Jump to content

What would you do?  

44 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. What would you do?

    • Tune the game more towards PvP (that is, competitive gameplay at the expense of PvE content)
      1
    • Make the game continue the way it is now, a bit of a mix of both PvP and PvE
      20
    • Tune the game more towards PvE (that is, more PvE content at the expense of PvP one)
      23


Recommended Posts

So, right off the bat, just to make things clear, I am not posting here as a member of staff, but as a player. This isn't an official thread and is not intended for an official gathering of feedback. This is merely a discussion that I am personally interested in.

Armored Warfare is quite an old game deep into its life cycle (from this perspective, it's actually a success as many other games don't get to live that long). It doesn't have millions of players, but it does have a relatively stable core audience - you. So the question is:

If you had the choice, what would you prefer the future to look like?

I'll give you three options as a poll in this thread:

  • Tune the game more towards PvP (that is, competitive gameplay at the expense of PvE content)
  • Make the game continue the way it is now, a bit of a mix of both PvP and PvE
  • Tune the game more towards PvE (that is, more PvE content at the expense of PvP one)

Originally, I thought I'd explain the advantages and drawbacks of each but having those "served together" would make you biased towards one of the options and I don't want that. I want to hear what you think, ideally with your reasoning why you'd do it. Please vote and submit your answers, I am looking forward to them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it would be progress it as both PvE and PvP.  As I've made clear previously I feel there need to be more 'end game' stuff like heroics or spec ops mission for the long term player.  I know that these aren't generally viewed as viable to produce due to amount of work required compared to the outcome, which I think is a shame.  I do have more of a lean towards the PvE modes as I can sit down, play and not get stressed over others in my team being idiots (can solo carry more often and consistently than in other modes)

I like to jump into Glops games to scratch my PvP itch as I feel this is a more 'relaxed' PvP mode compared to just straight forward PvP.  I tend to enjoy high tier glops games as I feel they are rewarding and I can play in a more care free approach.

For 'normal' PvP, I tend to play tier 6-8 as I get the most enjoyment of these tiers - there is a nice balance between skill and reward at that tier.  If I play tier 9/10 I just tend to get stomped into the ground with a single mistake because most games are decided by which team rushes which way.  Or because you get caught slightly out of position and suddenly you're dead because 9 enemies were pre-aiming that spot and suddenly 4k hp really isn't that much.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, if I may be frank regular hardcore PvE bores me after a few matches. Idk, it just feels brainless. However spec ops and heroics is a nice challenge. So I wouldn't remove either of those gamemodes.

This means that I generally play glops, with a occasional PvE game in there. Especially heroics. And if we would remove the PvP element (or glops), I would just quit the game to be frank. I just feel like PvE is too much the same everytime, which bores me, and if a game bores me, then why play it. For regular random battles, I could get back into it, but I simply don't get the same enjoyment out of it, as I get out of glops, simple as that. This means that I tend to just play glops instead, unless they glops queue is total dead for the specific tier/vehicle I want to play. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a lot of tank games that do pvp better than aw, and if i ever wanted to play that mode, i would play another game. we have seen what happen when the game tries to do something for pvp, just look at 0.33. i think its better if the game stays on his strong point against other games, pve. it can get boring pretty fast, but you can fix that with not much of a problem adding various stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say a bit more PvE, but only slightly. I think killing of PvP will drive more people away. Keep the PvP aspect maintained (balance etc), but focus on what this game makes unique, which is it's PvE mode. 


With great power, comes great electricity bill. 

ヽ(。_°)ノ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

From what I can tell, a majority (Im talking about >60% if not more) of the playerbase are PvE players. Lets face it: AW's gameplay is not fundamentally different to WoT (WT is its own thing), and most people played AW rather than WoT because they are:

A. Sick and tired of the BS in WoT and WT (Looking at you, WG and Gaijn)

B. Doesn't like the PvP-centric gameplay of WoT (or indeed other WG projects) /WT, and want something modern + PvE

Allow me to be blunt: AW's chances of beating WG at their own game is very slim. Yes, PvP in this game has its own unique twist, but fundamentally it plays just about the same as WoT, just with modern tanks - why wouldn't I just go play WoT instead if I really want to play PvP? WoT unquestionably is much more polished, has a larger playerbase, and in general they are just the established game in the genre, and it would be very difficult to compete with them without significant resources being put into it (and not guaranteed to succeed).

However, in my humble opinion anyway, AW survived this long because it always has one thing WoT, and indeed WT doesn't have - a PvE side of the game that is not only viable, but actually pretty damn good for what it is. Operations, Spec Ops, Glops (personally not a fan but there sure is a playerbase around that), Heroics - lots of variety and perfectly viable for grinding.

Yeah sure its definitely not perfect and sometimes cheesy, but then you look at the disaster that is WG's attempt at PvE mode (e.g. Road to Berlin is nothing but a cash-grab grinding mode that is repetitive and obnoxious), or WT's borderline "PvE" mode in Air/Ground Assault, which is basically just a tower defense mode with a fancy name - AW is so much better in this regard.

Do I think the developers should kill off PvP? Probably not, because there is also some attraction there, and I would be perfectly happy to see occasional love to the mode (new maps, balance changes). But I am telling you - PvE is this game's niche. Its what makes this game attractive to people looking for an alternative to the PvP centric military/tank MMO out there. Rather than trying to imitate what somebody else does, why not do what you do best and make the most of it?

Edited by Nekrosmas (see edit history)
  • Upvote 2

Spoiler

EHwxqNX.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, lets see, 0.33, or, the death of the game, as it looks now, is trying to bring people back into a mode, that, if you actually wanted to play it, you'd have other games to choose from, which are bigger, and therefore, you don't need to wait for matches. GLOPs is a bit different, as it is atleast somewhat unique, and would do well with getting upgrades and rebalances, if any sort of pvp is supposed to survive. pve on the other hand, the attempts of the big ones, both WG aswell as Gaijin, are pitiful at best. WT only has a wave survival mode with bots so accurate, that you wish for the bots from AW (T-34 going cross country hitting you under the mantlet at over 800m, last time i played that), and WoT doesnt do it better, magic aim of bots reminiscent of AW in the 0.2x patches, where you got snapshot by everything and their mothers the moment you peak around a corner. So, actually getting more pve missions in, and adjusting them that atleast they arent as predicatable as they are now (only the maps that i never/rarely play i dont know to well what classes should spawn where and when), would atleast reinforce what actually was the main thing for atleast some players from the getgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been said before but I'll repeat it here anyways: the greatest advantage AW has over its competitors (WoT, WT) is its PvE element. Everybody has qualms and criticisms against it and there are definitely lots room for improvement, but at the end of the day PvE is still the only thing setting AW apart from the other titles.

On the surface, it makes perfect sense to capitalize on the PvE advantage and develop it further. From the last Q&A it is said that PvE make up 60-80% of all concurrent battles (depending on time of day), I wouldn't be surprised if PvE makes up at least 75% of the total number of battles over any 24h period. Long queue times in PvP outside of prime times notwithstanding, it wouldn't be a far stretch to postulate that the number of players preferring PvE far outweigh those who prefer PvP.

From a game development perspective however, PvE requires a great deal more resources to develop and maintain compared to PvP. Take the example of developing a new map/mission and the possible efforts involved for both modes:

PvP:

  • Make a map (ie. terrain, props, effects)
  • Add players (ie. spawn/respawn points)
  • Add terrain features to enhance player experience (ie. hard/soft cover)
  • Add objectives (ie. cap points)
  • Balance the map based on playtesting

PvE:

  • Make a map
  • Add players
  • Add terrain features
  • Add AI (ie. spawn criteria)
  • Add scripting for AI (ie. pathfinding, target picking)
  • Add objectives
  • Add scripting for map (ie. multiple objectives, success/failure conditions, AI targeting)
  • Check everything because something will likely be broken even before the map is playable
  • Balance the map from playtesting
  • Check everything again because the balancing probably broke something
  • Add some sort of narrative (also paying for voice-overs)
  • Cry in a corner because your scripting is now spaghetti


It's no great surprise to me that the devs consider Glops to be a dead end even though it has immense potential, since it's practically PvE with PvP elements mixed in. The more things get piled on the map, the more effort required to not break things. The concept of PvPvE is fantastic, but the execution is difficult and demanding. It simply takes much less resources to develop PvP than PvE.


From a gamer perspective, I'd gladly sacrifice all things PvP if it means I get a good PvE experience in return. From a coder/developer perspective, PvP is far easier to pump out content.

  • Upvote 1

Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The biggest problem with GLOPS is that:

  • It fundamentally multiplies some problems. The vehicles that are toxic but die early on if played incorrectly become REALLY toxic with infinite respawns
  • It combines the negative sides of both modes, PvP players complain about balance issues while PvE players complain because it's fundamentally PvP

As a result, it isn't liked by anybody except for a narrow niche of experienced players, who get to identify the FOTM meta and pwn the shit out of everyone else. As you might have imagined, that's not a good recipe and it cannot be realistically built upon.

 

Edited by Silentstalker (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Silentstalker said:

The biggest problem with GLOPS is that:

  • It fundamentally multiplies some problems. The vehicles that are toxic but die early on if played incorrectly become REALLY toxic with infinite respawns
  • It combines the negative sides of both modes, PvP players complain about balance issues while PvE players complain because it's fundamentally PvP

As a result, it isn't liked by anybody except for a narrow niche of experienced players, who get to identify the FOTM meta and pwn the shit out of everyone else. As you might have imagined, that's not a good recipe.

 

Meanwhile, I am here sitting in a corner liking glops while not playing meta stuff. Unless you call the type 99a2 or vbr meta. Yes, those vehicles become painfull as hell to use after some time. Still, I would rather play it than regular PvE or random battles. Then again, the main thing I dislike about glops is surprisingly the wildcards... It's hard to explain, I just don't feel like wandering of to get them, and often it leads to a winning team winning even harder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be a balance of PvP and PvE. Playing against bots all day gets really boring and that's when ppl go to PvP(randoms or globs). Honestly I'm not sure if AW's dev team will ever strike a good balance between PvP and PvE if they don't change the way the AI tanks are classified - so that they aren't affected by the player tank changes, or at least give the AI debuffs and put it somewhere in the menu for the players to know what is different in the AI's tanks compared to the Player's, because if they make pvp changes  now - that will buff the bots too.  All of us already hate being nuked by 999 ATGMs and the constant T-15s spawning as if it's super easy to manufacture them  those tanks are annoying in pve but are easy to deal with in pvp.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote PVE. The only reason I play AW is for PVE. I tried PVP and got stomped, got a few kills but lost all matches not even close. One of the biggest improvement you could make to the game that would aid both game modes would be improved match making. Also please pass on that it would be helpful if AW would nerf the aim bot of the bots. I don't like their inhuman accuracy with cannons and especially missiles, SK APS still seems to have no effect on bot ATGM's. Also, please remove the T15 and swingfire from the AI vehicle pool.

4 minutes ago, Haswell said:

From a gamer perspective, I'd gladly sacrifice all things PvP if it means I get a good PvE experience in return. From a coder/developer perspective, PvP is far easier to pump out content.

Nothing worth while is easy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a PVP player I chose to tune the game more towards PVE content. 

I don't want any PVP mode to be removed from the game at all, but I feel like PVE has a lot of potential and more possibilities for new modes and ideas. As PVE gets repetitive fast, which is the nature of PVE I think, it should get new content more often compared to PVP modes. 

In terms of PVE content I'd like to see more high-difficulty stuff like heroics for example. Normal PVE modes are simply way too easy in their current implementation, being one of the reasons why this mode is repetitive to the max. I feel like it could be a good idea to make the hardcore-modes more difficult to increase the usefulness of the easy-mode. Currently it feels like the easy mode is just cosmetics. As for the newbies you could make the easy mode in T1-T3 even less difficult to give them a simpler start, while increasing the difficulty of hardcore missions.

A win in the normal hardcore PVE simply has no value currently. The majority of the players is probably having an 75-100% winrate there without the need to perform excellent. As long as you have a normal performing team it's an easy win usually. So either increase the difficulty as described above, or provide players who search for a challenge more difficult content (such as heroics for example, or some T10 Specops missions are quite difficult as well if you do them with randoos, which I like very much).

I'd like to see more diverse modes in PVE, such as Labyrinth for example. It would spice things up a bit. I'd welcome a horde-mode as well, maybe even an "infinite" one to see how far the teams can progress before getting nuked by the robot army. 

As for PVP I strongly advise to balance the game according to this game mode, even if devs would decide to focus more on PVE content. Balance is absolutely crucial in PVP and a bad balance means certain death for this modes, while bad balance in PVE is way less frustrating (Bot's don't care AFAIK and the human players are all in the same team). On the other hand, devs should still look at vehicles which are blatantly overperforming in PVE (such as XM and other DPM monsters). The focus should still remain on PVP random battles in this regard. 

PVP is less repetitive compared to PVE, hence it requires far less content in terms of modes and maps to work. Human enemies are far less predictable than bots and generally performing way better than them (who would've tought). The current maps available build a solid foundation for those modes (some maps need to be looked at tough, especially GLOPS maps) so i don't see a need to focus on PVP content creation in terms of new modes and maps to keep players entertained. PVP matches are usually pretty unique and more dynamic if you compare them to PVE matches, avoiding the need to do the same over and over again.

5 minutes ago, Silentstalker said:

The biggest problem with GLOPS is that:

  • It fundamentally multiplies some problems. The vehicles that are toxic but die early on if played incorrectly become REALLY toxic with infinite respawns
  • It combines the negative sides of both modes, PvP players complain about balance issues while PvE players complain because it's fundamentally PvP

As a result, it isn't liked by anybody except for a narrow niche of experienced players, who get to identify the FOTM meta and pwn the shit out of everyone else. As you might have imagined, that's not a good recipe and it cannot be realistically built upon.

Agreed. GLOPS has major flaws in terms of its design. The PVE-PVP mixture is not really the case. It's definitely a pure PVP mode. The bots (which are not even present on all maps) have minimal impact on the gameplay and merely represent useless damage pinatas. There's no way you can attract PVE players with this mode. It's more forgiving due to the respawn mechanics, so some players might prefer it over random battles. I like GLOPS as well despite its flaws. It's a very dynamic mode with lots of action, but you need to use the right vehicles for it. Otherwise it gets frustrating quickly. And yes there's the stet padding plutons and toxic vehicles... They usually have a far worse impact on GLOPS compared to random battles.

I strongly disagree with the argument that WOT already has PVP so there's no reason to have it here. Unlike WOT we don't have the following here:

  • P2W gold ammo (That's probably the most toxic shit in WOT and the main reason I quit it)
  • XVM (Every decent WOT player knows what I'm talking about. 100% cancer)
  • Very slow gameplay (tanks moving at 20km/h. Every time I do some WOT battles it just feels like I'm playing a slow motion simulator. It got better probably with the addition of wheeled vehicles but as an AW player you'll have a hard time to turn back there)

The first two points are absolutely crucial. Yes, there are OP vehicles, commanders and whatnot in AW. However, you have the same situation in WOT. Perfect balance is not possible. I won't compare it to WT, because that's really something on its own due to its damage model. 

AW PVP does have the significant advantages of not having gold ammo or stuff like XVM and providing a rather fast gameplay with lots of different interesting systems such as ATGM, smoke, APS, ...

  • Upvote 1

Spoiler

fdassdaas.jpg.c709df3e98adc5265f232fe9458a3043.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say just get rid of the PVP modes, all of them; randoms, glops, and ranked. From what I have been told, AW at the start didn't have any PVP mode, so go back to that. I came to AW for the PVE as did a majority of the player base it seems. Most (if not all) of the toxic players are PVPers, so while we would lose some of the player base, we'd also be losing most of our toxic garbage. Also getting rid of PVP would make the tanks easier to balance.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, TekNicTerror said:

I'd say just get rid of the PVP modes, all of them; randoms, glops, and ranked. From what I have been told, AW at the start didn't have any PVP mode, so go back to that. I came to AW for the PVE as did a majority of the player base it seems. Most (if not all) of the toxic players are PVPers, so while we would lose some of the player base, we'd also be losing most of our toxic garbage. Also getting rid of PVP would make the tanks easier to balance.

I've been around since closed beta or "early access" first stage (just after early alpha), and I seriously doubt that was ever the case. PvE itself came around later on in development, but I'm almost certain PvP was in first, the traditional PvP you see in WoT. 

Though I do play GLOPS as preferred mode. I think the game is truly meant for PvE, a lot more can be done to make it more appealing (could it be more rewarding, probably but I've only just started playing again after a some months - I probably don't have a well informed opinion on whether it's rewarding enough due to my inactivity). Doing standard PvE is really quite boring and it feels like a person would have to burn premium time and countless boosters and insignias winning non-stop on non-spec Ops PvE just to advance a single medium or high tier vehicle in full (literally hundreds of games). 

Edited by reciprocate (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, reciprocate said:

I've been around since closed beta or "early access" first stage (just after early alpha), and I seriously doubt that was ever the case. PvE itself came around later on in development, but I'm almost certain PvP was in first, the traditional PvP you see in WoT. 

Though I do play GLOPS as preferred mode. I think the game is truly meant for PvE, a lot more can be done to make it more appealing (could it be more rewarding, probably but I've only just started playing again after a some months - I probably don't have a well informed opinion on whether it's rewarding enough due to my inactivity). Doing standard PvE is really quite boring and it feels like a person would have to burn premium time and countless boosters and insignias winning non-stop on non-spec Ops PvE just to advance a single medium or high tier vehicle in full (literally hundreds of games). 

Just going by what I was told, but  I could really careless if that was true or not. AW is a PVE game, PVP should be removed and balances should be done for PVE play, not PVP (if it is kept since PVE is the majority of games being played). If players care more for PVP than PVE, than they'd be playing WoT, not AW.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It should be both PvP/PvE, not sure of GLOPS. GLOPS should be more like CS or WT session based game in several rounds or truly limited respawns.

Battle Path presents high contrast between either impossibility to do certain tasks (for me - in PvE, solo, random), or some easy but very mundane tasks.

Fundamentally all past BP should be purchasable DLC which everyone new should able to buy (one time) and complete within 3 months period. Presently by doing single time opportunity to get some FOTM vehicles, all new players often appear in very discriminated position, forced to pay overpriced prices for some commanders and tanks directly from market (per 0.32 - Ophelia, CATTB). This way new players are punished for not playing in AW earlier.

PvE concerns :

  • bots behavior is stupid, they either passive, or overly aggressive, inadequately accurate (or opposite)
  • feeling of playing  a "kill 10 Bradley and 15  T-15" simulator - i want to challenge these toxic CATTB and 490 in hands of bots
  • Most of Obsidians time PvE missions weren't changed for years, and some Mail ru reworks went wrong way - most of them too easy, or forces to play with top "scout" MBT vehicles (they are nice, but i name them here - Ghost Hunter and Starry Night)
  • In 99% of time we fail in PvE because of some silly timers, caps not because we were destroyed by bots (remember old Snake Bite, very first Perseus). I really would like to play vanilla PvE AW (balance 2.0 - PvP balance and mail ru devs destroyed all of it)
  • Players autocannons - the game which could be find with just limited set of MBT and even more limited set of IT/AFV/LT introduces more and more soft vehicles, for which devs have create special balance in PvP (better vision, DPM and camo) and they don't care about implications of it in PvE. The game needs separate DPM balance characteristics for PvE.

I think I don't play PvE anymore because it is fun (except tier 10 SO in random) but because i still have a habit to login and collect all these daily rewards and seasonal reward tanks even if i don't play then later (ADATS is exception but it still playable on few open PvE missions). Paying  5 mln credits for skipping a daily battalion contract forces me to play some games to earn in-game credits. 

 

PvP concerns :

  • as truly random matchmaker as possible, no WR should be  taken into account (copying WoT patterns which creates a lot of anxiety in WoT player base itself wasn't best idea)
  • penetration random factor should be reduced
  • one new map released at least 9-12 months (why not reuse some Special Ops maps locations, like second map on American Dream)
  • new players should not die fast, new players should not feel helpless vs. pen and spotting mechanics, new players should not feel they useless and such as raised this concern of very low TTK, since all these new cool BP vehicles annihilate opponents quite quickly. Player waits few minutes for queue, then session warming up 1-1.5 minutes, first encounter and die. 
    • I would rather see PvP mode where teams in 5 vs 5 setting fight each other in several rounds. One round should be limited in time, but teams can be matched up to 3 times. Employ WT way of using 3 vehicles of choice within each round.  
  • Better play in 5 vs 5 with +1 level difference, than 15 vs 15 with +2 level difference. 
  • Platoons should play vs platoons in same quantity (old story 3 vs 3 with full platoon on one side before server merge on euro, ergo "we don't listen to feedback")
Edited by dfnce (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

From what I have been told, AW at the start didn't have any PVP mode, so go back to that.

That's certainly BS.

2 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

Most (if not all) of the toxic players are PVPers, so while we would lose some of the player base, we'd also be losing most of our toxic garbage.

I don't know where all this salt is coming from, but according to your hate for PVP I suppose you're rarely (if ever) playing PVP in AW. Therefore I'm quite curious how you come to such a conclusion. I struggle to believe that PVE is a fairy-tale land with no toxic players whatsoever (as long as you're in a multiplayer game there will be toxic players, no matter what game or mode you play).

2 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

Also getting rid of PVP would make the tanks easier to balance.

Same goes for removing random battles and PVE for example. GLOPS would be way easier to balance :snrk:

1 hour ago, TekNicTerror said:

If players care more for PVP than PVE, than they'd be playing WoT, not AW.

Press X to doubt. Seems like I'm not an average PVP player then.

Honestly, I think the game should head more towards PVE as well but removing entire modes from the game is not a solution at all. There's still a PVP playerbase around (if it only consists of "toxic garbage" remains yet to be proven :kek:

  • Upvote 4

Spoiler

fdassdaas.jpg.c709df3e98adc5265f232fe9458a3043.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

I'd say just get rid of the PVP modes, all of them; randoms, glops, and ranked. From what I have been told, AW at the start didn't have any PVP mode, so go back to that. I came to AW for the PVE as did a majority of the player base it seems. Most (if not all) of the toxic players are PVPers, so while we would lose some of the player base, we'd also be losing most of our toxic garbage. Also getting rid of PVP would make the tanks easier to balance.

If you get rid of the PVP then the toxic would migrate to the PVE side and make things shit there to. Better to keep them where they are, out of the way.

I have seen many toxic PVE players, either the ones that continually run the seal clubbing tanks and or pushing other off cliffs/into bot fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about you start by making sure that in Glops


A. there is NEVER a platoon on one side only.

If you are having trouble counting to 1, please get an adult to help you.


"Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Lenticulas said:

how about you start by making sure that in Glops


A. there is NEVER a platoon on one side only.

If you are having trouble counting to 1, please get an adult to help you.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Such cases only happen when there are no other suitable platoons in the queue. The alternative would be making the platoon stuck in MM for far longer, which is a worse result for us than an imbalanced battle.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is important that PvP, in my case Glops, is maintained. PvE is also an important, if not the most important, area of AW, of course. So I voted for "Make the game continue the way it is now, a bit of a mix of both PvP and PvE".
If Glops were dropped, the game would unfortunately be of no interest to me.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Friesenstahl said:

If Glops were dropped, the game would unfortunately be of no interest to me.

RT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only play PvE, but despite that I didn't automatically vote for PvE.  I lack sufficient information to make an informed vote - specifically, what's the balance of revenue look like?  If the game needs both modes to survive, then by all means keep supporting both modes.  But if PvP is a smaller portion of revenue, then concentrate on PvE (by focusing on PvE you will increase that revenue, hopefully countering any loss of PvP revenue).  The opposite does not seem true - despite years of AW trying to coerce PvE players to play PvP or GLOPS, we're still not doing it so if you cut PvE in favor of PvP I suspect that you'll just lose that revenue.  You'd definitely lose mine - I'd just find another game.

PvE is what makes AW interesting.  I understand the people who say it is boring even though I don't agree with them (I find PvP boring), but if more effort was focused on PvE - improving the bot AI, for example - then much of that criticism could be dealt with.

Balancing for PvP is a never-ending effort, and requires significant time investment to get right.  A company focusing on PvP gains by not having to create as many assets and content (in theory), but loses due to the more rigorous balancing effort.  (The players are the content, or so the theory goes.)

Balancing for PvE is easier simply because the players aren't playing directly against each other.  Vehicles need to be roughly comparable, but as AW's existing PvE demonstrates a good player can do well in just about any vehicle.  The main balancing concern is toning down the outliers so that they're not OPAF.

Content is actually necessary regardless.  The game needs a steady stream of new vehicles and new maps regardless of mode.  The maps for PvP - as with the vehicles - require significantly more rigorous balancing to ensure that both teams have a reasonably equal chance, whereas the maps for PvE require more of a built-in story or progression.  As AW already demonstrates, maps for PvE can be re-used effectively.  It's not impossible to do that for PvP as well, but it's significantly more difficult due to the balance tuning.

2 hours ago, JintoLin said:

If you get rid of the PVP then the toxic would migrate to the PVE side and make things shit there to. Better to keep them where they are, out of the way.

Doubtful.  The toxicity in PvP comes from the fact that it is PvP.  It's juveniles feeling a need to compare e-peen sizes, and then getting angry when their e-peen doesn't measure up.  I suspect the vast majority of those players would find another PvP game to play rather than switching to PvE where no one cares how big your e-peen is.

Also, I suspect that the toxicity you see in PvE comes from toxic PvP players playing PvE.  They can't satisfy their need to be dominant through beating others in the game, so they resort to toxic behavior to scratch that itch.  Note that I'm only talking about active toxic behavior - kill stealing isn't toxic behavior... it's not even a thing in a cooperative game.  (There's no point - kills are a negligible component of your final score.)  Shot blocking is 99% accidental, not toxic behavior.  Sure, there's occasional toxic behavior in PvE, but honestly I've encountered it maybe 2-3 times in the last 6 months.  And it's really easy to ignore in PvE because it just doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Friesenstahl said:

For me it is important that PvP, in my case Glops, is maintained. PvE is also an important, if not the most important, area of AW, of course. So I voted for "Make the game continue the way it is now, a bit of a mix of both PvP and PvE".
If Glops were dropped, the game would unfortunately be of no interest to me.

 

From the recent PTS poll, the mode preferences are as follows:

PvE: 75 percent
PvP: 8 percent
GLOPS: 17 percent

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...