stop focus on pvp

[thunder]

Could you guys for once stop focussing on pvp, i hate pvp and love more campains as they did before, now every dlc is pvp based, i dont like it, i just want campains to play, i dont care for the rest, so plz dont forget those from the other generation who played games as a sort off relaxation, why always that stupid pvp, what is it with kids trying to be the best at something, in a game???? lol i am better at life then games and i want to keep it that way, and when i buy a game i wash they wouldn't forget the older generation and not always those addicts to pvp

[Jebe]

PvP is what keeps a game alive..

[thunder]

Originally posted by Jebe:

PvP is what keeps a game alive..

lol no pvp is for frustrated kid gamers who dont know what a real game is, i am from the 80's, i know the evolution and i know also an increase off angry frustrated person destoying things that cost a lot off money over a pvp game, i learned that games where to relax , no instead they make games where kids go banana's over a game, is that so much better? is that how we raise our kids these days? games and they leave me alone? no games where made to relax but instead they ruined it with stupid pvp, you want pvp? go to ukraine and you will get pvp

[thunder]

Originally posted by Jebe:

PvP is what keeps a game alive..

i gues humans will never learn

[Gabe (real)]

I'm sorry OP but from a business standpoint, PVP focus is pretty much expected. This game is radically different from AoE 1 and 2 because it's from 20 years later, and the focus in gaming overall has shifted near entirely into multiplayer (and most commonly PvP). If you have already played all of the campaigns, I wouldn't expect more to come anytime soon.

Campaigns and singleplayer content are cool and all, but it's no longer what the target audience wants, unlike in the 90's. Games nowadays are almost all PvP because it's much easier to let the players sort it and keep spending hours on the game rather than adding new "scripted", less interactive content. It saves time from developing actually competent bots.

Games get much more gameplay depth when they match up human players against each other, instead of against dumb bots. Players will play for longer and wait more patiently for updates if the gameplay is deeper, specially if you add in human critical thinking to your adversaries. And more content for PvP means this time grows exponentially.

Adding a campaign will only increase play time for the duration of the campaign (12 hours at most), while adding PvP content will increase playtime for hundreds of hours. I would also like more campaigns, but they won't retain as much playerbase as other content would.

I guess you may have already played it, but if you haven't, play AoE2 if you want tons of campaigns. It still kind of follows the original design of the 90's, and some more campaigns may yet come to the game (on top of the dozens it already has).

[NoobusMaximus]

Originally posted by thunder:

Originally posted by Jebe:

PvP is what keeps a game alive..

lol no pvp is for frustrated kid gamers who dont know what a real game is, i am from the 80's, i know the evolution and i know also an increase off angry frustrated person destoying things that cost a lot off money over a pvp game, i learned that games where to relax , no instead they make games where kids go banana's over a game, is that so much better? is that how we raise our kids these days? games and they leave me alone? no games where made to relax but instead they ruined it with stupid pvp, you want pvp? go to ukraine and you will get pvp

People are competitive by nature. Maybe if we get more people into PvP games we won't have to send them to Ukraine in the first place. Secondly, he's right, not only PvP players are more invested and stick to a game for a longer time, there is also less work needed to retain them, whereas SP people need new content all the time. Look at PoE2, which is incredibly replayable by design, it had half a million players in december, then after a few months there were ~30k left. Focusing an RTS on SP is good if you're looking to sell it once and be done with it. There are plenty of RTS games like this.

[The SynthRider]

Gotta give one point to yah, pvp... as i think to, is a huge and pure pain to deal with. It's always coming to a point where everyone play this ''who's got the biggest'' kind'o game. Kids all over the place thinking that, doing a full on teamkill, will manage up their entire life.


On the other side... with what society is today... they are also right on this. PVP is now almost entirely a 100% necessity for a game survival and else. But yeah, it wasn't always like so... back in the 90's most games didn't need such to be perfect and still be remembered today as a gold piece.

[thunder]

Originally posted by NoobusMaximus:

Originally posted by thunder:

lol no pvp is for frustrated kid gamers who dont know what a real game is, i am from the 80's, i know the evolution and i know also an increase off angry frustrated person destoying things that cost a lot off money over a pvp game, i learned that games where to relax , no instead they make games where kids go banana's over a game, is that so much better? is that how we raise our kids these days? games and they leave me alone? no games where made to relax but instead they ruined it with stupid pvp, you want pvp? go to ukraine and you will get pvp

People are competitive by nature. Maybe if we get more people into PvP games we won't have to send them to Ukraine in the first place. Secondly, he's right, not only PvP players are more invested and stick to a game for a longer time, there is also less work needed to retain them, whereas SP people need new content all the time. Look at PoE2, which is incredibly replayable by design, it had half a million players in december, then after a few months there were ~30k left. Focusing an RTS on SP is good if you're looking to sell it once and be done with it. There are plenty of RTS games like this.

ok good but why only pvp, why do they push others who dont do any pvp, to play pvp, in my opinion is it just a hurmone thing and getting a kick for winning= to addiction, so infact they make a new addiction for kids, ok at least they wont do drugs but they are very toxic lol, so is pvp a good thing? not really, it learn kids to get angry and some are getting really stupid as they just dont know anything else then getting that rush, so for me pvp is like a drug and they pay for it, in my opinion, i learn much more playing offline campains, story driven by hystorical accuraty, sorry my english is not my native language lol, but as i am addicted to total war games i learn from it, how to think tactical, its like i love chess and beating the computer as they try to make the computer smarter then humans so i love to beat the computer on very hardcore lvl's, pvp is more a " who's got the biggest wallet" they really just care about your money and we all fell for it at some point on our lives.

[[Hunter]]

Originally posted by Jebe:

PvP is what keeps a game alive..

That is the dumbest take I've seen today.

[[Hunter]]

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

I'm sorry OP but from a business standpoint, PVP focus is pretty much expected. This game is radically different from AoE 1 and 2 because it's from 20 years later, and the focus in gaming overall has shifted near entirely into multiplayer (and most commonly PvP). If you have already played all of the campaigns, I wouldn't expect more to come anytime soon.

Campaigns and singleplayer content are cool and all, but it's no longer what the target audience wants, unlike in the 90's. Games nowadays are almost all PvP because it's much easier to let the players sort it and keep spending hours on the game rather than adding new "scripted", less interactive content. It saves time from developing actually competent bots.

The industry has been pulling away from PVP since alot of people have made it VERY clear that they don't want live service "games" and every game having sh*tty PVP, plus most modern devs are lazy pricks who take the bad, easy way out.

The target audience has shifted again to it's ACTUAL audience and not the bunch of tourists who are a LOUD annoying minority.

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

Games get much more gameplay depth when they match up human players against each other, instead of against dumb bots. Players will play for longer and wait more patiently for updates if the gameplay is deeper, specially if you add in human critical thinking to your adversaries. And more content for PvP means this time grows exponentially.

That's just flat out wrong, games don't get more depth with PVP, this is just categorically wrong, once the 1-10% find the "meta" everyone follows suit and there is no more depth, they (the majority) will end up with the same play-style and tactics, it becomes STALE.

They weirdos who want PVP/more PVP and ranked/comp WILL optimise the fun out of the game like they always do, then like I said, it will become STAGNANT and STALE, then begin losing players or they migrate to Skirmish with bots or friends.

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

Adding a campaign will only increase play time for the duration of the campaign (12 hours at most), while adding PvP content will increase playtime for hundreds of hours. I would also like more campaigns, but they won't retain as much playerbase as other content would.

This is just cope, player retention doesn't hinge on PVP, I and most people play AoE because it's AoE and a good RTS, not because it's PVP.

Conclusion: I'm not trying to insult or berate you, sorry if it came off that way, but I'm just stating what's happening and facts, at the end of the day if you focus on PVP while negating everything and everyone else, the game will suffer and haemorrhage players or they will stick to bots or friends.

[thunder]

Originally posted by Hunter:

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

I'm sorry OP but from a business standpoint, PVP focus is pretty much expected. This game is radically different from AoE 1 and 2 because it's from 20 years later, and the focus in gaming overall has shifted near entirely into multiplayer (and most commonly PvP). If you have already played all of the campaigns, I wouldn't expect more to come anytime soon.

Campaigns and singleplayer content are cool and all, but it's no longer what the target audience wants, unlike in the 90's. Games nowadays are almost all PvP because it's much easier to let the players sort it and keep spending hours on the game rather than adding new "scripted", less interactive content. It saves time from developing actually competent bots.

The industry has been pulling away from PVP since alot of people have made it VERY clear that they don't want live service "games" and every game having sh*tty PVP, plus most modern devs are lazy pricks who take the bad, easy way out.

The target audience has shifted again to it's ACTUAL audience and not the bunch of tourists who are a LOUD annoying minority.

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

Games get much more gameplay depth when they match up human players against each other, instead of against dumb bots. Players will play for longer and wait more patiently for updates if the gameplay is deeper, specially if you add in human critical thinking to your adversaries. And more content for PvP means this time grows exponentially.

That's just flat out wrong, games don't get more depth with PVP, this is just categorically wrong, once the 1-10% find the "meta" everyone follows suit and there is no more depth, they (the majority) will end up with the same play-style and tactics, it becomes STALE.

They weirdos who want PVP/more PVP and ranked/comp WILL optimise the fun out of the game like they always do, then like I said, it will become STAGNANT and STALE, then begin losing players or they migrate to Skirmish with bots or friends.

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

Adding a campaign will only increase play time for the duration of the campaign (12 hours at most), while adding PvP content will increase playtime for hundreds of hours. I would also like more campaigns, but they won't retain as much playerbase as other content would.

This is just cope, player retention doesn't hinge on PVP, I and most people play AoE because it's AoE and a good RTS, not because it's PVP.

Conclusion: I'm not trying to insult or berate you, sorry if it came off that way, but I'm just stating what's happening and facts, at the end of the day if you focus on PVP while negating everything and everyone else, the game will suffer and haemorrhage players or they will stick to bots or friends.

thats is what i am trying to say but my english is noit that good. i dont say they should bann pvp but why is a game like AoE going that way? because its easy money, cuz its easy to make, and its easy money cuz off your addiction to a pvp rush for winning a pvp match, after a while you'll get bored to lol, but yes its an addiction, and with every addiction , there should be control over, so those who loves campains will love the game and those who love pvp loves the rush and the anger for losing then cheating because you really want to be the best at a game, lol, what you say i totaly follow, i love rts games but i do hate every form off pvp

[RaccoonOnTheTree]

of course a private profile.

[Powellinho.72]

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

I'm sorry OP but from a business standpoint, PVP focus is pretty much expected. This game is radically different from AoE 1 and 2 because it's from 20 years later, and the focus in gaming overall has shifted near entirely into multiplayer (and most commonly PvP). If you have already played all of the campaigns, I wouldn't expect more to come anytime soon.

Campaigns and singleplayer content are cool and all, but it's no longer what the target audience wants, unlike in the 90's. Games nowadays are almost all PvP because it's much easier to let the players sort it and keep spending hours on the game rather than adding new "scripted", less interactive content. It saves time from developing actually competent bots.

Games get much more gameplay depth when they match up human players against each other, instead of against dumb bots. Players will play for longer and wait more patiently for updates if the gameplay is deeper, specially if you add in human critical thinking to your adversaries. And more content for PvP means this time grows exponentially.

Adding a campaign will only increase play time for the duration of the campaign (12 hours at most), while adding PvP content will increase playtime for hundreds of hours. I would also like more campaigns, but they won't retain as much playerbase as other content would.

I guess you may have already played it, but if you haven't, play AoE2 if you want tons of campaigns. It still kind of follows the original design of the 90's, and some more campaigns may yet come to the game (on top of the dozens it already has).

"Adding a campaign will only increase play time for the duration of the campaign (12 hours at most"

I dont disagree with your points about online, im not against it, im for it, but i think campaigns can add a lot more than just 12 hours, like i have replayed campaigns time and time again over the years, because it was fun, i would go back, use different tactics, bump the difficulty up ( because i was only a kid when i was playing AOE 1,2 first times ).

If you have missions where there are multiple different ways of achieving victory, then it has replay value, aswell as a score chart which you could use to improve upon, maybe add in unlockables for doing such etc. There are so many ways you can make campaigns interesting.

I could name games in different genres also where once you learn how to beat the game a few times, you can easily speedrun it in less than 2 hours, but because there are different paths and ways of doing things, plus different endings etc, people go back time and time again, making what would seem maybe only a 10 or less hour game into a game you play for hundreds of hours, years later.

Just to confirm again, i dont disagree with the online part, i understand this and want that too.

[thunder]

Originally posted by Powellinho.72:

Originally posted by Gabe (real):

I'm sorry OP but from a business standpoint, PVP focus is pretty much expected. This game is radically different from AoE 1 and 2 because it's from 20 years later, and the focus in gaming overall has shifted near entirely into multiplayer (and most commonly PvP). If you have already played all of the campaigns, I wouldn't expect more to come anytime soon.

Campaigns and singleplayer content are cool and all, but it's no longer what the target audience wants, unlike in the 90's. Games nowadays are almost all PvP because it's much easier to let the players sort it and keep spending hours on the game rather than adding new "scripted", less interactive content. It saves time from developing actually competent bots.

Games get much more gameplay depth when they match up human players against each other, instead of against dumb bots. Players will play for longer and wait more patiently for updates if the gameplay is deeper, specially if you add in human critical thinking to your adversaries. And more content for PvP means this time grows exponentially.

Adding a campaign will only increase play time for the duration of the campaign (12 hours at most), while adding PvP content will increase playtime for hundreds of hours. I would also like more campaigns, but they won't retain as much playerbase as other content would.

I guess you may have already played it, but if you haven't, play AoE2 if you want tons of campaigns. It still kind of follows the original design of the 90's, and some more campaigns may yet come to the game (on top of the dozens it already has).

"Adding a campaign will only increase play time for the duration of the campaign (12 hours at most"

I dont disagree with your points about online, im not against it, im for it, but i think campaigns can add a lot more than just 12 hours, like i have replayed campaigns time and time again over the years, because it was fun, i would go back, use different tactics, bump the difficulty up ( because i was only a kid when i was playing AOE 1,2 first times ).

If you have missions where there are multiple different ways of achieving victory, then it has replay value, aswell as a score chart which you could use to improve upon, maybe add in unlockables for doing such etc. There are so many ways you can make campaigns interesting.

I could name games in different genres also where once you learn how to beat the game a few times, you can easily speedrun it in less than 2 hours, but because there are different paths and ways of doing things, plus different endings etc, people go back time and time again, making what would seem maybe only a 10 or less hour game into a game you play for hundreds of hours, years later.

Just to confirm again, i dont disagree with the online part, i understand this and want that too.

oh its ok m8, i do understand there must be pvp for those willing to do pvp, for campains, well thats all about the company, willing to make an effort to make us both happy, i just care about campains, dont need to play online battles, i just want to point out to the makers to think about both gamers, i am waiting for a dlc with some new campains as for now i dont play it as i did finnish the game hehe

[Sylvester Sirloin]

Originally posted by thunder:

Could you guys for once stop focussing on pvp, i hate pvp and love more campains as they did before, now every dlc is pvp based, i dont like it, i just want campains to play, i dont care for the rest, so plz dont forget those from the other generation who played games as a sort off relaxation, why always that stupid pvp, what is it with kids trying to be the best at something, in a game???? lol i am better at life then games and i want to keep it that way, and when i buy a game i wash they wouldn't forget the older generation and not always those addicts to pvp

Play age of empires 2 that is what that game has better than age of empires 4. People play age of empires 4 for its multiplayer.

[Playerguy11]

I only play MP and everyone I know who plays, only plays because of MP