[ArnoldCat]

[LordDraco3]

[MX_Just MX]

k.

[Tekato]

Yes ty.

[XjabberwockieX]

If it was optional then the three or four good Antags that play regularly wouldn't have anyone to fight. With rewards still not scaling after all this time to reward players for taking part in missions with them I imagine almost everyone would turn the invasions off if given the choice.

[Level9Drow]

If it was optional then the three or four good Antags that play regularly wouldn't have anyone to fight. With rewards still not scaling after all this time to reward players for taking part in missions with them I imagine almost everyone would turn the invasions off if given the choice.

Are you  kidding me? I get people in groups wishing they had an antag all the time, they say it makes the game interesting for them. There's more than enough players who like to fight antagonists. Add improved rewards to those who do and you'll have plenty of people for antags to fight. The difference is that they would be willing and enjoy it. As opposed to now where many people aren't willing and don't enjoy it.

Sorry to resurrect the horse Boss, but you kind of guided my hand with that response. And for the record, I am still in support for optional PvP where you get IMPROVED rewards for opting in. And also for the record, I still hate getting invaded by antagonists. The only difference now is I just deal with it, I don't enjoy it, I just deal with it. If I win I feel like I just avoided getting cheated out of my rewards, not that I had a blast or a fun time. If I lose I feel like I was cheated out of my time and progress and get very angry. But I put up with it none the less.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind running in groups with people who like fighting antagonists (I'll let them have all the fun of doing that while I work on objectives if I can), there's nothing wrong with them for liking it. People enjoying PvP was never the problem, the problem was the lack of player options. Also, it's kind of odd now if you get invaded by a guild mate. Hasn't happened yet, but I feel it defeats the purpose of camaraderie in a guild if your allies can ruin your BP, XP boost, gold rewards. I think it would harbor resentment for some, especially those who are already unhappy with getting invaded or getting their time and progress ruined. It would make for an awkward situation in chat. I certainly would feel like a "GG" would be forced and disingenuous and so would do the diplomatic thing and not say anything at all.

[Placelord]

Making antag optional could bottleneck competition and cause more problems than it'll solve. It's been established that a well coordinated and prepared group of raiders trump most antags. If it's made optional only teams that are sure they'll win will choose to fight making antag victory even more frustrating and unlikely for mid lv's than it is now.

The real problem is the insane lv gaps. I never want to see another 300+ antag again. So I can relate to some extent. But invasions aren't so bad when you aren't being dunked on by a god.

[Tekato]

Making antag options will bottleneck competition and cause more problems than it'll solve. It's been established that a well coordinated an prepared group of raiders Trump's most antags. If it's made optional only teams that are sure they'll win will choose to fight making antag victory even more frustrating and unlikely for mid lv's than it is now.

Maybe this just highlights a bigger problem with the antag system? It's not well balanced for either side, this week its in favor of raiders while next week it might be in favor of the anatgs. MMR just doesn't work and certain characters have stupidly over powered builds that are hard to counter.  As an antagonist you're more likely to run into these try-hard builds that can also melt bosses in just a few seconds.

[Placelord]

Tekato you're totally right. It's the lack of balance that's the problem. I like a challenge  but dayum. Doesn't matter what side you're on anymore, whether there's an antag or not. The reward to time invested ratio is really getting to the player base.

[zMalevolencEz]

This falls more along this lines of PVP vs PVE balance of weapon scaling. There are not to many antagonists or people willing to put up with the stress of being an Antagonist. With the rare occasion I actually play raider I prefer having an Antagonist it adds that extra bit of annoyance or difficulty to the mission AI will never be able to fill.

Antagonist balancing needs to happen. Higher MMR add spawns decrease and you also have 4 skilled raiders will hero killer builds and nothing better to do than to put a bullet in your ass. Spawns are also predictable on the older maps and the vets who used to farm for blueprints and change affinity regularly know them well so your camped. Right now the balance shift is in the direction of Raiders.

My solution this problem is bring all weapons up to par with the higher damaging weapons. Reduce Antagonist spawn times and change spawn locations. Reduce stagger mechanics on weapons like tolchok to a manageable state where pairing them with cards don't stagger lock players. Increase boss health(Antagonist only).

These minor things would improve the quality of life as an Antagonist. However the rewards need to be reverted back to pre-Hades Division campaign era.