Battlefield V Review, Feedback & Concept Designs


Hi my name is Chris and this is Battle(non)sense Battlefield V has been out for a while now,
And I feel like I’ve spent enough time with the game
to tell you about the things that I like dislike
and what I would change. So, as many of you may know,
I’ve been playing Battlefield games since the Battlefield 1942 demo
was released back in 2002. And I have played every single Battlefield
game that was released since then including the Bad Company spin offs
where the first one was sadly only available on console,
and I bought one just to be able to play that game
– so that should tell you how much I care about this franchise. Joining the franchise so early on did shape
how I think about Battlefield games and what experience I expect to get from a
Battlefield game. This is why many players who joined the franchise
with Battlefield 3 4
or Battlefield 1 think that my suggestions aim to turn Battlefield
into a military simulation like ARMA. But this is not the case. The early Battlefield games shaped what I
associate with this franchise. So, what I’ve tried to do with my design
concepts and feedback that I shared over the years
was to restore that original Battlefield experience which the titles running on the Frostbite
Engine did not deliver anymore. So, if you do not agree with what I will say
in this video. Then I want you to know that my feedback is
based on the experience delivered by the original Battlefield games.
And my feeling that new players who never played these games
are missing out on what this franchise has to offer. So, I’ve spent about 40 hours with the game
since its release and another 5 hours or so since the last patch
was released on the 5th of December which already addressed some of my complaints. And I’ve got to say I enjoy Battlefield
V quit a lot. Much more than Battlefield 1,
Hardline and Battlefield 3.
Maybe even a bit more than playing the classic present for Battlefield 4. Infantry combat just feels great.
I did not enjoy the boots on the ground experience this much in many years,
which is down to gun mechanics, the nearly complete removal of 3d spotting,
the toned down auto heal the emphasis on teamwork and squad play
the fact that classes have sort of specific roles
and that I get revived, healed
and resupplied with ammo quite a lot. At its core
Battlefield V does enough things right to cause that I can’t wait to get home from
work to play that game. So, DICE did many things right,
while especially EA and their marketing department made every mistake they could possibly make.
And I honestly feel sorry for the designers and developers who are working at DICE,
as most of the players target them when they vent their frustration about decisions
that were made by EA. When you play Battlefield V then you can’t
shake the feeling that EA set a way too short timeframe for
DICE to build that game.
It’s not liked the game would constantly crash all the time,
in fact, the game did not crash or freeze on me once. But there is just so much stuff missing
like iconic maps from Battlefield 1942 or the M1 Garand
that players associate with the World War 2 setting.
Also, certain aspects of the game have not been thought through
or lack a serious amount of polish. So, we will never really know who is responsible
for what. And spending more time on this topic will
not improve the game. So, let’s talk about the things that I would
like to see DICE to change and fix in the near future
to improve Battlefield V. Right now, I feel that the pace of the game
is too fast. However, that’s not necessarily down to
how fast you can run. It’s more about how long you can run at
that speed. In older Battlefield games players had a stamina
bar, which affected how long they could sprint.
This caused that players tried to use transport vehicles
instead of running from one objective to the other. In Battlefield V however
you see most infantry players run across the entire map
even when there is a transport vehicle that they could use. I would like to see DICE add the stamina system
again to slow down the pace of the game,
which will also increase the tactical depth as we have seen in older games like Battlefield
2. With Battlefield V
DICE added an attrition system, which some players were quick to been complain
about even before the first alpha. But if you play the objective,
then you can take ammo and bandages from the many refill stations
and since enemies drop a lot of ammo, you are hardly ever at risk to run out of
ammo. You even spawn with a bandage
that you can use to heal yourself. The attrition system is a great idea,
but at the moment it does not really affect how you play the game
unless you are the kind of player who usually just sits somewhere far away from
the action, or is unable to fire in controlled,
well aimed bursts. I’d wish that there would be fewer refill
stations and that players would not spawn with bandages
as this currently makes support and medic players less useful. The medic has always been my favourite class
in Battlefield games and it still is in Battlefield V. Many players have been complaining about how
weak the SMG’s are and the fact that the Medic does not have
access to other guns. I for one hope that DICE will not give the
Medic access to DMR’s or other long-range weapons.
I think that the Medic is in a good spot right now
if you play him how he is supposed to be played. And when you do that
then you will find yourself on top of the scoreboard quite a lot
having made more kills than other Assault players. The only complaint that I had about SMG’s
was their poor performance at close range but the last patch already addressed that
to an extent, so DICE does know that this is something that
they need to work on. Now, when we talk about the medic
we must also talk about the heal and revive mechanics. DICE sadly continues to fail in every new
game when it comes to explaining game mechanics
to the players. Like did you know that when you press “Q”
on a downed team mate then this will not only alert him that you
are on your way to revive him, This will also make you run faster when you
use the default “Field Medic” Combat Role. Based on the fact that I never see the “Incoming”
in my HUD when I’m down, I’m sure that most medics have no idea about
this mechanic. And that is only because of how bad DICE is
at explaining game mechanics to the player. Another example is that many players do not
know why team mates and enemies sometimes show up as a dot on the minimap
and other times as a ring. Reason behind this is that when a player is
above or below you Then the minimap will use a ring instead of
a dot to show his position. So that is a great and useful feature
that many players do not know about because the game does not explain it. Now let’s get back to the medic.
When you do a revive then it can
and will happen that you pick up a gun
or close a door when your team mate is anywhere near these.
That is something that DICE must fix because reviving a team member is already
risky enough because of the position that my player model
goes into during the revive animation. Having to deal with this issue as well is
not good for medics. Then there is the issue with the bandages. When you see a low health bar above the head
of a team mate then you can press Q to throw him a bandage. But more often than not
you will end up setting a ping marker instead. Especially when that player already used his
own bandage and is in the process of healing himself. So, you end up spamming the 3 key on your
keyboard instead to avoid that you set a ping by accident.
But that is not so nice either because you can hardly press that key while
you are also holding down W to run forward. The biggest issue however is that you end
up pressing the 3 key multiple times because you never know if you did not throw
bandages because that player is already healing himself,
or if it just did not work on the first attempt for some other unknown reason. With Battlefield V DICE introduced the buddy
revives which do increase the teamwork aspect of game
as players who are not a medic can revive other squad members. The issue that I have with that system is
that it restores players back up to 100 health. Yes, you can only revive squad members,
while medics can revive all team members, and a buddy revive takes slightly longer. But that does not change that buddy revives
restoring players back to full health degrades the role of the medic. I would like to see buddy revives restore
players only up to 50 percent health. That player can then use his bandage to heal
himself. If he does not have one
then he can get a new one from a refill station or should be able to take one from a medic
crate which would mean that medics might actually
start to carry these around as right now they seem quite useless
especially because medic crates as well as ammo crates
do not show up on the minimap which makes them hard to find. Speaking of players healing themselves. Autoheal must go once and for all.
I cannot understand why DICE keeps this mechanic in the game,
especially now that players can use a bandage to heal themselves. When it comes to the revive mechanic,
there are 2 things that I do not like. First is that when I’m down,
I am unable to warn other medics and squad members
that they will die if they try to revive me. And the other thing is that you still see
players choose to bleed out instead of allowing a medic to revive them
even when a revive is safe for the medic. These players cause their team to lose,
because your team does not lose a ticket when you spawn,
it loses a ticket as soon as you enter a state where you cannot be revived anymore.
So, if you want to win then you want medics to do as many revives
as possible. So, I’ve made a design concept to address
these issues. When you press and hold the left mouse button
you slow down the bleeding. Which also alerts nearby medics that you are
down and want to be revived. You can also press the left mouse button multiple
times as that will help to make other medics or
squad members aware of you. Should you be sure that anyone who tries to
revive you will die, then you can simply click the right mouse
button once. This will not cause you to bleed out faster
as I do not want the game to encourage players to take the easy way out. What it will do is change the icon that medics
and squad members see above your player model. They can still try to revive you,
but they at least know that this is very risky, and so, they should consider to use smoke
as cover. Now, we all know that some players love to
complain about how boring it is to wait 5 seconds to bleed out.
So, to give them something to do while they are waiting,
I decided to also add a Damage Log to this concept
which will tell you exactly how you just died. The way this works is that the game client
will store your health value and damage information of the last 3 seconds.
When you die then the game client will take the health value from right before the first
damage was received and display it here.
Then it shows you the damage that you received during the last 3 seconds
which lead to your death. I think that those last 3 seconds are more
than enough time as players usually don’t remember what their
health value was when they received those final shots,
and when you get shot at then you usually don’t notice when there
were multiple players firing at you from different directions.
So, the damage log will provide enough info to explain what just happened. It can also be nicely integrated into the
Squad Deploy screen And it should be possible to bring it up in
the Deploy Overview as well. Speaking of the Squad Deploy screen,
there is a navigation bug where when you press “D” to go to the next squad member,
it will sometimes skip that player for some reason.
I know that this is just a small issue but I hope that this will be fixed soon. The most underrated feature of Battlefield
V is still the build and fortification system. And one reason behind that is again how the
game communicates to players where and why to build something.
The fast pace of the game that I talked about earlier
is also a factor why players seem to be too stressed to fortify a control point,
which is really sad, because this is a very powerful feature
that has a great impact on the gameplay experience and the flow of the game
as it makes it more dynamic. With Battlefield V DICE does a lot to promote
teamwork again. However, when you join a server with a friend
then it is not good that your 2-man squad is locked per default. It is also not nice that DICE removed the
feature to switch teams. I mean it is okay to prevent players from
switching to the winning team, but currently there does not seem to be any
way at all how I can play with more than 3 of my friends
on the same team. I’d also wish that we would have 5-man squads
again. And to those who insist that some players
on a 64 player server will then be left without a squad,
I just say that you should take a look at what kind of squads you actually find on servers
Because in every Battlefield game you find those locked
1 2
and 3-man squads who don’t even want to be part of a full
squad, so that really is not an issue. Playing the game as part of a 5-man squad
would feel very different as you are a more powerful unit on the battlefield.
Ideally, I’d even like to have my 6-man squad from Battlefield 2 back,
but I know that DICE sadly won’t go that far.
So, I will happily take 5-man squads instead. One thing that really annoys me about the
squads in Battlefield V though is that I must press the escape key first
to get to the Squad menu. Why isn’t there a “squad” button right
here inside the deploy overview, or even better,
why isn’t the squad menu itself integrated right here into the deploy overview. I really dislike how convoluted the menus
are in this game. Another thing that I do not like
and what greatly degrades the teamwork aspect in this game,
is that the Squad Leader isn’t all that special. Sure, he can use special abilities
which are linked to points earned by your squad,
where most Squad Leaders seem to just wait until they can use the V1 rocket
and then maybe kill one player with it. But why was the Spawn beacon not given to
the Squad Leader, like it was back in Battlefield 2142.
In the hands of the recon it usually degrades into a camping beacon
placed far away from the objective. In the hands on the Squad Leader
it would actually be useful and used a lot more
especially if prepare for a shock
DICE would only allow squad members to spawn on the Squad Leader
instead of any squad member. Like it was the case back in Battlefield 2
and Battlefield 2142. That would make the Squad Leader and the spawn
beacon more valuable slow down the pace of the game
and increase the tactical depth of the game as you must move around more carefully
and plan ahead better. It would also counter that players abuse their
squad members as mobile spawn points just to get to where they want to go
instead of sticking with their squad leader and attacking or defending whatever objective
he selected. Again, this is not me trying to turn this
game into a military simulation. The old games were designed like that,
yet they were nothing like ARMA or Operation Flashpoint at that time. When we talk about teamwork,
we also must talk about communication. The com-rose has always been an awesome tool
to quickly tell other players what you want or need
as there is no language barrier there. However, the text messages triggered by the
Com Rose are still located inside the in-game chat. This means that they get buried by what players
write. And many players won’t even see these messages
as they set the chat to hide, which I can understand
because most players only use the chat window to vent their frustration. So, the text feed must be moved out of the
chat window for this communication system to work. Also, when someone quests ammo,
meds or transportation from you directly,
then you do not get a specific notification about that at the moment. There is not even an entry in the text feed
then. I’ve been talking about this issue since
Battlefield 3 and made a Mission Log design concept for
Battlefield 4 which would help to fix this issue. But no one at DICE seems to be interest to
allow their UI designers to give this essential communication feature
a proper overhaul which is very disconcerting considering how
much work was put into Battlefield V to promote teamwork and tactical play
while not spending enough time on the communication aspect that is required to get teamwork and
tactical play to work on public servers. As someone who frequently takes on the role
of the squad leader, it would be great to see the distance to each
objective inside the com rose, as that helps a lot when I need to make a
quick decision. Also, there was previously a number next to
each objective which told the squad leader how many other
squads are already trying to attack or defend that objective.
That was sadly removed when DICE changed the design of the com-rose.
This is one of the instances where DICE continues to make the massive mistake of choosing visuals
of functionality. I mean the new com-rose looks very nice,
but I will always choose the old design over the new one,
when the new design means that I’m losing a feature. As you will surely know,
DICE greatly downed down the spotting in Battlefield V,
which is a welcome change, as since Battlefield 3 players were mostly
aiming at red triangles on their hud instead of the enemy player models. In Battlefield V a ping system was introduced
that allows any squad member to alert his squad of danger. However, while this system works well in tactical
games like Rainbow 6 Siege which uses much small maps,
I do not like this feature in Battlefield V. Frequently the game will place the marker
on a tree, Bush
or some debris rather than what I actually want to spot. Even worse, it sometimes managed to hide an
enemy player even though it gets semi-transparent when
you aim down sight. Things also get interesting when you have
2 squad members place a marker at the same time
as you then don’t know who placed which even when you use Voice Chat.
Basically, this feature seems to be only useful when you already have your squad mates on
Voice Chat, and at that point you hardly need a 3d marker
anymore. So, when I see an enemy,
and press “Q” to spot him, then I would very much prefer to not get any
3d icon on my HUD nor cause a 3d icon to appear on the HUD of
one of my squad mates. Instead I want to have a red dot show up on
the minimap, which will not move and therefore not track
the enemy players movement. The red dot will stay at the location where
the enemy was when I spotted him and then slowly fade out.
So, what I would like to have is a toned down version of Battlefield 2’s
2d or minimap spotting. In my opinion that would be more useful on
public servers than the current ping system. DICE could then also explore if they could
provide each class with a special spotting perk,
Like it was the case in Battlefield 2142, which encouraged players to have different
classes in their squad for maximum spotting efficiency. Again, no 3d spotting
and no real time tracking of spotted enemies on the minimap. Speaking about the minimap
It currently does not remember zoom modes when you change them by pressing “n” on
your keyboard, attack and defend orders do not show up there
there are no icons for ammo and medic crates and when you switch to the big map, it always
goes back to the small map again. So, these are some of the things that I would
like DICE to work on when it comes to the minimap. Now, for the pilots who currently use the
ping marker to know where to attack the enemy on the ground
I have a different solution. It’s called C.A.S
short for Close Air Support. The idea behind this mechanic is that players
on the ground, like the Squad Leader or maybe the recon,
can mark an area for pilots, where they should attack.
Should a pilot then deal damage to enemy players inside that area,
then both the player who made the request and the pilot who dealt the damage will get
additional teamwork points. This mechanic will help pilots to find ground
targets to engage and cause them to participate in the battle
that is going on on the ground, So, this mechanic strengthens the relationship
between the teams ground and air units. Then let’s talk about the maps and game
modes. I must confess that Conquest is the only mode
that I really enjoy in Battlefield games as it offers the experience that I’m interested
in. All the other modes where you have attackers
and defenders fighting over just 2 objectives, pushing the frontline in one direction or
back and forth I don’t find satisfying to play, as these
do not offer as much tactical depth as Conquest In these modes,
both the defenders and the attackers
are drawn to just a few objectives, which then mostly results in a clusterfuck
or meatgrinder gameplay experience that I simply do not enjoy. So, let’s talk about the Conquest maps in
Battlefield V. Devastation
I really like this one, it provides intense infantry combat
and a lot of tactical depth as you can choose from many different routes
to go from one objective to the next, and there is plenty of cover to use.
However, the tanks feel completely out of place here and should be removed if you ask
me. Then there is Twisted Steel.
The bridge I the middle can only be described as a death trap – but only for those who
blindly rush across it. The map actually has a lot to offer for players
who like to play like smart and are able to adapt. Arras is simply my favourite combined arms
combat map right now and one of the few where I feel that having
planes, tanks and infantry on the same map actually
works.. Hamada is my 2nd favourite combined arms combat
map which is just a lot of fun to play as attacker
as well as defender. However, I do not like that DICE uses the
Conquest Head-on ticket bleed system here, as this causes that the attacking team suffers
from a ridiculous ticket bleed rate until they captured at least 2 flags. I would very much prefer if DICE would use
the classic Conquest Assault ticket bleed design,
where one team must hold all flags to inflict ticket bleed on the enemy team.
So as soon as the attacking team is able to capture or hold just one flag
the ticket bleed stops. This means that the attacking team must capture
just one flag to stop the bleed, and you cannot increase the bleed rate by
holding more than one flag. In Conquest Assault this allowed the attackers
quickly to get a foot in the game and it allowed comebacks to happen a lot more. The original ticket bleed formulas for Conquest
Head-On Conquest Assault
and Conquest Double Assault did work very well in the old Battlefield
games and as far as I can remember no one every
complained about these, so, I’m not sure why DICE does not use what
did prove to work in the past. Then there is Narvik
which we have all played to death by now. However, it is still a fun infantry focused
map. But, planes and tanks feel out of place here
if you ask me and I think they should be removed. Fjell is an okay map.
It’s not like I would want to leave the sever when that map comes up,
but it is not even remotely as good as Devastation. Again, I feel that planes are completely out
of place here as they have it very easy to constantly attack
players on the narrow areas of the map. In my opinion, this map mainly works as an
infantry map. Rotterdam is also an okay infantry focused
map, that is fun to play on. But once more,
I feel that the tanks just don’t work here. If DICE wants to build city maps where infantry
and tanks work on the same map then they should really take a look at Strike
at Karkand and Masthuur City to figure out why that worked
there, while in my opinion doesn’t on Rotterdam
and Devastation. Then there is Aerodrome I just hate. When
that map comes up then we all simply leave the server.
All players throw themselves towards the big hangar ,
which is surrounded by snipers. The map offers little to no cover
which means that you will get your head blown off a lot when trying to get anywhere. I took me a while to figure out why exactly
I don’t like to play on that map, until it hit me.
The reason why I hate Aerodrome is the same reason why I hate 64 players on Metro and
Locker. The match simply deteriorates into a mindless
meatgrinder with next to no tactical depth. So, even though the map is entirely different,
in terms of the gameplay experience, too me, Aerodrome is Battlefield V’s Metro. The new Panzerstorm is a map that you will
love if you like tanks and get one of the tanks.
However, I fear that if this map stays in the default Conquest rotation,
then you will frequently see most of the players leave the server as soon as that map comes
up because it really just appeals to tankers
as it is so flat that it offers no cover at all for infantry players,
who get blown to pieces when they try to capture an objective. So, when I am looking at the current Conquest
maps then I really only see 3 maps where infantry Planes
and tanks work on the same map. and those are Hamada, Arras and Twisted Steel. All other maps either work best just as an
infantry map, or in case of Panzerstrom needs a Tank Superiority
gamemode. Speaking about that,
why are there no Tank and Air Superiority game modes?
And why is there no map voting at the end of a match?
These are just 3 more things that that I feel are missing from the game
and there is no justification for why these were not there at launch. There is one more thing that I’d like to
say about the Conquest maps though, and that is that like in most of the previous
frostbite engine games, the objectives still do not have any value.
They are just some random place on the map that you have to care about for some inexplicable
reason. Unlike Battlefield 2,
where losing a flag meant that your team lost control over an airfield,
a tank, a helicopter spawn
or another useful assets. In the refractor engine titles
players did care about flags because they had value,
which meant that players would actually turn around and go back to defend that flag
as losing it would mean that your team lost access to a powerful asset. This does not exist in Battlefield V
which is a shame because it degrades the value of the objectives
and reduces the tactical depth of the game. Now, I know that this video is running very
long now, but there are a few more things that I want
to mention. The menu design.
The only good thing that I can say about it is that it looks nice.
But this isn’t an art project or a design contest.
This is a game, where first and foremost everything must be functional.
So if your design causes that a player needs more clicks than necessary to get something
done, then it failed
and you must go back to the drawing board as your menu design actually harms the mechanic
that it is trying to make available to the player. Players care about how easy and fast it is
to use. And the menus in Battlefield V are neither. I’m also not a fan of those specializations.
Because we already have gun customization, So why do we need a 2nd level added on top
of that which affects how the gun performs? Why not have the gun parts affect the gun
statistics right here in a single screen. Also, I need to reset my entire specialization
tree if I want to do a change, which is just a
terrible user experience. Even worse is that you can’t change it from
the Deploy Overview menu No
you have to go to a different menu first. There are also no presents
that I could create for my gun to quickly change between them on the Battlefield. There is not even an option to sync my loadout
between factions, so, if I want the same loadout for the other
faction then I have to change it there again. Which will be fun as soon as DICE adds more
factions. When it comes to the customization itself,
then there are a few nice uniforms that will help you to blend in on the various
maps. However, if you want to use the best uniform
for sand Urban
Woodland or snow maps
then you must change your outfit manually. I would really like if DICE could provide
sand Snow
Urban and woodland as presets inside the appearance
menu so that I can choose a uniform for each preset
and the game will then automatically select the present that fits the map I play on.
Very much like Battlefield 2 automatically used the woodland or snow uniforms for maps
where this made sense. Now even though I have a gold tommy gun,
I’m not the kind of player who cares that much about assignments.
That said it is quite an oversight that you can’t select a new assignment while you
are on a server, you can only do that from the main menu. With every new Battlefield game DICE is throwing
away features, mechanics and designs that did work in previous
games. Features get reworked to look nicer, while
ease of use suffers, and functions get removed in the process
so that you end up with a worse but nicer looking redesign. This is something that I just can’t understand,
as it seems like DICE is wasting valuable resources here. Now I don’t want to spend too much time
talking about the single player. But I have to say that I like that DICE tries
to tell stories here that are not commonly known.
However, it is my honest opinion that these missions are a waste of time, money and effort.
The only reason why I might play through one of these mission
is to get a customization item if I want to get that item. But the missions themselves do not add much
additional value to the game, at least for me. So far DICE has only made 2 really good single
player campaigns and those were in Bad Company 1
and Bad Company 2 The reason why I think that these were actually
good is that I played both of them more than 4
times, and that is usually a good sign. I would even say that it is worth to buy these
games just to play the single player. For the single play of Battlefield V
I would have hoped to see DICE follow a single protagonist
or a small group of soldiers, as that allows the player to actually care
about these characters. Those single player missions just are not
able to achieve that. And finally, what’s up with the netcode
in Battlefield V. It runs at 60Hz on PC,
but the game clearly has issues which cause that you receive damage behind cover
even when the enemy player does not have a high ping.
The damage indicator points in the wrong direction And many times, it feels like you die too
fast. Most of the time the player thinks that he
had 100 health but in reality he had 50 and that’s why he died so fast. That is something
that my damage log would prevent. but there are legit cases where you seem to
get the damage of multiple hits all at once, which was a big issue in Battlefield 3 and
Battlefield 4 as well, before the netcode rework. So, as I said in previous videos, Battlefield
V is almost impossible for me to test because of how crowded the servers are and the fact
that DICE also remove the switch teams option. If I could rent my own server
then this would make it very easy to test the game
as I could just ask the community to join the server
and leave my 2 test players alone while I run my test
but you can’t rent your own Battlefield V server. So, I do want to do an in depth netcode analysis
of Battlefield V, but even though I spent more than 10 hours
trying to run tests on public servers I could not get enough data to do an actual
netcode analysis. Which is bugging me a lot. Now I know that this video sounds overly negative,
and while Battlefield V also isn’t that worthy Battlefield 2 successor that I am still
waiting on, it is the first Frostbite engine Battlefield
game that comes close to providing that original Battlefield experience,
which is why I really like this game and so hope that DICE will continue to focus on teamwork,
tactics skill
ease of use and features that make the game more accessible
for gaming communities and clans which was one of the main reasons why the
Battlefield franchise got so successful in the first place. If DICE manages to fulfil what they promised,
then Battlefield V will easily become my favourite Frostbite Engine Battlefield game. That said,
I consider the core Battlefield franchise to be separate from the Bad Company franchise
which I love for its fun and explosive gameplay experience.
I really hope that EA and DICE will eventually continue the Bad Company franchise
alongside the Battlefield franchise, as these provide different and unique experiences. And that’s all for today.
Let me know in the comments down below what you think about my feedback and design concepts.
And I’m interested to hear what you like and dislike about the game. If you enjoy the content that I release on
my channel, then it would be great if you could support
me on Patreon. Without the awesome support that I get from
my patrons Battle(non)sense would not exists anymore. You can find a link to my Patreon in the description
down below where you will also find links to my social
accounts in case that you want to stay up to date on
the videos that I am working on. So, if you enjoyed this video then please
give it a like subscribe for more and I hope to see you next
time! Until then,
have a nice day and take care, my name is Chris
and this was Battle(non)sense

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *