🛈 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. #61
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Originally Posted by DutchLMB4ever Go to original post
    I said that as well in the OP's other thread on the feedback suggestions forum.
    But this would be the only solution for in 1 game.
    'Division 3'
    And that's what we are talking about right?
    A balanced DZ in div3?

    Maybe not begging but I've seen you mentioning a pve dz multiple times.
    Have you ever pictured a pve dz in your head?
    Let's see:
    Heroic landmarks are already easy solo.
    In a group its boring AF.
    Imagine doing landmarks with 15 other people.
    You wouldn't even see an npc because 99% hides behind cover with a skill build.
    1% is all of a sudden brave enough to go dps.
    (And they are feeling powerful too while non of their bullets hit.)
    And that is because of the 15 drones & 15 turrets.
    No one is shooting because there is no point doing that.
    And there is you trying to shoot an enemy.
    Not trying because he's hard to kill.
    But trying to get 1 hit before he's annihilated.

    I can tell you first it might be fun as hell, but after an hour you're already getting sick of boredom because it's to easy.
    Guarantee you that if they do a pve dz.
    That you will ask for private servers within a day.
    Especially if you do legendarys solo (but cry about a little pvp)
    You would have no business in a pve dz.
    Yea maybe to get the exclusives that aren't exclusives anymore because DZ is pve now.
    So first I'm "begging". But now it's straw man all the way down. Great.

    Let me make something perfectly clear here: There is a distinct difference between pointing out how bad an idea it is to mix PVE and PVP, and the entirely different topic of how to do some form of open world Dark zone in a way that would be good for PVE.

    Regardless, you don't do yourself any credit by making up fabricated reasons then arguing against those instead of what people are actually saying.

    When have I ever once in all my posts on these forums(or anywhere else for that matter) asked or even implied I wanted private servers?

    And do you think for a moment that repeatedly pointing out the flaws with the DZ somehow makes them less valid? Or that because I point them out that I don't like PVP? Why do you think I always bring up EVE online? It's because I played and enjoyed it for more time than Division 1 and 2 have ever existed And because it's about a million times more of a reall PVP experience than the halfa**ed attempts Massive has made.

    So please stop making assumptions.

    Now...to address the actual points you brought up:

    Making a PVE-only toggle for the DZ is, at best, a bandaid solution. Throwing a bone to players this late in the lifespan of the game won't hurt anything. But if we're talking about Division 3, then nothing you described from Div2's DZ is on the table.

    I would imagine a real PVE dark zone would be more like Survival from Division 1, only with more hunters or rogue agent NPCs, better AI, with mandatory directives of Ammo Hoarder and no regen thrown in, forcing players to conserve ammo and armor kits.

    Throw on top of that random events or procedurally generated missions that could either be taken at the entrance, or discovered inside the DZ via crates or drops from kills, similar to how you sometimes get bounties from hostage situations in the LZ of Division 2. These random missions might have additional directives, or boss encounters with special conditions.

    There's a wealth of ideas which could be taken from other looter games, such as diablo 3 or POE. A day/night cycle could be used similar to hunter mask encounters from div2. Special materials ala exotic recipies could be scattered throughout.

    So don't give me some weak boring example of the laziest parts of farming the DZ and tell me it's a bad idea. All you're doing is showing a lack of creativity.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #62
    N3mB0t's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,911
    Reading this thread reminded me of a usual dz gate , full of gankers just waiting for the next victim,popcorn is a requirement here.
    Share this post

  3. #63
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Originally Posted by Merphee Go to original post
    I don't think one would want the NPCs in the DZ to be any smarter than they are. PVP looms in the air while you're in there. Having to play smart against NPCs in there would be annoying.
    More or less annoying than what it is to be a PVE player trying to farm, but constantly being interrupted by players going rogue at random with no warning?





    Originally Posted by Merphee Go to original post
    Division 2 does feature separate balancing for PVP and PVE, at least on the numbers side. I think the issues comes from the core design of whatever gear or talent there is. As players, we can only play with what is given to us then give feedback or demand changes. Despite all the suggestions of possible gear and talents the game could feature, Division devs never implemented user generated ideas for new talents or gear, as far as I know.
    Division 2 has separate numerical balancing for PVP and PVE. But none of the real important foundations that the game are based on are changed to facilitate PVP. The cover system, the parkour, the attributes and skill system. Everything is designed(AFAIK) first and foremost to interact with the PVE aspects of the game, then badly retrofitted to accommodate PVP.

    Why do you think PVP has always had such problems with balancing? It's because no matter what they do, Ubi/Massive will always be trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.

    Originally Posted by Merphee Go to original post
    Anti-cheat seems to be a matter of a decision being made during the development of the game before release. If they could, if it's even possible, Division 2 would have BattleEye by now.

    Not sure if something like SBMM for DZ servers would be a good idea, even though that is the only way I see them grouping similar players together automatically
    That's something that should have been considered VERY carefully, during the initial design and planning phases of the game. Instead of just trying to check as many industry standard boxes as possible, they should have been thinking about what would actually make the game better. But what we got was what happens when a game is designed by corporate trend-following.
    Share this post

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    ...as an example of what not to do.


    I'm sorry to all you DZ players who enjoyed a little bit of time in the sun running around having "epic" battles during manhunts. But the overall concept is DEEPLY flawed from the getgo. For every person who enjoyed that pvp, there are 10 or 100 PVE players who found it not only irritating, but outright turned them away from the game mode entirely. For every minute you spent having fun in a manhunt, there are THOUSANDS of minutes of PVE players being annoyed that they're not getting a PVE darkzone or exclusive items.

    EVERY time you kill a PVE farmer in the DZ and get a little chubby, you're doing so at the direct cost of the enjoyment of another player. NO ONE likes or enjoys having their effort and time stolen from them by a gank based on a garbage system that lets players go from friendly/neutral to "enemy" without warning in around a second.

    It's a bad system in every regard. And all you guys preaching its merits MUST take a step back and take a hard look at the flaws as well.

    I have said this hundreds of times in hundreds of threads since the beginning of Division 1:

    If you want to make a PVP game based on risk vs reward that the DZ seems to want to be, then you MUST build the game on that premise 110% from the foundation up. Trying to mix PVE and PVP and force PVE players into it with the "best" gear or exclusives is so deeply flawed and ill-considered that it should NEVER be attempted.

    You PVP junkies are getting heartland. And my heart bleeds for you that you'll actually have to fight other players who not only want to be there, but can't be attacked from the cover of the sh*tty rogue system. That you won't be able to attack players that have no interest in, and who are not gear for, PVP. Boo f**king hoo! You'll actually learn that you're not very good at PVP.

    *NOTE: For those legitimate PVPers who go into the DZ looking only to fight other PVP players, I do have some real sympathy for you. There HAVE been rare bright spots of enjoyable pvp in the DZ. But I hope that you can recognize how rare that is, and that sacrificing an entire swathe of the game while constantly ruining the balance of PVE skills and equipment in the process, isn't worthy. You guys deserve your own game, and it appears that you're getting it. So do the PVE players the same courtesy and wish them the best with their PVE only game.
    Bullseye.
    Share this post

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    And no, it should NOT be repeated. Mixing PVP and PVE is an attempt to force that game mode onto people that have no interest in it.
    Bottom line, no one is physically forcing people in to the DZ, it's voluntary based. Don't want to go in? Fine, don't. It's a decision each player needs to make for themselves. No one hits a hard stop because they do not have something from the DZ that must be had/completed to continue the PvE experience.

    Don't throw out the baby for the bath water.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    Perhaps this is better grounds for the point I was trying to make.


    What if spongy NPCs were in conflict, and it was widely expressed by PVP players that they wanted a version of Conflict with no NPCs. However, the devs refused to take the NPCs out or give such an option, but continued to leave conflict-exclusive items locked to that game mode with NPCs.

    I suppose some would continue to be in favor. But I imagine most Conflict players would get tired of the NPCs interfering with both games and balance.

    Now add in the possibility of PVP progress and rewards being lost if the NPCs killed conflict players. I suppose that would go over REALLY well with the PVP crowd.
    And don't forget the NPC's would have to spawn MID PvP battle so that the player could be shot in the back and have 75% of their armor removed by some rat who really doesn't want a fight, just an easy kill. That would mimic the PvE players DZ experience.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by TxDieselKid Go to original post
    Bottom line, no one is physically forcing people in to the DZ, it's voluntary based. Don't want to go in? Fine, don't. It's a decision each player needs to make for themselves. No one hits a hard stop because they do not have something from the DZ that must be had/completed to continue the PvE experience.

    Don't throw out the baby for the bath water.
    The PvP community is getting their own entire GAME. Not game mode, GAME. Here's hoping the PvE community gets the same, and has all those resources directed to continued DLC and expansions. Each community deserves a dedicated game.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #68
    I guess lots of decisions on TD3 hinge on how Heartland will do and how much revenue the new TD2 content will bring in.
    Yeah, I hope the new TD2 content is a paid expansion, so they will put some thought and effort into it. I don't want another Summit-like crap, or the disaster that is the latest free update of Breakpoint.
    I have my doubts re. Heartland... They are banking on cosmetics microtransactions and most of the TD community doesn't strike me as that type. The game will have to be very popular with a wide crowd, and socially "fashionable" to play, so some players will be tempted to spend on cosmetics to look cool or "special"... I don't think Ubi's bet is very good here. This community rather pay up for new periodic content than silly digital hats.
    Share this post

  9. #69
    dagrommit's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Pedestal of truth
    Posts
    5,099
    Originally Posted by chicagolongball Go to original post
    The PvP community is getting their own entire GAME. Not game mode, GAME. Here's hoping the PvE community gets the same, and has all those resources directed to continued DLC and expansions. Each community deserves a dedicated game.
    Heartland has both PvE and PvPvE modes.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  10. #70
    Stardust.One's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Crocodile Pit
    Posts
    1,762
    Rumors.
    Share this post