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

Shortcult #61 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 03:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 31212 battles
  • 4,093
  • Member since:
    08-21-2012

1. Yep, Cleveland Rocks!

2. Someone getting nuked by AI arty might actually require medical assistance.

3.  PvE will lower available players in PvP que.  My opinion is that there are not enough NA players as it is to make the current MM shine, adding PvE would worsen it.  Don't actually feel like it would attract enough new or returning players to make up that difference.

4. Considerable amount of work required to introduce a PvE system.  At this point in this games life, I do not think they have the personnel to make it happen.



Shortcult #62 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 03:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 31212 battles
  • 4,093
  • Member since:
    08-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on Sep 13 2017 - 18:08, said:

 

No interest in reading a wall of text

 

Yeah, I herd reeding iz bad4 u.

Sturmgeschut #63 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 03:54

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8729 battles
  • 806
  • [WARHK] WARHK
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Postjohnmadara, on Sep 13 2017 - 02:43, said:

if you want PvE then go play AW... oh right its dead, I wonder why

 

Is it because most people that want to play a tank game have already invested a ton of time and money into world of tanks and they don't want to start over? Or is it because tank arcade sims are a very niche market with mechanics that aren't completely apparent to any average joe that would want to get into it?

Burning_Haggis #64 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 04:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40745 battles
  • 1,321
  • [G-M-U] G-M-U
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

PVE killed AW.

 

 



Sevok #65 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 04:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 36839 battles
  • 32
  • Member since:
    08-05-2011

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

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

 

Way too long, not gonna bother.

Deputy276 #66 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 04:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 17259 battles
  • 4,584
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

I would certainly be amenable to letting WG test it out. It works fine in WOWS, as I am a PvE-only player there and enjoy it a lot. So does 30-40% of those playing WOWS (those are WG's numbers BTW). It wouldn't "require a lot of work to produce", as WOT already has a smaller version of it being used right now. 

PvE did NOT "kill AW". The devs killed AW by not fixing existing problems that players kept telling them about. PvE is actually keeping AW alive on the NA server right now. Although it is more "on life support" because the current devs are even more clueless than Obsidian was. 

At any rate, good topic OP. You put lots of effort into that first post and it shows. Well done! :)



Burning_Haggis #67 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 04:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40745 battles
  • 1,321
  • [G-M-U] G-M-U
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 13 2017 - 08:37, 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.

 

Personally, I enjoyed the game, but the queue times for a real game got impossible because of PvE.  The night I sat for 30+ min for a common tier game I walked away, and didn't look back.   I think the assumption is more than justifiable, I am usually a patient person, if I bailed after a few of those, I would imagine many less patient people left long before I did.

theSparatan117 #68 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 05:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8783 battles
  • 642
  • [PSS9] PSS9
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013

View PostBurning_Haggis, on Sep 13 2017 - 22:47, said:

 

Personally, I enjoyed the game, but the queue times for a real game got impossible because of PvE.  The night I sat for 30+ min for a common tier game I walked away, and didn't look back.   I think the assumption is more than justifiable, I am usually a patient person, if I bailed after a few of those, I would imagine many less patient people left long before I did.

 

So let me get this straight.... You're mad at the game because there was no one there to queue with, and you waited a half hour to play against someone, so therefore PVE is to blame? 

That literally makes no sense dude....



VooDooKobra #69 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 06:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 6572 battles
  • 2,503
  • [1-185] 1-185
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
personally i think PVE as a training tool could be valuable for clans or even to learn new tanks.  as a game mode in itself while i do play coop in warships, sometimes the way they have it set to give less money and xp does not keep me there long

CapPhrases #70 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 10:05

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 6327 battles
  • 1,955
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

View PostSevok, on Sep 13 2017 - 22:11, said:

 

Way too long, not gonna bother.

 

you're right, why bother reading something if it's long?

btw I hear books go past a paragraph so make sure you stay away from libraries



lionheart1118 #71 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 10:38

    Staff sergeant

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

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 14 2017 - 02:00, said:

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. 

 

 

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.

 

 

We have already been over several of the games, and I'm not sure if you know how to read that chart. First off it's peak for last month was 15k which is 10k less than wot. How is 15k more than 25-27k?. Again I said they could add a pve, they just shouldn't have any rewards for it. Ai would teach players bad habits as it would be far too easy, unless you think it would be easy to program a team of ai to sidescrape for example. So is what you want a pve mode or a pve mode where you get rewarded? Because it sounds like you just want an easy mode through the tiers.



theSparatan117 #72 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 11:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8783 battles
  • 642
  • [PSS9] PSS9
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013

View Postlionheart1118, on Sep 14 2017 - 04:38, said:

We have already been over several of the games, and I'm not sure if you know how to read that chart. First off it's peak for last month was 15k which is 10k less than wot. How is 15k more than 25-27k?. Again I said they could add a pve, they just shouldn't have any rewards for it. Ai would teach players bad habits as it would be far too easy, unless you think it would be easy to program a team of ai to sidescrape for example. So is what you want a pve mode or a pve mode where you get rewarded? Because it sounds like you just want an easy mode through the tiers.

 

> Several games

Where? You certainly haven't listed anything. Even after Pipinghot asked you

 

Pipinghot 

 what is the list of games that you count as being "like this" when you made your statement?

 

I'm not sure how often you play WoT... but I've had some free time after getting done with Baseball for the season (professionally) and have been playing all day long. At any given point in time, the average count is about 11,000 on the central server for NA. Peak doesn't matter... peak is purely circumstantial and cannot be used for comparison. Peak for World of tanks can get as high as 32,000 but it hasn't seen those numbers since the East and West were split. 

 

lionheart1118

 I said they could add a pve, they just shouldn't have any rewards for it

 

You never said that

 

lionheart1118

  Ai would teach players bad habits as it would be far too easy

 

AI would teach players to make calculated risks. AI all talk to each other with one mindset and can make coordinated pushes along flanks and routes. Learning how to deal with aggressive players who have no regard for their health could actually help with clan wars. As is, Random Battles and Clan Wars are completely different in their play style. Random Battles usually dissolve into either camp fests, or rofl stomps. If players learned how to better cope with coordinated pushes from the enemy team, they wouldn't be mowed down so quickly. 

 

lionheart1118

 unless you think it would be easy to program a team of ai to sidescrape for example

 

You'd never have to teach an AI to do that. AI don't need that. AI could easily coordinate an attack on you, so while you're focused on the guy in front of you who just knocked your tracks off, another one flies around the corner and starts putting holes in your side, while the one in front of you keeps you tracked. There are so many things that AI can do that we could never hope to coordinate in Random Battles due to lack of communication. This is a fresh new dynamic that everyone can enjoy and learn to counter. The best part is that AI don't always do the same thing every time. AI will change the way they play a map every time based on how the game progresses. However, Humans in their infinite lazy state, probably will always play a given map the exact same way hoping to replicate the good game they had there last time. Every now and then, you'll encounter players who will dynamically change how they are going to play the map, but most of the players will not because they're too afraid of losing hit points and won't take risks. Furthermore, you're not going to have a camping TD way at the back of the map when you play against AI. AI will act as the way that the game creators intended them to be played and you will be able to build a calculated assault based on that. AI doesn't get pissed off and focus fire you when you anger him... AI artillery won't XVM snipe... AI TDs don't camp the entire game providing zero support for their team... 

 

Currently as I'm writing this, the number of people online for the NA Central server is 800. I sat in the queue for Tier 9 for 10 minutes before canceling and deciding to write back to you, and head to bed (shortly). If there were a PVE mode, I wouldn't be waiting... I could prolong sleep and continue playing. However, I'm waiting for other people to queue up so I can play. Most of those people are going to be try hards, or people who are super good at the game grinding away to get down a line and will probably not hesitate to spam gold. I don't care to play against those people when I want to unwind and have fun... maybe someone does, but I don't. This is why PVE is a great alternative. 

 

Not everyone is going t play PVE all the time, and the ability to have that option to play it or not is wonderful. 

 

lionheart1118

 So is what you want a pve mode or a pve mode where you get rewarded? Because it sounds like you just want an easy mode through the tiers.

 

First, never start a sentence with "because". It's not grammatically sound. Second, PVE with diminished rewards, same as WoWS. Granted it's not nearly as difficult to play against AI, as it is to play against humans. However, running tanks in this game are not free. The cost for running a Tier 9 battle is somewhere around 45,000 a game. If you did anything decent, you'd probably make that and 5,000 extra. In a PVE game, if you were to have to pay for repairs/ammo with no compensation, you'd literally be looking at about 50K a game which would drain anyone's wallet faster than their head can spin. It'd be like the failed domination mode they tried to introduce a while back, that everyone quit playing, because you had to pay for the repairs of 3 tanks every game, instead of 1. The cost of that game mode was somewhere around 80,000 per game, and you had no chance of ever making enough to break even with that. 

 

WG has always had problems with the Economy. If you wanted to offset the cost of playing higher tier battles, you bought a premium account. Even then, you still had to do fairly well in order to make credits. The way the game is currently set up, you could never entice players to play a game mode that offered nothing in return. It simply would fall flat on it's face, because there would literally be no benefit to playing it. The whole objective of playing this game is to have fun, and earn XP to progress your way towards new tanks. It's literally the only thing that keeps people in this game playing. There's no ranking system... no level system... no rewards to be unlocked.. no random chance for something to drop... it's literally setting a goal, and grinding your way towards it. You have fun by blasting people along the way. 

 

Here's another thought for you. Not everyone is good enough to even become a unicum... it doesn't matter how much practice they put in, how much they learn, and how much time they dedicate to the game. Some people are just going to be better than others. I've known people who were incredibly excited about owning an IS-7 because it was their First T10 tank, they had earned after playing the game for 2 years and over 8K battles. Yeah... they're bad... but they were excited because it felt like they had finally climbed the mountain, through all of the frustrations and time. Now, if we gave them a PVE mode where they could make that trip in less time and earn more tanks by playing against opponents that weren't nearly as good as them, then they'd feel that sense of accomplishment more often. Many people leave this game because of the mechanics, and the skill of the players still playing. There's literally no rewards for "getting good"... a unicum and a tomato will literally earn the same tank eventually... and bad players are never going to join ranked battles. 

 

Are you saying that you don't want a PVE mode because you need bad players to join queue so you have things to pad your stats with? That's exactly what it sounds like. 

 

I can't believe I wrote a novel on this... 

 

 



lionheart1118 #73 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 12:00

    Staff sergeant

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

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 14 2017 - 10:42, said:

 

> Several games

Where? You certainly haven't listed anything. Even after Pipinghot asked you

 

 

I'm not sure how often you play WoT... but I've had some free time after getting done with Baseball for the season (professionally) and have been playing all day long. At any given point in time, the average count is about 11,000 on the central server for NA. Peak doesn't matter... peak is purely circumstantial and cannot be used for comparison. Peak for World of tanks can get as high as 32,000 but it hasn't seen those numbers since the East and West were split. 

 

 

You never said that

 

 

AI would teach players to make calculated risks. AI all talk to each other with one mindset and can make coordinated pushes along flanks and routes. Learning how to deal with aggressive players who have no regard for their health could actually help with clan wars. As is, Random Battles and Clan Wars are completely different in their play style. Random Battles usually dissolve into either camp fests, or rofl stomps. If players learned how to better cope with coordinated pushes from the enemy team, they wouldn't be mowed down so quickly. 

 

 

You'd never have to teach an AI to do that. AI don't need that. AI could easily coordinate an attack on you, so while you're focused on the guy in front of you who just knocked your tracks off, another one flies around the corner and starts putting holes in your side, while the one in front of you keeps you tracked. There are so many things that AI can do that we could never hope to coordinate in Random Battles due to lack of communication. This is a fresh new dynamic that everyone can enjoy and learn to counter. The best part is that AI don't always do the same thing every time. AI will change the way they play a map every time based on how the game progresses. However, Humans in their infinite lazy state, probably will always play a given map the exact same way hoping to replicate the good game they had there last time. Every now and then, you'll encounter players who will dynamically change how they are going to play the map, but most of the players will not because they're too afraid of losing hit points and won't take risks. Furthermore, you're not going to have a camping TD way at the back of the map when you play against AI. AI will act as the way that the game creators intended them to be played and you will be able to build a calculated assault based on that. AI doesn't get pissed off and focus fire you when you anger him... AI artillery won't XVM snipe... AI TDs don't camp the entire game providing zero support for their team... 

 

Currently as I'm writing this, the number of people online for the NA Central server is 800. I sat in the queue for Tier 9 for 10 minutes before canceling and deciding to write back to you, and head to bed (shortly). If there were a PVE mode, I wouldn't be waiting... I could prolong sleep and continue playing. However, I'm waiting for other people to queue up so I can play. Most of those people are going to be try hards, or people who are super good at the game grinding away to get down a line and will probably not hesitate to spam gold. I don't care to play against those people when I want to unwind and have fun... maybe someone does, but I don't. This is why PVE is a great alternative. 

 

Not everyone is going t play PVE all the time, and the ability to have that option to play it or not is wonderful. 

 

 

First, never start a sentence with "because". It's not grammatically sound. Second, PVE with diminished rewards, same as WoWS. Granted it's not nearly as difficult to play against AI, as it is to play against humans. However, running tanks in this game are not free. The cost for running a Tier 9 battle is somewhere around 45,000 a game. If you did anything decent, you'd probably make that and 5,000 extra. In a PVE game, if you were to have to pay for repairs/ammo with no compensation, you'd literally be looking at about 50K a game which would drain anyone's wallet faster than their head can spin. It'd be like the failed domination mode they tried to introduce a while back, that everyone quit playing, because you had to pay for the repairs of 3 tanks every game, instead of 1. The cost of that game mode was somewhere around 80,000 per game, and you had no chance of ever making enough to break even with that. 

 

WG has always had problems with the Economy. If you wanted to offset the cost of playing higher tier battles, you bought a premium account. Even then, you still had to do fairly well in order to make credits. The way the game is currently set up, you could never entice players to play a game mode that offered nothing in return. It simply would fall flat on it's face, because there would literally be no benefit to playing it. The whole objective of playing this game is to have fun, and earn XP to progress your way towards new tanks. It's literally the only thing that keeps people in this game playing. There's no ranking system... no level system... no rewards to be unlocked.. no random chance for something to drop... it's literally setting a goal, and grinding your way towards it. You have fun by blasting people along the way. 

 

Here's another thought for you. Not everyone is good enough to even become a unicum... it doesn't matter how much practice they put in, how much they learn, and how much time they dedicate to the game. Some people are just going to be better than others. I've known people who were incredibly excited about owning an IS-7 because it was their First T10 tank, they had earned after playing the game for 2 years and over 8K battles. Yeah... they're bad... but they were excited because it felt like they had finally climbed the mountain, through all of the frustrations and time. Now, if we gave them a PVE mode where they could make that trip in less time and earn more tanks by playing against opponents that weren't nearly as good as them, then they'd feel that sense of accomplishment more often. Many people leave this game because of the mechanics, and the skill of the players still playing. There's literally no rewards for "getting good"... a unicum and a tomato will literally earn the same tank eventually... and bad players are never going to join ranked battles. 

 

Are you saying that you don't want a PVE mode because you need bad players to join queue so you have things to pad your stats with? That's exactly what it sounds like. 

 

I can't believe I wrote a novel on this... 

 

 

I can't believe you wrote it all either since you clearly didn't bother to read my posts, have we not been talking about wows, war thunder, and aw? No? Huh could have sworn we have been. Peak does matter and I see 25k consistently at peak server time. And if you want to go by averages 11k is still more than the 9k avg war thunder had despite being a newer game WITH AI shocking I know. Again I have said in a previous post that pve could be done just shouldn't have any rewards. The rest you wrote about ai and players learning anything is moot. I have seen wows ai and if wot had anything like that then you might as well play the current ai mode at tier 1/2.



lionheart1118 #74 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 12:03

    Staff sergeant

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

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 14 2017 - 10:42, said:

 

> Several games

Where? You certainly haven't listed anything. Even after Pipinghot asked you

 

 

I'm not sure how often you play WoT... but I've had some free time after getting done with Baseball for the season (professionally) and have been playing all day long. At any given point in time, the average count is about 11,000 on the central server for NA. Peak doesn't matter... peak is purely circumstantial and cannot be used for comparison. Peak for World of tanks can get as high as 32,000 but it hasn't seen those numbers since the East and West were split. 

 

 

You never said that

 

 

AI would teach players to make calculated risks. AI all talk to each other with one mindset and can make coordinated pushes along flanks and routes. Learning how to deal with aggressive players who have no regard for their health could actually help with clan wars. As is, Random Battles and Clan Wars are completely different in their play style. Random Battles usually dissolve into either camp fests, or rofl stomps. If players learned how to better cope with coordinated pushes from the enemy team, they wouldn't be mowed down so quickly. 

 

 

You'd never have to teach an AI to do that. AI don't need that. AI could easily coordinate an attack on you, so while you're focused on the guy in front of you who just knocked your tracks off, another one flies around the corner and starts putting holes in your side, while the one in front of you keeps you tracked. There are so many things that AI can do that we could never hope to coordinate in Random Battles due to lack of communication. This is a fresh new dynamic that everyone can enjoy and learn to counter. The best part is that AI don't always do the same thing every time. AI will change the way they play a map every time based on how the game progresses. However, Humans in their infinite lazy state, probably will always play a given map the exact same way hoping to replicate the good game they had there last time. Every now and then, you'll encounter players who will dynamically change how they are going to play the map, but most of the players will not because they're too afraid of losing hit points and won't take risks. Furthermore, you're not going to have a camping TD way at the back of the map when you play against AI. AI will act as the way that the game creators intended them to be played and you will be able to build a calculated assault based on that. AI doesn't get pissed off and focus fire you when you anger him... AI artillery won't XVM snipe... AI TDs don't camp the entire game providing zero support for their team... 

 

Currently as I'm writing this, the number of people online for the NA Central server is 800. I sat in the queue for Tier 9 for 10 minutes before canceling and deciding to write back to you, and head to bed (shortly). If there were a PVE mode, I wouldn't be waiting... I could prolong sleep and continue playing. However, I'm waiting for other people to queue up so I can play. Most of those people are going to be try hards, or people who are super good at the game grinding away to get down a line and will probably not hesitate to spam gold. I don't care to play against those people when I want to unwind and have fun... maybe someone does, but I don't. This is why PVE is a great alternative. 

 

Not everyone is going t play PVE all the time, and the ability to have that option to play it or not is wonderful. 

 

 

First, never start a sentence with "because". It's not grammatically sound. Second, PVE with diminished rewards, same as WoWS. Granted it's not nearly as difficult to play against AI, as it is to play against humans. However, running tanks in this game are not free. The cost for running a Tier 9 battle is somewhere around 45,000 a game. If you did anything decent, you'd probably make that and 5,000 extra. In a PVE game, if you were to have to pay for repairs/ammo with no compensation, you'd literally be looking at about 50K a game which would drain anyone's wallet faster than their head can spin. It'd be like the failed domination mode they tried to introduce a while back, that everyone quit playing, because you had to pay for the repairs of 3 tanks every game, instead of 1. The cost of that game mode was somewhere around 80,000 per game, and you had no chance of ever making enough to break even with that. 

 

WG has always had problems with the Economy. If you wanted to offset the cost of playing higher tier battles, you bought a premium account. Even then, you still had to do fairly well in order to make credits. The way the game is currently set up, you could never entice players to play a game mode that offered nothing in return. It simply would fall flat on it's face, because there would literally be no benefit to playing it. The whole objective of playing this game is to have fun, and earn XP to progress your way towards new tanks. It's literally the only thing that keeps people in this game playing. There's no ranking system... no level system... no rewards to be unlocked.. no random chance for something to drop... it's literally setting a goal, and grinding your way towards it. You have fun by blasting people along the way. 

 

Here's another thought for you. Not everyone is good enough to even become a unicum... it doesn't matter how much practice they put in, how much they learn, and how much time they dedicate to the game. Some people are just going to be better than others. I've known people who were incredibly excited about owning an IS-7 because it was their First T10 tank, they had earned after playing the game for 2 years and over 8K battles. Yeah... they're bad... but they were excited because it felt like they had finally climbed the mountain, through all of the frustrations and time. Now, if we gave them a PVE mode where they could make that trip in less time and earn more tanks by playing against opponents that weren't nearly as good as them, then they'd feel that sense of accomplishment more often. Many people leave this game because of the mechanics, and the skill of the players still playing. There's literally no rewards for "getting good"... a unicum and a tomato will literally earn the same tank eventually... and bad players are never going to join ranked battles. 

 

Are you saying that you don't want a PVE mode because you need bad players to join queue so you have things to pad your stats with? That's exactly what it sounds like. 

 

I can't believe I wrote a novel on this... 

 

 

Also if my stats are from padding then boy I'm doing something wrong lol. I'm one of the bad players there bub. And what I'm saying is if you can earn credits and exp playing bots then not just the bads will play it. Bots would be so easy that it would make more sense to roflstomp them and earn everything quicker. Negating any reason to play PvP outside of ranked. Why would a good player spend twice the time playing a PvP match where they may very well lose when they can just farm so games rather quick? Really it would come down to how much time spent and rewards earned between the two game modes. If the only reason your playing is to unlock tanks then why bother with PvP if you can do it faster with pve? Also by making something easier to get that thrill of finally getting it starts to go away.  Beating a boss in Mario isn't as thrilling as beating a boss in a demon souls game now is it? If you say it is your just lying lol.



Chalybos #75 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 14:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21375 battles
  • 578
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

I feel confident that WG would refund me 100% credits for all of the arty I've purchased, free XP for all of the tier 10 arty lines I've researched, and offer me free crew retraining on all of the multi-skill crews I have on those arties before a playable, farmable AI mode like they have in WoWS is implemented.

And I ain't holding my breath on that.



Roccandil #76 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 16:07

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 257
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

Why is "random" PVP such a good thing? If that's all this game had, I'd have stopped played soon after giving it a try.

 

Randoms suck:

 

- +/-2 MM

- lots of arty

- bad hardware balance

- no teamwork

 

I'd rather -real- PVP were seen as being things like clan wars, skirmishes, team battles, and tournaments, and those battle types are the only reason I play this game. They organically fix most of the things I hate about pubs:

 

- same tier battles

- few arty

- team hardware is what you choose

- teamwork

 

IMO, randoms are about on-demand tanking, and PVE can do that better:

 

- same tier battles

- as many enemy arty as players want

- AI hardware can be dynamically balanced against player tanks, if desired

- allow 15-player platoons to allow clans to practice coordinating/focus fire/etc. on-demand (I could see this being a huge thing)

 

Good co-op PVE would give me a reason to play randoms again, and if the majority of the PVP pop voted with their feet to move to the PVE side, that says a lot about player enjoyment.

 

I wonder if most players in randoms are there for the on-demand nature of it, not the PVP nature of it (and given the responses here, I get the impression it's not just me who suspects that).



lionheart1118 #77 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 18:32

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostRoccandil, on Sep 14 2017 - 15:07, said:

Why is "random" PVP such a good thing? If that's all this game had, I'd have stopped played soon after giving it a try.

 

Randoms suck:

 

- +/-2 MM

- lots of arty

- bad hardware balance

- no teamwork

 

I'd rather -real- PVP were seen as being things like clan wars, skirmishes, team battles, and tournaments, and those battle types are the only reason I play this game. They organically fix most of the things I hate about pubs:

 

- same tier battles

- few arty

- team hardware is what you choose

- teamwork

 

IMO, randoms are about on-demand tanking, and PVE can do that better:

 

- same tier battles

- as many enemy arty as players want

- AI hardware can be dynamically balanced against player tanks, if desired

- allow 15-player platoons to allow clans to practice coordinating/focus fire/etc. on-demand (I could see this being a huge thing)

 

Good co-op PVE would give me a reason to play randoms again, and if the majority of the PVP pop voted with their feet to move to the PVE side, that says a lot about player enjoyment.

 

I wonder if most players in randoms are there for the on-demand nature of it, not the PVP nature of it (and given the responses here, I get the impression it's not just me who suspects that).

There are a few options of games for you to do just that so why are you here.



Burning_Haggis #78 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 18:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40745 battles
  • 1,321
  • [G-M-U] G-M-U
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View PosttheSparatan117, on Sep 13 2017 - 22:51, said:

 

So let me get this straight.... You're mad at the game because there was no one there to queue with, and you waited a half hour to play against someone, so therefore PVE is to blame? 

That literally makes no sense dude....

 

Where did I say I was mad?

 

You are just  another snowflake putting words in my mouth.  

 

I just walked away, nothing mad, I was there to play PvP, and since there were not enough players, I quit wasting my time trying, it's that simple.

 



Roccandil #79 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 18:46

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 257
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View Postlionheart1118, on Sep 14 2017 - 12:32, said:

There are a few options of games for you to do just that so why are you here.

 

I'll quote myself:

 

"I'd rather -real- PVP were seen as being things like clan wars, skirmishes, team battles, and tournaments, and those battle types are the only reason I play this game."

 

:)



Krautjaeger #80 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 18:58

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 1032 battles
  • 168
  • [K00KS] K00KS
  • Member since:
    05-27-2017

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

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...

 

It would probably attract some new players, how many is uncertain. It would also filter out those who want to drive tanks, but does not care much about winning/losing. I play a fair bit of WoWs, on both NA and EU, both Co-Op and PvP players coexist quite nicely there, they have their thing we have ours. Some times Co-Op players dip in to PvP, and we gain a couple of new PvP recruits and some times PvP'ers just chill with a couple of Co-Op battles. Last I heard, about 30% of all WoWs players play Co-Op exclusively as an official WG number.

 

Would I play PvE? Most likely not a lot. Do I mind if it was there? Not at all. I'd rather prefer everyone could get what they'd love the most, and if it brought more people to the game then good. PvE people buy things from the store too. One thing though, in WoWs the PvE economy and xp is severely reduced. While I've not heard a specific number, it seems like there's around 40-60% less credits and xp per game. Approx. So if they did this in WoT, it'll probably be somewhat the same.







Also tagged with pve

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users