And i love it 😂🤣

i actually shot back in my chair

gotta love starring down your opponent at the end of a round like haha not this time

My hope is the extended/drum magazine stuff in Battlefield 2042 is more related to the larger player count of Conquest 128, like the number of bullets to kill, etc. are balanced towards or more related to having to fight a significantly larger number of enemies than you did in previous Battlefield games that had 64 player as the max player limit. If that isn't the one of the main reasons DICE went that direction then my guess is it's just another thing they are doing because COD does it. BC2, BF3, BF4 were recent Battlefield games that were arguably more popular and they didn't need those larger magazines in order for the gunplay to be satisfying.

@@Ravic Yeah that would make more sense and balance it out, but I doubt the current Dice did it for that reason (I hate drums as an aesthetic reason mainly), It was probably a cod copy move more likely. Man I really just want another BF3, the maps, weapons and vehicles mechanics/balance just felt the best so far and has never been matched. BF4 was a huge step backwards in all those aspects in my opinion.

Its Battlefield there ist no Meta😂 All Weapons are playable. You can Play with the Starter Weapons of each class and still outgun everyone.

@@blacktigeree1090 I would agree, but I don't. Some guns are OP compared to others. And they keep tweaking them with updates. I mean, come on. It's kinda 101 no?

I wouldn't call the AK-5C meta, it's technically more useful than a lot of other guns if you are actively playing Conquest 128 ( meaning you go against vehicles ) but outside of that there are a lot of other guns with faster TTK, better spread, less recoil, etc..

@@Ravic Indeed, the AK-5C with launcher with a side of beast Shotgun extra range is king in conquest.

im sure if you searched it would be some where on youtube

That must have been a recent change because last time we tested it you couldn't shoot through it as the loadout crate like the ammo or med box has health or a health value attached to it so it has to be destroyed or lose its health before you can shoot anything on the other side of it. I slowed it down so you can see the player's tracers/bullets are well behind me but for them it's on me so it counts.

@@Ravic I just tested it and yes you can shoot through loadout crate now and for some reason it seems like the tracers disappear when you do or like the tracers disappear right after you hit the loadout crate and it goes through it. the bullet still strikes the other player but without any tracers. I'm not too sure on that tracer part.

Tournaments, PDX Lan used to have regular tournaments at the lan and often times there was a one for each popular game at the time which included Battlefield. That is what we were referring to with tourneys, the comp part was about online leagues and tournaments. So not late night sessions or pubs.

Read the video description, that kind of stuff doesn't occur against other PC players. Only players on console.

​@@Ravic Well at least with my case you can rule out wifi or out of region being the cause for that death. One of the lead game designers mentioned on Twitter a while back that 2042's server/client tick rate is 45Hz on PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series XS for all game modes, so we can probably rule that one out too. I wish I had more insight on the matter, though, because I can't imagine that every person I've seen in all chat complaining about dying around walls and behind cover died to someone with a poor network setup.

Yeah I know the "server" tick rate is 45Hz in BF2042, you can even confirm it with in-game statistic logging. However what those logging tools don't show and the devs haven't mentioned is the update rate or client tick rate and whether it is the same as the server's ( in BF4 with all the changes in CTE it was supposed to be the same for both ). Battlefield 3's server tick rate was 30Hz but the update rate was 10Hz ( I believe for BC2 it was 20Hz for the server and 10Hz for the update/client ). Usually "packet bursting", getting "one framed", etc. is caused by one of two things. Either lower tick/update rates or high latency. Yes in some cases it can also just be the "netcode" or how all that data is handled once received. For example we saw this early on with BFV where on PC the time to kill did not match the time to death. This issue in BF2042 feels similar to that not because of getting shot around corners but because it doesn't match the TTK, however I only see or experience it when versus console players and it's been like that since launch. I wouldn't be bringing it up if it was a rare occurrence thing or if it's just players with high ping, it's like when ( for PC players ) you play a game long enough you know what is and isn't normal which makes it easy to identify when someone is cheating. In that way it feels quite off, that is what it feels like when fighting against console players in BF2042 when on PC. I've seen a few videos and streams of console players with crossplay off and to me it looks like a completely different game where they have all the time in the world to react and response to gunfire. Which to me indicates that things are in sync for console vs console but not console vs PC. Anyways if it's not related to some PSN/Microsoft network related hops/proxies or wifi connections or IPv6 or any number of network settings consoles could be set to by default my best guess after that is consoles have a lower update rate or it's variable for them to reduce the load and stress of the console. They already cut away so many things that were in previous Battlefield games just to make it so the server client in BF2042 didn't melt itself on Amazon's servers I can imagine they had to do a lot of things to make it not melt on consoles. Thanks for the information from your end, it's helpful in trying to identify possible causes :)

@@Ravic Hey thanks as well as to you. That was some nice insight into multiplayer networking, a topic I admittedly know very little about!

​@@Ravic I've always noticed this and for me it always seems like I get 1 tapped by a console player using the SFar especially. Thank you for giving it some clarity as I always thought it was an issue on my side!

No I have not heard about the new Rust anticheat. Do you have a link to more information on this? Without more detailed information my initial concern would be that it would create an additional issue to a problem a lot of games already have with occlusion culling where other player models fly in from space or under the map because they don't "render" the player model unless it is viewed by someone else or in someone else's line of sight. The additional issue being when someone is supposed to be in line of sight they won't "exist" or be real until that data is sent from the server to the client meaning depending on what occurs first a player might appear but they can't take damage yet or they can take damage but they still haven't been rendered yet so they are invisible and are already shooting you. Anyways sounds interesting but it also sounds good in theory but not very good in reality or at least for it to work well it would require very restricted conditions ( ping/latency of players ), and I feel like it would require server side hit registration which a lot of games don't use anymore.

@@Ravic tarkov already has invisible players and terrible networking. If they tried to add this it 100% would go down the way you imagine.

Huh, I only live 45 minutes from there.

With a name like that, those guys were there to dominate Halo tourney's on the sticks. I wish I wasn't 7 years old at the time to experience that lol

Hard to do Killing Cheaters videos for BF2042 since there is no spectator and no public FairFight or ban records shown anywhere. Certainly have killed some cheaters in the game but without pretty obvious proof ( stats aren't always enough ) to show people make a lot of doubtful comments because they don't understand parts of the game. The Knifing Cheaters video I did in BF3 is a good example of this since in BF3 there were a lot of cheaters that ran damage mod/cheats to increase their weapon damage so they one shot everything.

@@Ravic ah okay thanks man, just missed the old battlefield vibes with killing people with trees and c4 and stuff but i understand. Keep up the good work and have a good day👍

You can throwing knife and syrette pistol friendly C4.

@@Ravic and its hilarious the lvl of confusion from the enemy when it happens

I wouldn’t put it past KZfaqrs like JackFrags to make a video a few years from now talking about how Battlefield 2042 was actually underrated fun…

@@Holdthetomatoesplz I was thinking the same thing!!! That's funny. Can you believe this game is awesome now? Or It's actually good now.

It'll be sooner then that. People who make their living off YT will probably make a video on Battlefield 2042 one or two months after the next COD is released. It's a pretty predictable cycle.

I don't disagree with your suggestion but BF1 and BF3 are bad examples of that. Both games had excessive visual effects that made it hard to get a clear picture most of the time because DICE treated the player's view as a camera instead of actual human eyes. All those blinding optical flares, blurs, and suppression effects alone made those games a mess.

@@Ravic I think comparatively speaking BF1 and BF3 had cleaner visuals but you're right, most if not all battlefields have had very cluttered visuals compared to something like COD, old COD at least.

@@33up24 Comparatively speaking BC2, BC1, and Battlefield 2 had much cleaner visuals and art styles that didn't make it quite as difficult to see players versus terrain or textures compared to how difficult it could be in BF1 or BF3. That is why I said BF1 and BF3 were bad examples since there are much visually cleaner Battlefield games to choose from.

@@Ravic Good. TBF I'm not old enough to remember much about BF2, I was like 8 or something 😂.