Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original postReally? So you know better than him what his opinions and preferences are, and you know that he's lied here and really would rather have another Division game with PVP?Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
I'd be interested to know how do you come by better information on someone's feelings than the person having those feelings.
I too would rather see PvP and PvE as two different games. The balance issues of PvP always affecting the builds in PvE is a real problem.
Also the level of cheating and toxicity in DZ really highlights the very worst of the gaming community. It's amazing how friendly, helpful, and accommodating the PvE community is, and how horrible selfish cheaters make PvP the exact opposite.
A total separation of the two modes into two different games is fine with me, as long as all those resources invested into the DZ and conflict can be invested in PvE with larger open worlds, frequent DLC, etc. At this point it makes sense. You are getting an entire new GAME devoted to PvP. Leave Division 3 to PvE only.
A source of info would be helpful.
I think cheating is somewhat irrelevant as it's in both PvE & PvP. Do better with anti cheats and other hurdles to limit it.
I personally wouldn't buy the the next title if there was no PvP.
Balance between PvP and PvE however has always been an issue with constant nerfs because of nonsensical gearset ideas eg - gearsets that do not work in both pvp and pve and limited testing but with that said, the game gets there eventually. It's currently in good shape balance wise. There's a counter to everything.
I would have serious considerations about buying a Division game without a DZ.
The DZ is still extremely active on both 1 & 2, and still has a ton of players playing in both for a reason. Just because some here may not enjoy the PvPvE experience, and don't want to take part in it, does not mean you should take it away from those that do. And no, Heartland will NOT suffice.
I'll play Heartland and give it a shot, but I still want a DZ in any Division going forward. I also want raids, and incursions, and extra story missions, and a return to the UG, and P93. But the DZ is probably the second highest ranking thing I want still in D3.
Honestly i liked destiny 2 PVP way more than i thought i would and i hated division PVP way more than i thought i would. I will gladly take another division without PVP.
The deisng of this game PVP being mostly samey meta builds ganking people doesn't sit well with me at all in any actual PVP scenario
Originally Posted by WrecK3rr Go to original post
The DZ could so easily been the true "end game" of either/both games, but their lack of attention to keep up with balances, hacks, etc kept it from happening.
I think players don't consider how impractical removing PVP is, compared to actual PVP improvement. I think that's an issue with taking sides in these PVE vs PVP debates, especially considering rogue-ing being a major part of the game lore.Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
I think this depends on why you DZ, and exactly what Heartland ends up being in its final form.Originally Posted by TxDieselKid Go to original post
I, personally, think if they can offer a compelling PvP experience in Heartlands, The Division 3 would benefit from not needing to use resources or consider balancing issues for PvP.
If Heartlands can offer DZ, BR, and Conflict .. with a team solely focused on PvP development & balancing - wouldn't that be better? Doubly so if it was focused on gunplay and eliminated Meta builds by doing away with some gear complexities? And if the fact that it's free increases the player counts?