[Level9Drow]

I was thinking about several different games (here in my cubical going over YouTube gaming channels and Steam). What came up was the idea of PvP and progression, among many other types of game, and why PvP and progression generally, in my opinion, don't mix well.

Progression Games: Take a game like World of Warcraft, Monster Hunter World, Warframe, etc... all "progression" based games. These games are based around a player progressing through some sort of item, equipment, leveling and ability gaining. These types of players generally are entertained with an "investment" type game play. They (we) love grinding for items, resources, currency, and experience to make our character more stronger and get more "things".

Player verses Player (or competitive games): Fighting games like the Street Fighter series, racing games like Mario Kart series, Grand Turismo, Halo, Starcraft, etc... These are games that appeal to players who are concerned with competing and improving their skills as a means success.

I would like to state that neither of these gamer types are bad and that there is a lot more types of gamers/games than this. But for the sake of this argument we will be focusing on these two gamer/game types and why they don't mix as well. Again, no one is wrong in this post.

I was thinking about Street fighter today. Why don't I mind playing Street Fighter against another person but I mind it if I'm playing Spacelords? Simple, there are stakes on the line. As a progression type player that I am I don't mind losing against other people in traditional PvP games, like Mario Kart, Halo, Street Fighter, etc... because I don't lose anything. The winner hasn't taken anything from me. I can throw myself against that player as many times as I want, and win or lose I haven't gained or lost anything. I've only learned to get better. But this is a fixed rate regardless of how well I do, so I don't feel bad. I just laugh when I lose and it's fun. No REAL loss.

Why do I feel bad when I lose in progression/PvP games? Well, because games that are made to have progression appeal and require grinding to get more out of the game are time investments for players like me. When another player has the ability to take away my progress, or slow it down it infuriates me, and many players like me. As a gamer I have a lot of gamer friends. Many of them progression based players like me (naturally since I've been long time friends with them in other games that are progression style) , also I see other post from gamers who favor progression style games and were (heavy emphasis on the word "were") drawn to the game because of progression mechanics. I can tell you that what turns them off is the same thing, another player taking away their progress. This wouldn't be an issue if there was no progression in the first place OR if the progression rewards were the same regardless.

This is hard for PvP/Competative players to understand, because their high risk players who, generally, find progression games boring. They like risk, and get thrilled from hard situations and PvP. This is absolutely fine, there's nothing wrong with this, at ALL. But PvE, progression players are more conservative and like steady rewards and low risk, so when another player hinders progression we feel like we are wronged, we feel angry, resentful. We "feel" like it's unfair. We feel like we've wasted out time, we LOST time, we LOST progress. We can't get that time back, it's gone and, most of all, it was out of our control. We NEED control. You essentially have the Tortoise and the Hair here.

The problem, I feel, with Spacelords is, as I've said before, that it caters to both types of players. This is nothing new, other games do this as well. But other games give the option for the two types of players to choose. World of Warcraft, The Souls series, etc... and it works. Both gamer types can coexist and continue playing the game at the same time.

It's philosophically confusing when you draw in both and force both to PvP. So one can't simply say, "Well this game wasn't made for you." when the game has progression pasted all over it, despite PvP elements. What occurs when both players are forced to interact is you get one type pissed and leaving the game with bad reviews. And the reviews aren't entirely dishonest since they were drawn in by the TRAP of progression. The PvPers scratch their heads, but this was an inevitable demographic disaster that was going to happen.

Developers have to understand their demographics and who they're marketing the game to. They have to be careful of the player types they draw in and how they interact with the game and other players types. PvP/progression players in the same sand box as PvP/competitive players is SUCH a toxic cocktail. One is oil the other is water.

There is a lot of single player high quality experiences out there, and a lot of coop multi player games coming out, the BIG one that just dropped is Monster Hunter World. This is a virtual super magnet for PvE progression players.

The uneducated answer to this by some PvPers would be, "fine let them leave, this game was all about the hardcore PvP anyways." But it isn't that simple. You see they marketed the game for both players and so they have drawn in a LOT of both. So the smart thing to do, considering the current climate of games and this game's hybrid demographics, would be to make PvP optional. I want to see this game succeed, but in the current library of games I feel they should make the move to optional PvP in order to maintain their demographics if they want to continue the trend of having a more healthy player-base.

On the 23rd this game goes free to play, so it will draw a LOT of people in. And it should, it is polished, unique and fun. But in order to maintain half of these numbers it will draw in it should make PvP optional... Why? Monster hunter World. It's $60 though, so free to play will draw more in. Having both F2P and optional PvP will be the more stable and safer way to go forward, in my opinion.

For PvPers who don't agree with me, i ask you to look at this from the point of view of a developer and marketing demographics. Consider the mix of player that exist in the game currently and consider the competing games right now. We both want this game to live on don't we? We both want to see more players. MMW offers pure PvE, Fortnight offers pure PvP. Spacelords should offer BOTH, but also be able to maintain both without sacrificing the other.

That's all I got. I will see you on the Broken Planet.

TL;DR: In the current game environment Spacelords has to make PvP optional in order to keep both of it's player types in order to survive.

[Level9Drow]

I am an armchair game philosopher. My only credentials is that I went to college for Game Design for a little over a year only (too expensive for this poor boy), and that I am middle age with 30+ years of being a gamer. I have illustrated for indie comics for a long time, nothing massively successful, some of my comics reached as far a Germany, but am otherwise an armature illustrator. I only point this out so that people don't think I am new to gaming and to know that I care about gaming a lot.

[gearedbeast]

I truly don't see this as a bad thing,  at least for the game.  The OPTION to choose between the modes wouldn't hurt devs at all! No matter if you see the game as solely pvp with pve as a backdrop giving the two completely different parties their own space wouldn't hurt. Especially since the game is already there!

In terms of story, they could create bots that act as raiders for the enemy side (bot antagonist). As raiders they add a lot to the enemy side but as bots they'll be a hell of a lot more tolerable than a human with a functioning brain. Antagonist bots,  hopefully still wouldn't be a frequent thing.

 If pvpers are worried they lose prey then Mercury needs to give insensitive for players to go through something that would be, in theory, more challenging. If you are worried then you admit to most of the playerbase not wanting to put up with it which kinda admits that pvp is hurting the game, but that's if you're worried.

A lot of good seems to be happening to the game and we haven't even learnt about the arena yet so I won't be too hard on MS but I agree 100% to separate the modes.

[4nalManiac]

+1
TEXT WALL INCOMING, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Having supported the point, can we just stop the "ANTAGONIST SUCKS"- Antags are psycho-bullies-horrible-people, "the game is broken" and shit like that?
It really isnt encouraging to arrive to the forums and see shit like that. Especially for newcomers.

Now that I have got another crew to play Heroes of the storm I have left Raiders sorry SPACELORDS for a while. They have invited me to play Borderlands which I really dont find appealing and I have realized that I just can't go and play new games especially multiplayer games. I don't even have a family and shit and really can't spare time to learn new mechanics, lore, etc.

For me is the opposite I kinda dislike the progression system in (still called, Raiders of the Broken Planet). I just feel that I play and play and dont get that much (Still regretting those 240k on HIVE, wtf mercury at least refund a little bit of that, when I saw she was 90K I really felt BETRAYED). Having said that the gameplay is way better than even Gears of War which I loved for a while.

I just got thinking that if I invite my friends from HOTS to SPACELORDS, I'll have to explain A LOOOOOOT of things. Whats is ALEPH, the card system, the bonus for factions, why do we have to overcharge EVERYTHING with ALEPH!

Problems like "WTF, dude we have to play so much to unlock other characters" "Weapons take forever to unlock why can't we pick stuff from the ground!" "The fuck with the skins costing so much"  are things that are gonna put people off if you dont have a gripping story/characters and you have them! Just IMHO not in the right order/structure.

The story that is a mess not in the bad way is awesome but I just go and watch it objectively from a newcomer perspective and my friends are gonna be like why is the boss with us now? We played with her before why is she captured now? and stuff like that. Not to mention that I really don't get why URAS is against the Raiders and not against other factions it really doesnt make much sense. What is the brilliant plan of the Raiders for example? Restoring the relics, ok but we dont see much about that.

The problem is that to get INTO the game you really have to read LORE, nothing wrong with it. Problem is that character are not that recognizable from the get go, like, in you know the little game that Enric hates...Characters in Raiders are better way more real, therefore less idealized. Normies don't like subtetly as much as they say they do on top of that they kinda overlap between them and the silhouettes arent that recognizable not to mention and Im gonna sound rude but WHY HAREC IS THE LEADER, JUST WHY!? I dont want to sound pretentious but the "Leader" or the main character of a game with several playable characters better be an all rounder like BLOODY LYCUS and not one of the most difficult if not the hardest character to use. I know that once you get the hang of it Harec is a beast but that is something like 300 hours into the game not in the 5 min tutorial...

I applaud your SPACELORDS launch with the intro setting LYCUS as the "Main character" He has way more charisma than Harec why wasnt he the main character?!!! (He even was the inspiration of the whole philosophy of the game!) I suppose that it was due to the story in Alien myths but I think that it would have worked out better if you just put the Lycus mission after he is established as the leader. (It would be pretty cool if you were like "OMG they captured our crazy/powerful leader these motherfuckers must be though! Instead of that most players dont even know who the f is Lycus) Now that I think of it and maybe was due to problems in the development of the game, etc. I have always felt that Alien myths was supposed to be the very last campaign. Even the final encounter against URAS feels out of place in the FIRST campaign. (Btw who was the genius that suggested to have the events of the campaign at the same time? It really gets confusing and not lore/player theories friendly. Not to mention that it really sidetracks other cool characters like Iune I really want INTRO cutscenes with the rest of them, preferably in the campaing they belong as a way of introducing them to the big picture. Characters like HIVE, Mika and Doldren feel quite random and out of place sometimes. Shae and Ayana interactions in cutscenes would be comic gold as well with Iune and Loath...just the possibilities... )

Actually you know what...If you reworked the eternal soldier campaign AND Alien Myths I feel the story would be way better structure wise. A Single player campaign playing as Lycus (Eternal Soldier), a far better character for new comers. It could be even outside the broken planet (btw maybe is in the lore but  "Broken Planet" is the actual name of the planet?) Just imagine playing that shoot out in the intro of SPACELORDS invading the Hades facility, then facing ANESKA and eventually losing. When he is knocked out he remembers other raids, one against the Council and another one against the Wardogs, perhaps even one against the OLD LOCALS, that would really spice things up for new comers like wtf there was an army in the broken planet BEFORE the actual invasion! That way new comers know who the factions are and their motives to come to the planet. He could even encounter Alicia and Kons or at least see them in the background. Even play that mission on his skin lore the one from Prussia that would be really cool. NO ALEPH, NO CORTEZ, NOTHING. Just Lycus and his demons literal and methaphorical. Then he wakes up when he is being tortured. AFTER THAT you could have the mission in which you rescue him. 

I respect your writers but I just don't feel Harec that much, he is cool in the sense of a mysterious character but he has too much screen time for that. (With the head hunter skin as a default one, appearing one night after killing a shit ton of enemies throwing their heads in front of the other raiders as a way of proving his worth would be cool AF) He is not easy to play. He is not even that likeable, he is pissed all the time. IMHO he would work way better as a sort of ranger/avenger of his people that just one bloody day appears at the Raiders lair to offer his services, pay a due to his people or something  similar. OR crank up to eleven the differences between him and Lycus I thought they were going to have problems due to Shae or who was going to be the leader but when you rescue LYCUS,  he is literally just like "WHATEVER DUDE" He doesnt yearn for revenge or payback or something. He just goes to be another character in the rooster and Harec who again IMHO just doesnt have the charisma of a Solid Snake, Dante, Marcus Phoenix, Jim Raynor, etc to carry out the leader/main character role stays as the focus of the story...

You really need to get A CHARACTER that people says "Yeah I want to be that motherfucker!" Maybe is Lycus, heck maybe Aneska but I really think that Harec isnt. I just think of a season 2 arc and Harec just doesnt come in my mind. I really like him as a "misteryous character" but not as much more. Even URAS would be way more attractive as the main character of season 2. Think about it. The zeitgeist is filled with antiheroes, nihilism, etc. You have things like Infinity war, Lovecraft, etc.  Then you have this ancient space demon in the corner that you wont see much if you just play as a Raider, I mean, come on! Its better than a grumpy sniper...

Sorry for the wall of text, congrats if you arrived here. I'll post a little more about gameplay wise changes that I think would be beneficial to the game. I just got carried away too much with the story. This time that I have been playing HOTS I just think of their characters and their lore, redescovering all titles like Wacraft 3 and starcraft and comingback for more just because of the charisma of those games. Personally I'm not that interested in the progress. To be honest it doesnt even make that much difference in PVP (except for Tolchock and R&R in the broken side and other guns in the underpowered side) Being around level 60 I have beaten teams of 100-300+lv players as antagonist and antagonist in the same level. So level is not a excuse for poor performance. Having said this at the same time what is the point of leveling up? At least if I could unlock minor cosmetics with gold or faction points I'll try but there is not that much incentive to GRIND. I come and go but not as intense as I once was playing this game.

Thank you again for reading and sorry for any written mistakes, English is not my first language.

[Whitebleidd]

Exactly if there ever was a time to finally offer a pve option its now, with what will hopefully be a large influx of players coming the 23rd, there should be enough numbers for both modes not to mention keeping all those players instead of continuing to push away the pve crowd.

That said at this point I’ve pretty much lost hope, relaunch is right around the corner and still no mention of such a feature, and it truly is a shame because the changes presented so far have been great, the new progression and rewards system seem to exactly what was needed, but in the end what good is all that if I’m just going to continue getting random griefers in my games, the game is so good but it’s amazing how that one thing ruins the whole experience.

[Power Penguin]

I'm pretty meh on the whole antagonist idea (unique sure but it hurts new players getting into the game too much the way it is right now). Clearly separating the modes would be very beneficial for the new player experience. It's insane that they haven't done it before. But I fear that their big change for spacelords is gonna be the fact that now it takes ten levels to get into antagging. Sure the new players are going to have a better understanding of the game if they decide to antag but (from my understanding) that's not stopping a much more experienced player from invading and stomping their face in (and then subsequently quitting the game). I love the game but the devs are so mule headed when it comes to the antag system, sure it makes your game different but at what cost.

On a side note the progression system needs to be looked at since after level 150 there really isn't much incentive to play the game besides grinding for blueprints (and boy oh boy is that getting boring).

[LordDraco3]

I skipped over 90% of this thread, but I still enjoy playing just to play.... but as antagonist. Dead by Daylight is having the PS+ free promotion right now so i'm also enjoying that 4v1 game.... as the killer (only like survivor with people I know). I like being the boss, the objective that's being played against, even if I have little to nothing to farm for right now in Raiders. Yeah I need more faction to get my ideal cards, and more gold to make more weapons, but right now I'm just playing for fun until the 23rd when the hype train reaches the station.

It feels interesting to play a 4v1 that's been around for a few years to see how different it is compared to Raiders. And that game *requires* players on both sides for there to even be a match!

[Level9Drow]

You would like Evolve, Draco. It was a good game in it's time. Ruined by 2K's greed, but Turtlerock was a great dev team. It was also 4v1. The monsters are the coolest thing about the game.

[LordDraco3]

Yeah I hear, Woody still plays from time to time, I should try and get a copy because it does look neat. Raiders still seems like the only 4v1 that has a balance around the 1 still being the same as any other character, rather than playing a completely different OP unit. I'm liking both styles, they are different enough to not quite overlap.

[Hannibal Kinge]

I skipped over 90% of this thread, but I still enjoy playing just to play.... but as antagonist. Dead by Daylight is having the PS+ free promotion right now so i'm also enjoying that 4v1 game.... as the killer (only like survivor with people I know). I like being the boss, the objective that's being played against, even if I have little to nothing to farm for right now in Raiders. Yeah I need more faction to get my ideal cards, and more gold to make more weapons, but right now I'm just playing for fun until the 23rd when the hype train reaches the station.

It feels interesting to play a 4v1 that's been around for a few years to see how different it is compared to Raiders. And that game *requires* players on both sides for there to even be a match!

Check out Death Garden, bro. It's made by the same poll who made DBD, its 1v5.

1 hunter, 5 runners

Hunter can choose between firearms and runners are agile archers. Parkour town and different abilities... Awesomeness Gold!!!

[dicjones]

Progression is the main “problem” with the game, but only because it causes all the other problems. You look at agame like overwatch. Could you imagine the hate that game would generate if there was a progression system? All the fun that could be, would be squeezed from that game. The application of items gained through progression is part of what causes so many problems with the destiny pvp. If spacelords was just people playin pvp, with no pve progression aspect, it would be a lot less frustrating when you played against antagonists. It’s a gamer problem, not a developer problem. Just my 2 cents.

[Level9Drow]

Progression is the main “problem” with the game, but only because it causes all the other problems. You look at agame like overwatch. Could you imagine the hate that game would generate if there was a progression system? All the fun that could be, would be squeezed from that game. The application of items gained through progression is part of what causes so many problems with the destiny pvp. If spacelords was just people playin pvp, with no pve progression aspect, it would be a lot less frustrating when you played against antagonists. It’s a gamer problem, not a developer problem. Just my 2 cents.

Funny you should bring up Overwatch. I left that game because there is nothing to do in it. All you do is PvP for a bunch of sprays and skins. There's no point, they don'd do anything. And what there is to do is just very VERY simple PvP objectives, patload, Capture the Flag, etc... this is boring to me.

Spacelords offers customization and progression. It is awesome to get new weapons because they behave and function differently. You can customize the way your character works through the card system. You can also upgrade your weapon to be stronger and in specific areas. This is why one persons Lycus Dion will be different from another persons Lycus Dion. In Overwatch every tracer is exactly the same, this is because it is pure PvP. Spacelords has PvE aspects in it so naturally it is going to be a lot deeper than something like Overwatch. This is actually what sets it apart from Overwatch. I regret ever spending money on Overwatch. It forever collects dust in my library, and even though the characters are really need and unique they only have a simple linear application that we will ever see.

[dicjones]

Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to say overwatch is better, I barely play it, my point was that with pvp, progression doesn’t work. I have yet to see a developer solve this riddle and it’s because of gamers. We are whiny little bitches and our own worst enemy at times.

One other thing, when I purchased the campaigns it was because I liked the game and I saw potential. I wanted to support what Mercurysteam were trying to do and encourage them to keep working at it. To go back now and complain that I was robbed, or deserve some sort of compensation for money spent is ridiculous. It was an investment, nothing more. I’m pretty sure the motivation for most people was pretty similar. I’ve seen enough posts over the past year that have said so. If anybody thinks they deserve compensation for a product they purchased and then used, I’m sorry, that’s not how it works. You can’t take the air conditioner back at th end of summer just because the weather changed.