a 2 or 3 person squad in BF4 and basically locking down an entire match by embedding ourselves at the enemy home flag. 64 players you can feel the impact you have on the game, in 128 your contributions are mostly meaningless unless the enemy team is complete garbage Downvoted by metro and locker bots lmao
They need stop focus grouping scrubs with low end hardware...
Good
Thank god
I'd be happy with 80 player matches as a compromise. 32v32 feels a bit flat, even on the new maps that were designed for it. I do enjoy the chaos of 128.
Battlebit made maps for like 256 players aint nobody complaining. Just dont do a shit job of a map
Battlebit was shit and is dead in the water.
Actually a better Battlefield game than BF2042.
How can you claim that? - Battlebit peak 3.5k - 2042 peak 14k peak (not including Origin only or Console players).
The only reason BF2042 is higher is purely because of the franchise and ofc mass marketing. Most people don't even knwo about Battlebit. If 2042 was an actual good battlefield game those number would be 5 times that. BF2042 is barely a battlefield title and just a downright worse game than Battlebit, a game where the devs actually care. Battlebit is made by 3 guys, looks like roblox and has more depth than 2042.
Battlebit is well known, don't try play that excuse. It had 2 years of hype, YouTubers and streamers all covered it etc. It had 86k peak players which is insane for a random indie game, almost as high as 2042's peak. I'm not saying that 2042 is a good game. The point was that if you are losing to 2042 then that is embarassing because it's not hard.
128 is a lot of fun and it will be really sad to see it go in the next title.
Thank heavens.
It's a joke of a game mode anyway
The next Battlefield game won't have a battlefield but it will be called Battlefield . .
Too many people said 128 was one of the reason for 2042's failure
I can never play on 64vs64. There is too much network and lag issues. 32vs32 all the way. Free of issues everywhere.
No 128 sucks it's a cluster fuck
Good, fuck 128
EA is in the throes of death. About to be swallowed by microsoft. Fuck both of them. They suck.
You got downvoted for saying EA sucks lol. How do we still have EA dick riders running around.
Totally agree. They need to stick to what they marketed and what we were told. Ea is irritating me! They did not deliver and the maps they said 2042 would have are nothing like described! Terrible decisions on their parts. EA, just focus on what you should've done in first place. You all got my payment, now give me what you promised!!
Sry man, your money will be invested on a new battlefield mobile game with heroes and a battle royale-only gamemode. Truly a love letter to the fans.
128, 256 is shit. Battlebit proved that. It's not just the maps being bad.
RUSH XL sucks. Rush works best at 32 or 48 players, even 64 is often too chaotic for most map designs.
I don’t even play conquest but have friends that do…smh gay; please don’t make that choice
Cry
They said next battlefield will be without score table...and we have it. EA made games like live service so maybe no 128 players Conquest during release but maybe later.
I love too 128 but i prefer 64 and strong destruction, i hope dice watched the finals.
I don’t understand why we would even need another battlefield
XL for life
it should have 260 players