[Verdigra]

I can't be the only one that feels this way.
I get it, if you want the story and the game without the pvp you can play singleplayer. But the game works and plays so well as a cooperative game with more challenging AI enemies and teamwork collaboration.
I would love to play and enjoy the game more, but it's a frustrating system that I am unable to share the game experience with a friend without having another player actively trying to hinder us.
All too often, antagonist mode is just, "Play a coop game and every now and then someone will grapple you from around a corner."
Sometimes I just want to unwind and play a game with a friend, and this type of game is one that has the potential to be -the- game to do that with as both myself and friends really enjoy how it plays. But all of us are turned off from the so called "cooperative," system in place.
There's a huge gap in the marketplace for good and challenging cooperative games, especially shooters. It would be very enjoyable for this game to fill that void, but until then I have enough PVP and singleplayer games with not enough coop games.

[Verdigra]

I want to like this game really bad. I'd love to spend money on more than just a full $40 purchase for all the campaigns. But with the player base as low as it is, seeing so many people facing the same issue of being driven off by the forced pvp, and now i'm reading that due to the requirement of 4 players to even start a match, allot of the non free to play maps not currently in rotation are ghost towns.

I don't understand player belief and complaints that adding a coop only option will split the community in a negative way. All it does is takes people who do not want to play with you, (and who most likely are the people you complain about leaving games because there's an antagonist), and let them play the game in a way they enjoy. Farther funding the company that makes the game, increasing the chances that your game stays afloat.
It harms no one to let people who like pvp, queue for the pvp option, and people who don't just play coop.

It's been a crying shame so far because every element of the game is something I and so many others I've spoken to have been craving. A hero based third person shooter with heavy teamwork elements and high challenge for even AI enemies, and even a progressions system to give players agency to replay the content over and over.
You can call us Care Bears all you want. But the thing about a Care Bear, is that they aren't effecting your game experience in negative ways. It'd be beneficial for all (other than griefers who's aim is to ruin another person's fun) if players could choose the engagement they wanted.

[Whitebleidd]

Believe me you’re not alone, there is a part of the community (I would guess quite significant given the complaints here and on the steam forums) that wants coop only without pvp.

At this point I say even with the low player base a split of the pvp/pve communities should still go through, pvp is probably the reason for a lot of people not sticking around anyways, as it is now pve players are held hostage and forced to entertain the pvp crowd.

Being able to start a match with only 2 players and having the possibility of others dropping in later on as the matchmaking finds them is something that I think would greatly alleviate the issue of a low and split player base, having a join match in progress is something I’ve seen work well in games such as the Mass Effect multiplayer and more recently Monster Hunter World.

[OoTRIGGAMANoO]

I'm confused... This game clearly and seemingly proudly states all over that it's a 4v1 game. Yet people are constantly complaining about it. I agree it is rather disappointing at times to lose to an Antag but that is precisely what makes winning all the more rewarding. I enjoy playing as a Raider more but I don't mind having an Antag or being an Antag. It just means you have to play smarter. This game is clearly not for the weak hearted. And it has been my current favorite for over 4 months now and I ain't stoppin til they shut her down. Or change the game entirely do to excessive whining. Like SW:Battlefront 1. Stay strong and practice more. Upgrade weapons and get good cards and everything can be a cake walk!

[gearedbeast]

I'm confused... This game clearly and seemingly proudly states all over that it's a 4v1 game. Yet people are constantly complaining about it. I agree it is rather disappointing at times to lose to an Antag but that is precisely what makes winning all the more rewarding. I enjoy playing as a Raider more but I don't mind having an Antag or being an Antag. It just means you have to play smarter. This game is clearly not for the weak hearted. And it has been my current favorite for over 4 months now and I ain't stoppin til they shut her down. Or change the game entirely do to excessive whining. Like SW:Battlefront 1. Stay strong and practice more. Upgrade weapons and get good cards and everything can be a cake walk!

The problem is the game isn't solely a 4v1. You can have plenty of matches as a PvE and I'm sure they also advertise that.  I wouldn't know because it's been a while since I looked at advertisement.
I accepted antagonist as a sole part of this game and gotten use to dealing with it for both sides but still think the inclusion is a waste and act as a obstical with no extra benefit. Not everyone cares about pride and over coming "challenges." Some peeps just want a team base-third person - action shooter with there friends.
Plus it doesn't help that it's bad enough that people have to deal with a shitty grind system  that is only worsen when An antagonist job is to make that grind worse.

[OoTRIGGAMANoO]

Yeah, I'm sayin if you want something easy, that exists out there already. Why can't those of us who occasionally or always enjoy a challenge have something for our side once in a while? We all have a right to our own opinions of course. And mine is this game is mostly great the way it is. Price gouging is my only real gripe. I have fun no matter the mission, no matter the outcome. Just love being in this world!
Xoxo TM

[XjabberwockieX]

Being able to start a match with only 2 players and having the possibility of others dropping in later on as the matchmaking finds them is something that I think would greatly alleviate the issue of a low and split player base, having a join match in progress is something I’ve seen work well in games such as the Mass Effect multiplayer and more recently Monster Hunter World.

Yes! 1,000x Yes! Let the match start with atleast 2 maybe 3 players and as long as the match isnt past the 1st 1/3, give a person in matchmaking the option if they chose to drop in. That would get matches rolling quicker and should keep people from being too upset about players dropping in last second and stealing the rewards.

[Level9Drow]

Yeah, I'm sayin if you want something easy, that exists out there already. Why can't those of us who occasionally or always enjoy a challenge have something for our side once in a while? We all have a right to our own opinions of course. And mine is this game is mostly great the way it is. Price gouging is my only real gripe. I have fun no matter the mission, no matter the outcome. Just love being in this world!
Xoxo TM

Because then it would be a ghost town. You want the PvEers to leave? Really? You think match making takes forever now.

Also, other people playing the game in PvE mode have nothing to do with you. They don't affect YOU. Because, as you have said, they should leave if they want PvE, therefore they wouldn't be playing with you regardless. Unless you are implying that they should be FORCED against their enjoyment, which is what mos PvPers are implying. This is one of the things that baffle me about PvPers thought process, PvEers wouldn't be in thier games in either scenario (a PvE only mode OR if they left) so what difference does it make if they allow a PvE mode?

[gearedbeast]

Why can't those of us who occasionally or always enjoy a challenge have something for our side once in a while?

You could always have, in a game that has solely pvp. You could play this game pvp without people complaining if they had an option for both parties: PvEers who want antagonist and PvPeEers who don't.  That's what this thread is about.  Not getting rid of PvPers  but giving a better place for PvEers, and it is baffling that  so many competitive players can't see that.

[Verdigra]

I'm confused... This game clearly and seemingly proudly states all over that it's a 4v1 game. Yet people are constantly complaining about it. I agree it is rather disappointing at times to lose to an Antag but that is precisely what makes winning all the more rewarding. I enjoy playing as a Raider more but I don't mind having an Antag or being an Antag. It just means you have to play smarter. This game is clearly not for the weak hearted. And it has been my current favorite for over 4 months now and I ain't stoppin til they shut her down. Or change the game entirely do to excessive whining. Like SW:Battlefront 1. Stay strong and practice more. Upgrade weapons and get good cards and everything can be a cake walk!

The only advertisement and endorsement of this game I ever have seen is from people advertising it as. "A game that can be played singleplayer. Or in online coop and the third option of Antagonist mode."
The way it's constantly described, they make it sound Antagonist is not tied to the online coop. Even now I have to go around every video review of the game and try to make a comment warning people that it is not a coop game as it stands.

[Verdigra]

Yeah, I'm sayin if you want something easy, that exists out there already. Why can't those of us who occasionally or always enjoy a challenge have something for our side once in a while? We all have a right to our own opinions of course. And mine is this game is mostly great the way it is. Price gouging is my only real gripe. I have fun no matter the mission, no matter the outcome. Just love being in this world!
Xoxo TM

You would have something on your side.
The option to queue for antagonist invasion only.
I do not see how including an option for people who want nothing to do with pvp would interrupt your pvp. Unless you're a part of the playerbase that WANTS pve players to be forced into playing your game. That doesn't sound much like wanting a challenge to me, that sounds like wanting to fight people who don't want pvp, therefore are not experienced in it so you can have an easier fight against them.

The option for PVE players to not play with those who want PVP has never stopped or hindered anyone but bottom feeders who do not pvp for the challenge, but to try and pick on people that don't want that kind of experience.

[Level9Drow]

There is a few things I'd like to add that have been said on other threads breaching this topic.

The first is that the incentives for PvP advantage only the Antagonists. The better the antagonists does the more rewards they will get period. There is only one way an antagonists can get rewarded so the incentive is self evident. Raiders, however, have absolutely no incentive to engage in PvP, because and antagonist will ONLY reduce the rewards as compared to a game verses the AI, PvE. Even if the raiders win, they will, at most, only get as much as they would if they won verses the AI. Most often, however, when they win it's at great cost and was usually a slog fest between the two sides with greatly extended time and 1 or more survival periods. This means a score of 5.5 to 6.5, maybe 7. These rewards are ABYSMAL and make it so that even when you win against the antagonists you aren't rewarded for the hard work, close game, and extreme effort put forward. It's basically the Antagonist winning anyways, because it feels like a loss all the same. So there isn't anything to get excited about as a PvEer facing an antagonists, there is nothing to look forward to that you couldn't already in PvE.

The next thing I'd like to say has to do with a solution. BeerTheBrad offered a system that would benefit both PvPers and PvEers. I wish he brought it up here, but he can correct me if I got it wrong. But there would be an option to opt in to a priority system for PvP that would mean that the match making would prioritize you more for an antagonists invasion, or inversely an option to opt out of priority so the match making would be more likely to avoid you. There would have to be incentives, of course, for opting in, like greater rewards for getting an antagonists (as it stands no no raider would have any incentives). In this system those who prefer PvP would get most, if not all, the antagonists invasions while the people who don't prefer it would get less, if at all any. This would not affect the amount of games an antagonists would get nor would it divide the community, if the numbers are scarce on either side there would be some bleed over to compensate, as the system only affects the likeliness not the outright possibility.