• [E3 2015] Tom Clancy’s The Division multiplayer reveal
    77 replies, posted
Ryan seems like my type of guy
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;48003188]What "incentive" can one give that doesn't completely defeat the purpose though?[/QUOTE] its risk vs reward- you can kill some dudes and get their cool gear (which you can see on their person in the bags on their back) but then you have to survive long enough to keep it
[QUOTE=gudman;47983101]While MuffinZerg put it rather... harshly, I actually agree. If there's one thing DayZ and other things have thought us, it's that cooperation like that doesn't really happen a lot unless you bring friends in. Everyone's just going for shoot-on-sight protocol. This hardly will be an exception, unless Ubisoft came up with some incentives to work together no one else thought of before, which I don't think they did. This might flop. It looks awesome, if it works it's going to be the best thing to come out of Ubisoft for a long time, but I can't help but have grim feelings about it. [editline]16th June 2015[/editline] Because dramatic escape.[/QUOTE] I want them to take a page out of valves book and have the game properly playtested. Like, in a way that actually teaches you what players are going to do with your game, not just bug fixing and qa.
[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;48003973]its risk vs reward- you can kill some dudes and get their cool gear (which you can see on their person in the bags on their back) but then you have to survive long enough to keep it[/QUOTE] I mean you have to do that anyway. How is it any more difficult that surviving normally? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] In fact if anything you're more likely to survive than if you had decided to not attack them.
Here's another video where one of the devs also talks about the rogue system. [video=youtube;U09DDSaghT0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U09DDSaghT0[/video] Fast forward to 1:00.
Why do they even still make these games with the Tom Clancy subtitle? The guy's been dead for a few years, and the only game that was based on his work was Rainbow Six.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;48004487]I mean you have to do that anyway. How is it any more difficult that surviving normally? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] In fact if anything you're more likely to survive than if you had decided to not attack them.[/QUOTE] You're like, reading the thread right? If you get listed as a rogue agent it puts a bounty on you and possibly marks your position for other players. If you aren't rogue that doesn't happen. Hopefully you get the difference.
This'll be fun to play with friends for sure. Haven't touched a Tom Clancy game since the first Splinter Cell to be honest.
In DayZ and similar games when I meet a random player I'll usually just avoid them. They may not kill me but I know that many others will so why take the risk? And if they're a group they'll definitely kill you because they have strength in numbers. Games like this sound great in theory but it always ends up as PVP or just avoiding players.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;48002805]Giving an incentive not to go rogue will help that though. Big time.[/QUOTE] If you have a contaminated loot bag on you and a player sees it, they will most likely kill you. After they go Rogue, they will open fire on anyone they see. Sure your location may be broadcasted (I don't know the full extent, if it shows a radius of the area you're in or not.) But for any group, or player looking to get loot, Dark Zones will be all out pvp zones. Some people will try and be sneaky, but they still have to last however long to get the loot to the helicopter. So there really is not a reason to let people live, that are not in your group, when waiting for the extraction.
[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;48005094]You're like, reading the thread right? If you get listed as a rogue agent it puts a bounty on you and possibly marks your position for other players. If you aren't rogue that doesn't happen. Hopefully you get the difference.[/QUOTE] Was sort of unclear on how it worked based on how people were talking about it, but sure, alright. The problem here is that this exact same approach has already been attempted in numerous other games and it still always fails. It's a system that really does nothing to change the fact that it's almost always safer to assume that every other player is hostile. You can say all you want that attacking other players is "risk vs. reward" but honestly [i]not[/i] attacking a player that is already aware of your presence is basically taking all of the risk with none of the reward. It's actually a pretty complicated problem to approach and having your location broadcast isn't really enough to dissuade people from acting in their own best interest.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;48006291]Was sort of unclear on how it worked based on how people were talking about it, but sure, alright. The problem here is that this exact same approach has already been attempted in numerous other games and it still always fails. It's a system that really does nothing to change the fact that it's almost always safer to assume that every other player is hostile. You can say all you want that attacking other players is "risk vs. reward" but honestly [i]not[/i] attacking a player that is already aware of your presence is basically taking all of the risk with none of the reward. It's actually a pretty complicated problem to approach and having your location broadcast isn't really enough to dissuade people from acting in their own best interest.[/QUOTE] Yup. Groups of players who know each other and play well just steamrolling everyone in Dark zones. Getting all the good loot, getting fatter, buying better shit, becoming unstoppable. Loners and smaller groups will just stop going there - reward or no reward, you won't take on them. What a fun experience. I really hope Massives are aware of this and will think something up to fix it. They are a really good team, know a thing or two about multiplayer, so there's hope they can invent something that works.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.