• 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 Removing 128 Player Mode

IbizaPocholo

NeoGAFs Kent Brockman

DICE is still making an effort to improve its latest FPS, as shown by the recent release of Battlefield 2042 Patch 4.1. Alongside the usual balance changes that can be expected from a big patch, one of the major decisions made by DICE seemed puzzling to fans, and that was the removal of the 128-player Breakthrough mode.

Breakthrough is a relatively new game mode to the Battlefield series, having been added in 2016's Battlefield 1. The mode sees players split into attackers and defenders. The former must try and push through the latter's defense, taking key objectives on a map until the entire area is conquered or, for the defense to win, the time runs out. Battlefield 2042 is bringing the maximum player count of its Breakthrough mode down to 64 players, citing an improvement in "tactical experience" as the reason for the change.

DICE stated in a blog post that 128 players creates a certain amount of chaos and carnage that doesn't suit the Breakthrough mode. In addition to halving the player count, Battlefield 2042 is making some changes to its Breakthrough maps so that the 128-player areas don't feel too big. For fans looking for the carnage and chaos in 128-player modes, they can still play Conquest in Battlefield 2042. Strangely, for any Xbox One or PS4 owner of the game, 128-player Breakthrough will still be available on those platforms too.

This means that players on older consoles seemingly don't require the tactical advantages the 64-player Breakthrough will provide. It seems that halving the player count on Breakthrough modes is only the beginning of Battlefield 2042's changes, as a recent survey sent to players asked for their opinion on new features. EA's Battlefield 2042 survey asked whether players would want to see things like Battlefield 2042 rented servers and changes to the game mode editor. Only time will tell if future updates to the title can redeem it from the negative reputation it earned at launch.

 

Javthusiast

Gold Member
Reverse Fran Healy GIF by Travis
 

kiphalfton

Member
A "yearly release" series that is failing. Seems unprecedented, since the modern "gamer" buys anything no matter how crappy it is.
 

Ladioss

Member
I'm old enough to remember a time when the Battlefield series was about increasing that player count in epic battles across gigantic maps, rather than focusing on the woke-industrial complex. Funny how ten years changed everything.
 

Winter John

Member
Rented servers? Who in their right mind would rent a server for this mess? DICE going to be moving into Somalian timeshares next
 

Urban

Gold Member
So they are trying it for this playmode and once they see that it works , they will reduce the rest of the game to 32vs32
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
128 player count was a mistake, everyone with common sense knows that more players = more chaos, and bigger maps don't solve the issue, rather add another one being more traveling from A to B instead of actual encounters.

IMHO BC1/2's 24 player count was the sweet spot, it's larger enought than your usual 8-12 most games have, but still small enough to have controlled game flow and well designed maps.
 

Urban

Gold Member
128 player count was a mistake, everyone with common sense knows that more players = more chaos, and bigger maps don't solve the issue, rather add another one being more traveling from A to B instead of actual encounters.

IMHO BC1/2's 24 player count was the sweet spot, it's larger enought than your usual 8-12 most games have, but still small enough to have controlled game flow and well designed maps.
How did MAG work then?
IIRC i never felt that there is pure chaos.
 

Cyborg

Member
Who even plays it anymore? And do they really expect people to go back? The only way forward (to gain some players) is to become F2P.
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
How did MAG work then?
IIRC i never felt that there is pure chaos.

MAG never felt that you're a part of a 256 player battle, more like 10vs10-12vs12, which kind of killed the whole purpose of making a game with such huge player count to begin with. And I think it's another good example that there's just no much sense in going bigger and bigger, and sticking to 24-32 players and tuning up that experience is the way to go.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I bought this garbage at launch at full price , in middle East u couldn't start a breakthrough server at anytime even on weekend because there wasn't enough players for 1 servers on ps5,xbox and PC combined
The problem BF has which other shooters dont is their focus on bigger is better. Ya, some games out there are battle royale with giant maps and player count, but most shooters have modes with normal sized maps and small player counts. So when the player count eventually tails off, you still got tons of 12 or 16 player matches available to join. I was still dabbling with World at War a few years ago on Xbox and it still had player counts of 500-1000 depending what time I played at. It was actually pretty easy to get into a TDM match.

The concept of BF is awesome (always has been with big maps, players, vehicles and destruction which no other game has). But EA and DICE have to focus on the core gameplay first, then expand to 128 players.

It's like they focused on 128 players first as the biggest bullet point to promote and tried to force the rest of the game to work well.

And going by what people say, even the bots are shit which doesnt help.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Bring it to Gamepass already ffs.... it will increase the player count.

I'd play it on Gamepass, no way im paying full price for that shite
It'll come. I say summer for sure. EA releases their games on EA Access/Play usually about 9 months after launch. So I'd ballpark July. BF1 was August, BFV was June.
 

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Someone having fun with battlefield 2042 surprises people people wanted battlefield 2042 to play like battlefield 5, now they want to blow up the franchise upset over little things like player count battlefield fans have bad tempers go play 6 or 7 straight hours of call of duty and come back to battlefield your brain will explode, every kill in battlefield is personal.

Battlefield 2042 Has Second-Best Launch In Series Despite Poor Reception

The Battlefield formula is very traditional multiplayer that's the necessary component, the master map design just isn't here. Maps like Kaleidoscope, Orbital, and Renewal have longevity though that throws in 128 players and are reminiscent of Battlefield 4 maps.

We finally get a roadmap update, I guess the makers of Battlefield woke up and decided to add things. Is Battlefield 2042 something to be proud of? If they delay the game maybe the outcome is different. Yes we have a way to go before the game is complete, and playing up to gamers expectations.

Minions Mic Drop GIF
 

A.Romero

Member
They removed it from Breakthrough which was coincidentally my favorite mode. I don't understand the reasoning. It's not like it was the only mode. People could chose what to play from the options, if the mode was too chaotic (it was and it was a big part of the fun for me) then people wouldn't play it.

With their patch they also introduced micro stuttering for PC which pretty much makes the game unplayable (as if it wasn't really rough on performance before).

If I didn't know better I'd imagine they are trying to fail on purpose.
 

EDMIX

Member
128 player count was a mistake, everyone with common sense knows that more players = more chaos,

Well.....I'd say that is why it was worth the risk tbh lol I'd rather they try and fail and move on, then wonder how it would be with more players. I don't even think 128 players is the issue, I think how this game was designed in the first place was the issue.

Of all the problems with 2042, the 128 player thing imho wasn't one of em as oppose to HOW it was done in breakthrough. I think the concept is worth it for them to try, revisit, tweak etc, but if they feel right now its not working for this mode, I'm completely ok with it being removed until it makes sense. They are after all redesigning this game right now and this literally was a conversation that should have been had in development vs after as I'm sure the right leaders come to that conclusion, but EA being EA, they might have never even had a choice in that matter as EA probably wanted the bullet point BY ANY MEANS lol

Urban Urban Agreed. MAG was a fun game and imho maybe too ahead of its time, but the player count thing worked pretty good for them as they designed it well with that in mind. So I'm not against more players, it just must be designed well and I can't just blame that 1 feature, with a team having issues, with a publisher like EA....for all we know someone else does a high player count and nails it and people will be like "WOOOOW why couldn't DICE/EA do dat doe" lol

So people tend to dismiss the feature based on a flop, yet disregard that other designs may have caused it to flop or how it was put in etc.
 
Last edited:
Bring it to Gamepass already ffs.... it will increase the player count.

I'd play it on Gamepass, no way im paying full price for that shite
This, I played the free trial and it was... okay.... well Portal at least. The fact that they still charge £55 for it after all the negative reviews, low player count and age of the game is just stupid. I'll play it on GP or maybe think about buying it for £20 MAX
 
The 64player versions of all these modes were far better than the 128 player modes so no big loss. As soon as they gave us option to try 64 player modes and maps on next gen, it was night and day difference.

The chaos of 128 was cool novelty but it really didn't really add anything to the overall game with the size of maps. The more contained smaller game modes were much more focused and felt like classic BF.
 
Top Bottom