Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
SJ_Sailer

Cause & Effect / PVP vs. PVE

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

284
[MHG]
[MHG]
Members
883 posts
3,865 battles

Just a thought to discuss...

"What would be the effect on the game if PVE got the same XP and Credits as PVP did?"

Would there be a mad rush to PVE?  Would PVP get better or worse?

Just a thought for discussion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,005
[YORHA]
Members
4,806 posts
9,483 battles
1 minute ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Just a thought to discuss...

"What would be the effect on the game if PVE got the same XP and Credits as PVP did?"

Would there be a mad rush to PVE?  Would PVP get better or worse?

Just a thought for discussion...

 

No.  PVE is just not as satisfying (FOR MOST PLAYERS) as PVP is.  The challenge is not there.  PVE battles are too short to do any real damage (unless you play DDS), the AI is too predictable and there is no strategy other than to rush up and blast away.

I just spent 4 days grinding out snowflakes min PVE and I couldn't wait to get back to PVP.

 

 

For the benefit of the PVE mafia the "boring" icon is right over there>>>>>>>>. 

Fourth from the right.

 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 5
  • Boring 9
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
585
[WOLF2]
Members
1,590 posts
10,267 battles

If it was the same XP and credits?    For a purely grind standpoint (getting new ships, upgrades), it'd be Co-op all the way.

It has no complexity and is purely predictive.   The reds head for the DDs.   YOU FOLLOW THE DDs, full steam.  No worrying about caps or strategy

Games are fast - around five minutes in most cases.

Certain ships are great to charge in and live, since the bots don't use radar.     Follow the DD 2km behind in the Minotaur, smoke up and waste the bot congo line coming in.  120k+ damage each time easy-peasy.

99.9% wins

Little to no salt.

 

I'm a PVP main, but jumped to co-op to get the Dreadnought missions done (was slammed with work, and needed fast, quick matches).    I don't prefer it over the dynamics that PVP can bring, but for a quick pinch, it works.

And if you went full benefits?    While it'd be boring, I could quickly grind up ships in co-op.     

 

No thanks.  I prefer it the way it currently is.

 

Edited by DiddleDum
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[MHG]
[MHG]
Members
883 posts
3,865 battles
10 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

 

No.  PVE is just not as satisfying (FOR MOST PLAYERS) as PVP is.  The challenge is not there.  PVE battles are too short to do any real damage (unless you play DDS), the AI is too predictable and there is no strategy other than to rush up and blast away.

I just spent 4 days grinding out snowflakes min PVE and I couldn't wait to get back to PVP.

 

 

For the benefit of the PVE mafia the "boring" icon is right over there>>>>>>>>. 

Fourth from the right.

 

 

Well...keep in mind I am a PVP main...if there would be no switching due to the play style, is it fair to give PVE mains less rewards for playing a different mode?

Personally I find PVE not challenging and prefer to have a 45% win rate that is against real people vs. 95% vs Bots...HOWEVER there are many that prefer PVE and they take a real penalty for their preferred game mode in rewards.  Would it hurt to fix it and make it equal?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,648
[IRNBN]
Members
3,146 posts
8,338 battles
21 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Would there be a mad rush to PVE?

Ye gods and little fishes, I hope not. The water is salty enough.

Edited by So_lt_Goes
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
202 posts
365 battles

I tend to agree with WGs current philosophy on EXP and Credit reward differences between PVE and PVP.  I think the heart of this game and WoT has always been the ability to play against other humans.  I think PvE definitely has its place in this game for training and such.  But ultimately PvE is much-much easier than PvP.  

The other thing to consider is that PvE matches are typically much-much quicker than PvP.  So while you aren't rewarded as much on a match-by-match basis, I can typically finish 2 to 3 PvE matches in the time it takes me to complete one PvP match.   In terms of player time vs reward - i.e. credits, Exp ,etc. vs. the amount of time playing the game - the two modes of play begin to approach parity as a function of rewards vs time spent playing.     

Edited by SWANK_BOWZER
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
Beta Testers
835 posts
10,415 battles
9 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Well...keep in mind I am a PVP main...if there would be no switching due to the play style, is it fair to give PVE mains less rewards for playing a different mode?

Personally I find PVE not challenging and prefer to have a 45% win rate that is against real people vs. 95% vs Bots...HOWEVER there are many that prefer PVE and they take a real penalty for their preferred game mode in rewards.  Would it hurt to fix it and make it equal?

Its less reward for less challenge.  

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[MHG]
[MHG]
Members
883 posts
3,865 battles
6 minutes ago, SWANK_BOWZER said:

In terms of player time vs reward - i.e. credits, Exp ,etc. vs. the amount of time playing the game - the two modes of play begin to approach parity in terms of reward vs time spent playing.     

Unless you count expendables like camo, flags, and modules...you would use double or triple of them. (and cost of service)

Edited by SJ_Sailer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
823
[-K-]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
2,309 posts
11,794 battles

All you have to do is look at what happened to AW

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[MHG]
[MHG]
Members
883 posts
3,865 battles
1 minute ago, Fodder4U said:

All you have to do is look at what happened to AW

AW?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[HSD]
Members
653 posts
11,989 battles

Assuming team numbers stay the same.

PVP would have the bigger teams, which ultimately would still lead to a bigger payout, on a per game basis.

However PVE games would go quicker, earning less, but probably pull ahead by measuring over a period of time rather than a per game basis. However as I type this I just thought about the fact that it is arguably easier to deal damage in PVE (though you could consider the competition to deal that damage stiffer due to the smaller enemy HP resource to share around). Long story short PVE would win the earnings if you measure by time, PVP would win if you measure per game.

Achievements granting flags would still be as they are, so that would be a factor for those worried about stocking flags.

First win bonuses would probably still be more valuable to do in PVP, especially when factoring in signals and Camos.

Grinding lines in PVE would certainly become easier for a number of people, but player engagement I think would be the true determining factor here rather than earnings.

 

Honestly speaking from a point of pure conjecture, I think if such a change went ahead, there would be a short lived surge and then the numbers would normalize back to nearly what they are. Some people would migrate over to Co-Op practically full-time but due to the limited nature of PVE in Warships right now it wouldn't sustain such a surge. You would almost certainly have more grinding ship progression in Co-Op but that is a temporary thing once they're done with whatever grinding goal they will probably go back to PVP to switch it up.

Personally speaking I would grind out stock ships in Co-Op like this and then once properly kitted transfer over to PVP because by then I would want a change of game mode for my own personal engagement. So yes there would be a slight shift in the numbers for me but ultimately I would still be playing heavily in PVP.

 

The way the game is currently setup it will pretty quickly have you fall into a particular play mode in terms of preference. Even with equal earnings I conjecture that the vast majority of players won't switch camps.

So yeah my conjecture is, short lived surge upon live launch but pretty quickly falls back to near normal after some time due to the game lacking in certain areas. The "everyman" player probably won't even be able to distinguish the population shift because that's how minor I conjecture it would be. Other players would, but probably only through actual data and numbers via other websites and whatever data WG released, I suspect there would be no way for even them to notice said minor population shift through just game play.

 

Honestly though, PVE needs better fleshing out in this game, it's an under-developed aspect and it is another source of revenue/players that WG could use, and it wouldn't eat into the PVP player population as much as people think. PVP and PVE are different (they can easily appeal to different mindsets, such as competitive nature vs desire to work together), done well they pull two different pools of players with some overlap but not the vast majority. Finally even accounting for overlap, having both modes well developed would aid retention as players exhausted on one mode could possibly switch over to the other rather than just leaving outright.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[P-V-E]
Members
1,449 posts

well PvE in the context of operations gets more XP than for PvP in the main.

 

flag-up with the best flags with good camo and a good team (division) you can consistently rake-in 50,000+ Elite XP, 10,000+ Free XP, 25,000+ Ship XP and 500,000+ credits per game for a 5-star completion, if you pick the right operation's

Edited by b101uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
513
[LEGIT]
Members
2,219 posts
30,421 battles

     As most players I've been in coop for the snow flakes.  I try to play lots of randoms, even with ships I don't use often.  But gotta get the win sometimes and be done with it.  Coop is just mind numbingly boring and repetitious without the benefit of learning anything new to help fighting humans.

    Playing with humans is often annoying, frustrating and rancorous.  The outcome is way more uncertain than against th bots, which if programmed to kill us would have no trouble doing so.  But randoms are also exhilarating at times with a last second win.  Often funny - there's lots of comedians out there.  

Almost always a learning experience.  And I don't even play clan wars with the attached familiarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[KOOKS]
[KOOKS]
Modder
726 posts
3,828 battles
39 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Just a thought to discuss...

"What would be the effect on the game if PVE got the same XP and Credits as PVP did?"

Would there be a mad rush to PVE?  Would PVP get better or worse?

Just a thought for discussion...

As some have stated earlier most PvP'rs would probably stay in PvP as PvE does not present much of a challenge and stock grinds are not as terribad on WoWs as they can be in WoT f.ex. thus you can do them in Randoms. On the other hand, I know some PvE'rs that feel they have to do Randoms every now and then because it generally gives more xp and credits but they also hate it because they get called out and such and my guess is PvE'rs will be much more dedicated to PvE alone if the xp and credits are better for it thus you'd see less of them in Randoms. If all if these are good or bad things, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,270
[WO0KY]
Members
4,112 posts
3,195 battles
8 minutes ago, Fodder4U said:

All you have to do is look at what happened to AW

Played it; the PVP game mechanics were horribly out of whack. People abandoned PvP because it was bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,356
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,925 posts

Which difference are you going to eliminate?  Co-op gets a multiple whammy. 

  • The core multiplier is lower than Randoms.
  • There are fewer targets, and thus less damage, and thus lower figures going into the formulas for XP and credits. 
  • So many battles end with 1 or 2 fat targets still afloat because of the damn "mercy rule" in Domination. 
  • Capping can be harder both because bots tend to get in the caps and would rather die than leave sometimes, and because players tend to go bloodlust mode and often bail on nearly-completed caps to chase a red, or refuse to wait <10 seconds on killing something to let someone to finish a cap.
  • If there are bots on both sides, they tend to commit mutual derpicide and drain more damage out of the pool
  • The service costs are not discounted by the same percentage as the payouts are reduced by. 
  • Etc.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[HSD]
Members
653 posts
11,989 battles
2 minutes ago, Fodder4U said:

All you have to do is look at what happened to AW

Armored Warfare screwed up in many other ways. I was playing that early in it's life. They had bad balance decisions that negatively impacted PVP and made it a mess. Then a oversight change and a direction to be a "WOT clone" and it just went downhill from there. The actual having a supported PVE in AW didn't kill PVP, the badly implemented balance mechanics, decisions, map designs and other things did.

They really needed to just bite the bullet and have the vehicles have different stats for both modes. It's something you see in games like Destiny where Shotguns were too powerful in PVP so they nerfed the range damage fall-off and thus rendered them heavily niche/obsolete in PVE. They later rectified this by adding mode specific modifiers (such as Shotguns dealing +50% damage against PVE). Refusing to split by the modes when needed meant they continually try to balance for both modes which ultimately lead to the mess.

Example: MBT's and frontal weakpoints for PVP, typically a good thing to stop MBTs dominating, but those same frontal weakpoints made the tanks terrible in PVE because of the AI accuracy and sheer quantity, there is only so many "lucky hits" you can take when out numbered 5-1 versus the even distribution of PVP teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
823
[-K-]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
2,309 posts
11,794 battles
1 minute ago, Wombatmetal said:

Played it; the PVP game mechanics were horribly out of whack. People abandoned PvP because it was bad

People abandoned PVP due to lack of population because PVE was just as rewarding and server was split. Yes there were other issues but that was the biggest in it's first year. Also no end game content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[MHG]
[MHG]
Members
883 posts
3,865 battles
14 minutes ago, Meatshield_No13 said:

Assuming team numbers stay the same.

PVP would have the bigger teams, which ultimately would still lead to a bigger payout, on a per game basis.

However PVE games would go quicker, earning less, but probably pull ahead by measuring over a period of time rather than a per game basis. However as I type this I just thought about the fact that it is arguably easier to deal damage in PVE (though you could consider the competition to deal that damage stiffer due to the smaller enemy HP resource to share around). Long story short PVE would win the earnings if you measure by time, PVP would win if you measure per game.

Achievements granting flags would still be as they are, so that would be a factor for those worried about stocking flags.

First win bonuses would probably still be more valuable to do in PVP, especially when factoring in signals and Camos.

Grinding lines in PVE would certainly become easier for a number of people, but player engagement I think would be the true determining factor here rather than earnings.

 

Honestly speaking from a point of pure conjecture, I think if such a change went ahead, there would be a short lived surge and then the numbers would normalize back to nearly what they are. Some people would migrate over to Co-Op practically full-time but due to the limited nature of PVE in Warships right now it wouldn't sustain such a surge. You would almost certainly have more grinding ship progression in Co-Op but that is a temporary thing once they're done with whatever grinding goal they will probably go back to PVP to switch it up.

Personally speaking I would grind out stock ships in Co-Op like this and then once properly kitted transfer over to PVP because by then I would want a change of game mode for my own personal engagement. So yes there would be a slight shift in the numbers for me but ultimately I would still be playing heavily in PVP.

 

The way the game is currently setup it will pretty quickly have you fall into a particular play mode in terms of preference. Even with equal earnings I conjecture that the vast majority of players won't switch camps.

So yeah my conjecture is, short lived surge upon live launch but pretty quickly falls back to near normal after some time due to the game lacking in certain areas. The "everyman" player probably won't even be able to distinguish the population shift because that's how minor I conjecture it would be. Other players would, but probably only through actual data and numbers via other websites and whatever data WG released, I suspect there would be no way for even them to notice said minor population shift through just game play.

 

Honestly though, PVE needs better fleshing out in this game, it's an under-developed aspect and it is another source of revenue/players that WG could use, and it wouldn't eat into the PVP player population as much as people think. PVP and PVE are different (they can easily appeal to different mindsets, such as competitive nature vs desire to work together), done well they pull two different pools of players with some overlap but not the vast majority. Finally even accounting for overlap, having both modes well developed would aid retention as players exhausted on one mode could possibly switch over to the other rather than just leaving outright.

Nice Analysis...

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,551
[PVE]
Members
19,836 posts
12,005 battles
17 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Well...keep in mind I am a PVP main...if there would be no switching due to the play style, is it fair to give PVE mains less rewards for playing a different mode?

Personally I find PVE not challenging and prefer to have a 45% win rate that is against real people vs. 95% vs Bots...HOWEVER there are many that prefer PVE and they take a real penalty for their preferred game mode in rewards.  Would it hurt to fix it and make it equal?

As a PvE main, the payouts are fine. Co-op is easier than Pvp and more relaxed. While we would not mind having the service cost cut by 50% instead of the -25% it is now (credit payouts are cut around 50%), I doubt that will happen. Higher tier co-op is perfectly incentivised for Premium time to be purchased. Since WG is a business, I doubt co-op payouts would be buffed any more and don't really need to be. Taking @AdmiralThunder's or LWM's co-op achievements and give out one flag would be great, but not required either. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,045
[CVA16]
Members
5,018 posts
14,978 battles

WG could always add a CO-OP mode that, like the scenarios, ups the AI to make it more challenging. Or the bot side could get an extra ship or 2  a tier lower than the lowest player tier. The rewards would be higher but the win not as certain.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,217
[A-D-F]
[A-D-F]
Members
2,143 posts
3 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

WG could always add a CO-OP mode that, like the scenarios, ups the AI to make it more challenging. Or the bot side could get an extra ship or 2  a tier lower than the lowest player tier. The rewards would be higher but the win not as certain.

I have advocated for a graduated PVE before. Base mode would remain the same, intermediate and difficult modes would make the bots progressively more challenging. This allows people who want to play PVE to find a niche they are comfortable with, and makes PVE a useful training tool as originally envisioned.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,440
[WOLF9]
Privateers
12,679 posts
4,602 battles
45 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

Ye gods and little fishes,

Now there's a phrase I haven't heard in a coon's age.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,556
[PVE]
Members
11,301 posts
21,788 battles
1 hour ago, JCC45 said:

 

No.  PVE is just not as satisfying (FOR MOST PLAYERS) as PVP is.  The challenge is not there.  PVE battles are too short to do any real damage (unless you play DDS), the AI is too predictable and there is no strategy other than to rush up and blast away.

I just spent 4 days grinding out snowflakes min PVE and I couldn't wait to get back to PVP.

 

 

For the benefit of the PVE mafia the "boring" icon is right over there>>>>>>>>. 

Fourth from the right.

 

 

Thanks for the location of the icon. I was looking for it after reading this bloviated bull feces.:Smile_glasses:

If you have to use a DD to do any "real" damage in Co-op you seriously need to "Git Gud" LOL.  You can do real damage in any ship class in Co-op if you are half way decent at the game. Must be a personal issue of yours or something?

And we, the Co-op mains, are more than happy to give you back to PVP. Be on your way good sir and be safe. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. LOL

(for those with no sarcasm meter - I am being sarcastic here and snarky on purpose - responding in kind to the persons post).

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×