Battlefield 2042 leaker claims battle royale will still “come in the near future”
❘ Published: 2021-12-07T14:47:28
❘ Updated: 2021-12-07T14:47:28
It was widely expected that Battlefield 2042 would launch with a battle royale mode to compete with its nearest rivals. It didn’t, and EA have said multiple times that a BR isn’t currently a focus. However, renowned leaker Tom Henderson has refuted these claims by suggesting that a Battlefield 2042 BR could arrive in the near future.
Battle royale has had a huge impact on the gaming landscape with millions of players in need of their fix. PUBG arguably got the BR ball rolling, at least in terms of breaking through to the mainstream, and games like Apex Legends, Warzone, and Fortnite have sent the genre into the stratosphere.
Article continues after ad
The concept remains insanely popular as we head towards 2022, and Battlefield 2042 might soon join in. EA’s previous attempt to get Battlefield on the BR bullet train with Battlefield V’s Firestorm mode was short-lived. However, EA have learned a lot since then, and BR might be the thing that Battlefield 2042 needs to gain some traction.
The game is currently getting mixed feedback from fans due to a number of bugs and glitches stunting its potential. A lack of a campaign has also hurt the game, but Tom Henderson thinks that battle royale is a real possibility for Battlefield 2042. Here’s everything we know so far.
Article continues after ad
Contents
- When will Battlefield 2042’s battle royale release?
- Battlefield 2042 battle royale leaks
When is the Battlefield 2042 battle royale release date?
EA
Firestorm was the final nail in the coffin for Battlefield 5.
According to Tom Henderson, a potential Battlefield 2042 battle royale game “will come in the near future,” but not in the next 6 months.
For those unaware, Tom Henderson has become one of the industry’s leading leakers for gaming news, with an impressive track record on the Battlefield franchise.
- Read More: Battlefield 2042 players furious over ‘Fortnite-style’ Santa Claus skin
He revealed a ton of info about Battlefield 2042 that turned out to be true, and the latest BR news came in one of Tom Henderson’s YouTube videos. The leaker ran through a huge timeline of Battlefield 2042’s development, the problems it’s faced, and future plans.
One of these subjects was the much-talked-about battle royale mode and Henderson said that one is coming, but EA and DICE are focusing on getting the rest of the game up-to-scratch first before adding in any extra work to build upon it.
Article continues after ad
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates on Esports, Gaming and more.
Battlefield 2042 battle royale leaks
Tom didn’t elaborate too much on the potential battle royale mode, but the words “vague timeframe” suggests that it could be some time off yet.
Meaning there isn’t too much to read into right now.
- Read More: Battlefield 2042 hotfix update 3.1: What to expect from latest patch
The big mystery surrounding a BF 2042 mode is seeing how much EA learns from the mistakes of Firestorm. Touted as the next big thing in battle royale in Battlefield 5. By the time Firestorm was released, the player count was already very low compared to launch.
It was also not free-to-play like other BR games as players needed a copy of BF 5 to play it. DICE soon gave up updating it, and Firestorm very quickly became an afterthought. If a Battlefield 2042 battle royale is to succeed, then you’d think these mistakes cannot be repeated – although perhaps EA has learned from Apex Legends’ successes, too.
Article continues after ad
Given that all this information technically comes from a leak, it might be wise to take it with a pinch of salt.
Still, we’ll update this page as we hear more.
The New Battlefield BR Will Be The Best Battle Royale, TSM’s Viss Says
By
Mehrdad Khayyat
Could it beat Warzone?
The next Battlefield BR mode has received great applause from a few Twitch content creators recently.
The rumors around the next Battlefield iteration have been trending lately. First, one of the well-known leakers shared some details about the new gameplay features, maps, weather systems, and more.
- MORE FROM EA: Battlefield 6 Trailer Details Leak — New Location, Extreme Weather, Large Scale Battles
Although Battlefield 1 was a great achievement in the history of the franchise, thanks to its extremely large-scale battles, Battlefield 5 was an obvious failure for DICE and Electronic Arts. While Battlefield 1 showcased some significant changes compared to its predecessors, Battlefield 5 couldn’t distinguish itself from its hugely successful predecessor.
Now, most Battlefield fans are looking for a modern-day set in Battlefield 6 with a fast-paced combat system. Hopefully, the first reactions from the streamers, who have played or seen the new Battlefield BR mode, are heartwarming.
What Are the Main Features of the New Battlefield BR Mode?
Some Twitch content creators have commented on the new Battlefield BR mode in the next iteration on Twitter. Apparently, Electronic Arts have allowed some streamers to play the Battlefield 6 Battle Royale mode recently.
According to Dr. Disrespect, the new Battlefield game features fast-paced combats similar to Battlefield 4. On the other hand,
Calling it right now, Battlefield will produce the next big BR. It’ll be the best Battle Royale to date.
— Viss (@TSMViss) April 12, 2021
» target=»_blank» rel=»noreferrer noopener»>TSM’s Viss believes that the new Battlefield Battle Royale mode will be the best game of the genre to date.
Unfortunately, the streamers avoided sharing the details of the game, probably they are under embargo until the official announcement of Battlefield 6.
Currently, there are a lot of leaks around the next Battlefield game. Some believe that the game will be officially announced in May and it will drop on Xbox Game Pass day one, thanks to the good relationship between EA and Microsoft after merging Xbox Game Pass and EA Play.
We will update you on all Battlefield 6 news as soon as new details arrive.
Related Topics
- Video Games
- updates
- Battlefield 6
About The Author
Mehrdad (He/Him) is a Senior Staff Writer at DualShockers. He started writing about video games when he was a high-school student.
He loves playing competitive FPS games such as Rainbow Six Siege and Valorant. In between, you can also find him grinding for better ships in Star Citizen every now and then.
Machine learning. Decisions about life and death on the battlefield. Part I / Habr
Original: https://clck.ru/33D3Vh A small preface from the translator
I will break the article into several parts, since it will be easier for me, and for the reader, to perceive it.
In 1946, NYT revealed one of the master secrets of World War II, , «an amazing machine that for the first time uses electronic speeds to solve mathematical problems that were previously too complicated and cumbersome.» One of the creators of ENIAC said that its goal was “ to replace, as far as possible, the human brain .” Although this early version of the computer did not replace our brains, it ushered in a new era in which, in the words of historian Jill Lepore , «technological changes far outstripped the human capacity for moral calculation» [in this case is due to the speed and accuracy of selection based on moral principles — approx.
translation .] .
This era continues with the application of machine learning to management and control issues. This technology has already become an integral part in some areas — for example, the US Air Force uses it as a “ working crew member ” on a military aircraft, and the US Army for selects the correct “gunner” on a target identified by sensors. The military is making headway in using machine learning algorithms to control robotic systems, big data analysis, threat prediction, and strategy formation. The use of algorithms in these and other areas opens up amazing opportunities — from saving man-hours at planning to human pilot superiority in air combat and using the “ Multivariate Semantic Engine” to improve our understanding of global events and trends. However, with the possibility of machine learning there is an ethical risk — the military can give the choice between life and death to algorithms, and the refusal of independence in such matters deprives a person of the status of a moral subject.
So far, the debate about the role of algorithms in battlefield selection has been or — or : Either algorithms must choose between life and death because there is no other way to keep up with an increasingly automated battlefield, or humans must choose between life and death because there is no other way to account for morality. This is a false dichotomy. Choice is not a single thing that can be passed to either algorithms or humans. At different levels of decision-making (i.e. tactical, operational and strategic) choice is the result of a process consisting of several stages. The question is not whether algorithms or humans should make life and death decisions, but rather in what steps process everyone should be responsible. By breaking down choices into its component parts and teaching military personnel the science of decision making, the military can both increase the speed of the process and maintain morale. This article suggests how to do both by describing the constituent components of the choice, then discussing which of these components should be performed by machine learning algorithms and which require human intervention.
Decisions and what it takes to make them
Imagine a fighter pilot hunting for surface-to-air missiles. When a pilot attacks, he determines that his choice over others maximizes expected utility and benefit. He may unconsciously, when making a decision, operate with these terms and is not able to make an accurate calculation, but, nevertheless, he determines which solution is most optimal. The basic process is the same whether the decision makers are front line performers or commanders in remote operations centers. Of course, the scope and characteristics of decision-making change at higher levels of responsibility: from risking one unit to many, or from risking the life of one to risking the lives of hundreds. Regardless of where the decision maker is located, or rather where the right to use force is legally located, the choice requires the same four basic steps. nine0003
First step — list alternatives available to the decision maker. A fighter pilot, again, just by way of example, may have two alternatives: to attack the missile system from a relatively safer, long-range approach, or to attack at close range with more risk but a higher probability of success.
The second step is to consider each of these alternatives and determine the possible outcomes from them . In this case, the results of the pilot may include:
-
Destruction of the missile when surviving
-
Destruction of the rocket without survival
-
The inability to destroy, but survive
-
The inability to destroy and at the same time survive
Three Step, a third step, make a conditional probability estimate , or an estimation of the probability of each outcome suggesting a given course of action. If the pilot comes close, what is the probability that he will destroy the missile and survive? What is the same probability for a long range attack? And so on for each result of each option. nine0003
At this point, the pilot has determined what he can do, what the outcome might be, and how likely each outcome is. Now we need to say how valuable each of the probabilities is. To do this, it is necessary to determine how important the following circumstance is: the benefit to the mission received from the destruction of the missile, and the «cost» received from sacrificing one’s life, the lives of target combatants translation. nine0012 ] and the lives of bystanders [ non-combatants — approx. translation. ] . It is not enough to say that destroying a missile is beneficial and that sacrificing one’s life is expensive. Benefits and costs need to be put into a single common metric, sometimes called utility, so that the value of one can be directly compared to the cost of the other. This relative comparison is known as Value Compromise . fourth step in this process. Whether the decision maker is on the tactical front line or makes high-level decisions, the compromise has the same basic form: the decision maker weighs the value of achieving a military goal against the cost of money and lives (friendly, hostile, and civil) needed to achieve it. This compromise is both ethical , and military — it imposes a price on both life and military purpose. nine0003
Once these four steps have been completed, rational choice becomes a matter of fairly simple mathematics. Utilities are weighted by the likelihood of the outcome—highly likely outcomes gain more weight and are more likely to determine the final choice.
It is important to note that for both human and decision-making machines, “rational” is not necessarily the same as ethical or successful . The rational choice process is the best way, given uncertainty, to optimize what decision makers value. This does not say that one has the right values, nor does it guarantee a good outcome. Good decisions still sometimes lead to bad outcomes, but a balanced decision-making process optimizes results in the long run. nine0003
At least in the US Air Force, pilots deliberately do not perform expected utility calculations in the cockpit. It is also unwise to say that they must do this, since the mission is quite laborious. For decision makers, explicitly working out the steps in expected utility calculations is impractical, at least on the battlefield. However, things are different with cars. If the military wants to use algorithms to achieve decision speed in combat, then they need to make the components of the decision easy to calculate — that is, the four steps above must be reduced to numbers. The question arises whether it is possible to provide figures in a way that combines the speed provided by machines with the ethical judgment that only a human can provide. nine0003
From the so-called. translator
If there is a desire to discuss the topic of the article in more detail or to impose the last words on me (for whatever reason), then I will be glad to see you here: scoundrels.
The outcome will be decided on the battlefield: how the West says goodbye to the idea of negotiations on Ukraine
Crisis of confidence
Ukrainians need more artillery, and London is ready to meet this request, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said during a speech to the deputies of the House of Commons. Johnson has difficulty believing in peace talks. nine0003
«I’m afraid there is currently no easy way to find a diplomatic or negotiated solution,» the politician stated.
A few hours after Boris Johnson’s statement, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba spoke on the same topic.
“The end of this war will be decided on the battlefield, not at the negotiating table,” the minister answered a question from French journalists about the prospects for resolving the conflict through peaceful negotiations.
It is noteworthy that as early as April 17, Minister Kuleba pinned his hopes on the negotiation process, drawing a «red line» on Mariupol. However, this line was apparently crossed when the Russian Armed Forces launched an assault on the city.
“Moscow has the final word”: what will London do with British prisoners
In Great Britain, it is believed that the British military who surrendered to the Russian army in Ukraine …
April 19 20:51
Moscow, in turn, has not yet abandoned negotiations, but there is no longer any confidence in Ukrainian negotiators, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on April 20. She compared what was happening with the «circus» and complained about the inconstancy of the Ukrainian delegation. nine0003
“Sometimes they come, sometimes they don’t, sometimes they participate, sometimes they don’t participate,” she noted, adding that “it’s no longer ‘trust and verify’, it’s just ‘verify’.
The press secretary of the President of Russia, Dmitry Peskov, also speaks about this. “We have repeatedly said that the dynamics of the work of the Ukrainian side leaves much to be desired. Therefore, let’s put it this way, Ukrainians do not show a great inclination to intensify the negotiation process,” he said.
Will Kyiv refuse negotiations? nine0141
Both sides periodically call for the peace talks to be abandoned. In Russia, the main critic of this approach is the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov. He believes that there is no one to negotiate with in Ukraine now.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky has recently been no less skeptical about the idea of a peaceful settlement. The politician is ready to withdraw from the negotiation process with Russia if the remaining forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Mariupol are destroyed.
In an attempt to preserve the very possibility for negotiations, Moscow regularly initiates the creation of humanitarian corridors from Mariupol and invites the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the city to surrender, political scientist Andrei Suzdaltsev believes. However, this configuration does not quite suit Kyiv politicians, he said. nine0003
“Now everything will be different”: an interview with the head of the LPR Leonid Pasechnik
The LPR is comfortable working with the authorities of the liberated cities and regions, but some local residents are determined …
April 15 15:48
“Moscow is using every opportunity to continue negotiations. The authorities, first of all, are guided by Zelensky’s position on saving the defenders of Mariupol — for this reason, humanitarian corridors are actively working. Thus, Russia demonstrates that it is for the negotiation process. But there is no reaction. nine0003
The recent words of [head of European diplomacy Josep] Borrell and Johnson mean that they will no longer sit at the negotiating table,” Suzdaltsev said in a conversation with Gazeta.Ru.
Valdai Club program director, MGIMO professor Oleg Barabanov admits that Kyiv will eventually abandon the negotiation process.
“Ukraine does not take negotiations seriously enough at the moment. In Kyiv, there is a feeling that a turning point is taking place in their favor. The withdrawal of Russia from the northern regions of Ukraine demonstrates for them the military weakness of Moscow. Naval defeats also carry some symbolic meaning for Ukraine. nine0003
In this regard, any prolongation of the conflict, according to the Ukrainian authorities, will play in their favor,” he added.
Vladimir Bruter, an expert at the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies, believes that there will be no official rejection of negotiations. In a conversation with Gazeta.Ru, he also explained that the negotiation process was initially doomed to failure.
“I have no doubt that Kyiv was not going to do anything. Negotiations were needed to slow down the process of the offensive of the Russian troops, divert the focus and, as it were, try to switch the attention of the public — to create the illusion that something can be achieved with the help of negotiations, ”Bruter said. nine0003
Other formats
Since the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, four face-to-face rounds of talks between representatives of Moscow and Kyiv have taken place. In addition, the parties several times discussed the settlement of the conflict in the format of a video conference.
However, after Ukraine accused the Russian side of war crimes against the civilian population in the Kiev suburb of Bucha, the parties suspended contacts for two weeks. At the same time, countries are still looking for the most suitable format for a meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders. The participation of third countries is being discussed. nine0003
According to Vladimir Bruter,
other powers are unlikely to agree to participate in the negotiations, since there is no trust between the countries now.
“It is not clear why anyone should be involved and what to negotiate now,” he said.
“Talking with Kyiv is pointless at the moment. All these issues could be resolved through communication between Moscow and Washington. But one can only dream about it,” Andrey Suzdaltsev said.
It is noteworthy that several Ukrainian experts have previously expressed a similar opinion. Thus, Mikhail Pogrebinsky, director of the Kyiv Center for Political Studies and Conflictology, told Gazeta.Ru that Kyiv would be able to normalize relations with its former CIS neighbors only if the United States and Russia joined forces to resolve the “Ukrainian issue”. nine0003
According to Pogrebinsky, the US should abandon the idea of positioning Ukraine as «anti-Russia». Moreover, Kyiv’s Western partners should adjust Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy in such a way that the local establishment would also abandon its «anti-Russian» identity, Pogrebinsky explained.
According to Oleg Barabanov, Western countries are unlikely to participate in potentially new negotiation formats, since the only result they want is fixing Russia’s defeat. nine0003
Who is putting pressure on whom
Oleg Barabanov is sure that Western politicians’ remarks about a military victory on the battlefield are putting pressure on Kyiv in one way or another. However, this is not a problem for a part of the Ukrainian establishment, since Ukraine is regularly supplied with weapons and provides the country with all kinds of support.
“So you can fight for ten years. The suffering of the people has never been a key factor in the politics of any country,” the expert noted.
According to Andrei Suzdaltsev, Western pressure on Kyiv is due to the unwillingness of some countries to allow Moscow’s military victory on the territory of Ukraine. nine0003
“For the West, the very possibility that Russia will win is a disaster. They expect Zelensky to keep fighting. There is a bet on the exhaustion of the Russian army. The supply of weapons in this regard continues. For them, defeat is not just another Afghanistan; a defeat in Ukraine will open a «Pandora’s box» that could provoke the collapse of the EU and force Turkey to leave NATO.
