63 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

You can't have so much CC in direct PvP games so it's not going to happen like that.

 

ME3 was still competitive though because it had a scoreboard. You could look to enhance that for genuine competition or make it who could clear a level the fastest.

[VelvetStraitjacket]

I actually would not mind a PVP mode. If done right. naturally. Or at least some diversity in the modes. The co-op horde mode gets boring after a while.

[Donk]

As much is unknown about Mass Effect Andromeda, it is hard to say what will be included in the multiplayer portion of the game. I assume co-op will be making a return, but other than that it is hard to judge.

One thing that I do not want to see in Andromeda is PvP multiplayer. There are others out there who agree. So this is a chance to get your opinion heard.

PvP multiplayer automatically reduces the quality of the community. When the object of the game is to kill one another, there is no sense of cooperation. There will be less talk of trying out interesting character builds - people will focus in on the most powerful setup and use it, because it is advantageous for them to do so.

Then comes hacking. Inevitably, there will be hackers in the game. In PvP games, hackers rule. They give themselves unfair advantages over other people. In co-op games, the effect that hacking has is reduced - there is less annoyance than there would be in PvP games. Just look at GTA Online as an example of why this wouldn't be a good idea.

PvP would also go against the spirit of Mass Effect. Cooperation is a main theme in the third game especially. Players should be standing together against an enemy, not fighting against each other.

Focusing solely on co-op multiplayer would also allow Bioware to put more resources into making a stable multiplayer experience - something ME3MP really wasn't.

If you agree with any of the above, and if you don't want PvP in Mass Effect Andromeda, sign your BSN name below. Hopefully PvP is not on the cards to begin with, but it pays to have a contingency plan. Let's see how many names we can get.


First name on the petition:

TheN7Penguin

Is this for real?

Coming from somebody who never "MPs", all this post seems to say to me is "I dun lyk PvP multiplayer becuz I dun lyk it don't do it".

Also "spirit of ME is cooperation"... ROFLMAO.

If there is a PvP, who friggin cares? Let people who enjoy that kind of thing enjoy it.

[Catastrophy]

This time the devs will open the backdoor that allowed them to control enemy faction mobs to the public so we can have SP drop-in battles.

[Gileadan]

We actually should have MP drop-in battles where the dropped-in players control hostile characters. Playing as a random, anonymous mook without any pressure to survive to the end might even get more people interested in MP.

[Atomkick]

I won't really mind as long as they include both Co-Op and PvP with good modes, maps, stuff like classes, abilities, weapons and etc balanced. Plus would be nice if they do not link any story-related content to multiplayer.

[Laughing_Man]

My main reservation about PvP is that it might effect SP with the eventual endless cycle of balancing, re-balancing, nerfing, etc.

That is one thing that will cause me to potentially not buy the game.

 

However, as long as PvP mechanics are completely separate from the main game, I wouldn't care really.

[dielveio]

Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer worked wonders because it had NO PVP.

[Vortex13]

Why not both? 

 

There's no reason why PVE and PVP modes can't exist in the same game. They do in most MMOs for example. That said, I don't expect there will be a PVP mode. i just think it might be fun if there was an option to occasionally play against other players. 

 

 

There's nothing stopping the game from having both, since both would be operating on the same multiplayer code. My problem would be that the necessity of balancing a competitive game would lead to a reduction in the co-op side; since when has any MP enabled title ever had separate balancing (that worked) for PVE and PVP content? Just look at something like Destiny, gameplay tweaked to accommodate a (relatively) balanced versus mode, and the result is 3 archetypes that are nearly identical to each other in play style save for different grenades and supers. 

 

I like ME 3's MP because of the asymmetrical nature of the kits, especially the later ones. The developers were able to experiment more with different styles of play that would have more than likely been shot down if it also had to take competitive play into consideration. I want to see more of that in AMP, I don't want to see reduction of variety for the sake of PvP.

 

My wish for a playable Rachni, Hanar or Elcor kit might be a little outlandish, but it's far more likely to happen in a purely co-op environment than one that has to contend with two diametrically opposed ideologies.

[Shinobu]

Signed.

[shodiswe]

PvP doesn't seem likely.

[grailseeker91]

Personally, I don't like PvP. However, I see no reason why it should be tabled indefinitely as there are plenty of people who would disagree with me. As long as I have the option to ignore it and not have my single player campaign impacted I won't care.

 

I would say not effect the CoOp side but that would be inevitable thanks to the need to try for balance. I do mean try as let's face it even in games where the devs tried to keep things fair some weapons/perks were just better than others and some seemingly innocent combos turn bonkers...GI+Claymore anyone?

[Lee80]

Yeah, it'd be nice if the balance changes this time around wouldn't negatively effect single player like it did at times when it comes to Dragon Age Inquisition.  That aside I don't play multiplayer anymore since that requires PlayStation plus service that's mostly worthless to me, so whatever the masses want in mp is fine with me.  

[KaiserShep]

The only time cooperation isn't part of PvP is if it's a free-for-all, in which case you have no allies you could rely upon anyway. In team matches you do have to cooperate if you want to be more effective than your opponents, so to say that there's no cooperation is patently false.

 

As another person pointed out though, the biggest problem with PvP would come in the lack of overall variety in the types of characters you can roll. 

[Quarian Master Race]

Symmetrical PvP simply wouldn't be any fun in this type of  game. Getting nuked by an Arc Grenade through several meters of wall, cross mapped by a Javelin, AI hacked  (if you play a toaster) or permanently stunlocked by all manner of Biotic and Tech crap would make for an unplayable game. 

 

Asymmetric PvP, on the other hand, could be loads of fun. Think something like Left 4 Dead's Versus mode, with player controlled surviors vs special infected. Controlling Banshees, Ravagers, Atlases, Primes, Fantums etc and trying to coordinate to take out the 4 players over the course of 10 waves could have been epic.

[Saladinbob1]

I could understand if you didn't want multiplayer but what's the point of multiplayer if you can't PvP? It's not multiplayer then, it's co-op, something entirely different.  

 

For the love of god, Bioware, please release some info so these igits **** up someone else's forum. 

[Han Shot First]

I could understand if you didn't want multiplayer but what's the point of multiplayer if you can't PvP? It's not multiplayer then, it's co-op, something entirely different.  

 

For the love of god, Bioware, please release some info so these igits **** up someone else's forum. 

 

Cooperative PVE is still multiplayer.  The word multiplayer just means that you have more than one player playing the same game. The activity they're all taking part in can be either coop or player vs. player.

[General TSAR]

As if internet petitions work.

 

But I think a good chunk of people will agree that as long as multiplayer (PVP or PvE) is not tied to single player as an important determinant, it's fine.

[Quarian Master Race]

Just to show an example of what I was talking about previously, this is L4D2's Versus mode. PvP doesn't necessarily have to use symmetrical mechanics for both teams. 

Evolve is another example of asymmetric balancing, but I haven't played it.

[General TSAR]

Just to show an example of what I was talking about previously, this is L4D2's Versus mode. PvP doesn't necessarily have to use symmetrical mechanics for both teams. 

Evolve is another example of asymmetric balancing, but I haven't played it.

Dead Space 2 also did that to less impressive results. 

[Quarian Master Race]

Dead Space 2 also did that to less impressive results. 

totally forgot about that. Scarcely played it so I can't really comment.

[Spectr61]

Signed.

Who wants all the kits to be homogenized for the sake of PVP balancing?

Plus, use the resources that would be needed to keep it from being a hackfest to build an even better co-op MP.

[Sartoz]

My main reservation about PvP is that it might effect SP with the eventual endless cycle of balancing, re-balancing, nerfing, etc.

That is one thing that will cause me to potentially not buy the game.

 

However, as long as PvP mechanics are completely separate from the main game, I wouldn't care really.

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Balance issues are chucked out of the window when you allow a PvP to drop in a SP game.  Not a problem, though, if the mission option allows for the SP player to accept a drop-in. Give the drop-in gamer the same gear and weapons as the mission mook.  A better idea, perhaps, is for the human drop-in player to control one of the AI grunts.

 

The only headache is the necessity for an online connection to a server and at which point in the mission do you allow a drop-in? All of this is probably a moot point since the drop-in player must wait for a "free drop-in slot" and how many will wait?.... why not simply play the game?

 

Frankly, I see no positive returns for Bio. The expenditure efforts (time, resources, cost, negative impact on the game's schedule) seem to far outweigh any ROI. For the idea to work, it must be at the game design level.... way too late now.

[Laughing_Man]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Balance issues are chucked out of the window when you allow a PvP to drop in a SP game.  Not a problem, though, if the mission option allows for the SP player to accept a drop-in. Give the drop-in gamer the same gear and weapons as the mission mook.  A better idea, perhaps, is for the human drop-in player to control one of the AI grunts.

 

The only headache is the necessity for an online connection to a server and at which point in the mission do you allow a drop-in? All of this is probably a moot point since the drop-in player must wait for a "free drop-in slot" and how many will wait?.... why not simply play the game?

 

Frankly, I see no positive returns for Bio. The expenditure efforts (time, resources, cost, negative impact on the game's schedule) seem to far outweigh any ROI. For the idea to work, it must be at the game design level.... way too late now.

 

Also, is this feature supposed to be a kind of always online DRM in disguise? Because that's another thing that might cause me to ignore a game.

 

Again, I don't really care about optional features as long as they don't influence the game itself.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

Why would Bioware randomly decide to add PvP? Although reading through this thread, I almost want them to just so I can bathe in the tears.