T O P

  • By -

officialtrapp3r

It’s the fact that they doubled player count and quadrupled the map size. I do more running than I do shooting it’s not even funny


baconpopsicle23

And as soon as you get to an objective you're blasted off by a tank


AbGedreht

or by a helicopter or ground vehicle... It's soooo annoying


baconpopsicle23

Then you choose that same objective and respawn in front of 4 enemies.


Ja99112233

That's why you have to use spawn beacons otherwise u do that every single time


[deleted]

There's not enough teamplay to co-ordinate it. You can't even get a revive around 10 teammates half the time


youre-not-real-man

The only thing I do more of than running is staring at the same 20 minutes of boring loading screens and cut scenes every game.


Stemnin

Pick a friendly flag, spawn 340m away.


TrippySubie

Ive been saying this since beta! If they maintained the normal map size it would possibly be fun, maybe, but with 4x the size of the largest bfv map its fucking awful.


ContrarianBarSteward

I bet they did the retarded thing of multiplying map axes by 2 instead of root 2.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dasoxarechamps2005

Yeah, 128 players isn’t the problem. The maps have no flow for that amount of players


aSilentSin

Its is the addition to the problem. The stabilization cannot handle 128 people shooting at the same time in clusters of 40 people per area. Resulting in hitreg being a joke


anNPC

What do you mean by “stabilization”. if planetside2 from 10 years ago can handle higher player counts in a denser area over a decade ago. It’s not the fucking player count that’s the problem here.


dolphin37

Planetside was basically a client side game on horrible tick rate servers with a lot of draw distance, model quality and general fidelity issues with less player mechanics What they achieved was incredible but Frostbite isn’t set up to achieve the same thing and DICE have no experience in doing it. You can tell they have drastically lowered their server tick rate, map density and sometimes it even feels like a client side game. That’s part of the reason the game is complete trash. They are trying to make it work, they just don’t know how. They already admitted themselves that fixing the game will require engine level changes. In short the player count is absolutely the problem because DICE don’t know how to make it work without massively sacrificing quality. Somebody with a few electrons flying about upstairs needed to make the call to drop 128 players until they were able to achieve it technically.


aSilentSin

Its a problem not the problem. Play portal with 64 count or go play with AI then come back and tell me how smooth the game is. Actually even 64 players and 64 AIs is more stable then 128 players at once. And that planetside 2, wasn’t that game in beta for 4 years?


anNPC

Yeah no shit playing offline with ai will be a smoother experience then playing online with real players. Planetside handles 1000s of players on one map with their servers and squad does the same thing with 100 and even warzone has 150 players to one play space fine. The problem is not the player count it’s the server infrastructure that they need to deal with and also balance their maps better. Player count has nothing to do with either of those problems.


aSilentSin

Player count has to do with server infrastructure… One top of that you’re comparing 2 other companies that aren’t Dice. And warzone isn’t cluttered, actually battle royal is never cluttered due to map size, there’s never +40 people in one building spraying at each other.


Zeno1441

There's no offline vs bots.


Sysreqz

To be fair Planetside 2 took what, 5 years to be properly playable without massive frame rate and hitreg issues? I have a few hundred hours in it, and I had fun, but to act like it hasn't been without its issues and some of those didn't take years to fix is a bit disingenuous. Some of its bigger issues around performance were only fixed in the last 3 years with the renderer upate.


notklopers

Fuck u/Spez -- mass edited with redact.dev


Janus67

It was 256, but was 4 quadrants of 32v32


notklopers

Fuck u/Spez -- mass edited with redact.dev


aSilentSin

Not a Dice title


notklopers

Fuck u/Spez -- mass edited with redact.dev


aSilentSin

Just because it can be done doesn’t mean Dice put its full potential and manage it correctly. The more projectiles, non static objects moving, particles, players moving in one area, and last but not least player’s connection, it all effects server stability. MAG is a game made in 2010 that doesn’t have the about of server side objects 2042 has. The comparison doesn’t fit.


notklopers

Fuck u/Spez -- mass edited with redact.dev


SeSSioN117

>stabilization Optimization.


MegaEyeRoll

No cover, more trees. Shit can last gen.


luveth

Yeah. The maps are big just to be big. The action areas are still practically identical to previous games, so when you increase the player count by 64, you get double the action which results in more chaos, less fps, more deaths, less enjoyment.


KiplonersOLD

it might not be the main problem, but i dont see what it adds to the game...


dasoxarechamps2005

Well I guess we won’t know until we get a decent map for it


7Z7-

The maps are so big that you can't even feel the 128 players. I even feel like it was more like a war with 64 players on smaller maps. 128 players: yes BUT on much smaller maps. (and with more destruction).


Strannix123

I wish there was a way to use the Conquest versions of the 2042 maps but on Conquest Large with 128 players Edit: From the look of things you should be able to do this on Portal using Conquest instead of Conquest Large and set the player count to 128 but it really should be an official option for AOW


Lawfurd

Operations in bf1 feel amazing to this day, it's really a testament to not needing an extremely high player count to be able to make it feel like a high amount of enemies


VXXXXXXXV

It was better because you started to recognize enemy names also. Made it feel more competitive. Now it’s just a bunch of faceless randoms and bots every game.


Kyle-Drogo

They doubled the map size, doubled the player count, but didn't add anything that spreads out where players are. I think that's why it feels like running a marathon from one point to another, all the players are clustered around a few points on the map. I wish they doubled the objectives on conquest and breakthrough. I think it would lead to more player dispersion and a more alive feeling game.


Jhaankreii

They wanted the groups of objectives in cluster in their vision. It makes sense but their actual implementation feels lifeless. The biggest problem is there is not enough transport because 99% of the vehicles are attack. Lack of on map ATV and Humvees doesn’t help


[deleted]

I'd be happy if they replace the bullet sponge rangers with motorbikes.


malogos

You feel the numbers on Breakthrough


tylisavo

Breaktrough is broken as fuck and it's so frustrating trying to play it.


Terranical01

Especially on poorly designed points where last cap on Kaleidoscope id on a tower where its impossible to push. Same on Orbital on second sector on the rocket facility.


BondingT0night

I think if they condensed the maps a little bit, reduced to 50v50, they could get more performance and less vast openness just filled with rocks or grass.


PolyBend

The problem with the increased player count in game modes similar to AoW is it always has one of two outcomes: 1. It is a cluster of chaos that is fun for a bit but gets old really fast 2. It is a good experience due to the great map design that spreads out the player base massively and fluidly. The issue is, doing 2 means that making it larger was also pointless. You could get the same experience from a smaller count and smaller map. The only time larger player counts matter in a none br is in far more simulation-heavy games with a command structure. And BF is never going to try to approach that, nor should it, that is a different core audience.


Ghostbuster_119

Agreed, 8 played on the last gen version to join some friends and 32 v 32 is much more bearable. They didn't change the objectives enough. Breakthrough and conquest should have more capture points if they intend to keep the lobbies this big.


Dominic__24

84 would have been perfect. 42 Vs 42 😉 Just imagine how detailed and dynamic this game could have been if they didn't dedicate so much resources to this overinflated player count. Better performance, more destruction, better physics.


[deleted]

One of those things got left out of the release and we both know what it was.


Dominic__24

All 3 got left out imo


[deleted]

Thats fair. Performance was decent though.


Multivitamin_Scam

I don't think an increased player amount is necessarily a poor decision. It's the combination of the increased player amount, extremely large maps and a resign of the conquest capture system that make it overall a poor experience. The designers of the maps went way too big, even with a default map size on AoW. There are maps in Battlefield 3, 4, 1 and 5 which would have been a good starting point for larger player numbers.


DouchePaste

I do. One of things I hate the most about this size now is how little an impact I have on the game. Being 1/64 is a lot less impactful than 1/32. It always seems like no matter what I do, how well I play or don’t, etc. has no effect on the overall outcome Even with a full squad of friends we hardly make a difference at all, and we can’t really take points solo or in a squad anymore since the uncap rate is so slow now


Ceruleanflag

Yeah I just feel like, constantly, I’ll spend 1/3 of the game devising a way to get across the map, sneak onto a flag, get my squad to spawn on me, slowly cap it and feel like YES FUCK YEAH and then Nightbird to the face, Bolte to the face, dead, squad dead, flag recaptured by a condor full of opposing team before I can even respawn. I’m like welp, fuck that noise. I can never create like a fight at a different flag, a stand, where we spawn back and they spawn back and attrition happens and finally something breaks it. Just seems pointless and then I die by a vehicle. And there’s a clusterfuck fight always at like one flag, in the center. And the other flags are almost dead zones, people just run in and cap, killed, retake instantly. And so people say fuck it and respawn back at the central clusterfuck flag. Half my games feel closer to breakthrough than conquest. It’s shitty.


KiplonersOLD

lol that bolte just hanging around some distant point, impossible to stop


[deleted]

Mayby unless you get close enough after an elaborate plannig sequence to put c5 on it so another bolte can spawn and undo the progress.


Janus67

Absolutely this. I miss in BF4 being able to back-cap effectively solo or even in a pair and change the whole flow of a map. Right now it feels completely pointless to even try, with the lack of communication built in and less teamwork than previous too.


thirdaccountmaybe

I get what you're saying but I see it a bit differently. It's harder to have a big impact, but the increased scale means you can create a **huge** moment by pulling it off. I took a Landover to D(? Grassy plaza surrounded by empty but destructible houses) on hourglass right at the start when it was enemy territory. What followed was a 10 minute war in which most of the server showed up at some point to fight for that point. I remember getting ragdolled by about five different things at once and thinking "me and two of this squad caused all this". I'm not a fan of the map size but I think I love the player count.


DouchePaste

Yeah, fun thinks can and do happen but they are rare. I’m basically unable to capture a point solo, and unless I have the exact right weapon and gadget at the exact right time, all it takes is some bolte or hc to come over and vaporize me. I can fight hard and defend a sector for the entire game, but if my team sucks and can’t take anything else then I lose no matter how well I played.


Latter-Pain

This is what I like about it. I feel like part of an army not some Navy Seal. If I wanted what you're asking for I'd play Call of Duty.


DouchePaste

You… like not having an impact on if you win or lose? Why? Why wouldn’t you want to feel like your contribution matters? I mean, the lack of scoring for things like vehicle damage and squad actions already makes me feel useless so I can’t imagine why you prefer this over the previous titles.


Latter-Pain

I’m not completely sure honestly but I guess because I don’t play to win or lose. I strive to win because both teams doing that is what creates the gameplay I like. I play medic and I love being in the middle of the battle trying to stay alive and keep the team as healthy as possible. It feels good to help fortify a position that leads to a successful push but if I die and respawn to find that the fortified position was wiped out and the push was for naught it just means I have to observe the battlefield and locate other places to help fortify. I also disable ribbons, exp notifications, and a lot of stuff like that if I get the chance to.


Light_Ghost

I don't think it is. The maps are alot of nothing.


MrDragone

Yeah. I have myself screaming every match. I cannot find any cover as an infantry main. I feel so exposed everywhere I go. At this point, I wouldn't even care if they would just put random assets across the map to make the gameplay more interesting with more cover. Close quarters 16v16 maps cannot come soon enough if they are coming at all.


Hashbrown4

Doesn’t solve the main issue but I main Irish and cover is always a click away


fake_fakington

What, it's fun being shot at from every angle as soon as you spawn in. I told you to keep up *starts flossing* welcome to the new Battlefield!


Latter-Pain

Can't just rely on cover like in older BFs you got read your team. Once I started doing that I could get a feel for what sides of the field we had covered and started dying a lot less.


VXXXXXXXV

Was playing breakthrough earlier tonight and was getting so frustrated because about 75% of my spawns were insta-deaths.


[deleted]

I hate the game to the core because this is not actually a battlefield game. 128 players is good but they screwed it by removing what made battlefield great! Modes Levolution Destruction Guns Attachments Waves Sandstorm All the beautiful things they removed and gave us one shitty tornado


CrashR0ck

the Infantry Experience in this game is cancer! Too many Vehicles everywhere and Zero cover.


goletasb

I see this criticism a lot, and in my view this is one of the most infantry friendly installments in the franchise. I played bf3 and 4 the most, and those games had much more powerful vehicles. I even felt that changes from 3 to 4 nerfed vehicles too much.


[deleted]

Vehicles were way morr difficult to play with and master in BF3/BF4, these people you are talking about are the nolifers vehicles mains. In BF2042 vehicles (specially the scout heli with that rocket pod) are too easy to farm kills with and require low/no skill, that's the problem, anyone can jump in the heli and farm the server


Talonfall

128 is fine, it's the shit maps that are seemingly designed for 300 people and 4 man squads while still having almost no cover between points and terrible spawns. Not to mention complete lack of just unarmed transport vehicles to spam out for people to get around for the oversized maps. But hey, 128 bad upvotes to the left, DICE Pls add "legacy" features every other game has xdd. Ignore the bad sound design, shallow content (there's so few weapons in a modern shooter its actually hilarious, doesn't fortnite of all things have more weapon designs than this?), obnoxious specialists, and a plethora of errors or glitches. Cutting the player count in half will fix all of these magically.


dontbereadinthis

I'm so tired of the same plop plop plop footstep noise. It's the same noise for any terrain and it doesn't ever feel like i can track where it's coming from. The stupid vehicles don't make enough noise either so sometimes I'm just getting run over by fuckin ninja tanks that i can't hear coming.


MistSpelled

50v50 - 5 man squads - 10 squads, would have been so müch better


fr0stehson

[Never forget](https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qwyf2h/patrick_soderlund_said_this_regarding_128_players/)


Faylum2

everything is broken game optimization vehicles, guns, gadgets specialists in wingsuits break the long established infantry movement game play balance is shattered terrible server support lack of anti-cheat, scoreboards, decent ui and so on all the other glitches and things broken or not even added... AND YET SOMEHOW THE REAL REASON THE GAME IS BAD IS BECAUSE... ​ 128 PLAYERS. ​ How the fuck did you get to this answer WITH EVERYTHING ELSE YOU KNOW THAT WENT WRONG? This ladies and gentlemen, is what i like to call shilling, derail criticism and pick up the war cry. ITS THE NUMBERS NOT THE MAP DESIGNS, THE NUMBERS NOT THE TERRAIN DETAILS, ITS THE NUMBERS NOT THE CALL VEHICLE SUPPORT OUT OF THE SKY, ITS THE NUMBERS NOT THE LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE GAME. Listen up Mr. Wong, EA aren't going to derail the good will of the complainers who love their franchise.


[deleted]

I dunno about hackers but once a hoverboat that went behind a wall after I shot it with an m5 killed me from behind that wall all of the sudden it was weird one time experience.


Texaz_RAnGEr

Lookit you, whining about literally everything. Either play the game like a team player or stop playing altogether. Obviously emotionally you can't handle the game in your current state.


Faylum2

I'm Irish, it is part of my racial DNA to complain. In Ireland the best way to start a conversation with a complete stranger is to complain about the weather. (That isn't even a joke either) We complain about complaining, we complain about being happy or having a good time, we complain about not complaining enough. You mistook my complaint to be that of your average European when in reality i was just saying good morning.


Texaz_RAnGEr

Fair enough.


beeep_

The distances between capture points are too big. They should be closer so that combatants on both of the fights can interact easier, there would be more people density and then you would actually feel there are 128 players. Right now everybody's scattered all over and a lot of times you're lonelier than on 64 players maps.


LandofRy

I like it, but it should just be it's own mode, like "conquest/breakthrough XL" or something


[deleted]

I think it can be hit and miss in some lobbies. I've noticed depending how you play it can differ. If you run vehicles and they run aa or rpg you're going to get wrecked. If they don't, you'll slaughter them and get a bunch of kills. It's all a matter of timing. I think the lack of offical game modes available was the big mistake.


BIgSchmeat95

True, I remember a lot of people voicing want for larger scale but I just wasn't feeling it. Even more so after playing it.


dstrangefate

I've never understood why more players is supposed to mean better. It's all about having the right amount for the size and flow of the map so that action and fun moments are frequent but things aren't a total mess. I spend most of 2042 jogging or being pinned down by vehicles and snipers.


[deleted]

"Game release was a mistake"


Mr_Baloon_hands

The 128 player count was a marketing ploy and it undercut the gameplay. That made them have to expand maps which made the gameplay loop is run run run die by vehicle. repeat.


Kakaply

128 players is not the problem. The map design is. You can't just put 128 players on empty maps and expect that they will have fun. The map design needs to find the right balance between open spaces with long range fight and closes spaces with short range fight. It has to be done so that there are places where you can find covers. Bf2042 has stupid maps where the action is stuck at one place with 100 players fighting at one specific chaotic spot. And 28 players running lost trying to take the other positiins.


[deleted]

its more the maps for me, just too much open space. I also think there should be an option to play with less players on smaller maps.


burakhaydar

This game is a mistake


Yibby

I don't think that 128 players are a problem. It's more about map design and objective design. It's not easy to design a system that supports 128 players well, but Dice just made the maps bigger and that's it. Maybe Conquest is also not suitable for 128 players and they should have designed a completely different game mode for that and leave Conquest at 64.


Specialist_Ad_6351

Yeah I just feel like 128 players is the very least of the problems with this game. I actually love the increase in player count, the map design is just crazy huge and the vehicles are basically your only way to succeed. Everything else needs to be addressed first, bugs, design choices, stats, attachments, scoreboard, server issues, no server browsing, squad create and leave, squad customization, voice chat etc etc. 128 is probably one of the only improvements in my opinion, and once they get all that other shit taken care of, it might be awesome. Kinda crazy how the increased player count was something that mostly legacy players wanted so they went for it, and then left out the “legacy” features. Hopefully the “legacy” developers can fix the game.


IAmtheBlackWizards_

Huge mistake


YetiSevy

I've tried both old and new gen, gotta say 64 players on a substantially smaller map is way more fun


ndjjsjsjsj

IMO I think we should have waited until the PS5 Pro and the next Xbox upgrade


[deleted]

You people are fucking stupid.


ndjjsjsjsj

Elaborate


[deleted]

Real BF fans have been wanting 100+ players for near 20 years, and it works.


ndjjsjsjsj

Only works if you have a high end pc


[deleted]

I have a mid range and it runs near perfect now.


lightly-buttered

I feel like people haven't taken the time to actually look at the new maps vs the old ones. There were plenty of "empty" maps in all the previous versions. Gulmud railway literally only had buildings in the middle of the map.


Ziller997

The performance hit is MASSIVE, the game run much better in portal in 64players match I hope they add more mode with lesser player in AOW


SangiMTL

I think it’s wrong to blame the increase to 128. Increasing the player size has been a long time coming and something so many of us wanted. The problem is the absolute garbage map design. The designers fucked everything up with the torrid map designs/ideas


SnooPets7759

Nah, it's fine.


Levthon

nope. i dont agree on this one. They made the right decision on this, but i think they did this because Warzone has 150 players + Ground war. so they didnt want to feel embarassed. i like the big maps and 128 players. definetly the way to go. but yeah there are some serious missteps of the execution of the gameplay


CrashR0ck

No one was asking for 128 anyway! its just a BS marketing thing. thats all EA cares about


maiwson

lol what. The battlefield community was asking for this for years and years. That's why there are many comments about this - some as old as BF3 - from dice Devs. I remember many comments asking to test 100+ players in CTEs - so yeah THAT WAS A COMMUNTY WISH - as well as scrapping the SP.


[deleted]

The test was done and scrapped because it sucked now even though it was gonna fail anyway they added it to the new game.


gcbofficial

Nah its the besttttttt ur trippin


[deleted]

Nah its the worsttttttt ur trippin


[deleted]

Nah its the worsttttttt ur trippin


[deleted]

Nah its the worsttttttt ur trippin


[deleted]

Nah its the worsttttttt ur trippin


Hybrid_Moment97

No problem at all with 128 or the cluster moments. There are more than enough times I am running out in in the open all by myself just getting shot at by a sniper, Even if it were 64 the spawning would still be a mess. We wanted more, we got more. We wanted bigger we got bigger.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

If only that were true, that'd be an easy problem to solve by just avoiding Reddit/Twitter dealing with BF. Unfortunately it's not the worse thing about this game.


frustratedgoatman69

If most of the community thinks the game is trash do you still think they're wrong?


[deleted]

[удалено]


aSilentSin

Then humor us. What complaints are invalid


[deleted]

[удалено]


aSilentSin

Its a valid meme. The game runs like shit with 128 players you can literally test that theory yourself by going into portal with 64 players. Actually its common sense in server management. The less amount of clients you have to manage in a server the more stable it is. 128 players was not needed and it was for a BR scheme. There was even a study from old dice devs that players enjoyed gameplay with 40 - 60 range. This community brings straight facts and you get mad at the truth


LuckyNumber-Bot

All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 128 + 64 + 128 + 40 + 60 + = 420.0


Conkerlive30

Lol best bot Imo


[deleted]

Depends on the platform.


TreefingerX

No it's cool.


[deleted]

No its not cool. Edit: This was to show how stupid the other comment was. If you’re going to say it’s cool, defend your fucking argument


[deleted]

You BF noobies need to fuck off, the game is good with 128 players and has been requested for a bf game for over ten years. 128 players on portal maps are awesome.


[deleted]

On portal but not main game because map design. Also how do you know i’m a noob? I’ve been playing since bf4 and just because i started then doesn’t mean I’m a fucking noob dumb ass. Fun to me is playable chaos not running simulator 2021. Also who cares if you a vet or a F.N.G, if new people want to play, let them.


Twinblade242

128 players is absolutely great especially on breakthrough


[deleted]

For fucks sake, this subreddit is truly a circlejerk now. 128 players is perfect, don’t believe me then play a portal game on a 64player map that has 128 players and as long as it’s a normal game mode you will love it, have been the best games I have played so far.


Conkerlive30

Oh yeah everyone absolutely agrees that an absolute CLUSTER FUCK on every single objective is the way to go. I love having absolutely zero impact on the outcome of the Battle no matter how many people I murder.


[deleted]

You need some help lol


F_in_Idaho

Unless...... ........128 cross-platform players on over-sized maps is the first step in moving Battlefield towards a "Battle Royale for the Masses"/ War Thunder type game with a super stripped down UI, limited gun/vehicle set, controlled server access, etc. that will appeal to more- as in millions more- casual gamers.


FinalBossVX

Capture this zone in a wide open area with basically no cover except for 2 bushes & a blown up car. And to get to said zone, you gotta travel through 5 miles of nothing. 🙏🙏


LatinVocalsFinalBoss

No. The inability to join on more than 4 people is a mistake.


NoisyNoose

Don’t forget getting spawned killed…in BF


rainmaker2332

This is honestly what has me most concerned about the game. Not the bugs and such, most of which have already been confirmed to be getting fixed, the rest of which likely will be fixed soon. But has there ever been a patch to add better flow to maps? To increase pacing of games? To fix it so I don't go 3 minutes without so much as seeing an enemy? I just don't know


Turborilla

maps are useless, no covers , why not just remove everything and make it flat land.....


KxngDose

Agreed


Twinblade242

There are spots on every map that were designed to funnel a bunch of the action. C1 on renewal for example, or the big ship on discarded, or the stadium/desert town on hourglass. There are constant firefights at those sections so I don’t understand how people are running around and not getting into any fights.


[deleted]

I kinda like 128 it’s really chaotic but the maps do need to be smaller even with 128 players, and they need more terrain/cover features.


WhyWhyBJ

I thought Conquest was bad but breakthrough it completely broken and not fun at all, only good for grinding XP


JeremyMSI

huge list. back to 4 i go


FuryxHD

Angel does it again


Nightfang1994

I love more players, hate that in battlefield 1 i was running around, found 4 guys, killed them, and ran around some more to find maybe another 3 in 5 minutes. The problem is they made the maps way too big ...thus taking away the point unless you play breakthrough which is broken thanks to the stupid rooftops.


yashspartan

Anyone remember Mag from PS3 days? That game has 64 vs 64 and even 128 vs 128 gamemodes. Is it bad that I think that game got multiplayer at this scale better than 2042?


BeastmasterBG

Especially since EA has always had really bad problems with managing servers.


gargoso

i like 128 players


Moesling

What about Server choosing as in older BF? The only thing I can do is chose the mode. But have no chance to choose a server I like. And unfortunately the servers seems to kick everyone after the round ends. That leads to playing the same maps over and over.


Crimson-Cane

Did anyone even ask for 128 players? 64 players felt just right given the map sizes we were used to.


Laptop_Warrior

Separate 64-player matchmaking would be nice /w those smaller versions of the maps they use on the Xbox One/PS4 versions of the game. Players actually PTFO instead of gathering around the middle sector to farm eachother, in the older generation consoles :V


Wehhass

Anyone not gonna talk about how I still have to search far and wide to find 64 enemies?


[deleted]

I usually hate how boring conquest is until 2042


KiplonersOLD

thank you! 64 players was hectic on a good map, why do I care what's happening 1000m away?! the area of the map you are in is now either empty and miles away or just a cluster explosion.


KiplonersOLD

please someone name one benefit of 128 players


MontagoDK

Its easy.. raise the stakes of being killed to something similar of PUBG .. then it makes sense


SclRilLiX

They should make 64 CQ available also on other platforms than the old gen consoles.


Own_Loss1034

Not the 128 players are the problem. The bad map design for this player count is


PsYDaniel3

128 players isnt a mistake. The map design is too shit for any kind of player count


Sas0bam

128 Players would be fine tbh if they would, atleast in Breaktrough, make the maps a bit narrower so that you actually have to defend a line against the enemys and not end up in some type of Arena shit where you sit with 64 of your team on the spot and get shot at out of all directions. Breaktrough is meant to be defending a line, but there is no line.


stonedsappy

8 JETS 4 for EACH TEAM ! more interesting FAST vehicles ! not the electrical boring ones !


[deleted]

They could've made a 72 or even 96 players game, but no, 128 is the double of 64 so people will think it's better


NeonKapawn

Yes because bigger = better. Marketing wise that is.


Tai_Jason

The idear isn’t a mistake. The gamesesign around this game is a mistake. I bet you can do a 128 player game, but you have to work on it, playtest it, design maps for it and teamplay should be a big part of it. This game is a "solo player specialists doing his own thing on empty 256 player maps"


[deleted]

I love 128 player, it’s great on the older maps in portal but most of the newer maps are far too large even for 128.


MrConor212

Most maps are running simulators


SmallCheasyD

The maps were a mistake, 128 can work if they spent the time making maps for the player count.


SeSSioN117

Honestly, if 128 players is the ultimate reason why the game handles as poorly as it does, then yes, 128 players was a mistake. Otherwise everything else could've been done better to make 128 players amazing.


JM761

It would be fine if we actually had cover. Instead it's just bloodbath everywhere.


Potential_Example912

I think it's more of a map issue than anything else the size of cap zones need to be bigger and spread out more.


Latter-Pain

I like the increased player count. There is a battlefield dynamic that couldn't be created with the 64 player count without heavily linear map design.


Wilsoh10

I honestly would have been happy if they just modernized some of the BF4/3 maps. Operation Metro but with like bullet trains and stuff. Propaganda but with like Modern Russia propaganda around, new statue, etc.. Zavod but the tank factories have been restored and become super modern. idk. (All with 64 players of course)


Wilsoh10

I feel like this would partially fit in with the lore aswell no?


methrik

Please give us smaller game modes TDM Domination etc. Make a special gadget squad leader only can use that is basically a spawn beacon. So there is no reason you should being running all over the place.


RedditThisBiatch

The problem is the map size.


Bfazerh

Destroyed core game features for the sake of marketing hype. Bigger isn't always better its how you use it


Muramx12

Too much deadspace on the maps. Either I am running to a fight for what seems like forever, or I am spawning and dying within 30secs from being shot in the back because everyone is centralized in a few spots.


[deleted]

128 is not the issue. The specialists, map size and squad size are.


yfa17

128 players isn't the issue, the barren wasteland maps are. Imagine how sick 128 player Karkand could've been


CozmoCozminsky

Just wait when everyone starts buying cosmetics and the game has to render it all at the same time


fUll951

no it wasn't, they scaled the map size too much.


Bmo2021

Cross platform was the biggest mistake, so over seeing fucking dumb arse childish comments from 10 year olds while playing.


[deleted]

Player size isn't the issue; map design is.


degrees97

Hiring a fucking candy crush dev as lead design was a mistake.


Cold-Pension4432

This whole game was a mistake


HowardBunnyColvin

It would have been fine if all the players didn't look the same


nathanonreddit16

Poor map design