Battlefield 2042

Impressive looking. Roll on October.

Looking at one of the sections with the plane flying in and if you look at the ground you can see a massive war going on. Infantry running, jeeps, tanks and helicopters bombing around.

It looks like a frontline battle rather than a circle.

Cautiously optimistic after the gameplay trailer now also.

Looks like some real interesting thing going on with the dynamic weather (Which will knock snipers the most and planes/helo).

Loving that they do seem to be trying to find a balance between vehicles and infantry.

Honestly cant wait to see more , lets hope they deliver and live up to the hype.

Its not as good as The Outer Worlds 2 trailer but its one of EAs better ones alright

I’m guessing they will take this to the next level and use extreme weather like the Blimp in BF 1 to shake things up?

The runs the risk of making the matches feel very artificial if it's cranked up too much.

It was the complaint of BF1 that the blimp/train/ship etc tended to artificially prolong matches in BF1 because it was always sided with the side that was losing, so a side that was getting stomped rapidly would get the train/blimp a hell of a lot earlier leading to a game being dragged out that should have been over ages ago.

Not sure if leaving the weather to be entirely an agent of chaos will improve things, Gamers (you know the sort) are not a fan of chaos, they tend to get a bee in their bonnet quite quickly when they feel a kill or victory was robbed from them because of some random chance.

They keep pointing out in a lot of news stories of the storm randomly dropping a cargo container on a sniper in a playtest.

Now imagine how that sniper is going to react if they feel they were robbed of what they saw as 2-3 easy kills by a random event.


It wont take long for conspiracy theories of DICE tweaking the code so that the containers targeted campers



Personally I think something closer to some of BF4's levolution bits might work, extreme weather is there, but to set off crazy stuff like cargo containers being chucked everywhere etc, players need to actively set them off. So for example a player would need to cut the cables tying those containers down to set off X amount being picked up and chucked in random directions, the storm will only chuck what it is fed, so pushing vehicles into it will have them chucked out randomly. That way players can claim credit for some of those only in battlefield moments (I released the containers, so that littlebird full of enemy players being blindsided by a cargo container is credited to me)

I'll reserve judgement until I see them in action, and how much of a cheating swine they are.
Pubg currently has bots that are like the terminator, in that they can melt you from miles away and regardless whether or not you were hiding in a bush / behind cover.

Titanfall's AI units weren't the worst, but still leant to serve more as fodder to help you bring your titan in early.

It all really depends on what DICE are trying to do.

Are the bots meant to be actual opponents or are they background actors to fill in the scene. Might be interesting if even if the AI aren't good on an individual level they can move as a group, some BF1 games were just a bunch of snipers with only a few players actually trying to push and hold position. Having AI at least look like they're playing the objective.

BF games have always had a balance issue, you'd people quitting losing teams or changing to the winning side. No one wants to be moved, and most quitting punishments are pointless regardless of severity. Bots are varying difficulty could at least make it not the 64

A thought just occured to me - one way bots could be implemented in a way that would have a lesser impact on gameplay, would be by forcing human players together dynamically.

For example, on conquest, you have the capture points A-F, depending on how many human players are on Point A, distribute the bots out to point F. so that it makes the battlefield at least feel alive by having explosions / gunfights going on in the distance. It'd prevent the empty feeling that you'd get on servers that have only 16 out of 64 players on.

There's bot vs co op modes from the sound of it but the main thing is the bots are there to fill in when players leave or at the start of a game before they join on normal servers.

A normally fullish server isn't going to change much, people probably won't notice the fact that when a player or 2 leaves the game replaces them and then those bots get replaced quickly as new players join in on the very active server.

The main advantage I see is on the more empty servers, the BF server list is always full of empty servers at the end and everyone generally tries to jump into the same few at the top. Setting up games usually takes a long while (your own server or just a decent sized group trying to join an active one) unless you've a very large group to join then you'd not see many randoms joining so your 20/64 game stays about that for the duration. You're left with a sparsely packed map and messing around as you can't play a proper game.

Those 24/7 Metro rush games at some point were 1 guy setting it up and just running back and forth, and eventually a few other players join and then as it's pointless they leave but eventually some groups joined and then some individuals and then that server is almost full 24/7.

Varik wrote: »

BF games have always had a balance issue, you'd people quitting losing teams or changing to the winning side. No one wants to be moved, and most quitting punishments are pointless regardless of severity. Bots are varying difficulty could at least make it not the 64

Personally I haven't experience that in BC2 & BF3. This started from BF4 and got worse on BF1 & BF-V. In BF3 we also had our own servers/admin tools and there were several plugins available to re-balance the teams of people were leaving in the middle of the game. DICE tried a similar solution later on, when private servers were non-existent, but failed. I had been moved to the losing team, 2 minutes before the round ended while I was top scorer in mine... :mad:

In maps such as Metro, Grand Bazaar, Seine Crossing, where the situation tended to be one sided, some servers even had "nuke", where all players from the winning side were killed, to give a chance to losing team to get out of CAP.


It is a game ffs, we need to have fun. Gamers nowdays tend to take it very seriously and winning is the only option...

So whether you think he is now or has always been full of ****, that henderson lad dropped some "leaks".
The 3rd mode according to him, is a hub world sandbox type thing with remastered old stuff including vehicles. So Tigers vs Abrams vs Mark Vs

They listed a bunch of stuff that's in the BF portal and among a long list was B17 bombers.

It'll be mad if the best battlefield WW2 game was now a mode on 2042, with Russians.

Although I'd assume no player controlled large ships, especially considering the maps and what they've said about the main modes before. But who knows maybe in time we'd get Wake Island again and then the ships.

Well in fairness that first one was people being disappointed that something being pitched as an authentic WW2 game had women in the frontlines in all theatres and looked more like Fortnite than Battlefield.

The other is a wacky game-mode that from the very beginning was pitched as a sand-box that throws factions from all points in time together.

People need to let go of this "gamers don't want women in their games" stuff. It really was nothing to do with that and never was and everything to do with what a dev was promising and what they almost delivered (Let's not forget the initial trailer with the war-painted female cyborg).

Other visually-authentic WW2 shooters like Hell Let Loose or Enlisted don't have women. I don't think anyone would claim it's because they are sexist developers. If they were suddenly added some people would voice the same criticisms and/or disappointment.

EA know they messed up with how DICE marketed BFV as a WW2 shooter and that it wasn't "sexism".

When it was released it ended up being way pared back from what the initial trailers showed (thankfully) but still a really weak WW2 game. Then when the Pacific War expansion came that was way more like what was promised/what people expected but too little too late.

I felt the same about COD WW2. I thought we would be returning to the glory days of COD2 or World at War. Instead I got black women in Wehrmacht uniforms, people running around dressed like revolutionaries/chefs/leprechauns, purple weapons, etc.

I may have gotten an email about it... 🙂

The times are fairly crap alright for us in Ireland...