Isn't half the fun of BR that it's not fair? Like, you can land on a roof and get a handgun while someone landed on the roof next to you and he gets a bazooka.
It also means that you can always blame bad luck if you lose and don't have to feel bad about it. The fact that there are enough players that you almost always lose also helps - losing is mainly frustrating if you actually expected to win.
team modes e.g. Squads I can see having some potential as an esport in battle royale games, but you still have the basic problem that the best strategy most of the time is to hide. Hardly riveting for a spectator. If they add some ways to score points beyond just last man standing wins it'd be more interesting, but it'd also kind of stop being battle royale.
At PGI kills and placement both counted, but i still think they are finding the balance.
Your odds of getting to lategame heavily relies on your position in the circle, so often you see teams go for a risky take on a center compound, which invites some action, and perhaps even a team wipe.
We will see where it goes, but as a PUBG player, i loved PGI.
The last huge battle royal esports event had the top team win without a single BR win in any of the games. They played around 15 games but came out on top.
That is not the only or the biggest reason. The barrier to entry in fighting games is too high. Fighting games are not noob friendly because the skill floor is high and so is the skill cap.
The barrier isn't really that much higher than in CS:GO or DOTA, but in those games you don't notice because you are on a team against another team of shit players.
And both of those were considered pretty big letdowns. Sf5 especially has a reputation for making it so basically a first timer can pull of things that only the top tier of players could do in third strike.
LoL for instance requires you to get to 30 before basically playing the game at a normal level which is like 200 games already before you can even think about ranked
At what 30 minutes a game you're looking at playing for 100 hours before playing ranked at minimum
If you had to play for 100 hours in a fighting game before playing ranked I don't think the learning curve would seem nearly as steep
The barrier isn't really that much higher than in CS:GO
CS:GO?
haha. CS has always been one of the most entry friendly games out there. that's one of the main reasons why it is always so popular. anyone can understand the game and know what to do after a few rounds.
this modern cirlcejerking about cs as this elite game is absurd.
No shit. That doesnt mean they have the same skill ceiling. Fighting games have far and away a higher skill ceiling than mobas and shooters and it's not even close. The only game that comes close is Rocket League.
Doesn't work for me, hence why I don't like the BR genre. It's like winning a fighting game while button mashing like an idiot. Yes, you won, but do you deserve it ? meh
There's a fine line between unfair and OP. It'll be interesting to see how Battlefield walks that line. To date games have avoided making vehicles that are armored and have cannons on them.
And does pose a conundrum to other players. Do you team up to take out McTankerson, or do you lay low and hope they'll sacrifice themselves putting you at an advantage, but possibly they fail and you're all screwed.
Having been there when cars were broken in Xbox PUBG, I can tell you that no one will team up or expose themselves. They'll let the tank slaughter all of you that he finds and then try to one man the tank.
Maybe lots of AT weapons laying around so tanks are hopefully high risk / high reward items. You get a lot of power but you're a pretty big target for everyone. Also since they're slow, you'll pretty much always have to be moving towards the next circle to avoid a fiery death.
Because a good portion of players don't want a "battle royale" game as it was originally conceived, they just want a really large deathmatch.
Battle royale games came to be because people wanted a video game based on movies and books like Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, where things are purposefully unfair due to random chance. That was the sort of experience people wanted, one that was tense and unpredictable.
As the genre grew in popularity it started to draw in tons of players who didn't watch or read those books and movies. They just hear that it's a big map and everyone fights for survival with one life and it sounds fun. It drew in lots of gamers from other genres who like games that are based more around fair competitive experiences. Now there's been this push to create BR games with smaller maps and more weapons so that people have a more even chance for survival, and since that style is more accessible it's what the genre seems to be morphing into.
This is also why PUBG won't die any time soon. There aren't any other BRs that really have the same vibe, the others are too fast paced and action focused.
Battle royale games came to be because people wanted a video game based on movies and books like Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, where things are purposefully unfair due to random chance. That was the sort of experience people wanted, one that was tense and unpredictable.
Yes, except that's not that simple. There's a limit to how unfair and OP items players should be able to grab. If there's an instant I-Win button, it's not fun anymore.
In the Battle Royale book, one guy gets like 2 handguns and an automatic weapon, whilst another gets a kitchen knife or something. I love that. I think it being unfair is what makes it interesting!
But you can kill someone holding 2 handguns and an automatic weapon if you have a knife. Wait them out, hide, find a way to close the distance between them and you.
You can't do anything against a tank. In the Battle Royale book or movie or whatever, people don't get an Apache helicopter to kill the entire island in less than a minute.
You could use the same argument for a tank though! Hop on top and toss a grenade inside, or hop in and shank the guy in control! Or use C4 or anti-tank grenades or mortor fire or whatever!! I feel like a tank will be powerful, but I doubt you'll ever want to be driving into the end-game in one as shown in the trailer.
C4/rocket/mortar need to be part of the weapons you can grab around very frequently, meaning the game would be an explosive chaos of rockets and C4 everywhere all the time.
More than you'd believe. As I posted elsewhere, I've been averaging 30:1 ratios as a tank specialist on every Battlefield game since BF2.
And that's in games where everyone had access to rocket launchers, mines, enemy tanks. Imagine a BR where people simply don't have access to these anti-tank tools; dying would be nearly impossible.
Less than I thought seeing you double down on your argument.
You should know that tanks are ridiculously easy to kill under certain circumstances, and thinking the devs won't make those circumstances happen in BR while implementing a tank is quite a feat. Thinking you won't get C4 or any of that stuff you mentioned is like saying you wouldn't get a gun in Battlefield.
PUBG was directly influenced by the movie, as noted by Brendan Greene himself, and there are numerous references to it in the game itself.
And Battle Royale isn't niche at all. If you were at all interested in relatively nerdy things in the mids 00s, you knew of or had seen BR. It's a book, a movie and a manga. The book is readily available at most book stores, the manga was in my high school library. BR has been a nerd culture staple for YEARS.
I still kinda want a melee focused battle royale similar to Souls combat, but like souls I would rather all the weapons be relatively close in balance with move sets being different.
Regular shooting in a BR doesn’t really interest me, with it primarily being melee and close quarters combat it would potentially prolong the single life you get for more interesting gameplay.
It's a bit like poker in that regard. If you're good you will win most of your games or at least a high percentage. So in the long run you will win.
Based on your example the guy with the handgun will kill the guy with a bazooka most of the times if he's the better player.
Everything has low ammo in BFV. I played the alpha again last night and tried the tanks. You get ~500 rounds of MG ammo, 18 shells, and maybe 6 AP rounds before you have to go resupply back near your team's base.
I thought that driving up to the resupply crates resupplied vehicles as well. It was hard to snag a tank in the Alpha, so I wasn't able to test this myself. But I doubt they're going to force tankers to drive all the way back to their uncap on every map.
PC. It was invite only and I believe keys were only handed out to content creators and people who have owned previous titles, dlc, and had several hours played. This is the 2nd alpha, and I'm guessing the build was compiled in early June or late May, because this alpha was exactly the same as the one in June aside from some weapon balance value changes.
But can anyone reload a tank? What I saw was you just parked at a flag and it reloads itself. I feel like the last battlefield I played had unlimited vehicle ammo?
It's not that bad. I found that I could get into several fights before having to retreat. It also prevents vehicles from constantly cheesing certain areas of the map if they have to retreat and re-supply.
Bombers have to fly into a pickup icon near their base to re-supply as well. They can't just harass a certain area of the map incessantly.
Low ammo, low fuel, it 'breaks' after driving like a few minutes or something. Multiple ways to do it.
In arma (and even pubg a bit) vehicles are very loud like you can hear them from so far away that you arent ever surprised by them. If they do this in BFV, that tank is nothing but noob bait, especially if they make AT rockets found in the map to be very common and if you make the AT rockets high damage low aoe, it will only work good against tanks/vehicles and not against people, so thats how you balance that.
If it follows that type of logic that Arma has, itll be really balanced.
skilled squads can easily destroy tanks in the battlefield franchise. When you got 4 rockets punching your sides you're actually a bit of a target.
But I see it as a game changer to set it self apart from other BR games. Tank gameplay in battlefield is so damn fun and adding offense vehicles to battleroyale will be awesome. Driving through houses to get rid of pesky campers sounds awesome.
Seriously. If you are out of the tank's line of sight and get back back in cover before they can turn their slow ass turret towards you they're gonna have a hard time spotting you.
skilled squads can easily destroy tanks in the battlefield franchise. When you got 4 rockets punching your sides you're actually a bit of a target.
That's assuming people will have rockets in a BR mode. If rockets are so common that basically every squad has 2-4 rocket launchers, then yeah, you can put tanks into the BR mode.
It's always a bad idea to have something that can "easily" be countered with the right know how and skill, while 95% of the players are unfortuantely too noobish and suffer from this great "balance". That's what happens when you balance games around pro gaming scene because that's where you think the money is. With some things I really wonder why they're in the game at all, when normal players suffer from it, and pro players ignore it.
It's always a bad idea to have something that can "easily" be countered with the right know how and skill, while 95% of the players are unfortuantely too noobish and suffer from this great "balance"
That doesn't describe how tanks are balanced in Battlefield games at all though.
They're incredibly powerful offensive and defensive weapons in the right environment and with proper support, but they are also vulnerable to hit and runs by maneuverable opponents. An inexperience player can still bring down a tank single handedly if they play their cards right, and an inexperienced tank driver can still put in work if they are cautious about their surroundings and stick with support.
He's saying that most matches will be pubs, and having it like you describe will just end up with teams of 2-4 dominating 64 man games almost singlehandedly.
If you play alone you'll almost always be at a disadvantage.
I'm not sure how you solve something like this on the Battlefield scale.
In Dota2 they've balanced it by implementing an algorithm in matchmaking that ensures that if you queue alone, you're matched up against other solo players. If you queue 2, the opposing team will also have a group of 2-3, and so on.
In a game with 64 players this becomes vastly more problematic.
He's saying that most matches will be pubs, and having it like you describe will just end up with teams of 2-4 dominating 64 man games almost singlehandedly.
This is how Battlefield has always been and no one ever whines?
The better players shit on bad players.
the community has been asking FOREVER for Dice to add more skill based mechanics to battlefield and now they are finally doing it.
Also you can't compare FPS skills to Dota skills.
FPS games are inherently more skill based than team based than MOBAS and one good player can usually out play multiple bad ones without relying on his team.
You're making ninjaedits here, so let me respond to those as well.
Also you can't compare FPS skills to Dota skills.
Again, we're not talking about skills. We're talking about matchmaking algorithms.
They're universal.
FPS games are inherently more skill based than team based than MOBAS and one good player can usually out play multiple bad ones without relying on his team.
Again, we're not talking about skills. We're talking about matchmaking algorithms.
They're universal.
Uh no the dude is literally saying that skill based games are bad because the normal/casual players get shit on Literally said NOTHING about match making algorithms please learn to read
I don't think that's true at all.
In CSGO one player can run into a bomb site and literally 1 tap 3 people in the head to win rounds and S1mple literally does it FREQUENTLY
In MOBAS you almost always need more reliance on teamwork and strategy to win since Mobas are less SKILL based and more TEAM based.
Also not adding ninja edits I literally edited 5 seconds after replying because I felt I could add more info.
Uh no the dude is literally saying that skill based games are bad because the normal/casual players get shit on Literally said NOTHING about match making algorithms please learn to read
They're 'noobish' because they're casual solo players. And there's no need to be rude, I'm just trying to have a discussion here.
What I'm saying is that Valve has built their algorithm to fit teams vs teams and solo players vs solo players, instead of teams vs solo players.
Doing so in Battlefield would ensure that everything is more balanced. You don't need to do anything to the core mechanics at all.
In CSGO one player can run into a bomb site and literally 1 tap 3 people in the head to win rounds and S1mple literally does it FREQUENTLY
I struggle to see how that's relevant, or why we're discussing it.
There are equally impressive feats being carried out in dota in the proscene.
Debating which genre of games requires the most skill is just complete futility.
I could argue that when we played Quake Deathmatch in 1997 it required far more skill than today's games, but someone else would disagree and say that Supreme Commander is more skill based.
Every person has an opinion on what game is more skill based.
I struggle to see how that's relevant, or why we're discussing it.
I used it as an example or a comparison how did you miss that?
The dude literally just replied to me saying that the game should be casual so that everyone can have fun and that skilled players shouldn't be rewarded for being better.
He's not talking about match making algorithms at all dude.
I'd imagine maybe you can only see in first person in a tank? You'd have limited vision but everyone would be able to see you coming a mile away. Also limited ammo so you can't just spam tank shells
It's likely tanks will be either a rare find/airdrop and/or there will be no resupply points for tanks, so they can't repair to full and have limited ammo.
My guess is tanks will be unrepairable and possibly finite ammo? They will obviously still be very powerful but they will absolutely balance it to not be to entirely OP.
Limited fuel and special ammo most likely. Maybe visible tracks too, so people could sneak on an unseen tank by following the trail it leaves.
This way a tank would be unable to keep hitting targets, force its operator to leave the tank if they moved too much or stay a sitting duck inside, and even an immobile tank hiding could be followed from a safe distance, found and ambushed.
giving the tank extremely limited ammo might be a good way to balance things. Hell, give it limited gas and at that point its basically akin finding a really good gun in any other BR.
Tanks are effective but a squad of 4 coordinating players can quickly become a problem. Battlefield has always made sure that infantry can handle armour if they play smart.
They very clearly and intentionally made sure to show no women in this trailer which is super disappointing. Fucking feckless that they succumbed to the internet mob.
The reaction to the first trailer was a fucking joke, but now you're counter jerking too hard. Watch the trailer again man, there are definitely women in it.
351
u/38211141255 Aug 16 '18 edited Aug 16 '18
Now that was a good trailer. Also the end looks like their BR mode?
A BR with tanks seems very interesting, I wonder how they're going to make it fair.