245 replies to this topic

[August55]

I'm looking forward to PvE modes with the maps as it would be good ol lazy mode for me and my HOTAS after a long day of work.

[Mystere]

Dr Hobo, on 15 July 2015 - 10:50 PM, said:

PVE would be a wonderful expansion to MWO. It would make what is quickly becoming a stale grind of Meta Online where you pretty much have to meta to even feel reasonably confident in the world of the Instaderp deathball.

What on earth are you talking about? You don't ever have to go metawhoring to do well and have fun in this game, just as you don't really need to use a keyboard or mouse. Heck, I use neither. In fact, I am currently priming gear more suitable for the 21st Century.

Also, you'd probably decide to jump off a bridge if you realized you were slaughtered by someone running a joystick.

Edited by Mystere, 16 July 2015 - 08:30 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

EightBitKnight, on 16 July 2015 - 04:30 AM, said:

You guys want a lot... for free. The above sounds good and all have good points, but most of us didn't spend money to play the game, and if we did it was because we wanted to. Had we payed for the game initially on top of the system we have now then I would agree whole heartedly for a single player campaign. What does sound cool is missions you could play with a lance (or more) against some AI. Could be a multiplayer campaign set in CW (sorry just really want to see good thing for that mode) on conquered planets. Escort missions, repel pirates etc..maybe grant some minor c-bills or help your faction in some way. more or less a mode to play with friends but still not solo, not for free.

This man gets it.
More things that encourage people to group together, maybe even shock horror! Things that need multiple units to do.....

[Nathan Foxbane]

PvE, especially cooperative PvE may also give players who otherwise would not play CW a chance to influence the CW map in a meaningful, though less effective, manner through PvE events. Either generated automatically or by PGI through special events. Imagine what Tukayyid could have been like with a PvE component providing ways for players to experience combined arms combat. Strafining runs by VTOLs, elemental ambushes, and other missions could have changed the whole feel while CW gave the large Merc Corps something to really scrap over and act as tide changers. Clans take territory? PvE players dropping as Clan get missions to take strategic locations, defend flanks from ComGuard raids, or escort vital supplies to new territory. Gain extra territory or prevent one new territory from having to play as Counter Attack mode if a set number of certain mission events are successfully completed. Similar for IS.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 16 July 2015 - 10:13 AM.

[Mystere]

Nathan Foxbane, on 16 July 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

PvE, especially cooperative PvE may also give players who otherwise would not play CW a chance to influence the CW map ...

[MischiefSC]

That is the opposite of getting it. Humans don't work that way - this is a game. People play games to escape from the 'do this because you have to not because you want to' environment.

You want to have stuff that involves multiple units in coop that is awesome. All for it. The players who want that will play it.

What you need to understand is that without exception, you are never ever ever in any way even once, EVER make players play a different way than they want to for any length of time. Players play in team because they want to. If they don't want to and you try to force them they just don't play. It's that simple.

The idea that if you can just force people to do what you want they will feel bout it the same way you do is a pernicious fallacy in human behavior. Stop it.

Nothing you ever do in a game, ever, will force people to play the than what and how they want. They may suffer through it for a bit but they will leave at the first opportunity to get what they want.

The only thing such limitations on pve will create is less people playing and buying it. That is it. Which more or less defeats the purpose. Some people want the mp aspect, some don't, some want it sometimes but not others. Limiting the availability of that content doesn't change how peoples brains are wired. It just makes less people play/buy it.

Edited by MischiefSC, 16 July 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Johnny Z]

MischiefSC, on 16 July 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

That is the opposite of getting it. Humans don't work that way - this is a game. People play games to escape from the 'do this because you have to not because you want to' environment.

You want to have stuff that involves multiple units in coop that is awesome. All for it. The players who want that will play it.

What you need to understand is that without exception, you are never ever ever in any way even once, EVER make players play a different way than they want to for any length of time. Players play in team because they want to. If they don't want to and you try to force them they just don't play. It's that simple.

The idea that if you can just force people to do what you want they will feel bout it the same way you do is a pernicious fallacy in human behavior. Stop it.

Nothing you ever do in a game, ever, will force people to play the than what and how they want. They may suffer through it for a bit but they will leave at the first opportunity to get what they want.

The only thing such limitations on pve will create is less people playing and buying it. That is it. Which more or less defeats the purpose. Some people want the mp aspect, some don't, some want it sometimes but not others. Limiting the availability of that content doesn't change how peoples brains are wired. It just makes less people play/buy it.

They know that.

[Dr Hobo]

EightBitKnight, on 16 July 2015 - 04:30 AM, said:

You guys want a lot... for free. The above sounds good and all have good points, but most of us didn't spend money to play the game, and if we did it was because we wanted to. Had we payed for the game initially on top of the system we have now then I would agree whole heartedly for a single player campaign. What does sound cool is missions you could play with a lance (or more) against some AI. Could be a multiplayer campaign set in CW (sorry just really want to see good thing for that mode) on conquered planets. Escort missions, repel pirates etc..maybe grant some minor c-bills or help your faction in some way. more or less a mode to play with friends but still not solo, not for free.

I would pay for campaigns without a hesitation. If you offered each campaign at 5-10$ and made them repeateable for both sides,then added the option for co-op with PVE/P so that way you could get more game modes. You could even charge like 50$ for an IS Campaign Pack and 50$ for a Clan Campaign Pack or something.

But I still vote that mechs and flair are too expensive as they sit.

Ted Wayz, on 16 July 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

Salvage in PvE = grinding. So no for me. Even without a player driven economy.

Think of PvE as a flight simulator. All you really come away with is better understanding and somewhat applicable experience. A flight simulator prepares you to fly, but does not prepare you for everything. You still need to fly to get anywhere and pilots do not get paid for landing virtual planes with virtual passengers.

Well yes and no. For example. I think the PVE could start you with a worn out damaged mech(and I would like to see this in the store. A fully fit and shiny mech for more,or a bare bones beater for less) I think that you should be started in PVE with a selection of mech choices that are beaters. Or not functional and you use the trials to fund their repairs and fittings. Then the PVE goes into explaining how to properly fit weapons and armor and etc.

Mystere, on 16 July 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

What on earth are you talking about? You don't ever have to go metawhoring to do well and have fun in this game, just as you don't really need to use a keyboard or mouse. Heck, I use neither. In fact, I am currently priming gear more suitable for the 21st Century.

Also, you'd probably decide to jump off a bridge if you realized you were slaughtered by someone running a joystick.

Hey now, I can be effective in my Vindicator. It's not optimal but it isn't hard to rack up a good 300-700 damage match(more often than not I tend to hover in between in the 550-650 mark on good days,bad days in the 350-450) but that doesn't make it a good mech.

Theres good mechs,bad mechs and mechs inbetween. In all classes. But If I want to play to win(because winning is usually fun unless it's a steam roll. I even like the very close losses) then metating it up is the most efficient way to go. That's what I meant to say.


Also,if you play with a joystick props to you because the last mech game I played with a stick was Star Siege.

[Alex Morgaine]

Dracol, on 15 July 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

Hmmm.... if PvE has more opportunities to generate more revenue, why was MW5 not picked up by a publisher but Mechwarrior Online was?

The organization that shall not be named and the mech named ashamed ... yes phone, that's how we spell shaker... ugh. Let's try by the key. Warhammer. Stupid phone.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Frosty Brand, on 16 July 2015 - 09:39 PM, said:

The organization that shall not be named and the mech named ashamed ... yes phone, that's how we spell shaker... ugh. Let's try by the key. Warhammer. Stupid phone.

God Mechwarrior 5 woulda been the better game, no doubt. THAT was teh game I was hyped for...I was really disappoint when I logged into MWO and found out it was WoT wiht mechs.....that feeling of dread and just plain ugh was insane...just like...THIS is teh game we've been waiting for? Its wot......with robots....meh....

[Grimvid]

No reason not to have both. It would round out the game.

[TWIAFU]

Imperius, on 15 July 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

I'll drop another $1000 just not to have to deal with pvp, let's face it ELO is the most damaging thing this game has. At least when I vs AI the game doesn't stack the team against me trying to keep the 50/50 win loss ratio. The players I generally get as a whole on my team are worst than bad programmed AI. So

It is damaging because our playerbase are a bunch of solo players in a group game demanding all group play fall to the wayside to promote selfish gameplay. These are the same players stuck in ELO hell. The same players that will not group with others. Same players that cannot get out of ELO hell because they will not group with others. So. stuck in ELO hell, wont group to get out of hell, so, naturally, the best thing to do is to end groups and change the game from a MMO to a single player game.

Total sense.

[Random Carnage]

I'm all for a single player game. At least the average match IQ would increase.

[TWIAFU]

Random Carnage, on 17 July 2015 - 02:55 AM, said:

I'm all for a single player game. At least the average match IQ would increase.

Until someone killed by the AI started to complain about it.

[Imperius]

TWIAFU, on 17 July 2015 - 02:53 AM, said:

It is damaging because our playerbase are a bunch of solo players in a group game demanding all group play fall to the wayside to promote selfish gameplay. These are the same players stuck in ELO hell. The same players that will not group with others. Same players that cannot get out of ELO hell because they will not group with others. So. stuck in ELO hell, wont group to get out of hell, so, naturally, the best thing to do is to end groups and change the game from a MMO to a single player game.

Total sense.

It won't hurt the game in anyway, people will still pay and play it for the campaign. Thus still keeping MWO successful and turning profit for PGI. People just might not be playing the game the way YOU want them to play, that is your issue.

I got news for you I've already quit, and many of my friends have too, but we all agreed to come back if campaign was added to MWO. I've already paid about $2500 into MWO and I do not enjoy it one bit. I own all the top tier packs including all the recent ones not even out. Campaign is the only thing that will real me back in. I'm done with PVP and so are many others like me. So your precious PVP has already lost us, and many like us. If our only option is to PVP then we will go to other games for the campaign experience and may never come back to MWO. This is the point expressed to you many times already in this thread you've failed to read or blocked it from your thoughts because you don't want hear it.

[Vandul]

Deathpactt, on 15 July 2015 - 09:08 AM, said:

If someone is not interested in PVP do you realy think they will be in the queue? ffs they just leave. Bigger player base is bigger income/better game its that simple and thinking ''we already have a small player base and if they pve we can not play is just plain xxxx'' Let people play the game like their way. If they want to play versus bots let it be. Some will pve some will pvp maybe both but anyway the player base will increase.

How many more ''mech packs'' are they gonna throw us before they realize we need more players not packs in every 3 months. By the way I am not against new mechs, its just the only new thing about this game and its not enough.

Sorry If I offend someone, I am realy pissed.

Just look at the thread. Out of everyone that wants a single player campaign, they are currently playing MWO. What happens to the player base when everyone starts playing offline?

I stand by my statement. PVE assets are fine, if you want a single player game, wait for one to be developed and quit trying to shoehorn Mechwarrior ONLINE into that role.

[XX Sulla XX]

Vandul, on 17 July 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Just look at the thread. Out of everyone that wants a single player campaign, they are currently playing MWO. What happens to the player base when everyone starts playing offline?

I stand by my statement. PVE assets are fine, if you want a single player game, wait for one to be developed and quit trying to shoehorn Mechwarrior ONLINE into that role.

No think of it this way. What about all the players that are not playing because of the learning curve. Think of all the players we could bring in to help support that game that might also play PVP later. Think about how much it would help when the game goes on steam.

[Wildstreak]

MischiefSC, on 15 July 2015 - 06:33 PM, said:

You can't mix anything PvP to PvE environments save possibly in single player/coop deathmatch stuff against AI, letting you use your PvP mech stable.

You want mechs in PvE you buy them in PvE. You don't buy stuff in PvE and take it to PvP or even the other way around, you don't mix the economies. That way lies madness.

Yet that is already done in many other online games.

Transformers Universe had it, anything you could use in PvP could be used in PvE. Only real difference besides who you fight was the PvE rewards were lower. I have other games I have played that also allow use of content in both. I doubt PGI is going to take all of a player's stuff they bought, with MC and not, and say, "Whelp, sorry, you're ***ed out, you cannot use that in PvE, everyone starts from scratch all over again."

[Tombstoner]

TWIAFU, on 17 July 2015 - 03:03 AM, said:

Until someone killed by the AI started to complain about it.

Exactly.... an AI without a random number generator If built correctly will head shot you every time at max range with this games "skill" based targeting. Build dynamic difficulty to appeal to the masses and all you have to do is make multiple bad shots to weight the AI to think your a noob and then when your close you head shot your target. now you need even more layers of control to stableise you difficulty.

What your going to be left with is ELO all over again just vs. AI players.

This game is not designed for PVE due to the difficulty of simulating equivalent levels of "skill"
When you add in a RNG to simulate AI skill its basically saying your going to win 100% of the time if your "skill" is ubove an arbitrary % chance to hit. If that level is too high then your going to piss off people and if its too low its too easy and face roll make it dynamic and its easily manipulated.

The best way to add AI is to add RNG probabilities to shots that take into account range, speed, damage to mech, heat level, weapon type. But people who play this game don't want that... for them, but i'm sure would be ok with it for an AI. like i said its too easy to be gamed.....

[Johnny Z]

TWIAFU, on 17 July 2015 - 02:53 AM, said:

It is damaging because our playerbase are a bunch of solo players in a group game demanding all group play fall to the wayside to promote selfish gameplay. These are the same players stuck in ELO hell. The same players that will not group with others. Same players that cannot get out of ELO hell because they will not group with others. So. stuck in ELO hell, wont group to get out of hell, so, naturally, the best thing to do is to end groups and change the game from a MMO to a single player game.

Total sense.

I am not in a guild and not going to be. Any online game without so called pvp in an awsome way is garbage. Prime example Destiny, the biggest let down for players in a long time. The guys running Destiny are idiots. Great design, great story and they hand the players that for pvp?

Anyway Mechwarrior Online has awsome so called pvp. It is missing a ton of other stuff is the problem. The guild press gangs can screw off trolling this topic by the way.

Edited by Johnny Z, 17 July 2015 - 12:01 PM.