criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
November Community Calendar
Double XP Event

Please remove this hero cross-era feature from GA!

Prev134567
David1543
536 posts Member
edited January 17
I know this was discussed a lot, but this is an issue that always bothered me from day 1, this is such a well made and beautiful game and we all want to see It's progress.

However, the barrier that always stood in Its way, in my opinion, is the ridiculous idea of era mixing. This is such a big concern to me and many people that we take It equally as important as the gameplay quality and content of the game.

This game was advertised to be as an immersive Star Wars experiece across all eras, yet when you don't restrict the usage of heroes to the timeline they belong, many people who are familiar with past Star Wars titles are left with a bad taste in their mouths. Not only the immersion we are used to have in Star Wars games is shattered when we see Han Solo leading clones on Geonosis, but at the same time you make the whole concept of different eras pointless.

I thought having different eras was so that we get to experience the uniqueness of each factions, heroes, vehicles, and planets from the timeline they existed. By mish mashing everything together the lore is shattered, thus ruining the fun to many fans who want an authentic experience when It comes to the battlefront franchise.

I know that era lock is being added as a timed event, but this makes me more upset than content. A game entitled "Star Wars" should not feel like Star Wars for only a weekend. I hope we get this as a permanent change in the future for the major modes like GA and the upcoming large scale mode.

I have absolutely no problem with cross heroes as long as they are restricted to certain modes like HvsV and things of this sort. A server browser would really make a difference Dice.
Post edited by IronSoldier on

Replies

  • David1543 wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    This is a multiplayer shooter game...

    Game balance > immersion.

    If you want immersion as your primary gameplay concern, single player and RPG games are the genre to look for, not multiplayer shooter games.

    Tell me, how exactly is "balancing" an issue other than the fact that the sequel era has only 2 DS villains? you do realize some of the PT characters fit in the OT and vise versa, right? The simple solution to balance out the sequels is to restrict 2 heros per side. And you saying that only single player games can be immersive is completely subjective and untrue above anything else.

    Quote where I said this.
  • As much as cross era Heroes need to be removed I don't think we are going to see it. Accept for that upcomming event this month.

    That is a glimmer of hope.
    Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TroopperFoFo/ .
    Battlefront 2 , Battlefield and more.
  • bfloo
    15945 posts Member
    Blazur wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    This is a multiplayer shooter game...

    Game balance > immersion.

    If you want immersion as your primary gameplay concern, single player and RPG games are the genre to look for, not multiplayer shooter games.

    Tell me, how exactly is "balancing" an issue other than the fact that the sequel era has only 2 DS villains? you do realize some of the PT characters fit in the OT and vise versa, right? The simple solution to balance out the sequels is to restrict 2 heros per side. And you saying that only single player games can be immersive is completely subjective and untrue above anything else.

    Boo this man. People are still complaining about cross-era heroes after all this time?

    This is still my biggest hangup with GA.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »


    I paraphrased what you pretty much said. If that was not your point, then what is your argument? why cant we have an immersive Star Wars multiplayer experience?

    No, you did not paraphrase what I said.

    I stated that in multiplayer shooter games, balance is more important than immersion, and if you want immersion to be more important than balance, then you should look to single player games and RPGs as they can prioritize immersion over balance.

    You took me saying that balance is more important than immersion in a multiplayer shooter to mean that immersion cannot exist in a multiplayer shooter... this is fundamentally not what I said. Game balance can take design precedence over immersion and you could still have an immersive game.

    What you are advocating for in this game is to improve your subjective immersion at the expense of game balance by removing access to heroes/villains with unique skillsets which would exacerbate the asymmetrical balance problems already present in the game. As such your position promotes the idea of the design philosophy that immersion > balance, and this is not the case in multiplayer shooter games as a balanced experience is by far the most important factor to a rewarding competitive experience... which is what multiplayer shooters fundamentally are.

    Again, this argument of balance and immersion are equally flawed. Theres nothing stopping battlefront 2 from having both qualities. Right now, I could argue that the game's balancing issues due to unrestricted use of OP characters in every map has reached Its peak making It unfair against disavantaged players. Era locking would both make the game more immersive and fix 90% of the balancing issues since most era accurate heroes and villains are equally matched.

    I will give you some examples, for instance, Darth maul is outmatched by rey by a long shot, without being able to block he is completely vulnerable to an exagerately OP cross era character such as her.

    Yoda in the other hand , resembles a similar play style as of darth maul since neither can block and share similar traits, so they are equally matched. But Yoda is outmatched by kylo ren or Darth vader.

    Having an OP cross era hero bumping at you that you cant even compete with whilst playing as an era accurate hero is very unbalanced issue and at the same time ruins the in game immersion.

  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »


    I paraphrased what you pretty much said. If that was not your point, then what is your argument? why cant we have an immersive Star Wars multiplayer experience?

    No, you did not paraphrase what I said.

    I stated that in multiplayer shooter games, balance is more important than immersion, and if you want immersion to be more important than balance, then you should look to single player games and RPGs as they can prioritize immersion over balance.

    You took me saying that balance is more important than immersion in a multiplayer shooter to mean that immersion cannot exist in a multiplayer shooter... this is fundamentally not what I said. Game balance can take design precedence over immersion and you could still have an immersive game.

    What you are advocating for in this game is to improve your subjective immersion at the expense of game balance by removing access to heroes/villains with unique skillsets which would exacerbate the asymmetrical balance problems already present in the game. As such your position promotes the idea of the design philosophy that immersion > balance, and this is not the case in multiplayer shooter games as a balanced experience is by far the most important factor to a rewarding competitive experience... which is what multiplayer shooters fundamentally are.

    Again, this argument of balance and immersion are equally flawed. Theres nothing stopping battlefront 2 from having both qualities. Right now, I could argue that the game's balancing issues due to unrestricted use of OP characters in every map has reached Its peak making It unfair against disavantaged players. Era locking would both make the game more immersive and fix 90% of the balancing issues since most era accurate heroes and villains are equally matched.

    I will give you some examples, for instance, Darth maul is outmatched by rey by a long shot, without being able to block he is completely vulnerable to an exagerately OP cross era character such as her.

    Yoda in the other hand , resembles a similar play style as of darth maul since neither can block and share similar traits, so they are equally matched. But Yoda is outmatched by kylo ren or Darth vader.

    Having an OP cross era hero bumping at you that you cant even compete with whilst playing as an era accurate hero is very unbalanced issue and at the same time ruins the in game immersion.

    Good luck attacking Takodana and Jakku with your formidable slate of era accurate villains vs the defenders vastly superior hero counterparts.

    Heh. We’ll be getting that chance at the end of the month.
  • David1543 wrote: »
    I know this was discussed a lot, but this is an issue that always bothered me from day 1, this is such a well made and beautiful game and we all want to see It's progress.

    However, the barrier that always stood in Its way, in my opinion, is the ridiculous idea of era mixing. This is such a big concern to me and many people that we take It equally as important as the gameplay quality and content of the game.

    This game was advertised to be as an immersive Star Wars experiece across all eras, yet when you don't restrict the usage of heroes to the timeline they belong, many people who are familiar with past Star Wars titles are left with a bad taste in their mouths. Not only the immersion we are used to have in Star Wars games is shattered when we see Han Solo leading clones on Geonosis, but at the same time you make the whole concept of different eras pointless.

    I thought having different eras was so that we get to experience the uniqueness of each factions, heroes, vehicles, and planets from the timeline they existed. By mish mashing everything together the lore is shattered, thus ruining the fun to many fans who want an authentic experience when It comes to the battlefront franchise.

    I know that era lock is being added as a timed event, but this makes me more upset than content. A game entitled "Star Wars" should not feel like Star Wars for only a weekend. I hope we get this as a permanent change in the future for the major modes like GA and the upcoming large scale mode.

    I have absolutely no problem with cross heroes as long as they are restricted to certain modes like HvsV and things of this sort. A server browser would really make a difference Dice.

    mnvrci70rwgf.gif
    Knights of Gareth
    XBL- JsOnMyFett 13
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    Variety is good.
    /thread
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • people like what they like.

    tf

    whats so hard to grasp?
    keeboxdf4h4g.gif

  • Well there s an event soon to stop it so we we will see how that plays shall we? Make our judgements after that?
  • J
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »


    I paraphrased what you pretty much said. If that was not your point, then what is your argument? why cant we have an immersive Star Wars multiplayer experience?

    No, you did not paraphrase what I said.

    I stated that in multiplayer shooter games, balance is more important than immersion, and if you want immersion to be more important than balance, then you should look to single player games and RPGs as they can prioritize immersion over balance.

    You took me saying that balance is more important than immersion in a multiplayer shooter to mean that immersion cannot exist in a multiplayer shooter... this is fundamentally not what I said. Game balance can take design precedence over immersion and you could still have an immersive game.

    What you are advocating for in this game is to improve your subjective immersion at the expense of game balance by removing access to heroes/villains with unique skillsets which would exacerbate the asymmetrical balance problems already present in the game. As such your position promotes the idea of the design philosophy that immersion > balance, and this is not the case in multiplayer shooter games as a balanced experience is by far the most important factor to a rewarding competitive experience... which is what multiplayer shooters fundamentally are.

    Again, this argument of balance and immersion are equally flawed. Theres nothing stopping battlefront 2 from having both qualities. Right now, I could argue that the game's balancing issues due to unrestricted use of OP characters in every map has reached Its peak making It unfair against disavantaged players. Era locking would both make the game more immersive and fix 90% of the balancing issues since most era accurate heroes and villains are equally matched.

    I will give you some examples, for instance, Darth maul is outmatched by rey by a long shot, without being able to block he is completely vulnerable to an exagerately OP cross era character such as her.

    Yoda in the other hand , resembles a similar play style as of darth maul since neither can block and share similar traits, so they are equally matched. But Yoda is outmatched by kylo ren or Darth vader.

    Having an OP cross era hero bumping at you that you cant even compete with whilst playing as an era accurate hero is very unbalanced issue and at the same time ruins the in game immersion.

    Good luck attacking Takodana and Jakku with your formidable slate of era accurate villains vs the defenders vastly superior hero counterparts.

    Heh. We’ll be getting that chance at the end of the month.

    Ya... that Kylo/Phasma tandem is undoubtedly going to have a fantastic win rate.

    Can’t wait for the LS Wall vs Crylo and useless.
    You guys are gonna make me rich......
    Xbox G-tag
    XJO461
    That Specialist rework was disappointing.
    nceaq2h23fqj.png



  • NO playable women in the CW era... Sorry, but I'm cross-era all the way.
    moenr1cb9t4w.jpg
  • NO playable women in the CW era... Sorry, but I'm cross-era all the way.

    Sure there is. The B2 is definitely a lady.
    Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TroopperFoFo/ .
    Battlefront 2 , Battlefield and more.
  • What they SHOULD do, should have done from the start, is to make two versions of GA. One in the Assault Modes category with accurate heroes and only 2 per team max. And another in the Hero Modes category with cross-era and 4 or 6 or 8 per side, whatever the Hero people want.

    Hopefully they'll do this after testing out the Era-accurate weekend.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    What they SHOULD do, should have done from the start, is to make two versions of GA. One in the Assault Modes category with accurate heroes and only 2 per team max. And another in the Hero Modes category with cross-era and 4 or 6 or 8 per side, whatever the Hero people want.

    Hopefully they'll do this after testing out the Era-accurate weekend.

    I don't think subdividing it is going to help that much, right now I think an issue with the game, particularly in places like Australia is that there's too many options for game modes so most of them never start up because we don't have a server browser. We can only ever really play HvV and GA in Australia reliably, so adding even more options is going to further fracture this. Events or having certain maps which are locked and others which aren't in a playlist is probably the best solution.

    With regards to OP, I can get why era locking is a thing you'd like to see, but it definitely presents an issue when one side gets more hero choice than the other. Unfortunately due to the nature of villains being killed off there's not many left by the ST, as others have pointed out. And Kylo/Phasma are particularly bad at attacking which is what 3 of the 4 ST maps are about for the First Order. With a Phasma rework perhaps she could be more viable to attack with, but otherwise these maps need more options for the First Order.
  • Good thing cross-era wasn't in the originals or this would be an extremely late complaint. Oh crap..........
  • Troopper_FoFo
    1057 posts Member
    edited January 18
    edit.
    Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TroopperFoFo/ .
    Battlefront 2 , Battlefield and more.
  • for all I care Vader could have that Pink suit people used to troll about I dont care about immersion in a video game you must be one of those players that walk around looking at the scenery.
    Dont act a fool and you wont get called out. PSN: DarthOdium- old PSN:unit900000
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    David1543 wrote: »


    I paraphrased what you pretty much said. If that was not your point, then what is your argument? why cant we have an immersive Star Wars multiplayer experience?

    No, you did not paraphrase what I said.

    I stated that in multiplayer shooter games, balance is more important than immersion, and if you want immersion to be more important than balance, then you should look to single player games and RPGs as they can prioritize immersion over balance.

    You took me saying that balance is more important than immersion in a multiplayer shooter to mean that immersion cannot exist in a multiplayer shooter... this is fundamentally not what I said. Game balance can take design precedence over immersion and you could still have an immersive game.

    What you are advocating for in this game is to improve your subjective immersion at the expense of game balance by removing access to heroes/villains with unique skillsets which would exacerbate the asymmetrical balance problems already present in the game. As such your position promotes the idea of the design philosophy that immersion > balance, and this is not the case in multiplayer shooter games as a balanced experience is by far the most important factor to a rewarding competitive experience... which is what multiplayer shooters fundamentally are.

    Again, this argument of balance and immersion are equally flawed. Theres nothing stopping battlefront 2 from having both qualities. Right now, I could argue that the game's balancing issues due to unrestricted use of OP characters in every map has reached Its peak making It unfair against disavantaged players. Era locking would both make the game more immersive and fix 90% of the balancing issues since most era accurate heroes and villains are equally matched.

    I will give you some examples, for instance, Darth maul is outmatched by rey by a long shot, without being able to block he is completely vulnerable to an exagerately OP cross era character such as her.

    Yoda in the other hand , resembles a similar play style as of darth maul since neither can block and share similar traits, so they are equally matched. But Yoda is outmatched by kylo ren or Darth vader.

    Having an OP cross era hero bumping at you that you cant even compete with whilst playing as an era accurate hero is very unbalanced issue and at the same time ruins the in game immersion.

    Good luck attacking Takodana and Jakku with your formidable slate of era accurate villains vs the defenders vastly superior hero counterparts.

    Heh. We’ll be getting that chance at the end of the month.

    Ya... that Kylo/Phasma tandem is undoubtedly going to have a fantastic win rate.

    Yeah. But I’m still interested to see. Two heroes instead of four will be a thing.
  • As a permanent thing, no I don't like this idea, nor do I like the idea of limiting heroes.
    I prefer selecting the hero I need when I have the battlepoints for it (if Finn has the opportunity to headshot the droids or either veriety of Stormtrooper, I will gladly take it).
    #JoinTheBuzz
    8fqc6br4b0gm.jpeg
    Never forget
  • Unwarycoin wrote: »
    As a permanent thing, no I don't like this idea, nor do I like the idea of limiting heroes.
    I prefer selecting the hero I need when I have the battlepoints for it (if Finn has the opportunity to headshot the droids or either veriety of Stormtrooper, I will gladly take it).

    But you are fine with not being able to pick Finn when you are on the opposite side atleast then? You are fine with not being able to pick the Emperor when attacking on Endor? You are fine with not being able to pick Han Solo when defending the Death Star? You are fine with not being able to pick Bossk when defending Kashyyyk? Every single fight you are limited to 50% of the heroes, but I haven’t seen anyone push for cross-faction heroes and villains.
    @t3hBar0n is right - multiplayer experience needs consideration before immersion. These movies are pure fantasy situations where the heroes always eventually win in the end. This is game where each side is given a shot at winning and all tools should be available, always.

    But all tools aren’t avaliable always, are they? Where is Luke Skywalker when you’re playing as the FO? Where is Darth Vader when you’re playing as the Rebel Alliance? You are perfectly fine not having all the tools, what are you talking about!? And these are not mirrored characters, they are all unique... You are apparently fine with being limited to half the roster!

    I am not. Each side should have access to characters with functionally identical skillsets... I couldn't care less what skins are wrapping up these skillset packages.
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    Unwarycoin wrote: »
    As a permanent thing, no I don't like this idea, nor do I like the idea of limiting heroes.
    I prefer selecting the hero I need when I have the battlepoints for it (if Finn has the opportunity to headshot the droids or either veriety of Stormtrooper, I will gladly take it).

    But you are fine with not being able to pick Finn when you are on the opposite side atleast then? You are fine with not being able to pick the Emperor when attacking on Endor? You are fine with not being able to pick Han Solo when defending the Death Star? You are fine with not being able to pick Bossk when defending Kashyyyk? Every single fight you are limited to 50% of the heroes, but I haven’t seen anyone push for cross-faction heroes and villains.
    @t3hBar0n is right - multiplayer experience needs consideration before immersion. These movies are pure fantasy situations where the heroes always eventually win in the end. This is game where each side is given a shot at winning and all tools should be available, always.

    But all tools aren’t avaliable always, are they? Where is Luke Skywalker when you’re playing as the FO? Where is Darth Vader when you’re playing as the Rebel Alliance? You are perfectly fine not having all the tools, what are you talking about!? And these are not mirrored characters, they are all unique... You are apparently fine with being limited to half the roster!

    I am not. Each side should have access to characters with functionally identical skillsets... I couldn't care less what skins are wrapping up these skillset packages.

    Yeah, you’re saying that now when I bring it up, sure. But if limiting heroes was such a big deal, surely this would have come up often?
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »

    I am not. Each side should have access to characters with functionally identical skillsets... I couldn't care less what skins are wrapping up these skillset packages.

    So then we should remove heroes from the game. Finally someone agrees.
    Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TroopperFoFo/ .
    Battlefront 2 , Battlefield and more.
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »

    I am not. Each side should have access to characters with functionally identical skillsets... I couldn't care less what skins are wrapping up these skillset packages.

    So then we should remove heroes from the game. Finally someone agrees.

    My position is that each hero/villain should have a functionally identical counterpart... that is not the same as wanting heroes removed.
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    Unwarycoin wrote: »
    As a permanent thing, no I don't like this idea, nor do I like the idea of limiting heroes.
    I prefer selecting the hero I need when I have the battlepoints for it (if Finn has the opportunity to headshot the droids or either veriety of Stormtrooper, I will gladly take it).

    But you are fine with not being able to pick Finn when you are on the opposite side atleast then? You are fine with not being able to pick the Emperor when attacking on Endor? You are fine with not being able to pick Han Solo when defending the Death Star? You are fine with not being able to pick Bossk when defending Kashyyyk? Every single fight you are limited to 50% of the heroes, but I haven’t seen anyone push for cross-faction heroes and villains.
    @t3hBar0n is right - multiplayer experience needs consideration before immersion. These movies are pure fantasy situations where the heroes always eventually win in the end. This is game where each side is given a shot at winning and all tools should be available, always.

    But all tools aren’t avaliable always, are they? Where is Luke Skywalker when you’re playing as the FO? Where is Darth Vader when you’re playing as the Rebel Alliance? You are perfectly fine not having all the tools, what are you talking about!? And these are not mirrored characters, they are all unique... You are apparently fine with being limited to half the roster!

    I am not. Each side should have access to characters with functionally identical skillsets... I couldn't care less what skins are wrapping up these skillset packages.

    Yeah, you’re saying that now when I bring it up, sure. But if limiting heroes was such a big deal, surely this would have come up often?

    I have voiced many times that I felt that balance between teams > all other considerations when it comes to having a good multiplayer experience. As far as whether something is a big deal or not, this cannot be accurately judged based upon what has the most noise accompanying it. If we are to go by what has gotten the most noise is the most important, then most bugs in this game would have been ignored and we just would have gotten tons of cosmetics, as cosmetics seem to consistantly have the most noise associated with them.
  • Liz4rD
    1121 posts Member
    Oh no, not this stuff again


    ¬¬'
  • Wait. He said ‘this is such a well made game.’

    PAHAHAHAAAAA.

    pH
  • Unwarycoin wrote: »
    As a permanent thing, no I don't like this idea, nor do I like the idea of limiting heroes.
    I prefer selecting the hero I need when I have the battlepoints for it (if Finn has the opportunity to headshot the droids or either veriety of Stormtrooper, I will gladly take it).

    But you are fine with not being able to pick Finn when you are on the opposite side atleast then? You are fine with not being able to pick the Emperor when attacking on Endor? You are fine with not being able to pick Han Solo when defending the Death Star? You are fine with not being able to pick Bossk when defending Kashyyyk? Every single fight you are limited to 50% of the heroes, but I haven’t seen anyone push for cross-faction heroes and villains.
    @t3hBar0n is right - multiplayer experience needs consideration before immersion. These movies are pure fantasy situations where the heroes always eventually win in the end. This is game where each side is given a shot at winning and all tools should be available, always.

    But all tools aren’t avaliable always, are they? Where is Luke Skywalker when you’re playing as the FO? Where is Darth Vader when you’re playing as the Rebel Alliance? You are perfectly fine not having all the tools, what are you talking about!? And these are not mirrored characters, they are all unique... You are apparently fine with being limited to half the roster!

    Yeahh the characters of the opposing faction are being played by those on the other team buddy...
  • No...
  • Whodunnit wrote: »
    Try to take away a candy from a child.
    Then explain them it’s bad for their teeth.

    can we all just appreciate this some more!
This discussion has been closed.