245 replies to this topic

[TercieI]

That's a lot of pressure for our little 6-man unit.

[Raggedyman]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 July 2015 - 05:57 AM, said:

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.

Quesiton: do you mean a couple of training mission intro to the mechanics of MWO or an actual content driven PVE campaign?

If you are talking about a training mission/s as intro to the game then I agree that it would be a brilliant addition and would definitely help new players with the steep technical learning curve.

If you are thinking of something longer or more in-depth (ie a classic campaign scenario) than that then you run the danger of it actually being counter productive, as players end up developing a sense of false-mastery of the game against bots to then be thrown into PVP with a set of training false reflexes/assumptions on how the game operates and end up getting real pissed off that all the tricks they learnt in the campaign aren't working in the "proper game". You also have to balance out the rewards carefully, because if you give people loads of goodies in the campaign (as per previous MW campaigns where you end up in the 100 ton mechs at the end) and then take them away once they hit "the real game" that will further annoy the pants off of them.

[Imperius]

Raggedyman, on 12 July 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

Quesiton: do you mean a couple of training mission intro to the mechanics of MWO or an actual content driven PVE campaign?

If you are talking about a training mission/s as intro to the game then I agree that it would be a brilliant addition and would definitely help new players with the steep technical learning curve.

If you are thinking of something longer or more in-depth (ie a classic campaign scenario) than that then you run the danger of it actually being counter productive, as players end up developing a sense of false-mastery of the game against bots to then be thrown into PVP with a set of training false reflexes/assumptions on how the game operates and end up getting real pissed off that all the tricks they learnt in the campaign aren't working in the "proper game". You also have to balance out the rewards carefully, because if you give people loads of goodies in the campaign (as per previous MW campaigns where you end up in the 100 ton mechs at the end) and then take them away once they hit "the real game" that will further annoy the pants off of them.

You people need to educate yourself all this has been discussed in the recent town hall... A new PVE type training thing is coming out before this game goes to steam. PVE is going to be worked on till 2016 Summer roughly CW 4 will be added after that I'm sure assets from PVE will be part of CW mod 4

Edited by Imperius, 12 July 2015 - 12:16 PM.

[TheArisen]

Kassatsu, on 11 July 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:

Tutorial/training should be free (with one-time rewards, but infinitely replayable).

Campaigns should be multi-mission contracts you can accept by putting up the contract fee, all of the different houses should have campaigns available. (and clans because we've already got mercenaries joining clans for CW so that part of lore is already out the window - perhaps give bonus rewards if you've taken a CW contract for a clan/house, but don't force the player to take one to accept a pve mission). Upon completion, you get paid the contract reward amount, if you fail or the time limit expires (generally 24 hours or even a week, not something silly like 4 missions in 40 minutes), your fee is forfeit and you only get the reward from the individual missions you've completed. A daily/weekly limit on contracts should be in place, though the limit should increase with premium accounts, and can be bypassed altogether with MC on a per-contract basis (what would be the amount for this? 15? 60? I'm thinking 10-20 per mission, so the actual MC fee would be different based on how many missions it has).

There should also be two types of contracts: daily, and weekly. Weekly has a longer time limit, more missions and far better rewards, but you can only attempt these once a week. Daily is just that: 24 hour time limit, maybe 3-4 missions each and less rewards. More than one daily should be available per faction as well. Possibly getting faction camo/color/cockpit rewards from weekly contracts would be a neat addition.

*ALWAYS* have a 'free' mode available that has randomly generated missions and rewards (simple things like 2 medium lasers and 60k c-bills, have varying rarities for the rewards so you just might rarely be able to pick up a free AC20 or something from a randomly generated mission). Pay a small fee to accept the random mission, these are not faction specific and have no connection to anything (like the PvP modes), they're just there to grind endlessly for an admittedly smaller amount of income than PvP. Maybe force public groups if you're not a premium player? Premium should have some type of incentive beyond "get more shinies!". That goes for PvP as well.

Some missions should require specific mech chassis (from ones you own - If a mission needs one you don't have, and it's not provided to you by the mission, it simply won't show up in the list). Some should provide the required mechs (for that one mission of course). Others should have weight restrictions, and some would be totally free, perhaps have a 'recommended' weight class where going above it has no effect, and going below gives a small bonus to the rewards.

Also, a community mission editor would be amazing, and practically required if you REALLY want to add more replay value for literally no cost whatsoever (aside from the initial investment in the toolset). Have the devs pick a weekly regular, and weekly premium mission from the community. Regular missions give some small amount of c-bills to the maker for every time somebody completes it successfully, premium missions would give 5 MC (it would cost say 15 to start it) and some c-bills. Throw some GXP in there for both just for the hell of it. Heck, maybe even require premium time on your account at the time the selection is made for your mission to be considered for the premium weekly mission.

The tutorial mini campaign would of course, be free.

[aniviron]

I'm not going to come down on one side or another of PvE or CW development- obviously we can only have one, and I want both but haven't got the necessary info to make the right decision.

With that said, here's some food for thought on why adding AI support could strengthen the game immensely: most players never play online, even in games that are meant primarily as multiplayer games. Anecdotally, we know that this is true because CoD and Battlefield etc keep adding perfunctory single player campaigns onto games that are clearly all about the multiplayer. Moreover, whenever companies release data on this sort of thing, it always shows that most people prefer to play against bots instead of people. Take for example, Unreal Tournament 2004- it's a game that is entirely multiplayer and doesn't even attempt to advertise itself otherwise. The "single player" is just a series of random map matches against bots. A while back, Epic Games released stats reporting that more than half of all CD keys that had launched the game at least once and been activated with their servers had never played even one multiplayer game, instead choosing to fight exclusively against bots.

The data seem to indicate that even if players who eschew multiplayer aren't terribly vocal on the forums, they certainly exist in droves, and have the potential to drive significant amounts of game sales. The downside of course is that people who are only interested in PvE aren't likely to use that as a gateway to start hopping into CW matches any time soon.

[CocoaJin]

PvE in the firm of a single player campaign is not the future. PvE content is non-sustainable...community consumption will severly outpace content production...leaving PvE consumers with nothing to do for large stretches between content release. That's not to say PvE doesn't have a place, but it's ultimate goal shouldn't be a single player storyline on rails...it needs to be part of an integrated mission system for CW. PvE in the form of logistics based supply interdiction and protection, random patrols and encounters to give life to a sterile universe. PvE with PvP potential, where engaging in a supply interdiction mission against AI convoys, could result in an encounter with other players on an escort/patrol mission for the same supply line or convoy.

PvP is the future since the players provide their own content/challenge, providing dynamic play and experience. PvP, when done right and built into a goal/objective environment, creates a much stronger intrinsic motivation to participate...a motivation that is much more sustainable between content releases.

The failings of CW currently, is due to its lack of fluid participation, a lack of tangible achievement between matches and overly rigid matches style engagements...basically, it's not Planetside2-like in its mechanics.

[Sjorpha]

CocoaJin, on 12 July 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

PvE in the firm of a single player campaign is not the future. PvE content is non-sustainable...community consumption will severly outpace content production...leaving PvE consumers with nothing to do for large stretches between content release.

There are a lot of people who just buy a game, play it once or twice and then are done with it. Essentially like watching a movie. That is the basis of all linear story driven single player games ever, and many of them have made huge profits.

If there is a market for single player story driven campaigns for MWO that PGI can make some money off while providing a few hours of entertainment, then why not do that? It doesn't have to be "the future", it just has to be a product enough people wants to buy.

I do agree on a personal level, I'd like what you are describing a lot more myself. But the fact is that the market for single player linear story games is frickin huge, it would be dumb for PGI to not tap into it while having the IP.

[CocoaJin]

Sjorpha, on 12 July 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

There are a lot of people who just buy a game, play it once or twice and then are done with it. Essentially like watching a movie. That is the basis of all linear story driven single player games ever, and many of them have made huge profits.

If there is a market for single player story driven campaigns for MWO that PGI can make some money off while providing a few hours of entertainment, then why not do that? It doesn't have to be "the future", it just has to be a product enough people wants to buy.

I do agree on a personal level, I'd like what you are describing a lot more myself. But the fact is that the market for single player linear story games is frickin huge, it would be dumb for PGI to not tap into it while having the IP.

But that's a different game. Ideally, such a game is what the other developer PGI has opened a relationship with will put resources to. PGI needs focus on fiding away to make CW more inviting and worthwhile as I described above.

[XX Sulla XX]

Raggedyman, on 12 July 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

Quesiton: do you mean a couple of training mission intro to the mechanics of MWO or an actual content driven PVE campaign?

If you are talking about a training mission/s as intro to the game then I agree that it would be a brilliant addition and would definitely help new players with the steep technical learning curve.

If you are thinking of something longer or more in-depth (ie a classic campaign scenario) than that then you run the danger of it actually being counter productive, as players end up developing a sense of false-mastery of the game against bots to then be thrown into PVP with a set of training false reflexes/assumptions on how the game operates and end up getting real pissed off that all the tricks they learnt in the campaign aren't working in the "proper game". You also have to balance out the rewards carefully, because if you give people loads of goodies in the campaign (as per previous MW campaigns where you end up in the 100 ton mechs at the end) and then take them away once they hit "the real game" that will further annoy the pants off of them.

Well the trick would be to design it correctly. Part of that is making clear PVE is never going to be the same as PVP.

Imperius, on 12 July 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

You people need to educate yourself all this has been discussed in the recent town hall... A new PVE type training thing is coming out before this game goes to steam. PVE is going to be worked on till 2016 Summer roughly CW 4 will be added after that I'm sure assets from PVE will be part of CW mod 4

Clearly you need to educate yourself on what I said. For example I listened to that town hall live.

CocoaJin, on 12 July 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

PvE in the firm of a single player campaign is not the future. PvE content is non-sustainable...community consumption will severly outpace content production...leaving PvE consumers with nothing to do for large stretches between content release. That's not to say PvE doesn't have a place, but it's ultimate goal shouldn't be a single player storyline on rails...it needs to be part of an integrated mission system for CW. PvE in the form of logistics based supply interdiction and protection, random patrols and encounters to give life to a sterile universe. PvE with PvP potential, where engaging in a supply interdiction mission against AI convoys, could result in an encounter with other players on an escort/patrol mission for the same supply line or convoy.

PvP is the future since the players provide their own content/challenge, providing dynamic play and experience. PvP, when done right and built into a goal/objective environment, creates a much stronger intrinsic motivation to participate...a motivation that is much more sustainable between content releases.

The failings of CW currently, is due to its lack of fluid participation, a lack of tangible achievement between matches and overly rigid matches style engagements...basically, it's not Planetside2-like in its mechanics.

There are lots of ways to do it. For example have it so groups of people can drop against random skilled bots on current game modes and maps. Then they can practice with new people and play mechs that are not really viable etc. But of course this game mode would have to limit cbill earnings and have PVP have higher Cbill earnings.

[Armored Yokai]

the only thing i am worried about on PVE is that instant turret aimbot
as most turrets would go for just legs

[XX Sulla XX]

CocoaJin, on 12 July 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

But that's a different game. Ideally, such a game is what the other developer PGI has opened a relationship with will put resources to. PGI needs focus on fiding away to make CW more inviting and worthwhile as I described above.

CW will never be something that is best for new players, casual players or people that like PVE. We need a way to get and retain those people in the game.

Armored Yokai, on 12 July 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

the only thing i am worried about on PVE is that instant turret aimbot
as most turrets would go for just legs

Sure it would need to be well designed.

[Imperius]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 July 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

CW will never be something that is best for new players, casual players or people that like PVE. We need a way to get and retain those people in the game.


Sure it would need to be well designed.

Who said that was directed toward you?

[Linkin]

Mystere, on 11 July 2015 - 09:42 PM, said:

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

Quite true. This is perhaps asking a lot given the percieved development capabilities. I guess I am just impatient after being around awhile. Id be happy and more patient if there was a better CW, but now I digress.

[CocoaJin]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 July 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

CW will never be something that is best for new players, casual players or people that like PVE. We need a way to get and retain those people in the game.

That's what PuG matches are for. It already has new players and freedom to explore non-comp builds. Private matches allow for it too. Plus, having them sequestered off in some PvE la-la land of weak builds and hand holding isn't retention unless we put them into general population. They provide no value to the community unless they are filling queues and spending money/c- bills to stay relevant with the redt of us.

PvE needs to be either an entry level nursery to ultimately release them into the wild and an advance/veteran content that injects you into the conflict of CW, which would include the possibility of PvP.

[LordKnightFandragon]

CocoaJin, on 12 July 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

PvE in the firm of a single player campaign is not the future. PvE content is non-sustainable...community consumption will severly outpace content production...leaving PvE consumers with nothing to do for large stretches between content release. That's not to say PvE doesn't have a place, but it's ultimate goal shouldn't be a single player storyline on rails...it needs to be part of an integrated mission system for CW. PvE in the form of logistics based supply interdiction and protection, random patrols and encounters to give life to a sterile universe. PvE with PvP potential, where engaging in a supply interdiction mission against AI convoys, could result in an encounter with other players on an escort/patrol mission for the same supply line or convoy.

PvP is the future since the players provide their own content/challenge, providing dynamic play and experience. PvP, when done right and built into a goal/objective environment, creates a much stronger intrinsic motivation to participate...a motivation that is much more sustainable between content releases.

The failings of CW currently, is due to its lack of fluid participation, a lack of tangible achievement between matches and overly rigid matches style engagements...basically, it's not Planetside2-like in its mechanics.

Lol, how many times have players run t he exact same PVE missions in games and had fun with it?

Also, idk why people think PVP is so much less repetitive then any PVE game. I see the same mechs, same builds, same approaches and basically almost every PVP game is just a bout as cookie cutter and the same as any PVE that its almost more boring, esp given the fact that PVP games last like 2 minute and are a 12-3 wipe either way all the time. No time to even play the game.

Atleast a repetitive PVE game the game lasts such that there is actual playtime involved.

[Greenjulius]

PvE is my most wanted addition. Even if we could start out simple, like tanks and aircraft in normal maps, that would be a huge step in the right direction. We could add missions, perhaps a campaign...

I would definitely buy a campaign.

[Raggedyman]

Imperius, on 12 July 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

You people need to educate yourself all this has been discussed in the recent town hall... A new PVE type training thing is coming out before this game goes to steam. PVE is going to be worked on till 2016 Summer roughly CW 4 will be added after that I'm sure assets from PVE will be part of CW mod 4

I am aware of what has been discussed in the town hall's and what is in the pipeline for the game.

Seeking clarification from person A about their comment on a topic does not mean ignorance of what person B has said about the topic. It means that clarification is being sought over what person A said.

Reading the thread of my and XX Sulla XX's discussion may have educated you to that.

[Gattsus]

Well said Op. Though I give 0 ***** about PVE.

Hopefully after CW gets fixed and before Steam release.

[Raggedyman]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 July 2015 - 03:59 PM, said:

Well the trick would be to design it correctly. Part of that is making clear PVE is never going to be the same as PVP.

I'm not disputing that PVE can't improve things for the game, especially as part of the tutorial process. I'm simply saying that anything beyond that (a "proper full-campaign", for wish of a better term) as pure PVE will be hard to integrate into the existing game set up. Obviously doing it right will be important, it's just that to a great degree it's like switching from three wheels to four whilst the vehicle is still moving, both in terms of community and game design impact.

[MischiefSC]

I rage, often, over the state of CW.

However I agree, without question, that PvE is more important. All the reasons you listed and then some.

My deep concern though is that the PvE aspect will be handled in the same way CW was which creates a series of problems of its own.