Battlefield 2042 - official thread

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
Right, there's a lot of core fundamental design principles with the maps and the specialists that won't be easy to change and would require a lot of rework.

The huge empty maps are a big problem that changes how the game plays. I don't think they can modify those quickly but hopefully for newer maps, the design can offer more cover, flanking routes, more vehicles to get to objectives so you aren't running in conquest all the time.

Also that Sundance character with the addition of the grenade belt and wing suit is ridiculous. I understand a lot of people use that specialist because it makes getting to objectives easier.

But it's also not realistic, flying in face first into the ground from any speed and being ok, no fall damage or anything is dumb.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
3,639
383
126
I heard a rumor that this was originally a BR type game which they shoehorned into a traditional Battlefield game. Could just be speculation, but it would explain the specialists and overly large maps.

IMO, this game is DOA. There are way too many issues to fix with patches. They need to go back to the drawing board and start over with the traditional classes of Battlefield.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
I was playing Rush last night as to me it's the only real fun 2042 mode. I am still blown away I can't voice chat with my 4 man squad though. I think Hazard Zone looks good too, but there is no point in playing that without comms being an option as it's only squad based so not having comms is just so glaring.

I must be in the minority, but I don't think specialists must be automatically terrible. Specialists that are restricted by class loadouts would be fine. Recon specialists can only have sniper loadouts. Engineer specialists could only carry engineer loadouts, etc... I do like playing Falk, I've always preferred a medic in BF games and this is no exception.

Conquest maps should be bigger than bfV but not that much bigger. I've had fun on a couple Conquest matches but it's a small percentage vs the time you spend trying to get around. I really don't know who the hell approved this crap.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
I heard a rumor that this was originally a BR type game which they shoehorned into a traditional Battlefield game. Could just be speculation, but it would explain the specialists and overly large maps.

IMO, this game is DOA. There are way too many issues to fix with patches. They need to go back to the drawing board and start over with the traditional classes of Battlefield.
This holds quite some truth looking at how it turned out in the end. At some point in time during the development they switched gears and left hazard zone as the BR mode but having the core architecture already in place, they decided to build on top which is why we also see specialists in all AOW mode.

Going forward it looks like they are just going to add to this structure which allows for easy monetization and a yearly cycle like the COD games. I've been playing since BF 2 and I'm going to miss the traditional style.
I was playing Rush last night as to me it's the only real fun 2042 mode. I am still blown away I can't voice chat with my 4 man squad though. I think Hazard Zone looks good too, but there is no point in playing that without comms being an option as it's only squad based so not having comms is just so glaring.

I must be in the minority, but I don't think specialists must be automatically terrible. Specialists that are restricted by class loadouts would be fine. Recon specialists can only have sniper loadouts. Engineer specialists could only carry engineer loadouts, etc... I do like playing Falk, I've always preferred a medic in BF games and this is no exception.

Conquest maps should be bigger than bfV but not that much bigger. I've had fun on a couple Conquest matches but it's a small percentage vs the time you spend trying to get around. I really don't know who the hell approved this crap.
That's what I've been saying since the beta. Lock specialists to certain classes and gadgets. The plus menu system for the weapons modifications is cool but almost no one carries a repair tool because why would you when vehicles repair on their own?

Also tanks I've noticed now always hang back and shoot from afar because you may have 64 players all carrying the M5 rocket since you don't know who's carrying what.

All I see with the specialists is people either all do a similar specialist or loadout because otherwise it becomes too OP to play against them.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,132
329
126
I heard a rumor that this was originally a BR type game which they shoehorned into a traditional Battlefield game. Could just be speculation, but it would explain the specialists and overly large maps.

IMO, this game is DOA. There are way too many issues to fix with patches. They need to go back to the drawing board and start over with the traditional classes of Battlefield.
I believe that. It explains why the server stops and the end of rounds and why both sides have the same specialists. Also universal gadgets makes sense when it's a 4 man team rather than 64.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
I believe that. It explains why the server stops and the end of rounds and why both sides have the same specialists. Also universal gadgets makes sense when it's a 4 man team rather than 64.
What's weird is if it was a BR voice chat with your squad would be crucial. Why isn't that there?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
Found this on Reddit but it does explain a lot:

View attachment 53955
What a shit show. Really EA sucks. I figured WFH was not helping with game development as so many games are so much worse these days at launch and taking longer to fix, but they just clusterfucked the timeline by changing direction so much.

I don't get what they don't understand. COD is a team vs team shooter that is extremely popular, even on a yearly release date which makes it get stale quicker - why just try to make another BR? Make a better and more unique COD team vs team shooter like you have with BF of the past, and not so buggy at launch like BFV. BF 2042 WAS SO ANTICIPATED BY PLAYERS BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE A BETTER MODERN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD GAME NOT A FUCKING BR OR HERO SHOOTER.

These marketing execs get involved and fuck everything up.

They ruined Battlefield.

Funnily enough jackfrags had a video yesterday about Rush kinda being the one fun mode. That's about where I'm at right now. The franchise is dead. Now it's going to be a hero BR Squad-based shooter like Apex.

There will literally be no AAA team vs team shooters besides COD which is just too much of a twitch shooter.
 
Last edited:

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
At this point if rush doesn't become a permanent thing in 2042 without having to resort to Portal for it, I'm looking for other titles to play.

Just by looking around people are recommending insurgency sand storm, and from steam, a game called WW3.

I also play hell let loose but that is all WW2 themed but it's heavily dependent on mic use and team play. It's also more milsim so it may not be for everyone.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
At this point if rush doesn't become a permanent thing in 2042 without having to resort to Portal for it, I'm looking for other titles to play.

Just by looking around people are recommending insurgency sand storm, and from steam, a game called WW3.

I also play hell let loose but that is all WW2 themed but it's heavily dependent on mic use and team play. It's also more milsim so it may not be for everyone.
The whole reason I was looking forward to BF was to not play some hero shooter battle royale type thing but finally a BF in the modern era with THREE years of development so we should get a far less buggy launch than say BFV. Everybody else I knew that was looking forward to this game was doing so for the same reasons. I mean a good BF with a good fleshed out Hazard zone type mode would be perfect. Instead EA saw the success of Apex and Fortnite and misread the market because they are only about dollars, and ruined a great franchise with all these changes in direction.

I'll check out those first two shooters, glad you mentioned them. I also want a shooter in the modern era so hell it loose won't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CropDuster

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
Insurgency Sand Storm looks really good. I'm downloading it now for Xbox as that is where my buds play. Let me know if you have it and want to play crossplay.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
The only thing insurgency sandstorm doesn't have is vehicle combat. Some reviews of it I just watched mentioned it's got a lot of detail and interesting perks for a quicker paced, tactical shooter over squad or hell let loose but the gameplay gets bland after some time.

They also mentioned performance issues on PC but I don't think I'll have an issue with my system. I'm trying to decide between this or WW3 but if I do get insurgency I'll let you know so we could do cross play(if that's possible?).
 

CropDuster

Senior member
Jan 2, 2014
345
30
91
Insurgency is kinda shallow to me (though I haven't played it recently). Less arcadey/twitch Counter Strike than anything close to BF IMO. And I guess that's what makes me so mad that they've killed BF the way they have. Vehicles and conquest really set it apart from the typical TDM shooter.

WW3 was like a wish.com battlefield when it first came out and it died pretty quick. Interesting that it's getting publicity again.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
Insurgency is kinda shallow to me (though I haven't played it recently). Less arcadey/twitch Counter Strike than anything close to BF IMO. And I guess that's what makes me so mad that they've killed BF the way they have. Vehicles and conquest really set it apart from the typical TDM shooter.

WW3 was like a wish.com battlefield when it first came out and it died pretty quick. Interesting that it's getting publicity again.
I'm trying to find more about it. I think there is a flock of people from bf 2042 looking to go somewhere else now.

It also sucks that the rush mode they added is actually just an experience they don't plan on keeping more than a week. So next week there will be a different game mode up.

WW3 from what I have been reading might be free to play in 2022.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
I just played three hours of Rush and it really is fun.

If they don't keep this mode they are more dumb than I thought.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
This is WW3 seems the map at least has better design but also has its own bugs. Gameplay looks more solid than bf 2042.

 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
Played a Conquest map today that was actually fun. It started with a D - that's one good Conquest map. Good match. Then went back to Rush. Really fun mode, could use more maps but they are good ones.

Are team deathmatch and squad deathmatch or infantry only modes supposed to come? I have no idea.

The last patch of the year came out today, so that means no voice comms until next year. Unreal.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
Played a Conquest map today that was actually fun. It started with a D - that's one good Conquest map. Good match. Then went back to Rush. Really fun mode, could use more maps but they are good ones.

Are team deathmatch and squad deathmatch or infantry only modes supposed to come? I have no idea.

The last patch of the year came out today, so that means no voice comms until next year. Unreal.
I know one thing they did in the last update was remove rooftop objectives because that was an issue with everyone camping on the rooftop.

But what they should have done was not allow vehicle call ins on the roof. This was the main problem. People liked the rooftop battles but not when everyone could call in tanks and other vehicles on the roof...so they removed the rooftop capture points completely instead lol.

There's no telling if the other game modes will be added. It looks like they are sticking to the featured weekly game modes.

I sure hope Rush stays in the game permanently. I read today that the next thing they are gonna do is incorporate Portal into the main game mode rather than have it as a separate section.

At least the 3.1 patch also addressed the gunplay some more with tighter recoil, bullet spread and improved hit registration.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
I know one thing they did in the last update was remove rooftop objectives because that was an issue with everyone camping on the rooftop.

But what they should have done was not allow vehicle call ins on the roof. This was the main problem. People liked the rooftop battles but not when everyone could call in tanks and other vehicles on the roof...so they removed the rooftop capture points completely instead lol.

There's no telling if the other game modes will be added. It looks like they are sticking to the featured weekly game modes.

I sure hope Rush stays in the game permanently. I read today that the next thing they are gonna do is incorporate Portal into the main game mode rather than have it as a separate section.

At least the 3.1 patch also addressed the gunplay some more with tighter recoil, bullet spread and improved hit registration.
I think they just took off rooftop objectives from the Breakthrough mode maybe? I still had them on Rush today. Orbital is not a bad conquest map either. Had some fun on there today as well. Could be a tad smaller but it has good terrain and buildings for firefights. Again, if you could communicate with your squad you could mitigate the size of that map more by coordinating things.

The map on the ice is just way too big with little cover. But Orbital and I think Divergent or something with a D, pretty good Conquest maps that can only get better when squads can talk to each other.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,132
329
126
Agree with the rest. I enjoyed Rush. More intense firefights and more teamwork.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
13,792
394
126
I also just read that they will be keeping rush on there for an extended period of time. Haven't had a chance to play battlefield lately.

I also want to play Halo infinite so I've been working my way through the master chief collection, currently half way through Halo 2 anniversary edition now.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,299
11,170
136
I also just read that they will be keeping rush on there for an extended period of time. Haven't had a chance to play battlefield lately.

I also want to play Halo infinite so I've been working my way through the master chief collection, currently half way through Halo 2 anniversary edition now.
Try the breakthrough 64 mode that's on now. It's really good. Not sure how long that will be available.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
3,914
2,454
136
Try the breakthrough 64 mode that's on now. It's really good. Not sure how long that will be available.
- I do not own BF2042 nor will I ever own BF2042, but what's this about "not sure how long that will be available"?

Are devs rotating through game modes per season or something? If so, that would be one of the most mindbogglingly frustrating experience of all time and I don't understand how someone can pay for a game and be ok with game modes coming and going at the developer's whim.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Artorias PC Games 26
H PC Games 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY