"One thing's for sure in my opinion, the POI drop end-games are way more fun for me & that would be my priority."
Now that's something I never thought about. How are they more fun? Why are they more fun? How is a POI drop endgame typically different than a jump master endgame?
More teams are alive during the endgame with dropzones.
Recon... have you not been reading other players post now and in the past about this topic?
How are you so knowledgeable and unknowledgeable at the same time?
I have read that. But I like to hear if someone else has anything different to say or more to add.
My own experience, both ranked and unranked, is that some matches are down to five squads at first circle, and others are the aforementioned ten squads at the endgame. I never found any real correlation between any particular such outcome and the overall skill of the lobby. Except in the sense that rampant hot dropping does not seem skillful to me. But it's entirely possible that the fifteen squads who died on drop put up one hell of a fight. I wouldn't know because I wasn't one of them and I didn't end any of them. And I've heard opinions both ways on whether a final circle is more fun with ten squads or with just two. I have my own opinion, but not sure it matters for the sake of this discussion. People are allowed to like it better either way. And also, not sure that more squads at the end is a sign of higher skill or more ratting. And I don't use the term "ratting" in a derogatory way. It's a strategy. And if the season rewards placement over kills then it's a smart strategy.
But there is also an implication that what is more fun is also a better test of skill? Or am I reading something into that that isn't really there? Because on that point, if the implication is true, I would have to disagree. I know people want to have fun AND be proven skillful, but the two don't always go hand in hand. I also think people often associate fun with teammates who play like they do (not a given in this game), with engagements that happen one after the other and not all at once (also not a given), and maybe even with gameplay that tests their mechanical skills and maybe doesn't test their strategizing, or at least not too strenuously. That, again, could be me making inferences that are not right. But that is how it looks to me. At any rate, the day we can get any three players to agree on what is fun in this game is the day I eat my hat.
I'm sure comp players consider an ALGS based Ranked mode to be fun because they watch the ALGS.
I'm sure people who enjoy watching their favorite pro streamers/content creators would consider more teams during endgame funnier to watch.
Where we differ Recon is that I care about Apex's viewership, which is currently being crushed by Overwatch. Both games released seasonal updates on the same day. I remember years ago when Overwatch players were begging their devs to follow Apex's blueprint. I just checked and Overwatch has 115K viewers compared to Apex's pathetic 20K. Overwatch supports their content creators, similar to Fortnite. Those games understand their gaming philosophy and identity. Apex devs are having a hard time because half of the community is advising them to make the game less competitive, and that's bad for business. This game has to attract and appeal to a competitive-minded fan base to increase viewership, player population, and longevity.
If the devs would rather listen to players who don't care about viewership and understand marketing then they're listening to the wrong people.
Lower viewership coincided with... what? Was it on the decline in the jump master seasons and started to tick up with ALGS style gameplay? I might have thought it could be simply a factor of the age of the game, but Overwatch and Fortnite are both older? I'm just trying to figure out if this is correlation or causation.
"I'm sure people who enjoy watching their favorite pro streamers/content creators would consider more teams during endgame funnier to watch."
That makes perfect sense. And while I'm not embarrassed to admit I'm more concerned with whether it's fun to play than whether it's fun to watch, I can still appreciate the difference between something that's entertaining and something that isn't. Or is less so. But also: if a final circle pile up is fun to watch, then wouldn't an early-game hot dropping pile up also be fun to watch? Even if there was no immediate victory to result? Or is it only fun if it produces a winner? Not trying to be obtuse. Just trying to understand the psychology of something I don't know much about.
Community Manager
