Yeah, I really enjoy 128 players. Smaller versions of maps and players would be nice options obviously, but the maps are so large I don't feel like I'm dying more than the last few BF games I've tried.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Battlefield 2042 |OT| Back to the Future Part I
- Thread starter iRAWRasaurus
- Start date
Dawnbreaker is the best urban city environment DICE ever created.
Zavod is the best military installation environment.
BF4 had some amazing maps with great flow of action.
I think there are a few specific choke points that need to be broken up but overall I'm loving the feel of all-out combat. Breakthrough gets straight up bonkers when you're rushing a point and there are vehicles speeding full of peeps shooting, helis and jets blowing up everything around you, and you watch the ticket count with one eye. That's exactly what I want from Battlefield: over-the-top "E3 moments" every match, and I get it.
That said, I agree with you about the destruction but tbh, Bad Company 2 was the last Battlefield game that really leaned into it. That would also contribute heavily to a major complaint about this game: the wide open, flat areas. Levelling every building 10 minutes into the game would ruin the flow even further.
I don't think the player count is inherently the problem, just the way some of the maps are set up. It feels like the changes to Rush with Breakthrough tried to prevent the mode from becoming a madhouse and instead direct players across multiple points to spread things out - it works some of the time but it can be frustrating when it doesn't.
We may have similar tastes, I thought Zavod had some of the best flow of any map. Just constant engagement at caps, between caps, ability to flank caps constantly.
A man child that hits every. single. nail. on the head. You may not like his schtick but he ain't wrong in this particular case.
I do wonder what could have been pulled off with a reduced player count but the split vehicle/infantry gameplay that a lot of folks associate with Battlefield benefits from more people on the field.
I'll also echo that I'm really missing urban maps. Kaleidoscope having the buildings lining the sides at that ine capture point instead of being integrated more was a disappointment.
I'll also echo that I'm really missing urban maps. Kaleidoscope having the buildings lining the sides at that ine capture point instead of being integrated more was a disappointment.
The 128 player cap raise isn't disliked universally, but how many of the fans think the empty maps and limited destruction is a good trade-off?
Empty maps have nothing to do with player count. They could have easily reduce the travel time and made denser maps that still flow well with 128 players.
The 'dying way more' is offset by the fact that you're killing more and have more opportunities to kill. I personally like the chaos, and the fact that you can just look in the distance of a map and see huge battles happening adds a lot IMO. I do think they could add in a smaller mode or 2, especially for the people who want more intimate infantry combat.
Destruction doesn't seem different than the last couple of games so no complaints there. Now if we get confirmation that maps are empty because of technical limitations from the increased count rather than misguided design decisions, I'd be more likely to agree. But assumptions are being made there as it is.
When i launch the game, im just getting a black screen. Game is using like 50% CPU but i get nothing. Known issue/workaround for this?
Agreed! The biggest complaints I keep hearing about have nothing to do with player count.
As much as I love this game, I also don't fux with Kaleidoscope. I thought it was going to be skyscrapers everywhere and basically 'Ziba Tower, but everywhere', but that is not the design they went with. I wish they had gone crazy architecture and made the map mostly skyscrapers that have interconnected sky bridges. Similar to the D1 + D2 points in Renewal where the entire building is interconnected, I think Kaleidoscope could have benefitted from that design, but scaled up to skyscrapers with multiple floors of fighting.
Played Arica Harbour + Valparaiso with 128 specialists and it was hella fun. They are smaller maps with many many buildings and I think they should have added or replaced like 2-3 maps with maps that size dense. Even with the smaller size, I never felt like it was too dense.
For my part I'm good with the maps not so good with 128 players -- even though the chaos is great
Frankly, the game isn't even out wide yet and most players are still low rank and are still learning.
DICE fucked up a lot with BF2042 but "too much running, big maps" complaints date back to BF1942.
I like most of the maps. They feel different from BF3/4 maps but those were more catered to lower player counts (particularly in BF3) where the complaint was "conquest maps are too small/focused!". BF4 added larger maps, and BF1/V had huge maps that don't feel too different from BF2042.
Then there's the dissonance of complaining about buildings that can't be destroyed or leveled and complaining that there is no cover on the maps/they're too open.
BF attracts a lot of players and not all of them want the same thing. Where DICE fucked up wasn't in offering huge maps or 128 players, they fucked up by not offering infantry focused variations of the maps (without going into Portal).
Pretty much down to map design for me.
The upped player count may be causing issues with netcode or server performance, but it's no where near as bad as the lack of flow and cover between capture points on these new maps.
Soooooo... any idea of when we're gonna get a blogpost detailing the preseason stuff that was mentioned in the get ready for launch blogpost? Maybe tomorrow?
In all honesty I think the maps are empty because of time constraints. Bigger map = more development time
Indeed, so tired of the limited destruction complaints lol.
Destruction is pretty good overall on most things, buildings break apart in much more natural pieces now as well. There are a TON of destructible cover pieces all over the map.
The main difference is flags are often in more open areas surrounded by buildings rather then in the middle of them where tanks sit in on the hill top on completely clear them out so there is no cover.
Yep, it also depends on the map. Personally I think it's a reasonable complaint for maps like Golmud and Rogue Transmission, but tastes vary.
I noticed that from the streams I've been watching. I wonder if they'll get patched with the Day 1 Patch.
My brother texted me to play a quick round, I said sure why not. Our first round in and we both got the revive bug resulting in us leaving the match not even halfway through it and we both just got off the game completely. All I got after was a text from my brother saying "This is so fucking stupid."
I don't know how much longer they're going to leave this in the game but it's by far the worst thing I have been dealing with, and is really making me regret purchasing the game in its current state.
I don't know how much longer they're going to leave this in the game but it's by far the worst thing I have been dealing with, and is really making me regret purchasing the game in its current state.
What exactly do you mean by this?
I've been playing Portal only since launch, there is meant to be progression? Because when I rank up I'm unlocking content
Controversial opinion; am I the only one that likes Grenades being equippable items than single button presses basically making them Refractor Era (1942-2142) Grenades? Honestly makes them more tactical items than Halo/CoD style grenades being single button presses, kinda highlights where as a design decision "streamlining" isn't always a good idea.
Oh I was under the impression they capped XP and weapon unlocks for the 2042 classes/weapons because of the xp bot farm servers. Maybe I just misread, I also haven't spent much time in Portal (yet) for that reason.
Just played my first two hours on PS5. It's a lot of fun depsite getting floored by PC players. Only issue I encountered was rubberbanding in one match.
The hate is overblown.
The hate is overblown.
I think it's a fair balancing tweak. IIRC if you hold the button you can let them go in one press (been a while since beta)
Matchmaking on PS5 with crossplay off is still very fast if you decide to go that route.
Yeah I like them as equipables. I can aim them a lot better
You've played two hours? That's next to nothing. And if you've encountered rubber banding within your first two hours of playing the game, that's not good.
I'm level 27 myself and the hate isn't overblown.. I've literally had to quit 7 matches in my last session because I keep getting a bug where I can't seem to respawn or do ANYTHING for that matter other than leave the game. That alone is almost gamebreaking to me
How exactly do you gain armor with him or its another broken thing?
His gadget throws out a combination of ammo and armor. You can pick it up yourself and throw it to teammates
Chill, bro. Not everything is universal. I haven't encountered any bugs at all whatsoever.
There's an option on PC to make throwing grenades a single button pressing I believe.
Can you cook grenades in this game?
So after not being able to preload on PS5 the countdown timer has hit 0 and there is still no option to download it, looks like I'll have to contact support in the morning. Seems like preordering with the price error has screwed it up.