🛈 Announcement
Greetings! The Division forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game
  1. #101
    Merphee's Avatar Volunteer Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Discord: Merphee#2325
    Posts
    3,821
    Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
    As long as there exists, a place on the map, that some players FEEL they are not allowed to play, this debate will exist. This is a "fight" of Massive's creation and locking threads over it is a cop out. No one wants to "sabotage" the DZ. They simply want to use all the map they paid for.
    Meaning it's not the fault of the developers if the player themselves chooses not to go there.

    That's the issue with this whole anti-dz mentality. Players never realize not doing anything is there own choice. There is no flag, no account ban, literally nothing stopping anyone from doing anything except themselves. Simple human autonomy. It's the same arguments for the raid.

    Meaning the reason why one would not explore "the map they paid for" is because they choose not to.

    End of story.
    Share this post

  2. #102
    Originally Posted by Merphee Go to original post
    Meaning the reason why one would not explore "the map they paid for" is because they choose not to.

    End of story.
    You forget the group of players in there that are actively trying to stop them from exploring that part of the map. Players who have been given the ability to steal progress and reward from other players.

    You're trivializing both sides now.

    You guys always preach the same thing. How popular and great the DZ concept is. Then you also say that if players were given a PvE option, the DZ would die. That means the only reason anyone is in there is because it's the only choice.

    If I sell three products and customers only buy two of them, I'm not going to stop selling one of the popular ones to make people buy the unpopular one. I'm going to sell the ones that make money even if it means I have to stop selling my own favorite.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #103
    Gweadobane's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,051
    An open world like DZ? Yeah sure, I just wouldn't buy a game like that if at any point another player (or group) could dictate my time online. Humans being humans and all.....

    And yes Merph I decide whether I choose to or not, hence my first comment.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #104
    Merphee's Avatar Volunteer Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Discord: Merphee#2325
    Posts
    3,821
    Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
    You forget the group of players in there that are actively trying to stop them from exploring that part of the map.
    And who is the one that allows those players to commit such acts?

    If I walk into the DZ and get robbed, who's fault is that? It will never be anyone's fault except my own because I have all the weapons and gear in my backpack to defend myself. Until players take responsibility, their problems will never be solved, and they will continue to exhibit transference and blame everyone except themselves.

    Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
    Players who have been given the ability to steal progress and reward from other players.

    You're trivializing both sides now.

    Players have the ability to defend themselves against those acts. If you choose not to defend yourself, that is your own fault. This is not a difficult concept to understand. It goes beyond video games.

    Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
    You guys always preach the same thing. How popular and great the DZ concept is. Then you also say that if players were given a PvE option, the DZ would die. That means the only reason anyone is in there is because it's the only choice
    I provided an option, but then you shot it down because of it would be "huge and costly undertaking." That's exactly why I said

    Originally Posted by Merphee Go to original post
    Of which then, you'd have to accept that quality, and it being a separate area, would take time to make.
    It does not make sense to request PVP to be turned off in the DZ, when the PVE in there is worse than the LZ. And, if you want a public PVE area, make it 10x better than what a no PVP DZ offers. Simply accepting landmarks and supply drops over the possibility of actual server required public events, for example, makes no sense.

    Then, when the public PVE area has top quality gameplay, you can rub it in people's faces. But then, the DZ is tuned in a way to provide the experience it originally had, and then some.

    And cost shouldn't be a problem, when they made an entire second game with better PVE than the first. Even if that public PVE area is the same size as any of the DZs in Division 2. They did it once and can do it again without any imagined "costly undertaking."
    Share this post

  5. #105
    Originally Posted by Merphee Go to original post
    And who is the one that allows those players to commit such acts?

    If I walk into the DZ and get robbed, who's fault is that? It will never be anyone's fault except my own because I have all the weapons and gear in my backpack to defend myself. Until players take responsibility, their problems will never be solved, and they will continue to exhibit transference and blame everyone except themselves.



    Players have the ability to defend themselves against those acts. If you choose not to defend yourself, that is your own fault. This is not a difficult concept to understand. It goes beyond video games.



    I provided an option, but then you shot it down because of it would be "huge and costly undertaking." That's exactly why I said



    It does not make sense to request PVP to be turned off in the DZ, when the PVE in there is worse than the LZ. And, if you want a public PVE area, make it 10x better than what a no PVP DZ offers. Simply accepting landmarks and supply drops over the possibility of actual server required public events, for example, makes no sense.

    Then, when the public PVE area has top quality gameplay, you can rub it in people's faces. But then, the DZ is tuned in a way to provide the experience it originally had, and then some.

    And cost shouldn't be a problem, when they made an entire second game with better PVE than the first. Even if that public PVE area is the same size as any of the DZs in Division 2. They did it once and can do it again without any imagined "costly undertaking."
    Since when do the mods take sides and argue with the membership? I often forget you actually represent the game. Not a good look.

    Also... "imagined" cost of creating a new game map? Are you even trying to be serious? lol
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #106
    dagrommit's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Pedestal of truth
    Posts
    5,099
    Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
    Since when do the mods take sides and argue with the membership? I often forget you actually represent the game. Not a good look.
    FYI, when volunteer moderators were announced, it was made clear by Ubi staff that there was no limit to their participation in discussions, up to and including criticism of the game, so long as it abided by the forum rules.
    Share this post

  7. #107
    Originally Posted by dagrommit Go to original post
    FYI, when volunteer moderators were announced, it was made clear by Ubi staff that there was no limit to their participation in discussions, up to and including criticism of the game, so long as it abided by the forum rules.
    This is criticism of the players. Bashing of customers.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #108
    Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
    This is criticism of the players. Bashing of customers.
    How come you cannot keep a open mind about pvp. We get that you hate it. I’m sure everyone that plays The Divison 1 or 2 enjoys the pve content. It’s just the DZ is what separates this game and makes it unique. Pvp was the vision of the division. If it wasn’t. This game would just be another ghost recon breakpoint.
    Share this post

  9. #109
    Originally Posted by x0NEMANARMYx Go to original post
    How come you cannot keep a open mind about pvp. We get that you hate it. I’m sure everyone that plays The Divison 1 or 2 enjoys the pve content. It’s just the DZ is what separates this game and makes it unique. Pvp was the vision of the division. If it wasn’t. This game would just be another ghost recon breakpoint.
    Open mind? Your suggestion is to eliminate the PvE side of the game completely. "One big open world Dark Zone".

    I don't hate PvP. I hate The Division PvP. There's a difference between player vs player and simple player killing.
    One big open world Dark Zone would IMMEDIATELY separate the game into the haves and have nots. The sweaty try hards that grind 40 hours a week would be over geared and make the game miserable for EVERYONE else. Cheaters would be everywhere. New players would be getting ganked everywhere. There would literally be no escape from the most toxic community I have ever seen. Roving groups of trolls, hell bent on making life miserable for anyone they can find.

    Not one PvE player would participate. There are about 5,000 unique players in the game daily right now. Your plan would make it more like 500.

    Open mind indeed. lmfao
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  10. #110
    Pve Dz wouldn't effect the pvp dz one bit the guys in the pvp dz are there cause they like to pvp it's not like the pvp community is so non existent in these games the only pvp to be had is killing random pve players that go in cause if that was the case why even have pvp in here
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post