NEXT SEASON: A NEW RANK MODLE/RULE?

@BettercallSu Interesting idea, but it would cause the issue of larger teams stomping on smaller teams. Even though the game would end with every player on one team, I don't see how it would be fun to be killed by 4+ player teams.

Furthermore, it would just encourage players to team up more in matches, (getting 9+ man teams from the start), and to grind badges/stats. (Which would mean that badges and stats should be locked).

There's also the issue of betting, (which I can see being a problem for players in Belgium).

Belgium has laws in place against gambling, (and betting is a form of gambling). Players may not be spending real money to bet, (like how we can buy loot boxes), but I don't think the law would care either way. Assuming the betting system goes against Belgium's laws, this would end up casting out Belgium players from the mode, (which wouldn't be fair).

@BettercallSu

"Under the new rules."

Interesting idea. It's essentially Infection from Halo. I could see it as an LTM but would not like to see it replace the main game. Hey, wait a minute. Don't we already have an LTM like this? Fight Or Fright?

"We know that at the beginning of a match, players can be quickly eliminated due to lack of weapons or other reasons, leading to a frustrating cycle of entering and exiting games. With this new mode, we aim to eliminate this frustration."

Big mistake, imo. Not saying it wouldn't make kids happy. I'm sure it would. But at some point, five years in, it's time for people to learn to play the game less recklessly, and if they can't do that then they need to be making constant round trips to the lobby. This game already has too many crutches for bad decision makers. The last four or five LTMs have been almost exclusively about encouraging bad behavior by not penalizing it, and in some cases by outright rewarding it. Very bad idea. Kids need to learn the rules, learn the best practices, and stop treating BR like team death match. IMO.

"many skilled players often find themselves unable to showcase their abilities due to the lack of weapons or early eliminations. This is a waste of their time and skill."

If they get killed because of a hot drop and a lack of weapons, then that's demonstrating a lack of skill. It's just not the same kind of skill that we're used to talking about. People need to learn to manage luck or else go play team death match where aiming is all that matters. Or be prepared to re-queue no matter how good their aim may have been if they'd got the gun they wanted.

"High Damage Output / High Kill Counts / Clear Rewards"

These are, I would say, exactly what you might want out of an arena shooter. They are not necessarily at all what I would want out of battle royale. BR is, to my mind, a survival game type. The shooting is incidental. It's one way to survive, but not the only way, and at many points in a match it is not even the advisable way if survival is the ultimate goal. I know this takes us back to the perennial debate around just exactly what it is that a ranking system should reward: engagement or placement. In my opinion it should reward both equally so that the ultimate decision as to play style is left to the individual player and not dictated by the multiplayer lead.

"Allow players to bet..."

Now that's a slippery slope, in-game currency or not. I'd be curious to hear EA lawyers sound off on the idea. If EA isn't too cheap to hire lawyers that is.

Sorry to be all resistant and contradictory. I like how much thought went into this. I just don't think I would care too much for the game as you describe it. I'd rather see more or less what we have now, but with a viable anti-cheat and a ban on secondary accounts. And I'd like to see Respawn cut itself loose from EA, who is, I'm convinced more and more, the source of most of the problems in this game.

@reconzero 

A survival game type" might be the core of your viewpoint and could also be one of the reasons for the current decline in the number of players.

One thing we cannot deny is that this game was very popular at the beginning, but after five years of operation, fewer and fewer people are playing it.

Today, our core issue is that you think it is a survival game, while I think it is a killing game. As players, we can certainly have such debates. This also shows that the game developers have not clarified the theme. Should it be primarily a shooting game or a survival game?

If the type of game cannot be clarified by the developers and players need to argue about it, it is a failure for the developers, and the game is definitely on a downward path. Obviously, we cannot say that World of Warcraft is a shooting game because it has a very clear positioning.

Our debate should not be about what type of game it is, but rather how to make it better under this type of game. We should not argue about the attributes of the game itself. Once we are really arguing about whether this game is a survival game or a shooting game, there is already a problem.

“Sorry to be all resistant and contradictory”. there is no problem because this is a place for everyone to express their opinions.

Regarding your mention of a "big mistake," it is not a big mistake but a personal experience, and it is a fact. One fact that cannot be ignored is that repeatedly entering this game will waste time. I think this game should make players' time more efficient. Since you have entered this game, every minute is precious. It's like entering a restaurant: from the moment you enter the door of this restaurant until you leave, every minute you spend money. Finally, the meal cost and your tip mean that every minute you spend in this restaurant is worth the money. if not, you will not come here again! That's another reason why Apex declining.

My original intention is to make the pace of this game tighter, if possible. Let players immediately enter the rhythm of confrontation. Of course, we have a fundamental difference in concept: you think Apex is a survival game, and survival in some aspects does not require confrontation but rather some degree of avoiding confrontation because avoiding can also allow you to survive, just like in real life, right? You can work hard, or you can not work and receive benefits, and you can still live and live well.

Actually, my point is actually jumping in the middle, and many joints need to be done to finally achieve the bet. I just want to show all the final points to everyone first. I also know that it is actually very difficult to achieve this step. First, we need to overcome the legal issues, and there are many details to discuss. But I return to my original intention: I hope that gold coins can circulate to promote the developers of the game itself so that good players can get corresponding rewards.

@Midnight9746 

This is not a question. First of all, I think it is important to correctly understand the concept I just mentioned. There is no big team crushing a small team. What I want to say is that we need to create conflicts and confrontations. You think about being killed four times, but why don't you think about killing four times? It's like a glass of water that is half full. Some people say the glass is half empty, while others say it is half full. Both are facts, just described differently.

The core issue here is to encourage killing. Once you are killed, you just join another team, and you can immediately go and kill the person who just killed you. This requires repeated killing. Of course, it is also possible that you will be repeatedly killed.

Killing and being killed are actually the same now. In the current mode, you can still be killed four times because after you kill someone, your teammate can revive you, and after being revived, you can still be killed. This has not changed. Whether it is the old mode or the current mode, because this is what a killing game brings us. It's like playing Call of Duty, where you are repeatedly killing and being killed. I don't think this is a point.

Whether it starts with a team of three, six, or nine people can be designed. What I am talking about is a general concept. Under this general concept, we encourage killing, confrontation, and high damage.

Similarly, you mentioned that it is possible that at the end, none of the sixty people are left, but the only difference is that among these sixty people, some have killed sixty people, and some have killed none.

From this, I can see who has a higher skill level. It's like our current ranking system: bronze, silver, gold, diamond, master, right? But what is different is that in one game, I can make more efficient use of this time. Since I have entered this game, I want to fully enjoy the thrill of killing that this game brings me.

This might be an issue that has been overlooked, and it is also why Call of Duty can be so popular because it makes full use of every minute. Every second, everyone is killing.