65 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Lykaon, on 13 December 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

You do know that THIS game is not the ONLY game using cryengine right?

Also did you know the initial plan for this mechwarrior game was a pve game set in the Succession wars and it was later decided to run an online pvp game? I believe the initial developer was Brook&Tinker the trailer is still floating around so check youtube.

Cryengine is the engine this game is running and it has been used for PvE so it can be done.

My point in pointing out previous MW titles is it is absolutley possible to do since it was done over ten years ago with significantly less advanced engines.

WTH does that have to do with THIS game? There's tone of games that use other engines too. Uhm ok

Uhm that wouldn't be this game then would it? That would be another game that was planned a few years ago by a DIFFERENT developer.

Nobody said it wasn't possible. I said this ISN'T THAT GAME and has never been implied and has factually been completely discounted by several members of the dev team.
In other words this game has nothing to do with those games. THIS game was, has, and is an online multiplayer game. It was never even hinted at that it might even kinda sorta be anything other than that.

[Lykaon]

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

WTH does that have to do with THIS game? There's tone of games that use other engines too. Uhm ok

Uhm that wouldn't be this game then would it? That would be another game that was planned a few years ago by a DIFFERENT developer.

Nobody said it wasn't possible. I said this ISN'T THAT GAME and has never been implied and has factually been completely discounted by several members of the dev team.
In other words this game has nothing to do with those games. THIS game was, has, and is an online multiplayer game. It was never even hinted at that it might even kinda sorta be anything other than that.

OK sorry I didn't realize you were this dense.

So here it is spoon fed for the slow on the uptake.

This discussion is about PvE being implimented in MWo. (read this twice I'm sure it will sink in)

Cryengine is the engine being used by MWo. (still following?)

Cryengine has been successfully used to drive PvE games that make use of A.I.s opposing living players. (sinking in?)

It now stands to reason that the game developers do have the means to create A.I.s that are opposed by players. (this is PvE)

So,now hang in there as this seems to be the point you are missing.

IF there is sufficent profit projections it would merit possible developing a PvE element to be added (that's in addition to not replacing PvP) The engine does support it and game developers are capable of creating it (as sourced by previous MW titles that were PvE)

So what some posters have said was would this be cool or desired and I think there is profits to be made by developing PvE elements.Profits are what companies like more of that equals ore of this a win win.

I would pay to gain access to PvE content in additon to my PvP play.

Additional benefits for PvE would be an effective training tool for new players,a more "realistic" testing enviorment for new builds and if multi player is supported an excellent place to practice group manuvers under fire.

Get it now?

I think it's a good idea.

[Daemir]

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

which is still irrelevant since' you're not playing a single-player MW title here. Never were. Never should have thought you would be.

Quite aware of that, however he is claiming you can't do an AI that isn't 100% aimbot headshots because weapons in MWO don't have cone of fire. Well, neither did weapons in previous titles, but I still do recall playing vs AI and they did not headshot you with every round fired. Amazing isn't it?

[Sandpit]

Lykaon, on 13 December 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

OK sorry I didn't realize you were this dense.

So here it is spoon fed for the slow on the uptake.

This discussion is about PvE being implimented in MWo. (read this twice I'm sure it will sink in)

Cryengine is the engine being used by MWo. (still following?)

Cryengine has been successfully used to drive PvE games that make use of A.I.s opposing living players. (sinking in?)

It now stands to reason that the game developers do have the means to create A.I.s that are opposed by players. (this is PvE)

So,now hang in there as this seems to be the point you are missing.

IF there is sufficent profit projections it would merit possible developing a PvE element to be added (that's in addition to not replacing PvP) The engine does support it and game developers are capable of creating it (as sourced by previous MW titles that were PvE)

So what some posters have said was would this be cool or desired and I think there is profits to be made by developing PvE elements.Profits are what companies like more of that equals ore of this a win win.

I would pay to gain access to PvE content in additon to my PvP play.

Additional benefits for PvE would be an effective training tool for new players,a more "realistic" testing enviorment for new builds and if multi player is supported an excellent place to practice group manuvers under fire.

Get it now?

I think it's a good idea.

Ok let me say it slower

NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T POSS IBLE. NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T POSSIBLE. No one said it wasn't possible
Get that part yet? You seem to have missed it in my previous post so I wanted to make sure you understood that part completely.

So, let's go to a multiplayer online game and constantly (because this pops up by the same handful of players every few weeks or so and they tout that as "commercial viability" because the same 50 or so players want it) barrage them with
"We want PvE" because "all the other MW titles were PvE" and
"There was a youtube video a few years ago that showed a movie that may or may not have been PvE related by another developer" and
"The engine they're using makes it possible so they should do it" and
"I'm not fond of PvP gameplay" and
"Me and the other 50 or so players would pay some money for it" (which equates to a few hundred bucks, yea that's commercially viable for a multi-million dollar project that hasn't even finished the multiplayer aspects yet)

That just about sums up every single "point" you made in your posts. That's EXACTLY what's happening in this thread and every time this thread pops up.

So, now hang with me bro, this is the part you seem to be missing...

The devs have stated (almost as many times as this thread has popped up) no PvE is in the works nor will it. It MIGHT be looked at years down the road because this is....... wait for it..... I want this to sink in....

A MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME THAT CONTAINS NO PVE (reread that if you need to, I can use google translate if you need it supplemented in different languages but I'm not sure if there's a translate option for "derp"

What those of us not caring about PvE are saying is "Stop making duplicate threads every few weeks or so just so you can feel accomplished in saying "I want PvE".

I hear Mattel has a new game that might be more your speed though. Barbie: Call of Beauty. It's all slap fights and dress up in a PvE house with working kitchen. You can feel free to make me a sandwich while you're at it

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Ok let me say it slower

NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T POSS IBLE. NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T POSSIBLE. No one said it wasn't possible
Get that part yet? You seem to have missed it in my previous post so I wanted to make sure you understood that part completely.

So, let's go to a multiplayer online game and constantly (because this pops up by the same handful of players every few weeks or so and they tout that as "commercial viability" because the same 50 or so players want it) barrage them with
"We want PvE" because "all the other MW titles were PvE" and
"There was a youtube video a few years ago that showed a movie that may or may not have been PvE related by another developer" and
"The engine they're using makes it possible so they should do it" and
"I'm not fond of PvP gameplay" and
"Me and the other 50 or so players would pay some money for it" (which equates to a few hundred bucks, yea that's commercially viable for a multi-million dollar project that hasn't even finished the multiplayer aspects yet)

That just about sums up every single "point" you made in your posts. That's EXACTLY what's happening in this thread and every time this thread pops up.

So, now hang with me bro, this is the part you seem to be missing...

The devs have stated (almost as many times as this thread has popped up) no PvE is in the works nor will it. It MIGHT be looked at years down the road because this is....... wait for it..... I want this to sink in....

A MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME THAT CONTAINS NO PVE (reread that if you need to, I can use google translate if you need it supplemented in different languages but I'm not sure if there's a translate option for "derp"

What those of us not caring about PvE are saying is "Stop making duplicate threads every few weeks or so just so you can feel accomplished in saying "I want PvE".

I hear Mattel has a new game that might be more your speed though. Barbie: Call of Beauty. It's all slap fights and dress up in a PvE house with working kitchen. You can feel free to make me a sandwich while you're at it

What theses people are forgetting and is the basis for my comments on AI. This is supposed to be a pure skill based games.
as soon as you add an AI to this game the disparity in skill level is like me playing MW4 against my 3 year old cousin.

Game developers need to handy cap AI's just to make it fun for humans. Assume now that MWO has PVE. go ahead and tune it for the player base. if you don't get it right your just hitting a loot sack or crushing your players in seconds. its too much work. possible yes worth it .... not at this time... PVP more important.

What people in this thread have missed is there chances at winning is not because they're skillful players, its because the AI has been handy caped to give them a chance at winning.... basically a dice roll.

AI's = a RNG chance to win - how satisfying not
RNG runs contrary to PGI paradigm of player skill determining winning or loosing.
So no PGI will not ever have PVE missions until PVP is finished.

In fact PVP AI turrets will most likely be mg or streaks. anything larger and you need to handy cap the AI

[Hythos]

Ecto Cooler, on 13 December 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Who cares about PvE anymore? There are plenty of better single player experiences than MW:O I'd rather play.

This game is about competition against your fellow pilots, not shooting AI controlled drones.

I'd have to admit that I for one, don't mind shooting at drones. Quake2 PvE grew tiresome after time, unless friends joined in. Same with Diablo. Starcraft always turned into a game where co-op, resulted in one player moving their forces into anothers' main base without them knowing, and backstabbed them...

While yes, there were times I got bored playing Gideon til the year 3160 amassing 999,999,999 c-bills... But I would probably enjoy MWO again if I had options to run missions against PvE content, and bring my friends along.
I grew tired of the PvP-only content long ago, and I'd bet I'm not the only one playing MWO who feels that way. Additionally, I can do other things than play "Mech Collector"... PGI needs to do something with the ~$2500 I've paid them :/

[Lykaon]

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Ok let me say it slower

NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T POSS IBLE. NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T POSSIBLE. No one said it wasn't possible
Get that part yet? You seem to have missed it in my previous post so I wanted to make sure you understood that part completely.

So, let's go to a multiplayer online game and constantly (because this pops up by the same handful of players every few weeks or so and they tout that as "commercial viability" because the same 50 or so players want it) barrage them with
"We want PvE" because "all the other MW titles were PvE" and
"There was a youtube video a few years ago that showed a movie that may or may not have been PvE related by another developer" and
"The engine they're using makes it possible so they should do it" and
"I'm not fond of PvP gameplay" and
"Me and the other 50 or so players would pay some money for it" (which equates to a few hundred bucks, yea that's commercially viable for a multi-million dollar project that hasn't even finished the multiplayer aspects yet)

That just about sums up every single "point" you made in your posts. That's EXACTLY what's happening in this thread and every time this thread pops up.

So, now hang with me bro, this is the part you seem to be missing...

The devs have stated (almost as many times as this thread has popped up) no PvE is in the works nor will it. It MIGHT be looked at years down the road because this is....... wait for it..... I want this to sink in....

A MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME THAT CONTAINS NO PVE (reread that if you need to, I can use google translate if you need it supplemented in different languages but I'm not sure if there's a translate option for "derp"

What those of us not caring about PvE are saying is "Stop making duplicate threads every few weeks or so just so you can feel accomplished in saying "I want PvE".

I hear Mattel has a new game that might be more your speed though. Barbie: Call of Beauty. It's all slap fights and dress up in a PvE house with working kitchen. You can feel free to make me a sandwich while you're at it

Ok denseness has dominated this interaction.

This is a discussion on a hypathetical possibility of PvE. It's essentially a wish list.

In no way am I or from what I gathered anyone else suggesting PvE replace PvP.

I personaly see the introduction of PvE ellements a boon for PvP training and as a means of easing in new players.
I see PvE content as a viable product that would bring in profits.Profits = longevity for an online game.

I would like to see PvE content added as an additional feature seperate from the PvP with no direct impact on CW and offering no combat enhancing equipment that is not available from PvP.

PvE awards should be limited to C-Bills,XP (no GXP) and cosmetics like cockpit deco and paint jobs.

I would also not expect or want PvE content to take priority over the current development cycle.

This means I am NOT advocating pushing PvE content ahead of ANY of the current PvP related mechanics.

I am in no way suggesting or saying that any current or future PvP content should be removed or discarded.I am not suggesting anything is to be taken away from you.I am agree that that PvE would be a good addition for a number of reasons.

Eventually it would be nice to have PvE content for a number of reasons and many of those reasons apply directly towards enhancing PvP play.

The way you are railing against this idea one would think I was demanding that you pay for it personaly with the expectation that pve would replace pvp.

Or are you just one of those arguing for the sake of arguing types who really doesn't care about the content of the post you just assume and resume ranting?

Edited by Lykaon, 14 December 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Daemir]

Tombstoner, on 14 December 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

What theses people are forgetting and is the basis for my comments on AI. This is supposed to be a pure skill based games.
as soon as you add an AI to this game the disparity in skill level is like me playing MW4 against my 3 year old cousin.

Game developers need to handy cap AI's just to make it fun for humans. Assume now that MWO has PVE. go ahead and tune it for the player base. if you don't get it right your just hitting a loot sack or crushing your players in seconds. its too much work. possible yes worth it .... not at this time... PVP more important.

What people in this thread have missed is there chances at winning is not because they're skillful players, its because the AI has been handy caped to give them a chance at winning.... basically a dice roll.

AI's = a RNG chance to win - how satisfying not
RNG runs contrary to PGI paradigm of player skill determining winning or loosing.
So no PGI will not ever have PVE missions until PVP is finished.

In fact PVP AI turrets will most likely be mg or streaks. anything larger and you need to handy cap the AI

No, this still doesn't have anything to do with the suggestion of ADDING pve elements to the game, like missions where you, a single solo player, drop vs an AI controlled mission. How in the bloody golden plated Daishi does that have anything to do with PvP part of the game and "pure skill based game"? What? You can add an AI to pve missions and handicap it so it doesn't score 100% headshots, they have all the stats from the game, they can tune the AI to have aim comparable to real players if they wish. All of that has 0 bearing to the pvp part of the game so I don't really understand why they could not implement AI and PvE into the game, other than their own incompetence maybe...

[MustrumRidcully]

cSand, on 13 December 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

You should take a 2nd look at the name of the game too

Mechwarrior...

wait for it...











Online

Cooperative PvE. It exists. It was a ton of fun in Mass Effect 3 online component.


But at the pace that PGI si developing content, it can never happen. Designing a mission editor would probably take a lot more effort than building UI 2.0.

But I think that's also the reason MW:O is PvP from the start - no one was willing to invest into Battletech to be able to afford a team of developers and designers that could make a game with missions and possibly cut scenes.
It's a bad sad that the property doesn't have more appeal apparently.

[Lyoto Machida]

Lykaon, on 13 December 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

You do know that THIS game is not the ONLY game using cryengine right?

Also did you know the initial plan for this mechwarrior game was a pve game set in the Succession wars and it was later decided to run an online pvp game? I believe the initial developer was Brook&Tinker the trailer is still floating around so check youtube.

Cryengine is the engine this game is running and it has been used for PvE so it can be done.

My point in pointing out previous MW titles is it is absolutley possible to do since it was done over ten years ago with significantly less advanced engines.

And CW was done 20 years ago with SIGNIFCANTLY less advanced engines...what's PGI's excuse?

[DeadlyFred]

PvP tends to actually be much, much more boring and redundant to me than any AI botshoot. Why? human players will inevitably always gravitate to the "best" gameplay options, leaving a metagame which is dominated by said gameplay options and completely ignoring 90% else of the rest of it. I'd much rather kick back and ice some AI, for the simple reason that you don't have to worry about going tryhard mode every game you fire up if you don't want to die in five seconds.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Hythos, on 13 December 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I have no recommendations on how to make this any better, considering any hint of PvE came as a "not in our lifetime" condition. I would LOVE to see PvE in some form. I would love to see CW. Single-player may have some use.

I do enjoy the *idea* of playing MWO, but no longer wish to play as-is for a multitude of reasons.

Indeed...the game is getting boring w/out CW's.
I would never want a single player mode with CW's in the game, but being we may not see it for a long time I would actually be interested in a single player in the meantime.
Of course if they were to work on such a thing then it potentially take even longer before we got CW's.

***Edited for addition.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 14 December 2013 - 11:29 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Erish II, on 14 December 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

No, this still doesn't have anything to do with the suggestion of ADDING pve elements to the game, like missions where you, a single solo player, drop vs an AI controlled mission. How in the bloody golden plated Daishi does that have anything to do with PvP part of the game and "pure skill based game"? What? You can add an AI to pve missions and handicap it so it doesn't score 100% headshots, they have all the stats from the game, they can tune the AI to have aim comparable to real players if they wish. All of that has 0 bearing to the pvp part of the game so I don't really understand why they could not implement AI and PvE into the game, other than their own incompetence maybe...

how do you balance rewards? you need 2 separate reward systems. AI tuning will be a nightmare, by necessity it must then be care bear. your success will be determined by a dice roll not your skill. as it is most players will get trashed going 3 on 1 so how do you build a game PVE game without gutting the AI or giving lopsided encounters. PGI has the resources to make one kind of game. That's PVP. other wise you wind up making 2 different games with different needs.

PVE content will get staler faster then PVP. The AI will be scripted. mechs will be so week that one alpha can drop an atlas. there weapons when they hit will do nothing damage. so yea you can go 5-1 and win by yourself, but is that really what your after. a dumped down PVP opponent just like all the other MW games.

The game doesn't need PVE missions just more meaningful PVP content.
.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

We've been discussing the need for objective based scenario's, and dynamic content for as long as I've been on the boards.

You can't even have role warfare without these sorts of things.

Here is a tip...it's not happening.

If they can't even get UI2.0 and CW out in a timely manner, this stuff is just not happening.

The only thing PGI is good at developing is mechs. Their art department is amazing.

Everyone else is terrible. Not even "decent" or "average" or "bad", they are TERRIBLE.

[Crazy Billy Joe Bob]

Lykaon, on 13 December 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

OK sorry I didn't realize you were this dense.

So here it is spoon fed for the slow on the uptake.

This discussion is about PvE being implimented in MWo. (read this twice I'm sure it will sink in)

Cryengine is the engine being used by MWo. (still following?)

Cryengine has been successfully used to drive PvE games that make use of A.I.s opposing living players. (sinking in?)

It now stands to reason that the game developers do have the means to create A.I.s that are opposed by players. (this is PvE)

So,now hang in there as this seems to be the point you are missing.

IF there is sufficent profit projections it would merit possible developing a PvE element to be added (that's in addition to not replacing PvP) The engine does support it and game developers are capable of creating it (as sourced by previous MW titles that were PvE)

So what some posters have said was would this be cool or desired and I think there is profits to be made by developing PvE elements.Profits are what companies like more of that equals ore of this a win win.

I would pay to gain access to PvE content in additon to my PvP play.

Additional benefits for PvE would be an effective training tool for new players,a more "realistic" testing enviorment for new builds and if multi player is supported an excellent place to practice group manuvers under fire.

Get it now?

I think it's a good idea.

They could make content for PvE, like Raids or such, but I really doubt PGI has the talent to do it.

[Crazy Billy Joe Bob]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 December 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

We've been discussing the need for objective based scenario's, and dynamic content for as long as I've been on the boards.

You can't even have role warfare without these sorts of things.

Here is a tip...it's not happening.

If they can't even get UI2.0 and CW out in a timely manner, this stuff is just not happening.

The only thing PGI is good at developing is mechs. Their art department is amazing.

Everyone else is terrible. Not even "decent" or "average" or "bad", they are TERRIBLE.

Exactly. Frankly, I think PGI staff are a bunch of old stoners, that sit around the office smoking weed and listening to 8-track Grateful Dead music.

[Sandpit]

Honestly? One of the biggest problems I see? PGI are fanboys. I originally loved the idea that they were such fans of the IP. Now? Not so much.

The more I see and read, the more I think about it, the more I have come to realize something. Their mentalities and ideas on a lot of things are form a fan perspective. On the surface this sounds great. The problem comes in because you get a lot more bias on certain things. It also leads to the whole "I know something you don't know teehee" mentality as well as the "Well I'm a fan and I like this idea so everyone else will too" Unfortunately this is exactly what we get from a lot of "fans" on the forums. You see it all over the place. "My idea is better because I love the IP and know Btech better than the next guy does."

This has led to an extreme lack or professionalism on their part in a lot of areas, not the lease of which is PR and customer service (although support really does a pretty good job getting back to players from what I've seen and experienced een though most of the time it's the canned company line of "Known issue, will be fixed soon"). Any time the head of a multi-million dollar company tells a player "When you stop touching yourself" in response to a question about the implementation of a new game mode, it should be a red flag.

The heads of PGI are happy with the game play they have. They enjoy the game now. (Which I enjoy it as well for the most part) Thus we get this stagnation because instead of listening to the player base and community they would rather tell them they're on an island and not their target demographic. Those two statements should be the second and third red flag. The customer is always right (unless they're wrong) and even when they're not right, you should, as the head of a multi-million dollar company, be able to maintain your professionalism when dealing with disgruntled and even belligerent customers. The fact that they can't says a lot to me.

Then you throw on top of that their own personal fan boy views and you really have a company that seems to have this mentality that it's "their" game. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that every day that passes another long-term customer is closing their wallets due to the lack of actual progress being made. At this point it doesn't matter how much progress is being made "behind the scenes" because the perception is that there is no progress and hasn't been other than content they can make money on.

On top of this you seem to have captains at the helm that just don't understand business or running a business I should say. PGI (Russ), this isn't "your" game. This is a commercial product designed for public consumption and right now your public is very dissatisfied with your product, or lack thereof. I think the best thing they could really do is dig into THEIR pocket books and hire a pr/marketing guy and an actual business manager. They are too close to the actual game at this point to see beyond their own opinions at this point I think. They need someone or something that forces them to step outside the box a bit and relieve some of their designer fatigue.

[Daemir]

Tombstoner, on 15 December 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

how do you balance rewards? you need 2 separate reward systems. AI tuning will be a nightmare, by necessity it must then be care bear. your success will be determined by a dice roll not your skill. as it is most players will get trashed going 3 on 1 so how do you build a game PVE game without gutting the AI or giving lopsided encounters. PGI has the resources to make one kind of game. That's PVP. other wise you wind up making 2 different games with different needs.

PVE content will get staler faster then PVP. The AI will be scripted. mechs will be so week that one alpha can drop an atlas. there weapons when they hit will do nothing damage. so yea you can go 5-1 and win by yourself, but is that really what your after. a dumped down PVP opponent just like all the other MW games.

The game doesn't need PVE missions just more meaningful PVP content.
.

Okay, first of all, this is all just throwing out ideas and wishes, it's not something that I think "THEY MUST DO NOW OR ELSE". Let's get that out of the way since you seem unable to grasp that idea.

Next, show me any, I mean ANY, single player game, where the AI is not being purposely gimped and scenarios made lopsided so the player has the upper hand. I mean, that is the whole ******* point of single player games. You can be challenged, but every mission and scenario is designed to make the player win! Thing is though, a lot of people enjoyed playing the previous MW campaigns for the story and whatever else included in them, that does not also mean they didn't possibly enjoy playing multiplayer.

You sparked this out of some ******** view that they can't make an AI because they'd hit every shot and if they were coded not to, what's the point? Well, you tell me, what is the point of any single player game in existence then? I do think those are the ones that still have sold the most games in the world.

[Tombstoner]

Erish II, on 16 December 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Okay, first of all, this is all just throwing out ideas and wishes, it's not something that I think "THEY MUST DO NOW OR ELSE". Let's get that out of the way since you seem unable to grasp that idea.

Next, show me any, I mean ANY, single player game, where the AI is not being purposely gimped and scenarios made lopsided so the player has the upper hand. I mean, that is the whole ******* point of single player games. You can be challenged, but every mission and scenario is designed to make the player win! Thing is though, a lot of people enjoyed playing the previous MW campaigns for the story and whatever else included in them, that does not also mean they didn't possibly enjoy playing multiplayer.

You sparked this out of some ******** view that they can't make an AI because they'd hit every shot and if they were coded not to, what's the point? Well, you tell me, what is the point of any single player game in existence then? I do think those are the ones that still have sold the most games in the world.

Solitaire - spider - mine sweeper - since they only have one player.

A single player game in your example is really a single human player with multiple AI substitutes - Poker, tick tac toe. chess and others. you can build an AI for just about any game. would PVE be a nice to have for MWO - sure, its what i wanted in the first place.

"what is the point of any single player game in existence?" The point is to provide a "customized" experience for the individual player. Thats the key point, customized. i call it dumbed down.

The skill level of the customer base for chess is huge and why it needs many different AI settings. Computers are now capable of beating grand masters at chess. novice kicks my but.

PVE content doesn't mesh with PVP games very well. what your asking for is a watered down version of CW. humans cant go 1-1 with a well built FPS AI that lacks handicaps unless the game has COF built into it.

PVE becomes - do i win... lets see.... roles dice.... YES!!!! is it fun. it can be if the illusion of challenge is well crafted.

MWO can't have an AI because its a skill based game and an AI has extreme levels of skill for targeting, but {Scrap} for tactics and strategy. It's a game design paradigm that PGI considers anathema, not imposable. its also why you wont see PVE content until PVP is finished.

My point is why do it at all. PVE is a completely different game with completely different needs. A balanced AI = RNG for the win.

[MustrumRidcully]

I don't get the obsession with RNG. You don't need RNG to have an AI that players can beat. YOu can give it less hit points less firepower. You can make it miss every 4th shot like clock-work.

I don't think the AI in Startrek Online is so easily overpowered because they use RNG: It is is bad because it has only 1/6th of the players active abilities and the abilities it has aren't always useful. And if you raise the difficulty level, the only thnig that changes is that it deals more damage and has more hit points.

A well made challenging PvE game is basically a form of a puzzle. There are solution strategies and your "challenge" is to learn them. Look at MMO Boss fights. "Okay, when the boss' hit points are down to 2/3, this triggers its massive area attack, and it targets the highest aggro target with additional damage and a push effect. The Tanks need to activate their CC counters abilities, the healers need to ready their heals and identify the likely target, and everyone should get out of the AOE. Afterwards, it reflects 50 % of all green damage, so switch to your blue and red damage powers if you can, but remember, when it takes at least 5,000 blue or red damage, it will switch to that type of damage, so have your resistances in order and look for the signal - the pulses of its aura will increase in frequency shortly before this happens. At 1/3 hit points it summons healing spirits, crowd control must look out for those and keep them away or the boss heals all that damage and we're back to 2/3 hit points. *to be continued* "

You often also have a set of trash mobs and "easy" encounters that don't require much strategy, as a filler (both for pure grindig purposes and also to just make you feel awesome because you just roflstomped the AI), and then you get to the more hardcore encounters.


* A Battletech "Boss Fight" could depend on timing and positioning - if you need to defend a convoy, you must learn when the enemies attack from which direction and be there in time - you also must be good at dispatching the enemy, because if you're still fighting the North but the South attackers are arriving, your convoy is unprotected. It could also become easier if you manage to send someone stealthy to dispatch the enemies mobile HQ which will delay reeinforcements. And if you can save an allied village nearby, you will have additional infantry and vehicle reeinforcements that can deflect attacks from your convoy.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 16 December 2013 - 09:53 AM.