Thats a thing? Well I never!
*** The Official Battlefield 2042 thread***
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
very much so and to be fair it can be relaxing I play breakthrough on hourglass
just dont forget an ammo crate 150-300 kills a match
my friend got 440 in one round yesterday
its best to get a stalemate going with the bots at the range you want
Yeah, I've spent the last few weeks doing nothing other than helicopters, I practiced with bots first and unlocked all of the accessories for them, it's super handy. Killing bots doesn't contribute to tier advancement though, so there's no point doing it once you've got your unlock.
Yeah I'd agree with in that BF4 kinda nailed it in terms of the overall BF 'feel' though we shouldnt forget that it also launched like a limp dog.
In terms of pure gun play though, personally BF1 is probably my favourite and especially when playing as Scout but in terms of the battlefield sandbox craziness BF4 was deffo peak and I'm right with you on the cartoony theme running through the game, it just feels off and not in the correct place when planted in a BF game.
It's almost like they have tried to bring warfare to the pre-school generation.
Bf1 scout I used to enjoying playing with the carbine with my squad and cut down rifle as a sidearm
bf4 the beta stopped me playing it was complete tosh tried in the summer when amazon gave it away but still didnt feel it
loved bc2 and bf3 but that could have been the people
bf4 the beta stopped me playing it was complete tosh tried in the summer when amazon gave it away but still didnt feel it
loved bc2 and bf3 but that could have been the people
Thing is, the team that fixed it then is the same team today that can fix it... or are they all gone?
This is the stupid thing and everyone else complains about, stop making clones. If they want to play COD, they'll go get COD. Many said before, they left COD to play Battlefield because it was different. The developers of today cannot seem to grasp that.
Easily 128 players. Especially in Breakthrough, you have way more of an "in a war zone/chaos" feel and more constant non-stop large scale action feel than previous 64-player BF's. I think the move to 128 players was a positive for the series, even though graphic fidelity and a few other items had to be toned down.
People I've read on very high spec systems with 5900s and 3090s still says those 128 player matches aint a smooth experience.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 8,724
- Location
- Edinburgh
5800X and a 3080ti here; I honestly can't say that I notice the 128 player matches being any different performance wise than 64; the graphics certainly aren't as good as BFV/BF1 though; some of the maps are very bland and "vanilla"
Seriously considering uninstalling this for now and going back to bf4, i can get some fun out of 2042 from time to time but it just dosnt feel right to me
Hopefully it will be much better in 6 months time, i have a little faith that the game will get better.
Hopefully it will be much better in 6 months time, i have a little faith that the game will get better.
a lot of people join the first game and say oyy this is **** bru the performance sucks then leave
for me the first game every session seems to be loading shaders for 5-8 minutes then it all smooths out for the everything after
the maps are very generic some of the cleanest global economic chaos I have ever seen in a game
Its def going to be at least 6 months before the newbie devs work out what they should be doing. So far they nerfed anything that worked well and became popular so you're just left with potato rifles compared to any previous bf game. Hence why they're down to under 10k daily players already on steam. 5 took some time to get going too but they only have 1 guy left from that team even. Way too much empty space on every map
Also smooth af 5900x/3090 for me, 1080p 140-159fps. Just really badly optimised graphics for any hardware at the visual quality of the game compared to others. Almost no diff in low-ultra.
Annoyingly seems to be the way with most games these days - developers really don't have a clue - X being insanely overpowered/popular leaving A, B and C underused and instead of doing something interesting with A, B and C and massaging X down a bit they just nerf X into the ground as if somehow that makes A, B and C any less of a turd.
BF4 at least half-way worked with that - some guns at first glance seemed to be at a disadvantage but had interesting properties such as magazine capacity, trajectory or damage profile you could work with to bring them to effect in different ways. Though they could have done much more with that in BF4.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,353
I'm going to assume map names as I've only played about 3 of those due to the lack of server browser
.
.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 1,763
- Location
- Hokkaido
I’ve given up on this for now. It’s just too clunky and the input lag on PC is infuriating
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 1,170
This is the least Battlefield game ever. Which is a shame given how good Battlefield was.
This is almost a same repeat to Quake Champions in a much smaller scale. It was rough in 2017 and they started getting the game in a much better shape by 2020/21 but by the time that happened, the ship had sailed. I see many twitch streamers waiting and waiting to get games. Some days viewers in the Quake Champions category are under 10 viewers some nights.
Considering Quake Champions gets pushed under E-Sports. Only time you get a spike of viewers is when pro's are on. Any other time you see many streams sitting in queues trying to find players.
I can't put a number on the amount of time's I've died when furiously hitting the spacebar for parachute due to input lag. Ridiculous!
