🛈 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. #11
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    I would rather that there never be another Division game EVER than see PVP inflicted upon the franchise again.
    Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
    Pure 100% HORSESHT
    Really? 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?

    I'd be interested to know how do you come by better information on someone's feelings than the person having those feelings.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    What are you even talking about?!

    This is my opinion about that opinion (his and others, don't care from whom).

    And no, I don't have any info, math or videos to show... deal with it.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #13
    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.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #14
    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.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  5. #15
    WrecK3rr's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Chillin w/ Morozova
    Posts
    1,597
    No PVP is better than Bad PVP I guess.

    Don't get me wrong I play PVP myself, especially now more than ever since PVE is boring af right now.
    But, I'm saying that strictly on the basis of Massive's incompetence when it comes to fixing/handling PVP content.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #16
    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.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #17
    xcel30's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    8,155
    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
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Originally Posted by WrecK3rr Go to original post
    Don't get me wrong I play PVP myself, especially now more than ever since PVE is boring af right now.

    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.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    Merphee's Avatar Volunteer Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Discord: Merphee#2325
    Posts
    3,821
    Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
    Ahh! Now I see why Ubi does not bother with most of the opinion posts on this forum. It's mostly "extremist" horsesht from the far ends of the bell curve...
    Case in point, rather NO TD3 if it has PVP, or rather NO TD3 if it doesn't have PVP. What kind of crap is that?!
    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.
    Share this post

  10. #20
    Originally Posted by TxDieselKid Go to original post
    And no, Heartland will NOT suffice.
    I think this depends on why you DZ, and exactly what Heartland ends up being in its final form.

    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?
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post