Help us improve Answers HQ! Take Survey No, Thanks

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

by Dawn_Commando
Reply

Original Post

Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

Champion

@Reposter wrote:
[...] But I just want to see the sentiment of Current Forum users with regards to PVP[...]

I'm still here and I'm still not interested in PVP.


"From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire."

[Robert Frost - Fire and Ice]

I don't work for EA. The opinions I express are my own.
Message 21 of 58 (434 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★ Apprentice

@mcsupersport 

@Silversurferguy

@Haruchai01

 

I’ll address a few issues raised in this discussion concerning PvP in Anthem:

 

Toxicity in games

  • You don’t need PvP to find toxicity.

  • People get toxic for just hearing or reading things they don’t agree with. Take some of the responses to PvP in this thread as examples.

    @mcsupersport wrote:

    "Take your PvP and shove it where the sun doesn't shine."

    @Haruchai01 wrote:

    "No pvp. Can we please stop the incessant bs about it now."

  • It’s okay to disagree but there’s no need to be rude about it.

  • Anthem doesn’t have PvP and already has a lot of hate and complaints. The developers have been attacked in the past as well, and probably still do.

  • Anthem Reddit has toxicity too. They have been plenty of posts that either ask genuine questions or make reasonable suggestions and get downvoted for no reason.

  • I’ve experienced toxicity in PvE too, not just PvP. Teammates are not always constructive if they think a player is not doing the right thing.

  • While they may be a lot of toxic players, they will always be outnumbered by the good.

  • We shouldn’t let the toxic minority hijack a game’s potential.

  • There are already ways to deal with toxic members such as flagging posts & comments and reporting players in-game.

  • The truth is video games attract toxic people, period!

 

Could PvP work?

There are possibilities to make PvP work in Anthem:

  • To prevent PvE & PvP conflict, keep PvE and PvP stats separate so they won’t affect each other by:

    • Implementing a PvE to PvP stat conversion algorithm.

    • Consider removing/disabling power levels and dice rolls so the devs would only have base stats & intrinsic values to balance, and players would only have to worry about the gear and components they equip and not complex stats. Matchmaking would take care of the rest.

    • Adding matchmaking filters such as power levels, gear stats, inscriptions, etc. would also help.

Below are some key points and benefits to PvP:

  • The PvE player base may outnumber the PvP but PvP is still a large market.
  • PvP would be a good alternative to making progression and acquiring rewards.

  • Any game that masters both an ongoing PvP and PvE experience would be in a league of its own since very few games have actually done this. With Anthem’s unique mechanics it would be in a great position to do this and be its own niche with little to no competition. Anthem is not a ground-based cover shooter, FPS, or flight-sim like many of the others.

  • Just because things may not have worked out in other games doesn’t mean PvP wouldn’t work in Anthem. Like PvE in Anthem 2.0, it depends on the execution and the dedication that follows. Not all developer teams work the same way.

 

Taking developer time and resources

Managing both PvE and PvP would require efficient management of assets and resources. Here are some examples of how it could be done:

  • Having a separate and dedicated PvP team the same way you have a team for art, UI, PvE balance, game design, level design, maps, loot, stats, etc. would address the concern of taking attention off PvE. EA would have the money for it.

  • Creating game modes that offer both a PvP and PvE experience which would make efficient use of assets and resources. Take the Fortress Assault mode as an example. You would get at least 3 modes sharing the same maps, assets, etc.:

    • PvP: attackers vs defenders

    • PvE: Raidattackers perspective where players attack a fortress filled with bots & bosses

    • PvE: Horde Modedefenders perspective where players defend a fortress against AI

    Other possible modes like Strider Escort could adopt the same model.

  • Explore the possibilities of using outtakes and existing assets that didn’t make it into the game or wouldn’t work in PvE.

 

What needs to happen before adding PvP to Anthem:

  • Core issues fixed e.g. bugs, stability, mission design, etc.

  • Flesh out the core mechanics, e.g. adding dogfighting, underwater combat, stealth, cover shooter mechanics, Strider gameplay, etc.

  • Overall, allow Anthem’s gameplay to evolve first, otherwise, re-balancing PvP around future gameplay updates would create more work.

As @ChiraaKitteh indicated, good PvP takes time to make and shouldn’t be rushed. It should be something to build towards as the game evolves rather than shoehorn. So PvP would be a future feature and not necessarily be present at the launch of Anthem 2.0.

 

 

Is PvP for everyone?

Of course not but the market for it is large. Remember, not all players will use every feature in a game. That’s why some players buy certain games just for the campaign/PvE or PvP. Then there are those that enjoy both.

 

 

Why certain games come up short?

While some may claim that managing both PvE and PvP is one of the main reasons for a game’s shortcomings, this is a subjective claim at best. Just because you may not like a certain feature, it doesn’t make it one of the reasons a game failed. You’ll find that the common reasons for a game’s failures are bugs, stability issues, lacking content/endgame, developers making bad decisions and not listening to the community, and the overall execution of game features.

 

Anthem came up short and it doesn’t have PvP to blame. So what does that tell you?

 

 

On a side note:

While the current overall sentiment of the remaining Anthem player base may be against PvP, you still have to consider what the new players would want and some do want that feature since, again, the PvP market is huge. No one is making anyone play a feature they won’t enjoy.

 

People are free to post their views on the game and what they want in it since the developers want to know. They shouldn’t be bullied out of their opinion or told to keep quiet. It’s okay to disagree but do so in a constructive manner. Remember, we all have our wishlists.

 

If you’re tired of a certain topic coming up repeatedly, ask yourself why it’s brought up so often. You don’t have to read or respond to all posts. You can simply move on.

Message 22 of 58 (393 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

Champion
@Dawn_Commando Unfortunately, many games with both PvE and PvP end up requiring everyone to participate in both. Destiny is probably the most obvious example of this. Unfortunately, having both causes lots of weapon/ability nerfs that ONLY happen because of PvP, it’s a great source of ire for the PvE crowd, sharing that’s issue with many MMOs. Having separate gear/weapons means a ton more dev time, plus you need separate maps that are designed for PvP. Might as well make a separate game.

And while responding in a respectful manner is always good, folks who DON'T want to see PvP in the game have just as much right to voice that opinion as those who do. 'Moving on' can equate to passively agreeing that it’s a good thing, when you don’t think that is the case at all.
________________________________________

Just another gamer hoping to help.
Love playing RPGs, MMOs, and Action games.
Like watching most other games.

I'm not employed by EA.
Message 23 of 58 (372 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★★★★ Guide

@Dawn_Commando  At no point have I brought up toxicity in regards to PvP. Why? Because I know toxic gamers are in every game to some degree. Furthermore, toxicity isn’t a good argument for why PvP should or shouldn’t be added. 

Now in regards to whether or not PvP could work, I don’t think will work. Nor do I think PvP in anthem is a good idea. It would just raise new questions and concerns that BioWare would either be unable or unwilling to figure out. How do you differentiate PvP stats from PvE stats? Would there have to be set of new gear entirely? How would you balance primers, detonators, and combo damage? Consider how small the active player base is. How would you deal with match making when there aren’t enough players for full teams that may inevitably lead to unbalanced matches out of desperation to get a match going? What about maps? How big do they need to be? How many would they need? How about game modes? How many modes do you think the game needs? Remember the small active player base? Take the percentage of players that would actually play PvP and then divide that by how many modes you want. Would you even get a match at that point? I could go on but I’ll stop here. 

What about benefits? Explain them to me. How would PvP help with progression? What kind of rewards would a player get for participating in PvP? And what are you talking about games mastering PvE and PvP? This game’s PvE is bare bones! Now you want to add PvP? Do you really think PvP would be any better here? It wouldn’t be as good as you think it’ll be. 

I at least agree that above all else, the game needs to be fixed before BioWare can even THINK about adding more stuff the game. I’ll give you that. You mention, however, that the topic of PvP gets brought up a lot. It does. But it gets shot down by the community every time it comes up. That should be an obvious hint that the people don’t want it. As for why the game failed, it’s not for lack of PvP. It came out broken, devoid of content, terrible loot, and the horrible mismanagement of BioWare. 

Message 24 of 58 (364 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

@Dawn_Commando 

 

Why am I so antagonistic against this subject??  Because time and time and time and time again, and again and again, it is brought up shot down by those here, listed all the reasons why it isn't a good idea for this game, and get told but reasons and "IT WOULD BE AWESOME!!!"  I really really get tired of seeing this.  At no point do PvE players spam the you must make this Single player mode in multiplayer games....now mind you some games do offer single player that are offered from the start, and not tacked on due to forum demands. 

 

Now at the current state of the support of this game, with limited crews working on it, needing massive content and tweaking to make the game live up to the standards promised.....you want to take people away from all this and create AND BALANCE a PvP mode??  The man hours could BETTER be spent on the current rework and MAYBE a year, two down the line when/IF everything is humming along splendedly, they can look into a MP mode....  But honestly, most PvP isn't as popular as you might think outside Cod, or Fortnite style games, with much complaining and whining about balance, cheats, hacks, and aim Bots.  How long does the average PvP stay popular??  Cod comes out every year, WarFrame tried it and basically closed the servers from what I hear, BattleFront is meh, and all that time spent just to rope a few players in for a year???

 

Why can't you just accept that this is a PvE game and move on, and let it stay a PvE game and work to be the best PvE game it can be, instead of you and a few others constantly harping on how PvP would be "SO AWESOME!!"  Most players DON'T WANT PVP...especially since it WILL take resources away from PvE FURTHER hurting this game. 

 

Honestly, seeing this topic gets so tiring and annoying to see AGAIN.......

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am NOT an EA employee, I am just a simple gamer like most everyone else here volunteering my help to those who may can use it .....That means I have to pay for my games just like you, lol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message 25 of 58 (336 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

★★★★ Guide
@mcsupersport Hi there, actually I was asking if people would want a New Game for PVP, not to add a PVP mode... its okay to disagree, but you are quite aggressive about it.

Let's try to be reasonable, I have not read all the previous PVP suggestion topics so I was just decided to bring it up and well you obviously dislike PVP for the game currently, which is fine as I am not asking about implementing a PVP mode for Anthem currently, but rather just to suggest a New Game based on Anthem Javelin concepts.

Lets not get too worked up and discuss things more cordial, okay?
Message 26 of 58 (307 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★ Apprentice

@Silversurferguy wrote:

@Dawn_Commando  At no point have I brought up toxicity in regards to PvP. Why? Because I know toxic gamers are in every game to some degree. Furthermore, toxicity isn’t a good argument for why PvP should or shouldn’t be added. 

Now in regards to whether or not PvP could work, I don’t think will work. Nor do I think PvP in anthem is a good idea. It would just raise new questions and concerns that BioWare would either be unable or unwilling to figure out. How do you differentiate PvP stats from PvE stats? Would there have to be set of new gear entirely? How would you balance primers, detonators, and combo damage? Consider how small the active player base is. How would you deal with match making when there aren’t enough players for full teams that may inevitably lead to unbalanced matches out of desperation to get a match going? What about maps? How big do they need to be? How many would they need? How about game modes? How many modes do you think the game needs? Remember the small active player base? Take the percentage of players that would actually play PvP and then divide that by how many modes you want. Would you even get a match at that point? I could go on but I’ll stop here. 

What about benefits? Explain them to me. How would PvP help with progression? What kind of rewards would a player get for participating in PvP? And what are you talking about games mastering PvE and PvP? This game’s PvE is bare bones! Now you want to add PvP? Do you really think PvP would be any better here? It wouldn’t be as good as you think it’ll be. 

I at least agree that above all else, the game needs to be fixed before BioWare can even THINK about adding more stuff the game. I’ll give you that. You mention, however, that the topic of PvP gets brought up a lot. It does. But it gets shot down by the community every time it comes up. That should be an obvious hint that the people don’t want it. As for why the game failed, it’s not for lack of PvP. It came out broken, devoid of content, terrible loot, and the horrible mismanagement of BioWare. 


Regarding the toxicity issue, sorry about that.  I was replying to multiple people in my last comment where two of them made arguably toxic remarks.  Of course, you weren't one of them.  At least we can agree that toxicity isn't an argument for or against PvP or any feature in a game, which was my main point to those concerned.

 

Making PvP work in Anthem would take more brainwork than anything else but I did offer some suggestions in terms of balancing and game modes in my previous comment.

 

As for progression and rewards in PvP, it would be the same as PvE where you would earn:

  • loot from the enemy players and any AI you down
  • XP for your pilot level from each match
  • coin and cosmetics for completing PvP challenges

So the benefits to PvP would be an alternative to earning progression and rewards, contributing to the endgame, providing a PvP experience no other game can provide, and expanding the player base of the franchise.

 

Anthem's PvE is barebones?  Of course, it is.  As I said before, PvP wouldn't be implemented straight away.  The developers should build towards it over time by letting the game evolve first.  Long story short, PvP should be implemented sometime after few Anthem 2.0's launch; I would say 1-2 years.

 

In light of the concerns you raised, I'll ask you to read my previous comment again as it did address quite a few of them and I would only be repeating myself here.

 

Yes, you're right.  Anthem didn't fail because it lacked PvP.  It failed because of issues such as loot, stability, lacking content/endgame, and poor management overall.  People can't blame the failure on PvP because there wasn't any.  That was my point.  People blame PvP on Destiny's shortcomings but so far I'm not convinced.  Games don't fail because of having/not having PvP but because of poor management and execution.

 

And finally, if the topic of PvP gets brought up and shot down a lot, to me, that means there those that want it and those that don't.

Message 27 of 58 (277 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★ Apprentice

@mcsupersport wrote:

@Dawn_Commando 

 

Why am I so antagonistic against this subject??  Because time and time and time and time again, and again and again, it is brought up shot down by those here, listed all the reasons why it isn't a good idea for this game, and get told but reasons and "IT WOULD BE AWESOME!!!"  I really really get tired of seeing this.  At no point do PvE players spam the you must make this Single player mode in multiplayer games....now mind you some games do offer single player that are offered from the start, and not tacked on due to forum demands. 

 

Now at the current state of the support of this game, with limited crews working on it, needing massive content and tweaking to make the game live up to the standards promised.....you want to take people away from all this and create AND BALANCE a PvP mode??  The man hours could BETTER be spent on the current rework and MAYBE a year, two down the line when/IF everything is humming along splendedly, they can look into a MP mode....  But honestly, most PvP isn't as popular as you might think outside Cod, or Fortnite style games, with much complaining and whining about balance, cheats, hacks, and aim Bots.  How long does the average PvP stay popular??  Cod comes out every year, WarFrame tried it and basically closed the servers from what I hear, BattleFront is meh, and all that time spent just to rope a few players in for a year???

 

Why can't you just accept that this is a PvE game and move on, and let it stay a PvE game and work to be the best PvE game it can be, instead of you and a few others constantly harping on how PvP would be "SO AWESOME!!"  Most players DON'T WANT PVP...especially since it WILL take resources away from PvE FURTHER hurting this game. 

 

Honestly, seeing this topic gets so tiring and annoying to see AGAIN.......


Until Bioware themselves say there will never be PvP in Anthem, I don't have to accept such a notion.  They want to know what we want and we have a right to express that.  No one should be telling us what we can and cannot tell the developers.  If PvP keeps coming up to the point that it exhausts you, you have to accept the fact that there is a demand for it.  Again, it's okay to disagree but you should remain constructive throughout unless you really do want the unnecessary toxicity.

 

If Bioware can assure us that the presence of PvP won't affect the commitment to PvE, then it shouldn't bother you since no would be forcing you to play PvP and deal with the toxicity. 

Message 28 of 58 (268 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

-1 PVP here.  It ruined Destiny, and that game just keeps getting worse each week.

Message 29 of 58 (267 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★ Apprentice

@ChiraaKitteh wrote:
@Dawn_CommandoUnfortunately, many games with both PvE and PvP end up requiring everyone to participate in both. Destiny is probably the most obvious example of this. Unfortunately, having both causes lots of weapon/ability nerfs that ONLY happen because of PvP, it’s a great source of ire for the PvE crowd, sharing that’s issue with many MMOs. Having separate gear/weapons means a ton more dev time, plus you need separate maps that are designed for PvP. Might as well make a separate game.


If PvP and PvE stats were kept separate then there would be no need to nerf weapons/abilities in PvE.  That's why I suggested a PvE to PvP stat conversion algorithm so each Javelin would have both PvE stats and PvP stats.  I also mentioned disabling power levels and dice rolls(so there wouldn't be too much disparity between the new and experienced players), and implementing various matchmaking filters.  Also, you wouldn't need to have separate gear/weapons.  Having separate PvE and PvP stats would save a lot of time in this respect.

 

You wouldn't necessarily need separate maps for PvP if you went by my Fortress Assault example.  You would get at least 3 modes sharing the same maps, assets, etc.:

  • PvP: attackers vs defenders

  • PvE: Raid  attackers perspective where players attack a fortress filled with bots & bosses

  • PvE: Horde Mode  defenders perspective where players defend a fortress against AI

So here you would get 2 PvE modes and one PvP mode from the same concept, all sharing the same maps, assets, etc.  If Bioware decided to be this efficient it wouldn't take as long to implement PvP, especially if the PvE modes come first.  Again, other modes like Strider Escort could adopt the same model.


@ChiraaKitteh wrote:
@Dawn_Commando 

And while responding in a respectful manner is always good, folks who DON'T want to see PvP in the game have just as much right to voice that opinion as those who do. 'Moving on' can equate to passively agreeing that it’s a good thing, when you don’t think that is the case at all.

I know that those that don't approve of PvP have a right express that view.  That's why I said it's okay disagree.  I have an issue with the way some members of the community go about it.  If they can't be constructive, and think they have the right to tell others not to voice their opinion, then they can move on.  If they don't like a certain topic being brought up repeatedly, tough because it is our right to voice our opinion, especially if we're not attacking anyone.  In other words, be constructive if you disagree or move on.

 

Message 30 of 58 (243 Views)
Twitter Stream