[aadkaa]

Y’all can’t be serious?! So because I have a life and can’t get to level 100 within the 1st couple weeks of the new system. I can’t even damage some of the Raiders.

I played 2 matches as the Antagonist. 1 with players over level 85 and the next one person was on level 122! Haha like wtf? I got job, go to school, and got a social life.

I dropped the payload with the smoking daisy on the person that was level 122. Didn’t even take half his life. Haha.

I’m so confused as to how this is what yous wanted to achieve. Screw the gold you spent leveling up your random fist symbol to become a bow ,then knife and axe. Which was pointless. Not only will you punish us for losing an Antagonist match by taking away from our MMR now you punish us if we don’t play the game in a week because you come back and try to get into it in the Raiders are way beyond your level of skill.

[LordDraco3]

"you punish us for losing an Antagonist match by taking away from our MMR"

After purposely trying to lower my MMR last night.... lower MMR is NOT a "punishment" my dude.... High MMR doesn't offer any better rewards, and the games are just harder and takes longer to get antagonist games. High MMR is a scam and I no longer care to keep it up.

[aadkaa]

"you punish us for losing an Antagonist match by taking away from our MMR"

After purposely trying to lower my MMR last night.... lower MMR is NOT a "punishment" my dude.... High MMR doesn't offer any better rewards, and the games are just harder and takes longer to get antagonist games. High MMR is a scam and I no longer care to keep it up.

That’s not the point. If having an higher MMR increases the chance of getting weapons I want it high. If anything will help with this shit doesn’t drop system I’m using it.

I think the issue is the level system. It’s flawed.

[LordDraco3]

For sure.... not sure how it could be balanced though, being an asymmetrical pvevp. If all passives ONLY applied to vs. AI, it would make the raiders much stronger in games with antagonists, because they could just steamroll the AI and then dogpile the antag. Which already happens sometimes.

On the other hand, I'm lvl 72 and I just fought a 30, 15, 1 and 3.

[Level9Drow]

Again, I think BeerTheBrads "Opt in for Priority" is the best answer to this.

[LordDraco3]

It's a pretty good suggestion for sure

[MonkeyBlaze-15]

This definitely needs fixing, I’m level 18 and was just on a team with a level 9, a level 4, and a level 1, how is it fair for us to get thrown up against a level 78? Since I have a little more time I was able to lead the antag in to ambushes with the level 9 who I seem to get on my teams a lot so we know more or less how the other plays now, so I would get the level 78 to chase me and the level 9 would grapple him out of nowhere and kill him, but that stopped working and we tried dogpiling him, but he mopped the floor with us so hard he made the level 1 rage quit, and I don’t think that player will be coming back, especially when, for some reason a level 78 had a MMR 30%? How is that possible? Even if their MMR is that low there should be no reason under any circumstances, that a level 78 should be up against a team that dpesn’t even equal half of his level, its BS and your going to lose a lot of players for a game thats this good, over a matchmaking issue
I just posted this and even my title says “newbie” your system for feedback even agrees with me!

[LordDraco3]

Remember guys.... the system *tries* to match MMR. If there is no one within range, the scope will widen up. I'm sure that antagonist was not actually 30% MMR, and was probably waiting 15-20 minutes until the matchmaking system put them into your game. I would know, I used to have 77% MMR and it took 20 minutes to get a game. I really was not happy with the wait time.

So look at it from the perspective of: you are fighting an unbalanced opponent, but everyone is playing. If you weren't playing, then the complaint would be "the matchmaking is broken I NEVER GET A GAME" and would punish good players that keep their MMR up. That would be even worse than matching with higher/lower players. You said yourself you were able to kill them a bunch, until they adapted to your strategy.

[Lord_of_Knight]

The way I see it, there are a few options to make the game more enjoyable for newer players:
1. rework the melee attack system to shift the balance more towards the attacked individual (because having antagonists just run around spamming the melee key is way too op)
2. do matchmaking off of player level, rather than MMR (MMR seems to be based off of success, player lvl is based on experience)
3. rework the antagonist spawn timers to give slightly longer respawns to the antagonist (to help combat the attacker-almost-always-wins melee combat system)
4. give the players that don’t ragequit cause of a way too effing overpowered antagonist a sizeable buff to combat the fact that the antagonist then has close to a free reign on the mission
5. and the simplest of all, just slightly nerf the antagonist. They already have all the advantages (help from bosses, numbers advantage, a not uncommon experience advantage), so nerfing the antagonist themselves would be a good way to give the raiders a chance against a melee-spam antagonist

[LordDraco3]

5. and the simplest of all, just slightly nerf the antagonist. They already have all the advantages (help from bosses, numbers advantage, a not uncommon experience advantage), so nerfing the antagonist themselves would be a good way to give the raiders a chance against a melee-spam antagonist

There are countless posts that complain about antag mode being "unplayable" because being antagonist is "unfair" to have to fight against 4 super-raiders, and they can't even hope to win. Heck, the very OP that you are commenting here on is one of those posts!

But your posts seem very biased towards feeling that antagonists are the super soldiers that can't be beat.

It can't be both.
This game's difficulty, spawn rates, and AI are dynamic. The antagonist will not always have an advantage and win, and the Raiders will not either.

If you were the game dev and were hearing literally polar opposite complaints, how do you proceed?

[4nalManiac]

LOL.

On a serioues note. I'd even try blocking antagonist invasions for the people that dont want to play that way. At least for a while, see how it goes.

Personally I consider that it goes against the soul and design of the game. I just dont get why people can't endure a little bit of change, everyone whines about CODS and yearly franchises and the game that dares to try something really different gets punished. 

As for those that still want to antagonize give the WHOLE rewards as you would to a raider. Meaning around 5k gold/faction on a losing game and on wins guaranteed blueprint and 10k gold/faction. Perhaps even more  like 20ks around 8+ note.
Keep handsome bonus to raiders that defeat antagonist.

[XjabberwockieX]

Take it from me, sometimes the raiders have the advantage and sometimes the antag does. The group of raiders I play with pretty regularly, levels ranging from 50-90 have had plenty of success working against antags, and then Lorddraco appeared as Hans and wiped the floor with us. My point being, the system isnt broken. You are gonna win some and lose some.

[Level9Drow]

Take it from me, sometimes the raiders have the advantage and sometimes the antag does. The group of raiders I play with pretty regularly, levels ranging from 50-90 have had plenty of success working against antags, and then Lorddraco appeared as Hans and wiped the floor with us. My point being, the system isnt broken. You are gonna win some and lose some.

My regular group just went against TheBrentWoody and he was level 140ish on the Schneider escort mission (the WORST mission in the game). I didn't even know the level went that high. I told my party we should just surrender. I'm not sure if they did, but I just ran away as Ginebra and waited for the game to end. We were all about 40-60ish, we didn't stand a chance fighting an antag MORE than twice our level and on the shittiest, slowest, most frustrating map in the game.

The mission ended in under 5 minutes, most productive and efficient thing that happened, we were rewarded about a little over 1k gold which is a HUGe profit for 5 minutes. Now if we had fought, and surely would have lost, we would have wasted a TON of time on a total shit amount of gold and faction. We were all really pleased at the end actually. That's more rewards relative to time spent than even any game I ever won.

I will always end the map any way I can as fast as I can when I'm up against an antag like that. Waste of my time and counterproductive to gaining any rewards or progress. This is my advice for you.

[XjabberwockieX]

I know that my team were throwing around the idea of surrendering when we lost our first batch of lives really quick, ultimately we didnt need to bc it was over so quick. I dont think an Antag should ever be twice the level of the nearest Raider either, but I personally havent been in that position (Lv. 92) so hopefully that was more a bit of badluck for u Drow and not a common thing.

[LordDraco3]

@Drow we do the opposite, if there's an antag we fight as hard as possible, but usually just mess around and throw games if there isn't an antag. If the group brings all loot boosting weapons, this is what beating an antagonist on Double Agent looks like:

3 with +faction, 1 with +gold, everyone with +treasure hunter

With all loot guns you can also lose a match fast and get 3-4k gold and faction and possibly a BP, depending on your MMR.