Re: Way Too much apex, not nearly enough hell let loose

Considering what Team 17 is doing to Hell Let Loose after buying the IP from the developers, I don't think it should be used as a good example.

The only people trying to change battlefield is ea and dice and it’s for the worse. I’m sorry you have a different opinion that ends at if you don’t like it don’t play it, but I did pay for the game and am entitled to come here and express it as I am in-fact a day one buyer who has watched the game finally progress to a releasable state and still not even be comparable to past entries like one and v….. 

---

@X-Sunslayer-X wrote:
@muBetilEyou are free to say whatever you want as I am free to say BF has never had and should never adopt anything akin to HLL mechanics.
a bleed out mechanic would just be a tedious annoyance and a handicap for players who can deal with it, just like attrition was designed to handicap better players in BFV

---

To be fair, the original PC exclusive Battlefields have more in common with HLL than they do with whatever they were trying to do with 2042.

Attrition hurts everyone pretty immensely and was very accurate for a ww2 game I gotta say props for the realism there. The player counts speak volumes as to how you are wrong. Everyone is playing the more realistic bf v and bf 1 we want realism ea.

I played hardcore in BF3 and in BF4 when it launched. BF1 made me like 'softcore' and then I didn't really like hardcore when I tried it on BF4-servers after BF1.

Now my gaming time is mostly spent playing BattleBit, which is hardcore. I must say that it is just so much fun, much more fun than any BF-game since BF4 (at least). BB game has bleed-out-mechanics, no regen, no minimap, only a ping-system, no-grenade-icons, low TTK etc etc. I don't think 'all the fun' comes from the hardcore elements, but it makes the game more intense somehow and it doesn't feel stupid like BFV did. BFVs combination of attrition for ammo and "high" ttk was awful.

I think making the game more hardcore could be fun, and they could look at BattleBit for inspiration. The game doesn't need to have bleed-out mechanics and perhaps things like grenade-icons could in the game, but no minimap, no 3D-spot, no audio-spot when firing and lower ttk could be fine for me. The maps do need to have much more cover though, with way more assets, otherwise it will fail. Also a thing that BF needs is that all players can revive everyone, that works extremely well in BB.

2042 has awful/boring gun-play.and they should focus more on the gun-play, instead of stupid gimmicks like specialists. BB has very good gun-play and this makes shooting very satisfying, which really helps with the fun of playing.

I'm not too familiar with HLL, it's more of a realistic/period accurate game right? I agree going too arcadey isn't always the best choice but I also don't think the majority of players find slow reloads with worse accuracy and fungal infections in the trenches to be that entertaining either.

I prefer BF1 and BC2 more but 2042 has been pretty solid after a few updates

---

@cso7777 wrote:

I played hardcore in BF3 and in BF4 when it launched. BF1 made me like 'softcore' and then I didn't really like hardcore when I tried it on BF4-servers after BF1.

Now my gaming time is mostly spent playing BattleBit, which is hardcore. I must say that it is just so much fun, much more fun than any BF-game since BF4 (at least). BB game has bleed-out-mechanics, no regen, no minimap, only a ping-system, no-grenade-icons, low TTK etc etc. I don't think 'all the fun' comes from the hardcore elements, but it makes the game more intense somehow and it doesn't feel stupid like BFV did. BFVs combination of attrition for ammo and "high" ttk was awful.

I think making the game more hardcore could be fun, and they could look at BattleBit for inspiration. The game doesn't need to have bleed-out mechanics and perhaps things like grenade-icons could in the game, but no minimap, no 3D-spot, no audio-spot when firing and lower ttk could be fine for me. The maps do need to have much more cover though, with way more assets, otherwise it will fail. Also a thing that BF needs is that all players can revive everyone, that works extremely well in BB.

2042 has awful/boring gun-play.and they should focus more on the gun-play, instead of stupid gimmicks like specialists. BB has very good gun-play and this makes shooting very satisfying, which really helps with the fun of playing.

---

Yeah, Battlebit has a ton of gameplay features that Dice Sweden and a lot of the left over player base are terrified of but it is a ton of fun without being either a milsim or ego shooter. It fills that casual, large scale military shooter that Battlefield used to have an uncontested monopoly over.

I always thought of Battlefield as an Arcade Milsim. I.e a balance between realism and fast paced gameplay. 

Hell let loose for example is like walking through mud. That doesn’t make for casual game play. More tense, but definitely not battlefield.

Games like Cod et all, are too fast paced. I’d say battlefield a little slower on the time to kill. 

Battlefield might also be described as a Combined arms game. 

ao I’d settle on “Arcade Combined Arms Milsim”

there is and has always been a decent mix of realism and casual game play feel about battlefield. 

As such, the flying squirrel just makes me cringe.