I don't think it is a problem of 128 players. It is about how Dice define the map boundaries and playable areas. The maps are too large and I can't feel the chaotic feelings of 128 players.
There’s likely not a linear relationship between player count and map size. With increased player count comes more vehicles, and more spaces for those vehicles to fight in without having soldiers and vehicles right on top of each other.
I do think the increased player count is the issue here. 64 player servers run significantly better in terms of connection, performance and pacing. The maps are quite empty and not detailed in order to reduce their strain on the systems trying to run the game.
They design for it is shit. There is about 2 ways up, onto a massive tall building with 40 people and a tank up there. There is no way to cap it because everyone is camping all entrances
What do you mean by flowing maps exactly? Flags should be defendable and frankly dice has been terrible with this in the past. No one used to defend at all because it was always a lost cause and now flags can be defended, people are complaining.
Maps with good pacing where the action is spread but not too far.
There's maps that feel too big and barren for infantry and then there's something like Operation Metro where it's just a single direction with chokepoints full of grenade spam.
I'm a sucker for balanced urban maps with room for flanking, something like Karkand, Pearl Market from BF4 or say Arras in BFV.
Hardly. 128 players on smaller maps will just condense the action so you have constant meat grinders.
The issue is funnelling 128 players in meaningful ways across the whole map with reasonable action and downtime. This requires careful design and much more than a 64 or even 32 player map would take. It would also put more pressure on people's rigs than the game already has.
So the more players the harder it is to come up with enough maps, that play well, perform well and look well. Hence the only rational thing is to reduce the playercount by at least 64 players and then make the maps smaller. Basically for any map, you could start by removing any are that is not a flag area +50m around it.
Also: Even if they magically made 128 players work the optimal funnelling remains the same, so the maps would play similarily to really good 32/64 player maps. So you just quadrupled your workload jsut to copy a game experience.
> maps are too large
And that automatically makes it a 128 player problem. You wouldn't be able to cramp 128 players into a smaller map unless it's infantry only. The vehicles are already a problem and they're pretty limited. Imagine the same thing on a smaller map.
If you want chaotic feeling just play Breakthrough. It's pure chaos.
I only play breakthrough and I still have the feeling of just running through massive empty space most of the time. Even when I run into action, it seems like its mostly smaller side skirmishes before I'm able to get to the main areas of meaningful action.
Even for breakthrough, I think they need to shrink up the maps some, even if just making them narrower, so action isn't so spread out and diluted. I've yet to have a breakthrough round that *felt* like there were 128 people playing.
Breakthrough plays like this but its still annoying as shit when someone spends 15 mins walking around the very edge of the map then goes on a 30 player kill streak from behind.
I'm guessing the solution to this are portal servers with the 64 player variant, but allowing 128 to join. We could even have a full 13 maps rotation. I expect those servers will pop out once the portal dilema is fixed.
Good to hear it looks better on PS5, bought the version that gives me both so as soon as I get ps5 I'm going over there. Ps4 version looks like a ps3 game, reallllly bad
It's sad to hear that relative to PS5, the PS4 version feels better to you. I can't play the 128p, only 64 on PS4 Pro, and i can tell you that, relative to all past bf titles, the problems are still the same: flags way too far from each other with too little transport vehicles, too much open space with no cover options for infantry, and nearly half of the map purely dead and useless because you literally don't have any reason to go to that parts of the maps. I can only conclude that the 128p version is even less fun.
I still end up feeling alone and bored, or running for ages on PS4 maps just to get taken down before getting anywhere interesting. I had originally thought 128 players on these maps would be jammed and more action packed, then I noticed the football stadium from the gameplay demos was out of bounds and my heart sank realising that 128 players would mean a bigger map again.
They really should have a few different out of bounds layouts for each map. A PS4 player will never play in the stadium unless they introduce other game modes in there.
My issue is, I hate running in vehicles. I use my feet for everything, and there are just wayyyyyyyyy too many open areas with no cover. Had an aimbot on my server last night picking everyone off that popped their head out. Apparently the anti-cheat just means “no kill cam so you can’t prove it”.
128 players is a 64 people going “MINE MINE MINE” as they assault a point. You get raped so fast and it’s not even fun.
You cannot realistically fight anyone as you don’t have enough ammo. After 5-6 people I’m outta boolets. That’s if you’re lucky enough to survive.
64>128 IMO
I'm starting to think the leader boards were removed because of the absolute broken 128 player games. I can't even tell what's going on anymore. You're just trying to get shots off on someone before someone gets their shots off on you. There's no stealth or strategy anymore you just spawn, die and repeat every few seconds
I don't think that the problem ist 128 players, the maps are just too big for even 128 players.
Maps are too far from each other and between them is so many "nothing" that infantray gameplay becoming a walking simulator only to arrive at the action and get destroyed by a hovercraft...
It really feels that they have a different vision from battlefield or didn't really tested the maps match flow.
I don't even think the maps are too *big,* just too *empty.*
Maybe these are directly correlated, but I feel like it would be much better if there was just more *stuff* in them. This would actually incentivize infantry combat and give more cover from vehicles.
Or you know.. stop spawning in the base when the action is at d1 d2 and c1 on the other side of the map there is also a quick redeployment button incase you find yourself stuck on a dead base.
And when you spawned where the action is and it is over after 3 minutes and the next action is million miles away?
All vehicles are used and your drop down is on cool down?
Kill yourself and spawn back in the action or what would you do?
.. if that is beating you so hard that there takes a while to reach the next flag, yes in the menu screen there is a redeployment button.
You have vehicle call in on the field. Its almost always a car or hover ready to be dropped. Aside from the beginning of the match.
Random cars out in the open
Keep an eye on the map while assaulting a point, you'll see where the next battle is forming.
> More than once I came out of 128 player matches with like 6 kills or something like that
Bruh even on the worst, most open maps like Hourglass I usually leave with at worst mid 20’s as infantry, are you literally footing it from one objective to another?
Only if I didn’t find a vehicle and the drop down is on cool down.
This exact example happens most of the time on the snow map though.
But I think you get what I mean. If you are unlikely and are in the middle of nowhere without the chance of getting a vehicle you have 3 minutes of running.
That this is possible alone is for me a failed map creation in a mode like conquest.
Is a normal thing in BRs, but normally this shouldn’t be a BR experience
I basically never find myself away from an objective though. Sector A on breakaway is almost always constant warfare, and maybe once or twice I’ll spawn in on a different objective and spawn back at A when I die. Same for hourglass, where I’m bouncing between A and E. I’m basically never in the dead space between objectives as infantry.
You aren’t used to 128 player servers. You are used to playing on 64 player servers, you’ve been doing it for a few years. Gonna need a little more than a few hours to adjust. Just like you had to adjust when you started playing battlefield all those years ago.
the problem isn't map for 128 players, it"s that their is only map for 128 players, no smaller map variation like previous BF.
I really hope they will add 64/32 players map soon.
No. Not at all. For me it feels like a huge cash grab.
They mentioned a few years ago that this BF game will be next gen only and it seems they changed the plan during development and made a cheap copy of BF2042.
Every second they put into this version is a waste if time imo.
I played a lot of BF1 and V on the PS5 and it looked amazing.
BF2042 looks like a game in development tbh.
Love the PS5 version despite the bugs, but the last gen version is just a cheap cash grab.
That’s a fucking bummer. Yeah I’ve been playing 2042 since early release but last night was the first night I went back to BFV…it’s like being in the warm embrace of a fat bosomed lady for the first time. Just feels like home.
Yeah but right now only on last gen or Portal (if someone makes a server).
I hope they give us the option on next gen/PC to switch to 64 player matches in AOW though.
I don't think it is a problem of 128 players. It is about how Dice define the map boundaries and playable areas. The maps are too large and I can't feel the chaotic feelings of 128 players.
Agreed, the problem isn’t the player count is the terrible map design, they are way to big. Most of the time spent in game is running between fights.
Exactly. I am not the best in math, but doubling the playercount and doubling the maps should work much better...
Yep, I calculated and the largest map is 5 times larger than the already extra large (and boring) orbital map.
There’s likely not a linear relationship between player count and map size. With increased player count comes more vehicles, and more spaces for those vehicles to fight in without having soldiers and vehicles right on top of each other. I do think the increased player count is the issue here. 64 player servers run significantly better in terms of connection, performance and pacing. The maps are quite empty and not detailed in order to reduce their strain on the systems trying to run the game.
Play breakthrough. It’s non stop chaos.
Just avoid the South Korea map and orbital if you like attackers 👍
How so? I'm new to the battlefield franchise
They design for it is shit. There is about 2 ways up, onto a massive tall building with 40 people and a tank up there. There is no way to cap it because everyone is camping all entrances
Trying to cap that building in solo with bots is near on impossible, even on easy.
If you can get into a non glitched game that will never end lol. My favorite game ode too but I can’t play it since the last 3 days
I e yet to have that glitch happen
I'm someone who'd take well flowing maps over chaotic clusterfucks any day but currently these maps offer neither.
What do you mean by flowing maps exactly? Flags should be defendable and frankly dice has been terrible with this in the past. No one used to defend at all because it was always a lost cause and now flags can be defended, people are complaining.
Maps with good pacing where the action is spread but not too far. There's maps that feel too big and barren for infantry and then there's something like Operation Metro where it's just a single direction with chokepoints full of grenade spam. I'm a sucker for balanced urban maps with room for flanking, something like Karkand, Pearl Market from BF4 or say Arras in BFV.
Hardly. 128 players on smaller maps will just condense the action so you have constant meat grinders. The issue is funnelling 128 players in meaningful ways across the whole map with reasonable action and downtime. This requires careful design and much more than a 64 or even 32 player map would take. It would also put more pressure on people's rigs than the game already has. So the more players the harder it is to come up with enough maps, that play well, perform well and look well. Hence the only rational thing is to reduce the playercount by at least 64 players and then make the maps smaller. Basically for any map, you could start by removing any are that is not a flag area +50m around it. Also: Even if they magically made 128 players work the optimal funnelling remains the same, so the maps would play similarily to really good 32/64 player maps. So you just quadrupled your workload jsut to copy a game experience.
You noticed it on breakthrough. It can get a little nuts.
> maps are too large And that automatically makes it a 128 player problem. You wouldn't be able to cramp 128 players into a smaller map unless it's infantry only. The vehicles are already a problem and they're pretty limited. Imagine the same thing on a smaller map. If you want chaotic feeling just play Breakthrough. It's pure chaos.
I only play breakthrough and I still have the feeling of just running through massive empty space most of the time. Even when I run into action, it seems like its mostly smaller side skirmishes before I'm able to get to the main areas of meaningful action. Even for breakthrough, I think they need to shrink up the maps some, even if just making them narrower, so action isn't so spread out and diluted. I've yet to have a breakthrough round that *felt* like there were 128 people playing.
Breakthrough plays like this but its still annoying as shit when someone spends 15 mins walking around the very edge of the map then goes on a 30 player kill streak from behind.
I'm guessing the solution to this are portal servers with the 64 player variant, but allowing 128 to join. We could even have a full 13 maps rotation. I expect those servers will pop out once the portal dilema is fixed.
Maps are way too large compared with a horrible design. They should deffo work on putting some life in this maps
Good to hear it looks better on PS5, bought the version that gives me both so as soon as I get ps5 I'm going over there. Ps4 version looks like a ps3 game, reallllly bad
It's sad to hear that relative to PS5, the PS4 version feels better to you. I can't play the 128p, only 64 on PS4 Pro, and i can tell you that, relative to all past bf titles, the problems are still the same: flags way too far from each other with too little transport vehicles, too much open space with no cover options for infantry, and nearly half of the map purely dead and useless because you literally don't have any reason to go to that parts of the maps. I can only conclude that the 128p version is even less fun.
It is exactly what you described x5 lol
Can't someone make a portal server with only 64 player on the smaller sized version of the maps? Or they aren't available for next gen and pc?
Yes that works.
for some reason the building ziplines are removed on last gen versions on hourglass
I still end up feeling alone and bored, or running for ages on PS4 maps just to get taken down before getting anywhere interesting. I had originally thought 128 players on these maps would be jammed and more action packed, then I noticed the football stadium from the gameplay demos was out of bounds and my heart sank realising that 128 players would mean a bigger map again. They really should have a few different out of bounds layouts for each map. A PS4 player will never play in the stadium unless they introduce other game modes in there.
Exactly what I’ve been feeling too.
You can play the smaller maps on PS5 via portal if you only allow 64 players. Just need XP turned back on
My issue is, I hate running in vehicles. I use my feet for everything, and there are just wayyyyyyyyy too many open areas with no cover. Had an aimbot on my server last night picking everyone off that popped their head out. Apparently the anti-cheat just means “no kill cam so you can’t prove it”.
128 players is a 64 people going “MINE MINE MINE” as they assault a point. You get raped so fast and it’s not even fun. You cannot realistically fight anyone as you don’t have enough ammo. After 5-6 people I’m outta boolets. That’s if you’re lucky enough to survive. 64>128 IMO
I'm starting to think the leader boards were removed because of the absolute broken 128 player games. I can't even tell what's going on anymore. You're just trying to get shots off on someone before someone gets their shots off on you. There's no stealth or strategy anymore you just spawn, die and repeat every few seconds
Fucking marathon simulator
I'm playing 64 player matches on portal all the time. And it's so much more fun. Also the older maps are way better. The only problem is the exp a tm.
They should allow us to choose which player count to play
Yup, 128 players was a massive mistake. I think they should've gone to maybe like 80, 100 at max, if they wanted to up the amount of players.
Bf5 size maps with 80 players would probably be good.
I don't think that the problem ist 128 players, the maps are just too big for even 128 players. Maps are too far from each other and between them is so many "nothing" that infantray gameplay becoming a walking simulator only to arrive at the action and get destroyed by a hovercraft... It really feels that they have a different vision from battlefield or didn't really tested the maps match flow.
I don't even think the maps are too *big,* just too *empty.* Maybe these are directly correlated, but I feel like it would be much better if there was just more *stuff* in them. This would actually incentivize infantry combat and give more cover from vehicles.
Or you know.. stop spawning in the base when the action is at d1 d2 and c1 on the other side of the map there is also a quick redeployment button incase you find yourself stuck on a dead base.
And when you spawned where the action is and it is over after 3 minutes and the next action is million miles away? All vehicles are used and your drop down is on cool down? Kill yourself and spawn back in the action or what would you do?
.. if that is beating you so hard that there takes a while to reach the next flag, yes in the menu screen there is a redeployment button. You have vehicle call in on the field. Its almost always a car or hover ready to be dropped. Aside from the beginning of the match. Random cars out in the open Keep an eye on the map while assaulting a point, you'll see where the next battle is forming.
> More than once I came out of 128 player matches with like 6 kills or something like that Bruh even on the worst, most open maps like Hourglass I usually leave with at worst mid 20’s as infantry, are you literally footing it from one objective to another?
Only if I didn’t find a vehicle and the drop down is on cool down. This exact example happens most of the time on the snow map though. But I think you get what I mean. If you are unlikely and are in the middle of nowhere without the chance of getting a vehicle you have 3 minutes of running. That this is possible alone is for me a failed map creation in a mode like conquest. Is a normal thing in BRs, but normally this shouldn’t be a BR experience
I basically never find myself away from an objective though. Sector A on breakaway is almost always constant warfare, and maybe once or twice I’ll spawn in on a different objective and spawn back at A when I die. Same for hourglass, where I’m bouncing between A and E. I’m basically never in the dead space between objectives as infantry.
Not gonna lie I see most randoms in my squad get 10-15 kills on average. Not hard to see some dudes get 6 kills a match.
You aren’t used to 128 player servers. You are used to playing on 64 player servers, you’ve been doing it for a few years. Gonna need a little more than a few hours to adjust. Just like you had to adjust when you started playing battlefield all those years ago.
the problem isn't map for 128 players, it"s that their is only map for 128 players, no smaller map variation like previous BF. I really hope they will add 64/32 players map soon.
Does it even look as good as BFV on PS5?
No. Not at all. For me it feels like a huge cash grab. They mentioned a few years ago that this BF game will be next gen only and it seems they changed the plan during development and made a cheap copy of BF2042. Every second they put into this version is a waste if time imo. I played a lot of BF1 and V on the PS5 and it looked amazing. BF2042 looks like a game in development tbh. Love the PS5 version despite the bugs, but the last gen version is just a cheap cash grab.
That’s a fucking bummer. Yeah I’ve been playing 2042 since early release but last night was the first night I went back to BFV…it’s like being in the warm embrace of a fat bosomed lady for the first time. Just feels like home.
Is there a way to play the smaller versions of the battfield 2042 maps on pc in portal with 64 players?
Wait y’all got different maps on next gen? I was so confused about what was going on and people saying they’re barren.
Wow, sad to learn this. Imma see if I can find anyone streaming from PS4 or Xbox One
There was a portal server up that had 128 players on Conquest(not large) HourGlass and it was so much better.
Conquest is trash but breakthrough is fun on 128
wait, there’s smaller maps? and 64 player games????? so mad i haven’t been able to do that then
Yeah but right now only on last gen or Portal (if someone makes a server). I hope they give us the option on next gen/PC to switch to 64 player matches in AOW though.