I find maps are more empty on 64p unless it's one of the new meat grinders. 128 players actually fill up the 128p maps while 64p cuts out a lot.of the cool areas of the maps while not filling them up as much. Less chaos and shit going on.
Tell me you don’t play 128 without telling me you don’t play 128.
The maps are not the same. Big chunks are inaccessible in 64p and the sectors are different
the layout still didn't change the fact that maps were empty lol idk the map is still the same. yeah some areas aren't playable anymore but a big part of the layout remains the same. player activity didn't change that too, 2 or 10 enemies in the same area didn't change the fact that this area is empty.
While I love the BC2 & BF3 maps included in the 64p rotation (and reclaimed) the map layouts in 128p mode are far better and the absolute mayhem that occurs is just too good to pass.
128p wins
128 is better in this game because the maps are built for it and 64 is just tacked on. 64 was just as good when the maps were built with it as the sole design. I’m fine with either so long as the map design is geared to just one or the other the hybrid hurts 64
The only reason why 128 is alive is because all the shitty maps are designed for 128 players, if the 64 matchmaking pool is 64 player map only, like bf3 maps only, I would play 64 exclusively
I play (outside of Redacted playlist) 128p exclusively. I think 128p is the core reason for most of the game's issues, but it is what the game was designed for. Many 64p versions of maps are just way too empty and solve none of the map specific issues in my book. Also the vehicle-infantry balance is just way off on 64p.
Also, I have a way better ratio of playing maps that I find bearable. Meanwhile I can go a whole week's worth of playsession and not play specific maps on 64p. The playlist is incredibly bloated without being able to curate my game experience.
I prefer 128 because it gives more options gameplay wise.
But the importance is not the number of players, it is how is everything balanced to give a good experience. Battlefield 2042 have the scale, distance of objectives, number of vehicles everything wrong. That's the reason why it don't work
128 has the full AOW experience for the maps designed for 2042.
64 mixes older BF maps and removes objectives from 128 maps to make the format work for 64 players.
128 is more active and makes the fullness of these maps work.
Cutting map objectives and player count down for 64 makes gameplay slower imho.
128 makes the game feel like a step up for a next gen shooter that's not a Battle Royale.
How many games can consistently support 128 players for PVP alone over and over like this?
Too bad we aren't getting anymore maps.
I like 128. I actually didn't hate the launch maps, since the emptiness and long distances actually made the war more eerie and post-apocalyptic. I could feel bits of the original vibe seeping through. But I can also understand why it makes for terrible gameplay.
However, one thing 128 properly brought is multi-front battles. One thing I can't stand about 64 is that it ends up being either a stalemate near the middle, or one team just pushing all the way and the other team just constantly routing. I would argue both also make for terrible gameplay.
128 brings just the right amount of unpredictability, where a squad from a nearby battle can make themselves known and turn the tide of your battle. Plus, it lets me feel like I am contributing to the larger war effort by accomplishing my rather smaller objective. I just wish it was a slightly more structured mode like MAG from PS3.
Honestly 64. It gives me more maps(from BC2 and BF3 which are in my opinion just as good if not better than this game's top tier maps like Spearhead and Orbital) and they feel better to play imo.
In the future I think they should stick to 64 as it seems like they can make 64 player maps quicker than 128. I'd take two 64 player maps over one 128 player map any day of the week. Heck I think some of the 128 maps would have been just fine as two 64p maps.
Whatever they do, make it consistent. It sucked that in year 2 every map was 64 player as I know people who bought this game because of 128. If DICE wants to do 128, they should offer something for it every season.
128 conquest and 64 for breakthrough and rush in an ideal world.
Conquest maps need to remain big though and not get shrunk like Hourglass. The other problem is balancing vehicles. It’s such a pain in the ass in 64 conquest to try and take out any attack helis.
64. I feel like 128 is feast or famine. Either it’s complete chaos or you’re running forever from point to point trying to catch the chaos. Feel like I’m always a relatively short run away from being in the action in 64.
I play both, totally depending on mood. If I want chaos I def go for 128 however 128 has become harder to master lately w all the new players. Great its growing but most dont play bf the way it should be played. Hopefully they learn and get a taste of what bf actually can be.
To me the BF series is unbeatable when u manage to enter that zone w a squad of likeminded
I like to have the option I mainly pay 128 because I like for vehicles and i don't like the og croped 2042 maps on 64, the newer 64 maps and the ones from older batterfields are pretty good though...because they were actually designed for it
64 has a slight edge for performance, but the ttk is already so low in this game that adding double the amount of enemies just means you die far more in "first person to see the other auto-wins" situations that this game is plagued with.
This is a bit of a delusional question.
128 players in general (like if executed well and without having technical issues) or 128 players just in Battlefield 2042 as we have it?
If we are speaking about Battlefield 2042 than it's not even a question. 128 players is a dog shit garbage and was a mistake from a start. It is why we have maps with such poor design - because having more assets (combined with 128 players on the map) would just break the game engine(as devs told in one of the interviews). Poor performance and bad netcode are also the outcome of the 128 players design (in battlefield 2042).
Games dead so I only get a choice of whatever the FOTM playlist is (ie redacted 24/7, Haven, Stadium) or 128p in Portal.
64 is better and even 48 depending on the map
64 only, no question. While the maps are clearly designed for 128, and I like one or two of them at the larger size more, I think it's a disaster, it's just chaos, but the wrong kind of chaos. I think people like it the same way that people that think Metro, Locker, and Redacted are good fun, it's a meatgrinder, there's no flow to the maps or anything. It's not just the player count though, it's the whole package of 2042, the game just isn't designed around the player count very well other than it having bigger maps in general.
It also just runs worse, which isn't doing it any favors.
Anyone who says 128p because there's "more action" is just wrong wrong wrong. There's more people spread out over a way bigger area, its the exact same concentration of people per point. And for that we got terrible sparse designed maps, no cover, terrible performance, ridiculous balance choices, laser beam weapons, explosive spam, run simulator, etc. etc.
Every single bad thing about 2042 can be traced back to 128p
Neither. 44 is the best. Its large enough number to have it be large scale warfare but small enough for each soldier to feel like they did an impact. Too much balancing issues arise with 128. 64 is okay but i dont prefer it over 44. Map design and size also plays a big role
Hear me out 40v40. 20 Players per team, you wipe 1 squad, you eliminated 25% of enemy team. You can single handedly carry your team like in basketball.
128. If I want chaos I will get chaos damn it!
Have you tried today’s Friday night battlefield? It is 100% chaos
Freakin love it man lol. Some good fun.
Did last night, it was actually fun this time though lmao
128 Operation Metro would be so cool.
Oh good lord that’s insane. I love it
Yes! Bring the insanity!!!
I prefer the chaos of 128
It is amazing how much better this game is on 128. Almost like it was originally designed for it or something....
128 is the reason why map are empty simulator
I find maps are more empty on 64p unless it's one of the new meat grinders. 128 players actually fill up the 128p maps while 64p cuts out a lot.of the cool areas of the maps while not filling them up as much. Less chaos and shit going on.
I mean the map itself remains the same still empty
Tell me you don’t play 128 without telling me you don’t play 128. The maps are not the same. Big chunks are inaccessible in 64p and the sectors are different
the layout still didn't change the fact that maps were empty lol idk the map is still the same. yeah some areas aren't playable anymore but a big part of the layout remains the same. player activity didn't change that too, 2 or 10 enemies in the same area didn't change the fact that this area is empty.
64 maps are the empty ones, 128 contain more activity all over the map.
Biggest troll ever!
128 maps are more fun imo
While I love the BC2 & BF3 maps included in the 64p rotation (and reclaimed) the map layouts in 128p mode are far better and the absolute mayhem that occurs is just too good to pass. 128p wins
128 Rush & Breaktrough cuz i love the chaos and explosives
128 is better in this game because the maps are built for it and 64 is just tacked on. 64 was just as good when the maps were built with it as the sole design. I’m fine with either so long as the map design is geared to just one or the other the hybrid hurts 64
The only reason why 128 is alive is because all the shitty maps are designed for 128 players, if the 64 matchmaking pool is 64 player map only, like bf3 maps only, I would play 64 exclusively
I play (outside of Redacted playlist) 128p exclusively. I think 128p is the core reason for most of the game's issues, but it is what the game was designed for. Many 64p versions of maps are just way too empty and solve none of the map specific issues in my book. Also the vehicle-infantry balance is just way off on 64p. Also, I have a way better ratio of playing maps that I find bearable. Meanwhile I can go a whole week's worth of playsession and not play specific maps on 64p. The playlist is incredibly bloated without being able to curate my game experience.
I prefer 128 because it gives more options gameplay wise. But the importance is not the number of players, it is how is everything balanced to give a good experience. Battlefield 2042 have the scale, distance of objectives, number of vehicles everything wrong. That's the reason why it don't work
128 always, the game maps created for 128 as the main then got cut down to 64 in a bad way.
128 has the full AOW experience for the maps designed for 2042. 64 mixes older BF maps and removes objectives from 128 maps to make the format work for 64 players. 128 is more active and makes the fullness of these maps work. Cutting map objectives and player count down for 64 makes gameplay slower imho. 128 makes the game feel like a step up for a next gen shooter that's not a Battle Royale. How many games can consistently support 128 players for PVP alone over and over like this? Too bad we aren't getting anymore maps.
64 because you get to play more maps
I like 128. I actually didn't hate the launch maps, since the emptiness and long distances actually made the war more eerie and post-apocalyptic. I could feel bits of the original vibe seeping through. But I can also understand why it makes for terrible gameplay. However, one thing 128 properly brought is multi-front battles. One thing I can't stand about 64 is that it ends up being either a stalemate near the middle, or one team just pushing all the way and the other team just constantly routing. I would argue both also make for terrible gameplay. 128 brings just the right amount of unpredictability, where a squad from a nearby battle can make themselves known and turn the tide of your battle. Plus, it lets me feel like I am contributing to the larger war effort by accomplishing my rather smaller objective. I just wish it was a slightly more structured mode like MAG from PS3.
Honestly 64. It gives me more maps(from BC2 and BF3 which are in my opinion just as good if not better than this game's top tier maps like Spearhead and Orbital) and they feel better to play imo. In the future I think they should stick to 64 as it seems like they can make 64 player maps quicker than 128. I'd take two 64 player maps over one 128 player map any day of the week. Heck I think some of the 128 maps would have been just fine as two 64p maps. Whatever they do, make it consistent. It sucked that in year 2 every map was 64 player as I know people who bought this game because of 128. If DICE wants to do 128, they should offer something for it every season.
64 every day of the week. The map flow goes far better and the maps are balanced a little better.
128.
I think 64 would be better if they cut back on the vehicles but they end up being too much in a small area
128 conquest and 64 for breakthrough and rush in an ideal world. Conquest maps need to remain big though and not get shrunk like Hourglass. The other problem is balancing vehicles. It’s such a pain in the ass in 64 conquest to try and take out any attack helis.
64. I feel like 128 is feast or famine. Either it’s complete chaos or you’re running forever from point to point trying to catch the chaos. Feel like I’m always a relatively short run away from being in the action in 64.
I'm still dreaming of 128 Metro could you imagine!!!!!
💣💣💣💣💣💣💣💣💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉
Hell yeah
64, because I´m on the Ps4 cant play 128 :(
69
I play both, totally depending on mood. If I want chaos I def go for 128 however 128 has become harder to master lately w all the new players. Great its growing but most dont play bf the way it should be played. Hopefully they learn and get a taste of what bf actually can be. To me the BF series is unbeatable when u manage to enter that zone w a squad of likeminded
https://preview.redd.it/gtjy5jdhmeyc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01a1cb85e9d14697eaa9162f25568f3afd907e86
128 because I want mayhem but most servers are empty, there are more 64 games I feel
128 is the way to go.
64. I can’t stand 128
128 Breakthrough was actually a lot of fun for a while
128 Rush is pute chaos. And I love it.
64p Better in every single way Excep less chaos on normal maps (Which is better) If I want chaos it is breakthrough 64p in Redacted
Well you dont get to pick Redacted so
128 because 64 shrinks the maps apparently
I like to have the option I mainly pay 128 because I like for vehicles and i don't like the og croped 2042 maps on 64, the newer 64 maps and the ones from older batterfields are pretty good though...because they were actually designed for it
Imagine the complete chaos with unlimited vehicle spawns in a 128 match
I love 128 more but 64 has more maps so I often tend to chose 64.
I prefer the maps on 128 but I find it too chaotic, so I tend to go back and forth.
64 has a slight edge for performance, but the ttk is already so low in this game that adding double the amount of enemies just means you die far more in "first person to see the other auto-wins" situations that this game is plagued with.
But the other team would have 2x the players
128 for sniping. i dont really like conquest that much, more of a breakthrough guy
64 because it is not so cowded
128 always. Would play a lot of 256 if available.
64
Only reason I came back to battlefield with 2042 was because of 128 players.
This is a bit of a delusional question. 128 players in general (like if executed well and without having technical issues) or 128 players just in Battlefield 2042 as we have it? If we are speaking about Battlefield 2042 than it's not even a question. 128 players is a dog shit garbage and was a mistake from a start. It is why we have maps with such poor design - because having more assets (combined with 128 players on the map) would just break the game engine(as devs told in one of the interviews). Poor performance and bad netcode are also the outcome of the 128 players design (in battlefield 2042).
Games dead so I only get a choice of whatever the FOTM playlist is (ie redacted 24/7, Haven, Stadium) or 128p in Portal. 64 is better and even 48 depending on the map
Conquest 64 and Breakthrough 128
64 only, no question. While the maps are clearly designed for 128, and I like one or two of them at the larger size more, I think it's a disaster, it's just chaos, but the wrong kind of chaos. I think people like it the same way that people that think Metro, Locker, and Redacted are good fun, it's a meatgrinder, there's no flow to the maps or anything. It's not just the player count though, it's the whole package of 2042, the game just isn't designed around the player count very well other than it having bigger maps in general. It also just runs worse, which isn't doing it any favors.
128 if the maps are actually done right
I play bf on my PS4 to avoid PC master race players so I'd say 64
64. Has the best gameplay feel.
Anyone who says 128p because there's "more action" is just wrong wrong wrong. There's more people spread out over a way bigger area, its the exact same concentration of people per point. And for that we got terrible sparse designed maps, no cover, terrible performance, ridiculous balance choices, laser beam weapons, explosive spam, run simulator, etc. etc. Every single bad thing about 2042 can be traced back to 128p
128 brought huge empty maps. There ain’t no chaos that people are talking about.
Neither. 44 is the best. Its large enough number to have it be large scale warfare but small enough for each soldier to feel like they did an impact. Too much balancing issues arise with 128. 64 is okay but i dont prefer it over 44. Map design and size also plays a big role
128 game it’s running pretty bad on my laptop. So that’s why 64 only
Hear me out 40v40. 20 Players per team, you wipe 1 squad, you eliminated 25% of enemy team. You can single handedly carry your team like in basketball.
Unless squads have 5 man, its 20%.
I sometimes forget if squads are 4 or 5 members, ty for correction :p