[Whitebleidd]

Guys. If MSE added a system where players could turn off the option to have an antagonist invade their game then every player in the game would turn it off and leave it off.

So? In that case the player base would have spoken, less toxicity would follow. Plus, if you are someone that is fine going into pvp with ppl that are not looking to pvp, then you’re just a trash, POS person with no concept of sportsmanship, and other players should most definitely NOT be held ransom for such an individual.

However, if MSE is going to make an antagonist free game then I would suggest a solo queue that you can invite friends to. This solo queue provides less rewards (because lets face it in the current state of the game the adds are useless at mmr 40 or lower) and if you lose the mission it will not go towards the pot. By "less rewards" I mean majorly low. around 500 gold, 500 talent points, xp doesn't matter it can be whatever MSE wants it or as whatever people complain about what it should be.

Yes, private matches are another no brainer option that should definitely exist, however giving out less rewards for such matches doesn’t make sense and should not be the case.

[Alex2199]

How does it not make sense? You get more rewards for a harder challenge... MSE wants to have Spacelords to be a PvEvP game and that is what the game is. Having people whine and complain about losing missions just because from an antagonist is just annoying. MSE already made losing not even a penalty. All the gold, talent points, and xp you don't gain goes to the pot.

People keep saying how they want more gold, less antagonist, weaker enemies then once all that is part of the game people ask "where is the challenge? I'm experiencing the same gameplay over and over again." This is were antagonist come into play. They put it in the game for that challenge. For that little bit of spice to not feel like your just repeating the same thing over and over.

I am not saying antagonist missions are flawless there are problems that should be address. For example if the antagonist has a low mmr the adds can just one shot the raider and basically guarantee the antag a win. Some missions should be reworked to where the antagonist cant just kill an objective or shut down a path the raiders need to cross to win. Also there should be a more match making friendly matching (I didn't know how else to phrase this). Make it were a tier 1 antagonist cannot join nothing but tier 6s. Completely cutting out antagonist or giving the same rewards for those who leave antagonist option off would make less sense.

[Marcus4471]

I should also have added the fact that every MMO game I've played gave tye option of a PvE, a PvP and a restricted server, which is PvP play at set times during the day.
I completely agree with WHITEBLEIDD in that most people would have switched off the Antagonist option openly showing, to MSE, they never wanted it. If you want the end of month rewards, that is a score of 285, you've no choice but to play Antagonist.

[Alex2199]

I should also have added the fact that every MMO game I've played gave tye option of a PvE, a PvP and a restricted server, which is PvP play at set times during the day.
I completely agree with WHITEBLEIDD in that most people would have switched off the Antagonist option openly showing, to MSE, they never wanted it. If you want the end of month rewards, that is a score of 285, you've no choice but to play Antagonist.

I agree with the fact that the players shouldn't be forced to play antagonist to get the most rewards. However, Spacelords isn't a mmo. If we are given the option to turn it off then queue time will take longer which is another thing people keep complaining about and will cause more players to boycott the game making queue time even longer.

[Marcus4471]

....If we are given the option to turn it off then queue time will take longer.....

Erm....no. If people aren't queuing to play as Antagonist, it means more people are queuing up to play as a Raider, meaning faster queue times, due to the larger pool of players.

[Alex2199]

....If we are given the option to turn it off then queue time will take longer.....

Erm....no. If people aren't queuing to play as Antagonist, it means more people are queuing up to play as a Raider, meaning faster queue times, due to the larger pool of players.

I meant for those who wish to play antagonist. If everyone has antagonist turned off that means it will be harder for those player who wish to play antagonist to find matches because no one in the game seems to want a challenge. You just want to sit in a mission and get rewarded for doing minimum work

[Alex2199]

Also I do believe only a certain tier level should experience an antag. I think its unfair for tier 6s to have to fight a tier 1 due to passives and forge levels. However, this goes to the match making problem and player grouping.

[Urgehal]

Necromancy from salt...splendid!

[Cazic-Thule]

How does it not make sense? You get more rewards for a harder challenge... MSE wants to have Spacelords to be a PvEvP game and that is what the game is. Having people whine and complain about losing missions just because from an antagonist is just annoying. MSE already made losing not even a penalty. All the gold, talent points, and xp you don't gain goes to the pot.

People keep saying how they want more gold, less antagonist, weaker enemies then once all that is part of the game people ask "where is the challenge? I'm experiencing the same gameplay over and over again." This is were antagonist come into play. They put it in the game for that challenge. For that little bit of spice to not feel like your just repeating the same thing over and over.

I am not saying antagonist missions are flawless there are problems that should be address. For example if the antagonist has a low mmr the adds can just one shot the raider and basically guarantee the antag a win. Some missions should be reworked to where the antagonist cant just kill an objective or shut down a path the raiders need to cross to win. Also there should be a more match making friendly matching (I didn't know how else to phrase this). Make it were a tier 1 antagonist cannot join nothing but tier 6s. Completely cutting out antagonist or giving the same rewards for those who leave antagonist option off would make less sense.

Allow me to translate what you really mean here. "I personally like this system that is literally responsible for killing the game since virtually everybody else hates it. I don't care that it's objectively bad and ruins the entire game, it's fun for me so that's all that matters!" You're just jumping through hoops and trying to justify being selfish and wanting to put your own fun over everybody else's and even the health and life of the game itself. Your ideology is toxic and hurts the community.

[Alex2199]

How does it not make sense? You get more rewards for a harder challenge... MSE wants to have Spacelords to be a PvEvP game and that is what the game is. Having people whine and complain about losing missions just because from an antagonist is just annoying. MSE already made losing not even a penalty. All the gold, talent points, and xp you don't gain goes to the pot.

People keep saying how they want more gold, less antagonist, weaker enemies then once all that is part of the game people ask "where is the challenge? I'm experiencing the same gameplay over and over again." This is were antagonist come into play. They put it in the game for that challenge. For that little bit of spice to not feel like your just repeating the same thing over and over.

I am not saying antagonist missions are flawless there are problems that should be address. For example if the antagonist has a low mmr the adds can just one shot the raider and basically guarantee the antag a win. Some missions should be reworked to where the antagonist cant just kill an objective or shut down a path the raiders need to cross to win. Also there should be a more match making friendly matching (I didn't know how else to phrase this). Make it were a tier 1 antagonist cannot join nothing but tier 6s. Completely cutting out antagonist or giving the same rewards for those who leave antagonist option off would make less sense.

Allow me to translate what you really mean here. "I personally like this system that is literally responsible for killing the game since virtually everybody else hates it. I don't care that it's objectively bad and ruins the entire game, it's fun for me so that's all that matters!" You're just jumping through hoops and trying to justify being selfish and wanting to put your own fun over everybody else's and even the health and life of the game itself. Your ideology is toxic and hurts the community.

Actually I dislike playing as the antagonist. I prefer co-op and teamwork aspect but whenever you have been playing sense the release of the game you get bored of the constant same old same old. Once an antagonist has join the game it is fun because it gives a secondary objective that you, the player, must focus on. Again I am not saying the system is flawless there are issues in it that I feel has to be fixed before the game becomes successful. Also not everyone hates it just players who are bad at the game and low tier players. Low tier players I understand sense the passives are weak and melee does 1 damage vs a tier 1 player who does a minimum of 80.

MSE has already introduced a system were losing means basically nothing because all the lost rewards go to the pot. In the past I use to say the same thing: "Make antagonist gameplay optional". After playing as the antagonist and against who actually can communicate with the team I learned playing against an antagonist is just a secondary objective to handle. A more dangerous elite. 

[B30]

… If everyone has antagonist turned off …

Ha, if everyone (or most) of the players would disable a feature in a video game, then it's probably obvious not the most popular feature, right? And should not a developer be guided by the majority of players to be successful? Well, is Spacelords successful?

[Cazic-Thule]

… If everyone has antagonist turned off …

Ha, if everyone (or most) of the players would disable a feature in a video game, then it's probably obvious not the most popular feature, right? And should not a developer be guided by the majority of players to be successful? Well, is Spacelords successful?

Hey man quit being such a downer just look at the monthly player statistics on Steam! There's like a whole 50ish people online concurrently during peak hours and if you include console numbers that's probably like 100 maybe even 110 people! Plenty of games have survived numbers that low and went on to be successful like uhh...well...let me get back to you on that one.

[MeleeMaster]

Guys. If MSE added a system where players could turn off the option to have an antagonist invade their game then every player in the game would turn it off and leave it off. They might as well just scrap antagonist from the game all together if they do this.

You say that but people still play the infected mode in Left4Dead 2, even though the game is basically rigged for the infected. Same with fighting games, people don't like to lose but they still go to versus mode to try playing against real people when they get tired of fighting the AI.

The trick is to give people the time to get used to the coop and let them experiment with the mechanics and stages, then let them play the PvP when they're bored of running through the PvE mode with easy. If MSE did that from start they would have a bunch of pros playing their PvP mode by now.

[Urgehal]

You say that but people still play the infected mode in Left4Dead 2, even though the game is basically rigged for the infected. Same with fighting games, people don't like to lose but they still go to versus mode to try playing against real people when they get tired of fighting the AI.

The trick is to give people the time to get used to the coop and let them experiment with the mechanics and stages, then let them play the PvP when they're bored of running through the PvE mode with easy.

Indeed...I've always thought they should've restricted being invaded from antags until tier 5 (lv 20), since they lock out being able to antag till lv 10. It's one biggest things they should of changed early on, but welp...it's pointless now...

I'm all for games showing no mercy, throwing players into the wolves and having them learn & fend for themselves, but doing it that way has it's obvious drawbacks.

[Alex2199]

Guys. If MSE added a system where players could turn off the option to have an antagonist invade their game then every player in the game would turn it off and leave it off. They might as well just scrap antagonist from the game all together if they do this.

You say that but people still play the infected mode in Left4Dead 2, even though the game is basically rigged for the infected. Same with fighting games, people don't like to lose but they still go to versus mode to try playing against real people when they get tired of fighting the AI.

The trick is to give people the time to get used to the coop and let them experiment with the mechanics and stages, then let them play the PvP when they're bored of running through the PvE mode with easy. If MSE did that from start they would have a bunch of pros playing their PvP mode by now.

And this is what I mean by I find it unfair whenever tier 6s are put against tier 1s. However, there are still a bunch of people who are tier 1 with maxed forged weapons who still complain. I understand peoples annoyance especially if there is a weapon blueprint that only comes once a day now. Some players just want to get rid of the antagonist forever and make the game boring.