criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Game Update
Forest of Endor

This game should be three games.

I love this game overall. And I do believe that the Developers are really trying, and have done well with their efforts, and will do well in the future.

That said, I've been reading through the forums, and I keep seeing the same things. People complaining that there's too many Heroes dominating too many games, arguing with people who think there should be twice as many Heroes, and make them way more powerful while you're at it. People complaining that the singleplayer and campaign elements are not as developed as they could be, arguing with people who are annoyed that the developers bothered to spend any time on singleplayer and campaign elements at all.

It occurred to me that this game is trying to be too many things for too many people.

Maybe what they should have done is made several separate games.

Battlefront has always been about the Infantry. The soldiers fighting for the Empire or the Rebellion or whoever traveling to strange planets all over the Galaxy, fighting with or against strange aliens from all over space, fighting to defend order or defy tyranny or whatever the cause may be. That's the core of Battlefront, Clone Troopers fighting droids, Stormtroopers fighting Rebels, etc. Yeah, there's some Heroes every now and then, and we've moved on to even having modes that are Hero-focused, which is fine. I even kind of like the current Heroes versus Villains, despite how I couldn't stand the Heroes versus Villains in EA's first game. But there should have been a Battlefront game that was infantry focused, no distractions from balancing Heroes and all that.

However, people like playing the Star Wars heroes. I dig that, and I even agree somewhat. They like dueling it out against each other, or maybe against infantry. So maybe there should have been some kind of Star Wars hero Fighter game, like Tekken or whatever those games were a while back that put Yoda and Darth Vader in. Something where you could practice your favorite hero, power up his moves and gear, and face him off with a motley assortment of whatever other Heroes other people were playing. No settings of actual battles in the Star Wars universe, no worries about Canon or accuracy, just Heroes bashing each other for the people who like that kind of thing. Maybe throw in a mode where AI infantry comes in and fights alongside their heroes or something. That would give the hero lovers what they want.

And you could even argue that the singleplayer content and the campaign are too much distraction. Personally, I liked how Pandemic's Battlefront 2 handled it back in 2005, with a substantial campaign storyline, and the ability to play against AIs on every map with every mode. And the current game is actually doing about half of that -- the campaign is at least as good as Pandemic's campaign, but unfortunately so far they've dropped the ball on single player arcade play (with only 6 maps opened up for arcade, and the only options being the Onslaught or Team Battle modes that aren't even in the main multiplayer game).

And that's not even getting into the campaign / single player hybrid that allowed you to travel across a map of the Galaxy subduing the enemy's naval forces and then capturing their facilities on the ground. With today's graphics and game capabilities, that could be an astounding arcade mode. And maybe that's why, though I'm okay with what they've done and are likely to do in the current game so far, maybe there should have been a separate single player game. Something more along the lines of KotOR, lots of story, and all that great single-player stuff using the mechanics of Battlefront.

Of course, that's not what we have. They have tried valiantly to put it all into one game, and that has left us (and them) with some dilemmas.

How to balance the preferences of people who just want to play heroes in a big sandbox, with the preferences of people who want to play an infantry-based Battlefront game?

How to balance the preferences of the people who just want an intricate RPG type story mode and some singleplayer conquer-the-Galaxy stuff, fighting AI in lots of different modes on lots of different Maps, with the two preferences described above?

Some kind of balance has to be found. I don't envy the developers their jobs, as they're not likely to ever find a truly perfect balance, and they can't seem to avoid outrage and melodrama from their customers no matter what they do.

But maybe we can stop the incessant arguing as if we aren't aware of what our fundamental differences are.

I want a Battlefront game, and I don't care whole lot about hero games, while I'm neutral to mildly interested in the idea of a single player RPG where we fight against AIs. But I get that some of you are in it for the heroes, and you want to trash the Star Wars story stuff and go for the sandbox. I don't agree, but I think you should have a game to play too, one that is the way you want it to be.

So instead of two sides on every issue, insisting that everything has to be all their way or nothing, maybe we could hash out some compromises. Have 2 or 3 hero modes for the hero lovers -- the all-heroes mode that we've got, plus a heroes + infantry thing like the 2015 game, plus maybe something else on top of that, something with some objective play. And all eras just mash together in lots of different ways, maybe random, who knows.

And then we could also have some of the main objective- and battle-oriented modes that have limited heroes in some and no heroes in otgers, and all with accurate eras. And they can keep coming out with the excellent campaign missions they've been making for those who like them. And for the force-s sake, open up all the maps and modes to be played in Arcade.

Yeah?

Replies

  • TL;DR
    They should have made one game Star Wars Hero Battles, one Star Wars RPG game like KotOR, and one Star Wars Battlefront game for mostly infantry.

    But they didn't. So instead of demanding everything all our way, we should push for compromise -- more hero-heavy modes with Cross-era, and more hero-limited modes with accurate Star Wars eras.
  • What they should have done, is stuck to the design of the originals with offline prioritized, but have a optional online multiplayer. That way people can play the way they want. Things dont have to have months spent being tailored to for balance that ultimatley ruin experience eg 3 hits with a lightsaber to kill a heavy! Plus it opens up so many windows like hanger to hanger and galactic conquest. The two things that made people actually like the game. Seriously, people will still buy microtransactions of hero skins etc without multiplayer. Its star wars! People are going to want everything.
  • Troopper_FoFo
    1057 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    TL;DR
    They should have made one game Star Wars Hero Battles, one Star Wars RPG game like KotOR, and one Star Wars Battlefront game for mostly infantry.

    But they didn't. So instead of demanding everything all our way, we should push for compromise -- more hero-heavy modes with Cross-era, and more hero-limited modes with accurate Star Wars eras.

    They did. Well sort of they have basically all those but they are for mobile.

    What we have Galaxy of Heroes , Force arena , Star Wars Imperial assault: Legends of the Alliance. There was even a star wars Diablo style game with Star Wars Uprising. Before it was shut down.

    Just go on the app store and search Star Wars and see how many games there are. Why they don't release upscaled versions of these for other platforms Idk.
    Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TroopperFoFo/ .
    Battlefront 2 , Battlefield and more.
  • But... 3 games would cost $180...
  • But... 3 games would cost $180...
    Fair point. =)

    Though my thought was, people would only buy the one or two that they preferred.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    TL;DR
    They should have made one game Star Wars Hero Battles, one Star Wars RPG game like KotOR, and one Star Wars Battlefront game for mostly infantry.

    But they didn't. So instead of demanding everything all our way, we should push for compromise -- more hero-heavy modes with Cross-era, and more hero-limited modes with accurate Star Wars eras.

    They did. Well sort of they have basically all those but they are for mobile.

    What we have Galaxy of Heroes , Force arena , Star Wars Imperial assault: Legends of the Alliance. There was even a star wars Diablo style game with Star Wars Uprising. Before it was shut down.

    Just go on the app store and search Star Wars and see how many games there are. Why they don't release upscaled versions of these for other platforms Idk.
    Yeah, I know. That's what I've mostly been telling the pro wrong-era folks - go play Galaxy of Heroes, if you want to mix and match!

    But I get it. They want an upscaled console/pc version. I would, too. That's why we need a solution that works for both sides, rather than just catering to the wrong-era people.
  • My main point was this part:
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    How to balance the preferences of people who just want to play heroes in a big sandbox, with the preferences of people who want to play an infantry-based Battlefront game?

    How to balance the preferences of the people who just want an intricate RPG type story mode and some singleplayer conquer-the-Galaxy stuff, fighting AI in lots of different modes on lots of different Maps, with the two preferences described above?

    Some kind of balance has to be found. I don't envy the developers their jobs, as they're not likely to ever find a truly perfect balance, and they can't seem to avoid outrage and melodrama from their customers no matter what they do.

    But maybe we can stop the incessant arguing as if we aren't aware of what our fundamental differences are.

    I want a Battlefront game, and I don't care whole lot about hero games, while I'm neutral to mildly interested in the idea of a single player RPG where we fight against AIs. But I get that some of you are in it for the heroes, and you want to trash the Star Wars story stuff and go for the sandbox. I don't agree, but I think you should have a game to play too, one that is the way you want it to be.

    So instead of two sides on every issue, insisting that everything has to be all their way or nothing, maybe we could hash out some compromises. Have 2 or 3 hero modes for the hero lovers -- the all-heroes mode that we've got, plus a heroes + infantry thing like the 2015 game, plus maybe something else on top of that, something with some objective play. And all eras just mash together in lots of different ways, maybe random, who knows.

    And then we could also have some of the main objective- and battle-oriented modes that have limited heroes in some and no heroes in otgers, and all with accurate eras. And they can keep coming out with the excellent campaign missions they've been making for those who like them. And for the force-s sake, open up all the maps and modes to be played in Arcade.
  • If they broke this up into 3 games, I wouldn't have bought it.

    They have the foundation for an "ultimate" Star Wars experience. What is missing is the fine tuning and lack of robust play in any of the available modes.

    If updates continue to come in, there is a chance this could be an overall great game for everyone. As it currently is, it is enjoyable in multiplayer modes, but repetitive, single player is severely lacking the "fun" factor as the arcade just gets very boring very quickly and there is no reason to replay the campaign.
  • I like the all in one game. They just need to improve the current format.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    TL;DR
    They should have made one game Star Wars Hero Battles, one Star Wars RPG game like KotOR, and one Star Wars Battlefront game for mostly infantry.

    But they didn't. So instead of demanding everything all our way, we should push for compromise -- more hero-heavy modes with Cross-era, and more hero-limited modes with accurate Star Wars eras.

    They do though...

    HvV for hero battles, campaign for RPG, and Strike/Blast for infantry.
  • I feel the same way. DICE is trying to cater to far too many different player types, and as a result we have a game that's a mile wide but an inch deep. It's arguably better than the last game, but in it's current form, it won't last.

    I was hoping this would be less of an issue due to the three development studios, but alas it seems the problem has only gotten worse.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    TL:DR

    The game is what it is, and it's up to the players to decide if they want to play it. Those of you who can't accept its evolution can go find a different game. We have a fun and entertaining game, clearly designed with MP as its focus, while also including small elements in other areas to cater to a wider audience. But I don't think it does anybody any good to retroactively think this game will shift its focus...not while their live service is in full effect.
    Kyle2295 wrote: »
    What they should have done, is stuck to the design of the originals with offline prioritized, but have a optional online multiplayer. That way people can play the way they want.

    Times have changed and offline doesn't sell...at least not by EA's standard. Embrace the future or go relive the past. That way people can play old games the way they want without interfering with modern advancements.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • I feel the same way. DICE is trying to cater to far too many different player types, and as a result we have a game that's a mile wide but an inch deep. It's arguably better than the last game, but in it's current form, it won't last.

    I was hoping this would be less of an issue due to the three development studios, but alas it seems the problem has only gotten worse.

    Agreed, I’ve been saying this far before this game was released, it doesn’t have an identity or know what it wants to be. It’s trying to satisfy probably the largest demographic in all of gaming, the age group is so diverse from 7 year olds to literally 50 plus. How can you give a 45 year old something that’ll a 10 year old will also like? I also agree 1000%, in its current state this game will be dead shortly after the last dlc drop.
  • I think the game's core idea is fine as it is.

    But at this point, I'd expected EA to have contributed much more with Star Wars games than they actually did. So far, DICE is their only studio which has given any concrete contribution. Not counting mobile games because meh.

    Visceral was making something promising, but it was closed. There's the Respawn game too, but we barely know anything about it.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    My main point was this part:
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    How to balance the preferences of people who just want to play heroes in a big sandbox, with the preferences of people who want to play an infantry-based Battlefront game?

    How to balance the preferences of the people who just want an intricate RPG type story mode and some singleplayer conquer-the-Galaxy stuff, fighting AI in lots of different modes on lots of different Maps, with the two preferences described above?

    Some kind of balance has to be found. I don't envy the developers their jobs, as they're not likely to ever find a truly perfect balance, and they can't seem to avoid outrage and melodrama from their customers no matter what they do.

    But maybe we can stop the incessant arguing as if we aren't aware of what our fundamental differences are.

    I want a Battlefront game, and I don't care whole lot about hero games, while I'm neutral to mildly interested in the idea of a single player RPG where we fight against AIs. But I get that some of you are in it for the heroes, and you want to trash the Star Wars story stuff and go for the sandbox. I don't agree, but I think you should have a game to play too, one that is the way you want it to be.

    So instead of two sides on every issue, insisting that everything has to be all their way or nothing, maybe we could hash out some compromises. Have 2 or 3 hero modes for the hero lovers -- the all-heroes mode that we've got, plus a heroes + infantry thing like the 2015 game, plus maybe something else on top of that, something with some objective play. And all eras just mash together in lots of different ways, maybe random, who knows.

    And then we could also have some of the main objective- and battle-oriented modes that have limited heroes in some and no heroes in otgers, and all with accurate eras. And they can keep coming out with the excellent campaign missions they've been making for those who like them. And for the force-s sake, open up all the maps and modes to be played in Arcade.

    I’m hoping the developers didn’t take the complaints about the last game splitting the playerbase as they should reduce the amount of modes.

    I still think we have a lot of modes coming and hopefully there is something for everyone. I also prefer the infantry aspect of Battlefront, just personal preference, it is Star Wars so of course people should have different options to use Heros. I’m in this game for the long haul, hopefully EA is as well.

    I’d like to see some more hero only modes as well. Right now the options to use heros is the blender of GA or HvVs which is a dice roll chance to get a good game. It may take away from some of the crying about battlepoints away from GA.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    danilojbg wrote: »
    There's the Respawn game too, but we barely know anything about it.

    Other than the fact it isn't coming out in possibly another 2 years. Still, I'm very excited to see what they have planned.

    It is strange EA isn't producing more varied games with their license. Maybe all their resources are being funneled into DICE since they're the most capable of producing results and profit?
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    TL;DR
    They should have made one game Star Wars Hero Battles, one Star Wars RPG game like KotOR, and one Star Wars Battlefront game for mostly infantry.

    But they didn't. So instead of demanding everything all our way, we should push for compromise -- more hero-heavy modes with Cross-era, and more hero-limited modes with accurate Star Wars eras.

    So you're upset you weren't charged 3 times? Really confused what the issue is here...
  • Blazur wrote: »
    danilojbg wrote: »
    There's the Respawn game too, but we barely know anything about it.

    Other than the fact it isn't coming out in possibly another 2 years. Still, I'm very excited to see what they have planned.

    It is strange EA isn't producing more varied games with their license. Maybe all their resources are being funneled into DICE since they're the most capable of producing results and profit?

    Maybe, but it's huge disappointment anyway. For me at least.

    Personally, the second I knew they'd have a license, I was so hyped with the prospect of BioWare making huge contributions to the Star Wars canon. But so far there hasn't been anything pointing out to that, not even remotely.
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    danilojbg wrote: »
    Personally, the second I knew they'd have a license, I was so hyped with the prospect of BioWare making huge contributions to the Star Wars canon. But so far there hasn't been anything pointing out to that, not even remotely.

    I thought BioWare was developing a SW game also? Pretty sure I remember reading peoples excitement at that prospect.

    Never been a huge BioWare fan myself, but their games are certainly popular among people.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • danilojbg
    837 posts Member
    edited February 2018
    Blazur wrote: »
    danilojbg wrote: »
    Personally, the second I knew they'd have a license, I was so hyped with the prospect of BioWare making huge contributions to the Star Wars canon. But so far there hasn't been anything pointing out to that, not even remotely.

    I thought BioWare was developing a SW game also? Pretty sure I remember reading peoples excitement at that prospect.

    Never been a huge BioWare fan myself, but their games are certainly popular among people.

    They have their MMO of the Old Republic, but it's pre-Disney and not canon.

    There were some very very brief rumours about them working on a Star Wars game, but it was shortly before Anthem was announced.

    And even if they ever make a Star Wars game again, there are already some games on the line. The Respawn game will come out in 2020 fiscal year. The Visceral game wasn't technically cancelled, but would be reworked. And I doubt a Battlefront III would take much longer after 2020.

    So I'm not keeping my hopes up...
    Post edited by danilojbg on
  • rollind24 wrote: »
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    My main point was this part:
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    How to balance the preferences of people who just want to play heroes in a big sandbox, with the preferences of people who want to play an infantry-based Battlefront game?

    How to balance the preferences of the people who just want an intricate RPG type story mode and some singleplayer conquer-the-Galaxy stuff, fighting AI in lots of different modes on lots of different Maps, with the two preferences described above?

    Some kind of balance has to be found. I don't envy the developers their jobs, as they're not likely to ever find a truly perfect balance, and they can't seem to avoid outrage and melodrama from their customers no matter what they do.

    But maybe we can stop the incessant arguing as if we aren't aware of what our fundamental differences are.

    I want a Battlefront game, and I don't care whole lot about hero games, while I'm neutral to mildly interested in the idea of a single player RPG where we fight against AIs. But I get that some of you are in it for the heroes, and you want to trash the Star Wars story stuff and go for the sandbox. I don't agree, but I think you should have a game to play too, one that is the way you want it to be.

    So instead of two sides on every issue, insisting that everything has to be all their way or nothing, maybe we could hash out some compromises. Have 2 or 3 hero modes for the hero lovers -- the all-heroes mode that we've got, plus a heroes + infantry thing like the 2015 game, plus maybe something else on top of that, something with some objective play. And all eras just mash together in lots of different ways, maybe random, who knows.

    And then we could also have some of the main objective- and battle-oriented modes that have limited heroes in some and no heroes in otgers, and all with accurate eras. And they can keep coming out with the excellent campaign missions they've been making for those who like them. And for the force-s sake, open up all the maps and modes to be played in Arcade.

    I’m hoping the developers didn’t take the complaints about the last game splitting the playerbase as they should reduce the amount of modes.

    I still think we have a lot of modes coming and hopefully there is something for everyone. I also prefer the infantry aspect of Battlefront, just personal preference, it is Star Wars so of course people should have different options to use Heros. I’m in this game for the long haul, hopefully EA is as well.

    I’d like to see some more hero only modes as well. Right now the options to use heros is the blender of GA or HvVs which is a dice roll chance to get a good game. It may take away from some of the crying about battlepoints away from GA.

    Exactly, it’s as if they can’t add modes for fear of a split playerbase, a split playerbase is better than no playerbase, which I don’t think is a problem anyway. This game can still be so good with just a few tweaks imo, a few added small modes and maybe 1 large more infrantry based mode would be homeruns imo. Then add privates and this game has a little something for everyone. I’m hoping this game succeeds 10 fold because who knows when we get another starwars mp shooter.
  • Casscaden wrote: »
    rollind24 wrote: »
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    My main point was this part:
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    How to balance the preferences of people who just want to play heroes in a big sandbox, with the preferences of people who want to play an infantry-based Battlefront game?

    How to balance the preferences of the people who just want an intricate RPG type story mode and some singleplayer conquer-the-Galaxy stuff, fighting AI in lots of different modes on lots of different Maps, with the two preferences described above?

    Some kind of balance has to be found. I don't envy the developers their jobs, as they're not likely to ever find a truly perfect balance, and they can't seem to avoid outrage and melodrama from their customers no matter what they do.

    But maybe we can stop the incessant arguing as if we aren't aware of what our fundamental differences are.

    I want a Battlefront game, and I don't care whole lot about hero games, while I'm neutral to mildly interested in the idea of a single player RPG where we fight against AIs. But I get that some of you are in it for the heroes, and you want to trash the Star Wars story stuff and go for the sandbox. I don't agree, but I think you should have a game to play too, one that is the way you want it to be.

    So instead of two sides on every issue, insisting that everything has to be all their way or nothing, maybe we could hash out some compromises. Have 2 or 3 hero modes for the hero lovers -- the all-heroes mode that we've got, plus a heroes + infantry thing like the 2015 game, plus maybe something else on top of that, something with some objective play. And all eras just mash together in lots of different ways, maybe random, who knows.

    And then we could also have some of the main objective- and battle-oriented modes that have limited heroes in some and no heroes in otgers, and all with accurate eras. And they can keep coming out with the excellent campaign missions they've been making for those who like them. And for the force-s sake, open up all the maps and modes to be played in Arcade.

    I’m hoping the developers didn’t take the complaints about the last game splitting the playerbase as they should reduce the amount of modes.

    I still think we have a lot of modes coming and hopefully there is something for everyone. I also prefer the infantry aspect of Battlefront, just personal preference, it is Star Wars so of course people should have different options to use Heros. I’m in this game for the long haul, hopefully EA is as well.

    I’d like to see some more hero only modes as well. Right now the options to use heros is the blender of GA or HvVs which is a dice roll chance to get a good game. It may take away from some of the crying about battlepoints away from GA.

    Exactly, it’s as if they can’t add modes for fear of a split playerbase, a split playerbase is better than no playerbase, which I don’t think is a problem anyway. This game can still be so good with just a few tweaks imo, a few added small modes and maybe 1 large more infrantry based mode would be homeruns imo. Then add privates and this game has a little something for everyone. I’m hoping this game succeeds 10 fold because who knows when we get another starwars mp shooter.

    Yea the complaints about the split playerbase was because the season pass, not multiple modes. I hope they didn’t take it the wrong way.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • One game is expensive enough to make, they would hardly make 3
  • If they broke this up into 3 games, I wouldn't have bought it.
    You probably would have bought one of them. I think most BF2 players would have bought one or two of them, based on their preferences.

    They have the foundation for an "ultimate" Star Wars experience. What is missing is the fine tuning and lack of robust play in any of the available modes.

    If updates continue to come in, there is a chance this could be an overall great game for everyone. As it currently is, it is enjoyable in multiplayer modes, but repetitive, single player is severely lacking the "fun" factor as the arcade just gets very boring very quickly and there is no reason to replay the campaign.
    I can agree with that.
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    I like the all in one game. They just need to improve the current format.
    That's pretty much the point of everything I've said. Since we don't have three separate games for three separate interests, then decent compromises need to be reached for the format of the one game we do have.
  • An entire game dedicated to HvV would be the absolute balls and would get all of my money. Every hero/villain you could want, interchangeable abilities, proper lightsaber combat, the works. Mmmmmyeah
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    Battlefront has always been about the Infantry. The soldiers fighting for the Empire or the Rebellion or whoever traveling to strange planets all over the Galaxy, fighting with or against strange aliens from all over space, fighting to defend order or defy tyranny or whatever the cause may be. That's the core of Battlefront, Clone Troopers fighting droids, Stormtroopers fighting Rebels, etc. Yeah, there's some Heroes every now and then, and we've moved on to even having modes that are Hero-focused, which is fine. I even kind of like the current Heroes versus Villains, despite how I couldn't stand the Heroes versus Villains in EA's first game. But there should have been a Battlefront game that was infantry focused, no distractions from balancing Heroes and all that.

    How to balance the preferences of people who just want to play heroes in a big sandbox, with the preferences of people who want to play an infantry-based Battlefront game?

    I want a Battlefront game, and I don't care whole lot about hero games,

    Battlefront 2005 had a good focus on the fact heroes existed. They were a lot stronger then the heroes in the current game and even had an entire HvV mode dedicated to them then. The fact HvV was so popular back then is why Dice won't release a Battlefront game without it now. Even battlefront 2004 had nearly invincible AI heroes. That I found despite how basic they were, actually added a lot to the feel of the game.

    But Battlefront is NOT an infantry game. It's a large scale warfare game trying to mimic large star wars battles. Vehicles, Starships, Heroes, Infantry. All going at eachother in a large battle. Not star wars COD. Not star wars Overwatch. But Battlefront.
    Twitch = Lavarious3038
    My Youtube = http://www.youtube.com/c/Lavarious
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    TL;DR
    They should have made one game Star Wars Hero Battles, one Star Wars RPG game like KotOR, and one Star Wars Battlefront game for mostly infantry.

    We should push for compromise -- more hero-heavy modes with Cross-era, and more hero-limited modes with accurate Star Wars eras.
    blaz3r wrote: »
    They do though...

    HvV for hero battles, campaign for RPG, and Strike/Blast for infantry.
    Re-read what I said. I said that we need MORE modes like those.

    We currently have NO large objective-based mode that isn't over-ridden with Heroes, most of them in the wrong era. We need at least one such mode for those who value the Star Wars feel and authenticity.

    We currently have NO hero-based mode where heros can fight infantry as well as other heroes like in the 2015 HvV, and can be wrong-era if they want. We need one of those.

    Or, to put it another way...
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    ...more hero-heavy modes with Cross-era, and more hero-limited modes with accurate Star Wars eras.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!