Do what though wilts, and so will I.

I already know this is in direct response to me beating your team as Hans...  But why do you instantly assume that losing means the enemy character is broken? I just use who i'm experienced with and enjoy playing in the right situation instead of someone I don't. Had I found you on Short Fused you would have faced Shae. I was considering Lycus since I started playing him a lot lately, but when I saw everyone looked like experienced players, I went with my main. Had I won with Lycus I'm sure this post would be asking to have his shield and Pepper Pot nerfed because it can instant wound any wardog with proper shot placement.

I'm the second highest antagonist for this week for a reason dude, I'm a rank 18 and not a pushover. And not just because I play Hans, because I do use others depending on the mission and situation.

In your other posts about antags in Hangin' By a Thread, your issue was that they get easy wins by beating 1st time players that are lv0 and don't know how to play. I just fought a Kuzman, Loaht, HIVE and you with your Smokin' Daisy, you were definitely not a noob team and it was not an easy win. So now the strategy is to complain about the character I picked?

It's not like I asked to be queued to fight you, specifically, anyways. I had the mission active as well and was about to be a Raider, but someone else hit cancel and then the game put me in as an antag a few seconds later.

Threatening a bad review because you lost to another player in a game where you will encounter enemy players and still got rewards is pretty silly. 

The best advice I can give you to fight against me, which is absurd that I'd even give such advice (except it's good against any antag) is stick together in pairs and don't all pick the same character type. I almost always died when there were 2 of you to deal with at once, Loaht grabbed me like 10 times at least. But at the end I was able to finally get you in a cluster due to AoE damage on 3 squishy wardogs and 1 slow Kuzman. AoE is literally the gimmick of Hans' guns, and I capitalized on the tight cluster.

Wrong, the best advice is to do when dealing with a broken part of a game, like Hans,  is just to avoid it. Give the antag Hans his stigma, he's gonna' take it anyways, give him what he came here for, by surrendering and then move on as fast as possible to enjoying the game again. I didn't ask to be invaded, I see no reason to dignify the player with my attention. It's a waste of my time and patience to do otherwise. In the future I will be choosing actions that will best accomplish wasting as little time possible and moving on the the next game when invaded and forced against this raider. I made the mistake in humoring you in the conflict, my mistake, the system favored you and I trusted the developers and the system and it was wrong. This will NEVER happen again.

The outcome of that unpleasant, horrible confrontation and waste of time was a forgone conclusion due to the mechanics of a raider. Until we have a raider who can grapple enemies out of air, or has a Roadhog, Blitzkrank, and Stiches like grappling hook then Hanz will always be a problem.

Don't act innocent about the issue either. The fact that they HAD TO MAKE A GUIDE about this raider and how to fight him is indicative of his broken design. If you do not believe this then where are all the guides created by the developers on how to counter Alicia, Iune, Laoht, etc...? There aren't any. This should tell you something. Remember technical skill in a videogame =/= mastery in logic deducing skill. And I think I can deduce from the fact that the developers had to "band-aid" the Hanz issue with a silly post teaching how to survive him is ample proof of their failure in design and balance concerning this raider. If you disagree with this you are being disingenuous and self interested, no other way around it.

What I'll end this response with is a plee to the developers to either nerf the raider Hans, or give us the option to turn off "invasions" so we can play the game in peace and avoid the raider balance issued that are failing to be addressed. Get weapons out of being locked behind Antag rank and you got a great game where people of different stripes can enjoy. Trolls and those who like ruining fun for others have their side they can play, and others who just want to do epic missions and have fun with others can do so without worrying about horrible experiences like Hanz. Both parties get what they want, I'm not used for amusement of others and those who like competition can tear each other apart.

Wow, weird that google did not bring that up when I searched it. Seems to me the only way to avoid this ELO Hell as it was put is to simply play with different people of different skill levels. For instance, always playing with very good players will mean you also need to be very good but not so much when you play with average players such as myself. Therefore, the only logical answer is to play more games with me instead of a better player! Though, getting back on track... modes modes modes modes modes modes... modes.

No, I'm fine now. As soon as I discovered that when you lose the difficulty goes down, I was fine. A little annoyed but there was a solution, just wait and pay your dues to AI one shotting you and zerging you and your team for a few matches and you will be back to having fun again.

At the time I posted originally I was under the impression that A) the diffficulty was based on your level, so I was afraid to get more items in the game because then it would perminetnly become less fun.

and B) That the difficulty was permanent and ONLY gor harder, never went back down. So you could imagine my distress. And you have to understand, the grunt AI at 55%-61% are one shoting you and rapid melee you.

But everything is fine now. Difficulty raising is just a necessary evil I have to put up with. It makes me actually have a silver lining when you lose a game because you know the system will read that as, "oops, this was too hard for him, next game will be slightly less hard." so I'm not upset anymore.

I love this game though, this is why I am so active here and voice my concerns. Don't misconstrued any of what I say as negative. This is one of my favorite games in the last 10 years or more. We tend to be critical of things we love.

I also don't want to feel like we went off topic. Not that it was your fault at all. But I think even with a self adjusting ELO system as solo mode that rewarded would stil be awesome. I often play solo to relax, but feel like I'm wasting time because I am getting no rewards. A small amount of faction or character would even be good.

What's getting forgotten in this debate is you wont even get an Antagonist every time. In fact, when you don't you'll notice your rewards aren't nearly as sweet. However, new players probably don't get they are actually being given a better reward for the increased risk and that's been debated on both sides a lot. There's whole threads dedicated to both sides. On one side, you have Antagonists complaining it's too hard to fight 4 players by themselves. Back on the Raider side, the Antagonist is just too skilled and it's unfair to us new players! However, regardless of the side you sit on the answer is going to be the same... dedicate more time to getting better because we 'all' did or just give up. Personally, I rather people not give up but I'm also not one to force people to do things they're not enjoying and then expect me to convince them. I ain't your pusher man!

Or players like me could bring it up on the forums in hopes that there will be an implemented change due to our feedback to improve our consumer experience as customers. I've been on both ends of antag, but to be honest, I wouldn't have ever played as antag if I wasn't forced to.

I believe there are solutions that can help both player types. The first would be not to lock weapons behind the antag system. This, I think, is the core and worst problem. Another solution is better rewards for Antag players, like Gold, Character and Faction points.

Often the argument people bring up is, "Well antag needs to have a reason for people to play it so they need to have weapons there." Ask yourself why people would avoid antag in the first place? And if you don't believe that people would avoid antag in the first place and that it is indeed fun enough to be played on it's own, why then would weapons be locked there in the first place? See the inconstancy of this argument? Ultimately why would someone be forced to have to choose a game mode? That seems silly.

Please don't wave away new player impression with, "Git gud!" because that is a financially unstable view point for a company to take. You can afford to have this argument because you are a player and do not have anything on the line as a developer. But I assure you it is different if you are actually TRYING to bring in new players. I don't believe the developers completely agree with your "git gud" philosophy. If they do, they won't last long. I think it's unwise to have new players exposed to antags. At least give them the option, like in Dark Souls, not to be invaded. I know I would be happy to take a reduced amount of rewards if it meant I could play the game antag free. That would be the cost I would be willing to play for QoL, but I know this is unlikely because it would split the queues.

The devs say they have something in the works to address this issue, which means they believe it IS an issue, which is good. I am holding my breath in the meantime.

Hey all,

Thanks for the feedback. No, we are not ignoring it. Quite the contrary, actually. We totally understand your concerns about the Antagonist role, and we are working on significant changes on it along with many other adjustments, redesigns and total overhauls for the progression system.

Bear in mind the Antagonist's role is embedded into the core concept of the game. Thus, changing it (among many, many other things) while working on the new campaigns and other content is being a monumental task, requiring all our production resources and not little time.

Personally, I enjoy playing as the Antagonist, but I share many of your opinions. I reckon you'll be gladly surprised when the big update arrives.

Thanks for being constructive about the game. Please, keep it up!

Can I make a STRONG suggestion? Don't lock weapons behind Stigma/Antag ranks. You have to understand that many players, like me, DON'T like trolling or bullying others in games and the antag system doesn't appeal to us. I feel forced to play this unpleasant mode as I want to improve the weapons of the raiders I like. When I lose a game as an antag, I feel angry, resentful and like I wasted my time since I literally received NOTHING. When I "win" as an antag I fell horrible, cruel and like a bully who was forced to ruin the fun for, let's face it, new players. But if I don't play as antag, I don't get new weapons, weapons vital to fight against antags who have them. Superior weapons, mind you.

Question, if this game mode is not fun for players what should they do? Do they leave the game? Do they simply accept that people who delight in ruining the fun of others are the only ones who will receive the weapon upgrades? Is this ok to you? Do you, as a developer who is interested in the longevity and success of their product, believe that new players being routinely harvested in Hanging by a Thread by antags is a good thing? You realize this is turning new players away from the game, don't you?

Make antag an optional way to play the game, not a mandatory way you eventually HAVE to. Many of us were drawn to this game because we miss games that have campaign modes and PvE. Too many games focus on PvP and it gets tiring. But if you HAVE to keep the antag system, which I suspect you do as it is a core function of the game, do not lock weapons behind it. And for Christ's sake keep antags out of Hanging by a Thread for new players, this is suicide for your game.

I see complaints about the antag system, and I just see copy+paste complaints about invaders in Dark Souls. If a player can't handle the possibility of pvp in a 4v1 scenario, there are other games with less conflict and easier gameplay.

Story time x2:
Perhaps there should be some kind of safeguards to protect against Lv18 antagonists wrecking a 1st time player's shit, buuuuut... I've also wrecked an Lv16 antag in the prologue and had 2 never-played-before noobs on my team, they were fantastic. Now they did have me as an experienced Loaht in the game, but the antag barely had any chance to do anything, and it was honestly the most fun I've had playing. I recorded what I could here (noobsy still fell prey to the aleph explotions, every time one happened, plz make them easier to learn for noobs!):
https://youtu.be/U749KSfmkMQ

And then there's times like a couple nights ago where I played with someone named Jenny_Frost and 2 Meatbags.... Jenny was a lv6 raider (Kuzman, who's great in prologue), and we had a low rank antag hop in with Mikah. Jenny suggested to surrender in LESS THAN A MINUTE of playing, just stopped moving and playing, and eventually DC'd forcing host migration, 1 player dropped, and then the other noob DC'd causing a second host migration. Jenny and 1 of the noobs reconnected AFTER I solo'd enough to get Lycus to the platform, then they both forced a surrender! I was pretty angry because why even play the game???

So it really depends on the players you get. And honestly if the antag system causes people who can't take a little challenge to leave, then so be it. I can't stand getting teamed up with people who give up and cause a loss for the whole team because they feel the odds are too great for whatever reason.

I am not sure if the developers agree with you that it would be better to lose players. This isn't about game philosophy or "being leet" it's simply pure capitalistic interest. If the devs can save some of the more PvE orientated players in a 50% PvE orientated game, they should. If the Antag system drives away new players that would otherwise love the normal mission content then this is a clear financial choice, lose players and money when you don't have to or keep players and ease them into the antag system.

YOU don't have any financial risk on the line so you can afford to have your opinions. Think about it if you were a developer and you had a lot on the line and your game is already heavy PvE in the first place, what is necessary and what isn't?

I love the basic premise of this game, but I absolutely hate the antag system. I feel the antagonist is a barrier to my fun and to my goals. I feel having to PLAY as antag is just another unfun barrier to getting weapons I want. I'm still with the game because at least they have Raiders that are good at handling an antag, it cost me 240k. I stayed with the game because I get plenty of games with NO antag at all, but if all games had an antag, I wouldn't be here, and I wouldn't have spent $60 for the full package. Think about that. How can we have both systems without sacrificing certain players? I think OP brings up a good point.

The only problem is that you have to be rank 8. It's a barrier for those of us who are not PvPers by nature and loath playing as Antag. I wish they would lower the rank requirement, I'm currently 7 antag.