your game is stupid as hell now
Apex is * now, Too many rats ratting for LP and not playing the game, LP has to be the stupidest god damn idea, It's basically unplayable.
Forum Discussion
56 Replies
- @XxColdFangxX
We most certainly agree that it would not be popular.
"inaccurately rewards players for a job well done when in reality all they have done is luck out in the end and don't actually deserve it."
This comes perilously close to acknowledging the outsized role of luck in this game. I know it's a factor, and a larger one than people would like to admit, but I also believe that while it can throw any given match to an unworthy victor, I know it will also average out over time and over multiple matches and not favor any one player or squad over another, certainly not in a way that will elevate a lower-skilled squad to an unearned rank. - @blackeyeriver
"I gave you the very explanation of what a BR is - eliminating opposition until you are the last team standing."
You want to focus on eliminating the opposition - more power to you. I want to focus on being the last team standing. We're just going to have agree to disagree on this one.
"but that does not mean you can "cleverly" rat and only fight the last team while everyone else did the hard work for you. It's borderline cheating."
That is EXACTLY what it means. Work smarter. Not harder. IMO. @reconzero
I honestly don't know why people don't think luck has anything to do with it.
While it might not elevate lower skilled squads it's still a double sided blade. It would be too easy for higher skilled players to farm lower level lobbies on top of it not being remotely rewarding or satisfying for those that are actually trying to get somewhere in the rankings. It really wouldn't be worth it.
When you think about pubs vs ranked, what is it that sets them apart?
You still get opponent of obvious varying skill in either mode, yet with ranked its more competitive and you have the ability to climb to higher rankings to try and prove your own level of skill.
You make the only way to progress by getting a win in an already very hard to win game, then you don't give the players nearly enough incentive to keep trying for all their hard work.
While winning and being the last squad standing is very much an important factor of br, they are not the only ones that should be considered when it comes to who should get what as a reward.
Even if it is a competition game mode, it is still very much a game.
Get the win however you like, but extra effort should be given its own rewards and not made to feel that the effort was insignificant by an unbalanced rewards system.If a win only progressive system was ever put in place for br, and people did stick around to play it, I imagine the entire lobby would rat until the last circle. Then the 'work smarter not harder' is out the window because there will be no where, where someone isn't there already, and only the sweatiest of players will come out on top in rat apocalypse.
- @XxColdFangxX
"You make the only way to progress by getting a win in an already very hard to win game, then you don't give the players nearly enough incentive to keep trying for all their hard work."
This is what I'm saying. What they give people for losing is just so much bunkum to make them feel as if they've accomplished something other than losing, and to make them somehow feel as if they want to come back for more. More what? More losing? I guess this is a long-winded approach to saying that I think people need to dig a little deeper to find a reason to play other than "if I let masters-level squads kill me then the developer will give me shiny object." How on earth does anyone find that satisfying?
"Even if it is a competition game mode, it is still very much a game."
That's the closest anyone has come yet to winning me over on the "reward for losing" argument. You're right. It is still just a game. I forget that sometimes.
"If a win only progressive system was ever put in place for br, and people did stick around to play it, I imagine the entire lobby would rat until the last circle. Then the 'work smarter not harder' is out the window because there will be no where, where someone isn't there already, and only the sweatiest of players will come out on top in rat apocalypse."
Also my point: the sweatiest will come out on top no matter how the game chooses to reward people (or not to reward them). A rank-up-for-winning-only reward system will put the exact same people on top as are on top now. It's the rest of the player base that would get a bit of a wake up call. Much needed, imo.
"extra effort should be given its own rewards and not made to feel that the effort was insignificant by an unbalanced rewards system."
This is a perfect summation of everything that I believe is wrong with every ranked mode I've ever played in any game. Players live in a fantasy world where effort = outcome, and in my experience in gaming this is the case about 50% of the time. Meaning that just as often as not, effort is completely divorced from outcome. Nature of a team-based game? Nature of battle royale? Nature of life? You have to be your own judge on this one. I can only tell you decades of competitive shooters have taught me the lesson that sweat does not payoff in reward any more than lottery tickets pay off with a jackpot win. Another reason why I believe in "smarter, not harder." @reconzero
It just doesn't seem to me like it would make for a very good game play experience. It wasn't for arena. So I don't see why it would be for br.
It might prevent the rats from abusing the unbalanced rewards system, but it doesn't fix the other side of the problem.
It isn't reward alone that keeps players coming back. The game experience as a whole also ties into that.
While the apocalypse outcome might be fun to watch, it wouldn't be remotely fun in the slightest to play-at least to me.
If you don't want to think about it in a game setting-think about it in a real life setting. Would it be fair to give credit to your dead comrades when they took out half of the enemy army? Or is it only fair to give you, the sole survivor all of the credit even though you hid a majority of the battle and got the last shot in that ended the war?Saying they don't deserve honorable mentions would be a slap in the face to them and to anyone who come after them..you wouldn't tell the families of the dead their contributions to the war was meaningless because they didn't make it...
and that's basically what this unbalanced system is doing, slapping it's players in the face, because it is telling them that even though they did all of this, killed all of these people, it didn't matter. Their contribution to the match? The game experience? Their team? Meaningless.
The same ideas of properly crediting people can even be applied to the work environment.
Not giving credit where credit is due, in fantasy or in life, makes a lot of people unhappy.Imo it isn't a fantasy notion to want what you're owed for doing extra work.
- @reconzero It's not what I want to focus on that is the issue here. It's what the game is about at it's core. It is what it is, not the made up forum labels people try to put on it.
It's not what it means at all. There is absolutely no satisfaction or pride in winning a match with 1 engagement, 1 kill and 50 damage for example and no one is impressed by it. It seems more like a skill issue to me where players resort to ratting to the last team because they can't win any other way and then try to justify it with things like "smart" or "clever". If those players were good enough to win while doing the opposite, they would 100% do that instead.
@blackeyeriver wrote:
@reconzeroIt's not what I want to focus on that is the issue here. It's what the game is about at it's core. It is what it is, not the made up forum labels people try to put on it.
It's not what it means at all. There is absolutely no satisfaction or pride in winning a match with 1 engagement, 1 kill and 50 damage for example and no one is impressed by it. It seems more like a skill issue to me where players resort to ratting to the last team because they can't win any other way and then try to justify it with things like "smart" or "clever". If those players were good enough to win while doing the opposite, they would 100% do that instead.DEATHMATCH.
What you describe there is a Deathmatch and there are modes for that elsewhere.
The Wraith Quote is the best summation of the point of BR - "The only thing that matters is being the last one alive."
Frankly, in my mind, the most impressive thing would be to win with no fights and no damage because you avoid everyone else and let them do your job for you, and were smarter than the people like you that kept fighting in Fragments with the ring closing in.
I had done that twice before I quit. Very happy with those results, really.Why do you think you have to fight all 20 squads solo like the poorly designed Mortal Kombat tournaments where Liu Kang apparently had to fight EVERYONE because there was no brackets?
- @Kyldenar "Why do you think you have to fight all 20 squads solo like the poorly designed Mortal Kombat tournaments where Liu Kang apparently had to fight EVERYONE because there was no brackets?"
🤣🤣🤣 - @Kyldenar I didn't describe anything, simply gave the official definition in a previous post.
Wraith does not strike me as a camper though 🙂 Her class is skirmisher.
Skirmisher - "A skirmisher is a soldier usually sent ahead of a main body of troops to harass the enemy".
You won like that twice? What did you do the rest of the match? Doesn't sound fun tbh.
I never said you should fight every team, but fighting 0 teams intentionally until the last defeats the point of the game. No one that is good at the game chooses this playstyle willingly. What do you mean there was no brackets in MK? You work your way up as you get better until you beat the game. I don't see the problem.
Community Highlights
- EA_Mako3 months ago
Community Manager