[Level9Drow]

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.

[TheBrentWoody]

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.   

[Level9Drow]

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.

[Righteous Flame]

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."

[Level9Drow]

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.

[LordDraco3]

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.

[Level9Drow]

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.

[LordDraco3]

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.

[Shoggoth_Poot]

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.

[LordDraco3]

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.

[Righteous Flame]

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.

[Level9Drow]

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.

[TheBrentWoody]

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.

[Level9Drow]

I agree. I agree with everything you said. Good insight.

[Black_Adder_]

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.