Many people are imagining (hallucinating?) a separation between "PvE players" and "PvP players" that simply is not meant to exist in this game.
If you play Raiders of the Broken Planet you are expected to participate as both a Raider and Antagonist. This is how the game is designed.
I agree that the problems with this system are very unforunate. However, I believe it is possible to fix these issues and create a more fair and rewarding system that most people will be content with.
I also think that, to an extent, the anti-Antagonist people will need to suck it up. To lobby for the complete removal of the Antagonist is not reasonable, nor realistic.
The playerbase is so small right now that creating seperate queues for Antagonist and Raiders is basically removing the Antagonist all together. It is not a solution at all.
Next time I post I'm going to write a whole list of the problems I see with the PvP right now.
In my opinion the people scaring off new players are the ones spreading this Antagonist doom and gloom all over the internet. Making the game sound like a complete nightmare. There is one thing deadlier to a game than lower player numbers and that's a widespread negative, and defeatist attitude amongst the community - and THAT's what I'm seeing all over the place. I'm not doing any harm in suggesting that people either reavaluate their relationship with the game or stick around and offer some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback and advice to the developers.
I think we should be very careful not to put words in each others mouths. Or twist the meaning of what we are trying to say.
If I came off as being arrogant or unsympathetic to the PvP-haters I'm sorry. It wasn't deliberate. But to be honest, I think you are kind of missing the point of the game.
Right, because "options are bad". All you would need to do is implement a system that allows people to choose to be invaded for extra rewards. This would allow both PvEers and PvPers to co-exist in the same game, just not play together. It would bring AND HOLD ON TO more players (I've already had a few new people completely get turned off at the antagonists system). Maybe, and just maybe, if there was a large contingent of PvEers in the game that were shielded from antagonist play then some would want greater rewards, not all, and some would enter PvP when they're READY, not get their faces shoved in the shit when they're green and inexperienced, which again leads to many people leaving (please refer to YuoTube reviews). Remember this is a videogame not a Darwinistic experiment, it's called Electronic Entertainment, not Electronic Dawinism.
"It's simply not the game for them, they should leave, this is a PvP game for us HARD CORE BADASSES, who preen our epeen." I'm offering a solution to have BOTH kinds of players (and again, keep them) and the PvPers are trying to kick the others off the game. LOL, MSE, if you're reading this you have a group of players that are actually vying to reduce your playerbase, because they want other player who don't want to be their entertainment be forced to be their entertainment. And this goes for both sides. Some of you PvPers and your "hard core" mindset are a liability to future players. I would hope MSE is wider than you are. And aside from this you have the temerity to dictate to others what games they should play and that they should leave, how entitled and self centered. Again, I offer a solution for both, and you slap it down.
And Draco, an appeal to story line isn't an argument for the allowance of abuse. The Litch King was a bad gut in World of Warcraft, but Death Knights weren't given a free ticket to prey on PvEers (UNLESS you chose a PVP realm, options are good). Just because Mario is up against Bowser doesn't mean someone can play Bowser and fuck up your time playing a level. It's a complete disconnect from the core issue. It isn't relevant that Uras Berit is a bad guy who creates dark clones, we get to fight the dark clones on his stage anyways, and he's integral enough in that he possesses the last protector.
And I want to remind people of the philosophical inconsistency the game is delivering as a message. They say, "We are a PvE game and have some of the BEST PvE content, com play." and will thus draw in, you guessed it, PvEers (player verses ENVIRONMENT), and then say "If you love PvP come and play our game, we have a bunch of carebares for you to prey upon til your hearts content." Historically PvEers and PvPers have NEVER EVER mixed well. Games that have done this have gone under horribly. There isn't one around now that has both simultaneously without giving the option to choose between. Warhammer Online, is a prime example. However, games that are strictly just PvP or both but give you the option to choose have actually been successful. World of Warcraft (with the differing realms), Overwatch (you gain XP from AI and custom games, and now Achives/Uprising PvE mode), Bloddborne (the bell), Any of the Halo games, etc... And of course games that are strictly PvP have no issues because only "wolves" want to play those games, there is no misleading for PvEers, they know to stay away from that stress and misery. You have to have options for both if you are advertising both. You cannot force PvPers and PvEers together. They may slowly grow together, but you have to allow them to choose.
