Mercurysteam's Hangout
BARRACKS => Gameplay Feedback => Topic started by: Crash on April 05, 2018, 02:49:56 AM
-
I doubt the developers will read or respond to this, simply on the premise that they have refused to listen to logic and reason ever since this game reared its ugly head into existance, and yet the only thing that's happened is that the game started to die a slow and painful death from the moment it released.
The forced pvp in this game needs to go, I have absolutely no idea what genius thought it was a fantastic idea to force pvp on players that have no intention of ever wanting to participate, do you know what happens when people discover this? they leave the game immediately, do you know what they did in this game? yep, you guessed it, they either all left, or didn't bother playing at all on discovering.
There needs to be 2 queues in this game, one for casual pve, and the other for an antagonist to play with. The casual pve queue also NEEDS to have no player requirement to start a game, if I want to start a game with 1 or even 2 friends then simply let us, if me and a single friend complete a mission and you as developers care so damn hard about the end-game rewards, then simply reduce all rewards by 50% to simulate the idea of all 4 players selecting gold at the end, the same goes with if theres 3 players, reduce the rewards because of lacking 1 member and we're all good, and once again for if I'm playing solo.
I have 2 other people that are mildly interested in playing the game, but we're not stupid enough to waste our time trying to play, and we're definitely not daft enough to part away with our money to buy all the campaigns just so we're going to be stuck waiting for an eternity to play the game, and then get stuck with some experienced player as an antagonist to ruin our game and make us uninstall it out of our lives for ever.
Please, consider actually listening to this vital feedback into why your game is on its death bed, far too many of your potential players don't care for the forced pvp, at least not before we've even learnt the basics of the game, the characters, the maps, the objectives, and obtaining those cards to make builds with, no one enjoys getting stomped, but yet Mercurysteam seems to think that's exactly what we want, get our faces stomped just so we can uninstall.
-
I asked them this to. :/
To be honest I love the game too damn much to leave even with those annoying tilting antagonists invading. I hope they do something like what you suggest in the future, but I'll content myself on the fact that, at least so far, you get more games without antagonists than with them. BUT, and this is important, there are a few levels you need to be aware of that are, what I like name them, "antagonists cesspool" levels. These are Hanging by a Thread, and any level that is the weekly free level (usually In Shock and Short Fused), rarely others.
The catch 22 is, if you don'e have all the content you are more than likely playing these levels most of the time and therefore get more antagonists. If you own the other missions that are not free or the weekly then you will run into antagonists a LOT less.
I think the reason they do this is because they're trying to grow the playerbase. It may not be what it needs to be and doing what you, and I, suggested would split the community.
-
I don't see the terrible harm in private matches and play but yes it can and will split the community. As for the rest, it just sounds like the game wasn't a good fit for you and your friends. Not trying to be snide about it but it's definitely not for most people. You have to really want to be challenged and actually figure stuff out because there's tons of things even Drow above had to work out before he enjoyed the game a bit more.
We actually go back to this discussion a lot on retention but honestly when people are ready to quit quickly I am not eager to convince them to stay. That's just a poor attitude in general. Can the game be incredibly frustrating? Absolutely, because they're trying to make an experience that is continually challenging and we keep beating the crap out of everything they throw at us. However, I think you will find people have stuck it out and continued to enjoy the game be it as a Raider or an Antagonist.
-
No idea how many people play this game but I doubt that it is going to die anytime soon. Also with last update you get matched against antagonists of the same MMR which makes life easier for new players and harder for antagonists.
Also question to OP - how many months do you need to finally "learn the basics of the game, the characters, the maps, the objectives, and obtain those cards". I'm just asking because the first whine post appeared almost a year ago.
-
No idea how many people play this game but I doubt that it is going to die anytime soon. Also with last update you get matched against antagonists of the same MMR which makes life easier for new players and harder for antagonists.
Also question to OP - how many months do you need to finally "learn the basics of the game, the characters, the maps, the objectives, and obtain those cards". I'm just asking because the first whine post appeared almost a year ago.
I don't think he's complaining about learning the basics of the game and the items he has acquired. I think he's saying he doesn't like PvP. You can be fairly decent at a game and still not like PvP.
EDIT: But that's what I gather. I don't want to speak for him. I just think it's an irrelevant question within the context of the conversation.
-
At the launch of the game I thought that PvP would be optional, I would not need to play it to get the game progress, but in the end I really regretted buying the founder package, even knowing that PvP was horrible and game had a lot to I had really hoped to improve over time.
After the launch of the 3 campaign I thought that now it would be playable, I could have fun and at the same time be challenged but not yet continue with the forced PvP system.
One of the things I learned with MMO that involves PvP is the ping system, it's no use having a host to hold the whole match, because the other player is harmed by living on the other side of the world, so it would be ideal to place it as an option (do not cite in putting dedicated servers because the cost is very high and will end up hurting the developer).
Worst of all is that I can finish a solo mission in the very difficult but it is almost impossible finishes a match in the multiplayer in any fiction all this because of the system of ping, you only do well if it is the host.
Best thing we can do is give the developers time and leave the game aside, as the focus of the game is multiplayer, if you continue with a small number of players, they will know that they really did not get it right this time and that they need to do better readjustments and We can also give our suggestions.
-
No idea how many people play this game but I doubt that it is going to die anytime soon. Also with last update you get matched against antagonists of the same MMR which makes life easier for new players and harder for antagonists.
Also question to OP - how many months do you need to finally "learn the basics of the game, the characters, the maps, the objectives, and obtain those cards". I'm just asking because the first whine post appeared almost a year ago.
Oh, look, it's one of those guys in where when someone gives their feedback or dislikes of a game, it's automatically considered a whine post! good for you buddy!
And as Drow said, absolutely irrelevant question that I'm not going to answer, mostly because you simply don't deserve one.
As for the game not being dead, development wise it's alive, playerbase wise it's as dead as can be, hence just one of the reasons to allow friends to play together without being forced to play with others, I honestly don't understand why on earth the developers are so insistent with these weird decisions, especially when it's things like these that drive players away, they have a solid co-op game that should be able to be played casually with friends, yet they're insistent on never letting that happen unless you have a solid 4 and also want to deal with an antagonist.
-
No idea how many people play this game but I doubt that it is going to die anytime soon. Also with last update you get matched against antagonists of the same MMR which makes life easier for new players and harder for antagonists.
Also question to OP - how many months do you need to finally "learn the basics of the game, the characters, the maps, the objectives, and obtain those cards". I'm just asking because the first whine post appeared almost a year ago.
Oh, look, it's one of those guys in where when someone gives their feedback or dislikes of a game, it's automatically considered a whine post! good for you buddy!
And as Drow said, absolutely irrelevant question that I'm not going to answer, mostly because you simply don't deserve one.
As for the game not being dead, development wise it's alive, playerbase wise it's as dead as can be, hence just one of the reasons to allow friends to play together without being forced to play with others, I honestly don't understand why on earth the developers are so insistent with these weird decisions, especially when it's things like these that drive players away, they have a solid co-op game that should be able to be played casually with friends, yet they're insistent on never letting that happen unless you have a solid 4 and also want to deal with an antagonist.
A agree, they have a really kick ass co-op PvE mode they could capitalize on. I'm still struggling with accepting antagonists and usually tilt pretty quickly with tham, but I still play. If it's bad enough and I am with low level raiders against a high level antagonist with a particularly effective raider and weapon I spam surrender, and if that doesn't work I feed. But I at least will try for about 5 minutes to see.
I won't apologize either, I'm here for the PvE and missions. And frankly PvP is, well, antagonistic, lol. When you have a PvE orientated game with goals OTHER than PvP then the enemy players is not a "fun gimmick" or "fellow player" they are a direct barrier to your fun, goals, rewards, they literally are nothing more than an obstacle that feels unnecessary and in the way. You resent them, you began to get very angry at them. This is because you really shouldn't mix PvE and PvP. I'll be honest, this has caused me to find other methods of revenge against the antag who wasted me. One time when I was horribly trolled and destroyed by a player, when I got him on my side in a game I threw because I knew it was him, yoou godda get even some how. But what can you do? It sucks but PvP breeds this sort of toxicity. The sad thing is, I was never looking for it in the first place. lol, but this was mostly in the beginning.
Jumping forward to the last few months I've calmed down a lot. Because I really enjoy this game anyways. I'm hoping the progression will make things better. I've learned what maps to stay away from. Doldren makes countering antags easier. I was never interested in him, but am forced to learn him out of necessity. The new weapons that do extra damage against elites and players are the ones I will be using. But it's sad I have to do this and can't just play what I want.
I would say, don't give up on the game. Mercurysteam is an indie game and they made a better product than a TON of tripple A companies could do. The Lead Director said in his ingterview that they listen to player feedback, and they have, this patch is the proof, and that this is only the beginning. He said he knows they will make more mistakes and they will strive to improve well into the future. And also another thing to consider. This game is a passion project, man. It's being done in the name of artistic passion, it isn't some giant corporate conglomerate "cough-EA-cough" who doesn't really care about their game and just makes a money grabbing soulless product appeasing shareholders at the expense of the players. Or a company sacrificing the playerbase for an e-sport "cough-Actiblizz-cough". It's for this reason that I believe the words they say and stick with it. This isn't just business, it's a love affair. I think they will make adjustments slowly to strive to get closer to what you an I most want.
Was that a bit much? I'm sorry. u_u
-
I think Drow has said pretty much everything. I'm in the same boat about the PVP (which I find terrible balanced and boring) and the PVE (playing with 3 friends is fantastic, and with another 1 one is a blast [the bug in day 1 let us to play like that] ). With the new changes I just back off about playing; it's just not my type of game anymore.
I suggest to wait patiently, forget about the game, maybe in a couple of months the things change and the make the coop version (would be neat!). In meantime, look for other coop games (Borderlands 2 or Vermintide are solid options!).
-
My assumption that people who dislike the Antagonist mode so much also were very hostile towards Dark Souls invasions? They are exactly the same in being a pve game that allows another player to join the enemy side and stop the pve players. I have made sure to play several Antagonist games every week for the last several months. It was definitely really hard as a noob, fighting against experienced and powerful players, but once you get better, it becomes fun. This is no different than any other multiplayer game.
-
My assumption that people who dislike the Antagonist mode so much also were very hostile towards Dark Souls invasions? They are exactly the same in being a pve game that allows another player to join the enemy side and stop the pve players. I have made sure to play several Antagonist games every week for the last several months. It was definitely really hard as a noob, fighting against experienced and powerful players, but once you get better, it becomes fun. This is no different than any other multiplayer game.
Well that's the thing. I LEFT Overwatch because it's just PvP and nothing else. I mean, Uprising (Retribution) is coming back on the 10th so I'll be back there for that, but I haven't touched it in months because I got tilted too many times.
And besides, I heard in the Souls games you can turn off the option to be invaded, they give you the choice at least.
There are plenty of Multi-player games not focused around PvP, the confusion is having both breeds malcontent between PvEers and PvPers. World of Warcraft learned form this by having too separate realm types. Warhammer died because they forced it. I think the idea is, if you're going to have PvP, just have a PvP game where there is no other goal than to defeat your opponent, like Overwatch, Team Fortress, Paladins, League of Legends, etc... but if you're going to have PvE you have to make PvP optional and un-forced.
I thin Downward Thrust did a video on his channel about this. He said making a game both PvP and PvE attracts both PvPers and PvEers and this is a BAD mix of gamer types, really bad. PvEers focus on PvE and resent and hate PvPers, as they take away from the part of the game they love, *raises hand*. And PvPers think of PvEers as Carebares worthy of being preyed upon and could care less, which causes even more resentment and division. You have to make it optional.
I have some suggestions upon thinking about it. They could make an option where you can play the game without being invaded at all, but you earn a noticeably reduced amount of rewards. Which I'd be glad to play for the piece and quiet from huge egos and trolls.
Another option would be to allow significantly reduced rewards on an offline mode. Not so great since you won't have multi-player. This has been discussed to death.
Another option would be to pay gold to reduce the chance of getting invaded. Maybe for that day, or week, I don't know.
But you can't have both at the same time always. It will inevitably cause friction, discontent, and resentment in a game with both PvP and PvE.
Hell even Overwatch, a purely PvP game, may be adding a permanent PvE mode.
Downward Thrus brought up some good game philospohy to think about at the very least.
-
My assumption that people who dislike the Antagonist mode so much also were very hostile towards Dark Souls invasions? They are exactly the same in being a pve game that allows another player to join the enemy side and stop the pve players.
I would of thought that Darksouls works the same way that Bloodborne works, so I'm saying this with my bloodborne experience only, but I would of thought that in Darksouls, much like in Bloodborne, the only way to get invaded is by choice, by which I mean in Bloodborne you ring a bell which allows friendly players to join your game and help you out, but it also allows invaders to come kill you, either way, I enjoy Bloodborne because I get to choose when I want to encounter invaders, not have it forced upon me.
-
Isn't the concept of choosing to be invaded counter intuitive?
At any rate, Being ambushed SHOULD FEEL LIKE AN AMBUSH. That's just my personal opinion. You're a team of soldiers trying to save the world. You will get jumped on by people with a relatively high amount of skill. From a strictly immersion standpoint...antag is good.
Antag is one of the better things about the game...(Once you hit 50% difficulty..even a good antag just makes the game easier...all the objectives are half as difficult as they were before and they spawn less adds. Antags only cause stress to people who are having a hard time.
NOW...I will say the buffs that are given against PLAYERS not ALL CONTENT is dumb, when the buffs should be against PvE content not PLAYERS. Raiders should get a damage resistance to mooks, and Antag maybe get the bullet resistance against players since there are four of you to shoot the antag. But melee is way to screwy. Antag would probably benefit from being equaled out with the highest raider level so the skew is never too high if you want that kind of thing.
I don't see an issue with being able to turn off Antag mode...I do see an issue in dividing a small player base.
-
Isn't the concept of choosing to be invaded counter intuitive?
At any rate, Being ambushed SHOULD FEEL LIKE AN AMBUSH. That's just my personal opinion. You're a team of soldiers trying to save the world. You will get jumped on by people with a relatively high amount of skill. From a strictly immersion standpoint...antag is good.
Antag is one of the better things about the game...(Once you hit 50% difficulty..even a good antag just makes the game easier...all the objectives are half as difficult as they were before and they spawn less adds. Antags only cause stress to people who are having a hard time.
NOW...I will say the buffs that are given against PLAYERS not ALL CONTENT is dumb, when the buffs should be against PvE content not PLAYERS. Raiders should get a damage resistance to mooks, and Antag maybe get the bullet resistance against players since there are four of you to shoot the antag. But melee is way to screwy. Antag would probably benefit from being equaled out with the highest raider level so the skew is never too high if you want that kind of thing.
I don't see an issue with being able to turn off Antag mode...I do see an issue in dividing a small player base.
Yes but when you're playing against AI it's a game still and is not personal. When you play against another human being it is personal. AI doesn't "choose" to ruin your experience, they're the "puzzle" in which to figure out. It's just a mindless obstacle. A person quite literally chooses to ruin your experience. It CERTAINLY isn't to enrich your experience or to advance your progress in any way.
This is why people get tilted, particularly PvEers who enjoy the missions but not the unpredictable actions of another human being bullying you. PvEers tend to like predictability, consistency, a challenging environment that is within their control. This is how the default game is set up, so it's jaring for PvEers to have another player distract and prevent them from enjoying this, they don't see it as fun, they don't see it as, "Hah, I get to test my epeen on this scrub." they see the other player as merely an antagonistic (out of game meaning) obstacle that has no benificial vaule to their experience. They also see the other player as an ass hole. Because in their minds they didn't do anything to that other person that would merit that other person ruining their experience, so it "feels" unjust, and people who feel like this get really REALLY angry.
Then this causes malcontent, this causes PvEers to throw games, feed, surrender, etc... because they just want to leave, they DON'T want to be there, they AREN'T having fun, they just want to end the game AS FAST AS POSSIBLE in order to get to the next game where there might not be another player there being a "jerk" to them. And I don't blame them one bit. I admit I will at least try for the sake of my other party members, but I don't blame them, and if it drags on too long or we are severely outmatched it's simply pragmatic to end the game ASAP.
-
I disagree with turning off the Antag option. It is the soul of this game, without it, how is it any different than any other game? I used to dread playing against an antag, but over time, you learn CQC, you get in rhythm with a character and you "git gud." I wish I could get an Antag EVERY TIME I PLAY! It changes up the grind and you get better rewards. Do I lose? Hell yeah! I get my ass kicked on both sides. You beat me, GG. I will queue up and if we meet again, I will try a different strategy ;-).
To the DEVs, great work! I know you read these comments and work to make the game better. I would suggest you add the ability to INCREASE your chances to attract an Antag! Maybe that would pull the Antags into my game and relieve some of the pressure that other players are getting.
-
I disagree with turning off the Antag option. It is the soul of this game, without it, how is it any different than any other game? I used to dread playing against an antag, but over time, you learn CQC, you get in rhythm with a character and you "git gud." I wish I could get an Antag EVERY TIME I PLAY! It changes up the grind and you get better rewards. Do I lose? Hell yeah! I get my ass kicked on both sides. You beat me, GG. I will queue up and if we meet again, I will try a different strategy ;-).
To the DEVs, great work! I know you read these comments and work to make the game better. I would suggest you add the ability to INCREASE your chances to attract an Antag! Maybe that would pull the Antags into my game and relieve some of the pressure that other players are getting.
I agree, they made a fantastic game here no matter what. I want to state to everyone that I will continue playing the game even if NOTHING is done about the antag situation, I will just hate that part of the game, so long as I can still get games with no antags more frequently. This game has, to me at least, WAY more positives than negatives.
I think You're suggestion, BeerTheBrad, is actually the best I've heard to resolve the issue without splitting the community. Essentially a system that allows those players who PREFER PvP to opt to have prioritization to get invaded, and therefore making it less likely for those people not interested in PvP to be invaded. This wouldn't slow Match Making for both Raiders or Antagonists nor would it split the community.
Great Idea! I'll sign on to that, please.
-
I don't think PvPers are there to RUIN your experience. I love PvP, it's challenging. It's unpredictable. Someone can do something I didn't know how to do, and I can learn from seeing them do that. I'm sure some people do want to make someone very pissed. It's a good strategy. Piss someone off so they forget their objective.
But Antags are there for the same reason you all are. TO WIN THE MAP. The Objective is all important. The problem with the view of "IT IS PERSONAL!" is just you projecting the anger of getting killed. You don't know what they're there for. When I antag, it's exclusively for the affinity or blueprints. And I can lose and get both. You're there for xp and blueprints. You can lose and get both. There is really no interruption for either of us. You just feel bad because you lost. (On either side.) Losing happens. If you didn't lose then whats the point of playing anymore? Your xp per minute was retarded slightly (MAYBE). That is all.
The biggest strength of the antag is that it makes 83% of the player base forget what map they're playing and just try to kill them. Objective wins maps.
-
I don't think PvPers are there to RUIN your experience. I love PvP, it's challenging. It's unpredictable. Someone can do something I didn't know how to do, and I can learn from seeing them do that. I'm sure some people do want to make someone very pissed. It's a good strategy. Piss someone off so they forget their objective.
But Antags are there for the same reason you all are. TO WIN THE MAP. The Objective is all important. The problem with the view of "IT IS PERSONAL!" is just you projecting the anger of getting killed. You don't know what they're there for. When I antag, it's exclusively for the affinity or blueprints. And I can lose and get both. You're there for xp and blueprints. You can lose and get both. There is really no interruption for either of us. You just feel bad because you lost. (On either side.) Losing happens. If you didn't lose then whats the point of playing anymore? Your xp per minute was retarded slightly (MAYBE). That is all.
The biggest strength of the antag is that it makes 83% of the player base forget what map they're playing and just try to kill them. Objective wins maps.
i'm not saying it's a problem for everyone, just for some. PvEers, in particular. The issue is a philosophical one, gaming development philosophy. There isn't anything wrong with PvP in a purely PvP game, it's when you mix the two gamer types that issues, have historically, always occurred. When you make a game both PvP and PvE you are going to get angry people, it's inevitable. You are drawing two opposing type of demographics. Many games have done this and we can see how some do is correctly and others incorrectly.
As far as taking it personal. It's going to happen, because the design has pitted you against me. It is your job to ruin my fun, whether you are there for that reason or not, that paradigm is built into the design. I'll admit, Woody, that if it doesn't occur too often I can TOLERATE this system, it can be endured. But if the game turns for, what I would consider the worst, and we see more and more antagonists then I will not be able to have any more fun playing the game. And it's also questionable what the good thing about having to "tolerate" or "endure" something unpleasant in a medium created for entertainment and enjoyment. But it is what it is.
As far as being there for the same reason, I half believe that's what most antagonists are there for. If it was just rewards and theyhad no interest in ruining others fun then they would be there with us. I admit that it may be a deisng flaw to lock certain upgrades behind the "Aequilibrium" and so some, like me, may be forced to be there.
But that's the nature of the game, is it not? So we can just think of ideas to better it for both PvPers and PvEers, because, unfortunately, they made a game that caters to both...kind of not the most sound thing to do if you can't provide options for PvEers do opt out of invasions.
What you suggested before was an excellent idea; purchasing antag experience with gold or some other form of currency. this would cut down the amount of antags who don't want to be there in the first place, like me. And of course what BeerTheBrad said was a fantastic solution as well, allowing those who are interested in the additional rewards from fighting an antag can opt to have priority to become "invaded" over Raiders who have not chosen the option. These two great suggestions would be great for all parties involved. The only downside I think that the more "trollish" antags might complain about is that the raiders requesting the prioritization are bound to be badasses. This would also bode ill for new antags, but if your solution was also in effect as well this wouldn't be a problem at all.
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/66/6619e1982b5f9a02d25897e8d415d5a784a754330a6054280ef3311416397d91.jpg)
Sorry couldn't resist.
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/66/6619e1982b5f9a02d25897e8d415d5a784a754330a6054280ef3311416397d91.jpg)
Sorry couldn't resist.
No, BeerTheBrad, YOU are the badass. With that suggestion of yours. If the devs implement your idea, I will buy you a beer.
-
This post got a bit tl;dr, but yeah I'm in agreeance that the idea of "it's personal, they other player is a sick twisted mind who is just there to troll and give you a bad time" needs to go, dude. I antagonist my friends all the time and they are some of the most fun matches. I played Low Blow last night and ran their timer out at the last possible second, if I had died one more time I'd have lost and they would have extracted. It's fun to be challenged by players, it's NOT fun to be challenged by OP AI with just higher damage weapons and health that just gets stronger than any human player could ever be.