147 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

It's almost as if MWO launched to a new audience and one of the most popular canon units of all-time is getting a large influx of new players.
Steiner and Davion typically have the same issue on the IS side.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 December 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

No one cares about PVE except for like 10 people who think they represent everyone.

You know I <3 you guys, but that's wrong. PvE is still the biggest single market segment. While it also includes a lot of people who also play pvp, pve is a big deal. The developers of cod were batching about it even - did you know prior to the last release which pretty much didn't have a campaign over 60% of people who bought cod didn't ever play it online?

FO4, Skyrim, etc. Not to mention all the multiplayer content that's coop and not pvp.

That's why you can't fill a dedicated pvp mmo to even 1/10th what a pve mmo will fill and the only way to fill a pvp moba is to give pve coop options and go f2p.

Bluntly if mwo went with pve single player and coop you'd increase population dramatically. Outside of se Asia the dedicated pvp market is, relatively, limited.

Not trying to start the pvp/pve debate, that's a no win situation as you're trying to judge the validity of some very emotional self vs social value stuff.

Pvp is a very vocal minority in gaming. They pay good money and are happiest when you tell them they're the majority but it just ain't true.

[Sylonce]

So now that us clanners have largely been defeated, perhaps it is time to call for a.... Reverse Tukayyid event . What do you mean it's not supposed to work that way?

meteorol, on 29 December 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

The state of the CW map is obviously determined by large units that give a flying f*ck about CW. That would be MS, 228 and SWOL. And that's pretty much it iirc. All 3 of them switched to IS, and you can see the result. Happened during beta 1 and 2 aswell.

But the CW map currently has zero relevance for this game, so who cares. In its current state, they might aswell make the invasion gamemode a part of quickplay.

I'm kind of inclined to believe this is the case.

[LordNothing]

i dont think this disparity is a good thing. i had 5 ghost drops last night. i haven't seen ghost drops for a long time and then boom 5 of them. and i still got some more prizes to win.

Edited by LordNothing, 29 December 2015 - 12:57 PM.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 29 December 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

You know I <3 you guys, but that's wrong. PvE is still the biggest single market segment. While it also includes a lot of people who also play pvp, pve is a big deal. The developers of cod were batching about it even - did you know prior to the last release which pretty much didn't have a campaign over 60% of people who bought cod didn't ever play it online?

FO4, Skyrim, etc. Not to mention all the multiplayer content that's coop and not pvp.

That's why you can't fill a dedicated pvp mmo to even 1/10th what a pve mmo will fill and the only way to fill a pvp moba is to give pve coop options and go f2p.

Bluntly if mwo went with pve single player and coop you'd increase population dramatically. Outside of se Asia the dedicated pvp market is, relatively, limited.

Not trying to start the pvp/pve debate, that's a no win situation as you're trying to judge the validity of some very emotional self vs social value stuff.

Pvp is a very vocal minority in gaming. They pay good money and are happiest when you tell them they're the majority but it just ain't true.

the problem is you have a few (such as the post you're responding to) that take PvE to mean single player. PvE has nothing to do with single player and would be a welcome addition in various ways to the game in my opinion.

But again, PvE =/= Single player

I disagree completely with the whole "minority" when it comes to PvP players. That's the future of gaming. There's a reason 90% of current games in development and future games include multiplayer modes.

PC
PS4
Xbox
Phones
Tablets
Wii

every single game player listed is dominated by multiplayer games. Off topic a bit, but I just don't agree with that notion
Multiplayer is the future of gaming. The only thing that hampered it and prevented it from exploding in popularity prior to this is technology. As soon as tech caught up and passed the point needed for decent multiplayer games and networking that's the part of the gaming market that exploded and realyl started the whole gaming "revolution" where you started to see gaming become a much mroe mainstream form of entertainment.

Edited by Sandpit, 29 December 2015 - 01:03 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Yep. Also when you provide both sp and coop you get a larger pvp adoption/conversion of players in the long run. You also get better overall retention as people flip back to coop or sp instead of churning out completely when they burn out, etc.

It's a solid investment just one hard to justify most the time in a f2p environment. Pvp is way cheaper to produce.

Edited by MischiefSC, 29 December 2015 - 01:11 PM.

[Alec Braca]

beerandasmoke, on 29 December 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

I predict we will see a drop in IS tonnage shortly. Monkeys right though we are having a lot of fun in the south fighting each other without mercs being involved.

I almost forgot you guys where down there! Is there much territory gained or lost or just a lot of good old battles?

[Roadkill]

Sandpit, on 29 December 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

PvE =/= Single player

...

Multiplayer is the future of gaming.

Multiplayer != PvP

Single Player / Multiplayer is one axis.
PvP / PvE is another axis.

Those two axes are not related.

[Alec Braca]

Steppenwulf, on 29 December 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

then suddenly, the Rasalhague Dominion. screw your timeline.. lol

I'll take it!

[MischiefSC]

Edited -

They include it because the minority who wants it won't but it without it while the pve/sp crowd doesn't care. Also the bulk of game reviewers are pvp/multiplayer fans and you need to give them what they want to see.

I'm the kind of person who plays MWO for years. Not like I'm shilling or anti pvp or anything. I get the sense of belonging/moral authority etc that comes with being 'the majority'.

Pvp isn't the majority though. Sp still is, followed by pve/coop, dedicated pvp last. There's plenty of crossover but dedicated pvp is the smallest segment.

On my phone at work and no longer have logins to the data collection services for the exact telemetry but if you Google it I'm sure you'll find some publicly released telemetry.

[Alec Braca]

meteorol, on 29 December 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

They don't even care to play, why would they care to comment?

The state of the CW map is obviously determined by large units that give a flying f*ck about CW. That would be MS, 228 and SWOL. And that's pretty much it iirc. All 3 of them switched to IS, and you can see the result. Happened during beta 1 and 2 aswell.

But the CW map currently has zero relevance for this game, so who cares. In its current state, they might aswell make the invasion gamemode a part of quickplay.

Exactly. I don't think the Clans have the population and/or the skill to counter the IS right now just as the IS was unable to stop the roll towards Terra and beyond bc of lack or population and/or skill..

Edited by Alec Braca, 29 December 2015 - 01:21 PM.

[Sylonce]

MischiefSC, on 29 December 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

Yep. Also when you provide both sp and coop you get a larger pvp adoption/conversion of players in the long run. You also get better overall retention as people flip back to coop or sp instead of churning out completely when they burn out, etc.

It's a solid investment just one hard to justify most the time in a f2p environment. Pvp is way cheaper to produce.

Speaking from personal experience, I probably wouldn't play games like League of Legends if it didn't have a pve mode, particularly how toxic the community can be. It's nice to be able to sit back and just relax for a bit without being in a total adversarial environment.

Cooperative games can be great fun.

[Captain Stiffy]

PUGS VS PREMADES IS _S_T_U_P_I_D_

GROW UP DEVS

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 29 December 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

Yep. Also when you provide both sp and coop you get a larger pvp adoption/conversion of players in the long run. You also get better overall retention as people flip back to coop or sp instead of churning out completely when they burn out, etc.

It's a solid investment just one hard to justify most the time in a f2p environment. Pvp is way cheaper to produce.

I'm going to have to disagree a bit with regard to the underlined section. It's been my experience that PvP servers/areas are highly populated only during the initial release of a game. After a time, they become ghost towns because many players found PvP too tough for them and decided to swim to much safer waters. Worst of all, the carebears among them then start demanding that the developers spend more time, effort, and other resources on the PvE side of the game, to the detriment of PvP.

Although they may deny otherwise, many people prefer fighting against stupid AI over other people better than they are.

As such, I am watching talk of PvE development in MWO with very very wary eyes.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 29 December 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

Edited -

They include it because the minority who wants it won't but it without it while the pve/sp crowd doesn't care. Also the bulk of game reviewers are pvp/multiplayer fans and you need to give them what they want to see.

I'm the kind of person who plays MWO for years. Not like I'm shilling or anti pvp or anything. I get the sense of belonging/moral authority etc that comes with being 'the majority'.

Pvp isn't the majority though. Sp still is, followed by pve/coop, dedicated pvp last. There's plenty of crossover but dedicated pvp is the smallest segment.

On my phone at work and no longer have logins to the data collection services for the exact telemetry but if you Google it I'm sure you'll find some publicly released telemetry.

PvP doesn't equate to straight up fighting against another live opponent.
PvP always has been and always will be the center focus of gaming. If that wasn't the case there never would have bene leaderboards and top scores implemented in arcades

[Mystere]

Alec Braca, on 29 December 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

I almost forgot you guys where down there! Is there much territory gained or lost or just a lot of good old battles?

Have you seen molasses flow down a hill?

[C E Dwyer]

Hillslam, on 29 December 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

If MWO would just add meaningful PVE then SO many issues would go away. One of them the strategic map having a purpose.
Imagine COOP missioning with your unit... quests... storylines... escort missions... convoys... dropships and jumpships that matter... galactic travel time that matters...

Oh the game we never had.

Everquest online ?

Captain Stiffy, on 29 December 2015 - 01:21 PM, said:

PUGS VS PREMADES IS _S_T_U_P_I_D_

GROW UP DEVS

questioning other peoples maturity by someone who though stiffy was an appropriate name is hmmmm

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 29 December 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

PvP doesn't equate to straight up fighting against another live opponent.
PvP always has been and always will be the center focus of gaming. If that wasn't the case there never would have bene leaderboards and top scores implemented in arcades

Most people didn't play arcade games to beat the person who put up the best scire. They played because the game was fun or to beat their own score. We may take pride in a good personal ranking but it's not the primary motivation for most people. If the majority of humanity was motivated by interpersonal victory society wouldn't work.

PvP in the context of this game is direct player v player gameplay. PvE includes coop. L4D/L4D2 are PvE coop and pve SP. Mwo is dedicated pvp only.

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 29 December 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

You know I <3 you guys, but that's wrong. PvE is still the biggest single market segment. While it also includes a lot of people who also play pvp, pve is a big deal. The developers of cod were batching about it even - did you know prior to the last release which pretty much didn't have a campaign over 60% of people who bought cod didn't ever play it online?

FO4, Skyrim, etc. Not to mention all the multiplayer content that's coop and not pvp.

That's why you can't fill a dedicated pvp mmo to even 1/10th what a pve mmo will fill and the only way to fill a pvp moba is to give pve coop options and go f2p.

Bluntly if mwo went with pve single player and coop you'd increase population dramatically. Outside of se Asia the dedicated pvp market is, relatively, limited.

Not trying to start the pvp/pve debate, that's a no win situation as you're trying to judge the validity of some very emotional self vs social value stuff.

Pvp is a very vocal minority in gaming. They pay good money and are happiest when you tell them they're the majority but it just ain't true.

Are we talking about random Co-OP gameplay or an actual story line. If there was an in depth story to go along with it, I think that is where people would get interested in it. Having some co-op convoy defense (where you just see how many stupid AI mechs you can destroy protecting a convoy of some kind) I don't really see the appeal.

I like playing Halo for its story, but never touch its multiplayer, but that is for the story itself not to just crush mobs of AI.

But lets be real, how long do you think it would take a small developer like PGI to create an indepth story line, with a plot and all of the missions to go with it? If you ask me, that is time better spent finishing the multiplayer aspect of MechWarrior ONLINE.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 December 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

Are we talking about random Co-OP gameplay or an actual story line. If there was an in depth story to go along with it, I think that is where people would get interested in it. Having some co-op convoy defense (where you just see how many stupid AI mechs you can destroy protecting a convoy of some kind) I don't really see the appeal.

I like playing Halo for its story, but never touch its multiplayer, but that is for the story itself not to just crush mobs of AI.

But lets be real, how long do you think it would take a small developer like PGI to create an indepth story line, with a plot and all of the missions to go with it? If you ask me, that is time better spent finishing the multiplayer aspect of MechWarrior ONLINE.

Don't think Skyrim, think ARK/7 Days to Die sp. There's a big demand for that. Think Left4Dead/L4D2 for MP coop. You don't need a big story you just need a grind and a bit of rng to content generation. Throw in community generated sp/coop maps and you've got a winner.

Yes, PGI needs to fix mwo but they've been failing at that for years. Maybe a 200k player injection for coop/sp content will give them the revenue to hire someone willing to get them to actually change some bad design decisions instead of trying to introduce new Broken mechanics to offset existing broken mechanics instead of removing/fixing bad ideas.