Battlefield 2042

[Jason]

The difference between BF4 and 2042 at launch is that under the technical mess of BF4 was a great Battlefield game, while under the technical mess of 2042 is a rubbish Battlefield game mixed with a mess of features ripped from popular shooters.

 

That's the main concern for fans with 2042, not that they won't fix the technical issues, but that they won't acknowledge that they got core elements of the game wrong. The operators, the maps, the progression, the cosmetics... It's all bad.

[Mexicola9302]

Source: Battlefield Core Feedback - Maps

 

Hey folks,

 

On February 1 we reaffirmed our commitment to push up the quality of Battlefield 2042. Part of that commitment is to better clarify the design direction that we’re taking, and what’s motivating our decisions to bring improvements to the game via a feedback loop that involves you, our players, more directly.

 

Today we’ll kick off our first key area of focus, Map Design.

 

Based on your feedback, we’ll outline 5 main topics we’ve identified around the current problems that we face with gameplay on maps, their cause, and our current thought process and proposed changes on addressing these problems. Our intent for this is to be an open discussion with you, so we’re looking forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback about our updated design goals for maps to ensure that we’re making the right calls to bring improvements to the gameplay experience.

 

---

 

Traversal

One of the core issues we have identified is Traversal. We both see, and have heard your frustrations on how long it takes on maps today to travel between Flags, or from Base Spawn to Flag. This comes as a result of the introduction of 128 players in combination with some of the biggest maps that we’ve ever created as playspaces. While the larger maps offer more playspace and freedom, a side effect is that gameplay is now spread out more, resulting in an overall increase in time to combat when related to playing the objective.   

 

We’ve seen you use terms such as “Walking Simulator” to describe how this feels in-game. We understand that this isn’t a satisfying experience and agree that there’s too much overall travel time.  

 

We’re currently looking to reduce the overall travel time between Flag and Base Spawn on some maps by moving both the Base Spawn, and closest Flags. We’ve already identified a number of obvious candidates that fall outside of our new expected behaviours, but we want to hear from you on this topic as well. Which maps presently provide a poor opening experience because of the location of the Base Spawn? Which maps are making it harder to get back into the fight in an all cap scenario? Later on in the post, we’ll share a link to a general feedback thread that we’ve opened up to capture some of this feedback, but don’t be shy to have these conversations out amongst other hubs of Battlefield Community. We’re out there monitoring the conversations and are keen to hear what you have to say.   

 

Intensity

Another area that we’ve identified where we feel that we can improve your gameplay experience is in the overall Intensity of combat. Largely, we feel that this issue is mainly related to 128 player modes, and especially in Breakthrough. We know that during certain pushes for the objective, it can get too chaotic when fighting over Flags; either there are too many players, or vehicles, and sometimes the overall chaos can make it feel overwhelming when accurately trying to assess what’s happening around you. 

 

In terms of improvements, we are presently reviewing if it makes sense to keep Breakthrough as 128 players vs 64, or if we feel that a reduction of the total number of vehicles that can spawn ensures that their presence isn’t as overwhelming, and gives infantry players a more important role. In the leadup to the Holidays, we introduced 64 player Breakthrough, and recently made some changes to the ticket values across the mode based on behaviors we were seeing in the final objective phase. Right now, we feel that Breakthrough on 64 players provides the best experience of Breakthrough. 

 

But we also want to hear from you around the Intensity of the experience on Breakthrough. How do you feel about the current balance between Infantry and Vehicles on the mode? Have you played 64 player Breakthrough, and do you feel that this is the better way to experience the mode? We’re still in the process of working towards our next phase of improvements for the mode, and we’d like to incorporate as much of your feedback as possible into that process.

 

Line of sight

Line of sight is another topic that we've received plenty of feedback on. When we refer to line of sight, we’re relating this to how often you’re taking fire from enemies at distance. We feel, and have heard from you, that there are presently too many open and flat spaces on some of our maps, which puts too much focus on direct long-distance combat between objectives. We largely see that feedback aimed at certain areas in Kaleidoscope, but have observed discussion on other areas of our maps as well.

 

Our current plan for improvement is to ensure there are more opportunities to hide yourself from enemy line of sight while traversing from objective to objective, with a goal of ours being to reduce the focus on long-range combat, and the necessity of carrying weapons which perform best in these ranges.

 

As shared earlier, we presently feel that Kaleidoscope is an obvious offender for line of sight challenges, and are already making passes internally on improving certain areas of the map, including re-designing our Breakthrough experience to move combat into areas of the map where better cover already exists. What we’d like to hear from you is on which maps and Flags you see the most immediate need for more line of sight blockers. Knowing this will help us to best prioritize the work that we go on to do in parallel with other changes, and ensure that we’re addressing the next biggest offenders in good order.

 

Paths

Another feedback area of focus is not having clear Paths towards objectives, and the lanes that players are most commonly traveling in when moving between objectives. Without a clear intended path, enemy fire is more often coming in from all possible angles. We recognise that when you’re defending, this can make it difficult to hold the objective, and when on the attack, we see players exposing themselves on bad lanes in bids to push for a flag. 

 

We’re presently looking to bring improvements into the paths that we have on our maps, to make clearer and more defined paths while traveling between objectives in order to keep combat focused, and to make it easier to understand how to get from one objective to the next. If you have thoughts or examples that align to those goals, please don’t be shy to show us. These can be as basic as extracting a 2 minute clip of you moving from flag to flag, and calling out to us the experience you had whilst doing that (good or bad), or discussion of specific areas that you feel are presently lacking good pathing, or are the best examples of where this is currently strongest.

 

Cover

Lastly, and similar to line of sight, the current lack of cover across maps is another improvement area which is also caused by the open and flat spaces that you have encountered on certain maps. While we are trying to limit direct long-range combat between objectives, we’re also looking to ensure sufficient cover for when you are traveling between the objectives. 

 

We are looking to address this by reviewing the need for additional cover in places where we feel that they’re needed. In line with what has been discussed in some of our other focus areas, our intent is to reduce the likelihood of being fired at from a 360 degree angle, and to take away that Hail Mary feeling of running onto no man’s land between objectives.

 

If you have any specific areas on maps that are currently standing out to you which lack cover, then we’d love to hear from you. 

 

Examples of these improvement areas across current maps

To give you a better understanding of what we’ve outlined today, here are a few examples of these areas in-game that we see today, as negatively impacting your gameplay experience:

 

Breakthrough - Sector A on Kaleidoscope Large - this is a good example of where we feel the objectives are too far from the Defending Base Spawn. It’s difficult to make it from spawn to those objectives, alive. There’s very little cover across the immediate road and grassy embankments as soon as you’re out of the spawn area. We feel it’s currently too unforgiving for the attacking side.

 

 

Conquest - Kaleidoscope - we notice very few people run from the left tower up through the skatepark and to the dome. There are too many open spaces without cover which leave you open for a lengthy amount of time. 

 

 

As an example we’ve added the heatmap below which shows large areas of the map are underutilized as they are considered too dangerous.

 

 

When can we expect these planned improvements to be live in-game?

The plans that we’ve outlined to you today will require substantial development time, so we want to be transparent that not all of these proposed changes will be available to you in-game simultaneously across all of our library of maps. 

 

We’ve established some healthier behaviors that we have already started to incorporate into new maps that are in development for the game, but we’ll be approaching the updating of old maps with dedicated focus to the maps most needing the changes first.

 

Our immediate priority areas of focus is to make improvements to Kaleidoscope on both Conquest, and Breakthrough. We know that we have the most opportunity to improve gameplay on this map, and this is where you can expect to see the first updates to land. We’re currently planning to deliver updates specifically to Kaleidoscope during Season One, and your feedback will help us to not only optimize the changes that we’re making to this map, but best inform us on where our focus on improving maps should move to next.

 

 

What do these identified improvement areas mean for future map design?

We’ve already briefly shared that you’ll visit new locations in future Seasons. So today we’ll also outline how these current learnings will impact our design process for future maps.

 

The biggest action point for ourselves is that bigger maps doesn’t necessarily mean more freedom and playstyles, or fun. So you can expect future maps to be smaller in scale than most of our release maps. This also means we are reviewing a possible reduction in the number of Sectors and total Capture Points per map when playing at 128 players. We’re also thinking about changing the shape of the maps to give them more sense of direction. We feel that going from a common Battlefield standard of a square shaped playspace, to a rectangular shape most commonly used in some of our older entries in the franchise can better incentivize pushing forward versus circling out sideways. We feel that this can help to focus areas of combat, enable you to have more focused awareness, and reduce opportunities for enemy fire to come in from all around you.

 

We’ll also review the player counts across modes such as Breakthrough, as well as the types and number of vehicles that can be used on specific maps. For example, does it make sense to have (multiple) Jets on Kaleidoscope if that is our smallest map? It’s important to note here that our focus isn’t to limit your available options, but instead to find the right balance which positively enhances your gameplay experience. Above all, we want you to have fun no matter which map you’re on.

 

What’s next?

We hope today we’ve given you a good overview of how we’ve been collecting your feedback around map design, and our thought process on how we can improve. We’d like to keep this as an open discussion with you, the community, and we’re looking forward to your thoughts on what we’ve outlined today. 

 

Throughout the post today, we’ve posed a lot of questions, and we invite you to share your thoughts, feelings and responses over on the official Battlefield forums, but we’ll of course also be reading your comments across multiple hubs of community such as Discord, Reddit, and Social Media.

 

I will be back later this month to talk to you about the feedback that you’ve shared, what that’s enabled us to pursue, or inspired us to address. You’ll hear from me, and the team on how your feedback is helping us to best improve the experience you have when playing the game.

 

Lastly, we’d like to end with once again stating our dedication to the continued effort of improving on, and delivering new content for Battlefield 2042. We don’t take you, our players, for granted, and we truly appreciate your feedback and continued post-launch support now that we’re on the road to Season 1. 

 

 

See you on the Battlefield,

 

Freeman // @PartWelsh
Community Lead, Battlefield

Edited March 3 by Mexicola9302

[Jason]

"Based on your feedback, we’ll outline 5 main topics we’ve identified around the current problems that we face with gameplay on maps,"

 

Literally every single bit of feedback the community has given them they had in the beta, they ignored every single bit of it and assumed the community was wrong and their design was right. Even now they are taking zero responsibility for that, instead acting like this feedback is new and are shifting blame onto the player count increase.

 

2042 has zero hope of a BF4 like revival cause of this.

 

 

[1whitebuddah]

Didn't they try and blame the halo release for the poor reception of 2042 aswell?

 

It's sad to see this game flopped hard, they may aswell just start over and develop a new bf. I'm not so sure this one can be saved. And the first season isn't even out yet. 

 

To anyone that still plays this - how is the pc performance now? I was thinking of jumping back in but remembering how poorly this game ran I decided not too. 

 

Still I might go and play portal but even then their is no progression and limited guns. 

Edited March 5 by 1whitebuddah

[Jason]

9 hours ago, 1whitebuddah said:

Didn't they try and blame the halo release for the poor reception of 2042 aswell?

 

Yep.

 

They've only found excuse after excuse for why the game launched the way it did.

 

Halo, fans getting sick of buggy releases, 128 players and no doubt more excuses jammed in their post-mortem articles.

 

It's frustrating as hell to see them avoid the main issue - them. They had all the feedback they needed in the beta and they ignored it all and they got exactly what they should've expected by ignoring all that feedback. Seen it many times before be it with a new game or a giant update to a game, if the feedback is overwhelmingly negative your launch/update is gonna bomb and ultimately cause the death of the game unless you admit you were wrong and slam on reverse very quickly.

 

Also it's becoming tiring seeing devs dismiss huge sources of feedback like reddit because of toxicity. Not defending any of those that go after the devs at all, but it's becoming a common, sh*tty excuse for them to just ignore huge amounts of valid, constructive feedback.

[Mexicola9302]

The newest update changed things a bit. I already had good FPS but using 1080p or 1440p never made a difference for some reason, now i actually get more FPS playing in 1080p.

 

Sure the game is sort of dead, but it got better, well at least a bit. I only play it some rounds every once in a while.

 

I think ppl that had totally bad FPS, could give it another try, well if it's still installed. Also the hitbox got better, i hit more times than before. But i already hit good before, maybe because of my ini edits, not sure.

 

Some ppl report jumps of up to 40 FPS. So something must have been done right.

 

Edit: I also didn't get any FPS increase with DLSS before, but now i do.

Edited April 23 by Mexicola9302

[Mexicola9302]

 

[Jason]

Says everything about the level of talent of the BF team's leadership that they're literally abandoning 128 players and just assuming that was the problem.

 

Not the operator system, not the horrendous map design with tons of walking and no cover, not the backwards progression, nope, none of that. 

[Mexicola9302]

I just played 2 rounds on that new map, it is actually good. It has close quarter combat, much vertical gameplay and still tanks play their role.

 

I also like that the end of round voicelines have been deactivated, now you only see the top 3 players without these annoying cringy lines.

 

But i still would prefer the whole game without these annoying specialists. It would make the game feel like Battlefield again.

 

I like playing medic, but i hate the specialist Angel, damn i hate his accent, and the russian lady is annoying as f*ck too. Why can't there be an american or english medic, no it must be one with annoying accent...

Edited June 9 by Mexicola9302

[WanteD1]

Still same trash but it feels a lot better! 
* I prefer 64players mode + BFBC2 and BF3 maps! 

[Mexicola9302]

I just played another 3 rounds on the new map, it really is fun to play that one. If they keep making the game better, focusing on what is important, it might actually be a good game in a year or something. The other maps need to have more close quarter combat too, and then it's all fine.

 

Edit: I figured out that old lady medic is a german lol, well i hate my own accent then.  

Edited June 10 by Mexicola9302

[FrikkenZz]

I agree on the stuff said about this game. But I do like it atm tho.  Its playable on a few maps. And since i love the series (and paid a crazy amount for the game) I am still playing.  I dont know if there is a hope of ressurection of the game. But hope they improve what they can (which is still a longshot). 

[DEADWOODZ]

Adding classes now. Just a wee bit late, eh?

 

 

[Jason]

Reverting to classes (although they've still not went 100% with it yet) and adding more infantry cover to maps.

 

All things that were part of the feedback DICE got pre-launch during beta's that they actively ignored and basically said "we know better". Imagine what BF 2042 might look like if they listened to their fans who literally just wanted them to make the game they wanted.

[Mexicola9302]

LMAO just one new map that looks similar to Discarded, 2 new vehicles and 3 new weapons. And they even add a new Specialist, they should remove all Specialists not add more of them.

[Daz]

They chose a Kel-Tec P50? But not a P90 wtf?

 

It is criminal that the game has been out almost a year now and we have 1 new firearm 1 new map and 1 new operator.

 

I like the game, it plays well like all battlefields do. But their choices and direction for things have almost always gone the complete wrong direction. Just like how they removed the stupid quips from the end of each match, knowing that people are sick of them, so yes, we were right. They still talk sh*t on the main menu though which is annoying.

 

I can't believe the lack of content in the game, especially from having no singleplayer. The portal was a mistake, I love the idea but adding that sh*t to a game prior to it having a good playerbase is pointless. It is adding too many modes for a game with not enough people playing it. And 2 maps per theme, doesn't mean that you can just play old maps and content. They should have fleshed out the main game first, THEN added the portal stuff later once the game had some interest.

 

They need to add way more guns, let me use some of those older guns in the main conquest without having to pick custom games with it enabled. We need a blank operator that doesn't speak that we can customize the face and outfit enirely, and use any other operator's equipment as long as we have them unlocked. For example I should be able to use Lis' rocket if I so choose and it handle the same. Or I should be able to take 2 equipment pieces. I want my classic loadout of Ammo box + C4, or Ammo box + rockets. But I can't do that anymore. It is stupid.

 

I like the way the season challenges open up each week and there are no dailies so you don't feel obligated to play at any time, just come on and do all that is available, I think that is the best way to do setups like this.

 

But still, not quite sure why they chose those guns, I get it is meant to be the future but who cares. Where are the classic battlefield guns? Why is there no M4A1, MP5, G3, Etc etc. Give me the classics but give them attachments and things to unlock. The game is all about progression and there is zero progression in the portal. So I want my sh*t in the main mode.

 

 

 

Anyway I made a vid of some of my clips:

 

Edited September 10 by Daz