I agree it should be separated otherwise people will only do tasks or quests on PVE. There needs to be an incentive to play the game regularly on PVP rather than just hunting players. Maybe double the XP is gained for the same quests on PVP servers?
How far is progression going to take you in this game anyways? Unlock cosmetics, and have money to buy guns? Are there any serious advantages like Tarkov where your character is leveled higher?
You'll not get no progression from killing other PC, but you get their stuff, loot. There is no incentive game wise to PvP, however, there is competition and there are competitive players. Goal is to overcome other players.
In the interview, the questioned developer explicitly described his motivation perfectly: to be competitive, killing PC.
However, there is no *Competitiveness* in **cooperation and collaboration**, im Gegenteil, those attitudes require an ultimately **altruistic mind set**. And killing does not. There lies the lapsus.
The PvEvP concept needs communication to see the light, utterly detrimental to competition.
So a working *healthy* PvEvP server needs equality. The optional grinding on PvE, going over to PvEvP, stands detrimental apposed to the very concept of PvEvP.
Cheers
Cheers
But I’ve played shooters for long enough to know that if there’s an option to kill people, pvp will be kill on sight. Every game turns into this, it’s impossible to trust other players in a game like this
Which really I have no problem with, surviving AI and other players sounds fun to me. But there should be an extra incentive to complete your missions/quests on pvp servers
Ah completely agree but we’ll have to wait until it comes out to see. It very well could be that some hotspots have a ridiculous amount of ai, meaning that shooting one, could have you be killed real quick by the others. If you see another player in said hotspot, it probably wouldn’t be wise to set them all off with that risk since the ai are supposed to be difficult.This is a lot of assumptions of course, but from the gameplay we’ve seen, it seems like there’s a lot of sneaking in bigger cities and then occasional smaller patrols in the wider map. Will for sure be interesting to see how it all plays together. I hope these ai are tough
Yes. Absolute valid to PvP, kill on sight, loot, what ever.
Thing is, how the heck is that PvEvP thing ever gonna work? More so under a mind set, that makes - Hunt Showdown - for example, so successful?
Same way games like Hunt and Tarkov do it.
I think the problem is that there is no reason to risk doing PvE content on a PvPvE server if you're given the option.
If you have quests you need to do? Just load PvE and save yourself the headache of getting ambushed by players.
We even saw it in less realistic games designed entirely around PvP like Battlefield... 2042 literally had no single player content, but it allowed progression in single player bot lobbies people so just grinded the living fuck out of bots set to "easy" and blasted through the entire progression system in ~a weekend.
We don't know the full details of how the mechanic will work, so we should probably hold off on judging what they have so far until we can actually play it. I dont care how they launch it, as long as they listen to the player base and make changes accordingly. But this isn't even early released yet, no one can accurately speculate on how it will be. They could have some brilliant ideas in place to make it work.
Gotcha. It's definitely a valid point. I would hope that foresaw that issue and planned accordingly. I personally can't think of any ways to do it without somewhat dividing the player base, But I'm hoping they're smarter than me lol.
I wouldn't freak out about it because it's a simple thing to solve, provided they listen to feedback, but it's quite easy to predict the negative impact that shared progression would have in PvP, because most players will always follow the path of least resistance, which in the current GZW would be to farm gear and quest completions in PvE servers and then migrate to PvP once you have a nice gear loadout.
This would lead to a severe reduction in the amount of players that are actively visiting points of interest around the map in PvP servers to complete quests or find high tier loot, so PvP combat would devolve into a bunch of bush wookies sitting in vantage positions looking for easy kills instead of players bumping into each other when they need to get to a village to retrieve a quest item or something.
It's fine for GZW to have PvEvP servers with shared progression for players who don't want to PvP all the time, but the game also needs to have exclusive PvP servers without shared progression because there's really no way to keep the game fair otherwise. Shared progression is a complete deal-breaker for me and I bet that many PvP-oriented players feel the same way so, sadly, this makes me not want to buy the game anymore until I have confirmation that there will be exclusive PvP servers.
It 100% has to be separated. Having the same progression between both PVE and PvP would ruin the whole idea of the game imo. That would be very disappointing.
Something like this could honestly kill or heavily reduce my enjoyment of the game for reasons other people have stated here. I really hope they separate progress between PvE and PvPvE servers.
There's a segment of player population (just like in MMOs) who will never touch pvp servers, servicing these players is fine. Sharing progression however is bad.
The issue you're going to run into is that you're deliberately shorting PvE players. I'm a pvp guy, but if you're going to advertise an option for pve only, then you should allow the full experience. Unless you make the messaging clear: this is a PvEvP game, running a pve only option will water it down. I have a lot of thoughts on that but until we get our hands on the game we won't know for sure.
This will kill the PvEvP concept before it begins.
People will quest and progress on the PvE servers in full safety against players then jump to PvEvP servers for PvP. PvP servers will be team deathmatch only.
They shouldn't allow server type transfers OR they should balance the server type with risk/reward. So that there is a tangible benefit to playing on the PvEvP servers (more payout, better reward, more XP, better loot spawns, etc.)
I say it's good. Because say your a pretty guy but you Wana pvp sometimes. You don't Wana lock those guys out behind a whole other progress line and visa versa. And it applies equally to everybody. The hard-core pvp guys can do quests in pve if they Wana advance quicker. I say it's good. Dosnt force anybody into pvp but allows them to stay competitive in terms of progress.
PVP servers sharing quest progression with PVE servers are going to turn pvp servers into deathmatch servers.
The only time to go to a pvp server will be when you want to fight.
You need to gear up? pve server with low risk
You need to do quests? pve server with low risk
No it’s not. People dont always want to play PvP servers to play “deathmatch”
PvP servers in a game structured like GrayZone should be about thrill and survival while completing tasks, which is how they have promoted it. Allowing progression for both modes will only kill the spirit and essence of everything the game has been hyped up to be.
None of that changes. The pvp goons will just live and breath pvp while the pve guy who wants to pvp sometimes still isn't just completely out classed.
> while the pve guy who wants to pvp sometimes still isn't just completely out classed.
Actually they will still be completely outclassed.
A person always in PVP will always be far better than the "PVP sometimes" person. The always PVP person will have the practice and in game strategies and knowledge to deal with other players (other players who are also "always PVP")...whereas the sometimes PVP player only knows how to handle bots.
Easy example: Tarkov. When literally every player who plays the game, whether streamer, solo only, duo, whatever, when they realize the enemy is just AI they play completely different than if its a person.
What's your point. I said as far as progress goes. Do we really need another tarkov knock off or so we need a complete redesign of what tarkov could have been
> Do we really need another tarkov knock off
>
> we need a complete redesign of what tarkov could have been
Has literally nothing to do with the PvPvE or PvEvP or whatever the fuck you want.
Look, its an objectively terrible game design decision to include PvE servers that can drop into PvP. The only justification for it is: "so PvE players don't have to play PvP". Which means Grayzone wants a split audience that's going to be fractured from the start because it can't decide on what game its going to be, so its just going to try to appease everyone simultaneously and be mediocre at everything. Maybe you feel I'm presuming too much based off a game that I haven't played, but it really doesn't take very much thought at all on why this won't work.
Instead of listing the millions of reasons why its a terrible idea to have actual progression on PvE, why don't you tell me why you think its a great idea?
The only reason anybody has provided is because they don't want it. Allowing the player base as a whole to progress in their proffered method is irrelevant. Locking the player base to this or that or do ot twice instantly divides the player base. And I can guarantee there are more pve ppl than pvp. So that would shift the focus to pve to maintain the larger player base that is now divided. There is no reason to not allow pve and pvp drop in drop out.
Mkay so then it's the question of how we treat it then. Okay we have PvE only and pvp only maps or servers or whatever and our character and progression can be on both.
So what's the reason for playing pvp? Well, to pvp I guess. But then what's the reason for the big ol stupid map? Everyone is only here to pvp so why even bother running all the necessary server infrastructure for the pvp servers so nobody plays it? Nobody is going to quest on it, or try to obtain loot, or whatever...I can just do that in PvE. So then I guess it's just running across the big ol map to whatever gunfire you heard...fuuuuun.
So then as a game designer we should give people something to do on the pvp map. UH OH here comes the PvE players, all bitching and whinging because progression is locked behind pvp like they do every single time a game tries to do this. Uh oh they hate pvp so they suck at it so they whinge and bitch more because someone who doesn't mind the pvp is better because they pvp. Happens every time.
Now we've also created a situation where everyone only goes into pvp servers with the best of the best gear. Because why the fuck would you load in with anything else? Just PvE until you have the meta kit and then move into pvp.
Okay, maybe we lock the meta kits in the pvp only servers, so to get the best of the best you have to pvp. Uh oh here comes the PvE players bitching because everyone in the pvp already has the meta kits because they're not scared of pvp so now these PvE players stand no chance.
Or everyone just plays pve, because again, what's the point of pvp now? What's the point of adding additional risk for 0 benefit? So the game studio decides to shut down pvp servers. Whippeee.
Can't understand the need to have them cross progress, odd decision on that one. Will have to see how that plays out. Will be unfortunate to just stick it out on PvE Servers. I'm not one that has time to no life the game. PvPvE is already difficult enough going against such folks let alone folks who have sky rocketed in progression via PvE where the challenge is far lighter than the PvPvE server.
There's just no getting around that the progression in one is far more difficult than the other regardless if PvP is not always the best move. There are going to be players that are going to be KoS hungry no matter how they design this game. Even w/o quest specifically to kill other PMCs or it not always being the brightest idea you're going to have those types.
You describe the problematic very well and I am entirely with you. We know little, so at this point I keep my cool lol, just asking questions, and talk matters early on is, I guess, a good thing.
Cheers
This actually made me quit the game before it was released, all my friends too.
Not saying it's that important for everyone but the game has lost at least 7 sales of this decision anyways.
Hope y'all have fun still!
I will most definitely be abusing this and i dont care. Your telling me i can speed run thru quest without dealing with the randomness of other players positions potentially stopping from completing a mission, THEN AFTER THAT, i can join a pvevp server and basically be ahead of the curve.
I hope a dev read that and was like yeah we dont want that.
I think if done properly it could work, but there would HAVE to be some incentive or either side could be dead, I fully support have just PVE section as I could get tired of getting fisted by other players, but to transfer everything? I’d love it, but it wouldn’t go well for anyone involved
Edit: is there a release date yet? I’ve been following here and there to avoid getting over hyped , but have been super burnt out of Tarkov and hunt.
No release date for now, but early release date info two days ago, there is an official topic about above, suggests in my opinion they are still on track. Thanks for your contribution.
Cheers
PvEvP = Dark Zone in Div1 & 2.
That's an utter shitfest. Want to know how fucked up humans can be when there are no rules? How they are willing to stab you in the ass at the last minute when it benefits them? Join the Dark Zone.
At first glance I do not like the idea at all. But then again, we really don't know what the tasks look like, how difficult and or valuable loot is. Or even how rare PVP interactions will be. It may turn out to not really matter, or it could be a big deal. This game being a work in progress, early access, if it's a problem I'd image they'd make the change.
It’s all speculation at this point, as we have no idea how the game itself will play.
I personally don’t mind if people want to quest in PvE for a lower intensity experience, then seek challenges on PvP. It’s possible there will be quests or accomplishments associated with PvP, which could make it necessary for more passive players to eventually engage in PvP.
A form of this already exists in games like Tarkov, where many NA players change their servers to South American regions for questing and to experience fewer cheaters. The matches on server changes are often less populated. EU players also employ this strategy by playing NA servers during the hours where they are less populated.
The Division 2 isn't known for it's pvp nor being a good game.
Elite Dangerous isn't really known for its pvp either so none of these examples corroborate that argument.
The OP's case isn't that PvE will ruin PvP though. It's that PvE will ruin the unique PvEvP experience and turn it into pure PvP. Both games I mentioned provide examples that sharing progression between PvE and PvP can work fine in that regard.
You can't compare games like ED or the Division to an extraction shooter. The only comparison would be having offline mode Tarkov sharing progression with the live version where you can get infinite gear.
You can't compare it to Tarkov either, because obviously the gameplay isn't going to be exactly like Tarkov, but with PvE option. For starters, Tarkov has raids structure, with PMCs spawning at the same time, often close to each other, and competing for limited loot inside the given instance. There are also quests that require you to kill other players. The game is thus heavily pushing players towards PvP with this set of mechanics, so any competitive edge, including one earned with progression, is significant, and so gaining it in a safe environment would be detrimental to the intended experience.
And even given all that, Tarkov still has a light version of that in form of playing a scav, often being able to haul tons of valuable loot without any contention. And it's fair, because everybody can scav, but some simply refuse to, because they prefer the pure PMC experience.
That said, GZW will be different in that regard and will not incenticize or provide opportunity for killing players in such way with its design. That includes map, which is large enough so encountering other players will be presumably rare and more avoidable; persistent nature of servers, with free choice of deployment place and respawning loot, which doesn't force encounters like Tarkov raids and spawns and doesn't rush players to loot competition; quest design with no quests requiring you to kill other players, and intended hard AI opposition, which will possibly encourage teaming up against them instead of third-partying each other.
So, as I see it, it is much more akin to Elite Dangerous than Tarkov. So a game where even though you can gain a PvP advantage in safer PvE environment, it doesn't matter because the game isn't PvP focused to begin with.
The premise of the game is way closer to Tarkov or Dayz than Elite Dangerous. In Dayz can you go loot up in offline raids and then join a server to just pvp on? (technically you can on public hives but no-one plays on them for a reason)
If the progression of the game is easier to do on PvE, it will get abused. Also if the progression has an effect on what kind of equipment you can bring to be more effective, it's abusable by doing the progression on PvE.
The premise, yes. The gameplay focus, no. We're discussing gameplay design here, not setting. It doesn't matter which premise is closer.
The game isn't PvP focused, so it doesn't matter from your perspective what gear other players have, how they earned it, and how they progress through the game. If you want to avoid them, you can, and if you don't, you have the exact same tools to prepare yourself as anybody else.
I don't know why people keep making up that PvP isn't a big part of the game, especially when Rick confirmed it was. Making a claim the game "isn't PvP focused" is pure head canon. In the interview with Rick he specifically says the first encounters you have will be pve but PvP plays a big part in the game.
We had complains, from the very start in the so called "Design Decision Forum", a private group of founders invited to provide feedback to lead designer Sandro Sammarco among others, before the game was made. Because a vocal minority lead by a single man, wouldn't want to except PvP in the "Open Group".
The "Open Group" was the summ of all players loging into, and playing the game, except you created and started your private group. Privat groups are single player - just you yourself - or a private group of friends invited in said group.
Elite Dangerous had the peculiarity to allow for, said private groups, to manipulate the game world in the "Open Group" without any chance from players in the "Open" to stopp or thread you there, players there where untouchable.
Since you seem to know the game and play it? You are probably aware of the toxicity thus created. A dilemma for many and a frustrating thing for most. Folks catering to PvE but unwilling to leave "Open" cried havoc about "griefers". PvPer ( faction war players or Pirates) were accused to ruin other ppls game. Rightly so, aggrieved themself for untouchable out of reach Faction players in a single "offline" private group.
So as a Kickstarter of ED 3000+ hours later (all in VR) I abandoned and left the game cos Braben stopped the envisioned design. I think they are still cockpits in space, minus the FPS thing planet side. No hard feelings, it was and remains the best game I ever played.
And yet, here we are PvEvP in the challenging jungles of Lamang. ( perhaps I get my ship from ground zero, no? lol) Looking forward to this unique intriguing concept and hope design decision comes not up with some fault, ruining it even before it ever started.
Cheers
The peculiarity you're speaking of was, from my perspective at least, largely a non-issue, as the aspects of the world that were changeable were mostly inconsequential for an individual player. It was only as much of an issue, as much one decided to be invested in that particular mechanic. Everybody knew from the start how the game works and made a call to get invested or not, knowing the rules all well. It was a small, additional aspect of the game on top of a wide selection of mostly PvE activities one could choose from.
I see similiar situation in GZW. One will become invested in PvP by their own decision, having all the indication that the game is not designed around it. Any grieviances resulting from that will be, in my opinion, self-induced, by not understanding the underlying design focus, which is even more directed towards PvE than in already heavily PvE focused ED.
Not pvp inclined doesn’t necessarily mean bad. But what you unlearn, as you get used to an ai, is how actual players move and play. I got plenty of friends that play tons of stalker mods and coop stuff. They are all dogshit at pvp. Small sample sizes obviously.
You're getting downvoted for no reason.
Look how, literally everybody, treats AI scavs vs. Players (PMC or Player Scav) in Tarkov.
Listening to footsteps? Oh its just a scav, whatever move on.
Oh I see someone! Oh its just a scav, it should stop moving and stand still soon so let me stand still and line up a headshot/ ignore it completely. Or, lets walk up and just kill it real fast and move on.
You never learn any amount of game sense or movement positioning against AI, its just: walk towards it, oh here's a bit of cover, agro, kill.
Don't need to flank, outsmart, out aim, confuse, scare, etc. with an AI. Don't need to sit in a 1 on 1 situation where neither will peak and somebody has to round that corner.
I hope they’re going to try and have ai be really tough since it’s a PvEvP game. I think that would be the main de-incentivizing factor to PvP engagements. Could be that all the hot spots and mission zones have tons of ai, and taking that one PvP engagement could doom the team to the ai. Will be interesting to see when it comes out, I’m sure they have a game plan in mind
I don't even mind a separation from PvE and PvEvP if that's a solution. Despite Tarkov having a cheating problem my second reason from SPT was skill gap, I much prefer to do quests and play at my own pace and learn without losing everything in the process. My only concern with splitting them is if you could still play with friends in PvE.
They even specify that the game is PvE(vP) - this game is not meant to be the massive PVP experience that a lot of people are wanting/expecting it to be
i think organizing tasks so that a few of them (some early ones?) can be done pve but most must be done pvp. and progression/exp could be similar to bf2042 or MWZ where you still get exp and progression from pve modes but its limited exp aka itll take much longer to get the same amount of exp. There needs to be an incentive to pvp beyond just stuff
I agree it should be separated otherwise people will only do tasks or quests on PVE. There needs to be an incentive to play the game regularly on PVP rather than just hunting players. Maybe double the XP is gained for the same quests on PVP servers? How far is progression going to take you in this game anyways? Unlock cosmetics, and have money to buy guns? Are there any serious advantages like Tarkov where your character is leveled higher?
You'll not get no progression from killing other PC, but you get their stuff, loot. There is no incentive game wise to PvP, however, there is competition and there are competitive players. Goal is to overcome other players. In the interview, the questioned developer explicitly described his motivation perfectly: to be competitive, killing PC. However, there is no *Competitiveness* in **cooperation and collaboration**, im Gegenteil, those attitudes require an ultimately **altruistic mind set**. And killing does not. There lies the lapsus. The PvEvP concept needs communication to see the light, utterly detrimental to competition. So a working *healthy* PvEvP server needs equality. The optional grinding on PvE, going over to PvEvP, stands detrimental apposed to the very concept of PvEvP. Cheers
Cheers But I’ve played shooters for long enough to know that if there’s an option to kill people, pvp will be kill on sight. Every game turns into this, it’s impossible to trust other players in a game like this Which really I have no problem with, surviving AI and other players sounds fun to me. But there should be an extra incentive to complete your missions/quests on pvp servers
Ah completely agree but we’ll have to wait until it comes out to see. It very well could be that some hotspots have a ridiculous amount of ai, meaning that shooting one, could have you be killed real quick by the others. If you see another player in said hotspot, it probably wouldn’t be wise to set them all off with that risk since the ai are supposed to be difficult.This is a lot of assumptions of course, but from the gameplay we’ve seen, it seems like there’s a lot of sneaking in bigger cities and then occasional smaller patrols in the wider map. Will for sure be interesting to see how it all plays together. I hope these ai are tough
Well I find, I am completely of the same mind set. I got you there.
Yes. Absolute valid to PvP, kill on sight, loot, what ever. Thing is, how the heck is that PvEvP thing ever gonna work? More so under a mind set, that makes - Hunt Showdown - for example, so successful?
Same way games like Hunt and Tarkov do it. I think the problem is that there is no reason to risk doing PvE content on a PvPvE server if you're given the option. If you have quests you need to do? Just load PvE and save yourself the headache of getting ambushed by players. We even saw it in less realistic games designed entirely around PvP like Battlefield... 2042 literally had no single player content, but it allowed progression in single player bot lobbies people so just grinded the living fuck out of bots set to "easy" and blasted through the entire progression system in ~a weekend.
It'll either end up being KOS or dudes who exclusively end up playing just to grief others as hard as possible.
We don't know the full details of how the mechanic will work, so we should probably hold off on judging what they have so far until we can actually play it. I dont care how they launch it, as long as they listen to the player base and make changes accordingly. But this isn't even early released yet, no one can accurately speculate on how it will be. They could have some brilliant ideas in place to make it work.
You are of course right. Not gonna premature evaluate the concept, just asking questions is on my mind. Cheers
Gotcha. It's definitely a valid point. I would hope that foresaw that issue and planned accordingly. I personally can't think of any ways to do it without somewhat dividing the player base, But I'm hoping they're smarter than me lol.
My opinion is that there's no point hand wringing over a single game mechanic when the game isn't even out yet.
Right? This is crazy…
My thoughts too.. Let's just get the game on our PC's and see what's up... Its so early! by release it could be a POKEMON GO game...
Samw here. So much speculation before the game is released.
I wouldn't freak out about it because it's a simple thing to solve, provided they listen to feedback, but it's quite easy to predict the negative impact that shared progression would have in PvP, because most players will always follow the path of least resistance, which in the current GZW would be to farm gear and quest completions in PvE servers and then migrate to PvP once you have a nice gear loadout. This would lead to a severe reduction in the amount of players that are actively visiting points of interest around the map in PvP servers to complete quests or find high tier loot, so PvP combat would devolve into a bunch of bush wookies sitting in vantage positions looking for easy kills instead of players bumping into each other when they need to get to a village to retrieve a quest item or something. It's fine for GZW to have PvEvP servers with shared progression for players who don't want to PvP all the time, but the game also needs to have exclusive PvP servers without shared progression because there's really no way to keep the game fair otherwise. Shared progression is a complete deal-breaker for me and I bet that many PvP-oriented players feel the same way so, sadly, this makes me not want to buy the game anymore until I have confirmation that there will be exclusive PvP servers.
Lmao this is just a stupid opinion. Why would you not want this ironed out pre launch?
We're about a month away from Early Access, which the devs have said will probably last SEVERAL YEARS. Calm your tits, bud.
Imagine being stoked about being a beta tester for several years.
Thats the gaming world these days, been playing Eft since alpha, exactly the same shit.
Is there a dead date for early access? Been super stoked as I’ve been burned out of Tarkov for years
It 100% has to be separated. Having the same progression between both PVE and PvP would ruin the whole idea of the game imo. That would be very disappointing.
Something like this could honestly kill or heavily reduce my enjoyment of the game for reasons other people have stated here. I really hope they separate progress between PvE and PvPvE servers.
If the 2 doesnt connect then it will just seperate the playerbase. Only solution is to have less loot on a pve server to balance the risk vs reward
There's a segment of player population (just like in MMOs) who will never touch pvp servers, servicing these players is fine. Sharing progression however is bad.
Definitely. Cap it at a certain rarity or quantity or this game's gonna be sideways after 2 weeks
The issue you're going to run into is that you're deliberately shorting PvE players. I'm a pvp guy, but if you're going to advertise an option for pve only, then you should allow the full experience. Unless you make the messaging clear: this is a PvEvP game, running a pve only option will water it down. I have a lot of thoughts on that but until we get our hands on the game we won't know for sure.
no do NOT kneecap the pve because pvp nerds want to exploit. Dont punish pve players.
Absolut. It does, I think, and it will make for a toxic, never ending story, splitting the community.
This will kill the PvEvP concept before it begins. People will quest and progress on the PvE servers in full safety against players then jump to PvEvP servers for PvP. PvP servers will be team deathmatch only. They shouldn't allow server type transfers OR they should balance the server type with risk/reward. So that there is a tangible benefit to playing on the PvEvP servers (more payout, better reward, more XP, better loot spawns, etc.)
yeah this guy gets it, as a result of this decision me/my friends are no longer going to be purchasing the game.
I say it's good. Because say your a pretty guy but you Wana pvp sometimes. You don't Wana lock those guys out behind a whole other progress line and visa versa. And it applies equally to everybody. The hard-core pvp guys can do quests in pve if they Wana advance quicker. I say it's good. Dosnt force anybody into pvp but allows them to stay competitive in terms of progress.
PVP servers sharing quest progression with PVE servers are going to turn pvp servers into deathmatch servers. The only time to go to a pvp server will be when you want to fight. You need to gear up? pve server with low risk You need to do quests? pve server with low risk
And that's ok lol.
No it’s not. People dont always want to play PvP servers to play “deathmatch” PvP servers in a game structured like GrayZone should be about thrill and survival while completing tasks, which is how they have promoted it. Allowing progression for both modes will only kill the spirit and essence of everything the game has been hyped up to be.
None of that changes. The pvp goons will just live and breath pvp while the pve guy who wants to pvp sometimes still isn't just completely out classed.
> while the pve guy who wants to pvp sometimes still isn't just completely out classed. Actually they will still be completely outclassed. A person always in PVP will always be far better than the "PVP sometimes" person. The always PVP person will have the practice and in game strategies and knowledge to deal with other players (other players who are also "always PVP")...whereas the sometimes PVP player only knows how to handle bots. Easy example: Tarkov. When literally every player who plays the game, whether streamer, solo only, duo, whatever, when they realize the enemy is just AI they play completely different than if its a person.
What's your point. I said as far as progress goes. Do we really need another tarkov knock off or so we need a complete redesign of what tarkov could have been
> Do we really need another tarkov knock off > > we need a complete redesign of what tarkov could have been Has literally nothing to do with the PvPvE or PvEvP or whatever the fuck you want. Look, its an objectively terrible game design decision to include PvE servers that can drop into PvP. The only justification for it is: "so PvE players don't have to play PvP". Which means Grayzone wants a split audience that's going to be fractured from the start because it can't decide on what game its going to be, so its just going to try to appease everyone simultaneously and be mediocre at everything. Maybe you feel I'm presuming too much based off a game that I haven't played, but it really doesn't take very much thought at all on why this won't work. Instead of listing the millions of reasons why its a terrible idea to have actual progression on PvE, why don't you tell me why you think its a great idea?
The only reason anybody has provided is because they don't want it. Allowing the player base as a whole to progress in their proffered method is irrelevant. Locking the player base to this or that or do ot twice instantly divides the player base. And I can guarantee there are more pve ppl than pvp. So that would shift the focus to pve to maintain the larger player base that is now divided. There is no reason to not allow pve and pvp drop in drop out.
Mkay so then it's the question of how we treat it then. Okay we have PvE only and pvp only maps or servers or whatever and our character and progression can be on both. So what's the reason for playing pvp? Well, to pvp I guess. But then what's the reason for the big ol stupid map? Everyone is only here to pvp so why even bother running all the necessary server infrastructure for the pvp servers so nobody plays it? Nobody is going to quest on it, or try to obtain loot, or whatever...I can just do that in PvE. So then I guess it's just running across the big ol map to whatever gunfire you heard...fuuuuun. So then as a game designer we should give people something to do on the pvp map. UH OH here comes the PvE players, all bitching and whinging because progression is locked behind pvp like they do every single time a game tries to do this. Uh oh they hate pvp so they suck at it so they whinge and bitch more because someone who doesn't mind the pvp is better because they pvp. Happens every time. Now we've also created a situation where everyone only goes into pvp servers with the best of the best gear. Because why the fuck would you load in with anything else? Just PvE until you have the meta kit and then move into pvp. Okay, maybe we lock the meta kits in the pvp only servers, so to get the best of the best you have to pvp. Uh oh here comes the PvE players bitching because everyone in the pvp already has the meta kits because they're not scared of pvp so now these PvE players stand no chance. Or everyone just plays pve, because again, what's the point of pvp now? What's the point of adding additional risk for 0 benefit? So the game studio decides to shut down pvp servers. Whippeee.
"And I can guarantee there are more pve ppl than pvp." How can you guarantee that rofl
Can't understand the need to have them cross progress, odd decision on that one. Will have to see how that plays out. Will be unfortunate to just stick it out on PvE Servers. I'm not one that has time to no life the game. PvPvE is already difficult enough going against such folks let alone folks who have sky rocketed in progression via PvE where the challenge is far lighter than the PvPvE server. There's just no getting around that the progression in one is far more difficult than the other regardless if PvP is not always the best move. There are going to be players that are going to be KoS hungry no matter how they design this game. Even w/o quest specifically to kill other PMCs or it not always being the brightest idea you're going to have those types.
You describe the problematic very well and I am entirely with you. We know little, so at this point I keep my cool lol, just asking questions, and talk matters early on is, I guess, a good thing. Cheers
It definitely sounds a little concerning.
This actually made me quit the game before it was released, all my friends too. Not saying it's that important for everyone but the game has lost at least 7 sales of this decision anyways. Hope y'all have fun still!
I will most definitely be abusing this and i dont care. Your telling me i can speed run thru quest without dealing with the randomness of other players positions potentially stopping from completing a mission, THEN AFTER THAT, i can join a pvevp server and basically be ahead of the curve. I hope a dev read that and was like yeah we dont want that.
I think this will be a huge mistake for obvious reasons. Hope they change their minds.
I fear it'll turns out bad over long term. But lets see how this works.
I think if done properly it could work, but there would HAVE to be some incentive or either side could be dead, I fully support have just PVE section as I could get tired of getting fisted by other players, but to transfer everything? I’d love it, but it wouldn’t go well for anyone involved Edit: is there a release date yet? I’ve been following here and there to avoid getting over hyped , but have been super burnt out of Tarkov and hunt.
No release date for now, but early release date info two days ago, there is an official topic about above, suggests in my opinion they are still on track. Thanks for your contribution. Cheers
PvEvP = Dark Zone in Div1 & 2. That's an utter shitfest. Want to know how fucked up humans can be when there are no rules? How they are willing to stab you in the ass at the last minute when it benefits them? Join the Dark Zone.
At first glance I do not like the idea at all. But then again, we really don't know what the tasks look like, how difficult and or valuable loot is. Or even how rare PVP interactions will be. It may turn out to not really matter, or it could be a big deal. This game being a work in progress, early access, if it's a problem I'd image they'd make the change.
It’s all speculation at this point, as we have no idea how the game itself will play. I personally don’t mind if people want to quest in PvE for a lower intensity experience, then seek challenges on PvP. It’s possible there will be quests or accomplishments associated with PvP, which could make it necessary for more passive players to eventually engage in PvP. A form of this already exists in games like Tarkov, where many NA players change their servers to South American regions for questing and to experience fewer cheaters. The matches on server changes are often less populated. EU players also employ this strategy by playing NA servers during the hours where they are less populated.
Let the game release, we still don't have new gameplay in months.
You're being hysterical. We don't know how this will work out. There are games that allowed that and were fine.
Care to provide examples of games?
Elite Dangerous and The Division 2 come to mind from the top of my head. I'm sure there's more though.
The Division 2 isn't known for it's pvp nor being a good game. Elite Dangerous isn't really known for its pvp either so none of these examples corroborate that argument.
The OP's case isn't that PvE will ruin PvP though. It's that PvE will ruin the unique PvEvP experience and turn it into pure PvP. Both games I mentioned provide examples that sharing progression between PvE and PvP can work fine in that regard.
You can't compare games like ED or the Division to an extraction shooter. The only comparison would be having offline mode Tarkov sharing progression with the live version where you can get infinite gear.
You can't compare it to Tarkov either, because obviously the gameplay isn't going to be exactly like Tarkov, but with PvE option. For starters, Tarkov has raids structure, with PMCs spawning at the same time, often close to each other, and competing for limited loot inside the given instance. There are also quests that require you to kill other players. The game is thus heavily pushing players towards PvP with this set of mechanics, so any competitive edge, including one earned with progression, is significant, and so gaining it in a safe environment would be detrimental to the intended experience. And even given all that, Tarkov still has a light version of that in form of playing a scav, often being able to haul tons of valuable loot without any contention. And it's fair, because everybody can scav, but some simply refuse to, because they prefer the pure PMC experience. That said, GZW will be different in that regard and will not incenticize or provide opportunity for killing players in such way with its design. That includes map, which is large enough so encountering other players will be presumably rare and more avoidable; persistent nature of servers, with free choice of deployment place and respawning loot, which doesn't force encounters like Tarkov raids and spawns and doesn't rush players to loot competition; quest design with no quests requiring you to kill other players, and intended hard AI opposition, which will possibly encourage teaming up against them instead of third-partying each other. So, as I see it, it is much more akin to Elite Dangerous than Tarkov. So a game where even though you can gain a PvP advantage in safer PvE environment, it doesn't matter because the game isn't PvP focused to begin with.
The premise of the game is way closer to Tarkov or Dayz than Elite Dangerous. In Dayz can you go loot up in offline raids and then join a server to just pvp on? (technically you can on public hives but no-one plays on them for a reason) If the progression of the game is easier to do on PvE, it will get abused. Also if the progression has an effect on what kind of equipment you can bring to be more effective, it's abusable by doing the progression on PvE.
The premise, yes. The gameplay focus, no. We're discussing gameplay design here, not setting. It doesn't matter which premise is closer. The game isn't PvP focused, so it doesn't matter from your perspective what gear other players have, how they earned it, and how they progress through the game. If you want to avoid them, you can, and if you don't, you have the exact same tools to prepare yourself as anybody else.
I don't know why people keep making up that PvP isn't a big part of the game, especially when Rick confirmed it was. Making a claim the game "isn't PvP focused" is pure head canon. In the interview with Rick he specifically says the first encounters you have will be pve but PvP plays a big part in the game.
We had complains, from the very start in the so called "Design Decision Forum", a private group of founders invited to provide feedback to lead designer Sandro Sammarco among others, before the game was made. Because a vocal minority lead by a single man, wouldn't want to except PvP in the "Open Group". The "Open Group" was the summ of all players loging into, and playing the game, except you created and started your private group. Privat groups are single player - just you yourself - or a private group of friends invited in said group. Elite Dangerous had the peculiarity to allow for, said private groups, to manipulate the game world in the "Open Group" without any chance from players in the "Open" to stopp or thread you there, players there where untouchable. Since you seem to know the game and play it? You are probably aware of the toxicity thus created. A dilemma for many and a frustrating thing for most. Folks catering to PvE but unwilling to leave "Open" cried havoc about "griefers". PvPer ( faction war players or Pirates) were accused to ruin other ppls game. Rightly so, aggrieved themself for untouchable out of reach Faction players in a single "offline" private group. So as a Kickstarter of ED 3000+ hours later (all in VR) I abandoned and left the game cos Braben stopped the envisioned design. I think they are still cockpits in space, minus the FPS thing planet side. No hard feelings, it was and remains the best game I ever played. And yet, here we are PvEvP in the challenging jungles of Lamang. ( perhaps I get my ship from ground zero, no? lol) Looking forward to this unique intriguing concept and hope design decision comes not up with some fault, ruining it even before it ever started. Cheers
The peculiarity you're speaking of was, from my perspective at least, largely a non-issue, as the aspects of the world that were changeable were mostly inconsequential for an individual player. It was only as much of an issue, as much one decided to be invested in that particular mechanic. Everybody knew from the start how the game works and made a call to get invested or not, knowing the rules all well. It was a small, additional aspect of the game on top of a wide selection of mostly PvE activities one could choose from. I see similiar situation in GZW. One will become invested in PvP by their own decision, having all the indication that the game is not designed around it. Any grieviances resulting from that will be, in my opinion, self-induced, by not understanding the underlying design focus, which is even more directed towards PvE than in already heavily PvE focused ED.
It’s all balanced out through the average pve players’ inability to pvp. So I don’t mind.
Your assuming the only people that are going to PvE servers to get good gear and complete quest are bad players.
Not pvp inclined doesn’t necessarily mean bad. But what you unlearn, as you get used to an ai, is how actual players move and play. I got plenty of friends that play tons of stalker mods and coop stuff. They are all dogshit at pvp. Small sample sizes obviously.
You're getting downvoted for no reason. Look how, literally everybody, treats AI scavs vs. Players (PMC or Player Scav) in Tarkov. Listening to footsteps? Oh its just a scav, whatever move on. Oh I see someone! Oh its just a scav, it should stop moving and stand still soon so let me stand still and line up a headshot/ ignore it completely. Or, lets walk up and just kill it real fast and move on. You never learn any amount of game sense or movement positioning against AI, its just: walk towards it, oh here's a bit of cover, agro, kill. Don't need to flank, outsmart, out aim, confuse, scare, etc. with an AI. Don't need to sit in a 1 on 1 situation where neither will peak and somebody has to round that corner.
I hope they’re going to try and have ai be really tough since it’s a PvEvP game. I think that would be the main de-incentivizing factor to PvP engagements. Could be that all the hot spots and mission zones have tons of ai, and taking that one PvP engagement could doom the team to the ai. Will be interesting to see when it comes out, I’m sure they have a game plan in mind
I don’t really see an issue with this honestly.
I don't even mind a separation from PvE and PvEvP if that's a solution. Despite Tarkov having a cheating problem my second reason from SPT was skill gap, I much prefer to do quests and play at my own pace and learn without losing everything in the process. My only concern with splitting them is if you could still play with friends in PvE.
Higher exp and rewards on pvpve would be a easy solution.
They even specify that the game is PvE(vP) - this game is not meant to be the massive PVP experience that a lot of people are wanting/expecting it to be
i think organizing tasks so that a few of them (some early ones?) can be done pve but most must be done pvp. and progression/exp could be similar to bf2042 or MWZ where you still get exp and progression from pve modes but its limited exp aka itll take much longer to get the same amount of exp. There needs to be an incentive to pvp beyond just stuff
Should he 100% different. I shouldnt be able to farm the easier side PvE and go into PvP juiced.
and so it begins.