[Agent-Z46]

There's no need to be so aggressive. I meant no harm. Just trying to convey that there are fans who really enjoy the system. The problem with making it optional is that it'd take just 1 player for a whole team to miss out on it. Plus it'd make it harder than it already is for an Antagonist to find a game. I know I already said I believe it to be a core part of the game but I really can't stress that enough. It's part of what really separates this game from others imo. Plus your supposed to react with dread when you get an Antagonist. Considering the way they do it, with Uras-Beherit taunting you. Doesn't make a lot of sense to have that and have a Raider be able to choose whether it happens or not. Again it's just my opinion.

The problem with making it optional is that it'd take just 1 player for a whole team to miss out on it.

 ummm So what that's literally the point?

But Yeah Drow kinda takes shit mega-personally for some reason lol I think he's gonna get ips and someone's home address and kill them one day tbh even though I agree with him.

I meant that in the context in a team of four players, if three voted yes for an Antagonist but just one voted no than the whole team plus the Antagonist misses out. I might be exaggerating but the option of removing an Antagonist just sounds to me like it'll be so much more rare to find a game with/as an Antagonist. And I already find so little games with an Antagonist.

[Tekato]

I meant that in the context in a team of four players, if three voted yes for an Antagonist but just one voted no than the whole team plus the Antagonist misses out. I might be exaggerating but the option of removing an Antagonist just sounds to me like it'll be so much more rare to find a game with/as an Antagonist. And I already find so little games with an Antagonist.

The fact that its hard to find matches with antagonists suggests that not many want to play it in the first place. Like I've said before the rewards are terrible and it honestly feels bad annoying other players or causing them to fail the mission for seemingly no real reason other than just to troll. This not only causes new players in lower tiers to give up on the game which is where most of the antagonist like to hang out, but it also promotes negative/toxic behavior in the community. The only solution is to make it optional or maybe give better rewards  for being/encountering an antagonist.

[Agent-Z46]

I meant that in the context in a team of four players, if three voted yes for an Antagonist but just one voted no than the whole team plus the Antagonist misses out. I might be exaggerating but the option of removing an Antagonist just sounds to me like it'll be so much more rare to find a game with/as an Antagonist. And I already find so little games with an Antagonist.

The fact that its hard to find matches with antagonists suggests that not many want to play it in the first place. Like I've said before the rewards are terrible and it honestly feels bad annoying other players or causing them to fail the mission for seemingly no real reason other than just to troll. This not only causes new players in lower tiers to give up on the game which is where most of the antagonist like to hang out, but it also promotes negative/toxic behavior in the community. The only solution is to make it optional or maybe give better rewards  for being/encountering an antagonist.

I feel it's more because the community is a bit smaller than I'd like it to be. Plus being from Australia it seems to try and match me with Australians before giving up and pairing me with Americans. Even when searching as a Raider I seem to have to wait over 10 minutes before finding a game. I don't really understand how it promotes toxicity though.

[Hiero_Glyph]

1) New player should never encounter an antagonist until level 8. It just ruins the learning curve of the game.

2) Rewards for fighting against an antagonist need to be greatly increased. At least make it a rewarding experience for the Raiders.

3) MMR is not an accurate way to match Raiders vs Antagonists. Players can easily tank their MMR and then you get (the appearance of) very imbalanced matches where a level 100+ is against level 20s, or vice versa.
__________

So what if there were special bounties/assignments added that challenge raiders to take out Antagonists. These rewards would be separate from the normal timed adventures rewards, and could even have their own match-making. Think of these like daily/weekly challenges with substantial rewards for any progress made.

1) This would give players something extra to grind for when waiting on the next timer reset.

2) As this would be a separate MM, Raiders would queue up into a general pool to speed up the matching process.

3) Rewards would be based on the number of wins per day/week. So players would get increased bonuses the more wins they accumulate. This would encourage an active queue but would also make it entirely optional.

4) I'm still unsure about the reward structure but I think this would be a viable solution for blueprint grinding. So basically you let players grind blueprints here but it requires multiple wins as/against an antagonist to acquire them.

[L E T H A L ☆ C E N T A U R I]

I agree. There should be an antagonist bonus of some sort. Like extra gold/XP...etc. (but only if you WIN against them...Maybe.).

Weekly or daily quests would be an excellent idea. There isn't much to do in this game besides grind the same shit over and over. I'm kinda getting a bit bored with it tbh even though I like it.

[Jaguar0185]

I disagree a good team can absolutely shut down a antagonist  there are only a few missions I'd say lean towards the antagonist favor

With a good team. yes, but when playing with biginners is too hard specially if the antagonist is in a higher level than the other players

[pululon]

There's no need to be so aggressive. I meant no harm. Just trying to convey that there are fans who really enjoy the system. The problem with making it optional is that it'd take just 1 player for a whole team to miss out on it. Plus it'd make it harder than it already is for an Antagonist to find a game. I know I already said I believe it to be a core part of the game but I really can't stress that enough. It's part of what really separates this game from others imo. Plus your supposed to react with dread when you get an Antagonist. Considering the way they do it, with Uras-Beherit taunting you. Doesn't make a lot of sense to have that and have a Raider be able to choose whether it happens or not. Again it's just my opinion.

If is hard to find a match its proof that the antag mode isn't so loved.
If you ask me, I would make it optional, you chose before go to matchmaking if you want or not an antag. Then give more rewards (a lot more) in antag mode so people have some kind of incentive to play it.
You can even make an antag ranking, and put special rewards if you beat the best antags of the game, like a bounty.
But make it optional, the idea is to keep the players playing the game, not leaving because the antag

[LordDraco3]

Please remove it
 This is not a fun mechanic

Also not sure why i'm replying to like the 5th currently active topic on this same subject that's in 4 different sub-forums with the same 5 people replying with the same thoughts every time.

Antag is pretty much all I play anymore. Raider is not as fun, it's DEFINITELY not as fun without friends, and neither mode is particularly rewarding anymore.

[Hiero_Glyph]

Please remove it
 This is not a fun mechanic

Also not sure why i'm replying to like the 5th currently active topic on this same subject that's in 4 different sub-forums with the same 5 people replying with the same thoughts every time.

Antag is pretty much all I play anymore. Raider is not as fun, it's DEFINITELY not as fun without friends, and neither mode is particularly rewarding anymore.

I agree that playing as/against an antagonist can be extremely fun, except when it directly hurts player progression. As a result the current implementation is only causing problems for the game. As noted, most mentor matches with an antagonist end with the new player quitting. Most blueprint matches which now require a win to even roll end with frustrated players when a antagonist joins.

Again, there is a lot of fun to be had when facing an antagonist, but it should not hurt player progression. And yes, I also agree that the rewards need to be increased so that players want to play as/against an antagonist. There are several ways that this could be improved but the current system is not helping player retention so until it is improved maybe Mecurysteam should restrict it until they build a proper community.

[LordDraco3]

I do feel bad now if I win an antag game where someone was going for a BP. I agree that the fact that players fighting players is literally fighting against each other's progression like some sort of gladiator tournament is bad. I have not done a friendly antag until after this update.

I've been playing a lot more Dead by Daylight now where everyone gets more points the more you play and interact with each other, not LESS. Killers that tunnel and camp survivors too fast get less points than ones that draw the match out.

[pululon]

The problem is the rewards, you earn less in an antag match than in a common match, even winning... since your performance usually is worst, more time, more casualties, ending with a bad score... then fewer rewards... The rewards need to be better in an antag match than in a common, even losing.

[B30]

The problem is the rewards, you earn less in an antag match  …

Exactly, it's just dragging things out and it does not bring the slightest benefit to the end result.
And that raises the question, why should somebody play against an antag? Unfortunately somebody have to, because it's not optional. Make it optional or change something in the reward system.

[Tekato]

The problem is the rewards, you earn less in an antag match  …

Exactly, it's just dragging things out and it does not bring the slightest benefit to the end result.
And that raises the question, why should somebody play against an antag? Unfortunately somebody have to, because it's not optional. Make it optional or change something in the reward system.

The only issue with just adding better rewards is that it will cause a lot of players to become antagonists, which will only increase the forced pvp on more people that don't really enjoy it. This also doesn't fix one of the biggest problems with the whole antagonist system matchmaking. With the way it currently is you could end up with extremely high lv gaps in the team. Like a lv 12 antagonist could end up againts a team of lv 100s or a team of lv 30s against a lv 200 antag. It's completely broken and unbalanced so imo the best thing they could do is make it optional and focus on increasing the player base by fixing/adding better pve content.

[LoganMaze]

The problem is the rewards, you earn less in an antag match  …

Exactly, it's just dragging things out and it does not bring the slightest benefit to the end result.
And that raises the question, why should somebody play against an antag? Unfortunately somebody have to, because it's not optional. Make it optional or change something in the reward system.

The only issue with just adding better rewards is that it will cause a lot of players to become antagonists, which will only increase the forced pvp on more people that don't really enjoy it. This also doesn't fix one of the biggest problems with the whole antagonist system matchmaking. With the way it currently is you could end up with extremely high lv gaps in the team. Like a lv 12 antagonist could end up againts a team of lv 100s or a team of lv 30s against a lv 200 antag. It's completely broken and unbalanced so imo the best thing they could do is make it optional and focus on increasing the player base by fixing/adding better pve content.

yeah, that is why they need to give you more rewards when loosing against an ant.

[Onionsunleashes]

If they give solid rewards even if you lose to the antagonist that would be great and I think that would help people be less Salty