December - last edited December
I really hope this game ends up having PvP. I know a lot of the hardcore PvE players don't want that but really, the best of both worlds never hurts. I don't mind if they take a good long time since they were up-front and told us no PvP at launch. Just take your time and push it later in 2019.
Personally, I think a mixed mode like Gambit in Destiny or something kinda moba-esque would be cool. But my favorite idea would be some stuff like the OG WoW battlegrounds. The best shot for longevity in this game is a healthy mix of PvP and PvE. Not everyone digs the grind for the grind. A lot of us like something more to do with that awesome gear other than using it to get even awesomer gear.
EDIT: So people have made it clear the biggest concern is balancing weapons for PvP will screw over awesome weapons that are fine in PvE. I made a suggestion in the comments but wanted to get it more visible here. Please let me know if it's not clear enough and I'll try to edit it for clarity.
My suggestion is to just make a much simpler variant that a weapon converts to for everyone when used in PvP. So say I get this awesome drop, let's call it the Butt-kicker AR, and you get the Beast Slayer AR. First, if you get my AR, it's the same. No different rolls, nothing. Completely the same. Second, all of the weapons would have a PvP version so they could be separately balanced on PvP instead of having to screw over PvE. For example, you'd go into the Forge and every weapon would have a hotkey to sorta "flip" the card over and see the PvP version. They'd all be fairly close in power but be more of a personal preference in terms of which you'd pick. That is, some players like higher rate of fire with lower damage and others like slower rate of fire with slightly higher damage. Other variations for PvP or PvE could be possible as well (no clue what's out there in the Anthem drop table yet) such as two round bursts, full automatic, etc. (for ARs that is).
Solved! Go to Solution.
December - last edited December
I just stated my opinion, you're entitled to disagree. I'm looking at BioWare's past games and forming my opinion based on what I have seen in the past and having been a big fan of the Edmonton Studio. Anyone is entitled to continue to push for PvP to be added to this non-PvP game. And, I will continue to oppose it. Sorry if you see that as 'not positive'.
I don't mean any offense. I'm actually on both sides of the fence. I am just more concerned with people phrasing their opinions in a way that sounds like they are stating fact. If your "belief" is that the poll is slanted, I cannot argue with that. You are free to believe that.
I can tell you though that I am 100% an exception to your beliefs, and most gamers I have met are not what you believe either. Most gamers are not black and white. They aren't PvPers or PvEers. They are both, depending on the game. I love the Fallout series, but I also love some Black Ops. I love God of War, The Witcher, Mass Effect yet also love Injustice 2, Soul Caliber, Street Fighter. I love Mega Man, Gran Tourismo, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, Battlefront, GTA 5, Final Fantasy 14, Elder Scrolls, SWTOR, Black Desert, Overwatch, Diablo, Warframe, etc. etc. etc.
Most gamers are like me. We like a LOT of very different games. You shouldn't paint gamers as if they are one color. Most of us are rainbows in terms of our varied interest.
When PvP is done right, it can enhance a game with terrible PvE. When PvP is done wrong, it can drag down a game with amazing PvE. We all need to strive for middle ground. This false dichotomy is the biggest lie and distraction of the gaming world.
@MagenZion: I know a lot of folk are concerned with the idea of PvP destroying the balance of the game by having everything shift to focusing on balancing things for PvP gameplay. I personally don't think its necessarily that bad - there's ways around it; but one of those ways can be in the form of things like.. Standardized gear sets. Which could hamper the idea of 'getting that awesome gear to use for other things'.
I'm not overly expecting to see PvP in the game, but they're aiming for a 10 year development cycle, so that is a LOT of time to expand on the game and build it up into something larger than it launched as. Look at Warframe as an example - there is PvP now, even though it launched as a VERY PvE focused title. The question becomes if its worth development time; and I think that's going to heavily depend on how its launch goes, and how much of the player population wants it.
@EA_Alexander: I'm more talking about PvP because the subject of PvP came up, so figured might as well muse about it! I personally enjoy PvP, so the thought experiment of 'how could it be input with minimal disruption to the core game loop' is interesting, because a lot of people are talking about how PvP would destroy the game and I don't think that's an inherent thing.
My expectations for end-game are largely fast and loose still. I am open to seeing what is presented to me by BioWare. That being said, my assumption is largely that it is going to be looped around strongholds (instanced dungeons, for those who are new) and raids, as well as hitting Freeplay. Its notable that Freeplay has such scaling level difficulties and that BioWare has committed to making exploration a focus as you said, because it means there's reasons to actually explore the overworld versus essentially becoming a lobby game after a certain point wherein you're just queueing for instance after instance from your hub location. I look forward to seeing what kind of world events exist, how they are integrated, and if they are designed to offer meaningful content to the same tier as the instanced stuff. The wild card I feel like is I get the impression that Freeplay is generally leaning towards a more personal experience wherein you are ABLE to group if you so choose, while the instanced content is more specifically focused on "You must group up or you are getting shredded".
Though, during yesterdays livestream they showed the developers being unsure about being able to handle the Ursix solo because they were [sic] "more of a group thing", so that bodes well that in the overworld (even with top level gear, though its totally not balanced right now) there is content meant for groups to tackle. Based by loose recollection, it feels like he could have actually tackled those pretty easy because the damage to them wasn't super piddly, and they had limited ability to retaliate it seemed - so it just wouldn't have been *interesting* to show. But! Again, if they are conceptualizing group content into the overworld, it bodes really well.
Personally I would like to see end game content that challenges skill mastery. Doubly so when we are talking about higher difficulties - I sincerely hope that higher difficulties introduce the idea of new mechanics, or tighter focus on utilizing those mechanics than are available at lower difficulties. I don't personally expect that anything will be difficulty locked off, so if someone wants to play through the story / experience something, they are totally open to it (and I think that's a smart idea as It doesn't gate off your playerbase), but I do hope that top level difficulties offer something more meaningful as a content change versus simply making the enemies take ever so much more damage.
On a final note, and outside of that: I would really, really, really love to see a doubling down on environmental interaction, and ability to modify things in certain ways. I will harkon to MHW in this regard, but I would love to see abilities to take advantage of the environment for our benefit outside of "just having water available". It's underutilized in that game, but even just the ability to do things like drop pillars on enemies and floor them so you can do your thing adds value to the player experience. Similarly to reference their recent Arch-Tempered Kulv Tarov, doing certain things will engage a mode that makes the enemies harder, but increases your loot. This could mean that within a difficulty you can optionally trigger conditions that affect the battle (lets say during a battle with the Swarm Tyrant, you .. Don't kill the eggs or something like that, so there's a lot more going on in the fight, but you get a benefit from it). Realistically, it is LIKELY that this will be more restricted to difficulty selection gating, but even within selected difficulties I would love to see ways to adjust HOW difficult the content is. It provides more feedback for the player, more opportunities for progression, and doubles down on the idea of co-op without saying "Well now you need to go up a tier".
December - last edited December
First thing I'm not against PvP, but thats not Endgame content for me.
Especially Endgame-content is an issue in itself. Most games die, since they are stuck in their ENDgame.
Most likely Anthem preaches much about an everchanging world, but in reality will do the same repetetive stuff like any other loot shooter (grind the same events again and again or grind the same dungeon again and again.
Only way to bypass this, would be this promised everchanging world with removed old content and added new content (on monthly or 2 month frequency), but this would be uneconomical especially without an monthly fee.
So we will most likely end up with the loot spirale, same eventgrinding dungeonruns. (as a later released new feature since we already can swim,fly and dont need a mount . we will get a PvP mode with standartized Gear and loadout, so noone has advantages against the others - followed by rankings for dungeon runs (speed .....). And if Anthem is totally going for the evil path we will get this PUBG Mode .
But I will most likely play anything as long as i have fun.
If they would really think outside the Box they could mix up F-Zero with Mariokart played in Javelins. That would be an awesome idea, but to experimental for economic guys