Health and Body armour
I've seen comment on the next BF as modern setting, and customization of body armour different level and impact on players. This is more a reharshing an order topic of past BF. What if we had 2 ...
Forum Discussion
@DingoKillr I'm not a fan as it changes the established formula and adds another layer for DICE to balance and let's face it, their track record on balancing things doesn't inspire confidence since things go from OP to useless in one patch. It also
@ragnarok013 you seem to oppose any new idea calling them unbalanced.
If games don't evolve they die.
If games don't evolve they die.
@DingoKillr I see how it would appear that way given my recent comments however most of the balance problems prevalent in BF1/5 seem to stem from moving away from the old Battlefield paper/rock/scissors balancing.
@DingoKillr wrote:
@ragnarok013 you seem to oppose any new idea calling them unbalanced.
If games don't evolve they die.
I think for the next entry they need to stop, center themselves, go back to what made Battlefield fun and successful and then once they’ve recaptured the magic and rebuilt trust with the playerbase then look into further innovation. One can’t accurately troubleshoot and triage a problem on the move when you’re constantly changing everything.In essence I like innovation that improves a process or corrects a deficiency but “innovation for innovation’s” sake is usually a bad thing changing things that don’t need to be changed which usually has unintended follow on effects.
- @DingoKillr Prolonging the average "lifetime" of players can be done by other means (reduce sniping, better balancing of vehicles/infantry, better visibility, fixing the broken sound etc etc.).
You are meant to die often in BF-games, this is a part of the 'flow' in the gameplay.
If gunfights gets longer (due to armor raising TTK), the PTFOing will be much harder and it will probably make the gameplay much slower overall. Personally I think this would be bad for the game.- @cso7777 I will try to explain better if a gun that does 34 damage per bullet would need 3 bullets to kill now. With the suggested armour it would be 3 bullets to kill but instead of 34 for both armour and health it is still 34. Thus the same TTK. It is your ability to heal to 100% is the difference.
Without quick access to armour repairs TTK would be less.
Even if you changed the 3 BTK to 2x25 for armour and 1x50 health still the same TTK.
TTK is more impacted by bullet speed, spread, recoil and RPM.It just sounds like they are trying to make core BF mechanics the same as (or as near as) the battle royal mode in the hope that this entices people to play (and pay) the battle royale game. It may work a dream BUT, i dont like the idea that they are trying to change the way BF plays to make it more like battle royale. Make changes by all means, but make changes because you think it will make the battlefield experience better, and not in the hope you'll make a few quid from battle royale cosmetics.
@DingoKillr wrote:
@ragnarok013you seem to oppose any new idea calling them unbalanced.
If games don't evolve they die.I would honestly not call deviating from a successful formula a case of evolution.
The most long standing of the successful franchises were at their finest when they were deviating as little as possible from what defined them and made them successful.
Age of Empires 3 deviated from the 3 predecessor games by having the home city mechanic which added another major layer of complexity and more grind. It tanked the franchise and the dev got shut down. Only in the last few years have the loving fans managed to get Microsoft to give the series another go.
Rather than add a layer that is questionable, why not just adjust the TTK of certain weapons/gadgets accordingly?
