206 replies to this topic

[Volthorne]

Jayboltz, on 02 June 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

remember seeing games called "4v4C BGH COMPSTOMP!!111!11" lol and then they'd sit and build a bazillion photon cannons and like 40 carriers....30 minutes into the game...LOL..

Hey man, by the end of SC (I'm talking when no one bothered to use dedicated hosting software and the latency suffered because of it, so about... 2005?) the makers of those maps had figured out how increase the difficulty to blow away almost everyone but the people with friggin 900 APM. Let me tell you, not fun.

Personally, I dumped hundreds of hours into the SC campaign, and hundreds more into multiplayer. That was SP and MP done right. I imagine PGI could do something as well, considering the godly quality of the game they're making for us right now.

Edited by Volthorne, 02 June 2012 - 04:07 PM.

[Thanatos1973]

Has anyone played Battlestar? Its a F2P, PVP, where what you do does have an effect.

Just saying.

[Revage]

Gangrel, on 02 June 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

Has anyone played Battlestar? Its a F2P, PVP, where what you do does have an effect.

Just saying.

Hadn't played it before you mentioned it, but I just tried it out and I've gotta' say, loved the PvE training action.

[Randalf Yorgen]

it would be nice if they chose some ancient lore topic and made that the PVE Campain, say the trial of annialation for the not named clan, or perhaps the Battle for Hesperus that saw the LCS Invincible break the seige and then disapear into history (Dark Age be damned!). Then you have the Battletech universe, Battlemechs or the limited Early Omnimechs that the Clans had at their formation.. the Mercury is what led them down the path to full blown Omnimechs, and a Time line that would completely seperate the PVE from the PVP. you could load out both sides with the top gear and never have to worry about both sides ever meeting.

There are so many that could be chosen from, you could even select the Third or Fourth Succession war and have that as a PVE Hub, again, time would seperate the PVE/PVP elements so there would be no crossover and everyone could have some fun. Also it wouldn't have to be much more than a hiring hall with contracts for the PVE

[FatalHunter]

I would like to applaud Sabotssnake and his massive and in-depth post (#108 on page 6, dont want to link it, since its so long, and many pages past by the time I write this). It is exactly how I feel and was wanting to say, so I'm glad It's already been said and shared.

I would like to add a few personal (and hopefully intelligible) notes:
First, my computer is aging and my internet kinda sucks, so I may not be so good in PvP NOT because I lack skills, but because of my hardware available to me. But Im willing to give it a try. Also, for the several of you who say "if you dont like PvP, than go play a different game," then keep in mind this is the first real mechwarrior game in a DECADE. We dont have much choice if we want to play a modern MW game we havent already played to oblivion.
Second, I may not know much aboout the battletech universe, since the MW4 series (and both MA's, which many agree sucked) have been my only experience in it, but I did enjoy the story much more than the PvP. I got much more than only 4 hours out of it, because I could play through again with different mechs and different strategies (and in Mercs, with different factions or choices). Having story and something greater to link all the different missions together made it much more interesting and less repetitive, and more meaningful, than just a bunch of XvX matches against other people. Story adds variety. The Instant Combat missions were great for trying stuff out and getting to know the maps better, but weren't great for replayability. This, however, I agree with many other posters, should be the first bit of PvE that should be added. It gives players the room to learn, to test loadouts and mods, to get to know the maps, and, primarily imho, to be able to play MW when offline. I also agree with most other posters that the free-play PvE instant combat should have NO rewards - It's for testing and practicing, not for grinding. I also agree with some others, a SP story aspect of MW should not be implemented in MWO anytime soon after launch, it would be too much work and money, but a campaign would be a great expansion pack sometime within the next couple of years.
Anyways, much of my opinions are already well-stated in his and other posts, so I'll stop myself from rambling here...
(would also like to note for consensus reasons that I support Stormdragon)

Edited by FatalHunter, 02 June 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[oohawkoo]

pve missions could be nice =X all depends on if they can make an excelent ai tho =X(a soso ai or just a good ai would suck)... it would be good for making story based missions and give a certain life to the world =X ... there is after all an awesome back story and ongoing plot in the BT universe (ongoing fromthe timelines point of veiw at least dunno if there is any new books being made in the BT universe)=3still a lot of that could also be done with well thought oout pvp matches also =3 tho the problem with that is it would leave some ppl with rather disjointed story lines (after misssing battles that gave info and such) .. where as a pve mission could be available to get the info or follow a particular plot line at anytime =3 and would get rid of reams and reams of reading matirial that will prolly be there for that purpous

problem there tho is the games gonna be useing a realtime time line so... hmmm yeh could get complicated =3

still rather they get the pvp working perfectly first befor they decide on adding any pve content =) tho i hope they do add some eventualy

Edited by oohawkoo, 02 June 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[black oak]

Jayboltz, on 02 June 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

I think you're in the minority. This game needs to appeal to young people to become popular (not necessarily the CoD demographic). No offense, but if you're pushing 50 then you that means you grew up with singleplayer games probably because obviously the internet wasn't around then. I don't think its necessary to provide citation for my claims. There are tons of games out there based on PvP, all of the popular ones really. SC2, CoD, I hate CoD but still.. I'd say WoW has a pretty sizable community that plays soley for hardcore, highly competetive PvP (arenas, rated BGs). There are a lot of popular single player games, but more for consoles. This is a F2P PC game, that in itself means it has to be a game that people play for years for it to be successful. All F2P games are centered on PvP for a reason.

As for me, I love games like Zelda. One of the greatest games I ever played was Ocarina of Time. But how many hours do you think I put into it? I was pretty young so I probably sucked, I'd say like 60 or more. That's a good length for a single player game. Now take games that are persistent because of PvP like League of Legends. I was into that game quite a bit for a while (was a big dota fan in WC3) and I probably have hundreds of hours on it. And that's really very little gametime compared to people that play it a lot.

Yeah, I'm 51+ and started gaming TT games back in the mid '70's. D&D, Cthulhu, military miniatures, etc., First "computer game" was "Nuclear War" on the Tandy TRS - 80... Played a lot of computer games onboard ships when I was in the Navy in the '80's {Bards Tale, Stealth Fighter, Kampfgruppe, Hunt for Red October} (p286/25 with a HUGE 20meg hard drive...) So yeah, I've played TONNES of single player and solo computer games... So that whole "single player" pve experience isn't "lesser play..."

Jayboltz, on 02 June 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Also did you Like your own post?

I left the response up, and my son was visiting... Found out this morning that *yes, I did "like my own post" - via my son... I need to remember to turn the comp off when he comes in...

Thank god I didn't have facebook up...

[Robovski]

I'm not quite the grizzled grognard that black oak is (I'm 38) but I came into gaming in my youth in the 80s. I had one of those old box sets with the cardboard mechs (that we are generally not allowed to see anymore that resembled a certain animated show on the air at the time).

So yeah, the Apple II didn't do multiplayer unless it was hot seat, and that tended to be chess. My C-64 did have M.U.L.E. which if you were very lucky allowed you to play against an opponent via a data connection (that was a PITA to make work, but this stuff was pretty dang new). There were online games you could play eventually, like on Compuserve or MUDs that were like a text precursor to the modern MMORPG. So yeah, gamers of a 'certain age' tend to be rather positive about single player experiences because that was mostly what was on offer. But we also know a lot about playing against people as we used to d that away from the computers. I basically spent most Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights (and Saturday afternoon) at my local game club or with my friends playing games of one sort or another. But even then I had like no money for games (like maybe $5 a week) compared to the guys with all the lead. The guys with big napoleonic forces or civil war armies (or later Warhammer space marines) who had spent loads of money and time so they could spend a few hours on a weekend afternoon/evening recreating the battle of whattzit. Those guys kept the store open. Not me and my purchase of Dragon Magazine or a new rule book or maybe a Battletech figurine or two. The Gamers With Jobs who had the more than enough money and not enough time.

So new gamers make the market? In a way. The people with money to spend are the real market makers though.

[RecklessFable]

PvE requires quality AI programming, which they can ignore for now to concentrate on getting everything else right. Still, there is no reason they can't build MW5 later if they feel there is a market.

[PerryRaptor]

Largely opinionated discussion on the merits of either PvP or PvE; pitfalls, value, time-to-develop, fun, desires, and past experience may likely influence the future. I have enjoyed reading this thread.

My $0.02 on the MWO future capability.

I think both the Defending Team and the Attacking Team should have two principal objectives simultaneously. Each team should have the responsibility to defend their drop zone while looking for an enemy Mech to kill. This approach will likely add to the battle space simulation, offering another challenging game play aspect. So what does this look like?

- If I damage your team's communication capability your team no longer has C3i resources, limiting your team to Line-of-Site radar only.

- If I damage your team's supply capability you cannot repair and/or resupply all of your remaining dirt side Mech's.

- If I capture your drop zone I get salvage for whatever is remaining.

- If I destroy your drop zone I get salvage for your Mechs that are remaining.

I would like to see functional shooting drop ships, portable defense systems such as laser and missile turrets, ammo and spare parts, and a repair bay in a destructable environment.

I believe this will add the need to field two lances on each team working together or more simply a larger team of players. Of course, this will require some artifical intelligence programming, but I think it will pave the way for a long-lasting fun and challenging game play for years to come.

I believe this approach will allow for more people playing at the same time on limited server playing slots. Add additional variability to battle outcomes [fog-of-war]. Possibly enhance the desire for more of a team-campaign feature for planetary conquests.

Edited by PerryRaptor, 03 June 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[Phaid Knott]

I'd like to see "historical"/cannon refights of some of the battles in the lore. This would actually be a hybrid PVE/PVP type game in that players do not have freedom of choice in what mech to bring but instead are assigned a mech from a list. Such things could be played for "fun", provide training for the PvP battles and would be better than a tutorial. No risk of assets and no gains. No "fotm" builds. I see this as something the Devs could bring to the table at launch.

If PVE content was to appear I prefer to see it in the form of paid DLCs (to fund the job being done properly).

[Kreuger]

Lowridah, on 01 June 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

im tellin ya now if they had missions that was like storymode where you followed events through canon history etc I would be on this game 24/7 and quit my job lol (kidding)

PvE storymode showing all the lore like mentioned above would have a guaranteed interest.

Agree completely.

[Madog]

PvE could be good in some circumstances. Perhaps missions where the players are outnumbered -- a lance vs a company or something.

Another good place to stick AI mechs is as an optional way to round out a team. It would be a trade off -- an AI that may not be as good as a human player vs. the risk of getting a crap lone wolf who does more harm than good.

[KingCobra]

I think overall PVE would help support the game and bring a new aspect to the game series that it never really has had being able to play down the story-lines of BTU history.And to the ***** that calls players Care Bears ahhh shove it.We also like and play PVP and support it also.Making your own toon or character in games makes a closer bond to the game and many young players get hooked on making a character they can progress through skill to play PVE or PVP and generally they stay with the game longer and pay out real $$$$$$ money to support there character.Take for example the best model of PVP/PVE in the world=World Of Warcraft.I don't think wow would have become as popular and as big a money maker as it has without a PVE/PVP/RP aspect this game could and maybe will be more than it starts out to be but from my aspect they should have gone PVP/PVE/RP to start with.It would not have been that much harder to do and the revenues would have been much greater overall.

P.S my kind of Mechwarrior Chicks now what if you had a toon like this?

[Rot Wulf]

GrizzlyViking, on 02 June 2012 - 09:28 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.



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

I see and what survey did you conduct to get your data? You are right the majority of the players on these forums are PVP oriented, which makes perfect sense. PGI is only talking about PVP, why would a PVE oriented player come to look at something that does not interest them. You are simply wrong about Mechwarrior players being PVP players, my favorite Mechwarrior game to date is Mechwarrior, no bloody 2, 3, or 4. Oh ya Mechwarrior had no PVP mode at all, but was the best by far of the PVE games, as you could play the campaign or just be a merc. It is also the only mechwarrior game that has followed the TT rules very closely. By metrics from Microsoft, the MINORITY of Mechwarrior 4 players EVER played PVP. They know how many people bought the games, and they tracked how many logged in to play PVP ever (they ran the match maker), PVP interest was at about 30% and never higher.

That's where I get my monetary analysis from, if Mechwarrior 4 had launched as a PVP game Microsoft would not have turned a profit on it. By far the majority of the paying customers for Mechwarrior 4 were PVE players, plain and simple. So saying Mechwarrior players are PVP player is patently false and without merit. You simply have no numbers to back up your statements, the only thing I can say is the majority of the people who logged into the MW4 PVP server were PVP'ers, which makes sense.

I am sorry the PVP in all the previous Mechwarriors was a joke, there was no room for strategy or tactics. Just an overblown shooter where the biggest mech wins most of the time.

If you really want to see PGI grow and MWO grow, you don't want to dismiss PVE as irrelevant. Mark my words if PGI announced the addition of relevant PVE content membership on these forums would at least double probably triple. Why cause its big friggen robots, and that appeals to all stripes of gamers.

[Vora MacEvedy]

A PVE where you field 12 Locusts and have to take down an Atlas?

Or vice versa?

[Rot Wulf]

Vora MacEvedy, on 03 June 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

A PVE where you field 12 Locusts and have to take down an Atlas?

Or vice versa?

15 locust 3 atlas, been there done that TT. The locusts maxed out the movement modifier every turn. There was always at least one locust shooting each atlas in the back. The locust team took heavy losses, but won the three matches we ran.

[Marradin]

HI all

I'm a bit of a character her. I started playing Tabletop wargames at the age of 10, and am now 28

I've played PVP only games (They BORE me) PvE games (Depends on re-playability. only a few stick out, Torment being by far the most memorable. c'mon everyone loves a talking floating skull , however the only one that's been able to hold my atention for a long time is one with multivariant play. the only game I have found like this is EvEonline.

I understand that the best short-term start for Mechwarrior was always going to be an PvP Game. However I would like to see it reach the potential I see in it.
this would be:
PvE missions: Low reward : Medium risk - No Significant persistant effects that go beyond a bonus to the character when dealing with the faction they worked for

PvPvE: Working (as loyalist or mercs for hire) for one of the factions. If there are Players around the can opt to defend/assault If not a larger NPC force attacks Medium reward :Med-high risk. This also has the advantage of not penalizing ppl who keep odd hours due to work by making it so they have to wait longer for a game: Limited long term perpetuity effects

PVP - Structured: What they are releasing - Mixed Risk: Mixed rewards. Mid range long term perpetuity effects

PvP unstructured: Large FFA maps with High Risk:High Rewards - Long term perpetuity reward - planet restricted - defendable - can be taaken from you, (some sort of system to allow PvP defence - comstar enforced truce until a certain time set by planet's current holder?)

[Ito Ogami]

Howdy all,


I for one do not give a darn if the has PVE and PVP.

If we are assaulting a planet with 30 lances and the defending house can only muster 10 lances at the time then 20 lances PVE and 10 lances PVP. If we have to wait for our opponent 10 lances to finish their battle we will never take the planet and that is stupid.

If you want to really have a competetive game then you must not have people waiting with their thumb in their arses.

BTW in 3025 each planet may have a garrision (some vets PvP) or it may just have local militias (meaning green locals PvE). Not every planet has a complete force stocked with Atlas'.

So if the game has both, great that means I do not have to wait around for the other houses smaller group to get done fighting.

Imagine if for some reason the house you are assaulting can only muster 2 lances and you have 30 lances, what are you going to do?

[Belisarius1]

Not interested in PvE. That time could be better spent improving multi. Happy with the direction PGI has chosen.