Jump to content


The longest PVE Battles argument you'll probably read this year ... oh and poll also

pve

  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

Poll: Proving Grounds for All Tiers (123 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battles in order to participate this poll.

Would you play PVE Battles?

  1. Yes (66 votes [53.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.66%

  2. No (57 votes [46.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.34%

Should other people be allowed to play PVE?

  1. Yes (74 votes [60.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.16%

  2. No (49 votes [39.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.84%

Do you believe it would increase queue times?

  1. Yes (68 votes [55.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.28%

  2. No (55 votes [44.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.72%

Do you believe it might bring more players?

  1. Yes (61 votes [49.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 49.59%

  2. No (62 votes [50.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.41%

(For fun) Remove Artillery from the game?

  1. Yes (32 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  2. HELL YES (43 votes [24.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.43%

  3. No (39 votes [22.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.16%

  4. It belongs there (27 votes [15.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.34%

  5. I like Bacon (35 votes [19.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.89%

Vote Hide poll

lionheart1118 #21 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12847 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
Besides if you want pve so much why don't you just go play wows? I mean it has what your asking for, why do you feel the need to try and change this game that was successful enough to get world of warships made? I don't see world of warships near the top of streaming charts so I'll assume the player base is pretty small, but it has pve, shouldn't it have even more players than wot using your logic?

lionheart1118 #22 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12847 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 12:08, said:

 

1 far less people play WoWS than WoT currently 

2 who cares if your teammates are AI as well as your opponents? That's more potential damage for you, and teammates that will never shoot you. 

 

Hey you said that the que times weren't affected. I was simply pointing out why that is the case and how that wouldn't work here. Personally I don't want to fight AI, when I get shot or killed I'll always be wondering if it was legit or if it's because it's AI it knows where everyone is despite if your spotted or not. And if the ai is terrible it just becomes boring. Like wows, it got boring pretty quick for me but I think that is due to lack of mechanics like angling and vision mechanics along with no real terrain to use compared to wot who has buildings to hug. And hills to climb to get shots on enemies you wouldn't normally be able to see.



jamesboss #23 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:17

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14090 battles
  • 235
  • [RIP-U] RIP-U
  • Member since:
    12-23-2015
noticing a pattern here only scrub players are going for the idea of introducing pve i guess they want to play with bots since they are pretty much a bot 
i will give you your medicine when ever you need it scrubs and git gud

Edited by jamesboss, Sep 13 2017 - 13:18.


lionheart1118 #24 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12847 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
All in all you say pve would bring in a lot more players. You then said wows is the only direct comparison you can make, wows has a very small player base, so explain to me why pve didn't draw in the crowds for wows?

lionheart1118 #25 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12847 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View Postjamesboss, on Sep 13 2017 - 12:17, said:

noticing a pattern here only scrub players are going for the idea of introducing pve i guess they want to play with bots since they are pretty much a bot 
i will give you your medicine when ever you need it scrubs and git gud

crap even I'm a scrub player and don't like the idea of pve, lol.



_Tsavo #26 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 37910 battles
  • 14,080
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

I'm of the opinion that a PVE mode, especially on our NA server, will be the death of PvP.  So I'd rather not see it arrive.  

 

I play against enough bot-level players in pubs as it is :P



HottieHotPants #27 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:29

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5947 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    05-31-2016

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 04:19, said:

Let's bring this up again... chit chat about some thoughts I've been compiling for the past year or so. 

 

Thought 1 - Proving Grounds


Proving Grounds is already in the game. Yep... PVE is already in the game, and the AI aren't ... smart... but they're not dumb either. If you're not careful, they'll remove you from the game fairly efficiently. They're limited to Tiers 1 & 2, and you don't earn any credits from them once you have a certain number of battles. They do prove to be a lot of fun if you're waiting for a game to end and want your tank back. Games are fast, fluid, and engaging. The AI doesn't camp... they'll actively push you without regard. It really changes the way you fight, and can be very refreshing at times. 

 

https://worldoftanks...unds-mode-10-0/

 

Thought 2 - Alternative to SBMM


We all know that MM from time to time turns into absolute diarrhea ... all over the place ... number of people to pick from grows small... not a lot of tanks to pick from... mm just waits for enough people to enter the queue and throws something together. We get in and we're like UGH... probably about the same reaction, as if we came home and the dog shat on the carpet... can't do anything about it now... it's already done... just have to make due. 

 

PVE comes in... You can switch over to fighting bots. Your Queue time will never be more than 30 seconds, as the server can fill the empty slots with bots if players aren't available for a fair matchup. You don't earn as many credits, but you still get to play. People get to grind their tank lines in peace, without wanting to level a small forest outside with an axe. Bots can get absolutely obliterated all day again and again over and over, and it never becomes dull. The thrill of WoT is not in the victory most of the time. The fun comes from the little exchanges you have against an enemy tank. Bouncing this round and tracking him, while your allies wail on him. Great thing is, you don't ever have to feel any remorse for one shotting that light tank that just flew over the mountain... it's just a bot... he doesn't care... he's just code. A human player will want to throw his keyboard... yell at his team for being [edited] [edited] morons and learn how to play, along with telling them that they fornicate with their mothers and they should kill themselves. You get where I'm going with this. Some things in this game are very fun, but it creates toxicity on the opposite side when you mess up... and when you're on the receiving end, it's never fun.... games are about fun after all... right? No wonder why the community tends to be very toxic. 

 

Thought 3 - PVE WILL ALLOW PLAYERS TO PAD STATS


True, no argument there. 

How about no WN8 or WR earned from playing PVE. Fair? 

 

Thought 4 - PVE Allows players to grind to the top faster without ever having learned how to play


Oh definitely... can't have a bunch of tomatoes at T10 running around not knowing what to do ... that'd be terrible.... it'd be almost.... oh wait no it'd be exactly like what it is now... where skill doesn't matter and if someone puts in enough time and spends enough money, they can have all the Tier 10s in the world, without ever having learned. 

 

However, the people who aren't competitive and would probably be terrible teammates will probably end up playing PVE. Obviously credits and XP are the incentive to play PVP, but if you remove players who have no regard for teamwork or any sort of coordination by allowing them to exit on their own, then you'll see an improvement in the quality of games. 

 

Example of this. Say you just unlocked a new tank. It's now stuck as a stock tank. Against your human counter parts, it's going to be absolute trash. Not everyone has the budget to spend on gold to get free XP and unlock everything on the tank... so... you go off to play PVE. You can unlock everything on the tank much faster than you could against humans of the same tier who have fully upgraded tanks, and earn more damage thus giving you a consistent grind, instead of an inconsistent "well I happened to find someone who was AFK and farmed them". Players are less aggravated because they feel relevant, and WG keeps players sticking around... and if there's anything Cosco has taught us ... if you keep people in your store longer, they're going to be more inclined to buy things. 

 

Thought 5 - How does WG make money off PVE?


You'd be absolutely shocked at how many people play with premium battleships, cruisers, and destroyers in World of Warships. Some people don't care about the grind or the meta at all... they just want to shoot some other ships with one of their all time favorite ships (I love my Cleveland class cruiser to death).

 

Parallel this to World of Tanks... 

 

Also, you're more likely to attract bees with honey than vinegar. Forcing your player base to buy upgrades, gold, Premium Time, and Premium Tanks, in order to offset the cost of grinding a terrible tank is not how you attract more volumes of sales. In fact, I would be very interested to see the correlation between who buys more in World of Warships... Majority PVP or PVE players. I have a gut feeling it's the latter. When players are happy, they're more likely to get ahead. 

 

Lets use Candy Crush to illustrate this point. 

Oh yes, that game we all love to hate. There are some levels in Candy Crush that are just impossible, because of the initial positioning of the pieces and the obstacles placed on the game board for that level. As a result, King gives players boosters... allowing you to mix up the game board... get ahead... nuke some of those bad game pieces, for the low low price of $0.25. What's it to you? It's only a quarter... until you do it over and over for the span of 200 levels ($50). Sure you could just reset the level and do it all over again hoping to get a better roll this time, but you're giving up money in exchange for getting ahead. Now, before you jump to pay to win... that's not the path we're headed towards. Imagine that playing without boosters is playing PVP mode. Yeah it's harder and in WoT there's more reward for doing better, but if you used boosters to beat the level (in Candy Crush), are you any less satisfied than if you hadn't? Is it better to win period? Or Win after being frustrated as hell with a game.... think on this... seriously. 

 

If someone is happy playing PVE mode, and making decent credits, they're going to be more inclined to buy Premium Time or Gold to unlock Free XP, than someone who is absolutely pissed off at the game, MM, and all the toxicity that comes off of players who are equally having a rough time (I know, I've been there). Happy players are definitely more than willing to part with their money. If that happiness comes from playing against bots, then so be it. The idea is for WG to make money, so they can keep the servers open and continue playing Employees. That's it... You wouldn't want Meat Head to lose his job because the game collapsed, now would you? 

 

Thought 6 - Artillery


Careful now lads... yee be enterin dangerous waters with this  section. No but seriously this is a very valid point for this. 

 

The biggest hate that Artillery gets is when players get nuked by it, after trying their best to not get shot by it. To not get shot by it you have to remain "Arty Safe" aka unspotted (because let's be honest... artillery can hit just about anywhere on any map if it tries).

 

In a PVE mode, this is no longer a problem, as players would be far more inclined to work with their Artillery players to stun and overcome bots spotted out in the field. Coordinated attacks and ambushes are much easier and fun to set up against opponents that do what you expect them to do, instead of thinking for themselves individually. Teamwork promotes positive gameplay. Positive gameplay promotes fun, and fun means that people in the game, will be far more likely to get players who don't play, to join. More people join, increases server queues ... you get where I'm going with this. 

 

Thought 7 - Armored Warfare PROVED IT WILL NEVER WORK


Oh boy... can't tell you how many times I've heard this one. Literally can't... it's like engraved in people's heads, the same way the get about Apple products or something... 

 

Lets knock out some of the things AW did wrong... or rather, Obsidian Entertainment (OE from now on) was forced to do by MailRU / My.com

  • PVE was always missions
  • PVE was never the same format as PVP
  • PVE spawned enemies directly behind you and around you... enemies were never initially on the field to be spotted. 
    • Ever played those classic arcade games like Time Crisis? You know how they have these points where someone will quickly pop up from the bottom of the screen and shoot you before you can block it? Yeah, that's intentional by the way. It's there so you'll lose life and have to insert more coins. Likewise, enemies were supposed to spawn randomly around you, in order to remove your health, and make the game mode harder. A lot of those shots, were incapable of being avoided. It was also there, so that you'd spend consumables in order to stay alive longer. 2 consumables were added to the game as a result of this. 1 for a revive with half your life upon death, and the other was to give you full health, ammo, and smoke again. You could only bring one, so you had to choose based on your play style. 
  • Repetitive missions become very stale when the enemies spawn in the exact same spot every game, and with the exact same tanks. When you can name off what is going to spawn and when, it's not even fun any longer. 

 

These are just a few... we're not getting into the terrible economy, the bad progression system, the confusing stat system, add ons to the tank that upgraded tanks stats without balancing the tanks stock first... yeah... 

 

So to say that PVE is the reason AW died, is far from accurate, and shows just how little you know of AW. Speaking as someone who was a part of the pre-alpha group of beta testers... 

 

Thought 8 - The final thought - Some people, just don't like playing against other people. 


I'm one of them. I'm not a fan of playing against real people. I do it... but I don't get any pleasure or value out of it. Every time I send someone back to the garage, I feel slightly bad for them, knowing what it's like to be shut down like that. Especially if you blow someone up. Yeah it looks awesome, but now that person is stuck waiting for their tank to be unlocked so they can play it again. That might be the tank they love to play, and only want to play it, but you just took that away from them. It's not so bad if you're at the end of the match and there's only 5 people left alive. That kind of gameplay is riveting, fast and exciting. If you get taken out, you're disappointed, but satisfied. However, if you're like the 3rd person in the game to be taken out, and there's still 12 min left in the game, it's quite frustrating.... and remember our little chat about happy players spend money... yeah... not great. 

 

Closing Thoughts


I just compiled these as the main thoughts I've seen from the community over the span of the past 12 months or so. Some of the biggest gripes people have had in game... some of the biggest issues going on in the community... I'm sure there are more arguments that could be made as to why PVE would be a great idea... and I'm sure there will be those who argue that it will split up the already dwindling player base further, to which, I say it looks like it's doing that on it's own now... and some growth wouldn't be bad. If all else fails, we all get our accounts moved over to EU anyways, and there's plenty of people over there to play against, so ... what do you honestly have to lose. 

 

I'd rather not lose what we have though. I'd like to gain players. I had a friend install the PC client on his laptop the other day (he's been playing the game on his PS4 a lot) and his first comment was "Wow, this is a lot more fun than on the PS4" ... :eyeroll: no duh... 

 

If adding a PVE mode, means we can have more players playing on the server, then it has the potential to add players to PVP as well as PVE... and by letting people have a fun outlet while still playing the game, allows WG to open the relief valve on the toxicity building up in the community.... I think everyone's on board with that idea at least... 

 

Anyways, I'm gonna head back to grinding this Type 61. Here's hoping I get the STB before this on track ends...

 

That's it for now, good luck on the battlefield 

 

i seriously hope we don't have to wait another whole year for you to gather some more thoughts and create an accompanying poll to present to us.

johnmadara #28 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 31504 battles
  • 5,903
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 11:44, said:

 

No I'm not saying that. 

 

Having a PVE Mode where everything is essentially exactly the same as PVP, but the opposite team is AI instead of real players, and you earn less XP from it. 

 

You get in return:

  • Fun Engaging games
  • Less toxic team-mates
  • Que Times of 30 sec or less for any tier
  • Consistent XP grind 

 

Random Tanks... Random maps... Random Tier placement. (Unless you're tier 8 then screw you)

 

you have to realize that every person in PvE is one less person in que... wot will probably never get a real PvE mode and there are various reasons for it

Ie_Shima #29 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:53

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2500 battles
  • 240
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

Since no one else has said it yet: A well thought out, and reasonable too, argument for adding a PVE mode to WoTs.

 

Well written OP. 

 

And thank you for not hating on arty players, and instead giving a creative idea of how to work arty into the game.  



Firemoth #30 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 14:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 35551 battles
  • 3,472
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

what makes a good PVE game and what makes a good PVP game are not always the same thing. a 15 v 14+1 PVE game would be complete trash. bots that dont make decisions like hulldown, sidescrape, flanking, weakspot aiming, scouting and a whole bunch of other human choices would not make for a fun game. it would just be two teams slugging it out until the player outplays some bots. if the player was really terrible (like really terrible) or the player dies early, then the game becomes a spreadsheet battle where the bot team with some quantifiable advantage (HP/armor/DPM) wins. how is that even fun or engaging?

 

 

what would be a good PVE mode for tanks would be something more like what OW did for its two PVE modes. something that is coop and objective based against dumb bots that have some kind of advantage in numbers as well as hard mobs thrown in at times to give you that challenge.



OLDIRTYBOMBER #31 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 14:11

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7560 battles
  • 981
  • [E-T-D] E-T-D
  • Member since:
    09-05-2016

That goes against everything WG has built.

WOT Structure: Forcing players to PvP with sub-par gear in the hopes they will spend money to make their tanks better.

You give players the PvE structure that is standard with RPG Grind games and they will grind their tank buffs in PvE instead of being BOTs for the games PvP economy.

 

Most of The established players in WOT like people playing like BOTs so they can farm xp/creds better while complaining about the playerbase being as bad as BOTS.

:facepalm:

 

 



Captain_Obvious65 #32 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 14:28

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5136 battles
  • 283
  • [HIVE1] HIVE1
  • Member since:
    01-10-2017
BTW, PvE did not kill Armored Warfare. I kept it alive. I played both PvP and PvE over there and the problems with the game were mainly about balance issues and a lack of firm direction on where to take the game. You can read about what went really wrong from someone on the inside here: https://www.reddit.c...hat_went_wrong/

Rin_ #33 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 14:33

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17695 battles
  • 3,085
  • [R-7] R-7
  • Member since:
    11-11-2015

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 11:19, said:

In fact, I would be very interested to see the correlation between who buys more in World of Warships... Majority PVP or PVE players. I have a gut feeling it's the latter. When players are happy, they're more likely to get ahead. 

 

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 11:19, said:

  • PVE was always missions
  • Repetitive missions become very stale when the enemies spawn in the exact same spot every game, and with the exact same tanks. When you can name off what is going to spawn and when, it's not even fun any longer. 

 

In WoWs, you always get the same mission types for PvE and the enemy ships are always a mirror of your team. I don't see how that's really different.

You made the points that PvE was never the same format and that the enemy were spawned randomly around the map as other points. There's no arguing that either of those are in WoWs PvE, but it's not like having different maps or play paths on the current maps would kill us.

I don't really like random spawns myself, so I would agree  with you on that being part of it that would detract.

But for the most part, I'm seeing it as being very, very, very similar to what you suggested.



lionheart1118 #34 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 14:58

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12847 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostCaptain_Obvious65, on Sep 13 2017 - 13:28, said:

BTW, PvE did not kill Armored Warfare. I kept it alive. I played both PvP and PvE over there and the problems with the game were mainly about balance issues and a lack of firm direction on where to take the game. You can read about what went really wrong from someone on the inside here: https://www.reddit.c...hat_went_wrong/

This is like Clinton's book on what went wrong, she points things out she thinks what went wrong and ignores the fact that she angered her opponents supporters in both the primary and general elections. Nothing make people vote against you more than kissing them off by belittling them and claiming sexism. From someone who watched people stream the game the fact it took forever to find a PvP game because everyone was doing pve is what killed it. I'm a firm believer that you can tell how well a game is doing purely based on where it is on twitch streams. Sometimes there are outliers. BUT in general I find this to be true. Aw died long before a lot of people think it did. And wows isn't doing much better. And is heading down the same path. Don't even get me started on warplanes lol. Wot outside of Russia and eu isn't doing to hot either and this is further reflected in the streams. In fact I would garner that wot on console overall is doing better than pc in NA. Which is sad since last time I played console the controls are imprecise and the gun sounds were awful compared to pc.



Markd73 #35 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 28629 battles
  • 3,539
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostCanadian_Mano, on Sep 13 2017 - 10:39, said:

If you want a PvE tank game go play AW. Oh. PvE is a bad idea, especially for our low server pop, because it will give all the bads, who comprise like 80% of the server pop, a safe space to generally be bad in, which means regular queue tops out at 20% of server pop. Lengthens queue times and creates those fun 8v7 or 4v4 queue dump games

 

This ^^^

 

I saw it first hand when I played AW. This will split the already critically low player population.


Edited by Markd73, Sep 13 2017 - 15:09.


Markd73 #36 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 28629 battles
  • 3,539
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 11:16, said:

 

As if PVP is any better.

Being predictable is what inspires confidence from playing against AI. 

Not knowing what is going to be around the next turn is what makes it fun. 

 

Also, AI don't give a flip about their health, which will lead to a lot more "Oh [edited]" moments where people freak out and try to deal with a coordinated push by AI, instead of the dysfunctional soup that is random battles. 

 

Plus, AI pre-spawning on the field just like any other game in WoT will already be drastically different than AW's implementation of it... 

 

Your move. 

 

You are changing the subject instead of arguing for PVE. This is not about whether PVP is good or bad, but about your own hypothesis that somehow PVE is a viable game choice.



Markd73 #37 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 28629 battles
  • 3,539
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostCaptain_Obvious65, on Sep 13 2017 - 13:28, said:

BTW, PvE did not kill Armored Warfare. I kept it alive. I played both PvP and PvE over there and the problems with the game were mainly about balance issues and a lack of firm direction on where to take the game. You can read about what went really wrong from someone on the inside here: https://www.reddit.c...hat_went_wrong/

 

While I agree that PVE did not kill AW alone, it sure as heck added gas to the fire of a directionless game that serious issues with balance and marketing/promotion.

 

PVE did drain a large number of players out of PVP, when there was already a low population. Not a good move.



Chalybos #38 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:11

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21375 battles
  • 578
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
But ... I thought we already played with a majority of bots ... :confused:

GeorgePreddy #39 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 14291 battles
  • 6,334
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 08:06, said:

 

I broke it up into sections...

You should seriously read Thought 7

 

You're right... it wasn't ONLY pve.  Actually, pve AND sbmm killed AW.

Pipinghot #40 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 25838 battles
  • 7,558
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostCapPhrases, on Sep 13 2017 - 05:49, said:

I get the feeling people don't actually read the posts anymore...

Or they've already seen the arguments 100 times and know what their answers are. Even the OP said, "Let's bring this up again..." because he knows it's been discussed a lot.







Also tagged with pve

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users