46
Spacelords Universe / Re: Ginebra new weapon/ skin discount?
on: April 27, 2018, 08:42:04 PM
Darn it. I am at level 30. Won't get her in time to make the sales. Mercury Steam dangling that carrot. You vicious so-and-sos.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
47
Gameplay Feedback / Re: The Antagonist system need reworked.
on: April 25, 2018, 12:02:14 AM
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.
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.
48
Suggestions / Re: Too Many Antagonist Now
on: April 21, 2018, 01:59:22 AM
Hi. Glad to be here. My name is Shuggoth_Poot and I love being an Antagonist. I apologize to the community. I'm the reason you fail missions and get crummy rewards. I'm sorry. I'd stop if I could, but I can't. I like being an Antagonist too much. It's like, when Uras-Behrit?...Emoji-Berra?...when he taunts the Raiders before the mission launches - I get this rush. It's like running from the police on a mixture of bath salts while listening to Motor Head on a blue-tooth headset made out of faulty wires that shocks your friggin brain every time Lemmy grunts like he gargled broken glass for breakfast
...but I digress.
I've played against Antagonists too - and lost. This opened my eyes to the pain I was causing others, and I realized what I'm doing when I Antagonized others. But I still don't wanna quit. I can't. It's too good. Like when you run outside butt-naked in a thunderstorm with...nevermind. POINT IS...I would like to give some suggestions to help alleviate the pain I'm causing others, because I lack the self-control to quit you, Emoji-Barrel.
Firstly (hahaha firstly) - I think players should be given the option of joining a mission in which the Antagonist can or cannot join. Obviously, missions that have Antagonists should be rewarded significantly more for being completed successfully. That is not to say that those who opt out of playing against an Antagonist should be punished. If you've ever played an extremely long dog-fight of a mission against an Antagonist, only to lose at the very friggin end when victory was so friggin close you could friggin taste its sweaty victory...stuff. Yeah, it's one heck of a devastating defeat. Higher risk (PvP), higher reward. Lower risk (PvE), lower reward. And I don't think it's enough that the reward be higher if you get invaded. Some people, no amount of reward will make them enjoy the experience of an Antagonist. In the end, they're so stressed and irritated, etc. that they would say you can take your BluePrint (that roll b.s. is...well, b.s. but we'll talk about that somewhere else) and shove it up your Aleph Injector.
Secondly - Well, I've lost track of my thoughts. Anyone else wanna chime in?
...but I digress.
I've played against Antagonists too - and lost. This opened my eyes to the pain I was causing others, and I realized what I'm doing when I Antagonized others. But I still don't wanna quit. I can't. It's too good. Like when you run outside butt-naked in a thunderstorm with...nevermind. POINT IS...I would like to give some suggestions to help alleviate the pain I'm causing others, because I lack the self-control to quit you, Emoji-Barrel.
Firstly (hahaha firstly) - I think players should be given the option of joining a mission in which the Antagonist can or cannot join. Obviously, missions that have Antagonists should be rewarded significantly more for being completed successfully. That is not to say that those who opt out of playing against an Antagonist should be punished. If you've ever played an extremely long dog-fight of a mission against an Antagonist, only to lose at the very friggin end when victory was so friggin close you could friggin taste its sweaty victory...stuff. Yeah, it's one heck of a devastating defeat. Higher risk (PvP), higher reward. Lower risk (PvE), lower reward. And I don't think it's enough that the reward be higher if you get invaded. Some people, no amount of reward will make them enjoy the experience of an Antagonist. In the end, they're so stressed and irritated, etc. that they would say you can take your BluePrint (that roll b.s. is...well, b.s. but we'll talk about that somewhere else) and shove it up your Aleph Injector.
Secondly - Well, I've lost track of my thoughts. Anyone else wanna chime in?