[Level9Drow]

I don't like PvP, but I think there would be a glaring issue in the current system if we were to make it optional. Doing peaceful antaging to lower MMR and get affinity made me realize something; If PvP was optional in the current system PvEers would grind PvE until their MMR got too high or they needed affinity and then just go lose in PvP as antag until their MMR was lowered, they get their affinity, or both. This isn't fair in a system that has players opting in for PvP looking for a fight. You can't be a PvEers have your cake and eat it to.

What I would suggest is IF the game eventually get's a PvP option to make two separate MMRs for PvP and PvE. This way PvEers couldn't exploit it and lose their high MMRs through peaceful antaging. The only way they could lower their MMR would be to lose verses AI, and that's fair. Likewise a PvPers MMR for PvP (Antagonist or Raider) could only change if he loses or wins while in a PvP fight. This way no matter how god or terrible they are at completing PvE missions it would have no bearing on their PvP matching.

Maybe this is too complicated? Maybe there is some flaw I'm not seeing that would be taken advantage of, but I don't know. If there is let me know what it would be.

NOTE: Currently I play as Raider until I need the roughly 1800 XP for Antagonist Affinity, and then I queue as Antagonists and then peaceful antag, which two lost games gets you the affinity you need.

I know that the system currently can be abused by losing so much that your MMR becomes 10% or something meaning ANY game you have as an Antagonists will either be against new players or really bad one that are likely to fail the mission regardless if you spawn as antagonists or not. OR they will face players with a higher MMR and the AI will be so strong that they won't have to spawn to win. The system as it is now, could stand probably use a separate MMR for antagonists and Raider.

[Eliakin]

I do not know you, but I already gave up the game.

I started playing from the closed beta and even bought the pack founder, today I sincerely regret it.

There are many topics asking for change PVP and MMR, even older since the game's launch, players have been asking for this kind of change for more than 1 year and today it's still the same.

PvP has always been unbalanced from launch, I'll give an example:
 imagine you start a RPG game creating your new persong and you leave the city to hunt monsters get equipment, and suddenly appears a player with equipment and skills stronger than you and for that level player high you get stronger he needs to kill you (you never played a match online) and then start to kill you, and even you changing map in the hope of running away from him, ends up finding another high level player who ends up doing the same thing and end the guy who killed you he gets what he wanted but you never had a chance and can hardly have fun or even kill a monster, will continue in this RPG that makes you a bag of shit or goes after another game with PvP more balanced, knowing that the gaming market is gigantic and has several options.

AAt the time of the launch, all that were worried about the new campaigns, but now all of them have already been released and even then the problems are the same so even putting the free to play, the number of players are low.(PC steam)

I'm venting this topic because I've seen Level9Drow several times quoting problems in the game for some time, your ideas may not be perfect but many of them are what I wanted most in this game, an optional PvP, more balanced MMR and a more dynamic game system (like starting the game alone or with two players or three)

NOTE: sorry for the big text, .but I had to play my rage after this 1 year game.

[Level9Drow]

Dude you just described World of Warcraft, LOL. Played that game a LOT. Can't say i liked PvP there either, I was always Horde and the situation you described always happened in the Barrens at The Crossroads...hence the meme "Barrens chat". I have read "Crossroads under attack!" more times than I think I've read my own name, and seeing the skeletons of level 10 players while some level 80 Night elf Rogue mockingly flips around killing the guards, townsfolk and quest givers but stopping to kill any low level players he can find. Then he stealths "WOOOooooo..." and hides when the other level 80 Horde members come. Then you realize he wasn't interested in PvP at all, because he hides the whole time, and then when they leave he's back at attacking the town and low level players again, corpse camping as many as he can.

In the meantime the REAL PvPers were in Battlegrounds fighting other's with similar gear and levels. But you know what? Battlegrounds was optional. And so was the server type you chose.

[Tekato]

Unfortunately optional pvp is probably never going to happen, the best we can hope for is better rewards for antagonist matches. There's no point in talking about this anymore, all has already been said.

[Whitebleidd]

Exploiting MMR in the manner you describe can already be done now, by both sides, so it’s not really an excuse not to separate the modes, and you already post what would possibly be a very logical solution, even then separate MMR’s could still be manipulated to a lesser degree. So I have to disagree on the issue you present being a good reason to prevent the split.

The game has improved significantly, antag is required for very little nowadays, compared to the harsher times when I joined… with only like 2 exceptions, I don’t use antag cards so now I don’t even have to put up with going afk while antag, the game is basically set up and ready for the change if the devs wanted, if they added optional pve tomorrow for example, nothing would change, and separate MMR’s is something they could add with a later update.

Unfortunately optional pvp is probably never going to happen, the best we can hope for is better rewards for antagonist matches. There's no point in talking about this anymore, all has already been said.

Like I said the game is pretty much ready and served for pve to finally be implemented so giving up now would be a mistake imo, and maybe how about you man up a bit and stop deleting your own threads on the subject… unless they were deleted by MS, in which case I apologize.

[Hiero_Glyph]

There are several ways to make optional PvP work but it takes effort from MSE. At this point I'm not sure they have the revenue stream to shift/add to their workload and make such changes. I definitely think the game would be more popular with optional PvP but I'm not sure it would be more profitable having to make the necessary changes for that to happen.

[Whitebleidd]

There are several ways to make optional PvP work but it takes effort from MSE. At this point I'm not sure they have the revenue stream to shift/add to their workload and make such changes. I definitely think the game would be more popular with optional PvP but I'm not sure it would be more profitable having to make the necessary changes for that to happen.

What would be all the work needed? 90% of all content is already attainable as either raider or antag, the only thing locked to either side is cards, on the contrary, there is very little work needed and considering the amount of ppl put off by pvp, it could actually be more profitable…

[Hiero_Glyph]

There are several ways to make optional PvP work but it takes effort from MSE. At this point I'm not sure they have the revenue stream to shift/add to their workload and make such changes. I definitely think the game would be more popular with optional PvP but I'm not sure it would be more profitable having to make the necessary changes for that to happen.

What would be all the work needed? 90% of all content is already attainable as either raider or antag, the only thing locked to either side is cards, on the contrary, there is very little work needed and considering the amount of ppl put off by pvp, it could actually be more profitable…

Because believe it or not the antag system is actually great and should be leveraged for end-game oriented content. So that means the playlists and reward system would need to be changed yet again. And since PvP would become optional then the faction card system would need to be changed, which hopefully means improved not just antag points being removed. Again, to overhaul an entire game takes a substantial amount of work, at least to do it well.

[Whitebleidd]

Because believe it or not the antag system is actually great and should be leveraged for end-game oriented content. So that means the playlists and reward system would need to be changed yet again. And since PvP would become optional then the faction card system would need to be changed, which hopefully means improved not just antag points being removed. Again, to overhaul an entire game takes a substantial amount of work, at least to do it well.

Adding additional antag only endgame content is something that has little to do with separating the modes, since it’s something that can be done either way, whether pvp is optional or not, although it’s something I definitely hope they don’t do, the last thing this game needs is going back a few steps by requiring antag to earn things like bp’s again.

Faction cards wouldn’t need to be changed imo, since they could be that last little thing MS could dangle to try and persuade pve players to antag every now and then, without really punishing and locking up a lot of content to either side, I personally play the game exclusively as pve already, so again, I fail to see the need for this huge overhaul for it to be implemented, you argue that it would be required to “do it well” which is fair and I agree to an extent, but that is something that can be polished in time with future updates, adding optional pve now would not break the system and would allow a lot of us to play and enjoy the game in peace.

[Power Penguin]

Let's be honest most people play the game for the characters, cool aesthetics, unique gameplay and the PvE. Antag feels like an after thought at this point. There really is no other reason besides wanting to PvP. And if what the data leaks say are true and that there is a possible mode solely dedicated PvP antagging would become even more redundant since as it is right now it's incredibly unrewarding on both sides.

[Dr.Kuzie]

Guys, MSE believes in the 4vs1 model; even with all the good ideas to separate the modes, with every bit of feedback a lot of people shared during this last year, with all the effort players have put in their reasons; nothing has changed, not even a slighltest lead in their responses. In fact, they always say the opposite: "We created the base in the 4vs1, with the antagonsit always being a possibility. That's the core of our game."

This may sound heartbreaking, but PVE or playing games with 2/3 players is simply not going to happen, at least not in the short road. It is neither a priority, nor important to them. And it's so sad.

What can a PVE player do in this situation? Well, we could go to another coop games and left this like a PVP option; or we can ask them to share some of the data. But again, they already did that: MSE says that antagonist is a core feature, the different spice, and a high percentage of players play it.

With that said (true or false), there is no point arguing, it's their win.

I would love to show them that there are a lot of PVE players, but can we do that? How? A PVErs strike? A pacifist-antagonist all day?

I dunno man. It's frustrating trying to play a game whose coop potential is so wasted because all the wrong reasons...

[Level9Drow]

Well with that attitude I guess no one should have said anything when EA was cheating people with Loot boxes, or when when tracers but was a big issue. But they did and giants like Blizzard and EA changed due to consumer pressure. At the very least, compromises were made. This is is still a capitalistic issue here, not some religion or monarch. They are selling a product and consumers express their desires, if the desire is big enough they may do something.

The alternative would be to get used to PvEers disconnecting, AFKing or suicide during antagonists invasions. sure you could scream, "That's unfair to the rest of the players." But they feel forced PvP is unfair to them. Report them I guess? They'll just get more inventive to avoid PvP. PvEers will make squads that they all agree do just surrender when they get an antag match, they could just play really shitty and feed, which isn't breaking the rules, and force the game to end sooner. I mean, there is a toxic brew stirring here between PvE and PvP, no one can deny this or say it will end, it won't. so what can be done to alleviate the pains of those of us who hate being invaded? Because it can't really be ignored. And coming to the PvEers and saying things like "GIT GUD" or "GO AWAY" is only going to add fuel to the fire, you're just going to piss us of more.

What I did with this post was try and guess what needed to be fixed for there to be optional PvP? I wanted to try and help the issues I saw that could occur that would prevent it. Try and hash out how it could be done. i'm tired of complaining about PvP, I want to get into solutions on how we could fix or make it optional. What can be done to alleviate the situation many of us are in who found a gem of a game that is unlike anything we've ever played before and, to be honest, can;t find anything like it elsewhere, but have to contend with a shitty little aspect of it called the antag and basically another person ERASING 30 minutes of progress and time and enjoyment. Can I donate the equivelent amount of losses in gold and faction and MMR preemptively to the person instantly? Can I just give you my wallet and be on my way instead of you asking that i stay and fight you for 30 minutes and endure my mugging? at least then I wouldn't have to invest the time and suffering, I could just give the antag, or the system, what it wants and be on my way. It would be WORTH the cost of losing to not have to invest the time in PvP. I would gladly pay and move on. But no, i have to stay and "participate" in the mugging AS WELL as lose rewards, enjoyment and time. This is what pisses me off. There's got to be a solution to...this.

[Hyugga]

Guys, MSE believes in the 4vs1 model; even with all the good ideas to separate the modes, with every bit of feedback a lot of people shared during this last year, with all the effort players have put in their reasons; nothing has changed, not even a slighltest lead in their responses. In fact, they always say the opposite: "We created the base in the 4vs1, with the antagonsit always being a possibility. That's the core of our game."

Thats an excuse they always throw, thats not the core of the game. If that was the case then all matches would be 4v1 antagonist .but is not almost most matches are pve.  Most people dont like it and they know it , but they want to have something thats unique because that would just make the game another normal pve game