[Imperium]

Hey, MSE

What's your official response on the topic of newbies that rage quit after taking on the antagonist role and being royally decimated?

A Discord mod, and many other players, are promoting the idea that newbies have no room to complain and they should either adjust or abandon the game.

Given the fact that Raiders has such a meager playerbase at this point (with some match times in excess of 20-40 minutes), do you guys support the idea that players disgruntled with the antagonist system have no room to suggest tweaks or report the experience as a fundamentally negative one?

Can you give any data on the popularity of the antagonist role and how many users take to it versus the Raider role?

Is the Raider role much more popular among individual users?

And would tweaks to the Raider system be something you'd look into if it was found to be a detriment to the health of the game (aka data/statistics that correlate games played as antagonist with less time spent in the game overall)?

Edit: I would like to add that I'm not advocating for the removal of antagonist mode, since I believe it is integral to the nature of Raiders as a game and a very unique take on PvP. I'm merely suggesting the prospects of tweaks, changes, systems to encourage a more favorable experience or introduction to the game, and so forth.

[Power Penguin]

I don't think that they would be against it as long as it leads to a healthier game and community. And antag is definitely one of the features that needs some work.

[Quanrian]

A few factors are required in my opinion for someone to gain more from Antagonist. First, they need a fair amount of experience with the game. A starting player isn't likely to come in and decimate or even hinder a more experience group of players. Second, they need to be prepared to wait in an often much longer queue. Wait times increase as your MMR rises making patience a big part of being an Antagonist. Third, it should be obvious that players without dedicated groups may prefer Antagonist. As opposed to being a Raider, the Antagonist mode does not require a group so it can be preferable for less social players. Last, there are certain blueprints and cards that require playing Antagonist. Thus, even if someone is not fond of the mode they will likely come back to it at some point.

As far as Antagonist population goes it seems quite a bit larger than before the Hades Betrayal update.

[Imperium]

A few factors are required in my opinion for someone to gain more from Antagonist. First, they need a fair amount of experience with the game. A starting player isn't likely to come in and decimate or even hinder a more experience group of players. Second, they need to be prepared to wait in an often much longer queue. Wait times increase as your MMR rises making patience a big part of being an Antagonist. Third, it should be obvious that players without dedicated groups may prefer Antagonist. As opposed to being a Raider, the Antagonist mode does not require a group so it can be preferable for less social players. Last, there are certain blueprints and cards that require playing Antagonist. Thus, even if someone is not fond of the mode they will likely come back to it at some point.

As far as Antagonist population goes it seems quite a bit larger than before the Hades Betrayal update.

The blueprints tied to the antagonist role (presumably leading to more effective antagonist weaponry) and the RNG nature of acquiring blueprints to build weapons is already a contentious issue.

I'm still not entirely convinced that a system which can currently alienate and thoroughly throttle a new player, into believing Raiders isn't a game for them, lest they endure the harsh environment and persist--is best.

By design the inflexibility will filter much-needed contributors who, presumably, have money and their time to give to this project's future and success.

Unless we're banking on the hardcore crowd, willing to grin and bear it, to amass and support MSE going forward.

[Black_Adder_]

Generally new players tend to suck as both raiders and antagonists. Alicias that hide behind cover thinking that nobody can see them, Konstantins that have no idea that the game has melee combat and try to shoot dudes 1 m away etc.
It doesn't matter which mode the new players choose - they still need to learn the core mechanics or go back to CoD or any other generic shooter that is made for less intelectual audience.

[Shoggoth_Poot]

they still need to learn the core mechanics or go back to CoD or any other generic shooter that is made for less intelectual audience.

No! They don't. They need to stay and keep playing and buy the campaigns! If people run off to play CoD, they're not helping to finance this game and keep it alive. We need to keep posting ideas to help the developers find ways of keeping people playing - new and old players alike, and that elitist bullshit attitude is just going to hurt the game by diminishing the player base to nothing.

Eat.It.Raw.

[Level9Drow]

they still need to learn the core mechanics or go back to CoD or any other generic shooter that is made for less intelectual audience.

No! They don't. They need to stay and keep playing and buy the campaigns! If people run off to play CoD, they're not helping to finance this game and keep it alive. We need to keep posting ideas to help the developers find ways of keeping people playing - new and old players alike, and that elitist bullshit attitude is just going to hurt the game by diminishing the player base to nothing.

Eat.It.Raw.

Precisely, Elitists philosophy has always hurt games.

As for the original OP, I feel your pain and agree. I wen against Alma last night and we won the first mach against him, but I didn't want to fight him in the first place, then we got the second mach against him and he won. Now here is when I got pissed, not at Alma of course, excellent player and a joy to be on the same team with. We spent 40 minutes, lost, and I got rewarded 1,444 gold. So as a consumer I spent 40 minutes for 1,444 gold, this put me in a foul mood. We got another game with a low level antag in it on Short Fused and because of my anger for my time wasted I MURDERED him with melee spec Doldren and he logged off out of frustration.

We won the game in a very short time, so I guess it made of for the 40 minutes, but at what cost? We may have lost a new player, I was angry, not in a "fun playing games" mood. Not enjoying myself. The other group member I think sensed this and said he was off for the night.

I dunno about the whole forced PvP thing anymore. Seems unhealthy to me. A lot of new people I can see leaving and unfortunately some of us are PvE players who get very aggravated at PvP, in other words, it doesn't make us happy or have fun.

I've echoed a solution by BeerTheBrad before and want to state it again on this thread for any new people who have not heard it. He suggested a priority system that a player could opt into causing the system to prioritize them for antagonists. This would allow people who are looking for PvP to more often get the antagonists over people who don't favor it. But if need be, and there is an overabundance of antagonists then the people who didn't opt in may get one as well, but I don't see this happening very often. This way the community would not be split and Antagonists and Raiders could both get games still.

The other way would be simply having an option for avoiding PvP altogether, but many think this may split the community. I think if the rewards for PvP are good enough it may not split the community really. But I don't think the rewards are good enough for time spent in a potentially losing game. Getting a few thousand gold for losing in a 40 minute match and then splitting that gold 3 or 4 ways is really REALLY a waste of time and doesn't make me want to have more games with Antagonists in them.

[Whitebleidd]

@Level9Drow sadly even had you won that 40min match the rewards would had been bad, unless it’s a stomp usually no one wins on a match with an antagonist, maybe they should remove time as a grading factor when there is an antag invasion.

A priority queue system sounds like a good compromise because of the low playerbase, still I think the game should have launched with an option for separate queues, maybe it would have helped with player retention, allowing players to choose if they are going to pvp or not is such a basic feature that even pvp dedicated games usually have, I can play vs the ai in fighting games like tekken, DOA, street figher, blazblue, etc as much as I want, hell in “for honor" I can go 4 real players vs 4ai and get the same types of rewards I would get in pvp albeit at a lower rate. And on the topic of for honor, I find the pvp in that game to be less rage inducing than the antagonist system, I think that says something…

[XjabberwockieX]

Yes to jump onto what both drow and bleidd said, playing antagonist is rarely ever worth the time especially when you dont win. MS even says the antagonist role is meant to hinder not necessarily emerge victorious, yet in a hard fought losing effort as an antag you get a score of 2 and choose between 1500 gold or 1500 faction points and once in a bluemoon a blueprint. Blueprints are the ONLY reason i play antag. And the cost of playing a mode I dont care for, angering and possibly turning away potential players is too MAYBE (even with fully leveled treasure hunter gun equipped) maybe get a blueprint. I dont like it.

[Level9Drow]

Yea, I AFK as antag. Even if the raiders are all low level. If I were to stomp them they would probably stop playing. And plus, it just sucks. I know they would get crap rewards if I were to ruin them and it's a really crappy feeling to spend so much time in a game and receive crap rewards after losing. So I don't even spawn and let them win. I'm only here for the affinity and they can get it done quickly enough that we can both profit from the engagement.

[Imperium]

I would say the idea that the antagonist is merely supposed to hinder, at the expense of investing time and being rewarded with pitiful rewards is hugely unsatisfying.

The game is fun, but not every round or match-up is fun. Or rather, the game has potential to be quite fun, but it can also demonstrably blow up.

I think the 1v4 situation is probably good because the amount of people that want to both pvp and 1v4 is probably less than the amount of people who want to be on a team with their friends.

I don't think antagonist has the same appeal as playing the monster did in the game Evolve. As the antagonist, you're basically the same as a Raider. You're not some unique entity with cool tricks or special moves. You don't command the units on the map or really drive the NPCs to do anything.

The people suggesting new players just grin and bear or leave are counting on the fact that more people will stay, simply because they and their friends list stayed. Nevermind the fact that this game has an incredibly small player pool.

DOTA 2 is constantly looking at player attraction and retention. It's an important aspect of keeping gaming communities going. I heard comparisons to Dark Souls, but I counter with the fact that Dark Souls' main attraction is not PvP - as evidenced by the piss-poor PvP mechanics in the first series. The game, itself, was deep and satisfying in a number of ways before PvP even came into the equation.

This game exclusively pushes PvP as its main focus. So then what is the data on a PvP focused game, set as asymmetric, having the potential to flabbergast and chase-away people who might have spent money on skins or the campaigns?

I speak as someone who utterly hates the antagonist role as it currently works, but I like the Raiders system. I speak as someone who has put down money on this game and isn't alone in these concerns.

I've seen plenty of antagonists quit shortly before the halfway point on a level because the prospect of getting pummeled for 20-30 minutes for a crappy reward isn't fun. From a mechanical standpoint, the prospect of getting one-hit killed or dropped and CONSTANTLY waiting for a respawn timer is not interesting.

If you're really not good and/or are facing Raiders who are good, you will spend a lot of time watching them play the game.

I'd be very interested in seeing what kind of data MSE has on this, specifically whether they collect data on new players who try out Raiders and leave (and maybe haven't come back since trying antag).

I know this game is relying on word of mouth and doesn't have strong advertising, but I have to think getting royally maimed in a 1v4 session is potentially unhealthy for player retention.