Feel free to leave your impressions of this feature down below, what do you think of it? Hopefully matchmaking works for everyone soon because i've been having some fun.
They need too just stop; The PVP is just bad, unbalancing and lackluster. They need to put their time into the PVE parts of the game and forget trying too come up with PVP. This reminds me of EC but backwards; they tried to have PVE in their game and it was a terrible mess.
Why would you allways compare Neocore to EC? The only relation between is the general Universe the Story is happening.
Just to throw it out there but there has currently not been a single balance patch or any modifications to PvP. Expecting it to be balanced is very wishful thinking. It's also founded on a PvE system that is far from balanced, ergo I don't the the blame should rest entirely on PvP being at fault for weapon performance. That being said there are features within the gameplay that have been highlighted as also somewhat broken, like the endless assassin dodge function. But if anything to me at least these fundamental game mechanics and functions that are broken in both PvE and PvP. Only more noticeable when pitching the two classes against each other.
Thanks for the comment tho :) nice to see what people thing of the game-type
What banit said, but also EC devs are totally incompetent and bite off WAY more than they can chew obviously. IIRC EC's devs were pretty new, while Neocore is fairly established, especially in the ARPG scene.
Give them some time to balance it a bit first. Nothing wrong with including PvP (and let's face it - Inquisitors are well known for stomping on each others boots) I haven't played the PvP component first, but if they manage to balance it, let it stay. If they include it from the start, they won't have to try and tack it on once the game goes beta/release - and we all know that there will be a vocal portion of the community demanding it at some point.
Tried some PvP and it is no news that it is heavily imbalanced.
The thing is: I don't see myself playing it in the future either and it was always the unwanted child of the Van Helsing games.
I seriously do wonder if it is worth the Development Time to create, manage and balance a PvP mode.
PVP in a PVE centric game...
What can POSSIBLY go WRONG?
Balancing a game for both PVE and PVP is in almost every respect functionally impossible outside of the most simplistic games out here. That leaves out the concept of 40K which by its very NATURE is utterly imbalanced.
Is it POSSIBLE to balance a game like this for PVP? Sure.
Is it possible in the short term or in any meaningful way that will add to the game experience? THAT is the far more important question.
WIll it be possible to do this AND a decent PVE game at the same time? I highly doubt it. I have yet to see ANY game publisher manage that. (If they can, kudos. If not? I will stick to PVE)
Personally, I would PREFER they spend man hours on making the PVE game work better than adding something that MAYBE half of the playerbase will try. Of that half? Many will look at this alpha build, go 'YUCK!' and never play it again. The rest? The min-maxers and leet players with the time to play eighteen hours a day will find new and better ways to break the game and everyone else will get screwed in 10 seconds every time they try to play it. That is the way this kind of thing works.
As for you all who are comparing this to EC? Apples and Oranges are fruit, true... But...
Do you have any numbers to back you up here? Otherwise, you're just making stuff up to support your side, and I can do that too.
Player versus environment gaems are some of the oldest ones out there. The first Wasteland, the first Doom, most of the oldest arcade games were all PVE games. Single player versus hordes of enemies either through combat or puzzles, sometimes both.
Player versus player games are almost as old. The first 'Street Fighter' arcade game was the first one I played. (Yes, I am that old and I still play games.)
The problem is fundamental. Even in a AAA studio with all the money they can ask for (HA!) with all the staff they can hope for (HAHA!) and all the time in the galaxy to make the game (Do I need to continue laughing?) cannot make a game that caters to both crowds equally. Not 'WILL NOT', 'CANNOT'. It is not possible.
Best example I know of in recent years is Warframe. A VERY good PVE free to play game. Not perfect, but then, what is? A vocal minority of the fan base demanded player versus player combat despite the fact that it made NO sense in the game at ALL. They managed to shoehorn it in and have been struggling ever since to keep the game balanced for both PVE and PVP. They cannot. They are some of the best devs I have ever dealt with, focused on delivering a good product (Which makes them money since it IS a good product) and devoted to their fanbase in a way I haven't seen in years. THEY cannot do it. They cannot keep the game balanced for both because every time they add in something new for PVE, it screws the PVP balance and vice versa. It is not a simple matter to keep such things balanced no matter how many people on the internet believe it is.
Now, Inquisitor Martyr was designed from the beginning to allow player versus player combat. This gives it a big advanatage over a lot of games, Warframe included. MAYBE they can pull it off. If so, it will be a first in my experience.
Most of the games that have come closest to maintaining balance for both aspects have been FPS games. But even in most of those, there were glaring moments of 'OMGWTF?'.
Warhammer 40K is all about imbalance. You have weapons that can one shot immaterial minions of the warp or blow huge holes in the largest of tanks. Then you hand said weapons to players who are endlessly inventive in finding way to exploit the rules for their benefit. They will exploit, they will glitch, they will find ways to win, no matter how silly, stupid or game breaking.
It cannot be balanced.
But that is not necessarily a bad thing.
(The numbers I pulled out of my head, but they are fairly representative for online PVE games that I have played over the years.)
Aside from warframe being a good game (devs fucked that up long ago, and it wasn't because of PvP), I'm not sure what your point is. Because balance is hard, they shouldn't do it? WoW does balance well, they simply have separate numbers/modifiers for PvP and PvE which is what I:M can do. Weapons don't have to act the exact same in PvE and PvP. PvP dev time is a FRACTION of what PvE gets, and maybe that's what causes it to be shit. It never gets fleshed out to be enjoyable. Look at WoW, it's got fully fleshed PvP, of both Arena style TDM, and objective based larger team games (8 to 32 players iirc)
As for numbers, you have no hard proof of them, so please don't even attempt to pass them as fact, it's incredibly dishonest.
No, they should do try to it.
BUT THEY CAN'T
Simple as that.
You claim WOW as an example of balance between PVP and PVE? REALLY? OMGROFLMAO Balanced? WOW? Really?
Okay. You just lost ALL credibility with me. Your opinion is noted, not all will share it.
WOW... Balanced... *snicker* You don't play hunters much do you? Might was well claim that SWTOR is balanced for both PVE and PVP. That makes about as much sense.
Last I recall, PvP was fairly balanced, it was not perfect, but it wasn't such a complete mess that it was unplayable if you were X or Y class.
And lost credibility with you? fine, you're the guy MAKING UP NUMBERS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. The fact I've lost credibility with you doesn't matter in the slightest. (I also like that you avoided that in my last post, nice!)
With the utmost respect I would love to hear people talk about the feature itself rather than focus on discussing how -a) PvP's existence will ruin PvE. b) PvP's balance will ruin PvE. c) PvP's existence will ruin the community.
I am not going to agree nor disagree with the points of view as disputing them has proven futile for me and I accept the right that people have to hold their own beliefs. Can we not just accept that PvP exists already within the game whether you want to play it or not and talk about the feature's features and not the ramifications of its existence? Plea. To help stimulate - aside from the feedback i've provided in the other forum thread I honestly don't feel there is "that" much wrong with the PvP that isn't wrong with the PvE. Only if things are overpowered in PvE no one seems to care about it. Aside from some feature changes that will largely help improve the PvE combat system and closer examinations of weapon DPS (which will help balance PvE as well) I think it's a promising start. Far more so than previous ARPG attempts at the game type.
Let it go. There were claims they wanted a respectful discussion but as soon as a counter opinion is seen they attack it. They do not disagree per se, they take it as a personal affront and suddenly you are the one with the issue. PvP is siphoning resources and will continue to do so at a much greater rate than the devs realized. There goes another PvE feature. Hate to say I called it but it is common sense and something that has occurred game after game after game. And that is the truly laughable factor. It isn't as if this PvP eating PvE hasn't been seen a hundred times. But suddenly Neocore has cracked the conundrum and found a way to defy time and the laws of physics and devote endless development to a feature without affecting other facets of the game. Call the Nobel committee...
And you are right about the leet players. I was lucky with my finances and now live quite comfortably and do not have to work. Even so with my other activities I cannot devote the sort of time to a game that we see with a handful of obsessed players. It happens with most titles. The laughable thing is that for the most part, not en toto, but for the most part these players will not be fans of W40K lore but rather those that just want to shoot something.
" There are some very imperceptive people in this world that do not understand nothing is built for free. They do not understand that everything has an associated cost and PvP is one of those things that does cost. Maybe these persons and their skewed perceptions live in their parent's basement and think money grows on trees. The first time they have to work for a living they are in for a shock."
"[...]Simply wrong and by spreading their ridiculous ill informed point of view in a forum or some crybaby video they only serve to create more misunderstanding""
"That is all I am going to post on this issue. And unlike some I can keep my word on leaving a thread so I am done here"
All of those are quotes from you, and you were the only toxic one in the previous thread. So, please don't shift the blame to us for not wanting a respectful discussion. You're the one who IMMEDIATELY started calling names, and attacking people personally.
proof: https://neocoregames.com/en/community/pvp-why-is-it-hated you can see the posts here.
"PvP is siphoning resources and will continue to do so at a much greater rate than the devs realized. There goes another PvE feature"Number of PvE features removed - 0 (Direct quote from staff)Number of PvE features added to road map - Plenty (See size of road map)"Maybe these persons and their skewed perceptions live in their parent's basement and think money grows on trees. The first time they have to work for a living they are in for a shock." - Can't find the quote where you call me a whiney little kid but i'm happy to also look it up.Number of personal attacks from anyone arguing for PvP - 0Number of attacks from you - More than there should be.We will continue to pull you up on talking out of your backside. Claiming that features have been removed is false as PvP was always on the road map and their plans. There is nothing 1337 about what anyone is doing on these forums. If you continue to over exaggerate things by making disproportionate claims that adding a small feature somehow ruins games while making references to companies that tried to change their entire player base to PvP then of course we will be here to remind you that one features impact is proportional to the amount of time that goes into it, not how much you dislike the content.Number of "attacks" on views - 0Number of challenges / counter arguments - Plenty
I am very glad to hear about your financial situation too. I was going to end by saying "for everything else there is mastercard" but fortunately I am glad to hear you don't need one.Once more.With the utmost respect I would love to hear people talk about the feature itself rather than focus on discussing how -a) PvP's existence will ruin PvE. b) PvP's balance will ruin PvE. c) PvP's existence will ruin the community. If you want to make a thread about the above comments please do so! I'll gladly stay well away form it.
Just a few thoughts.
If done normally, PvP doesn't influence balance in PvE at all, since there are (or should be) separate rules for PvP - for example, Diablo2 had, Snakefist *thinks*, global 10% modifier on all the damage in PvP + special modifiers for some effects - naturally that 4 sec stun will pretty much end the game for the stunned player. Here it may be done differently, but player is not a mob and differences should apply.
Feature-wise, PvP normally doesn't take anything from PvE.
Historically in aRPGs, PvP wasn't exactly well populated, some 5-10% players were playing it at all (and some veryvery rarely, such as Snakefist - which is me, and I've come logged up with this Emperor knows how).
Realistically, developing PvP (mostly balancing it) *does* take some of the time which *could* be devoted to PvE. It's noticeable mostly, if not only during the alpha/beta phase, and likely will never be nearly as balanced as PvE.
Snakefist would like to have one of the PvP modes as it was in Diablo2 - someone gets incredibly annoying or something, Snakefist enters *proposed* hostile mode 'draw steel, sonny' and the annoying one shuts up or dies. Snakefist won each of 2/year PvPs agreed on in Diablo2, and retired undefeated - so not a huge fan.
[Whole opposite situation, D3 where everything is done wrongly, no drawing steels, kids are badmouthing and PvP is done in THE most embarrassing way - namely having to actually ask, instead force (or join the lobby, when there's no immediate reason to) fight. The PvP in D3 is also the worst ever, because said balances weren't implemented]
I can't see a reason why PvP bunch wouldn't get stuff they won't. I don't normally play it and doubt I will, but putting pressure on something that is an integral part of aRPGs for decades just isn't reasonable.
Your name isn't KALENATH. When I am talking to you I will be looking at you. I wasn't. Number of attacks? Like you and your friends haven't been shredding people. Just drop it already. What do you call people that can't see thing for what it is? Uhm, imperceptive. But with thin skin that is naturally an attack. And you are the one that promised to play nice. So stop pointing fingers before you poke out your own eye. And don't bother with the "I am done talking." I have already seen how that works for the defenders of the faith.
Are you serious? do you not see what you just wrote? you're proving my point. All you do is attack people personally (case in point, reread your last several posts), but you have the GALL to say WE'RE the ones doing it. YOU'VE been the one pointing fingers here first, accusing everyone else of being hostile.
(also, nice way to avoid responding to Hydra's points)
It can say reply to Jesus for all I care but if anyone attempts to spread false information in a public place (like features being removed) then any and every person here has the right to call you out on that. Likewise when anyone provides their opinion people may then provide their opinion on your opinion and vice versa. Most of us here remain happy to debate and provide our own perspective on things when presented with reasonable arguments or points.
Disturbed man - Well put out thread and I agree with the majority of it. There were indeed many shortcomings of D3's PvP but I do feel its worth emphasising the importance of the PvP community within D2. Some of those players were the most loyal and longstanding players of the game. A great many of the same players became furious at the PvP failures of D3 and there was obvious upset as a result hinting there was indeed still "some" appetite for it within the genre. I wouldn't pretend to know the figures of PvP proportion but if 10% of the player base did frequently use the feature then assuming the costs of the feature didn't exceed this proportion of the budget then i'd say it was still a success as far as the company is concerned as they earned more money. Which given the nature of ARPG's can be re-invested into other features. Hopefully some reassurance was taken form the recent stream where it was even emphasised that this is just a small part of what we are playing.. and they remain focused on their PvE experience.
Now can we please perhaps talk about the stream?! What were people's thoughts on the pvp? What did you think of it?
Please calm down a little bit. Thank you!
I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning the WoW situation. Anyone that was around the game for even the briefest of moments was well aware of upended situation that occurred with PvE and PvP. The 2013 nose dive was positively ugly. And it was not limited to the game but bled over into the community and caught fire and continued unabated. The last time I was around was early this year and it was still generating issues. The Horde matter was relentless. Its one of the reasons they stopped releasing numbers in 2015. The effect was driving players away.
So... Just gonna ignore everything, got it. Just keep replying to old posts and avoiding the fact you brought the toxicity in, and were actively ruining what was otherwise a civil conversation, and while I might be wrong about WoW (I never got too hardcore into PvP, but I also never felt like I was at a disadvantage for playing a certain spec/class), that doesn't change the fact that balance for PvE and PvP can be separated.
Despite still being a mile off of the topic of the thread i'd like to chip in.Don't think anyone can argue that wow's arena system has had overbearing issues with balance and control of this however it's battleground features have always been far more tolerated by the masses. My two points would be that a) wouldn't it make sense comparing the success of objective based combat to objective based combat (Inquisitor doesn't include an arena mode) and b) that the MMO's genre and balancing is very very different from that of inquisitors. See below for visual aid.
This is no attack but a request of clarification as to what these games have in common. Once we have established that then we can debate further how the two cases are relevant. Many thanks.
Ok yes WoW situation was bad for year when it came to pvp and pve, but maybe just need to think a little and think maybe now everyone play from the start or started with a different expansion. when there came out with Legion PvP and PvE was separated, so maybe some one was talking from that point of view. and should of use a different game maybe like Guild Wars 2
We do not yet know the impact of Legion since there has been some backtracking by Blizzard on its effect on the community. Best indicators are from the players. Regarding how PvP will affect PvE here...it will. No game has ever been made in the history of gaming where one did not affect the other in some way positive or negative. The real problem this creates is when the side effects are negative, and there is always a downside, they end up being almost impossible to repair. And when assets or aspects are left incomplete, if the game does not sell very very well then those things are left forever incomplete.
Now I thought i was talking about pvp/pve not about player numbers lol
I would suggest we let the Developers do their Job like they planned to do it. I mean nobody forces you to play a game. And honestly nobody cares about your Opinion either. People who come talk bad about things without any Numbers or anything, even the lack of experience with the Pvp wich is in the first version in the game right now.. are simply people who will NEVER be happy with the game. So worthless discussion with you Hatchet you avoid facts and just blablabla the entire time.
It's nice to see some more agreeable points that you are making. No one can argue PvP will correlate with PvE. They are part of the same game and rely on the same core functions. Perhaps instead of drawing absolutes that there will be a negative effect from any changes made, we can instead start discussing specifics rather than absolutes. Because we now have the feature to discuss. Thus far the major concerns for balance and the upcoming changes will first include. (as said by staff)
I'm more than happy to debate the impact of changing these features but thus far I can only draw the conclusion that they are things that needed implementing anyway. Irregardless of whether we had a PvP function or not. As for any weapon Dps output changes that might compromise the rest of the balance changes, can anyone say hand on heart that +/- 10% damage will be truly damaging and impossible to repair? Lastly there is time on the road map for all features to be completed, even addition time added (they stated they are happy to delay the game if required) so I don't see how any of the planned game features will be aborted given that neocore are currently following a schedule that already included all this stuff from the beginning with additional wiggle room. Seems a nice story tho.
Peace and Love.
That's very easy to challenge: D3, PvP didn't affect the PvE in anyway whatsoever. Or Xcom 2. Or Terraria. Or the L4D series. Or Dying Light (assuming you just turn PvP off). Or the Borderlands series. Or one of the Farcry games (4? I forget). Or the Hitman series (well, it had a competitive mode/features where you worked for the best score). All of those have PvP, but all of those have PvP that is easily ignored and doesn't affect PvE unless you WANT it to, if it even can (mostly, dying light and borderlands you have to flip the switch and just turn it off basically).
And before anyone says "But that took time away from PvE!" Sure, but how much? D3 has one small map, and an NPC, Borderlands has it enabled by meleeing the other player(s), along with a couple maps in the original. Hitman (not sure if it was in any others besides absolution) was simply leaderboards and a mode where you tried to replicate/best the other player's kills. Everything else was a separate game mode, or just enabling the ability to play as the bad guy (i.e. L4D/Xcom).
But that's not the point, the point is that they have PvP that didn't affect the PvE realistically.
We are, but imbalance affects player numbers. It sends players elsewhere. Player numbers are a symptom of dissatisfaction or satisfaction with a title. Imbalance is a cause of dissatisfaction. Incompleteness is a cause. If numbers are indicating massive drops they then can become part of the issue. As players leave only the hardcore in a game remain and then their opinions often drive any changes which then in turn distance more players. The reputation of the game will put off interested buyers. Also those core have remained because they have found a niche where they rule. These are the "leet" players mentioned by KALENATH and they tend to be unwelcoming to new players. So the symptom in turn actually becomes part of the issue. You will also have bands of survival groups but they often find themselves isolated in the game and gradually lose players to more welcoming titles.
As an opener â the reason I keep replying is because you persist on going off topic within a thread that's supposed to be a place to discuss impressions of a feature. Not discussing incompetence's of other gaming companies.
Imbalance affects player numbers. It sends players elsewhere irrespective of whether the balance issue comes from PvP or PvE. Quality of balance does not 100% correlate with quantity of features. It's ultimately a question of two things. Company competency and game design. The topic / nature of balancing simple combat systems such as inquisitor has been discussed at length already so I won't bore you.
Player numbers are a symptom of dissatisfaction or satisfaction with a title which goes without saying. We agree that dissatisfaction can come from imbalance and that incomplete features might cause this. This is a case of company scheduling, resource management and competency. Your implying that neocore somehow hasn't or isn't able to do this within their original schedule for this game. The arguments we have seen thus far that PvP is impossible to balance has been based off of games with incomparable combat systems. Like WoW or D3 for eg. Whereas most games with a comparable amount of "pre set" attack sets have been turned into Esports such as the Moba genre. Ergo a competent state of balance is clearly achievable.
When the number of players dwindles the reality is that revenue for that game is now coming from that audience, which may or may not be different from the original intended player base. However, should a game's player base dwindle to that extent then again this comes back to an incompetent design process or lack of replay value of the game and time running its course. Given the plethora of content put forward and plan for this game including copious amounts of DLC and season, we can rule out the latter and presume again that you simply feel Neocore will make a bad game by sticking to their schedule.
Going with the unlikely event that players leave Martyr and only the more âhardcoreâ community remain. Yes their views will help shape the game, because they are the majority of the revenue now. Much like now, we are the only playerbase therefore we have the proportionate input in the games direction. Rather curiously though, you are requesting to remove a feature which other players enjoy something you accuse these "leet" players of doing. Anyway, In the nature of business practice you cater for your audience. Trying to appease the minimal amount of player you might attract in the years following a games release is just a horribly inefficient way to spend money and would very quickly lead to bankruptcy. It might not be desirable but it's also the only viable option. It's also only something thatâs required if numbers dwindle which again - is down to poor game design and incompetency.
The unwelcoming elite players which you describe are often part of a games downfall, but they are often also in-twined into two gaming genres or certain game types in particular. For the most part they include leaderboard and confrontational based combat systems and also MOBA systems where a win/loss is based on the performance of your allies as well as yourself with few other variables. Just going with the assumption that for whatever reason Marty's player base falls to low numbers and leave some âleetâ players who are toxic. By then the game has already failed. It has already fallen at the first hurdle. So why then blame these players for the downfall of the game? When the downfall of the game has already taken place.
From every point you make I can only conclude one thing. You feel neocore is incapable of doing their job despite a lack of evidence to support this and despite numerous points that completely counter these suspicions you continue to claim all this as fact.