*** The Official Battlefield 2042 thread***

Associate
Joined
25 Jan 2008
Posts
1,493
Thankfully I never bought BF 5 and I held of on BF 1 for over a year till they got it some enjoyable/good. My days of pre-ordering are gone.

If only more of the "game changers/ronku whores" were like xfactor, he called out all the BS straight away and even before the game released unlike jack, level etc. who say whatever EA want them to say.... Always amuses me them though, they're so "hyped" and "loving" the game, then come to the end of their partnership deal, you start to see **** all videos of the game being uploaded and videos like "where battlefield xxx went wrong?", "battlefield xxx is dead to me", "battlefield xxx mistakes" etc., then come next game, rinse and repeat.....

I'll puke if it turns out to be another BF game driven by "influencers" wanting to constantly score 50/0 and run and gun. Not all the blame lies on them for how it went by a long way, but Dice clearly put way too much credence in their "musings".
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2010
Posts
22,220
I agree. 64 players needs to change. Maybe even an option for 3 teams.

I want big battles planetside 2 style.

More mmo style but fps obviously.

Its a shame they dont look at MAG and build on that approach.

3 teams fighting on the same map.

Planetside, but with battlefield. A persistent map with 40 players across three factions, all vying to ‘win’ with rewards for doing so. You could stop playing at 11:30pm on a Friday and log on the next morning to the same server with a drastically different frontline, but still no winner. I’d love that. Would require proper co-ordination and a huge map with actual airfields for jets and even fuel limits so jets need to refuel which should reduce their dominance as has happened in most battlefield games.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Nov 2016
Posts
460
Planetside, but with battlefield. A persistent map with 40 players across three factions, all vying to ‘win’ with rewards for doing so. You could stop playing at 11:30pm on a Friday and log on the next morning to the same server with a drastically different frontline, but still no winner. I’d love that. Would require proper co-ordination and a huge map with actual airfields for jets and even fuel limits so jets need to refuel which should reduce their dominance as has happened in most battlefield games.

I agree, given how far we have come with technology.. the only thing games are pushing really is graphics.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
22,381
3 teams sounds retarded, but I suppose they gave up with any sort of realism a long time ago.

Fuelling and ammo reloading on vehicles would be a great idea though I think.

Wishful thinking though, they'll not spend time and money on a load of new mechanics, this is EA, they'll whip a team of 4 people to churn out something same but slightly different with more skins.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,108
Location
Notts
In BF4 i always preferred up to around 10 v 10 games, so over 64 player probably be wasted on me. Maybe some huge maps coming in BF6 to accommodate 128 player? lol.

they have said there will be more players . logically 128 comes to mind but maybe 100 in total.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,035
Location
Ireland
100 players = more vehicles = more rage from the shortbus brigade who seem to think that vehicles are a cheap way to get kills and shouldn't be in the game. It's amazing how many people complain about vehicles in the game like it should just be yet another COD clone. Usually from noobs who have only been playing since BF4 or BF1.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Oct 2010
Posts
2,003
Location
Sunny Scotland
100 players = more vehicles = more rage from the shortbus brigade who seem to think that vehicles are a cheap way to get kills and shouldn't be in the game. It's amazing how many people complain about vehicles in the game like it should just be yet another COD clone. Usually from noobs who have only been playing since BF4 or BF1.

Nothing wrong with vehicles, plus the extra player maps don't necessarily mean they need to add more vehicles. My biggest gripe is with tanks that don't play the game and just sit at the back of the map picking folk off, far too many scared tank drivers. They should be slapped with a 24 hour ban along with the folk that use the type 2a, zh and the folk that run and gun with a LMG with incredible accuracy. Although the maps would be pretty empty if they did that haha
 
Associate
Joined
20 Mar 2014
Posts
2,281
Planetside, but with battlefield. A persistent map with 40 players across three factions, all vying to ‘win’ with rewards for doing so. You could stop playing at 11:30pm on a Friday and log on the next morning to the same server with a drastically different frontline, but still no winner. I’d love that. Would require proper co-ordination and a huge map with actual airfields for jets and even fuel limits so jets need to refuel which should reduce their dominance as has happened in most battlefield games.

exactly, i was playing bf1942 with 64 players in like 2001 or something.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
22,381
100 players = more vehicles = more rage from the shortbus brigade who seem to think that vehicles are a cheap way to get kills and shouldn't be in the game. It's amazing how many people complain about vehicles in the game like it should just be yet another COD clone. Usually from noobs who have only been playing since BF4 or BF1.

To be fair, BF1 and BFV the balance on the vehicles coupled with more casual play meant that you'd end up with vehicle users on hilarious KD ratios. It's partly a design fault and partly the fact that squad and objective play doesn't really exist any more. It's becoming more and more a run-gun-moan game, just like CoD.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Posts
10,653
Location
Surrey
Must be getting close to something, all the shills are back pumping out sponsored videos on yt again about how great BFV is...
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2012
Posts
3,814
Location
Derbyshire
Must be getting close to something, all the shills are back pumping out sponsored videos on yt again about how great BFV is...

Its been so long since i watched any BF related content that I don't even get them in my YouTube feed anymore. I don't miss 'em either.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,035
Location
Ireland
Must be getting close to something, all the shills are back pumping out sponsored videos on yt again about how great BFV is...


Have to keep tongueing in the EA Taint so they get invited to play the game early.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Sep 2005
Posts
14,449
Location
Bradley Stoke, Bristol
Not really got any high hopes for this. BF2 was epic, BF3 was decent, BF4 didn't grab me and haven't bothered since. Would love this to take off and get the following that BF2 (and I guess earlier titles?) had.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Sep 2007
Posts
677
Location
Scotland
Not really got any high hopes for this. BF2 was epic, BF3 was decent, BF4 didn't grab me and haven't bothered since. Would love this to take off and get the following that BF2 (and I guess earlier titles?) had.

Pretty much my thoughts as well. Used to be my go to game, but now I really couldn't care less about it, unless they make decent changes. Been getting my fix from Planetside 2 just now.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
9,331
Location
South Wales
Despite not liking them as much as earlier games in the series I still played a lot of BF1 and BF5. I find them fun to jump in every now and again to play a few hours. I know things have to evolve but they probably didn't take BF5 down a direction the main fan base would want. COD might have heavily done the period recently but I wouldn't mind a cold war period spanning multiple years.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Posts
3,113
Location
The Cronx
I have to say I have enjoyed, to varying degrees, every BF game since 1942 *with the exception of Hardline which was gash*. BF3 was brilliant, and I really enjoyed BF1 - I think BFBC2/4 were equally my favourites. I will absolutely get this via Origin Access or just buying it.
 
Top