Exodus Soaking Up All the Players
I'm gonna be honest, I don't really like Exodus Conquest, but sadly it seems like its the only mode at times that people are playing on. Breakthrough modes only seem active on the first day of a new ...
Forum Discussion
@Psubond Considering people played the replacement modes when it had the three season maps in it, you'd actually get to play those maps. Someone wants to play Exodus, they can go enjoy the benefit of Portal filling the server with bots for them instead of sitting in a loading screen.
Exodus seems to be pretty popular. Removing it just for your convenience and coercing others into playing the maps you want doesnt seem right.
I say have all maps modes and let people play the ones they want. You are not entitled to the time of 63 or 127 other people
Lets just throw Metro back in there then, since everyone always wanted to play that despite it being anything but a proper Battlefield map. Get rid of all the other maps and just run Metro.
Really wonder why so many people complain about any lacking in videogames when they'll literally just play the same thing over and over.
What is wrong with people playing what they enjoy?
Did they delete the mode you want to play?
@AngrySquid270 wrote:
@Moab23 wrote:@Psubond Why is it apparently fine that I'm not allowed to enjoy the full game?
@Spock wrote:Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Negative spock. Each individual is entitled to play the way they want, but they are not entitled to force other individuals to play with them.
If there aren't enough people who want to play what you want...well it is what it is
Which BF game did you start with
I think part of the problem is that Exodus is on the left. First choice. Most people just click on the first choice. It’s like the default mode now. Google paid millions to Apple to keep Google as the default search engine on safari. There is a reason.
I also have to say regular conquest is fine here on the PS4, not lacking players.@Psubond So I'm a little curious why you seem to skew toward the titles that started taking more of a COD cue in the design of some maps, making them much smaller and less all aspect warfare that is the bread and butter of a Battlefield game, to the point of having literally no vehicles in them at all. I started with '42 and put most of my hours in any BF game into BF2. Even with that huge player base, Strike at Karkand was frequently popping up, and then when it was remade it popped up a lot again. BF games need to stop bringing back maps that were overplayed from previous games and putting them into main rotations of new ones because then we see barely anything of the new maps, the very same ones people were screaming to be improved, and which have and are being. Except we're barely getting to see them outside of the first week or so because they keep swapping the default back to the smaller Exodus Conquest where constant server restarts after matches have you playing the same old BF3/BC2 maps over and over.
If there was a server browser and people could run their own servers probably 90% of them would be 2000 ticket Metro/Locker servers because it feels like the majority don't want a proper BF experience, they just want to fluff their KDR like the streamers do.
@JOGAGATYA I got multiple Breakthrough matches yesterday, because one of the mission requirements was playing on Breakthrough. At the very least, DICE needs to include more of this to get people into the modes, or highlight a mode on the main screen more often to mix it up. Sadly, breakthrough was empty today.
@Moab23 wrote:@Psubond So I'm a little curious why you seem to skew toward the titles that started taking more of a COD cue in the design of some maps, making them much smaller and less all aspect warfare that is the bread and butter of a Battlefield game, to the point of having literally no vehicles in them at all. I started with '42 and put most of my hours in any BF game into BF2. Even with that huge player base, Strike at Karkand was frequently popping up, and then when it was remade it popped up a lot again. BF games need to stop bringing back maps that were overplayed from previous games and putting them into main rotations of new ones because then we see barely anything of the new maps, the very same ones people were screaming to be improved, and which have and are being. Except we're barely getting to see them outside of the first week or so because they keep swapping the default back to the smaller Exodus Conquest where constant server restarts after matches have you playing the same old BF3/BC2 maps over and over.
If there was a server browser and people could run their own servers probably 90% of them would be 2000 ticket Metro/Locker servers because it feels like the majority don't want a proper BF experience, they just want to fluff their KDR like the streamers do.
I dont believe i skewed to anything. My position is everything should be available and each individual should be able to choose what they want.
The position you argued for is to take something away to coerce others into playing the maps you want them to play.
I am an advocate of personal freedom. You play your way I'll play mine
@Psubond My position is that new content shouldn't be sacrificed for old content because you don't like change, and DICE needs to stop listening to people who keep pushing them to basically revert back to old things as if it'll improve the game when it most likely won't. Those classes people kept clamouring for? Not going to improve the game. Probably won't bring anyone back either, but they will instead limit the game. People constantly crying out for new content and then go and play old stuff anyway. Its this wishy-washy, dancing all over the place nonsense that pulls the developer every which way to the point everything gets watered down.
Also yeah, you did skew. You favour maps that are among the least of the 'Battlefield' in the grand scheme of all BF maps. Corridor shooter.
Let me get this straight you think they should quit introducing "legacy" maps because YOU don't want them?
You're against server browsers and rental servers due to the fact that some people will be running maps and modes that players actually want to play because YOU don't want to play them?
Sorry skippy but I am with @Psubond on this one, let people decide where, when and with who they want to play with.
And just for the record, I rarely play the Exodus playlist (I like 128 player Conquest) and I loathe Metrro/Locker but a good number of players do so I am all for having the Exodus playlist as well as an updated Metro/Locker added.
It just comes off sounding a little selfish to be so animatedly against them doing or adding stuff that a majority of players want?
@Ironhead841 Majority of players, or just the ones that shout the loudest? I remember previous games undergoing severe changes because the 'majority' wanted something and yelled about it.
If you go back and read, you'll see I said legacy content, bar weapons, should be restricted to Portal. That was Portal's purpose.
I also didn't say I was against a server browser, so maybe cool your jets on that one, bub, and read again. I said combining hypothetical legacy maps such as Metro with server control would result in a million Metro servers, as we saw in previous titles, because players aren't there to actually play a Battlefield game as it should be, they want to play point farming servers, which is why teamwork across the series in years since it started trying to siphon off COD players became worse and worse.
Maybe I think its selfish for a vocal bunch to always get what they want, while those who want something new and different get shafted?
