161 replies to this topic

[Deceptor]

Doesn't anyone else like Boss Battles?

[Daiki Ryuu]

I think if PvE was implimented like something close to EVE Online, that would make this game epic... imagine an entire universe out there to be conquered...

[MasterofBlasters]

Greyrook, on 17 August 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

I drink you, hennessy, I drink you.

Sounds like a decent point, but I doubt any giant enemy crabs can be implemented for a while.

You rang?

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

It doesn't have to full a fully fledged campaign. It could just be Co Op scenarios.

[Alexander Joe Eisenkreuz Steiner]

Although a good PvP is the main selling point for me, a good PvE would be a nice addition if the have the resources for that. If they introduce PvE, IMO it would be great if there would be an option to generate your own matches (select map, select enemy forces, select enemy (=AI) skill level). So one can set up some nice training matches for testing. I don't know how feasable this idea is however.

Also, if PGI introduces other elements (tanks, elementals,...) besides mechs (as hinted), I hope they make at least vehicles playble sooner or later. Because for tanks, they existing controls should just work fine (maybe with a few minor adaptations).

[Kobby76]

Avi Kerensky, on 18 August 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Personally, I would love to play a Co-Op PvE mission string or six. I loved MW4's single player, and while I enjoyed the Multiplayer as well, I would have enjoyed a coop campaign even more.

my thought exactly, you dont have to even call it a campaign it can be a series of missions/challenges to test your skills (as a single player or as a group). plus IMO a game with both PvP and PvE elements have a potential to survive longer than a game with just one.

[Skylarr]

PVE would be a nice addition to the game. It would attracked more players to MWO. I am not saying to do it RIGHT NOW, but, to be added in the future. I am sure I know people who would do the PVE when I was not online and PVP with me when I am. Keep it a PVP game. The biggest gains will come to you if you PVP. But, if you only want to PVE most of the time you will not lag behind by to much.

Someone stated that the developers will not let the player change major events that happen in the BattleTech Universe. This does not mean the players cannot be involved in important events. You must remember that a planet is attacked and/or defended with a minimum of a re-inforced Regiment. So 8 Mechs will not change the outcome. Well, most of the time. So if Force B is to loose the Planet your mission will be to hold that valley or bridge so they can EVAC their VIPs and gear. So you do not change the outcome. your unit will impact the severity of the win or loss.

Edited by Skylarr, 19 August 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[light487]

The difference between PvP and PvE is that generally PvE is "scripted".. so enemies are basically dormant until they are "triggered" by some event..

What if there were battles that were setup exactly the same as a PvE battle/mission.. only instead of the enemy mechs being controlled by computer AI, they were controlled by real players... they wouldn't be able to go or do anything outside of set parameters and areas, utnil an event was triggered.. would that make it any better?

It'd be boring for the defending team, for the most part, but would it change anything?

No.. because ultimately the SP campaign is more than just scripted enemies.. it's predefined, limited, and uncreative enemies that are "predictable".. add in the human element and everything is no longer predictable.. and that's what SP campaigns hinge on.. predictability..

[empath]

Oxford, on 17 August 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Well you could have missions in the area around the FRR where a group of co-op players try to hold back the clan advance.
Maybe that would shut the Mad Cat fans up too.

Gee, that sounds familiar - where have I seen a PvP only game recently implement co-op play against bots...

*cough-cough-MvM-cough*

But, yes - I like this idea...even if for no other reason than I'm old and slow and I have a HORRIBLE K:D ratio against the living.

Edited by empath, 19 August 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[JP Josh]

i do like this however i also hope that its optinal pve will be second goal in MWO to give players a chance to learn what their mech is capable of doing. i also hope they implement it so we can choose the single players campaign in pvp

heres how my vision works feel free to improve apon it.

the mission has a limited number of mechs and it forces the player to select what mech they pilot theirs a limit to what mechs are available this rule is true for both players ( roughly based off of free space two here guys)

you can also select your weapons loadout ect for the mech this rule is for the people taking the main characters lance spot. the people taking place of the AI dont get that option because they outnumber the story line character and should be smarter than a average AI

feel free to improve in the rouph areas ill check this threde after work tomorrow night guys.

[Maethos]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 19 August 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

If people want a "Great MWO (MechWarrior ONLINE) experience", then why are some calling for an OFFLINE component?

I was not trying to say that we should follow canon precisely, although the flavor of canon should be preserved. If the Clans are going to be in the game, have them brought in as a full-fledged faction, fighting the way they were meant to be, and not relegated to some sort of gimmicky random-PvE element.

Would you like to see Davion made into a PvE force simply because some people view them as an overly aggressive faction? I doubt it based on your profile picture.

I agree on keeping cannon flavor, but when clans go live why would anyone not join them for the simple reason of better gear and mechs. From trying to catch up on all the threads one thing is clear, most want a clan mech and/or tech. If clan is playable at start of invasion, it would also be out of ballance until timeline catches up on IS tech side. I would think we would just end up with people jumping ship for a new flavor of the month faction/mech/build, so in a way all of IS could go npc/pve.

For myself I keep changing faction pics till I find a good ingame group to play with. Also still will say pvp is only as good as people in the match. The key is keeping good players and cultivating new ones. PVE helps bring and keep other players.

Yes your right that pve dose not make for a good pvp player in the standard MW games prior, but I was thinking that pve mech would have 1.5,2,3 times the armour beside the odds in their favor. this would at least teach players how to survive. I did not want the pure pvp match to award and cbills, and only xp on first win. that would have no effect on pvp ballance. Also could be a way to teach some cannon. Not as many as the devs would like to think will be reading post on story updates.

F2P games attract alot of people that have no intention on buying anything, not all willing to pay will do for a new map and a bigger selection of mechs. Most content in pvp will have little to do with the story/cannon going on if any. Co-OP will help how ever it is added. role warfare will help but don't see it being as effective as I was hoping( will be hard to keep switching screens,marking map,giving orders and i assume the light mech will seek you out fast to put a end to it.(although as I have not seen what they have in stored i could be very wrong and be delighted)

PVE could only help in the long run and dose not need to be here atm. I love the game as is even but it would not be worth it to PGI to keep live for just me and others that feel the same.

I must say I welcome all your points, it makes me think about how easy pve can be done wrong, and I do believe they intend to have some form of pve sooner or later. This thread has been great with do's and don'ts and should help when the time comes. Do think it has taken us away from bug and exploit hunting a little, but is a worthy subject to get rolling. One eye on what we have and one looking down the road, shows we plan on being around.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Maethos, on 19 August 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

[clipped for space]

1: Balancing the Clans would be easy. Obviously having 12 Clan 'Mechs vs 12 IS 'Mechs is a given victory for the Clanners. So to solve the problem, maybe have the battle be 5 against 8 or 10 against 16. The odds are closer to even in that event.

2: If you are looking for a great group to run with, you should look to the Wolves. Although be aware we are Clanners and will be joining Clan Wolf at invasion.

3: If people are ignorant of canon, I doubt they would learn much from PvE or even be very interested in it. I have never been a fan of "cheating" for the AI by giving them inhuman accuracy and increasing their armor values. At that point you are trying to simulate fighting a human player, and might as well just fight a real human. Also, I believe C-Bills and XP should ONLY be gained through PvP, so peaople cannot use PvE as a grind. It would also make macros more difficult.

4: Not sure what exactly your overall point is on this section. As for Commanders, Teamspeak is superior to most C&C they can put into the game. In PUG matches, it is not likely I would trust someone who decided to load up on command modules and thinks they are Napoleon.

5: There is a lot of work to do before I think that resources should be put on anything besides improving optimization, new maps, planetary conquest, new 'Mechs, new game modes, custom skins, team training modes, and more. After the core game (Online PvP) is nearly perfected, then I can understand working on PvE elements.

6: While I do not support the drive for PvE, it is desired by a certain section, however large or small. If PvE is done as simply as "RANDOM CLAN DROP!" then it has been done wrong. If there is a dedicated game mode COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the core (PvP) MWO game, it could be acceptable.

While we do clearly have different opinions, thank you for keeping this discussion... well, a discussion. Too many people flare easily on these forums.

[Hennessey]

First, I just had to reitterate:

Deceptor, on 19 August 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Doesn't anyone else like Boss Battles?

Because, that's what I keep thinking when people start speaking in negative terms about PVE. In addition, to the comments on scripted missions with players as the enemy forces... does that mean they get to be the boss? I mean, hey, that would be amazing and all, but how exactly do you pick who it is? And if the boss is a turret laden fortress... are they just a turret? So, this doesn't seem to work for me.

The point about how PVE AI would be inferior to players, and predictable: Sure, if we are under they assumption that these scripted events could not have randomly generated enemies (i.e. the first time you go through it's a couple Atlas', but the next time it's a barrage of LRM from 4 or 5 Catas). So, I don't really see this as much of a determent either.


Second part of this post is Maethos (bless you), LOL it feels like you ended my thread for me ;P but the part I especially agree with is in bold and italicized... and underlined (because it just wasn't showing up right ):

Maethos, on 19 August 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

I must say I welcome all your points, it makes me think about how easy pve can be done wrong, and I do believe they intend to have some form of pve sooner or later. This thread has been great with do's and don'ts and should help when the time comes. Do think it has taken us away from bug and exploit hunting a little, but is a worthy subject to get rolling. One eye on what we have and one looking down the road, shows we plan on being around.

Because of this, and the fact that after some 100+ replies and over 4000 views, a lot of what I have said initially, and what others said in the first couple of pages is being repeated, I feel that it would be in the best interest of this topic, and the Beta Testing, to close this thread.

I will not just pull Goderator and do it right this second. There seem to be a couple of people awaiting replies on comments/suggestions they've made, and it would not be fair to them or anyone else who would like a one last go at putting an idea down first.

Instead I will put it to a vote: Fifteen 'Please end this thread.', or some variation thereof, requests (that seems fair to me, I could be wrong), and I will lock the thread.

As I've said multiple times: THANK YOU ALL!!! For the inputs, the suggestions, the agreements and disagreements both, but MOST OF ALL for the rational and civilized way that all involved have handled the discussion.

Don't be discouraged about opening another thread on this topic if I do close it and you feel you have something that just has to be heard! Please link to this thread all you like. There is a lot of very good thought in here. I feel though, that it's only right to move on before this gets any more repetitive, or does become a flaming contest.

Hell, maybe it will even get pinned!

Edited by Hennessey, 19 August 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[Zakatak]

I really hope some non-mech assets are included in the game with AI, just to liven up the battlefield and feel more like the Battletech universe. I'd love to lure an Atlas to a hilly area and give him hope for an easy kill, only to get blown to smithereens by a pair of Demolishers hull-down behind a grassy knoll.

[Maethos]

LOL ok last post

Aleric Wolf my point on command modules and the role warfare part of the game is the same as yours. TS will over ride and our perform it and would only be used for calling in strikes(land and sea based). Saying that means all the time going into that part of the game wont see much use and will not be the major selling point for MWO that they were hoping for. Again I do hope I'm wrong for it could add more to match.

The reason for amping up the pve mechs is to make it more like fighting a real person, which alows people to try builds and tactics before stepping on to the field, with out his or hers stats being affected. for pve kills and death would not be tracked as its a ingame sim. I wouldn't want anything in pve to transfer over to pvp.

wow I hope the clanners are not really twice as strong as IS mechs. As a IS pilot I would feel like bully ganging up on a clan mech for a win and well if as a Clan pilot I could take on 2 IS mechs and win, well again just kind of bully and would feel like the kind of pve we both dont want. Not sure how the devs will work this out but will faith in them and can see why it wont be at open beta at start. edit sorry your ratio was 1.5 avg. for clan mech power and I wrote 2.0 in the example

Thanks OP & Aleric for a good chat and of course to all who took time to post/or read.

Edited by Maethos, 20 August 2012 - 02:52 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

I don't see PvE happen in MWO in the forseeable future.

[c19]

Renthrak, on 18 August 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Practicality aside, there has always been something that bothered me about purely PVP games, with a supposedly rich background story. Regardless of how interesting the plot may be, they always seem to come down to grudge matches between the players, totally divorced from the canon concepts. Eventually, it's not about the Resistance vs. the Dark Empire anymore, it's just about clan {ABC} kicking the butts of clan [XYZ], which would taste the same no matter which game they're playing.

Agreed, totally.

[Sternus]

light487, on 19 August 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

The difference between PvP and PvE is that generally PvE is "scripted".. so enemies are basically dormant until they are "triggered" by some event..

What if there were battles that were setup exactly the same as a PvE battle/mission.. only instead of the enemy mechs being controlled by computer AI, they were controlled by real players... they wouldn't be able to go or do anything outside of set parameters and areas, utnil an event was triggered.. would that make it any better?

It'd be boring for the defending team, for the most part, but would it change anything?

No.. because ultimately the SP campaign is more than just scripted enemies.. it's predefined, limited, and uncreative enemies that are "predictable".. add in the human element and everything is no longer predictable.. and that's what SP campaigns hinge on.. predictability..

But it's fun. World of tanks/ Warplanes/ Warships is total pvp. MECHWARRIOR (not BATTLETECH) online should not be. It is entirely possible to make an RPG format that is fun, challenging, and rewarding while having no human elements whatsoever. See WoW, EQ1, EQ2, Ultima Online, etc. It is also entirely possible to ruin it by becomming lacsidasicle like they did with STO . (That was a complete waste of $250 btw. still bitter). As long as Our Blessed Developers maintain a certain ammount of interest, and show just HALF of the enthusiasm that they are showing for PvP, the PvE end of this game will be a resounding success. The best part of the "Mixed Format Game" is when you tire of one, you can recharge by playing the other. Noone says you have to LIKE any given format. Noone says you have to PLAY any given format. It just seems preposterous to me to exclude an entire healthy source of revenue, and honestly, a HUGE section of the fan base that REALLY, REALLY wants and expects the money that they spend to make their gaming experience better. Noone on the previous posts has stomped their feet, and said in that whiney teenager voice that we have ALL come to love : "I WANT IT NOW!!!". We are all willing to be patient and wait for a well developed PvE. We are also all willing to be considerate of the hardcore PvP gamers who we realize will in all likelyhood never play the PvE end of the game. I for one think that there is room for both at the Mechwarrior table and appreciate the money those same PvP gamers ponied up right next to my PvE dollars to see the game experience that WE are ALL hoping for come to life. Be safe. Happy hunting, Mechwarriors.

Edited by Sternus, 20 August 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

I'd drop MC on Co Op content unlocks without a second thought.

[Renthrak]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 19 August 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

You hit on the same key I was trying to say. It is the challenging aspect that makes it fun. You had a blast fighting the challenging opponent, while the easy battle was not very fun. Therein lies my point. PvE, (which I find to be easy) is not fun.

I would go so far as to say those people who do not find PVE fun wouldn't play that game mode anyway, and that's fine.

I can respect your opinion on this, however I would hope that the reverse is also true. If PVE takes something away from the PVP portion of the game, then something is wrong. Even so, I can think of numerous ways that PVE would help the overall game.

1. Building on your assertion that PVE would be less fun than PVP, whether correct or not, that wouldn't necessarily harm the PVP scene. If the game is 100% PVP only, then how much a player enjoys the specific matches they find themselves in accounts for the entire game experience. If, by bad luck, a person ends up playing with or against other players whose play style frustrates or otherwise displeases them on a regular basis, the whole game stops being fun.

If there is a different game mode where the player can have a different experience, it offers an outlet to that frustration as well as a place to test new strategies in a 'safer' environment, with less pressure. At the same time, that PVE setting may prove to be less stimulating or less rewarding to play for prolonged periods of time. In that case, the PVP game mode becomes more attractive again, viewed from a fresh perspective.


2. People usually learn how to play by trial and error. If the only way to play the game is with other people, that means that those 'errors' will occur when you have other players depending on you, and the opposing players waiting to take maximum advantage of those 'errors'. Even discounting how discouraging it would be to hear "Thanks noob, we lost because you didn't turn your sensors passive! Learn how to play or GTFO", it wouldn't be as fun for the other players in the game to suffer through someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Team mates would be at a disadvantage, and opponents wouldn't have as challenging of a match.

A PVE mode would allow players to take as long as each individual requires to get the basics down, without being a burden to other people. 'Tutorial' missions would only go so far, so a fully fleshed-out mission against AI (and with AI lance mates, perhaps?) would be more useful as a learning and practice method.


3. If MWO is going to be anything close to an 'authentic' Battletech experience, AI units will be necessary at some point. An entire war fought exclusively between Mechs, with nothing else in the theater, would become stale more rapidly. However, it wouldn't be particularly fair to force some players to hop in a vehicle that explodes with one solid hit from a medium laser in order to have non-Mech participants.

Vehicles, static guns, aerospace assets, and particularly dropships are best suited to AI control. Without them, it would be a pretty empty battlefield. It also makes sense to have more Mechs involved in some battles than would be practical as human controlled only. The Mechs in a local militia unit on some backwater planet that hasn't seen real combat in years will obviously be less effective than the active duty Mechwarriors represented by human players. For anything on a larger scale than a minor skirmish, AI neutrals or allies populating the battlefield will be important.


4. AI opponents don't have to be 'easy mode'. A computer can be more accurate than a human, react faster, pay attention to more things simultaneously, and use all of the Mech's systems fully. A team of AIs can coordinate and share information faster than human players also. In addition, with the Free to Play game model, the developers would have a much easier time updating AI scripts to eliminate behaviors that players have learned to exploit, which has not been practical in just about every game you have ever played with AI opponents. AI Mechs don't have to be any different than player Mechs for them to have an advantage.


5. Computer controlled Mechs don't have to be limited to hostiles either. It has been mentioned that there will be in-game voice commands (Attack my target, for example). AI allies could respond to these, making them capable of cooperation with human players. In both cases, this would allow for more Mechs to operate in the same battle compared to the player limit for the server, and thus larger scale encounters.


I could continue. Part of my point is that we will almost certainly have some AI units in-game eventually, so why not include a game mode to play VS computer?

Edited by Renthrak, 20 August 2012 - 03:13 PM.