Needs PvP and difficulty of bots is too easy

[MLE]

The NPC's need to step up like crazy for this game to be challenging once it releases. It's way too easy, even as solo. I managed to wipe almost all the machines, including the tank, on the islands without even having experienced what it looked like to die, as solo (the first time I died was when I fell off a cliff... lol). This game will not be fun with a childish difficulty like this, and less so if you have 3 mates with you. There won't be any challenge.

Also more content needs to be added, and I'm not talking about more weapons and equipment or the whole "find out what has happened to all the survivors" thingy, which I dont really care about. I'm talking about actual new content which will flesh the world out and make you wanna play this game for hours and hours. Since you don't have any PvP (which I question a lot) people will simply get tired of just killing robots endlessly. Also what's the point of having such a focus of stealth? Avoiding the robots? Man, the robots are the only thing we can shoot except for those ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ birds, since again, there's no PvP....

I didn't expect more than I got, to be honest, the graphics, sound and setting surprised me, those are exellent. The controls felt a little bit clunky, but no worries here, it's beta. I'd buy this game hands down (and so would my friend) if PvP was added though, I just think as it is now there's just too little to do. Even 16 players in total, split in 4 teams would be epic and really get your blood pumping once your hear a gunshot in the distance.

Gotta be honest though, I really enjoyed the BETA, think I might've played it a good 10 hours at least, but I've started to get really tired after all the repeating with killing easy bots. Thanks for letting me participate!

EDIT: Also, the consequences of dying has to be more punishing I feel like, as it is now nothing really happens, but I am sure you're aware of this and just had it like this so we could enjoy the BETA without having to worry too much about our equipment. But just in case.

[sebo]

No it doesn't need PVP. not every game has to be turned in to deathmatch. plenty of those kinds of games already..

[OldGrey]

Ursprungligen skrivet av sebo:

No it doesn't need PVP. not every game has to be turned in to deathmatch. plenty of those kinds of games already..

+1
So agree with you sebo

[MLE]

Ursprungligen skrivet av sebo:

No it doesn't need PVP. not every game has to be turned in to deathmatch. plenty of those kinds of games already..

That is, it needs PvP for me to buy it. I'm just sharing my opinion as a competitor who likes to measure my skill against actual humans and not just NPC's. I'm sure there could be an option with no PvP for all of you BotSlayers out there

[Muisteloinen]

Go play pvp games, almost every game is pvp, so jump play them.
I hope this game is only pve.

[♂TheBlasterMaster™✞]

There are a ton of PvP games and so few good PvE games. Please go play them and leave this to how it was designed please.

[Acreo1]

I side on the PVE side. We need more co-op, story based games. Could this use some better AI, and higher challenge, probably. But I myself am tired of so many games focused on people killing each other, and that being the only thing it is good for.

[Phil Arrow]

oh please snowflakes nothing wrong with a pvp option and a pve option just because you like pve dont force it upon everyone others are allowed to suggest things without the snowflake brigade jumping on them.

[MLE]

This is very sad to see. Most people who has given there opinions here wants it PvE only, that means the other half, who likes PvP, probably haven't even bothered with this game seeing how there is none, or at least doesn't bother to visit the Steam forums. I hope you folks realize PvP is a popular opinion, and with an option to choose either, I don't see why not, so don't be stupid..

The developers certainly understands the importance of PvP, they understand the importance of this in terms of sales. If the engine can handle it, with 16 players at least, I'd they they'd be quite stupid not to have it. And PvP to me doesn't mean that the focus shifts entirely to shooting people rather than robots, just that the risk is there of encounters between survivors OR cooperation between two groups (that is if the robots actually gets harder to kill, because as it is now it's just to easy). It gives the whole world more life. What's the point of having story based mission of looking for survivors, if there are none? Well, they might add humans bots in the future, but cmon.....

Even TheHunter: Primal from the same developers had PvP and that game was more hunting focused than this one.

[BadBlue]

If the dev's want to add a seperate server for pvp, I'd have no problem with that. but personally the last thing i'd want is a Tarkov like experiance in this game. Defeting bots, only to be shot in the back by another player would not be fun considering the game play I am currently watching, as he has about a dozen or so robots looking for him.

[[10c]Kob]

The argument for difficulty is indeed a valid one, killing the same runners for hours on end is indeed pretty boring, though I really doubt they won't expand on the robot diversity since there already is an in-game counter for how hard a certain enemy is and nothing I've seen goes above medium. They could also possibly scale the difficulty depending on the amount of people in your party.

Now as for the PvP part, there I very much disagree, Gen Zero is built up as an open world, narrative driven exploration game where the local area has gone to ♥♥♥♥ and you try to make sense of it all, which could very easily be compared to Fallout, and does Fallout have a pvp mode? No, because there is absolutely no reason for it to have one, and compared to Fallout there doesn't seem to be any sort of Raider faction or the like, so there aren't really any "evil" humans for you to fight. You play as a lone youngster who's just trying to survive, and since there seems to be such a big focus on finding other survivors, having a mode where you kill each other just wouldn't work logically.
But that's not to say that a PvP is entirely off the table, having something like a humans vs robots could maybe work without seeming too out of place?

[MLE]

Yeah, well, I've come to realize that maybe half of people who only wants PvE roams this forum, as the other part who wants PvP probably didn't even bother with the game-Maybe, I don't know. This doesn't mean, because the majority here wants PvE only, that it would be the best option to go far in a selling perspective.. The PvP "community" is massive, and if this game claims to be a survival game (I don't know if it actually does) PvP fits very well, imo.

I don't find it bizzare that in a real life scenario, if we could imagien us one, that people would kill or go up against eachother for their own gains, whether that might be a camp, weapons, clothing, equipment, food etc. It's pretty obvious from playing the BETA that the whole invasion is in fact man-made, so even there it tells us that there is in fact enemy humans somewhere.

People draws the conclusion that PvP only equals hunting other players, while that's not the case... It means interaction with other players, a world with more life, possibilities of cooperation, trade or death. It's what's chilling about PvP. If death is enough punishable, and the ro-bots a lot harder to kill, people would automatically find it smarter to cooperate with other groups of players, I think.

Either way, I don't see how we can't have both? What's so bad about having the option to choose whether or not you want to play with PvP? This is a win-win for both sides, yet most people here seem to be so selfish, that they only wants "their veiw" pushed through, while again, we could have both. Try to see this from a selling perspective, how could PvP sell less?

I won't talk about Fallout because I've never played those games, and I'm personally not interested in human players vs robot players, but hell, more options would only be better, not worse, so sure. But I don't agree with the statement that PvP doesn't fit in the game. As I see it the world is breaking apart, so people would start turning on eachother as the military and police has already gone down.

[Stormie]

Claes, mate, pretty sure most of what you are saying is pretty hypocritical. You say that the ones wanting a PVE only game are trying to force their opinions on others, which is a little non sensical when it's already a PVE only game, that you are trying to argue should be a PVP game/have PVP elements. When you look at it like that who's forcing their opinion on who?

Secondly you make an argument that PVP does mean fighting other players... except it does- its literally what the acronym stands for Player versus Player. It's not Player cooperating for mutual benefit with player...

Making an argument that without catering to a PVP crowd the game will fail/be far less successful... go check out how many copies of skyrim have been sold... there's a market for a single player experience, just because you don't fit into it doesn't mean it isn't there. Clearly this isn't the game for you so maybe just move on rather than trying to argue for wholesale changes to a game. You sound like the guys that wanted small maps with respawns added to PUBG (ie turning PUBG into COD/CSGO)

[MLE]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Stormie:

Claes, mate, pretty sure most of what you are saying is pretty hypocritical. You say that the ones wanting a PVE only game are trying to force their opinions on others, which is a little non sensical when it's already a PVE only game, that you are trying to argue should be a PVP game/have PVP elements. When you look at it like that who's forcing their opinion on who?

What I said is that we can have both, with the option to have PvP enabled or disabled according to your own preference. It's a win-win situation. Just because you want PvE only doesn't mean it's the best way to go in a selling perspective, and it would be in everyones interest to try and see both sides of the coin.

Ursprungligen skrivet av Stormie:

Secondly you make an argument that PVP does mean fighting other players... except it does- its literally what the acronym stands for Player versus Player. It's not Player cooperating for mutual benefit with player...

No? I said PvP doesn't mean the focus has to shift soley to hunting people, of course it's up the players themselves. I've seen plenty of games with PvP that has players not only spare eachothers lives, but also cooperate with eachother. PvP doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot everyone you see.

Ursprungligen skrivet av Stormie:

Making an argument that without catering to a PVP crowd the game will fail/be far less successful...

Of course. The game won't sell as much with only PvE. It would sell better with PvP in there and an option to choose either. Again, it's a win-win situation. The developers of this game had this in TheHunter: Primal, an option to choose, TheHUNTER. So I don't really see why it would be such a long stretch.

Ursprungligen skrivet av Stormie:

go check out how many copies of skyrim have been sold... there's a market for a single player experience, just because you don't fit into it doesn't mean it isn't there. Clearly this isn't the game for you so maybe just move on rather than trying to argue for wholesale changes to a game. You sound like the guys that wanted small maps with respawns added to PUBG (ie turning PUBG into COD/CSGO)

How cute of you, comparing a singleplayer game to an open world multiplayer game and the suggestion to have the possibility of PvP. Those guys suggesting the limited maps and respawning for PUBG got it in form of different gamemodes every now and then.

[JayOnSpeed]

Of course it needs pvp. Be the first one to make a PVP game... ever.

"PvP doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot everyone you see." LOL almost cracked a nut reading this.

[MLE]

Ursprungligen skrivet av JayOnSpeed:

"PvP doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot everyone you see." LOL almost cracked a nut reading this.

I'm not surprised maddafakka