*** The Official Battlefield 2042 thread***

agnes said:
Unless I missed something, the recent leak 'news' is the only 'news' regarding it? I'm sure it would have been plastered all over otherwise, specially if it was in the trailer lol
Click to expand...

watch the trailer numerous old battlefield maps in it.
 
I saw the new maps, a couple of which kinda look like old maps (shanghai, operation whiteout and gulf of omen) but no actual old maps? Also can't see any discussion around them anywhere?
 
Game said:
any BC2 maps? though they will not be the same with prone added
Click to expand...

Hopefully not, BC2 maps were built around rush and so conquest didn't work well for them. When you look at them most were quite long and thin. Also packing 128 players into many of the old maps is going to be a right cluster **** unless they have been made significantly larger.


WingZero30 said:
Any idea when official system requirements will be released?
Click to expand...

No idea, but i wouldn't fully trust them. I would wait until the demo (open beta) is out to get a better idea of what you need to get a good experience in game. My guess would be that you will need a 6c12 CPU or better as a minimum to get a stable framerate in big multiplayer maps.
 
labbby said:
This, there was nothing better than jumping in a chopper with mates then putting the in game radio on :D

WARR.. what is it good for :D:D
Click to expand...

Absolute pinnacle of multiplayer PC gaming that was for me. I'm not sure anything can ever come close again for me!
 
Fire_fly said:
Hopefully not, BC2 maps were built around rush and so conquest didn't work well for them. When you look at them most were quite long and thin. Also packing 128 players into many of the old maps is going to be a right cluster **** unless they have been made significantly larger.




.
Click to expand...

not every mode has to be 128 player


and we have not had a single map that plays rush well since bc3

a couple of bad excuses in bf3 and that was it but then prone hurts rush as well
 
Fire_fly said:
Hopefully not, BC2 maps were built around rush and so conquest didn't work well for them. When you look at them most were quite long and thin. Also packing 128 players into many of the old maps is going to be a right cluster **** unless they have been made significantly larger.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with the first part. The only one I really didn't like was Heavy Metal because of how everything was funnelled down the middle by the valley, and I was always an infantryman first and foremost. Obviously they wouldn't work as is with 128 players though.
 
Game said:
not every mode has to be 128 player

and we have not had a single map that plays rush well since bc3

a couple of bad excuses in bf3 and that was it but then prone hurts rush as well
Click to expand...

They will try to pack 128 players into every game mode that they can. BC2 had 32 player rush maps but they increased that to 64 players with BF3 / 4 to take it inline with conquest. That made some maps, Metro, into an explosive spam mess as too many player were funnelled into to the objectives.

Damavand Peak was ok but metro was poor. Both suffered badly as conquest maps compared to some of the others. I mostly stopped playing rush after BF3 and stuck to conquest.

R.P.L said:
I don't really agree with the first part. The only one I really didn't like was Heavy Metal because of how everything was funnelled down the middle by the valley, and I was always an infantryman first and foremost. Obviously they wouldn't work as is with 128 players though.
Click to expand...

Looking at some of the BC2 conquest maps many are are made of segments of larger rush maps and are quite small compared to conquest maps from other games, normally having only 3 flags. Then again though they were limited to 32 players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom