Mercurysteam's Hangout
BARRACKS => Gameplay Feedback => Topic started by: aadkaa on April 15, 2018, 01:32:50 AM
-
Y’all can’t be serious?! So because I have a life and can’t get to level 100 within the 1st couple weeks of the new system. I can’t even damage some of the Raiders.
I played 2 matches as the Antagonist. 1 with players over level 85 and the next one person was on level 122! Haha like wtf? I got job, go to school, and got a social life.
I dropped the payload with the smoking daisy on the person that was level 122. Didn’t even take half his life. Haha.
I’m so confused as to how this is what yous wanted to achieve. Screw the gold you spent leveling up your random fist symbol to become a bow ,then knife and axe. Which was pointless. Not only will you punish us for losing an Antagonist match by taking away from our MMR now you punish us if we don’t play the game in a week because you come back and try to get into it in the Raiders are way beyond your level of skill.
-
"you punish us for losing an Antagonist match by taking away from our MMR"
After purposely trying to lower my MMR last night.... lower MMR is NOT a "punishment" my dude.... High MMR doesn't offer any better rewards, and the games are just harder and takes longer to get antagonist games. High MMR is a scam and I no longer care to keep it up.
-
"you punish us for losing an Antagonist match by taking away from our MMR"
After purposely trying to lower my MMR last night.... lower MMR is NOT a "punishment" my dude.... High MMR doesn't offer any better rewards, and the games are just harder and takes longer to get antagonist games. High MMR is a scam and I no longer care to keep it up.
That’s not the point. If having an higher MMR increases the chance of getting weapons I want it high. If anything will help with this shit doesn’t drop system I’m using it.
I think the issue is the level system. It’s flawed.
-
For sure.... not sure how it could be balanced though, being an asymmetrical pvevp. If all passives ONLY applied to vs. AI, it would make the raiders much stronger in games with antagonists, because they could just steamroll the AI and then dogpile the antag. Which already happens sometimes.
On the other hand, I'm lvl 72 and I just fought a 30, 15, 1 and 3.
-
Again, I think BeerTheBrads "Opt in for Priority" is the best answer to this.
-
It's a pretty good suggestion for sure
-
This definitely needs fixing, I’m level 18 and was just on a team with a level 9, a level 4, and a level 1, how is it fair for us to get thrown up against a level 78? Since I have a little more time I was able to lead the antag in to ambushes with the level 9 who I seem to get on my teams a lot so we know more or less how the other plays now, so I would get the level 78 to chase me and the level 9 would grapple him out of nowhere and kill him, but that stopped working and we tried dogpiling him, but he mopped the floor with us so hard he made the level 1 rage quit, and I don’t think that player will be coming back, especially when, for some reason a level 78 had a MMR 30%? How is that possible? Even if their MMR is that low there should be no reason under any circumstances, that a level 78 should be up against a team that dpesn’t even equal half of his level, its BS and your going to lose a lot of players for a game thats this good, over a matchmaking issue
I just posted this and even my title says “newbie” your system for feedback even agrees with me!
-
Remember guys.... the system *tries* to match MMR. If there is no one within range, the scope will widen up. I'm sure that antagonist was not actually 30% MMR, and was probably waiting 15-20 minutes until the matchmaking system put them into your game. I would know, I used to have 77% MMR and it took 20 minutes to get a game. I really was not happy with the wait time.
So look at it from the perspective of: you are fighting an unbalanced opponent, but everyone is playing. If you weren't playing, then the complaint would be "the matchmaking is broken I NEVER GET A GAME" and would punish good players that keep their MMR up. That would be even worse than matching with higher/lower players. You said yourself you were able to kill them a bunch, until they adapted to your strategy.
-
The way I see it, there are a few options to make the game more enjoyable for newer players:
1. rework the melee attack system to shift the balance more towards the attacked individual (because having antagonists just run around spamming the melee key is way too op)
2. do matchmaking off of player level, rather than MMR (MMR seems to be based off of success, player lvl is based on experience)
3. rework the antagonist spawn timers to give slightly longer respawns to the antagonist (to help combat the attacker-almost-always-wins melee combat system)
4. give the players that don’t ragequit cause of a way too effing overpowered antagonist a sizeable buff to combat the fact that the antagonist then has close to a free reign on the mission
5. and the simplest of all, just slightly nerf the antagonist. They already have all the advantages (help from bosses, numbers advantage, a not uncommon experience advantage), so nerfing the antagonist themselves would be a good way to give the raiders a chance against a melee-spam antagonist
-
5. and the simplest of all, just slightly nerf the antagonist. They already have all the advantages (help from bosses, numbers advantage, a not uncommon experience advantage), so nerfing the antagonist themselves would be a good way to give the raiders a chance against a melee-spam antagonist
There are countless posts that complain about antag mode being "unplayable" because being antagonist is "unfair" to have to fight against 4 super-raiders, and they can't even hope to win. Heck, the very OP that you are commenting here on is one of those posts!
But your posts seem very biased towards feeling that antagonists are the super soldiers that can't be beat.
It can't be both.
This game's difficulty, spawn rates, and AI are dynamic. The antagonist will not always have an advantage and win, and the Raiders will not either.
If you were the game dev and were hearing literally polar opposite complaints, how do you proceed?
-
LOL.
On a serioues note. I'd even try blocking antagonist invasions for the people that dont want to play that way. At least for a while, see how it goes.
Personally I consider that it goes against the soul and design of the game. I just dont get why people can't endure a little bit of change, everyone whines about CODS and yearly franchises and the game that dares to try something really different gets punished. ::) :-\
As for those that still want to antagonize give the WHOLE rewards as you would to a raider. Meaning around 5k gold/faction on a losing game and on wins guaranteed blueprint and 10k gold/faction. Perhaps even more like 20ks around 8+ note.
Keep handsome bonus to raiders that defeat antagonist.
-
Take it from me, sometimes the raiders have the advantage and sometimes the antag does. The group of raiders I play with pretty regularly, levels ranging from 50-90 have had plenty of success working against antags, and then Lorddraco appeared as Hans and wiped the floor with us. My point being, the system isnt broken. You are gonna win some and lose some.
-
Take it from me, sometimes the raiders have the advantage and sometimes the antag does. The group of raiders I play with pretty regularly, levels ranging from 50-90 have had plenty of success working against antags, and then Lorddraco appeared as Hans and wiped the floor with us. My point being, the system isnt broken. You are gonna win some and lose some.
My regular group just went against TheBrentWoody and he was level 140ish on the Schneider escort mission (the WORST mission in the game). I didn't even know the level went that high. I told my party we should just surrender. I'm not sure if they did, but I just ran away as Ginebra and waited for the game to end. We were all about 40-60ish, we didn't stand a chance fighting an antag MORE than twice our level and on the shittiest, slowest, most frustrating map in the game.
The mission ended in under 5 minutes, most productive and efficient thing that happened, we were rewarded about a little over 1k gold which is a HUGe profit for 5 minutes. Now if we had fought, and surely would have lost, we would have wasted a TON of time on a total shit amount of gold and faction. We were all really pleased at the end actually. That's more rewards relative to time spent than even any game I ever won.
I will always end the map any way I can as fast as I can when I'm up against an antag like that. Waste of my time and counterproductive to gaining any rewards or progress. This is my advice for you.
-
I know that my team were throwing around the idea of surrendering when we lost our first batch of lives really quick, ultimately we didnt need to bc it was over so quick. I dont think an Antag should ever be twice the level of the nearest Raider either, but I personally havent been in that position (Lv. 92) so hopefully that was more a bit of badluck for u Drow and not a common thing.
-
@Drow we do the opposite, if there's an antag we fight as hard as possible, but usually just mess around and throw games if there isn't an antag. If the group brings all loot boosting weapons, this is what beating an antagonist on Double Agent looks like:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/363386028633096192/437363877282316299/31065563_10211519501208540_7947738666868755693_n.png)
3 with +faction, 1 with +gold, everyone with +treasure hunter
With all loot guns you can also lose a match fast and get 3-4k gold and faction and possibly a BP, depending on your MMR.
-
Yea, but...we weren't gonna win. And ESPECIALLY with loot guns (weak damage, default weapon and very limited). If we were going to win it would have been with guns with a lot of Hero Killer and Exterminator on them, and that would have ONLY halved the stat advantage the Antag would have had, at the most.
Still 1k for 5 minutes and a chance to get back to a more feasible game. Cab't beat that.
It's also a statement of protest to the developers and the antagonists there (even though he didn't ask to be matched with us) I wanted him to know "We weren't gonna waste our time here, good luck, enjoy the quick rewards, hopefully they'll place you in a game where you can pick on someone your own size next game, but it isn't us."
EDIT: Also, slow and steady. This is the way I like playing the game. I don't mind smaller rewards if I know they are consistent and I can have fun while getting them. High risk high reward? The failure is more potent to me than success, it hits me harder. So you be the rabbit I'll be the turtle.
But I take your point with the benefit loot guns have when you lose. I do this when I run Antag.
-
I was the first you've played over 100? Huh. I antaged groups higher than me on EU server..Boy let me tell you about frustrating. Haha. But yeah...Its not like I was playing someone who could kill you from anywhere. I was Lycus. You got me a few times. Can't beat two people who know what they're doing in melee.
-
True, but any damage we do to you was reduced and any damage you did to use was anhanced giving you more opportunity than a fair game to survive and less for us to survive. On top of this we were on the worst map in the game currently with the most annoying add zerging coupled with frustrating map design favoring the zerging, with the most significant penalty for engineer meddling of any mission followed by the most consequential escortee. Add on top of that a person of great skill already and it's like giving a Navy seal a futuristic railgun against 4 ROTC members with bee bee guns.
It was FUBAR from the start, the smartest thing to do was to end it ASAP.
EDIT: Just to be clear, YOU didn't do anything wrong, Brent, "our" situation is a consequence of game design.
-
Huh.
Last night, I came back for the first time since before the new rewards system (about a month and a half to two months). As such, I was Level 1 AND I decided to play Antag with Kwana who I had just received as a mission drop.
So Level 1 with an unfamiliar character on a game that I hadn't played in two months. My opponents were a Level 3 Alicia, a Level 46 Harec, a Level 70-something Hans, and a unknown Level Shae on the free map.
Beat them before they got past the second part.
One of the things that stood out was, when the gas was exploding, Hans, Shae, and Harec (the one that I had been chasing) decided to stop and beat the crap out of me while their shuttle was out of Aleph for the second time. They won....then died.
I mention all this because, given the examples above, they should have wiped the floor with me if Level was the only factor as some of the posts are suggesting. Instead I overcame a massive disadvantage to win. To me, this indicates that a lot of people are using the level difference as an excuse for (and there's no kind way to say this) being terrible at the game.
Instead of playing defensively when Aleph is out, you charge forward.
Instead of using your skills and tactics, you charge forward.
Your teammates need help, you ignore them.
Somebody is carrying the McGuffin, you go off to do your own thing.
And I know it's possible to use tactics. Before the hiatus, I played Antag (Alicia, I believe) against a party where two out of four of the raiders quit before the end of the first stage (It was the one where you save Old Protector). The other two got it together and proceeded to hand me my ass for pretty much the entire stage. I only won by a fluke and, really, I should have lost.
Similarly, as a raider, if I see one of my team go down, I will move to cover them instead of just doing my own thing. If I have to intercept the antagonist and a bunch of AI so my teammate can get the McGuffin to where it needs to go, then I throw myself on that figurative grenade. Basic tactics tend to put me on the winning team a lot. (Not always in either case but I believe that I have more wins than losses.)
And that is probably the bigger issue than the MMR. If I can win a match with the aforementioned disadvantages, then MMR isn't really the problem.
Now, I understand a lot of you don't want to play PVP (Level9Drow, looking at you) and that's fair. Unfortunately, there is no real way to create a PVE/PVP division without killing the game's online altogether. SWTOR, which has a much larger playerbase, decided to merge the PVP and PVE servers last year and just allow people to switch instances between the two. Result: The PVP instances were abandoned and the remaining PVP playerbase left. (Some still hang out in the matches or on Ilum but PVP, as an open world experience is pretty much done.) Maybe, if this game were Halo or Gears of War, it could make that division due to the large fanbase those two games have. Raiders simply doesn't have the playerbase to get away with that without the online crashing and burning.
As an aside, I wouldn't mind seeing minor XP rewards for offline. (Say, 100 XP for easy, 400 for medium, 900 for hard, 1600 for very hard.) Have these rewards as a reward for every time you beat it with a unique character which would provide an XP cap but a generous one that encourages the accquisition of new characters.
In the end though, this game (and the industry) is largely geared towards multiplayer. There's not really a whole lot of ways around that which do not end in "We're releasing the last campaign and shutting the servers down."
-
Ask yourself "WHY" the PvP instances were abandoned? If PvP is "SO AMAZING" and the greatest thing then why would it be abandoned? And you would have it the other way then? FORCE people who would otherwise abandon it to have to do it? How does this make sense to you? How do you not see this as indicative of PvP as a problem and not instead in SUPPORT of it being forced? I don't understand the logiv of PvPers.
Here's what you guys constantly say: "Well you have to do PvP even if you don't want to, and if you don't like it it's your fault. If you have a system where you don't have to PvP then you won't and you'll do that instead, we can't have that, we must force you to interact with us. We must force you to have LESS fun, to be tilted, to let us troll you, to be our entertainment, to pontificate about some Darwinistic philosophy you should adopt at your own expense and detriment in your ENTERTAINMENT that YOU purchased."
No matter how you spin it, and whatever pseudo-philosophy you use, it's forced. Why should something NEED to be forced? If it NEEDS to be forced than there's something WRONG with it. If that "something" is awesome and fun then it shouldn't need to be forced in the first place. When you mix PvP and PvE together and don't have them separated in your game you mix PvEers and PvPers, this creates a bad relationship. These are very opposite play-styles and, generally, very opposite player types. They DON'T mix. It makes for VERY bad reviews by PvEers and "git gud" "stop whining" responses by PvPers which ONLY aggravate the PvEers more and further make them hate the game. It's historically unproductive to mix them.
And for your last comment, I would like to bring up God of War 4, an offline, non-microtransaction, game that got a 95% on Metacritic from 90+ reviewers and is being called game of the generation and has COMPLETELY DESTROYED the notion that games have to be online only, multiplayer and PvP with no campaign that so many developers have been espousing. Now this game is not the opposite of that, it has a GREAT campaign mode, and is cooperative, and even an offline mode, it's just gets ruined by an asshole who invades your game or the offline is completely worthless.
-
Completely agree with Righteous Flame. Level is the new scapegoat, before levels it was "how dare a skilled antagonist crush newbies".
And For the 300th time, this game is plenty comparable to Dark Souls, which incorporates pvevp and is a wildly successful franchise. The only difference is this does not have a sustainable offline mode. But the way pvp happens is exactly the same.... you won't *always* be fighting sometime, but if you do, they come in as a surprise as the match starts, and matchups are random based on some statistics. And much like Dark Souls, being level 700 doesn't really make you that much stronger than a level 200, due to diminishing returns. I did most of my invading as a level 1 darkwraith in dark souls 1, literally the weakest character, everyone I fought was stronger than me in some capacity. The resistances and bonuses drow is talking about are not game-breaking. They are there, but they are be overcome. This is not a turn-based RPG where stats are the end-all-be-all, or an RTS where the side with the bigger number of tanks will always win.
-
Yes, even if I were to give you the benefit of all you've said, still the question from my previous post stands. and that is "Why?". why force it? Dark Souls didn't even force it, so I'm sorry to say, that is not the greatest example in support of PvP. But that aside, why force PvP? Riteous Flame brought up SWOTOR and its instances and gave the example that when they separated PvP and PvE the PvP instances was abandoned. Why? Why were they abandoned? IF it was so great, why was it abandoned? What were players having more fun doing? Ask this question, and based on the reason we can continue and analyze the reason why.
EDIT: BUT before you tear into me, know that I already strongly support the suggestion BeerTheBrad proposed to not "seperate" PvP and PvE gameplay, but to have an opt in PRIORITY system that would allow both to exist while not taking away from PvPers and their experience and alleviating, as much as possible, the situation for PvEers. I want to get that out of the way first.
-
I also totally agree that a priority function would be good to have, though this could exacerbate claims that antagonist mode is impossible to win because they keep getting matched against uber vets.
Dark Souls did force it though, if you were online, it would happen naturally while playing. There was offline solo play, which I did mention, and that should be re-evaluated for Raiders being a consistently main complaint, but even offline DS had scripted mock invaders that would come in to kill you just like a player would. Some of them were even stronger than a player could possibly be.... looking at you, Jester Thomas, with your stupid rolls and infinite pyromancy....
I never played star wars so can't speak for that circumstance.
-
I love being the antagonist. It's a good time. But, I think people should have an option of PvP or not PvP. The cooperative aspect is really fun and I enjoy that also. I've had some cooperative experience with GTA V Online's Heist stuff, some ESO, some this, some that, some whatever the heck Far Cry 5's thing is. I wanted that to be funner than it was but wrong forum to complain about THAT. So, if the PvP aspect was to disappear altogether if players were given the option of not having an antagonist, I dare say it would be an instance of the player consumer fanbase choosing how they want their RotBP gaming experience to take shape, and I think that it would still be an extremely enjoyable game with a whole lot going for it. As it stands, I think that a lot of players are being driven off by the PvP - a number of which are some personal friends of mine that I introduced the game to and they've enjoyed it but will not invest in the campaigns, but will let me use tickets on them, because they're not PvPers and won't invest in a game that has forced PvP. They'll struggle with me against an Antagonist for the pure laughs of us all screaming in party chat about whose drunken fault it is that, after twenty minutes, we've failed to damage Marmalade at all. Okay, that may be an exaggeration, but seriously...how the heck to you beat Marmalade. I can't charge the floaty Aleph sucker thing because he pukes molten doom on me before I can get it done.
Anyway, so I'm feeling that PvP should be an option. If it eliminates PvP altogether, it would make me sad, but RotBP would still be worth investing in, imho. Also, I feel PvP should be rewarded more than PvE. It might help keep PvP active, and there would be nothing to complain about, really. It's not like they would be able to use their greater rewards against you in PvP, if you opt out of PvP. Instead, you'd see those PvPers helping your group with their PvP loot or whatever, and if you still don't want to PvP, you say "hey, even that better loot isn't worth the PvP hassle", then you ain't gotta suffer it. And those PvPers who are raiding with you and helping you will also help you get better loot and such when you beat the cooperative mission. PvE players benefit from having PvPers in their raid group. PvPers get to use their stuff against other PvPers, making that the dog-fight of sadistic brutality it is meant to be (right Uras-Beherit?) I think the gaming community benefits from PvP and I feel like it should still be an option to PvP.
Once again, I've forgotten where I was on my thought train, and will now pause for others to chime in or mock my inability to beat Marmalade.
-
Warframe added pvp into what was already established as a pve game. No one plays it though due to the obvious trouble of balancing that type of game if you pitted your robot god machines against each other that can do billions of damage per hit. Oh, and crappy rewards.... not much a point to play it. IT always comes down to "are the rewards worth the trouble?"
In raiders, the antag rewards are still garbage. A win as antag gets me less than a split win as a raider. There is no chance to see a 24k (or even 9k or 8k OR EVEN JUST 5k) reward in antag mode at this time, which makes it not very attractive from a rewards perspective, when I can better use my time getting more gold, points, and blueprints, from being a raider. I used to enjoy being antagonist more, but now I only do it when I feel it necessary to change my affinity. Because it just slows down the grind.
Also, shoot Marmalade in the eye that opens up to make him stop fire puking. Shoot the open side faces for additional damage.
-
Here's what you guys constantly say: "Well you have to do PvP even if you don't want to, and if you don't like it it's your fault. If you have a system where you don't have to PvP then you won't and you'll do that instead, we can't have that, we must force you to interact with us. We must force you to have LESS fun, to be tilted, to let us troll you, to be our entertainment, to pontificate about some Darwinistic philosophy you should adopt at your own expense and detriment in your ENTERTAINMENT that YOU purchased."
Get over yourself.
No matter how you spin it, and whatever pseudo-philosophy you use, it's forced. Why should something NEED to be forced? If it NEEDS to be forced than there's something WRONG with it.
You can play the game any time in the solo campaign. You don't need to level up. You don't need different weapons or anything else to go through the campaign multiple times. Therefore, not forced.
The SWTOR option showed what happens when you split the playerbase, a concept that flew over your head. The fact that you're willfully blind to what happened to a much larger game base indicates how little you actually care about the health of game as opposed to your own petulant whims. There is nothing stopping you from playing this game solo.
And for your last comment, I would like to bring up God of War 4, an offline, non-microtransaction, game that got a 95% on Metacritic from 90+ reviewers and is being called game of the generation and has COMPLETELY DESTROYED the notion that games have to be online only, multiplayer and PvP with no campaign that so many developers have been espousing. Now this game is not the opposite of that, it has a GREAT campaign mode, and is cooperative, and even an offline mode, it's just gets ruined by an asshole who invades your game or the offline is completely worthless.
Really? You're really comparing this game to God of War 4, a game that has ALL of Sony's backing behind it? A game that is one of Sony's console brand games as opposed to a game made by a small independent studio?
Really?
And how is the offline worthless? You say the campaign is great yet worthless? Is having one number continually increase or a different special effect on your weapon really the only thing that makes this game worth playing? Is your ego so obsessed with having a marginally higher number on your level that your enjoyment of a game solely hinges on that?
Despite what you think, you're not important enough for me to "troll" (which is the only reason you seem to think anyone plays Antagonist). I play Antagonist. I play Raider. I play solo. My enjoyment of a game does not hinge on a meaningless statistic. It also doesn't hinge on whether I win or lose a game.
But, y'know what? Whatever. You keep campaigning for the game's quickened demise. If that's what pleases you, you do you....I guess.
-
Well you have the disposition for a good PvPer, that's for sure.
As for everything else you just said, you still didn't answer the question. WHY did't the PvP instances survive? WHY did players choose the PvE instances over the PvP instances? Why force people to do something they don't enjoy?
Drop the juvenile ad hominem and answer the questions.
-
Have you actually seen those numbers? The only weapon that really gets effected by "Armor" stats are Sniper Rifles. (Harec/Doldren/Shae) The rest fire rapidly enough that it doesn't matter. FOR INSTANCE. The Tsikloon does 50 to 200 dmg per bullet. Divide that by 50% and it still will one shot most characters on a crit or drop aliens in two standard bullets.
Pepper Pot crits 40% of the time for 350 dmg. Even halved you're taking down someone with that and one more bullet or punch.
The dmg that players put out is WAY more than it takes to take down a player...I'm usually more pissed at add damage than I am my lack of player damage. The schleuder still one shots people pretty easily. There is a handful of guns that PvP stats actually effect enough to change the outcome.
Everything does need to be opt in. BUT, it does need to be on a timer...If there are no one opting in, then getting a suprise antagonist in a not opted in group should be avalible, and yield the same rewards win/lose.
I'm still thinking we should judge everyone as one team with the reward drops, imo.
-
I agree. I agree with everything you said. Good insight.
-
Since the game release people in forums are bitching about the core concept that the devs were very clear about since the very beginning - the game is meant to be played in online mode with 4 vs 1 player. Offline is for training and testing.
If you don't like the Raiders of the broken planet then go play God of war 4 or any other game that is "better" or "makes more sense" or "is more fair".
P.S.
to compare Rotb to God of war is same as to compare FIFA to Little Big Planet. Two absolutely different games with nothing in common.
-
Since the game release people in forums are bitching about the core concept that the devs were very clear about since the very beginning - the game is meant to be played in online mode with 4 vs 1 player. Offline is for training and testing.
If you don't like the Raiders of the broken planet then go play God of war 4 or any other game that is "better" or "makes more sense" or "is more fair".
P.S.
to compare Rotb to God of war is same as to compare FIFA to Little Big Planet. Two absolutely different games with nothing in common.
You're not understanding the issue here. The game is effectively targeting two demographics, PvEers and PvPers. Traditionally games that are JUST PvP don't have PvE elements, and games that are JUST PvE, obviously, don't have PvP elements. So when they target their key demographics the buyers aren't supersized or irritated. Traditionally if a game has both PvP and PvE, and if either of these elements are of any worth, the developers choose to seperate them, or give the players the option to partake of either side back and forth at THEIR discression. And naturally so, PvP can be jarring and frustrating for a traditional PvEers (one of their target demographics) and so can only be tolerated in small doses, if at all. This is the wisest choice.
The issue with RotBP is unique because they target both demographics, PvEers and PvPers. Now historically this crowd is like oil and water, there are some people who are both, but these are the exception not the rule. What's happening, regardless of whether MSE or you like it or not, is that PvEers are being drawn to the game, and then tilting and flaming it in reviews. So the fact that they force PvP is pragmatically harmful for the games future, because no matter what anyone lies, Pveers will be drawn to the game, and when they feel the full might of forced PvP they will of course rail against that which they hate the most. This is an unavoidable consequence of forced PvP in a game that attracts PvEers, it doesn't matter whether any of us like it or not no more than it matters that a tornado takes the roof off our house, it's going to happen.
My solution in order to save the game, protect PvPers and PvEers is to seperate the two game modes, perhaps passively though BeerTheBrads "Opt in for priority" system. Why? Because I actually like the PvE aspect, as I was a target demographic for the game, and find the characters very engaging, the mechanics extremely fun, the abilities interesting and the multi-player mission aspect extremely enjoyable, outside the "kick, kick, gun" mook fatality finisher combo. But, PvP fucks it all up.
Why would I compare it to God of War? I'm not saying they're the same type of game. I drew the comparison because of the game philosophy behind the two games, not the games themselves, necessarily. God of War has no micro-transactions and DLC or online play but is massively successful in an age where developers are worshiping at the altar of micro-transactions and online only game. Where this ties into RotBP is that it won't ruin their game to make a better off-line experience other than a dead useless campaign mode where you have 3 mooks per mission and run around all by yourself with absolutely no progression, ongoing progression that is. They can give us some reduced progression offline so that when we are tilted and frustrated with the asshole that just invaded our enjoyable experience we can go offline to still progress and stay playing their game, rather than completely stop playing the game and give it a scathing review piled onto the rest of them, and worst of all, leave the game altogether. It's ok to have a rewarding experience with offline campaign mode. It's not gonna destroy the game, GoW showed this wouldn't be the case.
EDIT: As for playing GoW, I'm a 40 year old parent and am a PC player because I cannot afford $500 for one game. Until they're off to college I won't be as free financially. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the game from a distance. And I happen to like THIS game, thank you very much.
-
I already asked for this on steam, but since I’m not sure how much the devs scan those forums I’ll add my voice here, please add an option to queue PVE, I am sick and tired of not being able to enjoy the game due to the antagonist system, sometimes u get lucky and have 4-5 matches in a row without an antagonist and the game shines, I’m not saying remove it but let ppl that don’t want a to be a part of it relax and enjoy the game.
-
I already asked for this on steam, but since I’m not sure how much the devs scan those forums I’ll add my voice here, please add an option to queue PVE, I am sick and tired of not being able to enjoy the game due to the antagonist system, sometimes u get lucky and have 4-5 matches in a row without an antagonist and the game shines, I’m not saying remove it but let ppl that don’t want a to be a part of it relax and enjoy the game.
Or the opposite; you'll get 3 or 4 games in a row with antagonists, and you just quit playing after them because you don't have the patience or stomach for another antagonists invasion. It actually brings me down and makes me want to play LESS. Even if we win.
-
Or the opposite; you'll get 3 or 4 games in a row with antagonists, and you just quit playing after them because you don't have the patience or stomach for another antagonists invasion. It actually brings me down and makes me want to play LESS. Even if we win.
Yep I’m on that spot right now, was planning on having a nice afternoon of raiders, but after a couple antagonist matches I’ll just quit for a while, and I agree it’s not even about winning, win or lose its just annoying.
-
I cut my quoted matches i stated in half if they're losses. Because the rewards are even worse and you're already tilted because some guy just reduced your rewards. So two matches and I'm done for the night.
Now here's the thing that may happen over the long term, a sort of attrition. The more this happens the more you get those moments where you are about to sit down and play the game after work but then you think, "Shit, I might get an antagonists or two. I just got off work, I don;t know if I want to deal with that annoying bull sh**. Maybe I'll just play tomorrow when I have more patience." And the more antagonist you get the more the "attrition" of your patience that it will slowly erode, and you will say "I won't play tonight." more often until you stop playing altogether.
This is what happened to me with Overwatch, slowly i got sick and tired of the PvP aspect, and mostly the toxicity. And I would play Comp less, then I would stop playing comp at all and then just play arcade and just do my placements for comp, then I wouldn't even care about placements and just play arcade and a little more verses AI, then I would play less and less arcade and just more AI. The pretty soon it was all just AI matches, because I no longer had the patience for PvP. But AI matches are all the same 12 heroes, they haven't expanded, and don't reward much, and most of all, you can't get your weekly loot boxes from playing verses AI. So even this wasn't rewarding enough. So I just quit.
I'm playing it some more because of the new PvE event, it's really fun. But this will be done by the end of the month and then I will leave. And this DIDN'T cause me to spend money on loot boxes either, because what do I care for new skins if I'm not really going to play after this month?
I'm hoping this game won't go that same direction of slowly losing interest because of PvP and slowly losing that enjoyment and no longer finding you can tolerate PvP anymore.
-
In my opinion, as someone who isnt really into tha antagonist mode either, it is actually more fun when an antagonist joins if im in a 4 person team and we can really get after them. I try to imagine that if we can smash this lv.30's face in repeatedly they may not ever want to be an antagonist again. This does not happen when antagonists like Lorddraco or Alma show up however. Some players really are a cut above and have me evaluating whether or not im cut out for this game lol.
-
Since the beginning I never thought the antagonist system was meant to be balanced... like come on, why would you ever think that?
But I do agree it should be changed so it can be less stressful for both sides, many players complain about this system on both sides.
Also... i personally don't like playing as the antag, and i find it bothersome that you are forced to play that role or else you get exp penalty (via equilibrium).
-
What about this idea.
The antagonist has a certain amount of lives and when they are all lost they will be kicked from the game, but will still be rewarded somewhat. The amount of lives is up for debate.
After which there will be a grace period where there is no antagonist, but the reward increase will remain. once the grace period is done another antagonist can join in. Think of it as a modified version of dark souls invasion system.
Just an idea, i hope it will spark some better ideas down the road.