[BeertheBrad]

What about allowing the Antag to switch it up in the breaks?

I ran into a group that I couldn't CQC(Thanks 300 ping/Euro servers.) I would have loved to switch it up to a sniping class.

I am sure that this power would be well within Uras' power.

[LordDraco3]

I've suggested this in discord and a lot of people seemed to like it. Many missions have very dynamic maps. The same antagonist that might be good at the first section of Enemy Within/Beast Lair, which are huge open spaces, are likely not to be so good on the second part, which are small maps that allow raiders to dogpile you.

There is an old trailer when Konstantin confronts an Uras acolyte and it is pulsating and shapeshifting between forms. Being able to switch between characters either between respawns, or between scene transitions, would not only be lore-friendly, but also help those who might be bad at initially picking, or to adapt to the Raider's play style.

[Level9Drow]

I've suggested this in discord and a lot of people seemed to like it. Many missions have very dynamic maps. The same antagonist that might be good at the first section of Enemy Within/Beast Lair, which are huge open spaces, are likely not to be so good on the second part, which are small maps that allow raiders to dogpile you.

There is an old trailer when Konstantin confronts an Uras acolyte and it is pulsating and shapeshifting between forms. Being able to switch between characters either between respawns, or between scene transitions, would not only be lore-friendly, but also help those who might be bad at initially picking, or to adapt to the Raider's play style.

There would need to be some kind of compensation for the raiders then. It's already bad enough getting destroyed by antagonists who put level and have superior weapons. And let's be honest, the new Hades Division HEAVILY favors antagonists in level design and mechanics more than any other campaign. And the compensation the raiders would get would have to be something other than rewards. This would make the situation worse for un raiders and I wouldn't give a shit about gold and faction at this point, the tilt level would be epic.

[TheBrentWoody]

There needs to be antiantagonist blueprints ... Rarer blueprints that you can obtain through other means. . That drop separately from standard blueprint.

[TheBrentWoody]

We're focusing on incentive to play antagonist. There needs to be incentive to want to play against them too.

[LordDraco3]

So are antagonists too powerful? Or are Raiders too powerful?

Because the posts on this forum are total polar opposites. We have people saying "don't force antagonist, I can't beat seal team 6 Raiders that just dogpile me" and then we have people that feel like Antagonists are unstoppable juggernauts. It can't be both....

[Level9Drow]

There needs to be antiantagonist blueprints ... Rarer blueprints that you can obtain through other means. . That drop separately from standard blueprint.

Ask yourself this philosophical question; why would a developer NEED to give an incentive to play their game mode? Why would't players play this normally with normal rewards? What's keeping them to do so that they would need to make an incentive? And if they need to make an incentive shouldn't that mean there's something wrong with that particular game mode and not the player? Why punish the player at that point?

When you lock things behind certain game modes that need incentives then players feel FORCED to do it because they cannot get what they need without doing so. This causes them to feel resentful towards the system  and game because the game isn't facilitating the part of the game they want to play.

Another thing that's an issue is they lock weapons, and more importantly blueprints, that would be more beneficial to Raiders for functions ONLY a raider would need, like "Exterminator", an antag clearly does not need this, so it FORCES raiders to have to play antag for a weapon clearly made for a raider, and vice-versa I'm sure. The issue is that both types of players cannot simply enjoy the mode they love and are forced into gameplay they dislike. Hence the AFK PvEers as antagonists. This is going to be a thing now, it is a thing now, and I don't blame them.

[Level9Drow]

So are antagonists too powerful? Or are Raiders too powerful?

Because the posts on this forum are total polar opposites. We have people saying "don't force antagonist, I can't beat seal team 6 Raiders that just dogpile me" and then we have people that feel like Antagonists are unstoppable juggernauts. It can't be both....

actually, LordDraco, i think it's both. Both have legitimate complaints because both are going against players that out-level them and probably have better weapons. The problem is implementing stats that replace skill against other players. I'm not sure why they did this, like "Hero Killer" and "Armor", "Resistance", etc... it means a person can beat you because of their stats and less because they're good. And add this advantage to a person who is already decent at the game and you got a recipe for major tilt rants, rage-uninstalls and bad reviews.

EDIT: Here's another nuance to consider. You NEED your upgraded weapons but you may have upgraded weapons on only certain characters and those characters may be terrible for a certain map or against certain other heroes and so you are forced to either use an inferior equipped hero or a well equipped character who is bad for the map or against their characters. It's a mess right now with the forge system. At least before the weapons were just what they were, no stats, no nothing and you could use any character you choose because all weapons and character stats were balanced across the board. Not any more.

[LordDraco3]

Consider your exact post in the context of if we said "they are incentivizing Raider mode".

When you lock things behind certain game modes that need incentives then players feel FORCED to do it because they cannot get what they need without doing so. This causes them to feel resentful towards the system  and game because the game isn't facilitating the part of the game they want to play.

Like this exact quote could be used to describe Raider mode. After having the Protector die Every Single Time I have played Fistful of Sand since the update, I hate playing that mission. I would much rather play antagonist and have fun fighting players, but the game FORCES me to play Raider mode to get whatever blueprints are on that map. I feel equally the same about Double Agent, that mission is stupidly hard at higher MMR.

Both modes are equally as important and thus need to carry equally enticing rewards, you just have a vendetta against one mode because of your personal feelings on pvp as a concept. Currently, Raider mode has so many more blueprints that it is much more incentivized, since blueprints are what most of us are farming for (currently).

[Level9Drow]

No, you are absolutely correct. That argument CAN go both ways. no one should feel forced on either side. There shouldn't be weapons or blueprints locked behind affinity. Sadly they shouldn't lock anything behind either. I see them trying to give incentives for PvEers to play Antag, and for PvPers to play Raiders, but really they should leave them alone to play how they want and not force them.

[TheBrentWoody]

The antiantagonist blueprints should be the antagonist blueprints. Yeah. That. We're smart.

Random teams lose to antagonist. Antagonists lose to coordinated teams, skill, or lag. That's the situation. The only thing needing corrected is lag and mechanics that let veterans roll new players easier than they might toe to toe.

[LordDraco3]

I am hoping they will rotate blueprints more often, between maps and what is antagonist reward. There's some good stuff in antag, but the drop rate is pretty meh despite having a very cluttered possible drop table, like 8 blueprints or something. I think switching them periodically (say, weekly or monthly) with other weapons that are currently on maps would give people who prefer one mode or the other to get those weapons playing their preferred mode. I'm neutral on locking the ability to craft between affinity type, since it's pretty easy to switch it. But locking cards behind affinity type helps narrow down drawing to what you want, so that's helpful.

[Level9Drow]

What a ridiculous situation we find ourselves in, don't you think? What help does it do the game to have the community split with resentment? PvEers resent the Antagonists PvPers, you can see the forums. And PvPer Antagonists resent the fact that PvEers don't want to be their play toys. Both sides are getting rolled by higher levels and greater gear as well. I mean, this isn't a good thing to have people feel like this.

It's really simple. Just let players opt out of "invasion" and don't lock anything behind affinity. That easy. I don't have to be your amusement and you don't need to play "boring AI" for all the stuff in the game. The "incentive" to allow "invasions" would be a substantial reward amount increase.

[TheBrentWoody]

You CAN lock stuff behind invasions.  You just need a sufficient PvE counterpart.

[Level9Drow]

You CAN lock stuff behind invasions.  You just need a sufficient PvE counterpart.

i'm sorry Brent, I'm not sure if your response was to my post above, but can you clarify what you are meaning? The system currently has no option to "turn off invasion/antagonists" in which a player can go through missions with others 100% without antagonists. I don't think you meant this though.

You also mentioned something about a "sufficient PvE counterpart" and I think there is something about the new system I don't understand or don't realize" can you elaborate on what you mean by these two sentences?