Effort. Easier to just not have it in the first place. It doesn’t enhance the game play experience for what this game is supposed to be. It’s bad enough that you can blow yourself up with your own grenades and rockets.
1 Like
It already has friendly fire if a player wants to, you just can’t do it with standard ammo and weapons.
Why do players buy a game, then want it to change to other games? It is bad enough base building was forced upon us after the game was out a few years.
2 Likes
I agree.
I just wanted to say that, as difficulty option, I could imagine that.
At least it would be less influence in the total game than the bases brought.
Yes, you don’t have to destroy bases, build bases or defend yours, but the whole landscape is affected and the machines spawns, too. And there many new bugs and performance issues.
The only way I could see pvp in this game would be(alt game mode) if we got to be the bots too. Add a mode where it’s fnix vs resistance verrry similar to base defense only the bots are players instead of AI. I cannot see human vs human combat making sense in the storyline. Clearly it does say human victims are used like hard drive space to operate the bots though so… One could even devise an instance where it’d be a lot like capture the flag only it’s the human victims. Could very well repurpose some of the unused islands for said instances too. Kinda save on the need for new assets that way.
Howe2peeveepee:
Join game.
Teleport to base.
Immediately trigger hard assault.
Summon companion.
Throw molotovs and use flamethrower until game crashes.
GGNORE
It does not have to do with feelings. Opinions, yes.
PvP is a very tricky game element. If done wrong, you end up with Diablo2: LoD scenarios where people can join your multiplayer game, kill everyone and leave.
This is a game with a storyline which you can play in co-op, we do not have enough of those. Like any good book, a good storyline comes to an end as well.
I would not object to PvP being an optional game mode, so people can choose to enter an entirely different lobby. It should not be an option in every game for certain as it would ruin the entire atmosphere of the game itself.
I was referring to versus mode when I mentioned L4D. can have humans versus robots, but as I mentioned before, it’d be a balancing nightmare.
Would be interesting to have a Battlefield 2-style game detailing cataclysm/c-day, would be cool to see fnix vs swedish army or something like that. And I know that the apocalypse-class machines are meant to be a post-cataclysm introduction, what with fnix pulling out all the stops attempting to kill off the last survivors and even give the most battle-hardened ones a run for their money, but it’d be pretty interesting to see a bunch of Stridsvagn 103s up against an apoc tank…
These are all just ideas in the wind however, largely inspired by Half Life 2’s Seven Hour War and at least several attempts to turn it into a game. Not expecting anything to come of it, just nice to imagine the possibilities.
Generation Zero: Battlefield Östertörn 1989 
Sounds interesting. As spinoff.
"See the events of Generation Zero from a different perspective. You are a husband, father and a swedish army man. It’s friday noon, you planned to go camping with your family for the weekend and suddenly there’s an alarm you never heard before.
Östertörn is under attack. Suddenly you’re in duty. You’re in war.
Experience the first hours and days of cataclysm day. Safe your country, your family and yourself. Command your squad to fight back the hostile machines. Take place in some of the greatest battles in history of Generation Zero.
Or even change history: in large scaled multiplayer-battles between the machines and the swedish army and a third unexpected faction you can even get in control of the unknown machines and lead them to victory."
Could be a good add-on/dlc. Just make sure it’s not done in a way that the modes overlap. Pve in a set instance and pvp in a separate one never to interact.