{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/21/2024 9:50:15 PM
28
Pathfinder should not require players to play PvP modes
See title.
It is frustrating being vastly different skill levels in PvE vs PvP. I can solo dungeons and perform well in raids, but I do not perform the same in PvP situations, and I hate that my basic progression in power level is locked behind getting slammed by players far better than me. If power level is not active in PvP modes, why lock power level progression behind playing those modes?
-
2 RepliesCan someone remind me the point of the playlist version of pathfinder? You don’t get an ergo sum I thought.
-
Agree… pve game no one should be forced into PvP ever
-
Or Vice Versa. I just wanted to do Gambit today for some strange coins. I got some bad rolls and a bad spread to boot. Like the ignition kills one. So I'd have to do both vanguard and crucible to do it. Just flat out not gonna do it. Wish I didn't buy the annual pass but oh well. Maybe it'll turn around before I can link my accounts again.
-
Just don’t do it then ! Imagine all the pinnacles a PvP player won’t get because they can’t be bothered doing PVE. It’s probably about 90% of the pinnacles. The level of whinge here is incredible.
-
I like the idea of Pathfinder. But I would agree with you. They should have a Pathfinder for each vendor. So, you have one for crucible, gambit, and vanguard. We have one for Pale Heart, which is strictly for that area. Plus, by co-mingling the current Pathfinder, you risk players leaving that playlist once they complete the task. I feel by having a Pathfinder for the other vendors, it would solve all the conflicts. Nobody would need to play a game mode they don't want to do and you wouldn't have others leaving prematurely.
-
I agree, you shouldn't have to play PvE if PvP is your thing either. There should be separate pathways for each game mode.
-
1 ReplyI'm the opposite, and I prefer PVP to PVE. I 100% agree that I shouldn't be "forced" to play PVE or Gambit for the same rewards I got for playing Crucible last season.
-
1 ReplyLet pve players do pve. Let pvp players do pvp. And let gambit players, bless their little hearts, do gambit.
-
Pathfinder should not require players to play pve modes. See i can say stupid stuff to especially when its only 4 nodes
-
1 ReplyWonder if you can do it in private matches since someone thought it a good idea to have rewards there.
-
11 RepliesIf you’re calling Gambit a PvP mode you need help.
-
1 ReplyUnless you consider Gambit a pvp mode, it doesn’t require pvp for completion.
-
10 RepliesWhat’s the difference? Previously you would have had to do bounties in Crucible,Strikes and Gambit.
-
8 RepliesPvp is not required. I've completed 4 pathways without playing one single crucible match. 3 in which I didn't even play gambit
-
It’ll always be hilarious that you kids buy games and then cry when you realize you need to play the game.
-
4 RepliesIt works on private matches just FYI. Do with that info what you will.
-
A big improvement they could make would be the ability to reset individual nodes on the path finder path. Say you have a node that requires jolt kills in the crucible, you can then reset that individual node for say 3000 glimmer. In many ways this would then function the exact same way as repeatable vendor bountys from past seasons. Pick up a bounty dont like it delete it and buy another.
-
Yeah I shouldn’t have to do strikes either
-
2 RepliesIt should not require pve. Just gambit and pvp, seeing as those are the core of the game and the pve, excluding the campaign, is really just fluff.
-
I don't mind it so much, what I don't like is the inability to choose. For instance, this week, the Melee Ascension node seems impossible to complete (for me) - not sure if it is bugged or what - maybe ones like that should be in the world and not specifically in C, S, G. Had 5, then they disappeared... if that was the case with a regular bounty, I'd just toss it, grab a different bounty and move on... in the end though, I don't think the rewards equal the effort one has to put in complete the pathfinder. Maybe if they put Dungeon, Raid, or Trials weapons at the end of the pathfinder rainbow... it would be worth the effort and more people would engage.
-
1 ReplyAgreed. That should be an option at the beginning or in the middle at most. Definitely not on the end. PVP is a crapshow smack full of hacks and cheats. IMO, for what it is worth, I think PVP needs to be removed until they decide to get serious about penalties, and by this I mean financial penalties for cheating.
-
7 RepliesWhat are you talking about? I have completed pathfinder every time since it dropped and not touched PvP once. You do know that you don’t need to complete all the nodes right? Just connect one route from start to finish?
-
PvP shouldnt be in this game if they cant ban cheaters and Xim/Cronus users. Bungie shouldnt have to go in and Ban people on reports.
-
6 RepliesAgreed. Three weeks in a row, the pathfinder cannot be completed without playing crucible or gambit. PvP makes me ill. Literally. It gives me nausea.
-
Just split them into 3. Simple.
-
I get what you mean, but honestly the given tasks are not challenging and can be done in about 2 games at the worst. I feel like this is the kind of complaint that noone needs. Its another pathway to power that is easy to grasp by every Player.
