-
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
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
No more C4 drones will be nice
I've been on both ends of C4 drones and I'm still unsure if I want it to go or stay...
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.
Also the empty loadout bug is still fairly frequent on last gen build.
Last edited:
I've never used them but I understand. C5 drones are head above everything else the most reliable way of getting rid of ground vehicles. Mainly because you cant see the damn things if the explosive icon isnt on them. You just explode and you have no idea why until the kill message shows up.
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.
Hmm... I haven't gotten the loadout bug in a week or so, by far the longest I've gone since launch.
Update pushed to next week.
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.
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.
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.
Just fixing AA rockets would be a massive change to the game alone. You can't even think about balancing the game itself if all aspect of the game aren't even functioning correctly.
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...
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.
so almost 3 months for a scoreboard and some small bug fixes. YIKES. Im over this game already just saw this on twitter.
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.
I wonder how much of it is greener devs on the notoriously difficult Frostbite engine
I do not envy anyone who has to work with that spaghetti code engine lol.
"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.
That made me lol
In all seriousness though, it's nice to read what they're thinking.
There is a section on the official Discord where you can provide direct feedback for maps.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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 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.
Good start and it seems they are aware of some of the most notable map issues.
That said, anyone see the heatmap they reference in the text? " As an example we've added the heatmap below which shows large areas of the map are underutilized as they are considered too dangerous."
That said, anyone see the heatmap they reference in the text? " As an example we've added the heatmap below which shows large areas of the map are underutilized as they are considered too dangerous."
I also didn't see the heatmap.
Something that they don't address directly is the vehicle spam. Their only reference seems to just be lowering the vehicle count when the problem is much worse than that. Being able to freely call in vehicles immediately after they're destroyed just meters away is a large factor in contributing to that feeling of endless vehicle spam.
I like their talk about lanes as it relates to Conquest. What I don't like is the solution seemingly being to narrow the options of approach. I don't mind attackers having multiple avenues to take a spot but those lanes need to have cover for both sides without constant flanking options between lanes. What kind of cover are they looking to add?
I don't care about Paths either way but if it helps then go ahead.
The way they're only focusing on Kaleidoscope right now with very little to show for it, I think people were right to shelf it for a year. I'll definitely be checking out the Discord later on to see what community input people are giving.
Something that they don't address directly is the vehicle spam. Their only reference seems to just be lowering the vehicle count when the problem is much worse than that. Being able to freely call in vehicles immediately after they're destroyed just meters away is a large factor in contributing to that feeling of endless vehicle spam.
I like their talk about lanes as it relates to Conquest. What I don't like is the solution seemingly being to narrow the options of approach. I don't mind attackers having multiple avenues to take a spot but those lanes need to have cover for both sides without constant flanking options between lanes. What kind of cover are they looking to add?
I don't care about Paths either way but if it helps then go ahead.
The way they're only focusing on Kaleidoscope right now with very little to show for it, I think people were right to shelf it for a year. I'll definitely be checking out the Discord later on to see what community input people are giving.
It's almost impossible for me to provide good map feedback unless I'm actually in the game at the moment. My brain isn't really good at visualizing maps unless I'm in them and experiencing them at the moment so its tough for me to comment outside of the very general stuff.
Overall I think 64 player maps tend to play more how I envision the game should feel and play. With maps being smaller and map points closer together. In 128 player modes, the only maps that consistently tend to feel good for me are orbital or breakaway. The other maps have a variety of issues with them that tend to force me to end up only fighting on one or two specific points on them. Where as those two maps, I can often find good fights in different spots.
Overall I think 64 player maps tend to play more how I envision the game should feel and play. With maps being smaller and map points closer together. In 128 player modes, the only maps that consistently tend to feel good for me are orbital or breakaway. The other maps have a variety of issues with them that tend to force me to end up only fighting on one or two specific points on them. Where as those two maps, I can often find good fights in different spots.
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.
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.
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.
All we can do is wait at this point, If I see a noticeable reduction in bugs (the ones that get you killed mainly) i'll start to feel much more optimistic that the game at least will be on the upswing.
I know one thing bases need the automated AA turrets. You can get wrecked by choppers at the us/ru spawns and have no real defense as infantry at your own base. If the enemy is strafe running your base, you literally have nowhere to escape if you're playing on Kaleidoscope if both flags ste contested
I know one thing bases need the automated AA turrets. You can get wrecked by choppers at the us/ru spawns and have no real defense as infantry at your own base. If the enemy is strafe running your base, you literally have nowhere to escape if you're playing on Kaleidoscope if both flags ste contested
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.
As much as the maps needing work is important, the game also desperately needs new content. They need to balance fixing stuff and getting new stuff in the game. The population won't wait forever for new content.
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.
I mean I see both sides. Splitting resources will inevitablely harm the amount of new content we get. But I also understand that if you can improve some of the base maps you probably should. There are arguments for both sides, but this is the approach they've taken so it is what it is.
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.
They say they're working on new maps. They've already pushed back the season so the playerbase was going to suffer until then anyways. There's been no indication that this effort is why they've been terrible with releasing new content. That feels more tied to the game being riddled with other issues as well as the ongoing issues that got us here to begin with. Yes, there's a limited pool of resources but this feels like a good use of those resources.
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.
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.
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.
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.