Tactical Mode

[rapid thistle]

It's simple, since we have both an arcade mode and a more realistic one (misilm mode), this stays somewhere in the middle of these two, using mechanics mostly from shooters of the same type such as Battlefield, World War 3 or Planetside 2, that is, a game that stays in the arcade, with realistic touches and of course, team play

[quiet ocean]

while i like the idea, adding a middle ground mode would most likely leave one of the previously created modes (assuming milsim mod ever comes to exist) with the short end of the stick, dividing the playerbase on multiple "versions" of the same game has proven to be a bad decision over time, it both makes it harder to find full matches, since it will be spreading the playerbase in a meaningful way, and also because balance decisions need to be made not for 1, or 2 , but for 3 different versions of the same game, and that may end up slowing any design decision even further (if our devs decide to continue being a small team of 3, which will most likely be the case), while i think milsim mode would be a great addition, a "middle ground" would probably hurt the game long term more than help. Consistency in providing similar gameplay in both "milsim/hardcore" and " arcade/casual" with certain tweaks would be the ideal potentially allowing the playerbase to alternate between both versions of the same game but with differetn objectives in mind (See vanilla rust servers VS PVP x10 rust servers). But we all know how certain design decision are very hard for the dev team regarding realism and overall taking a proper direction for this game, so i predict the milsim mode will most likely be scrapped (just like many other promisses made on launch lol). TLDR game will probably not benefit from a middle ground.

[rapid thistle]

@winged saffron

[rapid thistle]

Maybe yes or maybe no, anyway, with all the months we have been in, we continue under the same repetitive circle without real changes to the gameplay, and this is also due to this reason the fusion of communities oriented towards frenetic shooters, missilm shooters, and in In this case, similar to Battlefield, in this way each one is separated into a different type of gameplay, which of course would cause a certain division in the community that you say, but isn't the community currently divided because of that? since let's remember that first this game was a Missilm, then a Battlefield and now a CoD, and you have those 3 communities daily discussing what is best for the game

Besides, we are already reaching the point where they do need to expand the team if they want the game to stay alive in the long term.

Also of course, the base arcade mode seeks to please the most recent players, the Missilm to the veterans, but what is there for those who came looking for the Battlefield with Squad that they had been told?

[rapid thistle]

Also looking at the gameplay, with the arrival of inertia the truth is better seen

The movement looks more human

The only con, from my point of view, would be the change of life between classes and that the support is the initial class, but apart from that, it is on the right track

[cerulean ingot]

We've gotta add a movement shooter mode too

And a hero shooter mode

[quiet ocean]

and VS support

vr*

[rapid thistle]

Joking aside, I saw a user make a VR adaptation for Battlebit some time ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3_FLBhQKBs

Removing the things mentioned, it shows that there are good changes in this update

[verbal lagoon]

bf and ps2 "tactical and realistic" 💀

how much do you want to spam suggestions with nonsense

[rapid thistle]

"that is, a game that stays in the arcade, with realistic touches and of course, team play"

[rapid thistle]

Real brother, if you don't like it, pass by

ready

[verbal lagoon]

shit's not a tactical shooter, none of them lmao

[rapid thistle]

It's just a name brother, there's no need to make a fuss over something minimal.

[civic quarry]

I don't think we need to split the playerbase into 3, personally. There is no way at least one of these will not be completely dead

[rapid thistle]

Well, the main question brother then would be: do we do what we expected in Battlefield with Squad? Are we screwed? Are we still waiting while Oki continues to pamper a group of players?

[inner moss]

2 modes is enough?

[rapid thistle]

Well, as I mentioned, it is more to separate those who like the arcade style of play (more frenetic), on the other hand, there would be the misilm for the more strategic, but there is nothing that highlights a middle point for the players who came for this "battlefield killer" that they promoted so much

[inner moss]

the arcade style of play would be the battlefield killer style

the current game is pretty similar to battlefield, with the exception of inertia

3 modes is just too much lol we have like 3k concurrent players

[rapid thistle]

Well, it's not even close, brother, you just have to see that the current gameplay is pure freneticism, and of course, to better avoid discussions and fights between communities, leave it as a separate mode, have you played any battlefield brother?

or world war 3 or planetside 2?

[inner moss]

yes i've played like 3 bf games

like i said currently its just bf but simpler and faster movement

we don't need to copy battlefield exactly

if you want battlefield go play battlefield?

[rapid thistle]

Indeed, it doesn't have to look like a Battlefield, but it's not even close to the type of shooters that these games are, teamwork in most cases is non-existent, they mostly go for kills rather than playing another game. as a team (that is, using more of the role you have as it should), I say that Battlebit can be an arcade shooter with realistic touches in its own way, but currently it is far from that

And of course, every time you try to give an idea you come back to that conflict between the mechanics being very realistic (even if they were incorporated in some of the 3 shooters or shooter sagas exemplified above) and in the end we always arrive at the same thing, Therefore, perhaps the best thing is to separate the communities so that you have your arcade, others a more realistic game, and others an arcade with realistic touches, of course, this problem would not have happened if only Oki did not want to promote it as different types of games. shooter at the same time

[inner moss]

idk, in my experience with bf games teamwork was pretty non-existent too

the main issue with this idea is that the community is not large enough to separate into 3

2 is already an issue for some people

[rapid thistle]

To what I was telling you, not only does Battlefield exist in this genre of shooters, I use it mostly because it is the best known, there is also Planetside 2 and World War 3 that also have teamwork

[inner moss]

bro do not tell me ww3 has teamwork

i've not heard a single person talk in that game

planetside 2 is kind of in the middle but then again it is one game

we can't just split battlebit into 3 games because planetside players exist

[rapid thistle]

Well, I don't know about you, brother, but at least in my games there was some teamwork haha, I played it before Free To Play came out, what a good time

[civic quarry]

Above all I think the current priority should be making the game as it currently is more fun. Almost everyone who plays the game now is not here from its origins as a milsim type thing, and people are leaving because of issues that aren’t that the game is too unrealistic / realistic. The game is clearly good despite its issues in its current theme, as all things considered it’s done ok and survived. Other modes are cool and all but I don’t advocate for a focus on them at all, until the serious issues of the main gameplay are sorted and perhaps the game regains some more popularity. Splitting the playerbase is a big gamble to begin with and I see this suggestion of yours as potentially making that problem bigger, were it to go through.

[rapid thistle]

Well, how could this be a viable solution if even Oki himself gives preference to "fast-movement" players while of course, the rest of us are just spectators to this? And if we go more to the origins, wouldn't it be the same thing that he did with the misilm players at the time? He completely changed the gameplay to a more arcade one, and now he's doing the same with the players of this type of shooters?

All so that, of course, they continue to focus on a specific part while the rest of us who put time, support and money into this what? Are we going to hell while they tell us "thanks for the money, never come back"?

[inner moss]

oki hasnt really shown preference to anyone

so far he just wants to make the game play more quickly

[frigid latch]

@quiet ocean As a longtime supporter of Milsim mode, their most recent devcast makes it pretty clear that milsim mode is not going to happen. This is touched in the TTK portion of the video. They don't want it to become Milsim but don't want it Casual either.

[rapid thistle]

And then why wasn't the air-strafe nerfed at the time brother?

[inner moss]

aren't they changing air inertia in the next update?

[rapid thistle]

Not now brother, months ago, why wasn't it nerfed at the time?

[inner moss]

he didn't see it as a major issue

at least not balance wise

and you're right he changed the gameplay to be arcade

but the inertia has been a part of the game for a long time through the playtests

btw when i replied to you i thought you meant like different classes

[rapid thistle]

.... are you talking seriously? since he himself blamed the tryhards for overexploiting these mechanics and don't tell me no brother

[inner moss]

i meant like balance between classes

its true that there was a skill gap

im not really sure what you're arguing for at this point

[rapid thistle]

Brother, anyone who was present at that time knows what happened there, the toxic players as always, complained that they were going to put inertia and it wasn't even something that was going to completely change their gameplay, only if you took a turn 180 degrees you slowed down, but of course, thanks to these players it was not incorporated brother

[inner moss]

yes that is true

doesn't mean that oki will take that attitude going forward

they have discussed movement changes

[inner moss]

if you even read this message he says that they shifted too far to the arcade side

[inner moss]

and i dont like how you call these people toxic. in what way are they toxic? they just want to play the game the way they enjoy it?

[rapid thistle]

Sure, but it's one thing to say it, and another thing to do it brother haha

[rapid thistle]

And those who want to play the "battlefield with Squad" don't want to? just like the players who were promised a missilm don't want that either?

If I remember correctly, the change from Missilm to arcade was in 2018, that is, 6 damn years waiting for the "Misilm mode"

For my part, I don't want to wait another few years for them to make a game as promised.

[quiet ocean]

yeah, so much potential wasted

[inner moss]

yes all players just want to play the game how they like. how is one side advocating for it toxic?

[inner moss]

its its unfortunate but like dufayne said they're probably not going to go that way. maybe your time is better spent in another game like squad.

[rapid thistle]

Then a refund will be made to all those who contributed when it was misilm, and everyone will go their own way ;3

@quiet ocean what do you think?

[inner moss]

while a refund would be nice, i don't think they have any obligation to do that.
its an early access, the game changing is an inherent risk that you accept when you buy the game
also i don't think they ever claimed it was a milsim game when early access released.

[rapid thistle]

You are literally telling me the same thing that I answered a few messages ago. "thanks for the money, never come back" but with more embellishment in the words 💀

[inner moss]

i mean i wish they would refund people, but they obviously won't so i'm explaining why.

you should've known the risks when you bought the game.

[rapid thistle]

I understand you brother, and yes, of course, as a buyer one has risks and consequences, but the same thing happens with sellers, they have their risks and consequences when selling a product that is not what was promised, and for my part I prefer to complain in a way Apart from that, before continuing to fight with those in the arcade community, how will Oki fix it? I have no idea and I'm not interested in the truth, he has to take charge of his actions anyway

It's not like he had enough months ago to look for 2 more devs to help him, when the game was alive

[inner moss]

yep

hiring people at the start wouldve been a smart move

content is the biggest factor in retaining players imo

[rapid thistle]

Yup, and another factor that doesn't count or not much is the game mechanics, that are well marked or identify well what the game will be like brother. If I had done it well from the beginning, I would have the Battlefield community that revived Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V, which are also the most active Battlefield currently (which by the way are the current battlefields that most encourage teamwork), and to win over the Battlefield community it is simple, you do what you promised at the beginning and that's it, and You can wait months for new content of course, as long as the teamplay is well implemented

If Oki had done it correctly, perhaps until today he would have been left with a fixed amount of 10,000 daily players

I upload the image again because you can't see the detail of "24th peak"

[inner moss]

obviously it was not good for player retention but farming people in battlebit was actually some of the most fun i've had in a game recently

[quiet ocean]

never gonna happen lol welcome to the early access trust issues club

[inner moss]

those games are much older and have tons more exposure
plus battlebit doesn't really have the graphics and immersion that those games have

i think it was inevitable that the playercount would fall

[rapid thistle]

Battlebit also had its great moment of brother exposure like the "Battlefield Killer" but of course, by mixing many communities in a single game, no one decided what things to add or remove from this

There are many "CoD killer" but few "BF Killer" and Battlebit was one of those

[inner moss]

fast media exposure almost never leads to long lasting player numbers

you need to build up a playerbase over time

unless you're valorant maybe

[rapid thistle]

As I mentioned, it wasn't just the numbers, look at Lethal Company or Project Zomboid, it was like I told you, the clash of communities that existed here, each one wanting the game to be the way they wanted.

[rapid thistle]

Furthermore, when building a playerbase it also depends on the factors of whether you are similar to any video game or video game saga, and the other factor is your game mechanics, and this game, as you mentioned, is similar to Battlefield, which attracted fans of this saga, but in mechanics it is more of a "fast-movement shooter" which attracted players of this type, creating again what I have been saying for a long time, the conflict between communities

[rapid thistle]

Valorant is a perfect example of what I'm telling you, since it looked like Counter Strike, and its mechanics made it clear what the game was.

And if you realize, there were other copies of Counter Strike like Zula, but the one that became a different game was Valorant, almost the same in gameplay with few differences, but the case of Battlefield with Battlebit is the opposite of that.

Battlebit is more frenetic, while Battlefield (except 3 and 4) has always been a little slower, not exaggerated but a little slower, encouraging more team play

[cerulean ingot]

I'm gonna say this flat out, having completely different game's essentially inside of a game just doesn't work unless it's intended to be a big ol' make it what you want sandbox.

Milsim mode and tactical mode equally make no sense in my opinion. At most we should have a hardcore setting preset.

And all it would do is tweak numbers and such

It's insanity to basically ask for a game with entirely different balancing, ballistics, armor values, systems, movement, etc inside of another game. At that point you're just asking for halo custom games (which would be fantastic).

Just give the tools to the community for this stuff and build an actual game you enjoy imo.

[carmine grove]

[rapid thistle]

Well, I also support this, of it becoming more of a sandbox, in fact if you like the idea it could again be a "suggestion" about making it more of a sandbox in the sense of being able to freely modify the game to your liking so that you have an experience closer to what you want

Because currently I doubt very much that the devs know the exact direction where to take it, but, adding the daily discussion between communities, perhaps the best idea is to turn it into a sandbox allowing a creation kit to create the game more to your liking, of course , Oki could continue making the game "under his vision" but in the meantime everyone can create their own experience

An idea that I gave a long time ago, where discussions between many communities were more active, but perhaps now those options are more striking.

I don't know what you think

[cerulean ingot]

The game becoming more of a sandbox is not the intention I think, nor do I personally want that for this game

I wouldn't object to custom game's like settings, but that'd be about it

[primal pasture]

I don't think it's good for the game to have too many modes. It splits the playerbase, and that's not a good thing when one of the main draws is for it to be a 254 player game.

[rapid thistle]

I know, but maybe doing it Sandbox would give everyone greater freedom to create their experience, at least I say it from the perspective as a Battlefield player with what was promised with this game, I don't want the same tragedy to happen to us as the missilms players who have 6 years waiting for your game mode

Which of course, it is understood that there are 3 people, but as I say they were the first to support the project and they receive this treatment, which awaits us Battlefield players who have done the same, which as I mentioned again demonstrates more of an approach towards players of "fast-movement shooters"

[cerulean ingot]

Regardless of your support, etc

how they've treated the players who've supported them the longest

etc

They need to decide how they want the game to be and go with it. Having 3 completely different playing modes that can potentially vastly change up how the game is played sounds ridiculous and unrealistic - no matter how you put it imo

Milsim mode and this mode you're suggesting have both always sounded ridiculous to me. No one even has a definition for this mode, how it should play, etc. Wanting one that's inbetween the mode sounds even MORE ridiculous to me. It's not a difficulty slider. Instead, just give servers the basic abilities to change up the game settings as they see fit, and have a hardcore mode preset ready for everyone. Don't call it milsim - this game will never be a milsim imo

[rapid thistle]

Well we're back to the same thing then brother, to which I commented to Refactor "thanks for your money, never come back"

If at the beginning they promoted it as Missilm, then as Squad with Battlefield, and now they are focusing on frenetic shooter players, it's not my fault

[cerulean ingot]

No one is blaming you?

I'm just saying the idea has never made sense to me

Nor would it make milsim peeps happy imo

[rapid thistle]

Well, as I mentioned, it has to find a way to reward the support of players who, of course, don't like fast shooters, it's just that, it's just the consequences of attracting diverse shooter communities and when they have already paid, completely changing the direction. of the game

[cerulean ingot]

This is basically the kickstarter dilemma in a sense

but oh well, what can ya do. I just don't think chopping up the game into 3 bits would be a good - or smart - solution to this problem

[carmine grove]

Like of course battlebit would be marketed as a milsim if it was one ages ago. They changed direction and moved it to this. Is it 100% to le Squad x Battlefield mashup? Nah. They could get there. We'll see how it goes.

Otherwise, gotta say having a mode between arcade and milsim is just ludicrous regardless of the situation

It divides players and is a waste of resources

[rapid thistle]

Well, it could be a waste of resources perhaps, I find you right about that brother, but there are also the consequences of directly promoting it in various ways, you will have to make a different style of game for the community in which you promoted it, perhaps as we are speaking it is not the best option, but it is already an issue on the part of the devs

If they had promoted it from the beginning in a specific direction, and they had stayed there, there is no problem, but now you have both the missilm community, which was the first to support you, disappointed, and those who were looking for a Squad with Battlefield, disappointed, and those who like "fast movement-shooters" are also disappointed

In the end, because of all this, Oki will get a bad reputation for changing the direction of the product to something unrelated to what it was selling, and of course yes, these are the risks of Early Access, but in this case, it also has its risks on the part. of the devs in terms of reputation

[cerulean ingot]

You're talking about should of's and could of's. "If they had promoted it from the beginning...". We can talk about what oki should've done all day, but the reality is currently having entirely separate game modes doesn't make sense.

I would prefer the entire game be more semi tactical yet fast like it was going for in the beginning. Removing bleeding for example wasn't the right solution. I and many other have given examples on what to do to fix bleeding and make it less annoying yet still impactful, but a lot of times what the team ends up doing is simply gutting or completely changing an entire mechanic

I simply want the mechanics that attracted me to the game to still be there 😖

[carmine grove]

I think its gonna be fine
Playtest will be a thing, we will see how things stand without bleed and if we dont like it they'll add it back
Same goes for other changes

[rapid thistle]

Well, for my part, the same thing, semi-tactical, where each style of play has its place (which can be done with a good balance in general) brother, I always use BF1 as an example for that reason, it is a game which they knew Implement the "rock, paper, scissors" ideology well. If you want a rusher class, do you have assault, calmer and with more positioning, medic, defend zones? support, and recon to help see enemies in areas

Each class has its pros and cons and different play styles

[cerulean ingot]

Yee probs

[cerulean ingot]

Bf1 did do it interestingly for sure

[rapid thistle]

Yes... I'm not saying that it's a battlefield of course, I'm saying because of the balance issue, it gave playability to all types of players, it didn't benefit its gameplay on one side or the other, but rather it gave everyone their chance to play. play and replayability

[harsh viper]

no

good idea to split playerbase and make finding a lobby unplayable

[rapid thistle]

we just talked about that topic right now with Lost Mixup and more... read above

[harsh viper]

no thanks

im sure it was a great discussion tho

but i aint reading allat

[rapid thistle]

Bruh

[cerulean ingot]

Same