Forum Discussion
- 5 years ago@PogeNoob Ah, yes. The negotiator.
This whole "You don't enjoy a single aspect? You're just not made for this kind of game"-thing doesn't make sense and I think you know it. At least I hope you know it. At least the previous 3 responses had some kind of value to it.
Yes, I personally find it a bad thing. Because Battle Royale is and will always remain a game of survival where combat is done when it's necessary. The game mode that people want is Brawl (royale). Where people respawn and whoever reaches goal X of kills first wins.- 5 years ago@Peri_Longbow_plz Suuure, a single aspect... Except this single aspect, fast paced combat and frenetic action, is a major feature and the main reason why this game is so popular. This is like going on Starcraft forums and complain how there is too much fighting in game and you would rather spend time peacefully developing your colony. Also your preference and definition of battle royal genre is not a fact, its your opionion and because this game deviates from it, its not automatically bad thing and something that should be changed.
- Balladalidila5 years agoSeasoned Ace
" Battle Royale¨will always remain a game of survival where combat is done when it's necessary."
According to what universal definition? Such games already exists btw. PUBG is ofc much more of that style of BRs. Why do you think every BR that came after that must be like that? The only thing universal is that BR is a game of survival but in Apex, one strategy of surviving is to kill your enemies.
I also think your theory that the game caters to predators, predators being players that hunt passive players, is wrong in ranked, especially at the higher elos. Playing super aggressive only works if you are much better than the average opponent, which is the case for high elo players in casual and smurfs in rank. But when you've reached your "true" peak rank, i.e. the rank where the opponent is on average as good as you, hunting like a maniac wont win you more games than it makes you lose. The most clear proof of this is at ALGS. In those matches, every players is at equal level give or take and you dont see any hunting at all there.
Seems to me that what you really want to say is that Apex is a game where the most skilled PvP-fighters have a huge advantage over those less skilled, a statement which I agree on but why is this bad?
- 5 years ago
Honestly, whatever happens in Ranked is none of my concern. For me, ranked is nonexistent. I play casual for a reason. Because I have a casual approach on the game. Which seems to be redundant because what the game expects me to do is having 5 towels next to me to wipe all the sweat away that builds up as I grapple my way across the map eliminating squads one by one for that sweet 20 kill badge. I mean, why does this badge exist in the first place? Why is defeating one-third of the game even a goal/achievement?
Then, the players. Okay, I also leave matches from time to time when I see there is no point in staying because my squad mates aren't using the obvious opportunity to revive me while another squad fights with a third-party, and instead fights them. Because again, kills are so much more important than literally helping your team mate getting back up. This is happening way more often than it should, hence why I've made so many suggestions in the past to encourage actual team play, rather than encouraging "who makes the most kills".
Or when it comes to most picked legends. Again, exceptions are there. But frankly the most picked legends are also those with better solo capabilities. Rampart, somewhere in the sewers. Wattson, somewhere at the core of earth. Caustic crawls somewhere in the Mariana trench. Octane flies high in the sky, Valkyrie skims the treetops, Pathfinder uses his private jet. You see what I'm getting at?
If you think about it, one play style is being heavily catered towards whilst the other lacks behind immensely.
About Apex Legends Feedback
Community Highlights
Recent Discussions
- 16 hours ago
- 2 days ago
- 2 days ago