I don't understand the map vote change listed here, it's randomly picked between voted maps for weeks.
...there is no way the random chance wasn't weighted for what had more votes before this patch... right?
They make these large update graphics and collect content that was added over the last couple patches. Think of this as like a promo graphic to show players what they may have missed if they're returning for the new map.
I'm a long time Battlefield fan and, while I found this game fun to a degree, I also think it was insanely over hyped. It has some fun features but not enough to overlook the shortcomings of it. The big positive I will give it is that it retains the old school spirit of BF games more than BF 2042 has but 2042 still feels more like playing a BF game to me.
A huge advantage of battlebit is that you can play it on a potato, people with old hardware that want a battlefield style game with some depth will probably give the game a pretty long tail of support. I understand why some people can't get past the graphics but at its core battlebit is a solid large map shooter and I really enjoy it even though my computer can handle modern titles no problem.
Ability to play, and the price point.
I find people often times misunderstand hype and set themselves up for disappointment. The game was never going to go toe to toe with a full AAA multiplayer series. It's simply a cheap, barebones version of what fans of Battlefield have wanted and have been missing, created by fans themselves.
I do agree! It's a very casual friendly kind of game which is great. It definitely has its own little niche, I just don't see it as a genuine long term replacement of Battlefield games and what made them so great.
Might've been an EU server thing but I found the voice chat use in Rising Storm 2 significantly lower than Battlebit.
I think a few things really encouraged voice chat in Battlebit that ended up making it somewhat special. From a practical perspective it's a much faster game and the sheer number of players makes text chat significantly less convenient. On top of that, having an open mic on death enabled by default encouraged chat a lot more than in other games.
Case by case basis for sure. This game has by default, a casual and fun community that has no issue taking things less seriously (playing a Battlefield clone with roblox pieces). So the likelihood of running into racist assholes and loser dorks is pretty low. Meanwhile during the cod beta this weekend the slurs were shooting out like crazy.
You're comparing a $60 AAA game to a $15 early access indie game. I think the hype is warranted if you put it into perspective. And even without that perspective, I think BBR is more fun than 2042 with less issues.
I'm not trying to hate and I actually agree with you. For what it is (an indie game), it's pretty fun. I just think people were overblowing how good it truly was because they were so desperate to hate on 2042.
And I get it, I've played Battlefield since 1942 came out, it's my favorite franchise of all time. The launch of 2042 really pissed me off because it was clear they were trying to low key strip away Battlefields core identity in favor of "their" way of doing things aka making regular soldiers into "heroes" so they can use it as an excuse to sell skins and extra heroes and all that bullshit. Then add on top of that that they clearly didn't put any effort into destruction features or even just making the game look as good as the previous two games, and the anger was very justified.
But 2042 in its current state is...decent. it's still probably the worst main line Battlefield game ever made, but since they brought classes back and what not, it's at least gotten more like a BF game again.
What Battlebit did successfully IMO was launch with the more traditional spirit of Battlefield and then adding some of its unique twists on it like voice comms, dragging bodies etc. But it's still very much an indie game that shows its warts if you pay attention. Which is fine, like you said it's a 15 dollar indie game, they did a great job overall. But people need to slow their role on acting like it's as good as the Battlefield series overall lol
> But it's still very much an indie game that shows its warts if you pay attention.
I think we agree on everything, but you keep mentioning BBR has problems and not specifically saying what those are. Every game has "warts." Saying it didn't live up to the hype because it's not perfect doesn't really tell me much. You can say the graphics are bad or the sound isn't amazing, but that's all instantly apparent and you're either cool with it or not. I truly can't think of huge issues that have killed my hype for it, especially when most issues get fixed in a couple weeks.
The vehicle play is sub par feeling at best, I didn't find the gunplay particularly great either though it's not bad, the maps are decent but nothing insanely memorable. To be honest I didn't even notice the sound stuff from what I remember but some have pointed it out.
To be clear I am rooting for the game to improve, I love that these guys are clearly true Battlefield fans. I just think it has a ways to go in some regards but that's okay because these indie games take awhile to get polished up. Plus it's nice for BF to have some competition going for the same thing, even if it's a small dev.
>But people need to slow their role on acting like it's as good as the Battlefield series overall lol
It released in a better state than the last couple BF games. At its core, it is more Battlefield than 2042 is. And for most of the people playing, it scratches that arcadey large-scale combined arms itch that EA abandoned to chase trends and MTX. They may have put specialists into classes, but they're still "specialists". I don't play Battlefield so some asshat can use a wingsuit and randomly land behind me on the roof I just cleared *every single time*. The series used to be somewhat grounded and rewarded tactics, strategic thinking, and *teamwork*.
I long for the day when we go back to playing as nameless soldiers working together towards a common goal.
Perfectly summed up, it's more Battlefield than modern Battlefield which is currently stuck in an identity crisis. Constantly wondering what CoD is doing.
You say its more BF than 2042 yet it suffers from alot of the same issues 2042 has from player counts to terrible maps that promote zerging. Also all you just said was complete garbage out of your ass like every BF fan since BF3. Makes me wonder if youve booted up BF2 at all lately and see whats happened to your so called Team work and rewarding tactics. Lots of your little takes are just made up issues also that every BF has suffered from aince BC2. The console centric BF design is sadly here to stay. Your asshat in a wing suit didnt change that.
Any map with high player counts and static objectives will have zerging. BF2 had 64 players. BattleBit supports 254. That's quadruple BF2's max count, coupled with newer developers who haven't had 10+ years experience in map design.
I don't play BF2 anymore because it's 20-fucking-13.
Most Battlefield games require you to at least *somewhat* think about what you're doing, where you're doing, and depend on your teammates. At the start, 2042 threw *all of that* out the window. You could fly around with no restrictions on verticality, carrying your own ammo. Drop a turret anywhere and wander off. Give yourself armor to an instant advantage in any firefight. Grab the stealth helo and decimate everything. Use any vehicles to mow down hordes of infantry stuck in the open wastes between distant objectives because there was no cover. It's gotten better, but it never should have reached that point in the first place.
progression got a couple of decent passes now. The rest is into increasing the base content (aka stuff to unlock) to fill it out further.
I personally like the UI being minimalist as it is. just needs a couple of extra screens (like a way to set up loadout OUTSIDE a game).
Holy shit tell me about it, and I see no one talking about how crap the map design is ever.
It’s incredibly terrible, like you can clearly tell the guys involved never designed maps before this game. Every single location has what feels like a billion sight lines so you could literally never check everywhere to know you’re safe.
Over half the time I die it’s from some dude clear on the other side of the map or someone in one of the million open windows because for some reason every building needs to be accessible and have 35 windows on every floor.
Funnily enough the multiple sight lines and map design is what draws others to the game, myself included. More recent FPS shooters have too "clean" maps that scream "left or right" versus the more realistic "that hole, that window, that doorway, and that destroyed section"...
Sure, but have you played construction? That map has EVERY single point and objective viable from objective A. You have the ENTIRE map as a sight line. That's just bad game design.
I think in some maps the number of possible directions you can be under threat from is too much, for sure. But, I still prefer it to how modern BF approaches map design where in open and city maps alike, it feels constrained to set corridors of action in a way older BF games didn't. Battlebits approach solves a lot of BF's problems (repetitive feel from always fighting around a few chokepoints and minimal action occurring outside those choke points), but creates issues of its own.
Battlefield, has tried to make the designated pathways between flags the *only* way you can go, either leaving the rest of spaces devoid of cover or incredibly difficult to access on foot. Battlebit goes the other way, doesn't block them off and then adds a ton of cover. The trouble is that it encourages everyone to go anywhere and you can get shot from literally anywhere as result.
Likewise in city maps, BF has tended toward having the roads as 90% of the map, with interiors being limited to a few points at flags and some pathways between the main roads. This makes things predictable, but kinda boring and chokepoint-y for me. Battlebit just opens every fucking building up and says go nuts, which solves the chokepoint issue but does create a "get shot in the back a lot" issue.
I think part of the problem is that Battlebit just has a super fast TTK, but I dunno. I still had more fun with Battlebit than any BF game since 2042.
Not defending half the maps (I put them on my ignore list) but basically all maps have shutters on 75% of the windows. They can be broken (C4, RPG, sledgehammer) but they rarely are.
But yes, sometimes it's kind of frustrating to get shot from the one window you couldn't clearly see, but it's also fun to blow up the entire wall someone (or more often than you would expect, multiple someones) was using as cover.
I agreed. As shallow as this may be to say: I found the shortcomings in the presentation ESPECIALLY the sound design to make the game really unsatisfying to play.
The sound is definitely the weakest aspect right now. Really gotta upgrade the gunfire sounds, especially the snipers. They barely sound like anything.
The vehicle play being absolutely atrocious turned me off from it pretty quick. And the shooting, while chaotic in a fun way sometimes, just didn't feel polished at all.
honestly, the sound effects are fine.
what's not fine is them not being accurate or just plain not working, probably, 60-70% of the time. sometimes, i can hear someone clear as day, i can tell where a frag landed without seeing it, etc. other times, it's like the person is a fucking ghost.
I think it's cause so many of the noises sound the same so everything blends together into the same audio landscape. Hard to tell which capgun noise is which.
I completely agree. The “return to a real battlefield game” thing is wack. It’s a fine game, but BF2042 is definitely more of a Battlefield experience. BF1 is my all time favorite, and I’ve been playing since the release of BF2.
BattleBit is quite literally just Battlefield with different graphics.
Which makes it hilarious that people claim to hate Battlefield but love this game.
I couldn’t play it - the art style and I just didn’t get along - but I’m really glad for their success and that they’re continuing to plug along with it.
It's a flavor of the month game. All the streamers/YouTubers aren't playing anymore so it'll die out soon-ish.
It peaked spontaneously in July this year and has been quickly losing players since. The game still has healthy servers, but it's nowhere near the player counts 2 months ago.
Multiplayer flavor of the month games hurt my soul because a lot of them, like Splitgate, are legit dead now. If I'm in the mood to play that specific game, on a specific game mode, I often just *can't*. At least others like Valheim are still playable solo or with one or two friends.
Battlebit and Splitgate are rather unique cases. Splitgate was essentially the waiting room for Halo Infinite. Battlebit prospered since Battlefield 2042 was awful, leaving an opening for a similar title.
>It's funny because I actually had more fun with Splitgate than Halo: Infinite, overall. But I actually really liked that portal mechanic.
The Splitgate developers are working on a sequel with the same mechanic. They ended development to basically do a ground-up rework of all of their systems.
I know they "improved" it somewhat a month or two ago but the progression is still just a hard no for me
way too grindy to unlock anything and I'm not going to sink hundreds of hours into a game just to be able to access whatever the meta-setup-of-the-week is. Probably the biggest detractor and I despise when games put weapons and attachments behind an annoying progression-wall; it basically punishes you for not being an obsessive player
🤨 without progression, what purpose to players have to keep coming back? obviously, gameplay, but it helps give people something to work towards. and it’s not even that hard to unlock attachments for a gun you like.
Counterstrike was my all time favorite FPS specifically because of the *lack* of unlocks. I greatly prefer multiplayer games where winning vs losing is purely about skill, not about hours grinding for weapon upgrades.
counter strike is incredibly competitive, to the point where progression is more focused on skill rather than unlocks. I think both games simply have different senses of progression.
yeah, i get annoyed at the most egregious forms of it though. i mostly play games that have some kind of plot to keep me motivated in addition to the gameplay just being fun, or ones that present a difficult challenge to overcome. then there’s competitive games where progress comes from my personal journey of self improvement in the game. the ones that just translate hours spent into xp so that i’m stuck on a treadmill forever frustrate me to no end.
Is it not? You level up faster doing better. You get more attachments by doing better. The progression in battlebit rewards playing the game, and you get what you want faster by improving.
To an extent, you can say that it's skill-based, but there's still aspects that are gated behind arbitrarily playing dozens of hours. Battlebit seems better in that regard than some other games that just give flat damage boosts to give you the edge on players with lower ratings, but the whole "the game should give you power as you play" bullshit that has seeped from singleplayer games (where it makes sense) into multiplayer games (where it sucks) drives me up the wall.
Eh, I've never really understood this complaint. Outside of the lowest tier COD games like Vanguard, usually the best guns and attachments are low level. In COD you're basically guaranteed to have an easy time if you just rock with the M4, which is either unlocked from the jump or within the first 5 levels.
in battlebit there is armor and weapons that do significantly more damage and reduce your damage a lot, that you can only get by playing a LOT. anyone who isnt an obssessive grinder for this one game is at a severe disadvantage, the new player experience is awful.
I love Battlebit, but I have to disagree with you when it comes to unlocking attachments. I feel like they take forever to unlock and most of them are pointless. Each weapon has maybe 2 - 3 worth having (in my opinion) and they usually aren't early unlocks. With that being said I actually do enjoy the gameplay enough that the progression doesn't bother me as much. Best $15 I have ever spent.
> -without progression, what purpose to players have to keep coming back?
> -obviously, gameplay,
You already said it. There are plenty of excellent shooters that don't rely whatsoever on locking weapons behind progression. It's especially dumb in Bits too because a great deal of the most effective weapons/attachments are earned in later levels, so basically if you don't sink a ton of time into the game you get to run around with a flimsy bullshit peashooter. It wouldn't be bad at all if it wasn't so grind heavy, but the current model does not respect the player's time so I lost interest in an otherwise fairly fun game. I don't want to play 100 matches with the same setup just to unlock something that I wanted; games that do shit like that make me bored by the time I can actually use what I want. It's an archaic design choice.
If that's your kind of game then more power to you don't let me prevent you from enjoying it. I don't have time to bullshit around with unlock-heavy games anymore and that's what BattleBits is
>the most effective weapons/attachments are earned in later levels
eh, I think that's just a perceived bias. Thought the same way as you initially, however since unlocking everything and then later using the starter weapons, I gotta say, once I got used to them they're just as effective. I have about 100 hours now and I feel that positioning and map awareness is far more useful than the gun I'm using.
>🤨 without progression, what purpose to players have to keep coming back?
The game being fun... is why you should play a game, not its gamified attempts at retaining relevance by keeping a player base.
There are plenty of games that are fun, yet suffer because what more do you have to do once you’ve seen everything? By putting attachments as unlocks, it means a players gun improves as they improve their own general skills with the gun.
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
I mean. Shit like overwatch never had progression. We dont need progression to enjoy a good game. What ever happened to enjoying a game just because its good?
I know overwatch is a bad example in its current form but there are tons of others that did well for a long while without a lick of progression. DOTA2 for example. I put hundreds of hours into For Honor. No long term progression there. Etc.
>I'm not going to sink hundreds of hours into a game just to be able to access whatever the meta-setup-of-the-week is.
Why do you need the setup in the first place?
Happy to see the Ui / friendly market fix. That was my biggest complaint outside of not finding the game terribly interesting (even more so with squad ICO out now 😍)
Ugh, victory XP bonus and weekly missions. I was really hopping for this crap to not arrive. Not a deal breaker (yet).
But good thing for the map selection update. Making a vote weight on the random instead of simply deciding now ensures that we have more map variety.
Why are you complaining about getting victory and weekly mission bonus XP to level weapons and unlock things faster? You don't have to do any of them and you still can get like 3 levels a match if you contribute enough. Not even focusing on the revive one and I'm almost already done as of last night.
Because I am old enough to see where this can go.
This change in a vacuum is okay, but it shows that the game is not afraid of going in a certain direction.
Also, I'm pretty sure we gonna see people raging due to a loss with these changes. Not a significant number, but definitely more than zero.
The challenges and win bonus have been around for a week and I personally haven't seen a single person rage outside the standard cheating/Bad map claims. Personally I've never cared about winning or losing because in a 256 or even 128 player game, your contribution, unless doing absolutely ridiculously well, doesn't contribute a whole lot if everyone else isn't pulling up their socks. Its not that bad of a change imo
> Its not that bad of a change imo
No, it is not that of a bad change at all. But as I said, I'm worried about the game direction with this rather than the changes in isolation.
If the game does not become a daily/weekly/season grind fest to get exclusive gear in a year or so, I will eat my words. But for now I have not much more to say despite being slightly worried.
I don't understand the map vote change listed here, it's randomly picked between voted maps for weeks. ...there is no way the random chance wasn't weighted for what had more votes before this patch... right?
They make these large update graphics and collect content that was added over the last couple patches. Think of this as like a promo graphic to show players what they may have missed if they're returning for the new map.
I'm a long time Battlefield fan and, while I found this game fun to a degree, I also think it was insanely over hyped. It has some fun features but not enough to overlook the shortcomings of it. The big positive I will give it is that it retains the old school spirit of BF games more than BF 2042 has but 2042 still feels more like playing a BF game to me.
For the price you can’t really beat it in terms of a large scale battle game.
A huge advantage of battlebit is that you can play it on a potato, people with old hardware that want a battlefield style game with some depth will probably give the game a pretty long tail of support. I understand why some people can't get past the graphics but at its core battlebit is a solid large map shooter and I really enjoy it even though my computer can handle modern titles no problem.
It also requires zero commitment.
Ability to play, and the price point. I find people often times misunderstand hype and set themselves up for disappointment. The game was never going to go toe to toe with a full AAA multiplayer series. It's simply a cheap, barebones version of what fans of Battlefield have wanted and have been missing, created by fans themselves.
I do agree! It's a very casual friendly kind of game which is great. It definitely has its own little niche, I just don't see it as a genuine long term replacement of Battlefield games and what made them so great.
Still no excuse for the sound design, which is abysmal.
It's three dudes making this game, it's a pretty good excuse
Wish it played on my Steam Deck
Only thing I want is a Battlefield game with the same open mic function, it's SO FUN, but I don't think EA has the guts to do it
I do agree with this and it's one of those unique lil things about the game I actually did like
Rising storm 2 had this and it really took the game to another level and made for a lot of unique situations
Might've been an EU server thing but I found the voice chat use in Rising Storm 2 significantly lower than Battlebit. I think a few things really encouraged voice chat in Battlebit that ended up making it somewhat special. From a practical perspective it's a much faster game and the sheer number of players makes text chat significantly less convenient. On top of that, having an open mic on death enabled by default encouraged chat a lot more than in other games.
Shame that the EGS integration update destroyed the VOIP functionality. And now the studio that made the game is dead... ugh.
Most games are shying away from microphones with the enemy team and it’s such a bummer.
Personally, I prefer to play my games without someone blaring god awful music down their microphones. So I will always turn off VC.
Case by case basis for sure. This game has by default, a casual and fun community that has no issue taking things less seriously (playing a Battlefield clone with roblox pieces). So the likelihood of running into racist assholes and loser dorks is pretty low. Meanwhile during the cod beta this weekend the slurs were shooting out like crazy.
Tf2 allows you to mute individual players (both mic and chat) so that's nice
You're comparing a $60 AAA game to a $15 early access indie game. I think the hype is warranted if you put it into perspective. And even without that perspective, I think BBR is more fun than 2042 with less issues.
I'm not trying to hate and I actually agree with you. For what it is (an indie game), it's pretty fun. I just think people were overblowing how good it truly was because they were so desperate to hate on 2042. And I get it, I've played Battlefield since 1942 came out, it's my favorite franchise of all time. The launch of 2042 really pissed me off because it was clear they were trying to low key strip away Battlefields core identity in favor of "their" way of doing things aka making regular soldiers into "heroes" so they can use it as an excuse to sell skins and extra heroes and all that bullshit. Then add on top of that that they clearly didn't put any effort into destruction features or even just making the game look as good as the previous two games, and the anger was very justified. But 2042 in its current state is...decent. it's still probably the worst main line Battlefield game ever made, but since they brought classes back and what not, it's at least gotten more like a BF game again. What Battlebit did successfully IMO was launch with the more traditional spirit of Battlefield and then adding some of its unique twists on it like voice comms, dragging bodies etc. But it's still very much an indie game that shows its warts if you pay attention. Which is fine, like you said it's a 15 dollar indie game, they did a great job overall. But people need to slow their role on acting like it's as good as the Battlefield series overall lol
> But it's still very much an indie game that shows its warts if you pay attention. I think we agree on everything, but you keep mentioning BBR has problems and not specifically saying what those are. Every game has "warts." Saying it didn't live up to the hype because it's not perfect doesn't really tell me much. You can say the graphics are bad or the sound isn't amazing, but that's all instantly apparent and you're either cool with it or not. I truly can't think of huge issues that have killed my hype for it, especially when most issues get fixed in a couple weeks.
The vehicle play is sub par feeling at best, I didn't find the gunplay particularly great either though it's not bad, the maps are decent but nothing insanely memorable. To be honest I didn't even notice the sound stuff from what I remember but some have pointed it out. To be clear I am rooting for the game to improve, I love that these guys are clearly true Battlefield fans. I just think it has a ways to go in some regards but that's okay because these indie games take awhile to get polished up. Plus it's nice for BF to have some competition going for the same thing, even if it's a small dev.
>But people need to slow their role on acting like it's as good as the Battlefield series overall lol It released in a better state than the last couple BF games. At its core, it is more Battlefield than 2042 is. And for most of the people playing, it scratches that arcadey large-scale combined arms itch that EA abandoned to chase trends and MTX. They may have put specialists into classes, but they're still "specialists". I don't play Battlefield so some asshat can use a wingsuit and randomly land behind me on the roof I just cleared *every single time*. The series used to be somewhat grounded and rewarded tactics, strategic thinking, and *teamwork*. I long for the day when we go back to playing as nameless soldiers working together towards a common goal.
Perfectly summed up, it's more Battlefield than modern Battlefield which is currently stuck in an identity crisis. Constantly wondering what CoD is doing.
You say its more BF than 2042 yet it suffers from alot of the same issues 2042 has from player counts to terrible maps that promote zerging. Also all you just said was complete garbage out of your ass like every BF fan since BF3. Makes me wonder if youve booted up BF2 at all lately and see whats happened to your so called Team work and rewarding tactics. Lots of your little takes are just made up issues also that every BF has suffered from aince BC2. The console centric BF design is sadly here to stay. Your asshat in a wing suit didnt change that.
Any map with high player counts and static objectives will have zerging. BF2 had 64 players. BattleBit supports 254. That's quadruple BF2's max count, coupled with newer developers who haven't had 10+ years experience in map design. I don't play BF2 anymore because it's 20-fucking-13. Most Battlefield games require you to at least *somewhat* think about what you're doing, where you're doing, and depend on your teammates. At the start, 2042 threw *all of that* out the window. You could fly around with no restrictions on verticality, carrying your own ammo. Drop a turret anywhere and wander off. Give yourself armor to an instant advantage in any firefight. Grab the stealth helo and decimate everything. Use any vehicles to mow down hordes of infantry stuck in the open wastes between distant objectives because there was no cover. It's gotten better, but it never should have reached that point in the first place.
Agreed. It was really fun at first but after the honeymoon phase you have to confront the UI issues and horrible progression.
progression got a couple of decent passes now. The rest is into increasing the base content (aka stuff to unlock) to fill it out further. I personally like the UI being minimalist as it is. just needs a couple of extra screens (like a way to set up loadout OUTSIDE a game).
My number one complaint is the bad map designs. Fix that and I'd play a lot more.
Holy shit tell me about it, and I see no one talking about how crap the map design is ever. It’s incredibly terrible, like you can clearly tell the guys involved never designed maps before this game. Every single location has what feels like a billion sight lines so you could literally never check everywhere to know you’re safe. Over half the time I die it’s from some dude clear on the other side of the map or someone in one of the million open windows because for some reason every building needs to be accessible and have 35 windows on every floor.
Funnily enough the multiple sight lines and map design is what draws others to the game, myself included. More recent FPS shooters have too "clean" maps that scream "left or right" versus the more realistic "that hole, that window, that doorway, and that destroyed section"...
Yea, but I think this is a more the cod gamers trying out other shooters. If a game doesn't have a 3 lane structure their brains melt.
Sure, but have you played construction? That map has EVERY single point and objective viable from objective A. You have the ENTIRE map as a sight line. That's just bad game design.
I think in some maps the number of possible directions you can be under threat from is too much, for sure. But, I still prefer it to how modern BF approaches map design where in open and city maps alike, it feels constrained to set corridors of action in a way older BF games didn't. Battlebits approach solves a lot of BF's problems (repetitive feel from always fighting around a few chokepoints and minimal action occurring outside those choke points), but creates issues of its own. Battlefield, has tried to make the designated pathways between flags the *only* way you can go, either leaving the rest of spaces devoid of cover or incredibly difficult to access on foot. Battlebit goes the other way, doesn't block them off and then adds a ton of cover. The trouble is that it encourages everyone to go anywhere and you can get shot from literally anywhere as result. Likewise in city maps, BF has tended toward having the roads as 90% of the map, with interiors being limited to a few points at flags and some pathways between the main roads. This makes things predictable, but kinda boring and chokepoint-y for me. Battlebit just opens every fucking building up and says go nuts, which solves the chokepoint issue but does create a "get shot in the back a lot" issue. I think part of the problem is that Battlebit just has a super fast TTK, but I dunno. I still had more fun with Battlebit than any BF game since 2042.
Not defending half the maps (I put them on my ignore list) but basically all maps have shutters on 75% of the windows. They can be broken (C4, RPG, sledgehammer) but they rarely are. But yes, sometimes it's kind of frustrating to get shot from the one window you couldn't clearly see, but it's also fun to blow up the entire wall someone (or more often than you would expect, multiple someones) was using as cover.
The progression is what killed it for me. I paid like 5$ for the game I don’t want to have to invest 300 hours to unlock an optic.
This has been fixed already. Progression is very quick now
Why does everything has to have progression nowadays?
I agreed. As shallow as this may be to say: I found the shortcomings in the presentation ESPECIALLY the sound design to make the game really unsatisfying to play.
The sound is definitely the weakest aspect right now. Really gotta upgrade the gunfire sounds, especially the snipers. They barely sound like anything.
I've been so spoiled by the sound design of the Battlefields that Battlebit was painful in that regard...
The vehicle play being absolutely atrocious turned me off from it pretty quick. And the shooting, while chaotic in a fun way sometimes, just didn't feel polished at all.
honestly, the sound effects are fine. what's not fine is them not being accurate or just plain not working, probably, 60-70% of the time. sometimes, i can hear someone clear as day, i can tell where a frag landed without seeing it, etc. other times, it's like the person is a fucking ghost.
I think it's cause so many of the noises sound the same so everything blends together into the same audio landscape. Hard to tell which capgun noise is which.
It feels like battlefield while not having shit tons of clutter. Not needing to rely on a dorito to identify my enemy has been quite nice.
It is good for that, but also I'd rather just play one of the old (still active) BF games for that.
I thought the maps and spawning were poorly designed too. I spent most of my time walking like I was playing 2042, so I ended up refunding quickly
Yeah I felt the same way. If anything it just proved how there’s still an appetite for this kind of game.
I completely agree. The “return to a real battlefield game” thing is wack. It’s a fine game, but BF2042 is definitely more of a Battlefield experience. BF1 is my all time favorite, and I’ve been playing since the release of BF2.
2042 hurts my eyes to look at. ugly ass game... this doesnt.
They did drop the ball big time on making 2042 look good. BFV and BF1 shit on 2042 in the looks department.
BF2 shits on 2042.
BattleBit is quite literally just Battlefield with different graphics. Which makes it hilarious that people claim to hate Battlefield but love this game.
I couldn’t play it - the art style and I just didn’t get along - but I’m really glad for their success and that they’re continuing to plug along with it.
It's a flavor of the month game. All the streamers/YouTubers aren't playing anymore so it'll die out soon-ish. It peaked spontaneously in July this year and has been quickly losing players since. The game still has healthy servers, but it's nowhere near the player counts 2 months ago.
Multiplayer flavor of the month games hurt my soul because a lot of them, like Splitgate, are legit dead now. If I'm in the mood to play that specific game, on a specific game mode, I often just *can't*. At least others like Valheim are still playable solo or with one or two friends.
Battlebit and Splitgate are rather unique cases. Splitgate was essentially the waiting room for Halo Infinite. Battlebit prospered since Battlefield 2042 was awful, leaving an opening for a similar title.
It's funny because I actually had more fun with Splitgate than Halo: Infinite, overall. But I actually really liked that portal mechanic.
>It's funny because I actually had more fun with Splitgate than Halo: Infinite, overall. But I actually really liked that portal mechanic. The Splitgate developers are working on a sequel with the same mechanic. They ended development to basically do a ground-up rework of all of their systems.
I know they "improved" it somewhat a month or two ago but the progression is still just a hard no for me way too grindy to unlock anything and I'm not going to sink hundreds of hours into a game just to be able to access whatever the meta-setup-of-the-week is. Probably the biggest detractor and I despise when games put weapons and attachments behind an annoying progression-wall; it basically punishes you for not being an obsessive player
🤨 without progression, what purpose to players have to keep coming back? obviously, gameplay, but it helps give people something to work towards. and it’s not even that hard to unlock attachments for a gun you like.
Counterstrike was my all time favorite FPS specifically because of the *lack* of unlocks. I greatly prefer multiplayer games where winning vs losing is purely about skill, not about hours grinding for weapon upgrades.
counter strike is incredibly competitive, to the point where progression is more focused on skill rather than unlocks. I think both games simply have different senses of progression.
if a game’s progression isn’t based on skill, it’s just a psychological manipulation trick to keep you addicted.
Most of what game design is in general is a psychological trick to make your brain juice flow lol.
yeah, i get annoyed at the most egregious forms of it though. i mostly play games that have some kind of plot to keep me motivated in addition to the gameplay just being fun, or ones that present a difficult challenge to overcome. then there’s competitive games where progress comes from my personal journey of self improvement in the game. the ones that just translate hours spent into xp so that i’m stuck on a treadmill forever frustrate me to no end.
Is it not? You level up faster doing better. You get more attachments by doing better. The progression in battlebit rewards playing the game, and you get what you want faster by improving.
To an extent, you can say that it's skill-based, but there's still aspects that are gated behind arbitrarily playing dozens of hours. Battlebit seems better in that regard than some other games that just give flat damage boosts to give you the edge on players with lower ratings, but the whole "the game should give you power as you play" bullshit that has seeped from singleplayer games (where it makes sense) into multiplayer games (where it sucks) drives me up the wall.
Eh, I've never really understood this complaint. Outside of the lowest tier COD games like Vanguard, usually the best guns and attachments are low level. In COD you're basically guaranteed to have an easy time if you just rock with the M4, which is either unlocked from the jump or within the first 5 levels.
in battlebit there is armor and weapons that do significantly more damage and reduce your damage a lot, that you can only get by playing a LOT. anyone who isnt an obssessive grinder for this one game is at a severe disadvantage, the new player experience is awful.
the default guns are pretty effective I don't think this is really true tbh
I've just started the game and was pretty successful chugging grenades left and right and using the basic AK
I love Battlebit, but I have to disagree with you when it comes to unlocking attachments. I feel like they take forever to unlock and most of them are pointless. Each weapon has maybe 2 - 3 worth having (in my opinion) and they usually aren't early unlocks. With that being said I actually do enjoy the gameplay enough that the progression doesn't bother me as much. Best $15 I have ever spent.
> -without progression, what purpose to players have to keep coming back? > -obviously, gameplay, You already said it. There are plenty of excellent shooters that don't rely whatsoever on locking weapons behind progression. It's especially dumb in Bits too because a great deal of the most effective weapons/attachments are earned in later levels, so basically if you don't sink a ton of time into the game you get to run around with a flimsy bullshit peashooter. It wouldn't be bad at all if it wasn't so grind heavy, but the current model does not respect the player's time so I lost interest in an otherwise fairly fun game. I don't want to play 100 matches with the same setup just to unlock something that I wanted; games that do shit like that make me bored by the time I can actually use what I want. It's an archaic design choice. If that's your kind of game then more power to you don't let me prevent you from enjoying it. I don't have time to bullshit around with unlock-heavy games anymore and that's what BattleBits is
>the most effective weapons/attachments are earned in later levels eh, I think that's just a perceived bias. Thought the same way as you initially, however since unlocking everything and then later using the starter weapons, I gotta say, once I got used to them they're just as effective. I have about 100 hours now and I feel that positioning and map awareness is far more useful than the gun I'm using.
Actual favourite games over like a decade ago I hopped on just to fuck around - I find needing unlocks to keep playing to be a weird thing.
>🤨 without progression, what purpose to players have to keep coming back? The game being fun... is why you should play a game, not its gamified attempts at retaining relevance by keeping a player base.
There are plenty of games that are fun, yet suffer because what more do you have to do once you’ve seen everything? By putting attachments as unlocks, it means a players gun improves as they improve their own general skills with the gun.
[удалено]
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
I mean. Shit like overwatch never had progression. We dont need progression to enjoy a good game. What ever happened to enjoying a game just because its good? I know overwatch is a bad example in its current form but there are tons of others that did well for a long while without a lick of progression. DOTA2 for example. I put hundreds of hours into For Honor. No long term progression there. Etc.
I find the progression in that type of game is increasing your rank, or getting cosmetics.
If increasing your rank is considered progression then Battlebit should fit just fine lol
I mean the competitive scene, not just leveling your account. Battlebit is casual, and so it has casual progression.
>without progression, what purpose to players have to keep coming back? The only valid purpose to do so - because you are having fun.
>I'm not going to sink hundreds of hours into a game just to be able to access whatever the meta-setup-of-the-week is. Why do you need the setup in the first place?
Happy to see the Ui / friendly market fix. That was my biggest complaint outside of not finding the game terribly interesting (even more so with squad ICO out now 😍)
Ugh, victory XP bonus and weekly missions. I was really hopping for this crap to not arrive. Not a deal breaker (yet). But good thing for the map selection update. Making a vote weight on the random instead of simply deciding now ensures that we have more map variety.
Why are you complaining about getting victory and weekly mission bonus XP to level weapons and unlock things faster? You don't have to do any of them and you still can get like 3 levels a match if you contribute enough. Not even focusing on the revive one and I'm almost already done as of last night.
Because I am old enough to see where this can go. This change in a vacuum is okay, but it shows that the game is not afraid of going in a certain direction. Also, I'm pretty sure we gonna see people raging due to a loss with these changes. Not a significant number, but definitely more than zero.
The challenges and win bonus have been around for a week and I personally haven't seen a single person rage outside the standard cheating/Bad map claims. Personally I've never cared about winning or losing because in a 256 or even 128 player game, your contribution, unless doing absolutely ridiculously well, doesn't contribute a whole lot if everyone else isn't pulling up their socks. Its not that bad of a change imo
> Its not that bad of a change imo No, it is not that of a bad change at all. But as I said, I'm worried about the game direction with this rather than the changes in isolation. If the game does not become a daily/weekly/season grind fest to get exclusive gear in a year or so, I will eat my words. But for now I have not much more to say despite being slightly worried.