AA5 Discussion Thread (Renamed)

17810121368

Comments

  • -[iG]-Leketiskis-[iG]-Leketiskis Posts: 127Player
    I dissagree with many things in recent posts, but I will leave it up for DEV decisions, but one comment about "stop trying to make game competetive" sounds like from guy that never played competetive. Competetive gaming was the thing keeping AAPG active for quite few months in europe. During tournament time there was multiple scrims, matches played, and Player numbers was increasing when live tournament was ongoing. So comp is a must from my view.

    Also plenty videos from PUBG was about dieing behind cover. Some of them is fuked up syns, but there was some when guys were super close to corners. It sometimes feel that even strong players don't know it yet. Your ingame eyes are not on your shoulders, and actually not even on your characters eyes, they are in middle of the head or so. So the closer you are to corner, the bigger chance that you will be spoted by guy further away, before you staert seeing him.
    Old video about it:


    CS has better video about it, but this one is about AAPG, and actually this same thing is in 99% of the games.
  • OICURMT!OICURMT! Posts: 121Beta Tester
    edited August 2018
    Old video about it:

    Great video, great explanation...

    Don't know how many time I've told people that bullets come out of the bridge of the nose... some just don't believe me.

    --

    In life, there is no respawn... why should there be in a game?
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 641Player
    - Cross platform gameplay, port game across to Playstation and Xbox. Its a good marketing ploy and increases the "overall" player base keeping servers popular.
    - Give the console players Auto Aim Assist and lower fidelity game environment so they can keep up with PC gamers.
    This is a question I asked for AAPG awhile back. If there's a way to do it that's fair, it should be done. Someone(doogle?) suggested an ELO system to try to more evenly match PC and console players. I don't know how level you can get the mouse/keyboard vs. controller playing field, but I feel it would be worth the effort.
    - US Army Official Servers should be administered by Beta Testers and not left as the wild west of trolling and hacking.
    If I remember correctly, it's been stated that there are admins around whose goal is to not be seen. I think having more visible admins could be a good deterrent for trolling at least. It would also be good for stopping the obvious hack. I don't necessarily think it has to be the same pool of people as the beta team. A group of dedicated volunteers, perhaps receiving some sort of special training, is probably a better option.
    - Anti cheat be it screenshots, Demo Records, Data Mining statistics all need to be made public and available on any server. No more of that hidden away pushed under the carpet stuff.
    I seem to remember a lot of servers having a public PBSS URL where anyone could go view them. Was this from AA2? Or AAPG? Either way, I like the idea, so long as nothing personally identifying is included in this public data.
    - People found using cheats or macros should be perma banned. Anything that gives you an advantage over others or exploits a flaw in the game is a cheat and you should be perma banned. No questions asked.
    - Since its a free game and bypassing a ban is to easy. I recommend imposing a hardware ban but not like any other hardware ban. My idea is the anti cheat software scans your computer, gets all your devices serial numbers and OS key. Then once you get perma banned and you try and play the game again, If any one of them hardware device serials is detected then your new account is perma banned again. No more "ow ill just restart my modem for a new IP and change my NIC card mac address" to bypass a hardware ban and be undetectable everyone. Make the cheaters buy a whole new computer I don't care, and any computer they share parts with is linked back and banned too.
    I'm not sure of the feasibility of the technical aspects of this.

    For one, I think you have to have a very clear and limited list of things that would get you a permanent ban, and I don't think a macro that someone can set up in their mouse software should be on that list. I would only include things that are 100% blatant so there are no false/accidental bans.

    Also, I'd suggest maybe looking for a combination of say, three, of the same items. If someone has a cheating ban and gives their video card to a friend, it shouldn't ban the friend's whole machine. If it's got three-plus of the same parts, it's more likely to be the same person on the same computer.

    Again, I still feel like people would find ways around this as well.
    - The AA account website is great, has lots of detailed statistics but has one major flaw. It does not allow you to easily extract those account statistics via xml/json.
    - Make the AA accounts website more interactive by allowing people to create or link image signatures (like the old aaotracker days). Its a good way of getting free advertising when people use their AA stats signature in forums.
    These are good ideas.

    There are some issues with the site, though. Some people's time played is bugged. Sometimes the link to check Open Beta stats works, and sometimes it doesn't.

    Perhaps more information could be added. AAOTracker used to have past session/server statistics on your profile as well as current stats if you were playing at the time. I haven't looked at my stats while logged in for awhile. Is there a way to look at stats map-specifically?

    Perhaps if the statistics were made to be easily accessible, someone would make a similar site again in the future.
    - Bring back ingame ping and high ping kicker. I don't care what anyone says, high pingers lag servers and destroy gameplay for others with poor hit detection. It's nothing personal, people just want a good gaming experience is all.
    This is also important. I realize that server admins can see other players' pings and make the decision to let them stay or kick based on that, but other players should be able to see it as well. It can help troubleshoot hit registration or desync issues as well. As he said, the higher someone's ping is, the greater the negative impact on everyone's game play is.
    - Make hosting an Honor server easy by removing any and all registration requirements for server honor. Instead let the Auth Server determine if a server or player is cheating points by either killing everyone in a stupid short period of time or running a custom map that's giving out 1 kill = 10,000 points. Its not hard to administer such a system and would basically be self supporting. Also it encourages people to make custom maps and custom map community servers.
    I believe it's already this way?
    - I know AA tries so hard to be an eSport and has throw a lot of effort into it over the years for little to no benefit. My advice is stop trying, your burning resources best implemented elsewhere. Build the game first, build the player base second, then implement tournament or eSport modes where you have the game and player base to support it..

    I disagree that a lot of effort has been thrown into this over the years. AA2, from what I remember, eventually ended up getting a good tournament mode setup, but competitive players have been largely ignored in AAPG.

    As far as server setup, the fact that you have to restart the server to change any setting is a big negative. Having a tournament mode that would allow for pauses would be a huge improvement to avoid manual scorekeeping and having to manually switch sides if there are issues or for OT. Whether a tournament mode should be included on release depends on where in the process the game is released.

    For starters, though, I think they need to build a game that's better suited for competitive play. I went into more detail in another thread, but they should start by getting rid of cheesy things like suppression effects. The random recoil isn't the worst, but they should remove the exponential increase in recoil as your HP goes down. The server option to disable supported positions was a good addition, but they should be gone from the game entirely.

    Ultimately, the issue is that a lot of the direction of this game seems to be so that even the worst player in the world can get kills. That might make it more appealing for the bad players, but it also creates a lower skill ceiling and is a negative for everyone who isn't terrible. Simply put, make the game harder.
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 641Player
    While the netcode isn't PUBG bad by any means, it could still use some work:

    This looks like a hit to me. You'd have to pixel hunt a miss.


    While this isn't a hit, the bullet also magically goes to the left of where I aimed.




  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,129Player
    edited August 2018
    A map like pipeline could possibly be redone to just make the facility more modern. Maybe instead of turning squeaky wheels, all of the valves are just opened by individual computer terminals. Even more, maybe the assault team could somehow (maybe with the use of their team play points :smiley: ) get a robot that can hack into the computers to complete the objective. See, use of cool Army tech.

    By the way, the more I think of it, the more I think you could use the team play points as a sort of in game economy. Your points can buy your team certain perks at different values. Examples: Unlock sniper or grenadier slot when your team doesn't have enough players or it's not a default slot available in the map. Give your team (or a single player) extra grenades for a round. Give your team (or a single player) a protype weapon that's normally not available. Obviously deploying special gadgets to help accomplish the mission. You can do all sorts of things, get creative. Team play actions equals more currency to obtain game changing items. Teams can save for a bigger game changing unlock or go for smaller tactical unlocks that they can purchase each round. Gives some variability to each round and makes for unpredictable games. It also incentivizes players to complete teamplay actions without forcing it through other mechanics. A team that's losing but doing their duty with their team can use some points at the right time and change the course of the game.

    Also, another thought. I'd love to see DM or TDM mode finally make it. Call it practice or training mode and make people shoot paintballs, pellets, lasers or whatever else to make not look like a real mission.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • AwbeeAwbee Posts: 19Player
    edited August 2018
    I suddenly want the AA3's E-SAPI Armor Plate System. In AA3, If you got hit by chest at front, the plate will block the damage, but it will be destroyed because as IRL counterpart one, It's a ceramic plate.

    In my knowledge, it blocks 1 or 2 bullets. I enjoyed* AA3 a lot, but has many bugs and it's currently deleted on steam.

    Imagine I got shot by someone, but didn't damaged. This is why I loved this game. (I'm a simulation nut.)

    By the way, I love the way that people talk about this topic SERIOUSLY. I often insist that Survival or Semi-Realistic games must be realistic. but some of them didn't litened to me, because they have a dumb-brain with nonsense logics, and thinks my logic is obviously a joke.

    The reason why I keep insist about realistic gameplay, is prevent to inject wrong knowledge about InRealLife things, and provide more exciting gameplay with LDRSHIP.(Or some kind of that, like Team playing)
    A W B E E, _B L U E _ W H E L P L I N G
    C O L D A R R A, _ B O R E A N _ T U N D R A
  • [!ReDRuM!]Damian[!ReDRuM!]Damian Posts: 732Player
    edited August 2018
    I dissagree with many things in recent posts, but I will leave it up for DEV decisions, but one comment about "stop trying to make game competitive" sounds like from guy that never played competitive. Competitive gaming was the thing keeping AAPG active for quite few months in europe. During tournament time there was multiple scrims, matches played, and Player numbers was increasing when live tournament was ongoing. So comp is a must from my view.

    100% correct, in order for games to succeed these days it needs to have some sort of competitive style to it. For example, add a ranked mode. The new Insurgency is also giving us a ranked mode that provides a special icon next to the rank icons so people can see, "oh snapperds I'm playing against a comp player no wonder he wins from me.". However, personally I think AAPG wasn't comp enough if you look at how ESL responded. They looked it had, laughed and turned their heads away from AAPG.

    Awbee wrote: »
    I enjoyied AA3 a lot

    You are the first person I've seen saying that, made me giggle a little.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,129Player
    edited August 2018
    BTW, here's more of how I envision the in-game economy. Players will earn their own points for their own individual team play accomplishments (kills do not earn these points, except maybe objective defense). You could either make their actions earn both individual and fireteam/squad points or just make any earned points go into a pool for the whole team or something similar. If they are pooled then you could have the squad or fireteam leader propose a use of the points and then have the team vote on it in the pre-round period. In a competitive match, the fireteam or squad leader would just have free reign to use points.

    Obviously this can be expanded, removed, or changed as needed, but it's just a few thoughts on how it could work. All items only are active for the current round, they do not carry over to the next round. Certain items would require more points than others, etc. And maybe something like air strikes would be too OP, I can imagine the last round of a match where a team deploys an air strike and knocks out half a team and gets an easy victory. So maybe those types of things that kill guys without skill would be excluded.

    With the prototype weapons, I figure it's a way to get maybe futuristic type weapons into the game that aren't standard issue. Have cool things like grenade launchers that you can program the range at which they blow up (I remember seeing something on this years ago) or similar features. Otherwise, it can just be rifles that have less recoil, spread, etc.
    5zan.jpg
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • AwbeeAwbee Posts: 19Player
    edited August 2018
    Awbee wrote: »
    I enjoyied AA3 a lot

    You are the first person I've seen saying that, made me giggle a little.

    That's because I played AA3 first in all AA series, it has quite a lot of bugs, but still, I loved a lot and had a fun playing on the Airfield map.

    I miss large maps tho.


    A W B E E, _B L U E _ W H E L P L I N G
    C O L D A R R A, _ B O R E A N _ T U N D R A
  • AwbeeAwbee Posts: 19Player
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    With the prototype weapons, I figure it's a way to get maybe futuristic type weapons into the game that aren't standard issue. Have cool things like grenade launchers that you can program the range at which they blow up (I remember seeing something on this years ago) or similar features. Otherwise, it can just be rifles that have less recoil, spread, etc.
    You mean XM25?

    And we want the Army, not a fantasy.. I guess.

    Point is just a point, I'm kinda concerned about that system. Squad Leader system with Rank would be good for us, I guess.
    A W B E E, _B L U E _ W H E L P L I N G
    C O L D A R R A, _ B O R E A N _ T U N D R A
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,129Player
    edited August 2018
    Awbee wrote: »
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    With the prototype weapons, I figure it's a way to get maybe futuristic type weapons into the game that aren't standard issue. Have cool things like grenade launchers that you can program the range at which they blow up (I remember seeing something on this years ago) or similar features. Otherwise, it can just be rifles that have less recoil, spread, etc.
    You mean XM25?

    And we want the Army, not a fantasy.. I guess.

    Point is just a point, I'm kinda concerned about that system. Squad Leader system with Rank would be good for us, I guess.

    That's probably the one. Obviously any prototypes would be based in reality, not 50 years into the future. It can be ignored, again, I figure it's a way to get some sort of in game economy that can shake up the game each round and do something a bit different and unique. It would add an extra layer of strategy to matches. I know it's similar to counter-strike in a way, except here you earn points completely by team play actions and they can also be applied to other types of uses besides guns/grenades/armor. It also incentivizes those actions and allows the game to keep first aid of downed players in the game without forcing revives (which I despise).
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • [!ReDRuM!]Damian[!ReDRuM!]Damian Posts: 732Player
    edited August 2018
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Awbee wrote: »
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    With the prototype weapons, I figure it's a way to get maybe futuristic type weapons into the game that aren't standard issue. Have cool things like grenade launchers that you can program the range at which they blow up (I remember seeing something on this years ago) or similar features. Otherwise, it can just be rifles that have less recoil, spread, etc.
    You mean XM25?

    And we want the Army, not a fantasy.. I guess.

    Point is just a point, I'm kinda concerned about that system. Squad Leader system with Rank would be good for us, I guess.

    That's probably the one. Obviously any prototypes would be based in reality, not 50 years into the future. It can be ignored, again, I figure it's a way to get some sort of in game economy that can shake up the game each round and do something a bit different and unique. It would add an extra layer of strategy to matches. I know it's similar to counter-strike in a way, except here you earn points completely by team play actions and they can also be applied to other types of uses besides guns/grenades/armor. It also incentivizes those actions and allows the game to keep first aid of downed players in the game without forcing revives (which I despise).

    No, it's a bad idea. Not only will you push away the players that specifically seek games that have the game style of AAPG if you start adding economy types of restrictions to it, it will destroy the core of a good competitive shooters. The fact AAPG didn't become the Competitive shooter that it deserves to be is because there are already to many restrictions.

    Give us, the players the ability to pick our rule sets for our servers. The ability to choose what weapons to enable/disable, what type of grenades to be allowed and how many of each you can have and the option to disable grenades altogether. Start giving us more freedome to choose how to run our servers, and it will open doors for many things. Maybe for AAPG it's to late, but AA5 could benefit greatly from it as it will present themselves with good faith to big competitive companies like ESL as well to competitive Streamers and competitive YouTubers.

    Don't put your focus on points, because points are obsolete in shooters. Competitive players, and most casual players for that matter will not care about how many points they have as long the are winning or losing rounds. You will never hear someone rage because their team doesn't have enough points even though they have won a map with 13-8. You have two types of players where one only cares about his KD/r to make himself feel good and the other cares about his team doing good and winning the match.

    So making AA5 economy driven is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 324Player
    edited August 2018
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    BTW, here's more of how I envision the in-game economy. Players will earn their own points for their own individual team play accomplishments (kills do not earn these points, except maybe objective defense). You could either make their actions earn both individual and fireteam/squad points or just make any earned points go into a pool for the whole team or something similar. If they are pooled then you could have the squad or fireteam leader propose a use of the points and then have the team vote on it in the pre-round period. In a competitive match, the fireteam or squad leader would just have free reign to use points.

    Obviously this can be expanded, removed, or changed as needed, but it's just a few thoughts on how it could work. All items only are active for the current round, they do not carry over to the next round. Certain items would require more points than others, etc. And maybe something like air strikes would be too OP, I can imagine the last round of a match where a team deploys an air strike and knocks out half a team and gets an easy victory. So maybe those types of things that kill guys without skill would be excluded.

    With the prototype weapons, I figure it's a way to get maybe futuristic type weapons into the game that aren't standard issue. Have cool things like grenade launchers that you can program the range at which they blow up (I remember seeing something on this years ago) or similar features. Otherwise, it can just be rifles that have less recoil, spread, etc.
    5zan.jpg

    Reminds me of DUST 514 in a way, and that was a badass game (shame it got shutdown).

    As for artillery and airstrikes I assume that implies that there are already units on standby awaiting orders to engage. Or that the map even allows for the type of support to be used. In other words, these support options could only be realistically used on certain maps. In the underground map (pipeline?) how/where would the arty (artillery) strike come from? The ceiling? This is one of the biggest flaws in COD, how certain maps make certain killstreaks useless/worthless.

    I can't see prototype weapons not being worthless unless they're overpowered. COD:BO and COD:Ghosts had a few weapons that were killstreaks. They sucked a lot simply because they didn't really help the player's survivability. And tbh they weren't that much different than other weapons in terms of firepower. Prototype weapons also aren't necessarily better than a standard weapon either. A Prototype is really just an early, immature model of something. If the weapons are too overpowered, you're essentially giving players a free kill.
    There's some weapon/gadget which military had used I believe it's the "XM25 CDTE" which is an airburst grenade launcher (I've seen this in certain shows, and on BF4), also called the Punisher. They actually don't use the weapon anymore (I think they discontinued use of it just recently), so that's a no-go anyway.




    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • `xinoN`xinoN Posts: 353Player
    These are the kind of threads that make me check these forums once in a while. YES
    Oh well.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,129Player
    edited August 2018
    No, it's a bad idea. Not only will you push away the players that specifically seek games that have the game style of AAPG if you start adding economy types of restrictions to it, it will destroy the core of a good competitive shooters. The fact AAPG didn't become the Competitive shooter that it deserves to be is because there are already to many restrictions.

    Give us, the players the ability to pick our rule sets for our servers. The ability to choose what weapons to enable/disable, what type of grenades to be allowed and how many of each you can have and the option to disable grenades altogether. Start giving us more freedome to choose how to run our servers, and it will open doors for many things. Maybe for AAPG it's to late, but AA5 could benefit greatly from it as it will present themselves with good faith to big competitive companies like ESL as well to competitive Streamers and competitive YouTubers.

    Don't put your focus on points, because points are obsolete in shooters. Competitive players, and most casual players for that matter will not care about how many points they have as long the are winning or losing rounds. You will never hear someone rage because their team doesn't have enough points even though they have won a map with 13-8. You have two types of players where one only cares about his KD/r to make himself feel good and the other cares about his team doing good and winning the match.

    So making AA5 economy driven is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.

    The original America's Army was a great competitive shooter and it had all sorts of limitations. If a map threw you in with an M16 and iron sights, then that's all you got to use. AAPG gave servers way more freedom than AA2 and was pretty liberal with the types of settings you could change.

    The economy that I have is all above and beyond the normal stuff. You would still get your typical load outs free of charge. These points are to allow the team to use special gadgets, support, equipment, manipulate their squad roles, etc. So if your rifleman gets an M4 + 1 frag + 1 flash + 1 smoke, maybe he uses some points to get 2 frags. That's what it's doing. Same with some of the gadgets, use some points and you can get a little drone to fly around the map and spy on the enemy (which they can obviously shoot down). Things that give teams the ability to do things that are above and beyond the normal game play, but are only unlocked by performing team based actions (tending to injured players, securing enemies, completing objectives, etc.). It would obviously need to be balanced on a per map basis.

    It's a way to try to make the game have something unique that makes it different than just a standard round based shooter that you just spawn run out and fight. A new game will never go anywhere if it doesn't do something special. If you have an idea to make the game more unique, feel free to throw it out. I thought of this system and it makes sense as something that could work.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • [!ReDRuM!]Damian[!ReDRuM!]Damian Posts: 732Player
    edited August 2018
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    No, it's a bad idea. Not only will you push away the players that specifically seek games that have the game style of AAPG if you start adding economy types of restrictions to it, it will destroy the core of a good competitive shooters. The fact AAPG didn't become the Competitive shooter that it deserves to be is because there are already to many restrictions.

    Give us, the players the ability to pick our rule sets for our servers. The ability to choose what weapons to enable/disable, what type of grenades to be allowed and how many of each you can have and the option to disable grenades altogether. Start giving us more freedome to choose how to run our servers, and it will open doors for many things. Maybe for AAPG it's to late, but AA5 could benefit greatly from it as it will present themselves with good faith to big competitive companies like ESL as well to competitive Streamers and competitive YouTubers.

    Don't put your focus on points, because points are obsolete in shooters. Competitive players, and most casual players for that matter will not care about how many points they have as long the are winning or losing rounds. You will never hear someone rage because their team doesn't have enough points even though they have won a map with 13-8. You have two types of players where one only cares about his KD/r to make himself feel good and the other cares about his team doing good and winning the match.

    So making AA5 economy driven is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.

    The original America's Army was a great competitive shooter and it had all sorts of limitations. If a map threw you in with an M16 and iron sights, then that's all you got to use. AAPG gave servers way more freedom than AA2 and was pretty liberal with the types of settings you could change.

    The economy that I have is all above and beyond the normal stuff. You would still get your typical load outs free of charge. These points are to allow the team to use special gadgets, support, equipment, manipulate their squad roles, etc. So if your rifleman gets an M4 + 1 frag + 1 flash + 1 smoke, maybe he uses some points to get 2 frags. That's what it's doing. Same with some of the gadgets, use some points and you can get a little drone to fly around the map and spy on the enemy (which they can obviously shoot down). Things that give teams the ability to do things that are above and beyond the normal game play, but are only unlocked by performing team based actions (tending to injured players, securing enemies, completing objectives, etc.). It would obviously need to be balanced on a per map basis.

    It's a way to try to make the game have something unique that makes it different than just a standard round based shooter that you just spawn run out and fight. A new game will never go anywhere if it doesn't do something special. If you have an idea to make the game more unique, feel free to throw it out. I thought of this system and it makes sense as something that could work.

    A economy system like that already exist in Battalion 1944, and no one even speaks of the game any more let a lone stream it actively. It died in less then a month and people gave up on it, a joke in the competitive scene.

    That's not what we need, we also do not want to walk the road of being unique to much. That's what they did with Battle Royal, and look at it now. There are almost two hands full of BR games, invading the FPS scene with useless trash even so far that the new Black Ops and new Battlefield will have BR modes. It's destroying the core of good FPS games and it's simply a road to self destruction.

    A good FPS game needs to have it's core gamestyle, and that's a round based shooter specially if you want to make it a competitive game that will hold its players for years. Now I know this will be a classic but look at CoD1, it has that core of round based gameplay with the freedom that competitive mods could be made like Rifle Only and it worked out like no other. A game from 2003 that is still being played today, a game that I personally spent 50k hours on (yes you can call me addicted) and loved because it was set up in a competitive round base style.

    I understand like no other why you, and others would love to see special things, unique things. But we must not forget that the America's Army serie alone was already unique for us. Most of us, including you and me we grew up with it. That's why we are still here, and tolerated the abuse to its good name with AA3 and then AAPG. But let us not make the mistake in making AA5 with all the bells and whistles you see in today's games and cause the downfall in the FPS scene for the AA brand by trying to be too unique or fall for the BR nonsense.
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 324Player
    edited August 2018
    AA:5 would be too late in the BR game anyway. Even though fortnite wasn't the first to do a BR game, it was the first to gain significant rep and such, which really makes all others (excluding PUBG) seem like 2nd rate clones of fortnite and/or it's concept
    A good example of this would be Realm Royale. Within 2 months Realm Royale lost over 90% of its playerbase. And that game just came out a few months ago.
    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • RollingInTheHurtRollingInTheHurt Posts: 200Player
    edited August 2018
    AA:5 would be too late in the BR game anyway.

    You do know AA Devs got roped into making a World of Tanks clone Operation Overwatch or something...
    I wouldn't put it past them making a Battle Royal game as its the flavour of the month.
    1.jpg
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,129Player
    edited August 2018
    IMO, by the time this games out in 3ish years, I doubt battle royale will even be all that popular anymore. Frankly, I'm already bored of it and I'm sure many others are too. PUBG & Fortnite happened to come out at the perfect time as well. In between Battlefield and Call of Duty games where the only popular shooting games were CS (super old) and R6 Siege (still getting new content, but still kind of old). Big multiplayer FPS releases have practically been non-existent during the past year.
    Also, PUBG is bleeding players. In the evening DOTA overtakes it every day (which shows that in NA PUBG has lost its luster). Fortnite is still going strong, but who knows if that will last forever. The gaming landscape will probably change again in a few years, the question is where it will go. Plus, I think there will always be a market for competitive round based shooters. Will CS and R6 Siege still be as popular in three years? The landscape could certainly open to a new game coming in.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • RollingInTheHurtRollingInTheHurt Posts: 200Player
    edited August 2018
    And here was me wanting to jump out of a sherman tank held up by balloons and gliding back to earth hanging onto a "Property of US Army" Pelican case... Ow well... One can dream... /s
    1.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.