Jump to content


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

pve

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

Poll: Proving Grounds for All Tiers (111 members have cast votes)

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

Would you play PVE Battles?

  1. Yes (56 votes [50.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.45%

  2. No (55 votes [49.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 49.55%

Should other people be allowed to play PVE?

  1. Yes (64 votes [57.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.66%

  2. No (47 votes [42.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.34%

Do you believe it would increase queue times?

  1. Yes (63 votes [56.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.76%

  2. No (48 votes [43.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.24%

Do you believe it might bring more players?

  1. Yes (52 votes [46.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.85%

  2. No (59 votes [53.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.15%

(For fun) Remove Artillery from the game?

  1. Yes (31 votes [19.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.62%

  2. HELL YES (38 votes [24.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.05%

  3. No (37 votes [23.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.42%

  4. It belongs there (22 votes [13.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.92%

  5. I like Bacon (30 votes [18.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.99%

Vote Hide poll

tanopasman62 #41 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:36

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12145 battles
  • 1,611
  • Member since:
    12-13-2016

I'd keep PvE to training rooms.

 

No earnings=No massive queue times because of everyone trying to play PvE, so people would only play it to relax from losing streaks.

 

Plus, a target practice mode, where you can choose any tank to shoot at, should be implemented, so everyone can do some weakspot practice against every new tank that comes out, and new players can also learn how to fight against higher tiers everytime they go up a tier (At least I started doing this since I've first ran across T29s, then everytime I went up a tier to see what top tiers I can fight against and what ones I should avoid).



Pipinghot #42 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 25826 battles
  • 7,412
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postlionheart1118, on Sep 13 2017 - 06:37, said:

Pve killed aw, don't need it to kill the player base of the game also.

That's a HUGE assumption with no real knowledge.

 

AW has multiple flaws compared to WoT, to assume that PvE is the reason it failed is willfully ignoring all of the other problems with AW.



Roccandil #43 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:41

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 253
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016
It's ironic that a primary argument against PVE is that it would split the player base, which is a tacit acknowledgement that a significant percentage (maybe even a majority) of the playerbase would actually -like- PVE. :P

Pipinghot #44 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 25826 battles
  • 7,412
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSuperTankDriver, on Sep 13 2017 - 07:08, said:

View PostColonelShakes, on Sep 13 2017 - 11:49, said:

Failed math eh ?

the amount of terrible players in this game is far far greater than purple players. 80% is not a special value, it's probably somewhere around that.

No. Among the players who have 1,000 or more battles (in other words, people who have had time to actually learn the game) the bell curve of win rates is completely normal looking and divided as you would expect it to be.

 

The average "Recent Win Rate" is about 49.7%, with half of players falling below that number and half above it. That's what normal looks like. You're making the classic internet mistake of saying "anyone worse than me sucks", which is nonsense.



lionheart1118 #45 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12827 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 13 2017 - 14:37, said:

That's a HUGE assumption with no real knowledge.

 

AW has multiple flaws compared to WoT, to assume that PvE is the reason it failed is willfully ignoring all of the other problems with AW.

Any game like this with pve isn't doing too hot or has died off. It's a bad idea and people should feel bad for suggesting it. A pve mode with any sort of reward is a bad idea.



lionheart1118 #46 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:44

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12827 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostRoccandil, on Sep 13 2017 - 14:41, said:

It's ironic that a primary argument against PVE is that it would split the player base, which is a tacit acknowledgement that a significant percentage (maybe even a majority) of the playerbase would actually -like- PVE. :P

Yea a lot of bad players who refuse to learn to play properly. And since it would give exp and or credits and easy way to go up the tiers, again without actually learning to play the game. Bots would either be too powerful or boring and easy as [edited]. If they were too powerful they would quickly get nerfed due to the bads whining.



lionheart1118 #47 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 15:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12827 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
If you want pve then don't have any reward of any sort for playing it then I wouldn't give a rats [edited].

Canadian_Mano #48 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 16:32

    First lieutenant

  • WGLNA Bronze League Player
  • 28867 battles
  • 927
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostColonelShakes, on Sep 13 2017 - 07:49, said:

 

 

Failed math eh ?

Ah, right, I was low balling, I meant bads comprise 98% of the player pop. Thanks for picking that up.



strenfoo #49 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 16:36

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11494 battles
  • 930
  • [C_NTS] C_NTS
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015

The whole "PVE would ruin WoT PvP because of it did that for AW" is really a BS argument.  It ruined AW's PvP because they did it wrong.  All Wargaming has to do is implement it in such a way where there's still a big incentive to play PvP.  There are lots of ways to do this: more credits/xp in PvP, add an additional resource that's required to play PvE and can only be acquired in PvP (like Crossout does), etc.

 

I'm not necessarily for WoT PvE but the most common argument against it (AW) is just silly and doesn't really mean anything here.



SuperTankDriver #50 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 16:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 19956 battles
  • 3,670
  • Member since:
    03-26-2012

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 13 2017 - 14:41, said:

No. Among the players who have 1,000 or more battles (in other words, people who have had time to actually learn the game) the bell curve of win rates is completely normal looking and divided as you would expect it to be.

 

The average "Recent Win Rate" is about 49.7%, with half of players falling below that number and half above it. That's what normal looks like. You're making the classic internet mistake of saying "anyone worse than me sucks", which is nonsense.

 

except 49.7%, while technically the average, does not mean the person is an average player. plenty people are quite bad at this game even if they have 55% WR (yes, that includes me aswell. i'm trash at this game compared to most unicums). 

Ape_Drape #51 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 16:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36433 battles
  • 1,198
  • [SOT] SOT
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

Sorry. If I'm going to play PvE, I'll play ARMA II or III. One time only game purchase. Didn't purchase premium time for an online game just to play AI.

 

Granted, there are people in this game who have no business playing any MP game and should perhaps play ARMA, Farmville or whatever gets them to to stop clicking BATTLE and inflicting themselves on people who want to win a match in an online MP game.



Pipinghot #52 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 17:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 25826 battles
  • 7,412
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSuperTankDriver, on Sep 13 2017 - 10:48, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 13 2017 - 14:41, said:

No. Among the players who have 1,000 or more battles (in other words, people who have had time to actually learn the game) the bell curve of win rates is completely normal looking and divided as you would expect it to be.

 

The average "Recent Win Rate" is about 49.7%, with half of players falling below that number and half above it. That's what normal looks like. You're making the classic internet mistake of saying "anyone worse than me sucks", which is nonsense.

except 49.7%, while technically the average, does not mean the person is an average player. plenty people are quite bad at this game even if they have 55% WR (yes, that includes me aswell. i'm trash at this game compared to most unicums). 

Again, you're using the classic failed internet fallacy, "anyone better than me is hacking, anyone worse than me is a n00b who sucks".

 

It's not "technically" the average, it's the actual, real average. You can't just dismiss reality by saying it's "technically" correct, because reality is what is truly correct-correct. Your skewed perspective on how good players "should" be is the problem with your thinking. The very fact that you say you're "trash compared to most unicums" shows that you have twisted idea of how good players are 'supposed' to be.

 

No mater how good players are the averages will never change. If every single player in the game stepped up their game to be as good as you... the average win rate would still be 49.7%, because there would still be winners and losers. The average win rate provides absolutely no information about how good or bad players are, because there always have to be winners and losers. If you need an example outside of WoT to help see this, the average win rate in the NFL is exactly the same as the average win rate in high school football, and yet it's obvious that the skill level of NFL players is much higher than high school players.

 

You cannot use the average win rate as a way to decide how good or bad the player base is, the player base simply is as good as it is, the only thing you can use WR (or WNx) for is to see where you are in comparison to the player base.



Pipinghot #53 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 17:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 25826 battles
  • 7,412
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postlionheart1118, on Sep 13 2017 - 09:41, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 13 2017 - 14:37, said:

That's a HUGE assumption with no real knowledge.

 

AW has multiple flaws compared to WoT, to assume that PvE is the reason it failed is willfully ignoring all of the other problems with AW.

Any game like this with pve isn't doing too hot or has died off. It's a bad idea and people should feel bad for suggesting it. A pve mode with any sort of reward is a bad idea.

We may be in agreement there, but just to make sure we're having the same conversation, what is the list of games that you count as being "like this" when you made your statement?



theSparatan117 #54 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 18:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8385 battles
  • 621
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013

View Postlionheart1118, on Sep 13 2017 - 09:41, said:

Any game like this with pve isn't doing too hot or has died off. It's a bad idea and people should feel bad for suggesting it. A pve mode with any sort of reward is a bad idea.

 

Any PVE game like this? How many other tank simulator games out there do you know of? 

 

We could include War Thunder in this because it's both PVE and PVP, with some of the players on both teams being bots. Nahhh let's ignore that one... doesn't fit your agenda right? 

How about MMO games... World of Warcraft, Runescape, Guild Wars 2, Aeon, EVE Online... none of those have PV... oh wait, they're all PVE and they've lasted for over a decade haven't they... hmm that doesn't fit the agenda either... 

What about games like Minecraft, 7 Days to Die, DAYZ, and ARC? crapthat won't work, their player bases are too high... that'll never fit the agenda... 

We could use World of Warships which has a brilliant PVE Co-Op model and players on a regular basis for both PVP and PVE... HEY we're in luck! It's also made by War Gaming... oh wait that doesn't fit your agenda either. 

 

[edited]... I guess you're right... online PVE games just don't exist anymore... /s



Sylvado #55 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 19:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 54463 battles
  • 3,030
  • [LOAC] LOAC
  • Member since:
    10-10-2012

Most game offer PvE what is unique about this game is that you are playing against other players. AI is no where close to being a substitute for a real person. As such the AI opponents have to be buffed to compensate. The goal becomes learning the patterns and slowly hacking away at them until you win. I can get that anywhere, keep this game PvP.



lionheart1118 #56 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 22:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12827 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 17:58, said:

 

Any PVE game like this? How many other tank simulator games out there do you know of? 

 

We could include War Thunder in this because it's both PVE and PVP, with some of the players on both teams being bots. Nahhh let's ignore that one... doesn't fit your agenda right? 

How about MMO games... World of Warcraft, Runescape, Guild Wars 2, Aeon, EVE Online... none of those have PV... oh wait, they're all PVE and they've lasted for over a decade haven't they... hmm that doesn't fit the agenda either... 

What about games like Minecraft, 7 Days to Die, DAYZ, and ARC? crapthat won't work, their player bases are too high... that'll never fit the agenda... 

We could use World of Warships which has a brilliant PVE Co-Op model and players on a regular basis for both PVP and PVE... HEY we're in luck! It's also made by War Gaming... oh wait that doesn't fit your agenda either. 

 

[edited]... I guess you're right... online PVE games just don't exist anymore... /s

Lol world of Warcraft? Now I know your a joke lol, this game is nothing like an mmo. I'm talking games with structured PvP in a tier based system. War thunder isn't doing that hot either, and AGAIN if you want one go play one of those games then. It's pretty simple if you want pve in this game there can not be any reward for it. None, zilch, nada. There is zero need for the game mode, this game never had it in mind, and considering how many times they have made special game modes and they all failed I highly doubt wargaming is going to waste resources on a pve mode just to cater to you.



Maj_Baker #57 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 22:48

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 11497 battles
  • 135
  • Member since:
    02-13-2015
I'm ok wit it as long as you get no xp, or credits, and you pay for your own ammo and repairs too.  

theSparatan117 #58 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 03:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8385 battles
  • 621
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013

No XP and No Credits for playing is literally not an option or on the table. It's 50% less than PVP... same way it is with World of Warships. 

 

View Postlionheart1118, on Sep 13 2017 - 16:43, said:

Lol world of Warcraft? Now I know your a joke lol, this game is nothing like an mmo. I'm talking games with structured PvP in a tier based system. War thunder isn't doing that hot either, and AGAIN if you want one go play one of those games then. It's pretty simple if you want pve in this game there can not be any reward for it. None, zilch, nada. There is zero need for the game mode, this game never had it in mind, and considering how many times they have made special game modes and they all failed I highly doubt wargaming is going to waste resources on a pve mode just to cater to you.

 

You still have yet to provide a game with which you are referring to. 

 

Since War Thunder can be played through Steam, we can see the Steam Numbers for it. 

http://steamcharts.com/app/236390

 

That's higher than the daily average World of Tanks players by the way... and that's just in Steam. Just because you don't play a game, doesn't mean that "it's not doing so hot". 

Don't pitch a fit though if they do add PVE to the game in the future. Might pop a blood vessel.

 

 



theSparatan117 #59 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 03:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8385 battles
  • 621
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013

Well after letting this poll collect votes for a little over 15 hours or so, it looks like the silent majority of this community wants PVE

 

What's interesting to me is the fact that it's almost a dead even split over the more players and queue times

 

Hmm...

 

Thanks for the votes guys



Markd73 #60 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 03:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 28419 battles
  • 3,172
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostCapPhrases, on Sep 13 2017 - 10:49, said:

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

 

No interest in reading a wall of text





Also tagged with pve

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users