Battlefield 2042

It's a cone of fire system it seems like. Similar to older games like Planetside.
 
Mchart said:
It's a cone of fire system it seems like. Similar to older games like Planetside.
Click to expand...
Spot on! Just looked it up:
The cone of fire is a theoretical cone that extends from the centre of your screen. It dictates the area that your bullets may go when fired, though the exact location the bullet will go is entirely random.
Click to expand...
Interesting that this game has BR/F2P physics, seems like this game was originally.....
 
WorldExclusive said:
There's something else going on that I came across that matches my experience. Weapon Bloom.
For some reason, you can't have laser aim on a target, burst fire is inaccurate. First time hearing that term but it's exactly what I experience.
I have came across players, got the jump on them and still lost because my shots seemly didn't touch their hitbox. Sniper rifles are unaffected by this.

In 2042, the game determines where your round will land:
Weapon Bloom Example
Another Example

This was the same reason why I couldn't get into BF1, the weapons just seem artificially inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Most games have a similar system but it looks like 2042 returns to a more traditional BF experience in terms of how accuracy is handled, which sucks. BF4 the weapons were more accurate so it wasn't noticeable. Yes you could "pixel hunt", but that was a mark of being skillful.
 
Flogger23m said:
Most games have a similar system but it looks like 2042 returns to a more traditional BF experience in terms of how accuracy is handled, which sucks. BF4 the weapons were more accurate so it wasn't noticeable. Yes you could "pixel hunt", but that was a mark of being skillful.
Click to expand...
How far back was the traditional experience, because I came in at the BC2/BF3 era, and at the most BC2 had the strafe hotbox lag problem and some weapon bloom.
BF3 was solid but BF4 was dead on for those of us that liked skilled encounters, a HS was a HS.
 
Honestly, for a game like this I don't mind cone of fire. I didn't mind it in Planetside either.

Which is why I keep saying this game reminds me more of Planetside then it does BF. Although it's obviously not as good as peak Planetside.

I just mute 2042 because of how bad the audio is and play this over -

Hey, maybe we'll get a Portal mode where it's just Planetside. Can't wait to bring out the ol' bang bus again.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
Honestly, for a game like this I don't mind cone of fire. I didn't mind it in Planetside either.
Click to expand...
It's just that in a BF game, accuracy should be dictated by the shooter and ammo type, not a random bullet pattern over distance.
In real life, minute of angle does increase over distance, but it can tighten or spread depending on the shooter skill and ammo being used i.e. BF4.

TBH, the game isn't worth playing anymore until they make a change. I can't see how anyone with a higher level of skill want to put the time into being average.
 
Last edited:
WorldExclusive said:
It's just that in a BF game, accuracy should be dictated by the shooter and ammo type, not a pre-generated bullet pattern.
In real life, minute of angle does increase over distance, but it can tighten or spread depending on the shooter skill and ammo being used i.e. BF4.

TBH, the game isn't worth playing anymore until they make a change. I can't see how anyone with a higher level of skill want to put the time into being average. Skilled players will just hoard vehicles and spam sniper rifles.
Click to expand...
It's closer to the classic pre-frostbite era of games. I honestly don't have an issue with it. That's not my main complaint with the game.

As far as vehicle domination, I mean, that's been a thing in most of the Battlefields up until recently. A good Helicopter player absolutely dominated in BF2, same goes with tanks, etc. However, even then, it's typically because idiots on the other team aren't taking enough AA/AT weapons to eliminate the vehicles. A tank shouldn't be able to dominate if you don't have idiots. Same thing goes with air. All it takes is a decent player with a mini-gun to take down helicopters fast.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Ah OK, I started playing during the Frostbite era.What is your main complaint then?
Click to expand...
Launch maps are all boring & terrible. Performance isn't great. Graphics and sound don't impress me like EVERY prior BF game always has. UI is complete trash, even when they fix the missing scoreboard, etc.

It's just a mess. However, like i've said, if they somehow can fix all of this in the first couple of months, the bones are there to be a good game given that it's going back to the pre-frostbite era of gameplay, somewhat.
 
I've been playing and while playing I'd have fleeting thoughts like "Hmm, not a fan of that." Then play a little more and think "Why is that a thing?" A little more and think "That's f*cking broken."

So I just went to reddit and read through someone's consolidated (long) list of issues/grievances. Not a good thing when I go through each one and think "yup". Seeing basically my own issues all typed out in a list has definitely made me second guess playing at again.

I hope things get changed/fixed but when it comes to AAA game developers I don't think there is an actual gamer among the mix.

The industry has leaned into a "Will they buy it?" mentality as opposed to "Will they like it?"
 
Ride in a tank as a gunner.

It takes more rounds to kill with a mounted turret than it takes with an machine gun. The enemy takes cover easily, it's like oh I'm being shot with a belt feed minigun, let take cover behind this wall.

But the most annoying mechanic next to the Weapon Bloom is the constant requirement to refuse a revive. You die 20+ times in a round, you have to press that spacebar each time. There needs to be a proximity monitor that if I'm out in the middle of no where or my sqaudmate is engaged in a firefight, let me auto die quickly and spawn back into the game. Sometimes I forget and then I see the counter to remember to hold the stupid spacebar. No one is coming to revive in this game, they need to just get rid of the revive system, it's useless.
 
Came to this thread to answer the question of buy now or wait for first sale (and months of patches), looks like the answer is wait. I waited for BFV until 50% off and am still enjoying playing it this day. I did find the graphics in 2042 open beta to feel really bland. Explosions were great but overall it looked meh on max settings. Gameplay wise it sounds like quite a bit of cleanup needs to occur, same as BF4 and BFV launches. I remember BF1 being a decent launch.

Also it's just hilarious how DICE manages to continually screw up easy stuff on launches like server browser, dedicated servers (past BF games), voice chat, auto team balance (STILL not implemented in BFV), chat, squad selection etc. They had this stuff working in previous games, how can they fail to implement now? Also hilarious how they reinvent the damn menu UI EVERY time. Remember the rage when they went from in-game to browser (BF3 or 4 I forget), and then it ended up being OK after a bunch of work... and then they reverse course immediately in BF1.
 
I don’t get it either. It’s the same damn engine. You’d think basic things wouldn’t need to be touched. Again, something COD seems to have figured out since the last three games.
 
Mchart said:
I don’t get it either. It’s the same damn engine. You’d think basic things wouldn’t need to be touched. Again, something COD seems to have figured out since the last three games.
Click to expand...

The only thing they seem to retain is the legacy engine bugs that are part and parcel of frostbite, everything else gets shitcanned.
 
For those complaining about the graphics, do you have an HDR monitor and HDR turned on? This game looks terrible in SDR. I immediately notice it if I start the game without remembering to turn Win 11 HDR on.

It looks pretty glorious with Ultra settings and HDR on a real HDR monitor.
 
Vega said:
For those complaining about the graphics, do you have an HDR monitor and HDR turned on? This game looks terrible in SDR. I immediately notice it if I start the game without remembering to turn Win 11 HDR on.

It looks pretty glorious with Ultra settings and HDR on a real HDR monitor.
Click to expand...
The game should look good in SDR, no excuse for that. Vast majority is not playing with a quality HDR screen.
 
Vega said:
For those complaining about the graphics, do you have an HDR monitor and HDR turned on? This game looks terrible in SDR. I immediately notice it if I start the game without remembering to turn Win 11 HDR on.

It looks pretty glorious with Ultra settings and HDR on a real HDR monitor.
Click to expand...
Yes, HDR is great. No, the game doesn't impress me visually like BFV, BF1, or any other prior game did. It looks OK, but the level of detail compared to BFV is a massive drop. Couple that with the shit UI, and crappy themes/artwork.. It's not impressive.
 
Chris_B said:
The only thing they seem to retain is the legacy engine bugs that are part and parcel of frostbite, everything else gets shitcanned.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my favorite thing with this engine is how they don't compile/cache shaders at boot, but while you're playing. Of course, while you're playing and it does this you get massive stutters the first time anything happens in a match. It resolves after playing everything, but of course, every time you update your drivers.. It's time for stutter-fest again. I've also already gotten the same unable to spawn bug again that i've gotten in every other prior frostbite BF game. Literally all you can do is just exit the match as the game won't let you respawn, revive, or do anything, period.

And of course, the basic bugs that have been here since at least BF1 are still here. The seemingly 10%-20%-ish of the time where people can't get revived. They sit on the ground with the indicator, but no prompt is shown to people when they are near you. Or the typical hit-reg issues with the Frostbite engine and vehicles. This engine really is garbage IMO. Even Planetside 2 years ago at release largely didn't have all these issues, and that's a much more complex game.

Oh well, at least they have a horrendous UI now that burns your retinas with that awful neon green color, even more so when HDR is enabled. Maybe that's why they didn't put a scoreboard, squad management, or server browser in? The UI is so horrific that they don't want people looking at it.

Speaking of Planetside 2, I wish they didn't screw up that game so much where it now has such low player counts. It's honestly better then this trash.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
Yeah, my favorite thing with this engine is how they don't compile/cache shaders at boot, but while you're playing. Of course, while you're playing and it does this you get massive stutters the first time anything happens in a match. It resolves after playing everything, but of course, every time you update your drivers.. It's time for stutter-fest again. I've also already gotten the same unable to spawn bug again that i've gotten in every other prior frostbite BF game. Literally all you can do is just exit the match as the game won't let you respawn, revive, or do anything, period.

And of course, the basic bugs that have been here since at least BF1 are still here. The seemingly 10%-20%-ish of the time where people can't get revived. They sit on the ground with the indicator, but no prompt is shown to people when they are near you. Or the typical hit-reg issues with the Frostbite engine and vehicles. This engine really is garbage IMO. Even Planetside 2 years ago at release largely didn't have all these issues, and that's a much more complex game.

Oh well, at least they have a horrendous UI now that burns your retinas with that awful neon green color, even more so when HDR is enabled. Maybe that's why they didn't put a scoreboard, squad management, or server browser in? The UI is so horrific that they don't want people looking at it.

Speaking of Planetside 2, I wish they didn't screw up that game so much where it now has such low player counts. It's honestly better then this trash.
Click to expand...
The no scoreboard really makes me lean toward it possibly originally being a BR game. Though I'm not discounting that they just decided to ship as-is and fix/add stuff post-release.
 
If they changed it to where weapon sway for snipers required then to be able to get hits, I would buy the ultimate edition today.
 
Furious_Styles said:
The no scoreboard really makes me lean toward it possibly originally being a BR game. Though I'm not discounting that they just decided to ship as-is and fix/add stuff post-release.
Click to expand...
I could see that for sure. It absolutely feels like this could have been a F2P BR type of game that about a year ago - or less - they decided to add a normal conquest mode to, etc, because they screwed up BFV so bad that they needed a 'normal' BF release ready.
 
Mchart said:
I don’t get it either. It’s the same damn engine. You’d think basic things wouldn’t need to be touched. Again, something COD seems to have figured out since the last three games.
Click to expand...
2042 is simply a F2P/BR game shoehorned into a traditional experience, then asked the guys to create Portal because they knew the traditional feel was gone from the base game.
All of the assets created for BR/F2P was repurposed and this is what we got. Calling it 2042 kind of separates this game from a true BF successor. BF6 would have demanded them to start over.
Using the 2042 mechanics in Portal breaks the experience. You can't use the weapon modification in game, you have to move the position of the attachments in the menu which is tricky at first.

The pressure for studios to make a console friendly game has ruined many franchises.
 
Seems the Battlefield games are still the same in regards to, don't buy until one year after release, let the patches and bugs be ironed out 12 months later, then purchase.

And CoD, I would never buy those console arcade kid games. Call of Duty is for people that don't know it sucks. A military games needs vehicles; what battle doesn't have Tanks, Planes and Ships that you get in? CoD is just team deathmatch garbage, shocked it's so popular.
 
Why can't they make a true BATTLEfield game?

-128 players, ok yes good.
-Vehicles, yes, but...the maps need way more. There should be like 12 tanks ( 6 each side )
-Outdoor maps, yes, but they need to be HUGE, big desert landscapes for giant battles full of tanks and choppers going after each other
-Limit the city street fighting maps, that makes it feels too much like CoD or CounterStrike deathmatch crap
-Limit the snipers, so dumb to always be sniped the second you walk outside your base
 
Zorachus said:
Seems the Battlefield games are still the same in regards to, don't buy until one year after release, let the patches and bugs be ironed out 12 months later, then purchase.

And CoD, I would never buy those console arcade kid games. Call of Duty is for people that don't know it sucks. A military games needs vehicles; what battle doesn't have Tanks, Planes and Ships that you get in? CoD is just team deathmatch garbage, shocked it's so popular.
Click to expand...
CoD is fast in a way that BF isn't. When I only have a few minutes to game I can jump in and know that a match will start and end within about 10-15 minutes. BF you can always just drop out but 15 minutes is hardly enough time in BF.

I agree CoD is not a good game, but for what it does it does it well.
 
COD isn't BF, as much as they want BF to be COD. Entirely different type of game.

However, from a technical perspective, the latest 3 COD games are fairly impressive. They run good, look good, and have a plethora of options. You can shit on them all you want, but it's a well put together product.

As for not being 'military enough', yeah, OK. What battle doesn't have mechanized support and/or air support? Well, the type that you're playing in the game.. Because it's a game. If you want a 'real military experience' you'll be disappointed to know there isn't a single game out there that offers it, because 'real' would bore people to death. You're basically asking for a walking simulator.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
COD isn't BF, as much as they want BF to be COD. Entirely different type of game.

However, from a technical perspective, the latest 3 COD games are fairly impressive. They run good, look good, and have a plethora of options. You can shit on them all you want, but it's a well put together product.

As for not being 'military enough', yeah, OK. What battle doesn't have mechanized support and/or air support? Well, the type that you're playing in the game.. Because it's a game. If you want a 'real military experience' you'll be disappointed to know there isn't a single game out there that offers it, because 'real' would bore people to death. You're basically asking for a walking simulator.
Click to expand...
A lot of the ARMA games and their mods fit this bill.
 
Mchart said:
COD isn't BF, as much as they want BF to be COD. Entirely different type of game.

However, from a technical perspective, the latest 3 COD games are fairly impressive. They run good, look good, and have a plethora of options. You can shit on them all you want, but it's a well put together product.

As for not being 'military enough', yeah, OK. What battle doesn't have mechanized support and/or air support? Well, the type that you're playing in the game.. Because it's a game. If you want a 'real military experience' you'll be disappointed to know there isn't a single game out there that offers it, because 'real' would bore people to death. You're basically asking for a walking simulator.
Click to expand...


I hear you.

I don't want a full on realistic game like ARMA or the old school Ghost Recon games that were way more hardcore. Not my cup of tea.

But then I think Call of Duty goes too far the other way of kiddy arcade style

I used to like BattleField for being the game in the middle, not super hard realistic, but not arcade kids game either. And the best part of Battlefield to me is the vehicles, Tanks and Helicopters, in huge outdoors maps going after each other, with squads and teams working together. But it seems BF is getting away from the big maps and lots of vehicles, which is disappointing.
 
Zorachus said:
I hear you.

I don't want a full on realistic game like ARMA or the old school Ghost Recon games that were way more hardcore. Not my cup of tea.

But then I think Call of Duty goes too far the other way of kiddy arcade style

I used to like BattleField for being the game in the middle, not super hard realistic, but not arcade kids game either. And the best part of Battlefield to me is the vehicles, Tanks and Helicopters, in huge outdoors maps going after each other, with squads and teams working together. But it seems BF is getting away from the big maps and lots of vehicles, which is disappointing.
Click to expand...
what do you mean getting away from big maps and lots of vehicles? that's literally all 2042 has going for it. theres no close quarters maps except for maybe one. thats why you can call in vehicles and change your sight on the fly now.

side note, first patch is tomorrow. unsure if there will be a day one patch

notes: https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/news/battlefield-2042-update-notes-1?utm_source=twitter&ts=1637186215434&cid=71553&utm_campaign=bf2042_hd_ww_ic_socd_twt_tw-update-notes-1&utm_medium=social
 
Zorachus said:
Why can't they make a true BATTLEfield game?
Click to expand...
BF1 Operations was the prime experience I wanted but with vehicles.

Breakthrough has that potential but then the maps are a let down because of too much open space. Limited flanking opportunities.

I wished they focused more on optimizing these modes. Conquest isn't what it used to be because of the lack of coordinated play. Operations/Breakthrough forces players to go into one direction with a simple objective. This was the resistance I spoke about earlier in this thread. It's the only way to get people in this game to operate as a team.

Load up both sides with vehicles and lots of cover for infantry to hide and flank. One objective and hold it until extraction. Done.

Real battles have one objective and maybe a secondary. But Conquest has become a ring around the rosie mode.
 
WorldExclusive said:
It's just that in a BF game, accuracy should be dictated by the shooter and ammo type, not a random bullet pattern over distance.
In real life, minute of angle does increase over distance, but it can tighten or spread depending on the shooter skill and ammo being used i.e. BF4.

TBH, the game isn't worth playing anymore until they make a change. I can't see how anyone with a higher level of skill want to put the time into being average.
Click to expand...
This sounds like an issue that would affect mainly snipers at a distance than anyone playing the objective. In which case, good riddance to those "skilled" snipers leaving the game.
 
WilyKit said:
This sounds like an issue that would affect mainly snipers at a distance than anyone playing the objective. In which case, good riddance to those "skilled" snipers leaving the game.
Click to expand...
Maps like Karkand will thrive for all play styles.
Seine Crossing would be good for CQB, minimizing sniping and making ground vehicles vunerable.
And maps like Firestorm will flip the advantage to long range players and air vehicles.

There's so much that can be done for certain play styles to be the focus of the map, all attacking one objective and hold it. That will be difficult to do with 128 players and multiple ways to flank. As you get closer to the objective fighting becomes more instense until its pure chaos at ground zero.

Think Operations with King of the Hill objectives.
 
Last edited:
WorldExclusive said:
Maps like Karkand will thrive for all play styles.
Seine Crossing would be good for CQB, minimizing sniping and making ground vehicles vunerable.
And maps like Firestorm will flip the advantage to long range players and air vehicles.

There's so much that can be done for certain play styles to be the focus of the map, all attacking one objective and hold it. That will be difficult to do with 128 players and multiple ways to flank. As you get closer to the objective fighting becomes more instense until its pure chaos at ground zero.

Think King of the Hill.
Click to expand...
I'd argue the hit points are more accurate to real world than not. Military rounds aren't match grade ammo. They aren't laser beams that hit the same spot every time. The bullets have imperfections, the charge isn't as precisely measured, there's more variation in how deep the bullet is seated into the casing, etc etc. It's just bulk ammo that's good enough to get the job done.

Beyond that, I've been hit several times by snipers. If you keep missing your target, maybe you're not nearly as skilled as you may have thought?
 
WilyKit said:
I'd argue the hit points are more accurate to real world than not. Military rounds aren't match grade ammo. They aren't laser beams that hit the same spot every time. The bullets have imperfections, the charge isn't as precisely measured, there's more variation in how deep the bullet is seated into the casing, etc etc. It's just bulk ammo that's good enough to get the job done.

Beyond that, I've been hit several times by snipers. If you keep missing your target, maybe you're not nearly as skilled as you may have thought?
Click to expand...
3-5" MOA is still on target. The shots in this game at distance is like a 1-5ft spread.

I have all said ammo in my possession and I shoot regularly at my local range. The spread isn't that wide in real life, you will still hit the target with steel case Tula / Lake City garbage.
The issue with this game is that skill can't tighten the grouping, the cone is the cone, the player can't overcome it.

Another Example
https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefiel...utm_source=embed&utm_name=&utm_content=header

That's easily a 1-2" grouping in real life at that distance using any ammo.

Snipers are not affected by weapon bloom.

But you can find one weapon that's not affected by bloom, like the PP29:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top