I made a list of glitches I encounter most nights and I'm going to be verrrry curious to see how many of those this patch squashes.
No more C4 drones will be nice
Could be Thursday.
I've been on both ends of C4 drones and I'm still unsure if I want it to go or stay...
I made a list of glitches I encounter most nights and I'm going to be verrrry curious to see how many of those this patch squashes.
No more C4 drones will be nice
Yes. Just like BF4 where they were in at launch then removed after negative feedback.
If they kept it, they'd have to improve the options for killing drones. Plus visually they move very weird.I've been on both ends of C4 drones and I'm still unsure if I want it to go or stay...
Hmm... I haven't gotten the loadout bug in a week or so, by far the longest I've gone since launch.I'm morbidly curious to see if they fixed the old gen input lag issue which has been there since beta and the actual game released over 100 days ago.
Also the empty loadout bug is still fairly frequent on last gen build.
Even if "small range" is 100 bug fixes, I feel like the game contains many more than that still. And agree, nothing on the map feedback loop they said would come in February? This patch pre-announcement announcement seems designed to distract from that missing item.
Update pushed to next week.
Our Next Update, and this weeks Weekly Mission
Hey Folks, Just a quick note to share that we are now expecting our next game update (Update 3.3) to drop next week. We had intended to release it later this week, but made the decision to hold it back so that we're best positioned to support in case of any issues that might have cropped up...answers.ea.com
Not sure about "small range of additional fixes" when both the old gen and next gen version are still buggy as all get out but we'll see I guess.
To be fair patches get pushed back all the time for games. It's even often out of their hands when it comes to console patches as MS and sony can delay them for often small technical reasons. But that doesn't effect the scope of a patch. So I hope "small range" is bigger than expected otherwise I don't understand what we've been waiting for.Is this game already on a skeleton crew or something? How is it that these things keep getting pushed back?
I wonder how much of it is greener devs on the notoriously difficult Frostbite engineIs this game already on a skeleton crew or something? How is it that these things keep getting pushed back?
I wonder how much of it is greener devs on the notoriously difficult Frostbite engine
There is a section on the official Discord where you can provide direct feedback for maps."We've seen you use terms such as "Walking Simulator" to describe how this feels in-game. We understand that this isn't a satisfying experience and agree that there's too much overall travel time. "
That made me lol
In all seriousness though, it's nice to read what they're thinking.
Can't say I like most of what I see there ( the only exception would be how they would remove the dual flag A1-2 in Kaleid conquest, since it lead to far tooo much 'I cap you while you cap me' again and again ), thought it's absolutely subjective on my part.
I do not know if BC2 is the right comparison here due to the openness of the maps, BF1 while fairly linear and oval shaped had plenty of opportunities to flank.Can't say I like most of what I see there ( the only exception would be how they would remove the dual flag A1-2 in Kaleid conquest, since it lead to far tooo much 'I cap you while you cap me' again and again ), thought it's absolutely subjective on my part.
Putting most objectives in a straight line, and having less of them while also apparently going for smaller map when it comes to future maps seems like the perfect recipe for high player density and almost all flags and a huge nerf on flanking. This is pretty much making Conquest closer to Breakthrough/Rush and the corridor design of many bad company 2 maps, which is something I absolutely don't want to see in Conquest.
I know battlefield 1 is loved by many but I bounced off pretty quickly from that title, probably my least played battlefield after 2042, even if I still recognize that it had a very good launch stability wise and that the atmosphere was amazing.I do not know if BC2 is the right comparison here due to the openness of the maps, BF1 while fairly linear and oval shaped had plenty of opportunities to flank.
They mention there are too many vehicles in breakthrough and there probably are but since I hate that mode and only play conquest I hope they realize there are too many vehicles in that mode also and especially bolte's.
More specifically it's that you can always call them in which means you never get a reprieve from them. That is why there are too many vehicles. People are always replenishing them so it always feels like the max amount of vehicles are on the map.
So I guess they're updating one map at a time? And we won't get the first one till season 1?The plans that we've outlined to you today will require substantial development time, so we want to be transparent that not all of these proposed changes will be available to you in-game simultaneously across all of our library of maps.
We've established some healthier behaviors that we have already started to incorporate into new maps that are in development for the game, but we'll be approaching the updating of old maps with dedicated focus to the maps most needing the changes first.
Our immediate priority areas of focus is to make improvements to Kaleidoscope on both Conquest, and Breakthrough. We know that we have the most opportunity to improve gameplay on this map, and this is where you can expect to see the first updates to land. We're currently planning to deliver updates specifically to Kaleidoscope during Season One, and your feedback will help us to not only optimize the changes that we're making to this map, but best inform us on where our focus on improving maps should move to next.
Can they even fix the maps at all? Would be better to just release new ones.
And I also read between the lines that This is something that Will take months for them before all maps are fixed.
All other BF games has had better maps both by design But also atmosphere.
So I guess they're updating one map at a time? And we won't get the first one till season 1?
Call my cynical but I think EA cuts support before they finish all the maps.
Why not both? Like with Dead By Daylight, just fix maps slowly, don't need them all done at once, but like choose one map, and revamp it, all while still giving us new maps.
If they are gonna redo all the maps though, this seems like they are going to waste a ton of time.
I'd rather they take the time to figure out how to make good maps so the next game is better from the jump.
It doesn't necessarily. At least not all existing maps. They can focus on new ones and focus on feedback and perfecting just a few existing ones, then take those lessons forward to the next game.
You're saying they're going to waste a ton of time. I don't think it's a waste. I'd rather they do this than just throw up new maps that are only marginally better.
Wasting time is the notion of holding back all new maps. For the game's health they NEED to add new content for the playerbase. If they focus all their efforts into just fixing the existing maps, it's going to waste time as there will be no one left to play the game. They need to have a balance of fixing the maps as well as still providing new content. Folks aren't going to stick around long term with these same maps.
I only play CQ so my assessment of changes will only come from that side. Having 60% of the map as your main playable area with the top side left for flanking makes sense and compares well with Ballroom Blitz. The bottom side of that map has walls and artillery pieces but enough cover to flank the square or enemy home flags. There needs to be some open, less travelled space where infantry and vehicles can maneuver for the kind of map size.I know battlefield 1 is loved by many but I bounced off pretty quickly from that title, probably my least played battlefield after 2042, even if I still recognize that it had a very good launch stability wise and that the atmosphere was amazing.
I don't remember most maps and never got to play the DLC ones, but maps like the Sinai Desert were very much too linear for my taste even if at least they had the good idea of adding a flag on the outside with actual tactical value ( additional plane if I remember correctly ).
Clearly I don't expect 2042 map to be as much of a corridor as some of the worst example of it in bad company 2, and giving open space outside of the objective for the vehicle will be in it's favor. But while the design won't get that far into the "corridor" design as bad company 2 did, 2042 being a 128 player game mean that it's effects should also be much quicker to kick in.
A much better middle ground imho would be something like that :
That C1 flag, I think, is the difference between only having 2-4 player doing the A1-E1 route, and having 10-20, while 80% of the server mindlessly goes in the south meatgrinder. And while that C2 will help with the complaints about the walking simulator problem, having both C1 and C2 so close to each other in their example is a huge over correction.
For me their current example goes almost in complete contradiction with what they say about Breakthrough, of course Breakthrough 128 player have that much intensity if they keep the same number of objectives compared to previous games but double the player count, it's like, simple math. I really don't want to see Conquest pushed in that direction, that's what Breakthrough and/or Rush is for.
With the amount of people working on this game, which I believe is all of DICE, Ripple LA, and Ripple Vancouver, there should be enough resources for them to fix existing maps and fill content for dlc.Wasting time is the notion of holding back all new maps. For the game's health they NEED to add new content for the playerbase. If they focus all their efforts into just fixing the existing maps, it's going to waste time as there will be no one left to play the game. They need to have a balance of fixing the maps as well as still providing new content. Folks aren't going to stick around long term with these same maps.
The issue is making good maps for 128 people. Battlefield V was fine with maps. Some good. Some bad. But a healthy mix of good ones. Making good Maps for 128 people along with not postponing the initial launch seems to be the stumbling block here.It does suck that "learning to make good maps again" seems to be the biggest benefit of doing this. As if there's no one at DICE that knows how to do that anymore.
The issue is making good maps for 128 people. Battlefield V was fine with maps. Some good. Some bad. But a healthy mix of good ones. Making good Maps for 128 people along with not postponing the initial launch seems to be the stumbling block here.
With the game being clearly rushed I feel like the base maps in 2042 didn't have enough iteration time. They feel like early passes rather than refined finished products. There are of course other complications that would have been there no matter what like the over abundance of vehicles.I'd argue if that were the case then maybe don't do 128 until you have a good plan for it. I think even points themselves show a regression from BFV. It's funny that Ballroom Blitz got brought up because I think it's one of the poorer designed BF1 maps with the hallway of death and the middle lower area being tough to get a flank going from. But even with those issues it still provides amazing moments that I have not gotten from 2042.