• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battlefield 2042 |OT| - Squad Up, Gear Up, and Join the Fight.

anthony2690

Member
This is a funny surprise. DICE is asking of feedback to correct the massive maps in 2042. So it sounds like they are trying to remake, redesign, reboot the game or something as this doesn't sound like some simple update.




"Traversal

One of the core issues we have identified is Traversal. We both see, and have heard your frustrations on how long it takes on maps today to travel between Flags, or from Base Spawn to Flag. This comes as a result of the introduction of 128 players in combination with some of the biggest maps that we’ve ever created as playspaces. While the larger maps offer more playspace and freedom, a side effect is that gameplay is now spread out more, resulting in an overall increase in time to combat when related to playing the objective.

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.

We’re currently looking to reduce the overall travel time between Flag and Base Spawn on some maps by moving both the Base Spawn, and closest Flags. We’ve already identified a number of obvious candidates that fall outside of our new expected behaviours, but we want to hear from you on this topic as well. Which maps presently provide a poor opening experience because of the location of the Base Spawn? Which maps are making it harder to get back into the fight in an all cap scenario? Later on in the post, we’ll share a link to a general feedback thread that we’ve opened up to capture some of this feedback, but don’t be shy to have these conversations out amongst other hubs of Battlefield Community. We’re out there monitoring the conversations and are keen to hear what you have to say.

Intensity

Another area that we’ve identified where we feel that we can improve your gameplay experience is in the overall Intensity of combat. Largely, we feel that this issue is mainly related to 128 player modes, and especially in Breakthrough. We know that during certain pushes for the objective, it can get too chaotic when fighting over Flags; either there are too many players, or vehicles, and sometimes the overall chaos can make it feel overwhelming when accurately trying to assess what’s happening around you.

In terms of improvements, we are presently reviewing if it makes sense to keep Breakthrough as 128 players vs 64, or if we feel that a reduction of the total number of vehicles that can spawn ensures that their presence isn’t as overwhelming, and gives infantry players a more important role. In the leadup to the Holidays, we introduced 64 player Breakthrough, and recently made some changes to the ticket values across the mode based on behaviors we were seeing in the final objective phase. Right now, we feel that Breakthrough on 64 players provides the best experience of Breakthrough.

But we also want to hear from you around the Intensity of the experience on Breakthrough. How do you feel about the current balance between Infantry and Vehicles on the mode? Have you played 64 player Breakthrough, and do you feel that this is the better way to experience the mode? We’re still in the process of working towards our next phase of improvements for the mode, and we’d like to incorporate as much of your feedback as possible into that process.

Line of sight

Line of sight is another topic that we've received plenty of feedback on. When we refer to line of sight, we’re relating this to how often you’re taking fire from enemies at distance. We feel, and have heard from you, that there are presently too many open and flat spaces on some of our maps, which puts too much focus on direct long-distance combat between objectives. We largely see that feedback aimed at certain areas in Kaleidoscope, but have observed discussion on other areas of our maps as well.

Our current plan for improvement is to ensure there are more opportunities to hide yourself from enemy line of sight while traversing from objective to objective, with a goal of ours being to reduce the focus on long-range combat, and the necessity of carrying weapons which perform best in these ranges.

As shared earlier, we presently feel that Kaleidoscope is an obvious offender for line of sight challenges, and are already making passes internally on improving certain areas of the map, including re-designing our Breakthrough experience to move combat into areas of the map where better cover already exists. What we’d like to hear from you is on which maps and Flags you see the most immediate need for more line of sight blockers. Knowing this will help us to best prioritize the work that we go on to do in parallel with other changes, and ensure that we’re addressing the next biggest offenders in good order.

Paths

Another feedback area of focus is not having clear Paths towards objectives, and the lanes that players are most commonly traveling in when moving between objectives. Without a clear intended path, enemy fire is more often coming in from all possible angles. We recognise that when you’re defending, this can make it difficult to hold the objective, and when on the attack, we see players exposing themselves on bad lanes in bids to push for a flag.

We’re presently looking to bring improvements into the paths that we have on our maps, to make clearer and more defined paths while traveling between objectives in order to keep combat focused, and to make it easier to understand how to get from one objective to the next. If you have thoughts or examples that align to those goals, please don’t be shy to show us. These can be as basic as extracting a 2 minute clip of you moving from flag to flag, and calling out to us the experience you had whilst doing that (good or bad), or discussion of specific areas that you feel are presently lacking good pathing, or are the best examples of where this is currently strongest.

Cover

Lastly, and similar to line of sight, the current lack of cover across maps is another improvement area which is also caused by the open and flat spaces that you have encountered on certain maps. While we are trying to limit direct long-range combat between objectives, we’re also looking to ensure sufficient cover for when you are traveling between the objectives.

We are looking to address this by reviewing the need for additional cover in places where we feel that they’re needed. In line with what has been discussed in some of our other focus areas, our intent is to reduce the likelihood of being fired at from a 360 degree angle, and to take away that Hail Mary feeling of running onto no man’s land between objectives.

If you have any specific areas on maps that are currently standing out to you which lack cover, then we’d love to hear from you."




The craziest shit is this...


"When can we expect these planned improvements to be live in-game?

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."

So that theory on them rebooting it ala FFXIV seems to be more true then we thought, if they can pull it off remains to be seen.
I'll keep an eye on this and fan feedback when they update the game in the future.

I absolutely hated how long it took to traverse the map to encounter someone on the beta and various other issues/complaints etc.
 

winjer

Member
All they had to do, was to listen to gamers.
Instead they called people toxic and threatened to close forums.
Now the game is practically dead, so they ask for help from gamers. Hypocrites.
 

EDMIX

Member
All they had to do, was to listen to gamers.
Instead they
called people toxic and threatened to close forums.
Now the game is practically dead, so they ask for help from gamers. Hypocrites.

They listened to an extent regarding the biggest bugs and issues, they are now listening to the design aspect.

You can listen to gamers as they are doing now and still ignore such toxic forums that offer very little in regards to real feedback. So I agree that they should have listened more, but that sounds more like an EA thing then a DICE thing as I'm sure the team heard what was stated, but EA owns DICE and the IP, they control a lot of that aspect, but I see no reason to fucking pretend the comment about reddit is suddenly something to take back as if THAT is really listening to gamers.

I don't see anything about being a hypocrite here as you need to explain that vs crying, name calling etc. What do you mean? When did the say they don't want feedback only to ask now or something? I don't recall them ever stating they don't want feedback or something and Reddit isn't all gamers to pretend as if they NEED reddit to help fix the game. Too much of those toxic comments had nothing to do with valid feedback so.....yea.

Take in feedback to correct the game.
Ignore Reddit.

I have nothing against any of that lol I agree they should have done more earlier instead of rolling out the game in this shape, doesn't mean I'm against their comment regarding reddit, so much of that wasn't even about the game or incorrect and, well toxic. Nothing in this article is even saying like they are now asking for Reddit help or something lol
 
It's currently 50% off, thinking of buying it.
How's the state of the game on PS5 these days? Is it worth buying for casual gaming?
 
This is a funny surprise. DICE is asking of feedback to correct the massive maps in 2042. So it sounds like they are trying to remake, redesign, reboot the game or something as this doesn't sound like some simple update.




"Traversal

One of the core issues we have identified is Traversal. We both see, and have heard your frustrations on how long it takes on maps today to travel between Flags, or from Base Spawn to Flag. This comes as a result of the introduction of 128 players in combination with some of the biggest maps that we’ve ever created as playspaces. While the larger maps offer more playspace and freedom, a side effect is that gameplay is now spread out more, resulting in an overall increase in time to combat when related to playing the objective.

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.

We’re currently looking to reduce the overall travel time between Flag and Base Spawn on some maps by moving both the Base Spawn, and closest Flags. We’ve already identified a number of obvious candidates that fall outside of our new expected behaviours, but we want to hear from you on this topic as well. Which maps presently provide a poor opening experience because of the location of the Base Spawn? Which maps are making it harder to get back into the fight in an all cap scenario? Later on in the post, we’ll share a link to a general feedback thread that we’ve opened up to capture some of this feedback, but don’t be shy to have these conversations out amongst other hubs of Battlefield Community. We’re out there monitoring the conversations and are keen to hear what you have to say.

Intensity

Another area that we’ve identified where we feel that we can improve your gameplay experience is in the overall Intensity of combat. Largely, we feel that this issue is mainly related to 128 player modes, and especially in Breakthrough. We know that during certain pushes for the objective, it can get too chaotic when fighting over Flags; either there are too many players, or vehicles, and sometimes the overall chaos can make it feel overwhelming when accurately trying to assess what’s happening around you.

In terms of improvements, we are presently reviewing if it makes sense to keep Breakthrough as 128 players vs 64, or if we feel that a reduction of the total number of vehicles that can spawn ensures that their presence isn’t as overwhelming, and gives infantry players a more important role. In the leadup to the Holidays, we introduced 64 player Breakthrough, and recently made some changes to the ticket values across the mode based on behaviors we were seeing in the final objective phase. Right now, we feel that Breakthrough on 64 players provides the best experience of Breakthrough.

But we also want to hear from you around the Intensity of the experience on Breakthrough. How do you feel about the current balance between Infantry and Vehicles on the mode? Have you played 64 player Breakthrough, and do you feel that this is the better way to experience the mode? We’re still in the process of working towards our next phase of improvements for the mode, and we’d like to incorporate as much of your feedback as possible into that process.

Line of sight

Line of sight is another topic that we've received plenty of feedback on. When we refer to line of sight, we’re relating this to how often you’re taking fire from enemies at distance. We feel, and have heard from you, that there are presently too many open and flat spaces on some of our maps, which puts too much focus on direct long-distance combat between objectives. We largely see that feedback aimed at certain areas in Kaleidoscope, but have observed discussion on other areas of our maps as well.

Our current plan for improvement is to ensure there are more opportunities to hide yourself from enemy line of sight while traversing from objective to objective, with a goal of ours being to reduce the focus on long-range combat, and the necessity of carrying weapons which perform best in these ranges.

As shared earlier, we presently feel that Kaleidoscope is an obvious offender for line of sight challenges, and are already making passes internally on improving certain areas of the map, including re-designing our Breakthrough experience to move combat into areas of the map where better cover already exists. What we’d like to hear from you is on which maps and Flags you see the most immediate need for more line of sight blockers. Knowing this will help us to best prioritize the work that we go on to do in parallel with other changes, and ensure that we’re addressing the next biggest offenders in good order.

Paths

Another feedback area of focus is not having clear Paths towards objectives, and the lanes that players are most commonly traveling in when moving between objectives. Without a clear intended path, enemy fire is more often coming in from all possible angles. We recognise that when you’re defending, this can make it difficult to hold the objective, and when on the attack, we see players exposing themselves on bad lanes in bids to push for a flag.

We’re presently looking to bring improvements into the paths that we have on our maps, to make clearer and more defined paths while traveling between objectives in order to keep combat focused, and to make it easier to understand how to get from one objective to the next. If you have thoughts or examples that align to those goals, please don’t be shy to show us. These can be as basic as extracting a 2 minute clip of you moving from flag to flag, and calling out to us the experience you had whilst doing that (good or bad), or discussion of specific areas that you feel are presently lacking good pathing, or are the best examples of where this is currently strongest.

Cover

Lastly, and similar to line of sight, the current lack of cover across maps is another improvement area which is also caused by the open and flat spaces that you have encountered on certain maps. While we are trying to limit direct long-range combat between objectives, we’re also looking to ensure sufficient cover for when you are traveling between the objectives.

We are looking to address this by reviewing the need for additional cover in places where we feel that they’re needed. In line with what has been discussed in some of our other focus areas, our intent is to reduce the likelihood of being fired at from a 360 degree angle, and to take away that Hail Mary feeling of running onto no man’s land between objectives.

If you have any specific areas on maps that are currently standing out to you which lack cover, then we’d love to hear from you."




The craziest shit is this...


"When can we expect these planned improvements to be live in-game?

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."

So that theory on them rebooting it ala FFXIV seems to be more true then we thought, if they can pull it off remains to be seen.
This is really good to hear. Back in December I was sure that they couldn't salvage this mess, but it seems like they are sticking at it and are looking to make this a better game. Just those few map changes look much needed and will decrease the amount of traversal necessary to get to the points. Add in some much needed cover and this will hopefully change the game around for the better. If they can follow through with all of this then I'll for sure grab the game. Lets see.
 

EDMIX

Member
It's currently 50% off, thinking of buying it.
How's the state of the game on PS5 these days? Is it worth buying for casual gaming?

I got it day 1 and even I'd say wait for a deeper sale.

The game is getting better and is pretty stable, but the design issues and lack of content is currently being addressed and by the looks of it will take a lot of time to correct. It might make more sense to wait till the ending of the year imho.

This is really good to hear. Back in December I was sure that they couldn't salvage this mess, but it seems like they are sticking at it and are looking to make this a better game. Just those few map changes look much needed and will decrease the amount of traversal necessary to get to the points. Add in some much needed cover and this will hopefully change the game around for the better. If they can follow through with all of this then I'll for sure grab the game. Lets see.

Agreed. I'm not shocked at DICE's post launch support cause at this point they seem to be more known for correcting a game after the fact as oppose to a smooth launch, I'm more surprised at how massive this undertaking is that they are even addressing as literally changing the map and its design isn't a simple update, its basically remaking the game. This is near FFXIV levels of altering that go beyond just a update to add content.

They'd need a whole ass No Man Sky Beyond type thing going or even Rainbowsix Siege levels of support (in terms of how long and how much was supported, that game didn't release like 2042).

Its a odd situation.

I think many want the design corrected ,fixed and closer to old school BF concepts, having Portal is great, but it even confirms that they knew those concepts were desired in the first place, yet lacked as an option in the main game.

I also think many want them to move on to another BF title and start from scratch.

I see both perspectives in this, but for the sake of trust for future titles, what good is making a new title if they failed to fix and support the last one? I'd argue even fixing 2042 and addressing all of those issues might make people more hype for a new BF with that mindset. So only time will tell on this one. I personally feel they should just do 2 next gen BF titles or even 1 and just support it the whole gen and only put out 1 BF title a generation and just skip the whole cross gen thing like they are doing with Dead Space. What good is cross gen if this is the result every time DICE and EA attempt it?
 

EDMIX

Member

"Traversal

For Traversal we outlined that travel time on foot between Base Spawn and Flags was too long. Our proposed solution is to reduce overall travel time between these areas by moving them closer together.

We shared that the first map in need of changes is Kaleidoscope, which through your feedback you’ve confirmed to us is the right call. However, you’ve also shared with us that Renewal is another map that really needs to see changes made to it. We hear you on that, and we’re looking to deliver a refreshed version of Renewal alongside Kaleidoscope as part of Season 1 this summer.

To give you a better understanding of what to expect, here are several examples of our work in progress intent to improve traversal across both maps:"




"Immersion is another point you’ve asked for us to look at, often through discussion of how the maps feel too clean, and pristine. You’ve expressed to us that you want it to feel like each Flag and Objective needs to have more strategic value, and something that you feel is worth fighting for.

As an example taken from the improvements we’re bringing to Kaleidoscope, we’re updating the gazebo on B1 into a military installment. We’ll replace grass with mud, and cover the area in barbed wire to better immerse it into our world, and to bring improvements to the narrative of our battles. We want you to feel the objectives are ready for battle whilst you are fighting over them."

^

So it seems lots of elements are changing and being redesigned.

"When is the next Core Feedback?

We’ll return in a couple of weeks with a new topic for Core Feedback, this time focusing on Specialists. We’re currently preparing a similar post for you as we’ve done for maps, and we’re looking forward to getting that in front of you to open up that discussion. We know Specialists has been a major topic for you, and we’re looking forward to sharing with you what we’ve planned to improve their gameplay and fit into the World of Battlefield™ 2042."


Who knows how that shit is going to go. Who knows how far EA is even willing to allow them to change that concept. The developer can say lots of shit regarding feedback, but for all we know its up to what EA would allow. Maybe this game not doing APEX numbers means EA is willing to change that whole concept with 2042, but it might mean they'll just force it in some Free To Play BF or something lol Who knows at this point.

Watch the feedback be like 5000x "get rid of specialist, bring back old class system"

EA "We hear you bro......we will add more beanies for the specialist at $40, no.....$1 per beanie" lol

Easiest way to fix this imho. Make the specialist simply avatars, give the abilities to set classes, lock the features.

Add all guns in the game, to the whole game, I'm 99% sure in 2042 guns from the past didn't just stop existing lol
 

Alpha Male

Member
FYI - THERE IS A NEW "OFFICIAL RIPPLE EFFECT" 64 PLAYER CONQUEST MODE IN PORTAL THAT USES 2042 SPECIALISTS AND VEHICLES ON THE PORTAL MAPS AND ITS AWESOME!

I highly recommend checking it out because it's a blast. There have been plenty of full servers in the US at all times so far. NO WAITING FOR PLAYERS, No stupid end of round quips. Full player progression intact. Complete and utter chaos that Battlefield is so well known for!
 

EDMIX

Member
FYI - THERE IS A NEW "OFFICIAL RIPPLE EFFECT" 64 PLAYER CONQUEST MODE IN PORTAL THAT USES 2042 SPECIALISTS AND VEHICLES ON THE PORTAL MAPS AND ITS AWESOME!

I highly recommend checking it out because it's a blast. There have been plenty of full servers in the US at all times so far. NO WAITING FOR PLAYERS, No stupid end of round quips. Full player progression intact. Complete and utter chaos that Battlefield is so well known for!

oh facts! I haven't been playing for a bit based on business and university applications, but when I have conquest and breakthrough have been my go to modes so I'll check it out. I think a majority of my time has been on Portal lol
 

VN1X

Member
[/URL][/URL]

"Traversal

For Traversal we outlined that travel time on foot between Base Spawn and Flags was too long. Our proposed solution is to reduce overall travel time between these areas by moving them closer together.

We shared that the first map in need of changes is Kaleidoscope, which through your feedback you’ve confirmed to us is the right call. However, you’ve also shared with us that Renewal is another map that really needs to see changes made to it. We hear you on that, and we’re looking to deliver a refreshed version of Renewal alongside Kaleidoscope as part of Season 1 this summer.

To give you a better understanding of what to expect, here are several examples of our work in progress intent to improve traversal across both maps:"


You would expect that after so many Battlefield games they would at least get basics like this right though. I get that it's mostly a new team but surely the more senior people still on board would realize simple stuff like this?
 
Last edited:

TwinB242

Member
I jumped back into the game and im a bit down on it. There just hasn't been enough improvements, and they've actually changed things for the worse

Getting rid of 128 player breakthrough is ridiculous

But right now what bothers me the most is actually the air attack vehicle change. Just ONE per side even in 128 player matches? Come on DICE.......that is also ridiculous. Chaotic air battles are pretty much non existent now. And you know that most people who manage to grab one are going to go for the littlebird given that its clearly superior to the Attack Chopper and Jets.

Thiese examples are classic DICE if ill be honest, instead of properly balancing modes and features they just decide to be lazy and cut them out instead...
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Member
I get that it's mostly an new team

I haven't seen much evidence of that. I wanted to know myself and looked at the credits and most of the team is the folks that worked on the past titles.

surely the more senior people still on board would realize simple stuff like this?

I'm sure they did, but the bigger question is did they even have a say in how it was even designed in regards to the lead designer? Even people saying stuff like they want the people that made the maps in BF1, BF4, BF3 etc...well...most of those same people are still there and did 2042, but they are making maps based on what that designer is actually saying, so with something like this, I feel its not about a new team as I don't see much to support that in a 800 plus team like this where most of what I looked up was folks who have been working on BF for a pretty long time. I feel with such a designer, EA as a publisher, it may not matter who is on board, if they are also being stopped from doing what we might see as "simple stuff".

Its not like the map designers, producers, programmers etc all forgot how to do that from those past BF titles to this title and everyone is new or something. If that designer wanted some big ass maps, it didn't matter what the map designer had planned that might have been like BF3 or BF4.

So I can only look at the team if the publisher is completely fine or something, as in no history of um..foul play lol I think most people run on some myth of a "new team" but rarely look at the credits to actually really verify and prove this point. If you know me, you know I don't run on "forum myth" or anything, I need to look it up myself and see whats going on and as much as I can find, most of what I saw in those credits are folks that have been working on the BF series for some time with the obvious exception crack smoking designer that they had lol (even then, worry more about the publisher that even hired and ok'ed a designer to even have so much power despite zero BF history)

So I'm hoping they just focus on core BF concepts on the next BF and leave the experimental stuff to new IP. I only want new ideas that can work with the current BF set up, not against it.
 

VN1X

Member
I haven't seen much evidence of that. I wanted to know myself and looked at the credits and most of the team is the folks that worked on the past titles.



I'm sure they did, but the bigger question is did they even have a say in how it was even designed in regards to the lead designer? Even people saying stuff like they want the people that made the maps in BF1, BF4, BF3 etc...well...most of those same people are still there and did 2042, but they are making maps based on what that designer is actually saying, so with something like this, I feel its not about a new team as I don't see much to support that in a 800 plus team like this where most of what I looked up was folks who have been working on BF for a pretty long time. I feel with such a designer, EA as a publisher, it may not matter who is on board, if they are also being stopped from doing what we might see as "simple stuff".

Its not like the map designers, producers, programmers etc all forgot how to do that from those past BF titles to this title and everyone is new or something. If that designer wanted some big ass maps, it didn't matter what the map designer had planned that might have been like BF3 or BF4.

So I can only look at the team if the publisher is completely fine or something, as in no history of um..foul play lol I think most people run on some myth of a "new team" but rarely look at the credits to actually really verify and prove this point. If you know me, you know I don't run on "forum myth" or anything, I need to look it up myself and see whats going on and as much as I can find, most of what I saw in those credits are folks that have been working on the BF series for some time with the obvious exception crack smoking designer that they had lol (even then, worry more about the publisher that even hired and ok'ed a designer to even have so much power despite zero BF history)

So I'm hoping they just focus on core BF concepts on the next BF and leave the experimental stuff to new IP. I only want new ideas that can work with the current BF set up, not against it.
Ah fair enough. I thought most of the DICE folk, who are working on Battlefield these days, were new in the sense that they joined after the era of BF2, BF3, Bad Company, etc and have only gotten their feet wet with BF4, BF1, BFV and now 2046.

Like you said, that still wouldn't be an excuse though and it honestly seems like a massively mismanaged clusterfuck of a project. It's a shame as well because I really like the setting for 2042 but the foundation just isn't there (all of which has been well documented ad nauseam so I won't repeat that here). For the next game in the series it needs to be an all hands on deck-situation if they want to capture the audience's attention once again. It won't be long now either before a competitor fills its spot and people in general just leave this franchise by the wayside entirely (if they haven't already).
 

Neofire

Member
The damn community is dead on the ps5 I couldn't get anyone to start a none AI game even in portal. It's like I wasted money buying the game which isn't even a year old.

Maybe it'll get better with the season starting tomorrow.
 

j0hnnix

Member
The new map is so fun and chaotic. Really enjoying it so far. I am annoyed with battlepasses imo, got destiny 2 seasonal and this just annoying. The pass does not distract from the new map and game tho.
 

KrisB

Member
The damn community is dead on the ps5 I couldn't get anyone to start a none AI game even in portal. It's like I wasted money buying the game which isn't even a year old.

Maybe it'll get better with the season starting tomorrow.
I find that it's really luck of the draw and what time you are playing. I'm on Xbox in Australia and we just had a long weekend (public holiday on the Monday) and I was able to get into games all weekend but by Tuesday, even the new map was 50% bots and looking in the server browser in Portal, practically all of them were empty. Not sure if people are already bored of the new map and the player base is dipping again.
 

Jebron

Member
Thinking about picking this up on either PS5 or PC... how much has the game improved since launch and is it worth jumping in now?
 

EDMIX

Member
Well looks like they are indeed bringing the classes back.

They seem to be doing it similar to what we've thought they might do. The classes will have new restrictions on gadgets.

A new map is also coming out and they give some details on how the original maps will continue to change.


 
Well looks like they are indeed bringing the classes back.

They seem to be doing it similar to what we've thought they might do. The classes will have new restrictions on gadgets.

A new map is also coming out and they give some details on how the original maps will continue to change.


Yep, this is what I have been saying since the game came out to fix the specialist issue. While I'm sure some fans will still not be satisfied, I knew they would never remove the specialists entirely, and I think this is the best way to go about it. Glad they are doing this. Hell, if the game is still alive by next year, I might finally nab it while on sale.
 

Jebron

Member
I've held of buying 2042 since release, was thinking about buying this on PS5 today, it's on sale for 50% off. How much has the game improved? What's the the trajectory of the game look like for the next year? I was always afraid EA would just abandon the game after the abysmal launch.
 

R6Rider

Gold Member
I've held of buying 2042 since release, was thinking about buying this on PS5 today, it's on sale for 50% off. How much has the game improved? What's the the trajectory of the game look like for the next year? I was always afraid EA would just abandon the game after the abysmal launch.
It's much better than at launch. Game is a fun time overall, but still has some major flaws. Not sure on support past the first year, but the changes they are making are good, especially toward the maps. EA being EA though, it wouldn't surprise me if they dropped support after the this first year is over.
 

ChoosableOne

ChoosableAll
I think I like this game now. Needs more(a lot more) maps and weapons(there are like 7 of them available in the beginning? 1 smg, 2 assault, 1 marksman, 1 sniper, 1 lmg, 1 shotgun) but I think it's ok to dive back in. They should lower the level limit to unlock new guns though. I've been playing for 5-6 hours and still haven't been able to unlock a new weapon. I had fun with rush/breakthrough mods and Portal mode is cool too. 128 player maps stutters so much so I'm avoiding them for now(I have i5 8400 cpu, probably that's the reason). I couldn't see 64 players Conquest maps though, did they remove it? If so, they really don't understand the fans at all.
 

splattered

Member
I just installed the Ultimate version again after deleting it about a month after launch... it does feel much better! Looks great on Series X. Though everyone else seems to have all the best weapons and attachments unlocked so i just melt with the more beginning weapons ugh. I am currently using the sniper class/recon w enemy sense feature and the DM7 Marksman w some unlocked attachments and it's a ton of fun. Wondering if i'll do any better as i continue to unlock better weapons? I dunno
 

splattered

Member
Ok so played this half the day so far... feels more like Battlefield 3/4 now than it did at launch i think? A few things frustrate me and don't know if i can fix them... For example shots seems to not connect every time? I am using the SVK now and i can shoot 3 or 4 shots fairly close distance and only one shot will land lots of times even if the enemy doesn't move. Then they turn and see and kill me. Hit detection seems very inconsistent? Also when an enemy is in your face and you need to aim at them it is VERY slow. Is there a way to fix this? Sometimes i will whip out my pistol and try to turn my cursor towards the enemy but it's like i'm in molasses and they're just strafing quick and killing me easy. So lame.
 
Last edited:

Winter John

Member
I saw this was on sale so figured it was about the right time to jump in. I've been enjoying it. My biggest issue is the player count. 128 is too much. Sometimes it feels like it's impossible to move anywhere without getting killed. I hope they bring it down to 64 at some point
 
Top Bottom