That is a very good point, Lehi. In fact, in trying to understand the storyline from a linear perspective, I found that considering some missions as side stories within the larger narrative helps organize it a bit better.

In this way we can consider moments where Schneider dies as conclusions to small stories meant to explain more about the characters involved. That is not to say it makes any more sense. But, organized in this way the missions begin to take on some cohesion.

Some events, like Valeria's mind wipe, can only happen at certain points in the story because, in this instance, they also learn about the Nimrods straight away. The Nimrods are a much greater threat than a lot of the other early missions deal with, so they would logically take priority.

It is a little useless to apply logic to the missions narrative but you're right. Aneska "dying" at the end of DoW could simply be considered an ending to another side story that is not necessarily part of the larger narrative.

The only reason I would continue to doubt Aneska's appearance is because she is very loyal to Krausher. She only considered leaving Hades when they had no more enemies to fight back in the Solar System. It is Krausher's mech that she uses, not hers and she doesn't seem to think of it as hers because she basically agrees with Krausher that she could have done better with the suit.

Switching that level of loyalty around, where she could have pulled a Lycus and stole the mech but doesn't even consider it, would be a tall order. Even if Krausher is dead.

Hanging By A Thread is already inconsistent with everyone outside the first 3 Raiders and Hans . Also , it's not as if we need some batshit crazy twist or whatever . Let each character define themselves as they are . At this point , I wonder how MSE would justify lots of these continuities ( if they ever do) . As for the side stories being perceived as a part of a bigger narrative with examples like Upside Down , I can agree with most of your points people .

1) A Breath of Hope . I appreciate the aesthetics , look , feel , character banter (almost everything) except those big balls of mysticism + Wardogs making a dangerous combination at times .
2) The Destroyer of Worlds . Most of the likes from A Breath of Hope alongside Aneska as a character . Can be brutal with an antag to the point where you can barely move at times + Aneska's supernatural power ability .

Much respect for Draco, I hope MSE will create a better game for PvPers as well. Especially ones like this. I will never go back on this belief.

@Agent-Z46
This issue will never stop so long as it's forced. There will be a steady influx of people drawn to the PvE aspects of the game, new players, from Warframe and Overwatch (those who liked Uprising and Retribution) who find out this game has a strong squad PvE mission aspect to it. These players will inevitably get invaded, early at low levels unfortunately and usually by a person who is 5 times their level, and so will inevitably come to these forums to vent their dissatisfaction. Each a new anecdotal situation, brand new. And each coming from a gaming community abroad where PvP and PvE hybrid games always give you the option, even the most hard core games like Dark Souls give you the option.

And the old players, like me, will continue to support their posts. MSE has EARNED this flack. I don't mean this in a malicious or vindictive way towards them, but in a matter of fact kine of mere consequence kind of way. They chose forced PvP, this is going to happen. Why not get mad at an earthquake for spilling your drink or the sun for being hot in summer while your at it?

Most people don't mind having the option to turn invasions from antags on or off (me either) , so why don't you focus your efforts on bringing not only valid concerns about your experience but also regarding an experience where we could achieve having a middle ground about this topic . Yes , having high level antags can be a HUGE dealbreaker but so is having low leveled players who ruin people's experiences by disconnecting with/without an antag (even in a winning match) .
 I guess I have to bring some middle ground suggestions to calm the lot of you for a while :

1) MAKE IT OPTIONAL (especially on Mentor Matches) : It's not that much of a issue for me , but lots of players wish they could simply guide newcomers without the extra struggle . It is also an ideal way for PvEers to play the game as they please , without the seed of doubt an antagonist match plants into them .

2) Give some extra rewards for both scenarios : Maybe 1000 - 2000 extra gold for fighting Antags depending on performance and in the antag's case , an extra 500-1500 gold . Same amounts for Faction Points .

3) Balance the leveling : I can't tell you how many times I've played matches with antags who are way lower leveled than me personally (the opposite is true for 150-200+ antags with the increased passive bonuses , unlocked cards and higher forge levels which means more points to distribute .) .

 I hope I've made my case pretty clear Mr. Drow . Just hope you act rationally on some level as well .

Cheers , BlaZeMaN .

Hello again .

I know what I'm about to ask is kinda off topic but , is the UNDEFEATED counter even a think in-game . The only way I can tell is because it's displayed as a tip every once in a while but I haven't seen anything even remotely resembling it so far . I just need some clarification regarding that tip and (maybe) how exactly does it provide bonus rewards .

Cheers .

Nice to see some necessary changes being implemented in motion . Let's hope they're for the better .

Wrong, PvP SHOULD be optional. Because options are never a bad thing. Just because you enjoy PvP doesn't mean others will. Making it optional will not affect people who like PvP in the LEAST. And if you dare say that it will reduce the community you are, by proxy, saying PvP should be forced on people and they are here for your entertainment and you also ignore that forced PvP is the very reason new players leave the game in mass exodus upon experiencing their first antag.

The style of the game is for a rated M target demographic. this isn't a T rated game so there is no bowing to political correctness. A game that is free of the PC police is refreshing in an age where developers are shamed by 3rd wave feminists groups, who don't even play the game, to change their game against the wishes of the target demographic. Don't fuck that up, please.

What you say about rewards is true regarding PvP. But I wouldn't even care if they made PvP optional. You know most successful games that feature both PvP and PvE make them optional? It would be wise for them to do the same.

  To answer your concerns , yes . An antag can be a serious threat to a Raider who doesn't know how to react on some level appropriately . They may make them quit the game , lose morale on the match , make even the regular enemies who were previously cannon fodder feel a bit of a nuisance too (difference in MMR as well) . Plus , having the rewards not being enough for fighting an antag/being an antag could turn players off somehow (even though I haven't experienced too many of these cases) .
  However , I've had situations where even in 99.something percent chance of winning a mission altogether (with/without an antag) , a low level team player might have already left or worse jeopardize the mission in terms of the rewards each member receives . Personally speaking , I've had far worse and many more experiences with this sort of fuckery than with an antag ruining my potential reward pool . Sure it is a drag having to face an antag sometimes , but there seem to be far few who do it for the fun of it (as of late at least) and not for any specific rewards since the author stated that none of the seperate parties receive that much of a bonus reward anyways which contradicts the overall idea of fighting an antag in the first place .
 
I may respond afterward but those were my two cents regarding this topic .

P.S.: It is not a bad idea to have the modes be optional either . What I can agree with however is providing incentives to play in both ways as plenty of other members have listed as part of their suggestions . Plus , the author talking about it feeling unique has somewhat of a point too .

Cheers .

Quote from: BlaZeMaN on September 09, 2018, 09:08:58 PM

thanks a bunch I appreciate it ^^

Do you play on the PS4 ? I think I saw your name in In Shock . I was playing as Schneider , you were playing as Lycus  we had a 46 lvl Konstantin Antag , a 26 lvl Hans (I think) and a lvl 1 Alicia who disconnected a few minutes after the match had started . My ID's blazeman-18- .

Nope. I play on PC (Steam) and I always insta-lock Schneider.
[/quote]My mistake then . I just wanted to make sure .

So, while I kinda figured that the Hulk-looking guy with the shield was bad news, I didn't quite see that as the legacy.  Figured that the legacy would be knowledge or something along those lines.  (I guess, with two medallions  in Shammash's hands, it still could be.)

Anyway, for those of you who got the ending, are we able to see the original "pre-ending" cutscenes still for earlier campaign or is it a case that, once you unlock the full ending, those endings go the way of Harec's original tutorial mission?

Just like Harec's mission and after you completed all the campaigns the only the final ending of the council apocalypse campaign is presented to you post-victory on any campaign's last mission (Eternal Soldier doesn't count). The only way you can watch the other post mission cutscenes at this point is through cinema mode . You're welcome .