Yes!
Nope.
Don't really care.
Member
But the PvPvE must continue existing.Originally Posted by troyshaun Go to original post
Separating people by behavior eliminate the needs to rebalance PVP, the behavior will separate the players, if the player is too strong and able to kill everything that moves he wlil simply be transferred, so no artificial wall is needed and the risk of PVP continues even for PVE players, keeping the darkzone as a risky place.
Today it is not a risky place, it is a frustration place, there is no real penalty for heavy geared rogues, money and DZ status will not change their gameplay, but for the ones still grinding level and DZ founds to buy the blue prints the money and level will make a difference.
There is no reason to try to kill a rogue today, if you try you can loose your time and stuff for no real reward, so everyone simply avoid them.
And for them even if someone hunt them, they lose nothing, can trap the guy later or if they start being for a miracle overpowered by a strong anti-rogue enforcer they simply change servers as these enforcers are very difficult to find.
Junior Member
The DZ is designed to be a free roaming area of play. Therefore, PVP, PVE, or whatever is acceptable. There is a reason it is called the dark zone and not the light zone or anything else. Taken from the dark zone description page, "However, if you are fully devoted to the single player and co-op mode experience and want to avoid PvP fights at all costs, you can safely avoid this zone. But always keep the valuable items inside the DZ in mind. Maybe some day also you will dare to go over the wall!" The purpose of the dark zone is to earn the more sought after gear and items, but it comes at a much higher risk, even from other players.
However, I do agree that things need to change in the DZ. I think, for example, that when a player goes rogue that the NPCs should be alerted to the rogue agent and the NPCs should start to target a rogue agent. Not the NPCs will fight side-by-side with non-rogue agents in the DZ. But, if a rogue and non-rogue agent are both within proximity of an NPC, then the NPC will target the rogue first. My reasoning for seeing this as a plausible change is that the NPCs in the DZ see themselves as the rulers of the DZ. Therefore, these NPCs would see a rogue agent as the biggest threat to their rule in the DZ. This would help increase the risk of going rogue.
When you think about the idea of a rogue agent, it means that they are attacking friendly players. Therefore, I think that a rogue agent should be restricted to a party of 1 or at the most 2. A 4 man party that is rogue together doesn't sound right. The agents of that 4 man party attacked other players, so how can it be out of the realm of possibilities that they could or even would go rogue on the other members of their original party?
Also, I think there should be an ability for 3 or 4 4-man teams to be able to select an Ally option to group up to fight DZ bosses and such, to help avoid the unintentional rogue status many players see simply by fighting NPCs with other groups in the area. It could be on a time limited basis. For instance, 2 teams of 4 select the option to ally up just before entering into battle at The Library. A timer appears on those players screens for how long the will remain allied with the other team and therefore immune to attacking that other team's players. Now, let's just say that this timer is set at 3 minutes. After 3 minutes, both teams lose ally status and can attack each other. In addition, make a 5-10 minute cooldown time between ally status that prevents your group from becoming another group's ally for that amount of time after your current ally status ends.
Member
I like what you said, a rogue party should or be disbanded or friendly fire should start as a rogue have no rules. That is a small fix to give more meaning to rogue.Originally Posted by Reflection888 Go to original post
Senior Member
That wouldn't fix the DZ though.
It has already been demonstrated widely that groups don't function, as people leave groups to bait rogues or leave groups and form larger server dominating groups.
The ONLY thing that leaving a group does is disable friendly fire... Which in itself should be available in another separate game mode. The fix that you have is the same as the incremental fixes that they have been trying to do the last 3+ months, it's trying to keep people who don't want to be in the DZ, in the dz.
Outside of the obvious options, like having behavior based matchmaking, or PvE only DZ. What it would basically take for me to play a PvP version of DZ would be more along the lines of the following:
1) disable division link skill + weapon balancing + AI hit points adjusted + group friendly fire
2) party chat disabled + weapon balancing + removal of squads
These things would make the PvP part better IMO but lets be honest here, that 12% that voted no, the reason they did so is because they want the bambi's to stay in the DZ they don't want the game fixed.
Junior Member
Senior Member
Member
They already confirmed its not going to happen (unfortunately):
Heres the proof:
https://youtu.be/o7sGlEC5iFM?t=9m27s
At least they talked about it, but I'm really disapointed about their lack of feedback on the subject, just a "We don't care, but you opinion is important to us".
Senior Member
We knew that, though. Really, my support for this was just that it would be easier for the developers than making the LZ an actually interesting place to be. I'd much rather have roaming, respawning bosses of varying difficulty and a healthy mix of red, purple, and yellow enemies across the "light zone" map than spend my time confined to that tiny little DZ.
