245 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

Fact is I dont consider pvp to be pvp, I consider it really tough PVE. Mechwarrior adding PVE is exciting to me because it may bring story elements and character elements like npcs to the game.

The single biggest thing this game is missing is NPC's. They made a big deal recently that Star Citizen got its first NPC in their tutorial. I cant wait for Mechwarrior to add npc's character and story and setting and plot.

PVE is the single biggest thing this game is missing by a long shot because it is the basics of any game ever made or movie or book.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 July 2015 - 05:10 PM.

[Imperius]

XX Sulla XX, on 11 July 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

I would not mind a delay in CW if updates if it would get PVE and tutorials sooner.

Comes out in October I belive

[InspectorG]

XX Sulla XX, on 11 July 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

Well if PVE works well it would bring an influx of players to the game. Many would move on to PVP. Also new resources for PVE overlap with PVP so both could get better.

Yeah, thats why i think it may be the way to go.

[Linkin]

Co-op, I long for thee! Some good posts in here. Don't get me wrong, I love my pvp, but co-op pve is huge fun as well, sometimes more so, and also friendly on new players and those burned out on pvp. Options are good.

[Mystere]

Linkin, on 11 July 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

Co-op, I long for thee! Some good posts in here. Don't get me wrong, I love my pvp, but co-op pve is huge fun as well, sometimes more so, and also friendly on new players and those burned out on pvp. Options are good.

Options are indeed good. But, constantly changing priorities are very much not.

Edited by Mystere, 11 July 2015 - 09:42 PM.

[therealswilly]

I actually would like to see a mixture of PvE and PvP.

I suggested this before, but I Ace Combat Assault Horizon has a versus mode where one team escorts a ground force from the air while the other team has to defend and destroy the attacking force.

It might give mechs with machineguns and other weapons an actual point to existence as they'd focus on destroying the ground targets and such and more points should be given for attacking ground forces and not mechs.

[Raggedyman]

XX Sulla XX, on 11 July 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:

I believe now that the best way to ensure the future of MWO is a very very strong PVE (Player versus environment). element to the game. I say this while having almost zero interest in PVE myself. And I think every one should get behind this no matter of you care about using it or not. And even if it would slow down some CW or other elements of the game.

PVE content in an MMO has an incredibly low return on investment, both in terms of "time played vs time developed" and actual money returned. If you are talking about a freemium situation then you have the added problem of convincing people to spent $60 on a chunk of set plot that they can play once for rewards for maybe 15 hours (standard gameplay for a networked game) and of getting the community to accept some folks paying to get rewards (even if only visual) whilst also complaining that the content should be free and that it's detracting from the PVP content that they have originally paid for.

There are balances you can put in, like smaller episodic content for less cost per "chapter", but they still not getting around the core problem of it being expensive to produce compared to the PVP elements.

Now, I want PVE. I absolutely definitely want to see it.
But I also know the problems associated with making it (plots, scripts, new game assets, maybe voice actors and video directors, basically a whole new sub-team that has to work around the core products release schedule), so I can't see it "saving the game" in and of itself. It could possibly pay for itself in the long run, but it would be a hell of an investment gamble.

[TWIAFU]

XX Sulla XX, on 11 July 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

5. It does work with number 2. Here is why. This game takes money. It needs to sell mechs etc to keep the game alive. If people play the game who would only play PVE then that add money for the entire game. They buy starter packs. They buy mech collections. They buy camo. They tell there friends how much they like PVE in MWO. They make websites about Mechwarrior etc. The PVE people help the game even if they never play one game of PVP.

It is the answer if done right. Yes you do not want them to neglect PVP. But this game needs PVE to attract more casual players and keep them.

So, you want new players/casuals to play the PvE part to get ready for PvP, so this is an enhanced training campaign. Good.

But you want them to pay for it, PvE, and to play in PvE they have to buy mechs. Now they have training mission and a mech to play it in. Great. Once they are done paying for PvE and the mech to play it in and find out PvE is only training for PvP, they leave. Unless you think they will buy more mechs to re run training, buy camo to re run training, cockpit BS to re run training. Tell their friends after you train for PvP in PvE, there is not more PvE.

What is your solution when PvE starts to complain there are no real PvE missions and all development on MWO has to stop to support PvE only? Not like we have similar situation now.

What people what with PvE in MWO, honestly, is single player MW5.

PvE as an afterthought and not something developed from the start as part of the game just will not work unless MWO is re-done from scratch. Comprehensive training would, but only after AI is done. Then re-done because AI will be to smart or to dumb for some.

I want a larger playerbase but a playerbase that is going to play with each other and not play a solo player campaign.

XX Sulla XX, on 11 July 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Problem is it is wrong. PVE is what is missing. CW will always be unfair to new players. It will always not be the gaming experience hard core PVE people want. It can be made much better but its not the main problem.

If people are looking for a hardcore PvE experience then they should go play a PvE game instead of changing a PvP game into a PvE one.

You want to scrap MWO and make MW5.

[SmoothCriminal]

I reckon a titanfall-esque addition of PvE would be optimal. No idea about how hard that be to implement however.

[Imperius]

therealswilly, on 11 July 2015 - 09:55 PM, said:

I actually would like to see a mixture of PvE and PvP.

I suggested this before, but I Ace Combat Assault Horizon has a versus mode where one team escorts a ground force from the air while the other team has to defend and destroy the attacking force.

It might give mechs with machineguns and other weapons an actual point to existence as they'd focus on destroying the ground targets and such and more points should be given for attacking ground forces and not mechs.

Part of what would be CW part 4 would be adding in ai controlled units like tanks, infantry, and VTOLS. Those assets would make CW feel more alive, and if the maps are created right a portion of the map used for certain single player battles could be used for CW.

Honestly it's a win win and anyone saying oh but mah pvp... Sorry it's been 3 years nothing they do will be as refreshing useful or be able to generate revenue better than PVE.

You can't sell maps, missions, or many things in pvp. You can in PVE and pvp will only benefit from all the asset creation.

[Satan n stuff]

TWIAFU, on 11 July 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

1. If the point to PvE was to teach people how to play the game in prep for Solo, Group, and CW. Yes, great idea.
PvE and PvP are fundamentally different and neither one can properly prepare you for the other, they can only teach basic skills that are needed for both.

2. Will get back to.
PvE players will still need mechs, so they will buy mech packs.

3. Elitist. Great way to alienate the new players you want to play by telling them Mechs they may like to play are substandard.
I've never played a game where PvE optimal builds were viable PvP builds or the other way around.

4. So long as it is part of #1, great idea!
PGI did recently announce that they are working on the lore, no reason it can't be done in PvP and PvE

5. Does not work with #2. What is the point to a larger playerbase if they are never going to play against another human?
Most players are not going to stick with just one or the other.

[Konphujun]

I would play PvE or matches vs AI alllllll the time. Sometimes I don't wanna be meta or trying hard. At this point, even regular drpos vs AI would be gold to me. Even if it was a paid mode (Disclaimer: I am not saying it should be), I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Basically I wanna be mech jesus in my own little playground and not be interrupted by real people.

[Thorn Hallis]

While I tend to agree, I expect MWO-PvE to be nothing more then Testing Grounds with CoOp.

Edited by Thorn Hallis, 12 July 2015 - 05:30 AM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Raggedyman, on 12 July 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

PVE content in an MMO has an incredibly low return on investment, both in terms of "time played vs time developed" and actual money returned. If you are talking about a freemium situation then you have the added problem of convincing people to spent $60 on a chunk of set plot that they can play once for rewards for maybe 15 hours (standard gameplay for a networked game) and of getting the community to accept some folks paying to get rewards (even if only visual) whilst also complaining that the content should be free and that it's detracting from the PVP content that they have originally paid for.

There are balances you can put in, like smaller episodic content for less cost per "chapter", but they still not getting around the core problem of it being expensive to produce compared to the PVP elements.

Now, I want PVE. I absolutely definitely want to see it.
But I also know the problems associated with making it (plots, scripts, new game assets, maybe voice actors and video directors, basically a whole new sub-team that has to work around the core products release schedule), so I can't see it "saving the game" in and of itself. It could possibly pay for itself in the long run, but it would be a hell of an investment gamble.

Well the one thing that I think will make it pay for itself is in keeping new players. It gives them a chance to figure out the game before trying out PVP.

[XX Sulla XX]

TWIAFU, on 12 July 2015 - 02:42 AM, said:

So, you want new players/casuals to play the PvE part to get ready for PvP, so this is an enhanced training campaign. Good.

But you want them to pay for it, PvE, and to play in PvE they have to buy mechs. Now they have training mission and a mech to play it in. Great. Once they are done paying for PvE and the mech to play it in and find out PvE is only training for PvP, they leave. Unless you think they will buy more mechs to re run training, buy camo to re run training, cockpit BS to re run training. Tell their friends after you train for PvP in PvE, there is not more PvE.

What is your solution when PvE starts to complain there are no real PvE missions and all development on MWO has to stop to support PvE only? Not like we have similar situation now.

What people what with PvE in MWO, honestly, is single player MW5.

PvE as an afterthought and not something developed from the start as part of the game just will not work unless MWO is re-done from scratch. Comprehensive training would, but only after AI is done. Then re-done because AI will be to smart or to dumb for some.

I want a larger playerbase but a playerbase that is going to play with each other and not play a solo player campaign.



If people are looking for a hardcore PvE experience then they should go play a PvE game instead of changing a PvP game into a PvE one.

You want to scrap MWO and make MW5.

No I was not thinking they pay for PVE as such. But that it gives them a place to run mechs if they choose to buy them. As for making it an indepth PVE that is a full game in itself they would just have to see if there is a way to do it that makes sense.

[Karamarka]

LordKnightFandragon, on 11 July 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

Guess 1st step would be to find out why people like yourself care nothing for it.

So, why do you not like PVE?

because players are more dynamic, more difficult and unscripted.

PVE, will probably be "repeat the missions" over and over to farm cbills or something. It has to be really dynamic, like Il-2 sturmovik 1946 dynamic campaigns.

[Imperius]

Karamarka, on 12 July 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

because players are more dynamic, more difficult and unscripted.

PVE, will probably be "repeat the missions" over and over to farm cbills or something. It has to be really dynamic, like Il-2 sturmovik 1946 dynamic campaigns.

First I will point this out if you vs AI the mech will always shoot you out of cover, the AI will not overheat, the AI could never miss if they so decided, the AI would perform better than most the random pigs I come across.

Cbills shouldn't be allowed to be made in campaign unless they are separate from pvp chills. New players should be encouraged to play through the campaign to learn. Once the campaign is complete you should receive the choice of 4 regular cbill mechs 1 per weight class and 10 million to outfit them. This would be the best transition from PVE to pvp granted the PVE was done well enough to train them yet be fun and rich in story and lore.

[Coolant]

Agree with OP 100%...I just hope PVE has replay value if you finish it, whether that be a campaign or something else.

[Sjorpha]

If this goes as I hope it will, there will be a free tutorial and Custom PVE quick matches will replace the training grounds. I'd like the training grounds to be like the custom quick matches in MW2 mercenaries where you could pick what mechs to fight against.

And after that there will be larger single player campaigns released that you buy if you want them, I think that would be a great new source of revenue for the game.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Karamarka, on 12 July 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

because players are more dynamic, more difficult and unscripted.

PVE, will probably be "repeat the missions" over and over to farm cbills or something. It has to be really dynamic, like Il-2 sturmovik 1946 dynamic campaigns.

And yet, here we are with wash, rinse, repeat, mechs, builds, approach paths on maps and all that. Honestly, players seem no more dynamic then AI.

I played a Dynamic Campaign in IL2 around Iwo in a F4U1C for a large number of missions, had 46 kills or so. It really was alot of the exact same, fly in, shoot some zeros, return to carrier. BUt holy crap is that game fun.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 12 July 2015 - 09:29 AM.