If I don't look when I cross the, road there is a chance I will not get hit by a car. But I am going to look because I do not trust to luck. Forced PvP means having to change how I play and invalidates how many kits and builds when one needs to counter pure PvP hunters?
Lots of other games out there and coming out. IF D3 goes all PvP then Massive will not miss my money and I get the opportunity to spend it else where
Is this satire or sarcasm? I'm asking for real. I'm seeing sarcasm.Originally Posted by fredchocolate Go to original post
The DZ barely uses any server resources. The reason there is a loading screen when you go to a DZ checkpoint is because it pulls you from your instance and searches for one with other players in it. The early days of being able to see players in the DZ from the LZ are gone. There are hardly any instances with players in the DZ. You'll see the same names all the time.
As for the OP...
Yes it's split. HEAVILY weighted towards PvE. A PvP only game would lose the vast majority of customers. Most current players wouldn't even buy it, let alone quit after they bought it.What are your thoughts. I know the community is split.
By the way, there are 8 streamers playing Sea of Thieves today with about 2,000 viewers total. That's actually not too bad considering there are zero streamers streaming the Dark Zone.
I had an idea that for DZ-like PvP without the expense of PvE. It kinds of borrows from ID Software's Souls and Bloodborne series.
The concept is simple.
The whole map is PvE and is filled with PvE content (events, missions, and ect). The PvP comes in the form of invasion-like PvP. Invading players may kill the invaded players but to do invasions. Players need to grind mats to create an consumable that allows invading. When an invasion happens, players may still drop loot for whoever dies. In terms of preventing grieving or the idea that players hate PvP. You may disable this by creating an item that lasts a week that prevents invasions. Think of this as no different than material project we already have. However, crafting this prevents PvP in any form for a week (No invading).
If players invade too often and are successive, there will be a manhunt for them where a system that acts like bounty system for players to hunt them down in the map. The ones placed at Manhunt status will not be notified of incoming agent until they are in LoS. The players that hunt the manhunt status players will be given a 10 minutes to locate and once they find the rogue agents, they must kill them to win. If they die, it comes at the expense of loot they have recently picked up in the rogue's game world.
The community has always been split. There are many Pve players that are scared to pvp. I get it. Yes there are cheaters in every game. However Div 2 has been out for a wile now and the Pve is far better then it was in Div 1 but hardly anyone is playing it. You cannot sustain a Pve only game unless you as a dev come out with new content every month. Not this rinse and repeat. A Pve/pvp open world like sea of thieves would bring new players to the table. If done right. You say Division is majority a Pve game. Wile I agree that a lot more people Pve then pvp. That is mostly due to the devs. They have ruined pvp in this game. There were a lot more players playing pvp towards the end of Division 1 then currently right now. In my opinion, if they ever create a Division 3. It needs to focus on pvp/Pve openworld Darkzone. Yes it will lose those hardcore Pve players but will gain so many new players.Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
I would welcome them to make a purely PvP game. But if it mixes PvE and PvP, I won't buy it. It cannot be balanced. Every player is forced to build for PvP. You simply cannot get away with a strong PvE build because the PvP oriented players will just rob you blind.Originally Posted by x0NEMANARMYx Go to original post
Like I said, I might buy it if it was a structured PvP only game but would never consider a PvE/PvP open world game.
I disagree, I think that they can make the gear balanced. Towards the end of Division 1 we had gear that was decently balanced for both pve and pvp. We even had a gearset called banshee that was pvp specific and a gearset that was meant to keep you alive (NOMAD). Both of these gearsets did fine in pve. The problem comes down to 1 issue. Many PVE players want to use skill builds.This is fine for PVE but needs to be balanced for pvp. For PVP you should never be able to just send a skill out to 1 shot a pvp player. That would be unbalanced But pve players would not like that. Just like right now, this is a issue in Div 2 PVE players enjoy there skill builds being powerful for pve, The PVP players don't like how powerfull a skill is in the DZ. So if the devs nerf a skill in pvp then it gets nerfed across the board and pve players take a hit.Originally Posted by mckrackin5324 Go to original post
A skill build should be on an even keel as a DPS player. The skill should do enough damage to the DPS player to make the TTK even in the following gun fight. That means taking most of the DPS player's health.Originally Posted by x0NEMANARMYx Go to original post
I agree about one shot kills on skills though. Not good but that should be balanced in the players survivability and not by nerfing the skill.