206 replies to this topic

[Stormdragon]

You know it's really great to hear everyone's opinions on this, and honestly Kudos to this community....we've taken a very sensitive issue and remained civil for the most part.

As far as PVE rewards.....yes there should be a reward system but I really don't think it's a good idea to have those rewards effect the PVP game, that is why I think a separate set of PVE Mechs, weapons and abilities are in order, Maybe have Mech Variants and Patterns that you can only get in PVP likewise variants and patterns that you can only get in PVE. I think it would add a lot more depth and bring in more types of players.

[Arafinar]

Revage, on 02 June 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

To put a fine point on it: Some people suck at PvP. They might also suck at PvE. Some folks haven't played Mechwarrior since its first or second game, and may have NO idea what is effective. No one chastises a soldier for having learned to aim and fire on targets before firing on real people, and albeit at far lower stakes, you can apply the same logic here. Some people are going to NEED a controlled environment to learn how to play this game, and if they're constantly getting owned in PvP, they may never get there. Furthermore, playing off the issue of satisfaction, what satisfaction will hard-core PvP'ers get from owning noobs over and over? That's just as artificially inflating, and more so, since the AI at least can be trusted to have enough heat sinks on its mech.

A PvE aspect will be important for drawing in the noobs who can develop their play style in peace without getting ribbed by team mates for suckin' or disappointing skilled players on the other side by being too easy. The AI may never change tactics very drastically, but the player will evolve, and that will keep it interesting for them, and when they wander over to the PvP side, they'd be worth the effort, their team won't be dragged down, and the player base will be broadened by their having had an environment to play and test the waters in before stepping into the bigger pool of PvP.

Rewards are also important for PvE as well to keep the folks interested, and just for some variety. Couple posters seemed concerned that people would be able to get comparable rewards in PvE as PvP.. but I'm not seeing how that's a real concern. If you're worried they'll never switch over, there are so many arguments that PvP is more interesting and PvE is boring; why wouldn't they eventually switch? Or worried that folks will grind PvE and get an unfair equipment advantage.. so many arguments are also mingled with the PvE having less variability and therefore being less skillful, so wouldn't they still be out-skilled even if not overwhelmingly out-gunned?

A last consideration here is that, similar to the suggestion for gambling on mech-combat, the PvE aspect would add a function that could be played when a person has a poor internet connection or some other limitation that precludes them from PvP'ing.

Unfortunately, I think you have a point there(while Im not a fan of pve here). I can see the need for it for the franchise to
expand and grow (it doesnt make money and a good player base it wont last). While I believe the Devs care for the game,
Money is the bottom line.

[GrizzlyViking]

Rabid Dutchman, on 02 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Ok, I need to ask: What games are you playing where this is an issue? The only genre I can think of where PvE directly impacts what gear you have for PvP is an MMORPG. But in games with separate PvE and PvP, what game out there awards you "God-mode" or whatever in multiplayer for playing the campaign?
I seriously don't get how this is a concern. If you like PvP: Good for you! I do too! I'm excited to kick some 50 ton A$$. But guess what: I and many others also like PvE, and we would like to play that as well. But here's the best part,

WE CAN HAVE PvE AND PvP! IT'S ALLOWED! IT'S NOT AGAINST THE RULES!

It's not a choice between the two, implementing PvE won't delete PvP from the servers.

Sounds like you are looking for another game to me. MWO is PvP game.

[Stormdragon]

GrizzlyViking, on 02 June 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Sounds like you are looking for another game to me. MWO is PvP game.

Well fortunately this game is about more than just you.

And as far as your signature goes.....A lot of the Daddy's are still here.

Edited by Stormdragon, 02 June 2012 - 09:24 AM.

[GrizzlyViking]

Rot Wulf, on 02 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

The day that equal reward for equal time played doesn't advance you is the day that the PVE'r demands a refund for their campaign purchase. For you I think this would mean that any PVE would mean the end of MWO, which since they are looking at it seems somewhat likely. PVE would HAVE to reward accomplishment, C-bills/parts/XP/etc. Since this is battletech by the TT rules, there is no super uber I win stat like has choked PVP in SWTOR and Rift. I can see no way for a PVE add on that sells, that doesn't have potential impact on the pvp side of things.

PVE with no reward will simply not sell to the point to be worth having. That is PGI would not recoup their investment. So the question becomes do they grow their customer base more by having PVE then they loose PVP players who can not accept PVE having rewards. Looking at other FTP games, the answer to me is obvious. PVE sells to more people total, than PVP sells to. PGI wants to make money, so it becomes clear to me that at some point there will be PVE content with rewards, for this project to make as much money as it can make.

As a player it is in your interest for PGI to make money (profit) on MWO as it is that money that will turn into more mech designs, maps, etc. No FTP game is ever FTP, if you have never put cash of your own in, someone else is paying your way by paying for themselves as well as covering your costs. I can give PGI at least ten names that will not pick this game up before the release of PVE content. Being a hybrid player (one of those crazies who likes both PVE and PVP content), I can see both sides of this issue. I hate having someone with uber pve gained gear with no ability in pvp being saddled on my team, but then I want PGI to have their dollars (both canadian and US) and bring in more cool stuff to play with.

This is an interesting perspective, however it is faulty. MechWarrior has never depended on PvE. To assume that PvE will be some boon for the Devs to make money off of the game is simply not true. There will be plenty of money coming in from the PvP player base and it will grow. The majority of people that have played MechWarrior are PvP players, not PvE players. The majority of players that are on these forums today are PvP players and to imply that there are not enough PvP players in the world to make a F2P game as successful as other games is ludicrous.

Stormdragon, on 02 June 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Well fortunately this game is about more than just you.

And as far as your signature goes.....A lot of the Daddy's are still here.

LOL and the game is not just about you either. As for my signature I am likely older than you are.

[Stormdragon]

GrizzlyViking, on 02 June 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

This is an interesting perspective, however it is faulty. MechWarrior has never depended on PvE. To assume that PvE will be some boon for the Devs to make money off of the game is simply not true. There will be plenty of money coming in from the PvP player base and it will grow. The majority of people that have played MechWarrior are PvP players, not PvE players. The majority of players that are on these forums today are PvP players and to imply that there are not enough PvP players in the world to make a F2P game as successful as other games is ludicrous.

Whoa.

Do you have any type of empirical evidence to back this up? I know a metric crap ton of Mechwarrior players that enjoy PVE, if PVE wasn't viable the developers wouldn't even be considering but it is so they are looking at it very hard right now because they would like to make it work, but they're not going to rush into it which is smart.

Making sweeping generalizations because you don't like a certain play style is a bit obtuse.

Edited by Stormdragon, 02 June 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[GrizzlyViking]

Stormdragon, on 02 June 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Whoa.

Do you have any type of empirical evidence to back this up? I know a metric crap ton of Mechwarrior players that enjoy PVE, if PVE wasn't viable the developers wouldn't even be considering but it is so they are looking at it very hard right now because they would like to make it work, but they're not going to rush into it which is smart.

Making sweeping generalizations because you don't like a certain play style is a bit obtuse.

I believe the burden of proof is on you sir, since you introduced the opposing perspective. Please present your evidence and I will be glad to discuss it with you.

[Jayboltz]

PvP is what will keep this game alive for years and years, not single player. All of the good games that I've ever played on a PC have been centered around PvP. Bf1942, SC, Diablo 2, Counterstrike, etc. I think the only people that would appreciate a single player campaign are the die-hard battletech fans who know all the lore. Most people want a competetive game to play against other people in matches, scrimmages, tournaments, etc... Having a clan (a game clan, generic term) and all that goes with it is a really fun part of online games. Thats what keeps people coming back to the game, and on a F2P model it is the most important factor. I doubt they'll add any significant PvE into the game beyond fighting against bots. Personally, I can't understand the mentality behind wanting to fight against AI, it must take an introvert. There is no real challenge in fighting against a scripted AI to me so it all feels very hollow and just pointless.

[Revage]

Arafinar, on 02 June 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Unfortunately, I think you have a point there(while Im not a fan of pve here). I can see the need for it for the franchise to
expand and grow (it doesnt make money and a good player base it wont last). While I believe the Devs care for the game,
Money is the bottom line.

Aye, money wasn't the primary focus in my mind of what I said but it's certainly an important point. My real emphasis when talking about 'player base' isn't specifically the base of players that the company draws its money from, though they will, but rather that a broader player base is a larger pool of players from which we can eventually end up playing against in PvP, or on a whim playing with in PvE. A broad player base is important financially, but it has a value to the individual players in that we will be playing against and with a larger array of other players with a broader skill base, making for a more interesting and diverse gaming experience when some PvE'ers do cross over after learning the ropes.

[Stormdragon]

GrizzlyViking, on 02 June 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I believe the burden of proof is on you sir, since you introduced the opposing perspective. Please present your evidence and I will be glad to discuss it with you.

So you have no proof and you are using a cop out...expected.

My authoritative base comes from being a gamer since Mechwarrior one and being around literally hundreds of like minded fans of the genre.

Revage, on 02 June 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

Aye, money wasn't the primary focus in my mind of what I said but it's certainly an important point. My real emphasis when talking about 'player base' isn't specifically the base of players that the company draws its money from, though they will, but rather that a broader player base is a larger pool of players from which we can eventually end up playing against in PvP, or on a whim playing with in PvE. A broad player base is important financially, but it has a value to the individual players in that we will be playing against and with a larger array of other players with a broader skill base, making for a more interesting and diverse gaming experience when some PvE'ers do cross over after learning the ropes.

And that's a good point also you have a lot of MechWarrior fans like me that enjoy both PVP and PVE. The purist on both sides of the coin are the real determent to the community I think.

Edited by Stormdragon, 02 June 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[Wyzak]

Jayboltz, on 02 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

PvP is what will keep this game alive for years and years, not single player. All of the good games that I've ever played on a PC have been centered around PvP. Bf1942, SC, Diablo 2, Counterstrike, etc. I think the only people that would appreciate a single player campaign are the die-hard battletech fans who know all the lore. Most people want a competetive game to play against other people in matches, scrimmages, tournaments, etc... Having a clan (a game clan, generic term) and all that goes with it is a really fun part of online games. Thats what keeps people coming back to the game, and on a F2P model it is the most important factor. I doubt they'll add any significant PvE into the game beyond fighting against bots. Personally, I can't understand the mentality behind wanting to fight against AI, it must take an introvert. There is no real challenge in fighting against a scripted AI to me so it all feels very hollow and just pointless.

It is not so much wanting to fight AI as it is wanting to experience a story driven conflict, with unique challenges besides "survive and blow everyone else up." Designing a single player campaign with an AI is just acknowledging a reality that if you want to tell a good story with a consistent outcome, you can only have the human players on the "good" side. There are ways you can write a campaign where human players could be assigned to all the friendly and enemy parts, and have branching outcomes for the plotline... but it becomes really complex.

[Jayboltz]

I dont have a problem with PvE games, but for this specific game in this situation I think that focusing all of their effort on making a great PvP game was a really smart choice. I was really excited when I heard they were going F2P because it's a great way to introduce new people to the game and genre and it provides continuous revenue. If this game focused on PvE first I think it would have been released prematurely and it probably would have just been another obscure title that never took off.

[Arafinar]

Stormdragon, on 02 June 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

So you have no proof and you are using a cop out...expected.

My authoritative base comes from being a gamer since Mechwarrior one and being around literally hundreds of like minded fans of the genre.




And that's a good point also you have a lot of MechWarrior fans like me that enjoy both PVP and PVE. The purist on both sides of the coin are the real determent to the community I think.

be nice I dont really see "proof" from anywhere on either issue. Could find hundreds of mechwarriors
opinons that agree with both.

Edited by Arafinar, 02 June 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[Revage]

Jayboltz, on 02 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

All of the good games that I've ever played on a PC have been centered around PvP. Bf1942, SC, Diablo 2, Counterstrike, etc.

Diablo 2 has a thriving grind-fest population to this day, now shifting to 3 I suppose... L4D1 & 2 have strong Survival mode and Campaign modes, realism.. BF1942 you were able to stack players on one side and fight the AI droves.. MINECRAFT? Not so PvP, except in a competative "what can you build" sense, more applicable depending to what degree they eventually take mech customization...

It can be fun in the same way shooting at bottles can be fun. Sure, they're not real people and therefore less challenging, but it's still cool to see the glass shatter and fun to do while drinking a beer with your friends.

Edited by Revage, 02 June 2012 - 09:55 AM.

[Stormdragon]

Wyzak, on 02 June 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

It is not so much wanting to fight AI as it is wanting to experience a story driven conflict, with unique challenges besides "survive and blow everyone else up." Designing a single player campaign with an AI is just acknowledging a reality that if you want to tell a good story with a consistent outcome, you can only have the human players on the "good" side. There are ways you can write a campaign where human players could be assigned to all the friendly and enemy parts, and have branching outcomes for the plotline... but it becomes really complex.

And I think a lot of us who would like to see a PVE element feel the exact same way, and the really exciting thing is that with the Cry engine the sky is the limit on possibilities.

[GrizzlyViking]

Stormdragon, on 02 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

So you have no proof and you are using a cop out...expected.

My authoritative base comes from being a gamer since Mechwarrior one and being around literally hundreds of like minded fans of the genre.

Neither of us has any significant proof and even if we did, it really wouldn't mean anything in regards to MWO. We are both simply expressing our own opinions from our own perspectives. Both of which are simply based on our experiences. Since our experiences are not the same, we are not likely to come to a consensus. I expect we will just have to play the game and see what comes of it all. The reality is, like in all online games, we are at the mercy of the Devs as to what is and is not included in MWO. We will either play or not play depending on the decisions that are made. The Devs control the future and I will be here to see how that turns out come what may. As for you and me, today we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Edited by GrizzlyViking, 02 June 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[Stormdragon]

Arafinar, on 02 June 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

be nice I dont really see "proof" from anywhere on either issue. Could find hundreds of mechwarriors
opinons that agree with both.

I didn't mean it in a terse way but going back and re-reading you are right.

Apologies for the tone Grizz.

[Davoke]

A multiplayer campaign/mission mode would be nice.

[Jayboltz]

Revage, on 02 June 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Diablo 2 has a thriving grind-fest population to this day, now shifting to 3 I suppose... L4D1 & 2 have strong Survival mode and Campaign modes, realism.. BF1942 you were able to stack players on one side and fight the AI droves.. MINECRAFT? Not so PvP, except in a competative "what can you build" sense, more applicable depending to what degree they eventually take mech customization...

It can be fun in the same way shooting at bottles can be fun. Sure, they're not real people and therefore less challenging, but it's still cool to see the glass shatter and fun to do while drinking a beer with your friends.

Well when I played diablo 2 we all grinded so that we could go into games and destroy lower level noobs and talk trash. What other point would there be to get all the good gear? And Diablo 3....well that game opened quite a can of worms with a huge portion of the fanbase for not having PvP from the start. Oh and the bf1942 thing...I remember people who fought the AI...not the cream of the crop as far as skill came..

[Sychodemus]

I just look at it this way: MWO will be a PvP game. If the technical aspects work and the financial return is good enough, then maybe it will lead into a PvE style spin-off.
After release, PGI will undoubtedly see which way the wind is blowing and assuming that they have the resources, they will pursue whever course of action benefits their business.

While I personally do get tired of computer PvP after a while (real world "PvP" definitely makes proxy combat seem tedious or silly sometimes) I accept that this is what MWO is - at least initially - intended to be. So, I am willing to wait for a game that is designed with PvE in mind at the start and play MWO in the meantime.

However, one option in MWO that I would not object to would be "set-piece scenarios", where the two (or more) side's 'Mech rosters are predesignated, thus allowing for the reenactment of "historical" battles and events from the BT lore. This would at least give me the ability to escape whatever "broken flavor of the week" that may be all the rage at the time and somewhat sate my preference for a "story-driven" experience.