-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
You can also try to get in the closed alpha happening in July.
Team balance.
It's to prevent situations where 4 players in a party join a match and they either completely imbalance the teams or have to split up into different teams.
Bots would give the team with less players a bit of a chance until the slots are filled in.
Yes, but BF1 was console as well and they have uploaded 2042 alpha files to PSN already.
Sign up and completely your profile for both of these:
Electronic Arts Playtesting - Sign in
ea.arcsivr.com
EA Playtesting - Sign in
na.playtesting.ea.com
The first is the community playtesting and is a guaranteed invite so they will send you an email when something is coming. The second is a signup playtesting session, they will notify you by email when a session is happening but you get chosen afterwards. I think a Dragon Age alpha registration for the signup playtesting is available for 7/7 for example. They also invited vets from all platforms for the BF1 and BFV test, but they gave me a PC key for BFV even though I only play on PS.
This is super useful and informative, thank you for taking the time 😊🌸Sign up and completely your profile for both of these:
Electronic Arts Playtesting - Sign in
EA Playtesting - Sign in
The first is the community playtesting and is a guaranteed invite so they will send you an email when something is coming. The second is a signup playtesting session, they will notify you by email when a session is happening but you get chosen afterwards. I think a Dragon Age alpha registration for the signup playtesting is available for 7/7 for example.
You should always sign up for playtesting at https://www.ea.com/playtesting.
Never know what game you may get to have some input on. Sometimes even before a game is announced. :)
Never know what game you may get to have some input on. Sometimes even before a game is announced. :)
Second one is more on location?Yes, but BF1 was console as well and they have uploaded 2042 alpha files to PSN already.
Sign up and completely your profile for both of these:
Electronic Arts Playtesting - Sign in
EA Playtesting - Sign in
The first is the community playtesting and is a guaranteed invite so they will send you an email when something is coming. The second is a signup playtesting session, they will notify you by email when a session is happening but you get chosen afterwards. I think a Dragon Age alpha registration for the signup playtesting is available for 7/7 for example. They also invited vets from all platforms for the BF1 and BFV test, but they gave me a PC key for BFV even though I only play on PS.
Yeah but partly because they did in-person testing as well, it is more of a sign up and hopefully you get chosen system. Remote testing still might be limited by region but many of them have been listed without region limits.
Zero issue with bots as long as you can tell them apart no problem. I hate when you don't know
Yeah they need to say bot in the player list when you hit tab.
"Once you become a member, sign up for a Playtest available in your area."
Remote QA test maybe? :( (Playtests are good, but they are not available in my area.)
We have done some remote UXR sessions during the pandemic, yea. It depends on the projects, though, every team does what they are most comfortable with. It is always a security risk when doing these things, but luckily people have been very respectful, which is greatly appreciated.
That would just split the playerbase, which isn't preferable, especially with 128 player servers.
I'm not a huge fan of bots mixing with real players. In multiplayer, I want to know that I'm doing well against real players and not having my stats padded by bots. It's why I also don't really care for the new style of kill sharing in your stats. If I pull off some sort of amazing play or snipe, it's not gonna be cool when it's just a bot moping around.
Yeah, these tests are risky, but fortunately most of these testers are sensible individuals. (I've been doing this since 2015, for example)
Eh, older battlefields definitely struggle. Usually only 3 or 4 active servers.
This was true for Battlefield 4 on PC up until recently.
I meant the main BF at the time should not be struggling in those regions.
Fired up BF1 for a bit to get back into the series. Played 5 matches, 4 had hackers getting 300+ kills. Instant kill on spawn and everything.
The real fun part is ther's no vote kick system, so they'll continue to ruin games until DICE finally gets around to them. Straight up uninstalled.
If 2042 doesn't have robust anti-cheat tools AND a basic af vote kick system, there's no way I'm touching this on pc.
The real fun part is ther's no vote kick system, so they'll continue to ruin games until DICE finally gets around to them. Straight up uninstalled.
If 2042 doesn't have robust anti-cheat tools AND a basic af vote kick system, there's no way I'm touching this on pc.
If the game is as big as DICE hope it is, filling servers should not be an issue. I can understand the use of bots for lower population places etc but I would rather have the options to have less full servers than just have bots roaming around doing dumb bot stuff. Personal preference of course. I always prefer to play my MP games with actual people since bots cannot replace the pure enjoyment/rage that playing real people can cause haha.
Because they typically are dumb and it leads to people getting easy kills/wins.
I see nothing wrong with people getting easy kills from bots. In what games are there enough bots that they give the opposing team easy wins? That does sound like a problem. For BF 2042, it seems unlikely someone would get placed on a team that's mostly bots while the other is mostly people.
As long as player count tells you how many non-bot players there are then I don't care. BFV seems to have a big issue with tons of players leaving immediately after every map. That leads to like the first 5 minutes of each match having lower player counts before filling in. It'd be nice if that helps fill that gap.
They been working on working on a more robust ai solution for quite a while now so hopefully this is more than just dumb bots running around. Hopefully they are difficult without essentially cheating, decent filler between rounds and for low population regions would be good.
I doubt the bots will be a problem. People complained about the AI soldiers in Titanfall too, and they were fine there.
Ah yes, the worst part about Titanfall. Bots are awful and only good for people who can't compete online.
Oh hey, this is what I have been saying for years now, but everytime I bring it up I get lambasted for it. Apparently it's all in my head.
I guess we played different Titanfalls then... In both games you could easily ignore the bots and go for Pilots/Titans if you were good enough, and it wouldn't really be an issue. Meanwhile, players who weren't so good could have fun with the bots. Win-win.
I think your issue is that you don't want these players to have fun, and would prefer to farm them instead. Same thing going on with all these streamers whining about skill based matchmaking. The second people who have less time to dedicate to a game get an option to have fun and maybe don't run into all the "highly skilled" players all the time, people start complaining.
There is a big difference with bots in that game and what will be in 2042, and they are not being added to give bad players something else to shoot at. What happens when they are more effective and challenging for the players? I am not against bots conceptually and think what they are doing for the next game is fine, but also do not want brain dead ones. Additionally they will be implementing better team balancing so games are not one sided.
COD also had the issue of monetization affecting matchmaking.
Last edited:
If they are not being added to give bad players something else to shoot at (which was the issue the other poster had) then what is the issue? If the bots work fine, what's the problem? Even the best bot will probably be more fun to fight for a lot of people than many try hard players I've met (or even myself, in some ways). I don't see what's so horrible about the game having bots to fill empty spots. It helps keep it alive longer (I still play Red Orchestra and Tannenberg from time to time, and those games have more bots than people nowadays)
And regarding skill based matchmaking, I wasn't talking specifically about COD. Streamers seem to hate it on all games, and the reason for it is way too obvious: they want to feel like gods killing people who have less skill/time to dedicate to the game.
There should not be any issue if the bots are competent but it is understandable that people will be apprehensive of the idea when they were braindead in other games. Sometimes they would be braindead but still cheat, like have very wide lock on radius and lock on distance. I think if they can solve these issues with the resources that have been put into the ai work, maybe the experience will be better and those concern unfounded.
Agree partially with your second statement, but I have heard from people playing MW2019 and CW that many times it does not match teams with equal or very similar skill. Instead the algorithm mixes skill levels in a way that still produces very lopsided games, and playing with mixed skill parties is very frustrating. I am hoping their team balancer for the next game can improve on what BF1 had though, it is a stark contrast to the almost always lopsided games of BFV without it.
Most bullets shot in combat are for suppression. They were trying to mimic real military tactics while making LMGs more than just slower assault rifles with larger magazines. Battlefield has always had a touch of milsim mixed in with the arcadey wackiness. That's what separates it from CoD.
But the mechanic has been muted to the point where most players won't notice it in BFV and it will probably be similar in 2042. In hindsight, preventing squad spawning has always been a bigger benefit than just throwing off someone's aim so it still has some strategic utility.
Balancing AI is always tricky. Go too far and AI will drill players into eyeballs across the map in full auto with pinpoint accuracy, while knowing location of every player at all times. Don't go far enough and you have swarm of brain dead zombies that just fill space, but otherwise are absolute waste of everyone's time.
Getting to that sweetspot of "believable player like behavior without obvious flaws or AI cheating" is task I don't envy.
Getting to that sweetspot of "believable player like behavior without obvious flaws or AI cheating" is task I don't envy.
They started researching AI for bots a couple of years ago. Will be interesting to see what they came up with.
I remember a long time ago there was a bot developer for Counter Strike that made a bot that learned from players over time and started to do things like jump shots, shooting through certain vents/walls if it believed a player was there and even learned to jump stack. Once the bots learned from enough players, they were actually really damn good and felt like playing with other players at times.
Too bad you are forced to put a mobile phone number to partecipate, I'll skip :/
No, suppression in BF3 literally made the bullets disappear if you try to shot after someone is already shooting you, there was nothing realistic about, basically the first one that started shooting won.
Gladly in BF4 they removed that crap and I suppose it will be the same in 2042.
I'm not saying that I want to see bf3 suppression make a comeback, but the intent of making suppression to be usefull, which is realistic, but does not mean that it is ( or even can be ) done by making the suppression effect realistic in itself. I mean it's not like people will actively fear for their life in a videogame, even less so if the TTK is slow and you have health regen.
Sounds similar to what Playground Games do with the Forza Drivatars, which work really well although its likely not as complex as a FPS.