Will there be a way to do only PvE?

[Judgementnollid]

I'll be honest PvP can be fun sometimes but in my experience ending up getting swarmed by either a massive clan/ grifters just wanting to mess up someone's day/ or just in general getting raided while being offline because I have 80 hour work weeks can really kill the want to play the game. Is this game going to have areas where its PvP and/or have a way to where you can switch to just PvE?

Don't get me wrong I understand the idea of the game being PvPvE but for the reasons above ^ that basically killed my want to play the last game that had this called Last Oasis. I'm hoping you have something in mind for those who just want to do PvE and/or want to switch between the two modes.

[Jawny]

PVP is not a good idea for a dev team of this size. Cheaters are a big issue today, it costs a lot of money and human-power to fight this issue.

Look at Sea of Thieves, one of the main games on Microsoft store a milking cow for that matter, yet they still have troubles resolving cheating, even with EAC already in place.

[ShinRaPresident]

Please Give Option For PVE Only.

Your ''vision'' for PVP adding an element of risk to PVE missions is the same ''vision'' of every other PVPVE game, but it literally never works that way.

All that happens is PVPers ignore PVE mechanics and do nothing but PVP.

PVP players can ignore PVE elements but PVE players can never ignore PVP elements.

[Todd[CH]]

Postat inițial de party time:

We believe the risk of a chance of PVP when you're doing PVE missions is part of the sauce

L take from you.
PVP players can ignore PVE elements but PVE players can never ignore PVP elements.
This is not good game design.
Dont make the same mistake as Donkey Crew did with Last Oasis.
Do what Sea of Thieves did with their "Safe Seas" feature. Give us a PvE environment with reduced rewards.
But i have a feeling that you are going to listen to the community as much as Donkey Crew did.

DOA

[oldagetron]

You cant please both sides, if PvP is optional then there may aswell be no PvP . For PvP games to fun and exciting PvP needs to be on always. If they were making a PvE game thats cool too but they are not its PvEvP. end of story, cant please everybody. Just make sure Zergs are not an option.

[Wootangg]

no

[UncleIstvan]

There are 7 extraction shooters in Steams top 100 wishlisted games. One of those is PvE only (Forever Winter) and it's nowhere near the top, others are either PvP only or PvPvE.
Out of the released ones, Hunt: Showdown and Sea of Thieves are still doing great after all the years. With Dark and Darker and Dungeonborne being strong additions to the genre.

Point is, all the best performing games of this genre are PvPvE. Addition of PvE isn't all that impactful, sales wise, but can blow up games budget immensely, especially for a smaller team.

[Zach Fett]

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

There are 7 extraction shooters in Steams top 100 wishlisted games. One of those is PvE only (Forever Winter) and it's nowhere near the top, others are either PvP only or PvPvE.
Out of the released ones, Hunt: Showdown and Sea of Thieves are still doing great after all the years. With Dark and Darker and Dungeonborne being strong additions to the genre.

Point is, all the best performing games of this genre are PvPvE. Addition of PvE isn't all that impactful, sales wise, but can blow up games budget immensely, especially for a smaller team.

What a bizarre and biased way to compare if adding PvE would make a game do better. The only PvE one (Forever Winter) isn't even out yet.

And adding PvE to a game that already is PvPvE wouldn't "blow up" the budget. The work is already done. They would just need to add the ability to play matches without PvP damage enabled. That's it.

[Todd[CH]]

Postat inițial de Zach Fett:

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

There are 7 extraction shooters in Steams top 100 wishlisted games. One of those is PvE only (Forever Winter) and it's nowhere near the top, others are either PvP only or PvPvE.
Out of the released ones, Hunt: Showdown and Sea of Thieves are still doing great after all the years. With Dark and Darker and Dungeonborne being strong additions to the genre.

Point is, all the best performing games of this genre are PvPvE. Addition of PvE isn't all that impactful, sales wise, but can blow up games budget immensely, especially for a smaller team.

What a bizarre and biased way to compare if adding PvE would make a game do better. The only PvE one (Forever Winter) isn't even out yet.

And adding PvE to a game that already is PvPvE wouldn't "blow up" the budget. The work is already done. They would just need to add the ability to play matches without PvP damage enabled. That's it.

Too many people dont understand this.
Even Sea of Thieves has implemented something like this as i already mentioned above (a game the i never would have naticipated implementing a feature like that), and the game is better off for it.

[The Archivist]

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

There are 7 extraction shooters in Steams top 100 wishlisted games. One of those is PvE only (Forever Winter) and it's nowhere near the top, others are either PvP only or PvPvE.
Out of the released ones, Hunt: Showdown and Sea of Thieves are still doing great after all the years. With Dark and Darker and Dungeonborne being strong additions to the genre.

Point is, all the best performing games of this genre are PvPvE. Addition of PvE isn't all that impactful, sales wise, but can blow up games budget immensely, especially for a smaller team.

What is the point you are trying to make, exactly? That extraction games are only popular because of PvP? Hard to tell for sure because there is a clear bias within your post, especially the last part where you try to say "Adding PvE would blow up the budget immensely", which is just a dumb thing to say (Implying it'd somehow take many man hours and tons of money to do things with the code to make it a possibility)

Postat inițial de ToddCH:

Postat inițial de Zach Fett:

What a bizarre and biased way to compare if adding PvE would make a game do better. The only PvE one (Forever Winter) isn't even out yet.

And adding PvE to a game that already is PvPvE wouldn't "blow up" the budget. The work is already done. They would just need to add the ability to play matches without PvP damage enabled. That's it.

Too many people dont understand this.
Even Sea of Thieves has implemented something like this as i already mentioned above (a game the i never would have naticipated implementing a feature like that), and the game is better off for it.

Not to mention that there are already games out there that could theoretically be described as an extraction shooter, if you'd squint your eyes or broaden the definition of an "Extraction shooter".

Deep Rock Galactic being one. Payday 2 also, as both games involve throwing you into a level where you gotta collect thing and escape or die trying.

So it's not out of the realms of possibility that a "PvE Extraction Shooter" can work.

[UncleIstvan]

Postat inițial de Zach Fett:

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

There are 7 extraction shooters in Steams top 100 wishlisted games. One of those is PvE only (Forever Winter) and it's nowhere near the top, others are either PvP only or PvPvE.
Out of the released ones, Hunt: Showdown and Sea of Thieves are still doing great after all the years. With Dark and Darker and Dungeonborne being strong additions to the genre.

Point is, all the best performing games of this genre are PvPvE. Addition of PvE isn't all that impactful, sales wise, but can blow up games budget immensely, especially for a smaller team.

What a bizarre and biased way to compare if adding PvE would make a game do better. The only PvE one (Forever Winter) isn't even out yet.

And adding PvE to a game that already is PvPvE wouldn't "blow up" the budget. The work is already done. They would just need to add the ability to play matches without PvP damage enabled. That's it.

That's how it looks from a business standpoint, it's anything but biased. PvPvE is a formula that allows you to get away with prototype-level PvE and subpar netcode to achieve single "A" level profits. Marauders, Hunt and DaD have shown that you can achieve multi-million profits with a development team of barely a dozen people.

So you say that you want ability to play in empty lobby. The thing is, all the extraction shooters are laughably bad as single player/coop games: couple of static maps, low variety enemies with incredibly basic AI, itemization that breaks without constant full-loot sink. Even SoT, arguably one of the strongest among the bunch in PvE department is still vastly subpar as coop-only game. They get very stale very fast. Engaging PvE requires order of magnitude more content and quality, those things cost money.

Constant thrill of PvP is the magical trick that turns 5$ hooker into a princess.
Trying to sell any of the aforementioned games as singleplayer/coop this way will be borderline fraud and result in lots of negative reviews.

All the games that tried to do it without PvP didn't achieve much:
Rainbow six extraction: good production values, very popular franchise. Minuscule sales by Ubisoft standards, dead several months after release.
Incursion Red River: another PvE only extraction shooter, has double-digit online couple of months after release.
Witchfire: amazing game on many levels, yet wasn't a hit on epic and has lukewarm wishlist numbers on steam.

No sane stakeholder would push for PvE in extraction shooter, as there is no proven success record.

TL;DR: It's not worth trying to sell meat to a vegan.

[UncleIstvan]

Postat inițial de The Archivist:

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

There are 7 extraction shooters in Steams top 100 wishlisted games. One of those is PvE only (Forever Winter) and it's nowhere near the top, others are either PvP only or PvPvE.
Out of the released ones, Hunt: Showdown and Sea of Thieves are still doing great after all the years. With Dark and Darker and Dungeonborne being strong additions to the genre.

Point is, all the best performing games of this genre are PvPvE. Addition of PvE isn't all that impactful, sales wise, but can blow up games budget immensely, especially for a smaller team.

What is the point you are trying to make, exactly? That extraction games are only popular because of PvP? Hard to tell for sure because there is a clear bias within your post, especially the last part where you try to say "Adding PvE would blow up the budget immensely", which is just a dumb thing to say (Implying it'd somehow take many man hours and tons of money to do things with the code to make it a possibility)

Postat inițial de ToddCH:

Too many people dont understand this.
Even Sea of Thieves has implemented something like this as i already mentioned above (a game the i never would have naticipated implementing a feature like that), and the game is better off for it.

Not to mention that there are already games out there that could theoretically be described as an extraction shooter, if you'd squint your eyes or broaden the definition of an "Extraction shooter".

Deep Rock Galactic being one. Payday 2 also, as both games involve throwing you into a level where you gotta collect thing and escape or die trying.

So it's not out of the realms of possibility that a "PvE Extraction Shooter" can work.

I agree that definition of "extraction shooter" is a bit nebulous, as aside from more "tacticool" games trying to follow Tarkov closely, examples of the genre can have more differences than similarities between each other.

I'd argue there're two key aspects that separate it from adjacent genres like looter shooter, battle royale, etc.:

1) "Full loot" approach when it comes to equipment that you take into the match. You have to risk losing valuable items to get an edge.
2) No clear "victory" state. There are points of interest with better or worse rewards, but ultimately player decides when it's time to bailout. This leads to great variety of play-styles.

Since 1 is already pretty hardcore feature, it fits well with PvP gameplay.

[Zach Fett]

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

So you say that you want ability to play in empty lobby. The thing is, all the extraction shooters are laughably bad as single player/coop games: couple of static maps, low variety enemies with incredibly basic AI, itemization that breaks without constant full-loot sink. Even SoT, arguably one of the strongest among the bunch in PvE department is still vastly subpar as coop-only game. They get very stale very fast. Engaging PvE requires order of magnitude more content and quality, those things cost money.

This is just your opinion. The huge success of SoT's PvE-only mode proves that a large portion of players don't find it to get "stale very fast." And as someone who's played a lot of SoT and Hunt: Showdown primarily PvE/avoiding PvP, I heavily disagree with what you said.

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

All the games that tried to do it without PvP didn't achieve much:
Rainbow six extraction: good production values, very popular franchise. Minuscule sales by Ubisoft standards, dead several months after release.
Incursion Red River: another PvE only extraction shooter, has double-digit online couple of months after release.
Witchfire: amazing game on many levels, yet wasn't a hit on epic and has lukewarm wishlist numbers on steam.

Once again random assortment of comparisons. Only one of these is an extraction shooter. Did you see "Extraction" in the title for R6: Extraction and just assume it's in that genre? It had low sales for many reasons, none of which were because of it being PvE-focused.

And Witchfire is another weird example that feels like you're really reaching. It's a single-player only roguelite and a new IP from a small developer. Not only that, but every EGS exclusive does poorly, it doesn't matter the genre. What is even the point of bringing up this game as an example of PvE games doing poorly? This is like if I pointed to Skyrim or The Last of Us and said "omg see, PvE is more popular than a completely unrelated genre!"

You're very blatantly biased toward disliking PvE. You know the PvPvE mode wouldn't go anywhere if they added the option for PvE-only, right? Or are you just one of those PvPers that's terrified of the idea of all the easy kills leaving to play a mode where you aren't there to camp them?

[UncleIstvan]

Postat inițial de Zach Fett:

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

So you say that you want ability to play in empty lobby. The thing is, all the extraction shooters are laughably bad as single player/coop games: couple of static maps, low variety enemies with incredibly basic AI, itemization that breaks without constant full-loot sink. Even SoT, arguably one of the strongest among the bunch in PvE department is still vastly subpar as coop-only game. They get very stale very fast. Engaging PvE requires order of magnitude more content and quality, those things cost money.

This is just your opinion. The huge success of SoT's PvE-only mode proves that a large portion of players don't find it to get "stale very fast." And as someone who's played a lot of SoT and Hunt: Showdown primarily PvE/avoiding PvP, I heavily disagree with what you said.

Postat inițial de UncleIstvan:

All the games that tried to do it without PvP didn't achieve much:
Rainbow six extraction: good production values, very popular franchise. Minuscule sales by Ubisoft standards, dead several months after release.
Incursion Red River: another PvE only extraction shooter, has double-digit online couple of months after release.
Witchfire: amazing game on many levels, yet wasn't a hit on epic and has lukewarm wishlist numbers on steam.

Once again random assortment of comparisons. Only one of these is an extraction shooter. Did you see "Extraction" in the title for R6: Extraction and just assume it's in that genre? It had low sales for many reasons, none of which were because of it being PvE-focused.

And Witchfire is another weird example that feels like you're really reaching. It's a single-player only roguelite and a new IP from a small developer. Not only that, but every EGS exclusive does poorly, it doesn't matter the genre. What is even the point of bringing up this game as an example of PvE games doing poorly? This is like if I pointed to Skyrim or The Last of Us and said "omg see, PvE is more popular than a completely unrelated genre!"

You're very blatantly biased toward disliking PvE. You know the PvPvE mode wouldn't go anywhere if they added the option for PvE-only, right? Or are you just one of those PvPers that's terrified of the idea of all the easy kills leaving to play a mode where you aren't there to camp them?

Care to point to a place where did I "dislike PvE"?

I'm just drawing attention to the fact that there is no evidence of PvE-only mode being beneficial for health of games in this genre. Its introduction to SoT resulted only in slight bump of concurrent users and failed to break the trend of slow decline, hardly a huge success. In comparison, disastrous 1896 update of Hunt: Showdown has mostly negative reviews.
yet it doubled the player number, breaking ATH.

[Googly]

Damn game looked promising too.

[Zerx44]

Honestly the safer seas option kinda killed sea of thieves for me.
I used to love running into new players scaring the crap out of them with a rowboat and then teach them the game as well as some strategies for both PVP and avoiding it. (if they wanted to)

Now its just not as fun to row up on randoms with a rowboat cause the only people left are sweats who hear a splash and start to load their blunderbuss right away and that's fine but its not the same as it was.

PS I have a DUMB amount of hours in Sot and I had a crew that was super PVP heavy with some PVE on the side if there was a cool boss event that gave us loot to PVP better. looking at you wraith balls.
our best run was a Gold and Glory event at golden hour after 8 hours of loot stacking a fighting we sold over 2.4M Gold, sunk about sixteen different ships and got server merged four times. I LOVE a good fight when it comes to PVP, picking on new players not so much but i still used to love running into them for the interactions.

Edit:Sea of Thieves
TOTAL PLAYED
2,016.5 hours