135 replies to this topic

[GunmanX]

I am worried about the sustainability of this game being that it will only be PVP content. I hope that I am wrong, but I just think people will burn out quickly doing the same PVP maps over and over again. The decision to only have PVP is the primary reason why I am not purchasing the founders package. I don't want to throw down a bunch of dollars on a game that I may burn out on in a week or so. I have been waiting for this title for a long time being that I am a huge fan of the battletech / mechwarrior franchise and was hoping for some rich / deep co-op or solo pve content. Am I the only person that feels this way?

[Outdatedkero]

I always felt that playing against another living thinking person was better. AI never really competes on the same level.

[tex1987v2]

Yes you are.

[Rikogu]

To be honest, that argument is the exact one for going to a PvP type game. On the whole, it is the PVP that people stick around for and not the campaign. Everyone who played MW4 for years mostly did so online. Shooters like Modern Warfare and Battlefield are the same way. The difference here between MW4 and MWO is that the community warfare will likely be far more robust than anything any of these games mentioned offer.

[KakokunaKurai]

I believe while games like combat arms had lots of problems, the PvE game modes were amazing. this game i think was made for PvP alone, yet all they need to do is get AI controlled enemies in a map and have a little firefight styled game mode. Co-op is one of the best things you can add to a PvP game because eventually it gets stale no matter what. I imagine if PvE does exist it would mainly be just the standard game modes with ai controlled pilots, but nothing like survival or progression based.

[Stridhur]

No Gunman you are not. PvP only games are a very small niche and usually fall on their swords within 6 months of launch.

Check out the huge number of people playing say Darkfall, or Mortal Online ROFLMAO maybe 5K each?

If this game is nothing but World of Tanks in mech shells then it is pretty much still born already, and to think that many so wanted a mech MMORPG. Playing a larger version of what we played with the original Mechwarrior using modems is not any great accomplishment and will probably prove to be totally unsuccessful. Doesn't mean that they will turn the lights out but means that they missed what they could have been.

I can feel the sycophant and fawnboi flames already incoming, but decades of online gaming have given me asbestos skin so flame away....time will tell who is correct

Edited by Stridhur, 18 September 2012 - 05:18 PM.

[logicPwn]

PvE isn't permanent. You beat the game eventually. PVP is always different. Maybe not in most aspects but the outcome and challenge, weaknesses and strengths.

[TROWAHC]

Well I don't really adhere to that Gunman. Look at games like DOTA and CS 1.6. They have survived for years with only one or two maps ever being played. And Why? It's cause of the community/e-sports and good game design. And that's what a I believe a PVP focused game needs to be successful.

If the game gives enough control to the player. Then playing the one map over and over again doesn't stagnate the game, because the game mechanics allow for the same map to be played multiple ways. And if the community isn't excited about the game even a year after launch because of new additions to the game or e-sport tournaments, then community support for a game can quickly die out.

So, if a game is just PvP or just PvE or a combo of both, doesn't dictate if the game will or won't be successful or has a higher chance to fail. What dictates it, is if us as a community like what we are playing, that the word is out that this game exists and it is constantly evolving, and that there is a healthy competitive scene.

[Lev]

If they make the single player content more about teaching you how to be better, it will lead people to PvP.

Best example is League of Legends, they introduced some trainer maps later on as they found a lot of people were overwhelmed.

I think the hard core battletech lovers won't care however. And once this gets a following, PvP will be so expansive you will always have fun, whether you are top tier or always learning, like me

[The Bad Charlie]

Lev, this is true for a lot of games (LoL fan here) but i think the battlemech universe deserves a bit more depth, like planetary invasions and house management. Today, it can be done, even more on a game that gets updates with new content... (same as lol)

[Kernil]

Let's not forget that the "big" PvP only games that have sustained for years (LoL and CS) don't have a backstory worth mentioning.

CS is good guys against the bad guys 'nuff said. LoL is this set of never before seen mythical heroes against the same.

The Mechwarrior / Battletech universe is not like this at all. It has deep, thought out histories (just look at the houses!). Entire book series have been written about the characters, groups, and units of this universe. A quick Google search for the house names and the brief synapse the sarna wiki provides is all many players have seen before selecting a banner to play under.

It is the rich backstory, fleshed out for many of us through the past 4 Mechwarrior games, which will be forgotten should MWO be PvP only.

[Kdogg788]

The ongoing campaign is the difference here and where they can truly make a difference. The weakness with games like battlefield 3 is that you play the same maps with no long term goals except weapon and item unlocks. There's no grand purpose to any round and players just spawn in 20 times per round when they are killed like it doesn't matter. Here tactics, strategy, and teamwork are worth much more. I'm so glad I bought into founders. This game had already paid for itself in my eyes. I paid 60 for diablo 3 and barely play it. And why would I? This game offers a better long term experience.

-k

[Meduna Macross]

Sorry have you played a little game called League of Legends? XP

[BlackHorse95]

Gunman, I think you have it right. I am all ready somewhat bored with this current PVP offering. I would like to see creative solo and PVE co-op maps and campaigns. I would also like to see creative and perhaps handicapped and unbalanced multi-event PVP missions. PVP is a good start here, but to create a wide enough interest to be sustainable, a more complex and tactically varied PVE as well as PVP maps and missions need to be added. It seems like there are a lot of small thinkers around here.

[Archaic Titan]

I can understand your concern Gunman, as I too wish that the game had a solo or co-op mode for a campaign story. But in the end once the story had been beaten on every difficulty with a variety of mechs and partners, it would have grown old. The chances that they would have made the campaign so good that it could be played more than twenty/thirty times is pretty low. But with a healthy PvP community and effective management, the PvP alone could provide ten times that amount of gameplay easily. Had they spent time focusing on the campaign, there is a good chance the PvP would have been lacking, of course that may not be true, but the chances would have been higher.

By focusing solely on PvP, they were able to improve the most rewarding and long-lasting part of the game. This may make the game feel less wholesome, but in the end it will sustain the life of the game for much longer than the campaign would have. In this day and age multiplayer is where most games make both their money and gain their fanbase. It is sad to hear, but it is a fact in most cases. But I believe this game will benefit more from this turn than it would have in any other situation. It is up to the game developers now to improve the game and make it even better over the next few months/years, and with luck the game will be a big success and it can grow into something as big as League of Legends or some other game like that.

With some big success like that, Battletech would garner a larger fanbase and it too may see some new life breathed into it.

[Melcyna]

BlackHorse95, on 18 September 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Gunman, I think you have it right. I am all ready somewhat bored with this current PVP offering. I would like to see creative solo and PVE co-op maps and campaigns. I would also like to see creative and perhaps handicapped and unbalanced multi-event PVP missions. PVP is a good start here, but to create a wide enough interest to be sustainable, a more complex and tactically varied PVE as well as PVP maps and missions need to be added. It seems like there are a lot of small thinkers around here.

While the idea is sound on paper,

in reality you have to contend against the simple fact that PvE content is VERY HEAVY on resources for developers... the idiots that think they can just take AI bots and drop them in some random maps and call that PvE are either thoroughly ******** or completely clueless about game design. [LoL for instance have such thing (bots on regular maps) as a practice tool and testing ground, NOT as a main content of the game.]

THAT is the whole point why many of the smaller studios and developers made PvP centric games.

PvE oriented games essentially are tied to the Achilles heel of PvE, ie: the fact that it's content need to be replenished constantly to maintain their draw with the players, and they have to be sufficiently extensive enough that ppl don't just get bored of it in 2 minutes.

for small developers it's very unlikely they can devote their resources for that and PvP at the same time.

It's nice to be idealistic, but face the reality here... the likelihood of it happening with the resources available is slim to none unless the developer have spare resources (which aint happening till the current PvP gameplay is complete at least and that isn't going to happen for a very long time).

[Steel Spectre]

I don't think it's a big problem -- it only ever took me a few days to get through single-player games and the rest of my mechwarrioring was done against people anyway.

I do, however, think it would be supremely awesome to have co-op missions against AI enemies, especially in the context of military operations against other houses or the clans.

[Thoryn]

I saw World of Tanks mentioned, i have been playing that game for almost a year and I'm not bored with it. They have added new tanks, maps and battle types. I'm assuming that MW:O is going the same way. There is a ton of mechs in the battletech universe also with new weapon technologies, and the prospect of the Clan invasion, I think this game will remain fun and enteraining for a long time. I sure that sometime in the future the will be something added to the game which allows faction wars of some kind. As well as campaigns for planets or something to that scale. Looking forward for my new computer so that I can enjoy the game. Excited about what the Devs have in store for us in the future.

[MuFasa]

A few things. I think those that are saying they are allready getting bored are forgetting that we have a limited number of Mech's, a limited number of maps and that more will be comming. Not to mention additional game types. I think, perhaps because they are offering the founders packs and many have in essence "paid" for the game, they are considering it a full finished product. Remember we are still in the CLOSED beta much less the open. Much more content is comming. I hate to "toot" the fanboi horn, thats not my intent. Im just saying give it a chance. I actually think if things get the depth they are claiming, the game will be able to sustain itself.

[Methane]

Lev, on 18 September 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

If they make the single player content more about teaching you how to be better, it will lead people to PvP.

Best example is League of Legends, they introduced some trainer maps later on as they found a lot of people were overwhelmed.

I think the hard core battletech lovers won't care however. And once this gets a following, PvP will be so expansive you will always have fun, whether you are top tier or always learning, like me

I couldn't agree with this more,for me the transition from training to actual combat is smooth.