Instead of PvP, how about PvE with optional PvP?

[Xleb Sergeyevich]

Why not make the game primarily PvE, with PvP as an optional feature under certain conditions? For example, here’s something to consider:

Several squads of raiders land on the map, but PvP is completely disabled by default. The main enemy for players is the AI on the map. However, there are points of interest (POIs) scattered across the map, which are marked in some way. When a squad arrives at a POI, they can “claim” the items or resources located there (e.g., an abandoned house, a basement, a warehouse—anything). But once a second squad enters the same POI, they receive a notification that, if they want to take any of the items, PvP will be enabled between them and the squad that has already claimed the area.

This system could work like this:
1. Both squads now have the ability to fight each other.
2. Outside of the POI, neither squad can deal damage to other players.
3. Other squads outside the POI cannot deal damage to those engaged in PvP inside the POI.

Now, if additional players enter the POI, they could face the following options:

a) Attempt to steal items while the two squads are distracted. By doing so, they automatically get flagged for PvP and can take damage (or, for balance purposes, they could be vulnerable but unable to deal damage to the squads already fighting over the POI—just an idea for balance, but this could be adjusted).

b) Try to third-party the fight by shooting at both squads from behind. In this case, they wouldn’t be able to deal any damage until the PvP between the two fighting squads ends, or until both squads agree to fight them. Alternatively, there could be a timed PvP window that gives a warning to those already engaged, letting them know that after a certain number of seconds, a third squad can join the battle.

c) Prevent them from taking the items or interfering while the two squads fight it out. The fighting squads would have a time-limited immunity after initiating PvP, wherein no one else can take their loot or attack them until their fight is resolved.

This system would offer more tactical depth and prevent chaotic generic excraction PVP.

[Petyr]

No

[Grimmsch]

No.

[HARRocK]

Originally posted by Petyr:

No

You 2 dummies will be playing with yourself

[StMa]

Too many people have broken egos and pvp is the only thing where they can get some sort of achievement. Rip ARC Raiders

[Grimmsch]

Originally posted by StMa:

Too many people have broken egos and pvp is the only thing where they can get some sort of achievement. Rip ARC Raiders

I see overinflated egos when PvE purists throw a tantrum here because devs changed course 1.5 years ago towards something they deemed more fun.

Originally posted by Rock&StoneTorture:

hope it dies fast

Originally posted by Gönndalf der Blaue:

Honestly, I can't wait to watch it fail.

[HeliaxDemon]

People don't want pve that would not affect them in any form.

I would buy it if it had a pve-only mode.

[Dzeaz]

take your carebear pve on somewhere

[GuNNuP]

Originally posted by HeliaxDemon:

People don't want pve that would not affect them in any form.

I would buy it if it had a pve-only mode.

it's extremely expensive to make a statisfying looter shooter, that's a live service. There litterally is only one, and that's managed poorly Destiny 2. Well warframe, but that imo is puke especially at release.

The way this game has bosses and things, that would only remain fun if they can release a whole new map every two months with more innovative bosses.

[Feuver]

You could just as well make a PvE extraction shooter with competent enemies that actually poses a threat, but that would require putting focus on designing smart AI that you can actually assess and deal with.

Instead, we'll take the PVP route where cheaters (inevitable) will snipe you from a bush, players will bring a ♥♥♥♥ ton of gear and go seal-clubbing, and every player will stop playing within 2 weeks of the season because those who started early will have such an equipment advantage they'll be less risk-averse (rather than more) because they can afford to lose while you are just struggling to get to their level.

no thanks.

[GuNNuP]

Originally posted by Feuver:

You could just as well make a PvE extraction shooter with competent enemies that actually poses a threat, but that would require putting focus on designing smart AI that you can actually assess and deal with.

Instead, we'll take the PVP route where cheaters (inevitable) will snipe you from a bush, players will bring a ♥♥♥♥ ton of gear and go seal-clubbing, and every player will stop playing within 2 weeks of the season because those who started early will have such an equipment advantage they'll be less risk-averse (rather than more) because they can afford to lose while you are just struggling to get to there level.

no thanks.

why would I play this and not warhammer 40k? technically that and l4d are the only "extraction" pve shooters. Because those are all very stat based games that circle around RPG of it all for division and destiny, the PVP is not nearly as balanced as it could be. and to make those games, the game would skyrocket in cost to make.

[Feuver]

Originally posted by GuNNuP:

why would I play this and not warhammer 40k? technically that and l4d are the only "extraction" pve shooters.

There is a literal gap in the extraction shooter market for strictly PVE experience. EVERY extraction shooter is a PVEVP experience. Dark and Darker only recently made a PVE only mode and that was a year after the original release.

You know what happened? There was a massive surge in player numbers in Dark and DArker since the update, from 6k players to 20k players.

because again, the market has a game-sized hole for a PvE extraction shooter.
Yet so many of these hardcore gamers want the same game over and over again. "It's not real extraction shooter if it's not PVP" says who? Says people who just want more of the same. If you want more of the same, just keep playing Tarkov or Cod. Games are supposed to iterate, not reiterate.

[NathanLurker]

Originally posted by Dzeaz:

take your carebear pve on somewhere

Maybe take your condescending attitude elsewhere?

[GuNNuP]

Originally posted by Feuver:

Originally posted by GuNNuP:

why would I play this and not warhammer 40k? technically that and l4d are the only "extraction" pve shooters.

There is a literal gap in the extraction shooter market for strictly PVE experience. EVERY extraction shooter is a PVEVP experience. Dark and Darker only recently made a PVE only mode and that was a year after the original release.

You know what happened? There was a massive surge in player numbers in Dark and DArker since the update, from 6k players to 20k players.

because again, the market has a game-sized hole for a PvE extraction shooter.
Yet so many of these hardcore gamers want the same game over and over again. "It's not real extraction shooter if it's not PVP" says who? Says people who just want more of the same. If you want more of the same, just keep playing Tarkov or Cod. Games are supposed to iterate, not reiterate.

you quoted me before I finished editing. They exist. you can play them or not, most fail within 60 days like back for blood. The ones that are still successful are Darktide, and L4D2. You can play those if you'd like. The more RPG centric ones, have horrible balancing for PVP. And to make them satisfying, they take 2-10x the money than a PVPVE game. Because then they will have to create a content tredmill. and generally more story that you can see transpire.

[Feuver]

Originally posted by GuNNuP:

you quoted me before I finished editing. They exist. you can play them or not, most fail within 60 days like back for blood. The ones that are still successful are Darktide, and L4D2. You can play those if you'd like. The more RPG centric ones, have horrible balancing for PVP. And to make them satisfying, they take 2-10x the money than a PVPVE game. Because then they will have to create a content tredmill. and generally more story that you can see transpire.

These are not extraction shooters.
These are PvE squad-based games.

There is no open world you loot. In all of those games, you have a map with rotations and an objectives to follow every game. You don't find any "loot" during the gameplay, you just find objective items. Darktide or Vermintide only gives you lootboxes at the end based on performance, you don't pick any item or gear up during your mission. And in L4D, you start over during every missions/campaigns. And in b4b, your progression is based on cards, but you're still doing the same mission over and over again, and you basically pick up guns that you lose every runs. AGAIN.

[GuNNuP]

Originally posted by Feuver:

Originally posted by GuNNuP:

you quoted me before I finished editing. They exist. you can play them or not, most fail within 60 days like back for blood. The ones that are still successful are Darktide, and L4D2. You can play those if you'd like. The more RPG centric ones, have horrible balancing for PVP. And to make them satisfying, they take 2-10x the money than a PVPVE game. Because then they will have to create a content tredmill. and generally more story that you can see transpire.

These are not extraction shooters.
These are PvE squad-based games.

There is no open world you loot. In all of those games, you have a map with rotations and an objectives to follow every game. You don't find any "loot" during the gameplay, you just find objective items. Darktide or Vermintide only gives you lootboxes at the end based on performance, you don't pick any item or gear up during your mission. And in L4D, you start over during every missions/campaigns. And in b4b, your progression is based on cards, but you're still doing the same mission over and over again, and you basically pick up guns that you lose every runs. AGAIN.

at every end you extract try again. I woudln't want to play a survival open world game without base building if it's PVE only.