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?

[ Edited ]
★★★★ Guide

@Dawn_Commando  What kind of endgame are you talking about? Anthem doesn’t really have an endgame to begin with and PvP isn’t exactly endgame material. At least not for PvE focused players. 

But what about time? Let the game evolve you say? Ok I’m with you on that. But how much time is EA allowing for anthem’s lifespan? Let’s consider the following: all we know currently is that a team of about 30+ BioWare staff is working on the overhaul, many predict (myself included) that this won’t be out until 2022, it’s already been a year since anthem’s launch, and most EA games these days don’t have long lifespans. I’m talking a few years at best. By the time the overhaul is out, it will have been 3 years. Then let’s factor in what you said about continuing to build on the game for let’s say another two years after the overhaul. That’s 5 years just to begin contemplating on adding PvP. Will anthem even have that kind of time? I’m not too confident that it will due to how badly they screwed up here. Then as it was mention here before, you can’t rush PvP development. So it’ll be better to just continue with what they already have and build on it IMO

Message 31 of 58 (334 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

Champion
@Dawn_Commando I don’t think you can share PvE maps with PvP modes. It’s hard to design good PvP maps. Do you have any examples of games that share maps and do Both PvE and PvP well? You can’t just snap your fingers and make a PvP map. They take just as much design time as a well made PvE map, as I stated previously. You keep restating the same stuff from your original 'vision' post. That's not working to convince me.
________________________________________

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 32 of 58 (323 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

@Reposter 

If Bioware wishes to make a PvP centric game based off the ideas in Anthem, they can and I am sure some people will enjoy it, it just will not be me.  Considering how limited their dev crews are, I would hate to see this, as it would mean the delay/death of a game that I would enjoy playing, ie Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or current Anthem.  The issue I have is shoving it into current game, which was always promoted as PvE.  You were fairly reasonable about your request for ANOTHER game, and thus I am sorry if I came off to you as too hostile.

 

@Dawn_Commando 

If it was a bunch of people asking for PvP, then I wouldn't be so irritated about it....but it seems to be only about 2-5 people starting or restarting threads on this with many more posting DON'T DO IT!!!    So to my looking, it is a vocal few who keep spamming how great it would be to have PvP and how Bioware MUST ADD IT to make the game a success....yet they can't point at another single player or PvE game that added PvP and did better after the addition.   They also seemingly ignore how it would take away from current Dev manpower, to somehow magically create good PvP maps and balance all the weapons and abilities.   One game similar to this one that did add PvP, would be WarFrame, ....and PvP servers are basically dead and turned out to be a drain on resources instead of a positive for the game.  PvP is a niche section of gaming, and the players often move from whatever they are currently playing to the next hot thing, plus there are bunches of failed PvP games on the market proving it isn't easy to create a new one.  Most likely IF PvP were to be added, it would be a drain on current development, not really bring in many players to PvE gameplay, and since it is so different from current shooters, likely wouldn't bring in huge crowds to the PvP servers either.    Considering the state of the game currently, I would hate to see any Dev time and manhours taken away from the core mechanic of this game, which is PvE or Single player content. 

 

As a personal observation, thus a sample of one, when I was playing some TitanFall2 a few years back, the single player was fun, and so I tried the MP and it was meh....but what surprised me most was some of the most popular servers were the pilot only servers....meaning that you played as a human shooting instead of trying to get your mechs, so to me that means less people like fighting with mechs and more like humans and guns as their choice of playing.

 

 

Now as a simple thing to think about, look back through this thread, and see how many people posted for and against.....bet the for people are about 1 1/2...since Reposter isn't asking for this game to be PvP but instead asking about a new game, he gets counted as 1/2.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 33 of 58 (309 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

★ Apprentice

@Silversurferguy wrote:

@Dawn_Commando  What kind of endgame are you talking about? Anthem doesn’t really have an endgame to begin with and PvP isn’t exactly endgame material. At least not for PvE focused players. 

But what about time? Let the game evolve you say? Ok I’m with you on that. But how much time is EA allowing for anthem’s lifespan? Let’s consider the following: all we know currently is that a team of about 30+ BioWare staff is working on the overhaul, many predict (myself included) that this won’t be out until 2022, it’s already been a year since anthem’s launch, and most EA games these days don’t have long lifespans. I’m talking a few years at best. By the time the overhaul is out, it will have been 3 years. Then let’s factor in what you said about continuing to build on the game for let’s say another two years after the overhaul. That’s 5 years just to begin contemplating on adding PvP. Will anthem even have that kind of time? I’m not too confident that it will due to how badly they screwed up here. Then as it was mention here before, you can’t rush PvP development. So it’ll be better to just continue with what they already have and build on it IMO


I'm simply referring to the endgame that gives players a reason to come back to Anthem.  Both PvE and PvP can do this.  No, Anthem doesn't have an endgame and that's the point.  There would be those that come back for the PvE, those for PvP, and those for both.

 

As Anthem 2.0 would effectively be a reboot, it would be a different game with a refreshed lifespan, otherwise, there would be no point for the developers in spending so much time overhauling it.  The new game would attract both old and new players.

 

Yes, you can't rush PvP or any form of development.  That's why I said it would be best for them to build towards it as the game evolves.  If Anthem 2.0 has a successful launch, it would have plenty of time to implement PvP in an unrushed fashion, especially when there would be greater demand for it. 

Message 34 of 58 (282 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

★ Apprentice

@ChiraaKitteh wrote:
@Dawn_CommandoI don’t think you can share PvE maps with PvP modes. It’s hard to design good PvP maps. Do you have any examples of games that share maps and do Both PvE and PvP well? You can’t just snap your fingers and make a PvP map. They take just as much design time as a well made PvE map, as I stated previously. You keep restating the same stuff from your original 'vision' post. That's not working to convince me.

No, you can't just snap your fingers and make PvP.  That's why I said they should build towards it as the game evolves.  As for re-stating the stuff from my original vision post, I was giving you an example of how it could be done without creating new maps and assets unnecessarily.  Also, the idea was inspired by popular demands for a horde mode, an experience that involves defending a fortress, a game mode that recreates the events of the Battle of Freemark, and raids.  So a game mode concept like that would achieve multiple goals.  

 

Games like For Honor, Gears of War, and Halo have adapted maps from PvE/campaigns for PvP modes.  When it comes to PvE and PvP sharing maps and assets, I haven't described anything that hasn't been done before.  PvE maps can be created with PvP in mind to save future work.  So it is possible, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

Message 35 of 58 (275 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★ Apprentice

@mcsupersport wrote:

@Reposter 

If Bioware wishes to make a PvP centric game based off the ideas in Anthem, they can and I am sure some people will enjoy it, it just will not be me.  Considering how limited their dev crews are, I would hate to see this, as it would mean the delay/death of a game that I would enjoy playing, ie Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or current Anthem.  The issue I have is shoving it into current game, which was always promoted as PvE.  You were fairly reasonable about your request for ANOTHER game, and thus I am sorry if I came off to you as too hostile.

 

@Dawn_Commando 

If it was a bunch of people asking for PvP, then I wouldn't be so irritated about it....but it seems to be only about 2-5 people starting or restarting threads on this with many more posting DON'T DO IT!!!    So to my looking, it is a vocal few who keep spamming how great it would be to have PvP and how Bioware MUST ADD IT to make the game a success....yet they can't point at another single player or PvE game that added PvP and did better after the addition.   They also seemingly ignore how it would take away from current Dev manpower, to somehow magically create good PvP maps and balance all the weapons and abilities.   One game similar to this one that did add PvP, would be WarFrame, ....and PvP servers are basically dead and turned out to be a drain on resources instead of a positive for the game.  PvP is a niche section of gaming, and the players often move from whatever they are currently playing to the next hot thing, plus there are bunches of failed PvP games on the market proving it isn't easy to create a new one.  Most likely IF PvP were to be added, it would be a drain on current development, not really bring in many players to PvE gameplay, and since it is so different from current shooters, likely wouldn't bring in huge crowds to the PvP servers either.    Considering the state of the game currently, I would hate to see any Dev time and manhours taken away from the core mechanic of this game, which is PvE or Single player content. 

 

As a personal observation, thus a sample of one, when I was playing some TitanFall2 a few years back, the single player was fun, and so I tried the MP and it was meh....but what surprised me most was some of the most popular servers were the pilot only servers....meaning that you played as a human shooting instead of trying to get your mechs, so to me that means less people like fighting with mechs and more like humans and guns as their choice of playing.

 

 

Now as a simple thing to think about, look back through this thread, and see how many people posted for and against.....bet the for people are about 1 1/2...since Reposter isn't asking for this game to be PvP but instead asking about a new game, he gets counted as 1/2.


PvP is a niche but a huge one, otherwise, franchises like Overwatch, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Star War Battlefront, etc. wouldn't have created the illusion that single-player games are dying in this industry.

 

Again, we all can agree that PvP or any form of development can't be rushed.  That's why suggested that certain PvE maps could be created with PvP in mind and implement those modes after the game has evolved to save future work.  PvE and PvP modes sharing the same maps and assets would also save a lot of work and is a common industry practice;  Bioware should be no different to this.

 

If the number of people asking for PvP is so small, then I see no point in you getting so upset since we're always outvoted, right?  You can always ignore PvP posts knowing that we are in the extreme minority and our voice wouldn't make a difference.

Message 36 of 58 (264 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

★★★★ Guide

@Dawn_Commando  Longevity and endgame are two different things. Endgame is the most  challenging content that yields the best rewards. A game has longevity when a game has reasons to keep playing. Anthem lacks both. 

EA probably spent too much money for anthem’s development for it to simply fail and collect dust hence the reboot. But you can’t just restart the clock, can’t erase the bad press, and can’t undo the damage on a game that failed like how anthem failed nor should it be allowed to. Gamers don’t forget. Battlefront 2 became a great game but will always be remembered for its pay to win loot boxes that kickstarted the ban on loot boxes across the world. EA still pulled the plug on Battlefront 2 despite all the improvements. EA games just don’t last.

 

If the majority of the community doesn’t want PvP for the reasons they listed over and over again, why would they suddenly be in favor of PvP after the overhaul? Just play something else with PvP and leave this game alone 

Message 37 of 58 (241 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?


@Dawn_Commando wrote:


PvP is a niche but a huge one, otherwise, franchises like Overwatch, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Star War Battlefront, etc. wouldn't have created the illusion that single-player games are dying in this industry.

 

Again, we all can agree that PvP or any form of development can't be rushed.  That's why suggested that certain PvE maps could be created with PvP in mind and implement those modes after the game has evolved to save future work.  PvE and PvP modes sharing the same maps and assets would also save a lot of work and is a common industry practice;  Bioware should be no different to this.

 

If the number of people asking for PvP is so small, then I see no point in you getting so upset since we're always outvoted, right?  You can always ignore PvP posts knowing that we are in the extreme minority and our voice wouldn't make a difference.

 


First, huge, but very selective in what it plays and generally speaking more traditional shooter games are liked or at least games that have traditional guns.   As far as Single-player games dying, that was just a pipe dream they tried to sell to allow them to make crap games and harvest the whales playing them.  It is easier, quicker and more lucrative to pump out a PvP centric game, without much voice acting, plot, story or anything and have people throw money at you to get the good guns and loot....see $1 red-dot site on COD.  Heck, you still have people who, stupidly in my opinion, buy EVERY new FiFa and NFL game and pump BILLIONS into their Ultimate team this year....you still have a game that is almost the exact same from last year!!!! 

 

Second....why even bother to consider a secondary mechanic when they haven't even fixed their primary one??  Why take time and work AWAY from your primary game mode when it is mostly broken, to even dream of another pipe dream of a mode.  Maybe in say 2 years if the game is doing great, plenty of content, lots of players, if they want to see if they can put in PvP, then fine, I will likely not play it, but if the game is doing great, and they want to waste their money, that is on them....  See WarFrame's defunct Pvp server.

 

Third, the fact that we must "downvote" the same people over and over and over and over and over again about the same tired issue of adding a PvP mode to a PvE centric game IS why people are salty about this.   Heck, if you think a vocal minority can't make a difference in a bad direction, then I would point out all the twitter warriors that seem to bully corporations into doing stupid stuff, when active twitter people make up about 2% of the population of the US.  59 million users per month on Twitter....and 10 percent of the accounts account for 80% of the tweets...meaning 5 million or so users of twitter, out of 360 million people in the country seem to drive the news and corporate narrative.  So yeah, you need to stomp out bad ideas where you see them, other wise the multiply like weeds....just sorry it isn't done on twitter or have the platform broken up as it is truly broken and over-powerful for what it actually represents as far as population percentages.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 38 of 58 (216 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★ Apprentice

@Silversurferguy wrote:

@Dawn_Commando  Longevity and endgame are two different things. Endgame is the most  challenging content that yields the best rewards. A game has longevity when a game has reasons to keep playing. Anthem lacks both. 

EA probably spent too much money for anthem’s development for it to simply fail and collect dust hence the reboot. But you can’t just restart the clock, can’t erase the bad press, and can’t undo the damage on a game that failed like how anthem failed nor should it be allowed to. Gamers don’t forget. Battlefront 2 became a great game but will always be remembered for its pay to win loot boxes that kickstarted the ban on loot boxes across the world. EA still pulled the plug on Battlefront 2 despite all the improvements. EA games just don’t last.

 

If the majority of the community doesn’t want PvP for the reasons they listed over and over again, why would they suddenly be in favor of PvP after the overhaul? Just play something else with PvP and leave this game alone 


Yes, longevity and endgame are two different things, and Anthem does lack both.  However, the endgame is also a reason to keeping playing and PvP can be one of them if the skill curve and rewards are there.  That's why a mentioned PvP making a contribution to the endgame by serving as an alternative to PvE's role by competing with other players and completing challenges.  Would it add to the game's longevity as well? Yes, by default.

 

I agree EA did spend too much money to let Anthem go to waste.  If Anthem 2.0 comes out as a different and improved game, it will have a future despite the bad start & press.  Gamers don't forget but that didn't stop games like No Man's Sky and Final Fantasy 14 Online getting a second chance and making a comeback. 

 

As you know, No's Sky Man had a terrible start in 2016 but has had updates since then.  It's due another update one this summer and a re-release for the Xbox Game Pass version on both Xbox and PC.  So, for a game that had some historically bad press at launch and is nearly 4 years old, no signs of slowing down yet.

 

FF14 originally came out in 2010, got shut down in 2012, and then made a comeback with Realm Reborn in 2013-2015 across all platforms.  Its last expansion was summer 2019 and the next was scheduled to come out this summer but is currently being delayed due to the pandemic.  So the game is still going strong despite being nearly 10 years old. 

 

Another example is For Honor.  The game launched in February 2017 using an unstable P2P connection instead of dedicated servers.  This led to multiple disconnects and various bugs.  This caused an outrage and a planned boycott by the community to make the devs acknowledge the issue.  While the game didn't get back all of the players it lost, it did recover when they finally implemented the dedicated servers in 2018 and now it's in its 4th year with dedicated content creators, a loyal player base, newcomers every month, and updates on the way.  Many thought the game would die sooner but, of course, it's still here with over 20 million unique registered players(not that it represents the current player count).  A lot of For Honor's success can be attributed to not just having good gameplay and customisation, and regular updates but how unique the core mechanics are which is a trait Anthem also has.  On a side note, For Honor is one of the few games that had a visual upgrade instead of a downgrade on all current-gen platforms.

 

Could Anthem 2.0 be the next comeback story with a long future?  It's possible.  However, you're right about one thing, this is EA we are talking about.  PvP or not, EA may still pull the plug on Anthem if it doesn't make 'all of the money,' if you're familiar with the phase.

 

Again, PvP wouldn't be available at launch as they should build towards it as the game evolves.  If the Anthem 2.0 launch is successful, it would attract new players as well as the ones that left and that's where the demand for PvP would be found.  If it is great enough and would be seen as expanding the player base, then there would be little reason to rule it out, as long as they don't rush it.  EA might even pressure Bioware to add PvP if Anthem 2.0 does well so that's something else to consider.  If they do, hopefully, they would give Bioware the appropriate backing with more staff or a dedicated PvP team.

 

 

Message 39 of 58 (192 Views)
Highlighted

Re: Are People still interested in PVP?

[ Edited ]
★ Apprentice

@mcsupersport wrote:

First, huge, but very selective in what it plays and generally speaking more traditional shooter games are liked or at least games that have traditional guns.   As far as Single-player games dying, that was just a pipe dream they tried to sell to allow them to make crap games and harvest the whales playing them.  It is easier, quicker and more lucrative to pump out a PvP centric game, without much voice acting, plot, story or anything and have people throw money at you to get the good guns and loot....see $1 red-dot site on COD.  Heck, you still have people who, stupidly in my opinion, buy EVERY new FiFa and NFL game and pump BILLIONS into their Ultimate team this year....you still have a game that is almost the exact same from last year!!!! 


Yes, it's easier to make PvP games for the reasons you mentioned.  In PvE games, it's easier if assets are borrowed from PvE modes to make PvP ones instead of building from scratch.  Again, PvP in Anthem 2.0 wouldn't happen until the game evolves first and the launch needs to succeed before the game can evolve.  If the game does well and attracts new & old players then the demand for PvP may increase and EA may have a say in the matter, given who they are.

Another thing to consider is while PVP players are selective in what they play, they have a very terrible habit of purchasing multiple sequels from the same franchise, as you indicated.  So loyaltly is a factor in PvP gaming.  That's why franchises like COD, Gear, and Battlefield have ongoing communities.  One of the benefits of having PvP in games as a service is it would get updates without the player needing to buy a new game very year, which would encourage more loyaltly as long the game is updated regularly and well managed.


@mcsupersport wrote:

Second....why even bother to consider a secondary mechanic when they haven't even fixed their primary one??  Why take time and work AWAY from your primary game mode when it is mostly broken, to even dream of another pipe dream of a mode.  Maybe in say 2 years if the game is doing great, plenty of content, lots of players, if they want to see if they can put in PvP, then fine, I will likely not play it, but if the game is doing great, and they want to waste their money, that is on them....  See WarFrame's defunct Pvp server.


This brings me back to what I said before, they should build towards PvP as Anthem 2.0 evolves, so they would have fixed the game before adding PvP.  If the Anthem 2.0 launch does well, demand for it from new and returning players may increase and EA may even encourage/pressure Bioware into it to max out the potential of the franchise, at least in their eyes.  Of course, I see it this way too but I don't want it to be tacked or or rushed.  There are some PvP modes I would like to see and experience in Anthem.  Also, if they add crossplay, that would be another draw.


@mcsupersport wrote:

Third, the fact that we must "downvote" the same people over and over and over and over and over again about the same tired issue of adding a PvP mode to a PvE centric game IS why people are salty about this.   Heck, if you think a vocal minority can't make a difference in a bad direction, then I would point out all the twitter warriors that seem to bully corporations into doing stupid stuff, when active twitter people make up about 2% of the population of the US.  59 million users per month on Twitter....and 10 percent of the accounts account for 80% of the tweets...meaning 5 million or so users of twitter, out of 360 million people in the country seem to drive the news and corporate narrative.  So yeah, you need to stomp out bad ideas where you see them, other wise the multiply like weeds....just sorry it isn't done on twitter or have the platform broken up as it is truly broken and over-powerful for what it actually represents as far as population percentages.


As for a vocal minority influencing corporations into making bad decisions, that's more to do with the press, image, and public perception, not game features like PvP.  Common feedback across a range of community members is what would influence Anthem 2.0, not repeated posts from the same users.  If they ignore common feedback, then they would look bad.  Since PvP is currently not common feedback or in high demand, you should have nothing to worry or get stressed about.

 

Again, it's okay to disagree, just don't be salty about it since there is no excuse for it.  It's not your job to 'police' the forums and there are better ways to handle the issue.  If the same users are repeating post then report them if they are breaking forum rules, e.g. spam posts, deliberate bumping, etc.  Speak to community managers or forum moderators to see if they can do something about it.  If nothing can be done, just ignore it or constructively disagree if you must say something.

 

Another thing to consider is that if new/different users that want to make a PvP related suggestion, they may be afraid to do so for the fear of being attacked.  That fear should be removed and salty comments should be discouraged since it is a form of bullying.  Bioware wants to know our views and we shouldn't be afraid or discouraged to share them.

Message 40 of 58 (181 Views)
Twitter Stream