Jump to content

PVE Scenarios


16 replies to this topic

#1 Skullrider

    Member

  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 03:46 AM

Ok, This may have been discussed elsewhere. I did search and found nothing. Mods feel free to merge/lock/point me in the right direction/poke me with "the stick of moderation".

One feature I believe strengthened Lance teamwork and training in ISW was the PVE Scenarios. where Lances of players took on AI Controlled targets to meet objectives.

Will/Would/Could this be implimented within MWO?

An extra addition to this could be PVE&VP. Where PVE Scenarios such as a Lance assaulting a firebase can be joined by a Defending lance of players?

#2 Hador

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 545 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 03:58 AM

Q. Will MechWarrior® Online™ have co-operative gameplay?

A. This is something we wanted to implement, but right now we are going to focus on multiplayer only.


Straight from http://mwomercs.com/support#faq

So no PvE, only PvP....(at least for now).

Edited by Hador, 29 April 2012 - 03:59 AM.


#3 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 29 April 2012 - 07:16 AM

With the size of the Inner Sphere, with the potential number of planets, and the distribution of players among all of the various units, unless there's a benchmark/temporary mobile cap so units fill up equally, PvE is going to be a lot more necessary than our hosts have given thought to, I believe. That is my opinion, and we all know about opinions, and I will reserve judgment until the game actually goes live, but I just do not see the game being balanced among forces at this point, even with a matchmaking system, because players are going to be left out unless multiple contracts are all negotiated/accepted at the same time.

#4 Kiyoshi Amaya

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 366 posts
  • LocationWaiting for PVE Co-op

Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:29 AM

I was going to start a topic on this but I see I've been beaten to it. :P

It's obvious that MWO will need PVE, it won't survive on PVP alone. The reason is that many of us actually like a really good story line. It's also provides a different enemy for us to out-think. Previous MW games didn't have very good AI enemy which led many of us to leg sniping when we got bored. But there's lots of ways PVE can be done with very good results.

Ok, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and mention a game I haven't seen mentioned yet, purely for way it handles PVE. And yes, it's not a great game but it does have it's good points, the way PVE works is one. DC Universe Online. Yep, that's right. It's F2P, fun until it get's boring but does have a nicely structured PVE system. It works by allowing a team of up to 4 people undertake missions together, and the team all gets to share mission pick ups and rewards. Plus most of the missions are re-playable so players get a chance for pick-ups they missed before. It does have single player missions that the player must complete without help, but I'm not sure would be good in MWO. But certainly, PVE co-op would work very well. If you've not played DCUO, give it a try and you'll see what I mean, though I'll warn you... you will eventually get bored of the game as it's F2P content is limited and definitely don't take it seriously. I know that some is going to say it's a P2W game and yes I'd agree, but that only really shows on the PVP side.

So if a similar formula was to work in MWO, we could use the chat function to team up, pick the contracts we hadn't done and off we go. And maybe during the missions, we get to claim salvage (if we do get salvage, don't use DCUOs system of allowing players to set stupid prices to sell stuff... that's going down the P2W route).

I know this might seem like a really odd comparison, and I know that MWO and DCUO are completely different games, but I do think DCUO has got something right that's worth looking at just to figure out how PVE can work in MWO.

Just an idea :D

#5 eZZip

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:47 AM

Implementing good PvE would require a lot more from the dev team. Making good AI and then making all the scenarios that won't get boring in a few days would take a very long time. In contrast, once the maps and features for multiplayer are done, games, even on the same map, are differentiated enough that there is little relative effort for the devs for a large amount of entertainment. Though I suppose the scenarios could have some variation within them (like ArmA 2), I doubt it would be enough to last long either way.

View PostShrekken, on 29 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

It's obvious that MWO will need PVE, it won't survive on PVP alone. The reason is that many of us actually like a really good story line. It's also provides a different enemy for us to out-think.
I like a good story and singleplayer/co-op, but many games survive without those; I don't see why MWO will die without it. It's not as though the AI will be difficult to out-think, either—in most games, the players lose because there are an overwhelming amount of AI, not because the AI is superb and just as good as a human, while in a multiplayer game, you have (at least roughly) the same number of units on each side.

View PostKay Wolf, on 29 April 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

With the size of the Inner Sphere, with the potential number of planets, and the distribution of players among all of the various units, unless there's a benchmark/temporary mobile cap so units fill up equally, PvE is going to be a lot more necessary than our hosts have given thought to, I believe.
I don't see why. If a planet is 'undefended,' then give it to the attacking force. There is no need for them to go play against AI that they will most likely beat.

#6 Kiyoshi Amaya

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 366 posts
  • LocationWaiting for PVE Co-op

Posted 29 April 2012 - 09:21 AM

View PosteZZip, on 29 April 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

I like a good story and singleplayer/co-op, but many games survive without those; I don't see why MWO will die without it. It's not as though the AI will be difficult to out-think, either—in most games, the players lose because there are an overwhelming amount of AI, not because the AI is superb and just as good as a human, while in a multiplayer game, you have (at least roughly) the same number of units on each side.


Losing to AI once in a while is a good thing. It means there is a challenge to be over-come, and means you have to change your tactics; adapt to beat an enemy with superior numbers. In multiplayer you have equal sides so all you rely on to win is piloting skill which just ends up being a 50/50 chance of winning match. But how many people are going to get bored of that and want more? How can you add more of a challenge in PVP? You can't, because it's all based on equal sides (not going to get into the specifics of what mechs are on the field here). PVE can offer more difficult challenges that push you harder as well as getting you to work harder with your team in a co-op environment.

#7 Skullrider

    Member

  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:02 PM

View PosteZZip, on 29 April 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

I don't see why. If a planet is 'undefended,' then give it to the attacking force. There is no need for them to go play against AI that they will most likely beat.


In which case, dependant on the location and how "Built up" said planet is, the AI has higher difficulties. Now im saying this assuming that there will be some sort of planet capture esque thing going on.

#8 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 29 April 2012 - 02:26 PM

View PosteZZip, on 29 April 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Implementing good PvE would require a lot more from the dev team.
Yes, but the game would be worth it, the wonderment and enjoyment of those of us who actually despise PvP without regard for how good or poor we are as individual pilots; we like the story, and the story is what BattleTech is all about. The technology exists, and AI programming techniques have become so much better than the early days that it's a necessity to almost any game these days.

Quote

Making good AI and then making all the scenarios that won't get boring in a few days would take a very long time.
I disagree. I have what I call the Compiled Mission Types Catalog, which documents ALL of the missions from ALL of the MechWarrior and Mech Commander PC games, and then breaks out the elements of the missions and contracts into definitions of objectives, assets, resources, etc., and then also defines the elements themselves. Finally, I took all of the contract types available in Mercenaries Handbook: 3055, and put those mission types into the various contract types in various roles within the contract type, and could easily take that information, now, and put it into random generation. It wouldn't be difficult for a contract generator to roll an overall contract type, how many objectives, with a minimum of one, are required by the contract, and what each objective is. On accepting a contract, a leader and/or their Command & Staff would determine what order each objective would be completed in, determine how movement would be completed between objectives, and which force(s) go to each objective. Obviously, any defender AI would have all of that planned for them, and then it would be executed appropriately through on-surface movement and encounters. That's NOT hard to do; the biggest part would be in how the AI works.

Quote

In contrast, once the maps and features for multiplayer are done, games, even on the same map, are differentiated enough that there is little relative effort for the devs for a large amount of entertainment. Though I suppose the scenarios could have some variation within them (like ArmA 2), I doubt it would be enough to last long either way.
Neither will PvP. There are almost 89,000 people signed up to these forums as I write this, and a lot more than that who have signed up but not posted anything on these forums, according to Mr. Ekman; of those people, what percentage of non-hardcore folks and fans of BattleTech are going to remain six months after launch? A year? If there are 250,000 actual people signed up for Pilot Names on MWO, I predict there will only be about 75,000 to 100,000 still active once the PvP on its own has worn thin, within 18 months of launch. You put in PvE elements, stories, and perhaps even release a software suite where further scenarios can be developed, and not only will you arrest that, but you will double or triple those numbers. PvP sucks, quite frankly, it's limited, and very quickly -and I have experience with this- it becomes the same things on the same maps again and again and again, people get bored, and they leave. I'm not saying these things to disparage anyone at PGI, because these guys are doing an amazing job; rather, I'm trying to encourage them to develop more prior to, during the first year of, and after the first year of launch, than maps and 'Mechs if they want to keep this rolling. I'm certain they have a plan for this, and I for one am very much looking forward to seeing more developments as we move along. Pretty scenery and 'new' war machines are not going to cut it for long.

Quote

I like a good story and singleplayer/co-op, but many games survive without those; I don't see why MWO will die without it.
Because BattleTech is not "many games", it is BattleTech, it is unique among the stars, that shining jewel Terra, and it demands more.

Quote

It's not as though the AI will be difficult to out-think, either—in most games, the players lose because there are an overwhelming amount of AI, not because the AI is superb and just as good as a human, while in a multiplayer game, you have (at least roughly) the same number of units on each side.
MechWarrior 2 started Artificial Intelligence in games, it wasn't just the run at one another and shoot of MechWarrior 1, or any of the previous games, and it improved 10-fold in MechWarrior 3, doubled again in effectiveness in Pirate's Moon, and improved at least 5-fold in MechWarrior 4. When MekTek got hold of it, it doubled in effectiveness yet again, and was extremely well-done; it was still MW4, so it blew chunks, but I believe PGI could easily outdo what's been done to-date.

Quote

I don't see why. If a planet is 'undefended,' then give it to the attacking force. There is no need for them to go play against AI that they will most likely beat.
Because there are persistent parts to the universe BEFORE PGI got hold of this, and the devs are telling us there's going to be a persistent universe, and that means there are forces that should be non-player forces for us to go up against. The PvP business will only go so long before people get sick and tired of it; there will be, as there have been in previous iterations of the game, a bunch of pro-twitchers who will band together and kick the stuffing out of everyone else out there, and people will stop playing as a result of the fact PGI is not going to separate these guys, and no one will have fun playing against them. Anyone on these forums is welcome to dispute me, but I have fifteen years, now, of experience, that tells me the truth. Russ Bullock explained, in one of the GDC interview videos, that we all got hold of the single-player campaign and spent a few hours playing that, and got bored of it, tried the multiplayer of each game and got bored with that after a few hours. What he failed to explain, is that we got bored because we were tired of the same maps, the same 'Mechs and configurations, and the l33t twitcher players kicking the ***** of game veterans all the time. Yes, I was among that number; no, I am not whining, so keep your snide remarks to yourselves, guys. PGI is going a LOOOONNNNGGGGG way to ensure that at least some of those problems are taken care of, with different maps, new 'Mechs, perhaps some objectives, to help keep us interested, but it's still all going to be PvP.

Well, it's not far enough. PvP should be the exception, not the rule. If I run into a group of 'Mechs, I shouldn't know whether I'm facing AI (whether Green, Regular, Veteran, or Elite quality) or live-pilots, at varied skill levels. That, to me, would be a whole lot more fun and, while I'm trying to clear objectives, the live-pilots I don't know about will have formed their unorthodox plans and will be there to defend against my attacks, perhaps selecting places for ambush, or to meet in actual honorable combat, etc. PvP is only fun for the blood thirsty masses who like to beat on one another without thinking, not for those of us who actually have an imagination and would truly enjoy playing in the BattleTech universe. PvP has its place, but again it should be unusual for one live-pilot unit to face off against another live-pilot unit.

View PostShrekken, on 29 April 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Losing to AI once in a while is a good thing. It means there is a challenge to be over-come, and means you have to change your tactics; adapt to beat an enemy with superior numbers. In multiplayer you have equal sides so all you rely on to win is piloting skill which just ends up being a 50/50 chance of winning match.
Absolutely excellent point; it's going to become the same old grind, even with Lance and Company cohesive tactics.

Quote

But how many people are going to get bored of that and want more?
Raises hand high!!!

Quote

How can you add more of a challenge in PVP? You can't, because it's all based on equal sides (not going to get into the specifics of what mechs are on the field here). PVE can offer more difficult challenges that push you harder as well as getting you to work harder with your team in a co-op environment.
Here-here!!! I did not say it better myself, Shrekken. Thank you.

NOW, all of this being said, the MWO devs have explained that they have plans for down the road, and I suspect it's not just for new maps, new 'Mechs, and new game types, but to take MWO where almost no other game, if any other game, has gone before. For that part, I am grateful to be part of this BattleTech history-making up-coming game, and from all PGI have shown us thus far, I think it's going to be an amazing ride.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 29 April 2012 - 02:35 PM.


#9 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 29 April 2012 - 02:40 PM

You know, something I've never understood is what the devs meant in the FAQ when they said there were no plans for Co-Op play at this time, but rather multi-player? If I drop my unit on a planet, and another unit is already on-planet or also drops, isn't each side working cooperatively among themselves, and they are playing multi-player with not only their unit, but my unit as well? I don't understand what the difference is? If I'm on Team A, and my friends join me on Team A, and then Team B is full of the other sides players, isn't that cooperative play for each team?

#10 Gun Bear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,016 posts
  • LocationGarrison duty on some FWL Planet and itching for action.

Posted 29 April 2012 - 02:59 PM

View PostKay Wolf, on 29 April 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

You know, something I've never understood is what the devs meant in the FAQ when they said there were no plans for Co-Op play at this time, but rather multi-player? If I drop my unit on a planet, and another unit is already on-planet or also drops, isn't each side working cooperatively among themselves, and they are playing multi-player with not only their unit, but my unit as well? I don't understand what the difference is? If I'm on Team A, and my friends join me on Team A, and then Team B is full of the other sides players, isn't that cooperative play for each team?

It does make sense like that huh? Co-Op however has taken on the meaning of PvE where the players are working together though.

#11 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 29 April 2012 - 07:59 PM

Uhh, okay, so it's just been separated for PvE and PvP. Good, I want a LOT of Co-op, then, hehe.

#12 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:04 AM

Me too. I'm hoping that it will be successful enough that they can make MW5. I know I'm only going to be an average pilot at PvP and given the odd times I have available to play, when I can play, it may well be PUB matches. Playing deathmatch with strangers is not that much fun longterm.

#13 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 30 April 2012 - 09:35 AM

There is something to Co-Op, did many of the MW4 missions with my using the co-op patch.

However, for the people that want PVE, will be exactly the people that want PERFECT PVE. I mean, you dont' want to just shoot bots right? You want story! This is dialog, drama, all the sweeping movie stuff that makes you feel like you're part of the novels right? That's not a little work, that's a A LOT of work. I would say, $29 per scenario a lot of work, and only if its really popluar!

You dont' want to recreate what it would be like to stumble on to a guarded Brian cache, you want the guards to say something, Dropship communications, dialog from your wings right?

Because if you don't need these things, than PVP is just fine, you can imagine the rest in your brain, and just don't want the hassle of the battle being thrown in to uncontrollable chaos by your fellow live pilots.

I think it would be really fun to CoOp these with my family. It just sounds like it will dillute the work that they are already doing, so I'm willing to wait until they have enough money to buy a whole nother company to do it.

I disagree on the PVP vs PVE interest level, for all the Mechwarriors, even the epic 2 and 3, twice through the campaign in a month, then off to PVP for years.

#14 Kiyoshi Amaya

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 366 posts
  • LocationWaiting for PVE Co-op

Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:49 PM

View PostTechnoviking, on 30 April 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

I disagree on the PVP vs PVE interest level, for all the Mechwarriors, even the epic 2 and 3, twice through the campaign in a month, then off to PVP for years.


I'd just like to point out that this discussion isn't and shouldn't be about PVP vs PVE. I see the two as essential parts of the game. It's more about having enough PVE scenarios/contracts that we'd feel more like we're a small part of an ongoing campaign, but not having to play against other players. Yeah, some cut-scenes would be nice, as will in game mission updates over the 'comms'. The main reason for PVE Co-op instead of single-player, is that you wouldn't need to stick to the old style campaign, such as the MW3 campaign, and have it a lot more open ended using an almost endless list of contracts. Personally, this would give me break from playing against other players and earn cash and xp (and possible pick up salvage <_<) through playing with a team against bots.

This is why I brought up DCUO.

#15 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:10 PM

View PostShrekken, on 30 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:


I'd just like to point out that this discussion isn't and shouldn't be about PVP vs PVE.


I would believe you but you said:

View PostShrekken, on 29 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

It's obvious that MWO will need PVE, it won't survive on PVP alone.


Quote


But how many people are going to get bored of that and want more?


And I'm saying, I think it can survive on PVP alone, the Dev's current direction, and PVE bores me after awhile. There is only so much AI you can give a bot before all you are tweaking is its awareness and accuracy. It will never come up with a brilliant move, it will never pull a clutch play, it will never sacrifice itself to win. So far, AI in single player for almost games don't do that.

PvE would be nice and interesting and everything, but wholly unneccessary to success which you were indicating might be untrue. In addition, I think that the standards of play that would need to be there for a BattleTech grognard to enjoy themselves in a PVE environment is too lofty for PGI to deliver at this juncture. I do love fantasy though, so bring it on, Twycross Campaign!

#16 Kiyoshi Amaya

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 366 posts
  • LocationWaiting for PVE Co-op

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:39 PM

The best way to make a game sell to it's fullest potential is to make it appeal to as many people as possible in it's genre. That's it why it needs PVE. If we've only got PVP, I and many others are going to get bored and that will mean we won't be willing to part with money.

Have you played any of the X series? The AI in that can be evil, though on the flip side it can also be completely retarded. AI is only as good as it's programmed. But just to quote myself:

View PostShrekken, on 29 April 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:


Losing to AI once in a while is a good thing. It means there is a challenge to be over-come, and means you have to change your tactics; adapt to beat an enemy with superior numbers. In multiplayer you have equal sides so all you rely on to win is piloting skill which just ends up being a 50/50 chance of winning match. But how many people are going to get bored of that and want more? How can you add more of a challenge in PVP? You can't, because it's all based on equal sides (not going to get into the specifics of what mechs are on the field here). PVE can offer more difficult challenges that push you harder as well as getting you to work harder with your team in a co-op environment.


I completely understand you prefer PVP and that's fine. I wouldn't dream of suggesting PVP be dropped or forgotten, because so many people love that game type. Obviously, I'm going to play PVP, though for only two reasons... 1: All you guys 2: It's the only option we've got for now (which is fine because MWO is a work in progress).

The thing a lot people forget, is that there are loads of games constantly being released and most people have short attention spans, get bored easily, etc. which means if there isn't a good level of diversity and variety in a game, people will move on to another game. I got loads of games that are just sitting in a cupboard mainly because they got played, but didn't have any replay value. They were good fun the first few runs through but I eventually got bored of them (that's both single player and multi player). So that's basically why PVE is needed. It can be done really well. We just have to wait, and I'm fine with that.

#17 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,815 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:54 PM

Stomp Stomp Stomp .... fires PPC.... thread explodes.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users