128 players was a bad idea!

[Sunbather]

Apart from the glaring issues like sound mixing, sound bugs, glitches, a bland empty map, worse physics than BFV and even BF4, the netcode, the non-existent recoil, the non-existent factions, the half-assed operator system, the clunkiness of it all, I think the biggest mistake was to double the player size.

First of all, this absolutely destroys performance. Not on your GPU side but on your CPU side! I say that you need at least 8 physical cores or a very high single core clock speed (hence the recommended Intel CPUs) to keep up.

Secondly, the maps must be big enough to allow for 128 players. Which also means that maps will be very open and very empty (since you can afford big maps that are filled with stuff). The desert / Dubai map we have seen in the first trailer will not be a big city but a small city core and lots of desert with some hangars around it. You could also argue that you need recoil-less guns so bad players can still shoot stuff on such huge maps.

Third, to allow for 128 players there was a lot of sacrifice to be made, especially in the details. Some objects don't show decals when you shoot them, there are no small moving objects, everything seems static, the destruction physics are a joke --- all those immersive things I loved Battlefield for are not existent in this build and won't be in a month!

Lastly, why do we even need 128 players? Especially when only a few months after launch at least 20 percent of the lobby will be filled by braindead, aimbotting bots.


Inb4: With a Ryzen 3600, RTX 2060 S; 16 GB Ram and NVMe SSD, I should not be playing between 45 and 70 fps with a lot of stuttering in between ... :/



Edit: People will still be buying this game because you can use your grappling hook on a helicopter, whoa!

[Stevie Wonder]

Originally posted by Sunbather:

Edit: People will still be buying this game because you can use your grappling hook on a helicopter, whoa!

Wait really?

Awesome thanks for the tip, ill jump back in and start playing again now!

[Gisborne]

Originally posted by Sunbather:

Apart from the glaring issues like sound mixing, sound bugs, glitches, a bland empty map, worse physics than BFV and even BF4, the netcode, the non-existent recoil, the non-existent factions, the half-assed operator system, the clunkiness of it all, I think the biggest mistake was to double the player size.

First of all, this absolutely destroys performance. Not on your GPU side but on your CPU side! I say that you need at least 8 physical cores or a very high single core clock speed (hence the recommended Intel CPUs) to keep up.

Secondly, the maps must be big enough to allow for 128 players. Which also means that maps will be very open and very empty (since you can afford big maps that are filled with stuff). The desert / Dubai map we have seen in the first trailer will not be a big city but a small city core and lots of desert with some hangars around it. You could also argue that you need recoil-less guns so bad players can still shoot stuff on such huge maps.

Third, to allow for 128 players there was a lot of sacrifice to be made, especially in the details. Some objects don't show decals when you shoot them, there are no small moving objects, everything seems static, the destruction physics are a joke --- all those immersive things I loved Battlefield for are not existent in this build and won't be in a month!

Lastly, why do we even need 128 players? Especially when only a few months after launch at least 20 percent of the lobby will be filled by braindead, aimbotting bots.


Inb4: With a Ryzen 3600, RTX 2060 S; 16 GB Ram and NVMe SSD, I should not be playing between 45 and 70 fps with a lot of stuttering in between ... :/



Edit: People will still be buying this game because you can use your grappling hook on a helicopter, whoa!

This is why from now on any EA or Uplay game i will just sub to their game pass... This game is nearly £100 for ult edition. Sub to EA pro for £15 a play all their games released within next year nearly for 1 payment. i'm not too bothered about owning the game via steam if it means it will cost £100. If the game is AMAZING after my first few months of EA pass ill find a cheap copy of it and buy it.

[Yeetus]

I'm 100% confident this game is GPU bound. My 5600X (six-core) sits at 50% utlization while my 3070Ti is usually 90%+ utilization. Also certain its your GPU which is bottlenecking your FPS, not your CPU.

[MIND ЯEWIND 2]

many will disagree,but you are right

[Sunbather]

@Yeetus: Not a single frame gets lost when I look at explosions or a the whole map from high above. So clearly not a GPU thing.
Especially since at least Battlefield 1 and 5 were highly hungry for your CPU / CPU cores.

But since you are stating your own experiences and sell them as facts: my CPU is at 70 percent while my RTX 2060 S is at 60 percent. What does that tell you?
In which resolution do you play? At what settings? Etc. etc. I play in 1080p so the GPU is not under a lot of stress.

Anywho, the game is a total mess right now, performance and other wise.

[JAMIIIII]

my friend is currently playing with a radeon 5700 xt and his fps is around 100

[nutcrackr]

I agree, 128 is a gimmick that hasn't added anything of value. What's worse is that we get bots to fill in the gaps, which is not a good thing.

[♠ ♣ Jester ♥ ♦]

Originally posted by nutcrackr:

I agree, 128 is a gimmick that hasn't added anything of value. What's worse is that we get bots to fill in the gaps, which is not a good thing.

And what's even worse is that those bots are actually modeled after the old class system from the previous BF games.... which we can't use

[Gisborne]

Originally posted by nutcrackr:

I agree, 128 is a gimmick that hasn't added anything of value. What's worse is that we get bots to fill in the gaps, which is not a good thing.

Should have been 64 real players and then bots in background. i hate when they name bots BigKilla67 and its a bot lol... so f stupid.

[TheArchitect]

Originally posted by ELAMA ON:

my friend is currently playing with a radeon 5700 xt and his fps is around 100

on what graphic settings, resolution and fps? thanks

[Sunbather]

Yeah, it just occured to me that there are basically only 4 faces that fight each other (plus some standard soldiers, i.e. bots). Didn't anyone at DICE think: hold on a minute! If we have 128 players but only 4 characters, won't that be odd fighting yourself every 5th gunfight?

So, second worst decision: the deletion of the usual grunt class system in favor for a R6: Siege operator system...

World War 3 might be a Battlefield killer after all!

[Caldrin]

You can have big maps filled with stuff no problem at all.

Not all servers will me max players either pretty sure you will have a big fix of server sizes.

[Magpie]

Originally posted by ELAMA ON:

my friend is currently playing with a radeon 5700 xt and his fps is around 100

At 1080p? What useless information. I have a 5700xt something tells me I won't be getting 100fps at 1440p or 4k lol.

[Sunbather]

@Caldrin: Yeah, custom servers were really a big thing in the last installment...
Name me one multiplayer game with such a huge map that is fully stuffed DESPITE Warzone (and PUBG doesn't count since it too is mostly empty space and empty houses without any interiors just like BF2042).

[Sunbather]

@Yeetus: Now you got proof that this game (or this built of the game) is clearly NOT GPU bound but relies on your CPU heavily.
This dude uses a GTX 1660ti with a beefy CPU and gets better fps than I do. So yeah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkNgjIYn9HY