175 replies to this topic

[Crazy Billy Joe Bob]

The fact they are asking this question just shows that this game is toast, it will never leave Beta if this is all it has, PvP type games typically grow fast and die faster, because there is just a loss of interest even on a good game.. this game is not even that good to begin with. At best a half baked PvP game with no goals, or focus, and the players base just wanders from two modes of conquest or whatever... lame. PGI(Putta Grande Inc) can not even get balance by now, they never will.

[Cyke]

What I believe is the most important has already been said:
The game has a very steep learning curve for someone coming into the game with no prior experience or attachment to BattleTech or sim games, and dropping people straight into competitive PvP with no training is a horrible first experience, one that is likely to kill new player retention right at the root (they dislike the game at minute 00:01:00 and never learn to love it).
I'm sure the devs can pull up stats and show how many players quit permanently after less than one hour of playing, but it's not something they'll want to show us.. and frankly, something would hurt me to see.


Anyway, on to the constructive part.
As has also been stated, there are plenty of YouTube videos that can give a player a very good understanding of the game basics, enough that they'll know how to move, shoot, manage heat, take cover, stay with their teammates, etcetera. Unfortunately, expecting newcomers to watch YouTube videos before playing is a very poor and unprofessional method of introducing people to a professional game (which is what I believe it is).

Therefore, an interactive in-game training mission tutorial with Phil's voice would be great. At the very least, it should cover everything that MW2's training tutorials did. I'm not sure how many of us played it, or remember it even if we played it, but it told you and made the player perform practical execution of everything you need to do in a 'Mech.

Beyond that, there should be one way of teaching a player the "advanced" metagame stuff: that they need to stick with teammates, take cover, and not go "rambo". There are videos that already do this very well, but the client would need an ingame video player, or at least hotlink to a webpage on this domain, where the videos are played.


Lastly, to grab players and suck them in, nothing beats making it easy to make friends ingame. People are very unlikely to quit if they get to know other players ingame.
For this, the easiest feature you can add is the ability to add "Friends" in the in-mission scoreboard interface. You can bet the number of 2-4 man drops will increase a lot, people will get to know each other, and they'll collectively help to retain each other in the playerbase. People naturally won't want to leave their buddies behind.
Besides, it sucks when you randomly PUG with a group of people that somehow work together wonderfully, but then the game ends and you realize you should have taken down their names, but it's too late. Adding friends and doing group drops is often too much work, and yet nothing is more frustrating than having player relations and emergent teamwork essentially reset to zero with every drop!


Something that will help with both new player retention and increasing social interaction is a chat system in the pre-Launch client. There often isn't time to type in-game to explain things to new players, but a lobby would be all right. Lots of people are willing to help, they just don't have the time to type in a match, where it could hurt the game and cause a loss. And of course a lobby will help people to chat and randomly group up for 2-4 man drops.

So my personal suggestions are:
- Voiced-over, in-game tutorials like MW2
- Ability to add Friends in-mission
- A chat lobby out of missions

These address both the experience for brand-new players (<1 day of experience) , and help to retain players who are still thinking about whether to stick to MWO (1 day - 14 days experience).

It'll even alleviate some problems with the current actual new-player-mechanics (godforsaken trail 'Mechs, ugh), since people in the lobby and newly-made Friends will be able to tell the new guys that, yes, they just need to play about 25 matches and they can buy their own 'Mech and customize it to suck a lot less.

Edited by Cyke, 23 March 2013 - 07:57 PM.

[shihku7]

if they could lower the system requirements of the game it would bring in a lot of people. I think League of Legends is partially so popular because it runs on very old systems. And it runs excellently on most of the systems you can get at a store like Best Buy. Nowadays you can even play it on a Macbook

I play MWO on my relative's HP Envy laptop which has a Intel 4000 as its GPU. The game doesn't run that well, no surprises there. But I wonder if they could somehow make it run decently on such a system. Maybe reduce the polygon count of the environment and the mechs? Seems like the mechs have a large amount of polygons no matter what settings I use in the Options. Or perhaps have a special mode for people with low spec computers. Smaller maps and lowered player count.

[1sh0t]

I'm on my 3rd day playing and while I enjoy the combat I have to say the average skill level of my random pub colleagues is terrible >50% of the time. Is this game drawing a large audience of people who have never played first person shooters before? I'm already at the point where I feel like I need to find myself a solid group of people to play with or simply move on to a new game. Getting stomped because my team can't do something as basic as stick together or break 100 damage is tiresome.

As a new player that's what's killing my interest. Also CB comes too slow after buying your first mech. And Ultimatepay is awful for people living abroad.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yeah they dont wanna make a tutorial. They think cramming 3pv into the game will make up for not having tutorials

[Stickasylum]

Beyond the first mech from trial money, new mechs take hours to afford and must be purchased sight unseen. You can't even play with them in mech lab before purchase!

1) Consider adding a full mech builder to UI 2.0. Separate the design and building phase, so players can build mechs in advance (and save builds), then buy or construct their saved builds.

2) Move to a rental/purchase system, a la Blacklight: Retribution. This will allow players to try builds in advance before laying down heavy cbills, and help retain casual players. This would also help with PGI's cash flow, as players would be more willing to put real money down on mechs they know they like.

Edit: The cbill slowdown after the trial period (not documented in-game!) is also likely to kill new player interest. Either make sure new players clearly know about the new-player stipend via in-game popups (one when the game is first loaded and one when the trial period is over), or just the cbill stipend up front.

Edited by Stickasylum, 23 March 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sporklift, on 23 March 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Actual game play and mechanics should not be simplified to the point where everything is handed to the player. People need goals in games, and part of the goal might be getting out of trials.

That I completely agree with. I believe that even the young, so called "ADD" generation of gamers is quite capable of mastering all this. They just need some help getting them there.

Changes like locking arm and torso by default for example I find ... poorly conceived. Yes, this is something challenging to learn for some players - but that's why you give them a tutorial and tell them what to look for!

I wonder how long it will now take a new player to figure out that he can move arm and torso separately?

I am actually a software developer working on a program that is used by tens or hundreds of thousands of customers with little tech affinity, and I know at least from there that many don't find controls and functions if they aren't well visible and explained. We had people stumble over our photo finder component because we changed how you could open the directory - they wouldn't identify the button we put in there as a button. It was mostly a simple styling issue - it needed something to make it more "button-like". But people can stumble over such simple things!
ANd we're not talking about the so-insultingly-called ADD generation here. We're talking about primarily women at ages 30-50 or so. Quite possible someone's wife on this forum ... Not the Battletech target audience, but still something to contemplate - making your UI "speak" to the audience and reveal its powerful features can be a challenge. Hiding away a feature in an Options Menu is likely the best way for it to not be found...

[MustrumRidcully]

DeadlyNerd, on 23 March 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

You can get to max lvl within a few days. Most of the skills in the first day.
The red bar rises when you shoot your weapons, hey maybe it's HEAT, who knows, better not pay attention to it.

Again, you get to max lvl in a few days. Most of the skills in the first day.

Lvl 20, that's 1 hour of play.

Does the 1 hour of play consists of 4 or more PvP matches?
Or do you start in a starter region, with neat little quest helpers and tutorial guidance?

Quote

WoW never had ingame explanations to tactics, only indicators. Community tutorials were still way more popular. Btw, there IS PvP at lvl 10, 10 minutes of play and if you do try that PvP you'll be thrown to twinks, which is much worse than the situation in MWO.

We'Re not talking tactics here. We'Re talking basic controls. WASD, this is your mana meter, this is your health bar, click right mouse button for primary, click left mouse button for secondary attack (not sure if WoW had that, but you get the idea, since you're smart.)

Quote

True, in WoW PvP is not obligatory, but do you really want PvE in MWO?

Yes, I would enjoy PvE very much. I don't need it, however, and I don't think MW:O noobs need that, even though it could help.

The thing MW:O needs is a PvUI mode - Player vs User Interface. It should be rigged for him to win.

Quote

The tiny icon ROTATES as you TURN. Damn, we need Sherlock to notice that one.

Operative word: TINY
"Oh, there's a control there. I didn't see it because there was a frigging Atlas in my face!

Users don't always intuitive grasp everything on the screen. Partially because they don't even recognize certain elements as part of the UI, instead of just a neat feature.

Do you know what those 6 thingies around your reticule are and what they show?
Did you know you can activate or deactive cockpit lights?
Do you know where the missile bay indicators are on your mech?
You can probably truthfully answer "Yes" to each of these questions.
Can you also say: "I noticed them immediately, and understood what they were for"?

[Quxudica]

The Testing Grounds a long with a proper turtorial that explained step by step the basic functions of a mech should have been among the very first things in this game. It was pretty dumb for it to have taken so long to get even just an empty map for newbies to **** around in. On top of its bare bones and late arrival (and the fact its bugged..), the way you enter the testing grounds is reall really obfuscated from a new player perspective.

Game Modes should not be in a tiny unlabeled drop down menu, they should remove some of the awful ads taking up 50% of the main Home Screen and replace it with an actual UI that includes each mode (Assault, Conquest, Testing Grounds) with a brief description of what they are so that anyone just starting will see them right away.

Quote

We'Re not talking tactics here. We'Re talking basic controls. WASD, this is your mana meter, this is your health bar, click right mouse button for primary, click left mouse button for secondary attack (not sure if WoW had that, but you get the idea, since you're smart.)

1-10 in world of warcraft is essentially entirely a tutorial with help tips popping up explaining everything about your first few abilities, the UI, class specific resources and so on. Death Knights which start at level 50 have an entire self-contained starting zone and multi-part quest line that meticulously explains everything about the classes basic functions before letting you out into the world. These days it also has a dungeon guide in game that explains each bosses history and gives a break down of what each bosses abilities do with specific notes pertaining to rolls (ie, it makes note if one boss attack is very important for healers to watch for).

WoW didn't used to explain much, and theres still a ton of stuff you go to third party fan sites for, but yeah it has a very thorough tutorial system in place. It's likely part of the reason the game is so popular, they have made it as easy as possible to get into it and understand the basics.

Edited by Quxudica, 24 March 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[Ranzear]

Cyke, on 23 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

What I believe is the most important has already been said:
The game has a very steep learning curve for someone coming into the game with no prior experience or attachment to BattleTech or sim games, and dropping people straight into competitive PvP with no training is a horrible first experience, one that is likely to kill new player retention right at the root (they dislike the game at minute 00:01:00 and never learn to love it).
I'm sure the devs can pull up stats and show how many players quit permanently after less than one hour of playing, but it's not something they'll want to show us.. and frankly, something would hurt me to see.


Anyway, on to the constructive part.
As has also been stated, there are plenty of YouTube videos that can give a player a very good understanding of the game basics, enough that they'll know how to move, shoot, manage heat, take cover, stay with their teammates, etcetera. Unfortunately, expecting newcomers to watch YouTube videos before playing is a very poor and unprofessional method of introducing people to a professional game (which is what I believe it is).

Therefore, an interactive in-game training mission tutorial with Phil's voice would be great. At the very least, it should cover everything that MW2's training tutorials did. I'm not sure how many of us played it, or remember it even if we played it, but it told you and made the player perform practical execution of everything you need to do in a 'Mech.

Beyond that, there should be one way of teaching a player the "advanced" metagame stuff: that they need to stick with teammates, take cover, and not go "rambo". There are videos that already do this very well, but the client would need an ingame video player, or at least hotlink to a webpage on this domain, where the videos are played.


Lastly, to grab players and suck them in, nothing beats making it easy to make friends ingame. People are very unlikely to quit if they get to know other players ingame.
For this, the easiest feature you can add is the ability to add "Friends" in the in-mission scoreboard interface. You can bet the number of 2-4 man drops will increase a lot, people will get to know each other, and they'll collectively help to retain each other in the playerbase. People naturally won't want to leave their buddies behind.
Besides, it sucks when you randomly PUG with a group of people that somehow work together wonderfully, but then the game ends and you realize you should have taken down their names, but it's too late. Adding friends and doing group drops is often too much work, and yet nothing is more frustrating than having player relations and emergent teamwork essentially reset to zero with every drop!


Something that will help with both new player retention and increasing social interaction is a chat system in the pre-Launch client. There often isn't time to type in-game to explain things to new players, but a lobby would be all right. Lots of people are willing to help, they just don't have the time to type in a match, where it could hurt the game and cause a loss. And of course a lobby will help people to chat and randomly group up for 2-4 man drops.

So my personal suggestions are:
- Voiced-over, in-game tutorials like MW2
- Ability to add Friends in-mission
- A chat lobby out of missions

These address both the experience for brand-new players (<1 day of experience) , and help to retain players who are still thinking about whether to stick to MWO (1 day - 14 days experience).

It'll even alleviate some problems with the current actual new-player-mechanics (godforsaken trail 'Mechs, ugh), since people in the lobby and newly-made Friends will be able to tell the new guys that, yes, they just need to play about 25 matches and they can buy their own 'Mech and customize it to suck a lot less.

66% this, 84% goddamned this!

Yes, that's one-hundred-and-fifty percent!

This needs to be quoted in a suggestions post, because I do suddenly feel this is 90% of what's wrong with this game: It's totally impersonal and you have to spend more time out of the game trying to organize a group than actually in it.

Edited by Ranzear, 24 March 2013 - 07:00 AM.

[Quxudica]

Quote

Besides, it sucks when you randomly PUG with a group of people that somehow work together wonderfully, but then the game ends and you realize you should have taken down their names, but it's too late. Adding friends and doing group drops is often too much work, and yet nothing is more frustrating than having player relations and emergent teamwork essentially reset to zero with every drop!

This is the reason automated match making is a terrible terrible thing, it still depresses me that it has supplanted user created games and lobbies in the majority of online games.

[SgtMagor]

not having in game voice chat hurts this game more than anything, noob pilots feel isolated, with the lack of interaction with other players!

[silentD11]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 23 March 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

ECM & a crap radar system.

LRMS & SSRMS that needs locks but become worthless due to ECM - new player - angry, confused, leaves due to bad game mechanic.

Need 3rd person because radar is crap. Would we need 3rd person so bad if our radar could actually detect a mech 50 meters behind us?

trial mechs, limited customization, massive money sinks and grinds, and trial mechs not being matched vs other trial mechs, no option for a stock gamemode for balanced mechs. horrible horrible grind.

limited maps, no achievements, no future prospects of anything.

bad bad bad missiles designs and ECM designs that make for a **** poor and frustrating experience. brought lrms? i have ECM. you are no worthless in battle. *laugh*

player leaves.

how many other games do oyu play where if the other guy has X (ECM) your guns (Y) now suddenly dont work at all? its ******** design, and aggravating and unfun to players.

LRMs are currently OP and a huge issue, one that people quit over. Incoming missile the video game is not fun, and it's stupid and boring. People realize this and quit. Good LRM players have tag anyways so ECM doesn't effect them. If you are advocating for stronger LRMs you might as well advocate for whoever clicks first wins.

Edited by silentD11, 24 March 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

silentD11, on 24 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

LRMs are currently OP and a huge issue, one that people quit over. Incoming missile the video game is not fun, and it's stupid and boring. People realize this and quit. Good LRM players have tag anyways so ECM doesn't effect them. If you are advocating for stronger LRMs you might as well advocate for whoever clicks first wins.

whoever clicks wins being taking a cataphract 3D or stalker or anything else with multiple ppc/gauss and sniping well?

An LRM 20 is not far from an Ac/20. AND you have travel time, ECM, cover & AMS to contend with when using LRMS. average hit rates are 25-35% with LRMS, far lower than any other weapons.

If LRMS don't hit hard they are not worth using. LRMS are already extinct in 8 man play with ECM and cover, with the current damage they are worthless in those settings - even more worthless than before the nurfs.

[Quxudica]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 24 March 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

whoever clicks wins being taking a cataphract 3D or stalker or anything else with multiple ppc/gauss and sniping well?

An LRM 20 is not far from an Ac/20. AND you have travel time, ECM, cover & AMS to contend with when using LRMS. average hit rates are 25-35% with LRMS, far lower than any other weapons.

If LRMS don't hit hard they are not worth using. LRMS are already extinct in 8 man play with ECM and cover, with the current damage they are worthless in those settings - even more worthless than before the nurfs.

LRM are support weapons meant to supplement PPC and Gauss (and everything else). You use them in conjunction with other systems to soften a target, not to obliterate it from missiles alone. You don't get to have the game aim for you while sitting in cover and still dominate the battlefield.

If ECM is an issue, bring your own Tag (or have a teammate do it). If lights are getting to close, bring backup weapons to deal with them instead of boating 1500 missiles (or again, teamwork). LRMs may need a bump from where they are, but they should not compare ton for ton with direct fire weapons - you trade damage for range and the ability to safely lob fire at targets your teammates are engaged with.

[BoydofZINJ]

My belief is this:

The game by itself is not newbie friendly, it is allot of little things that make it hard for newbies to wrap themselves around. For example, there is still a lack of a good tutorial mode to help NEW players understand simple game mechanics. Likewise, explain to me why anyone would want to get the Ferro-Fibrous armor before Endo Steel upgrade? Yet, the game lets you and lets a newbie get Ferro-Fibrous armor upgrade before Endo Steel.

A simple thing like Ferro-Fibrous armor versus Endo Steel makes me angry. If you are new and bought your first Assault, lets say an Atlas... and you just earned enough money (cbills) for a single upgrade of Ferro-Fibrous armor or Endo Steel. The game will gladly let the new player buy and use Ferro-Fibrous armor before Endo Steel. Is it even worth it? Endo steel saves 5 tons of weight - that you can put into normal armor and be protected with more weight savings.

Another thing, why do we not have some sort of tutorial that helps us practice and explain the "circle of death" or why a newbie should not charge without the support or the friends. Likewise, does the game show you why you should take cover when LRMs are coming? Or why cover is important? There are a few youtube videos that explain this, but my belief - MY BELIEF - is that not all NEW players (probably not most) are not looking at yoube videos. However, if the game makes NEW players take a tutorial before playing THEN the new players are FORCED and required to learn the basics.

[Marcus Tanner]

Alright, I think this discussion needs some background on the stock mechs, what they are, and what they're for.

Most games of tabletop Battletech only ever use stock variants. There's no customization at all outside of campaign games. So, in your normal PvP tabletop environment, stock mechs are all you have access to.

Stock mechs are flawed. All of them have some problem with them, whether that be not enough armor, a poor weapons layout, weapons that don't agree with each other, too much ammo, too little ammo, not enough heat sinks, or some other problem. This is intentional, and gives each mech character. Every stock variant has some problem or problems that you have to work around...

...and it's okay to bring a mech that has a sucky build. Tabletop mechs aren't simply pitting 4 mechs against 4 other mechs, it's limited to a budget for Battle Value. Good mechs cost more to bring. Also, good pilots cost more to bring. So you're not just trying to bring the best mech, you're trying to bring the best mech *for its price*.

In the tabletop game, I like bringing a Jagermech JM6-DDa. The thing is a piece of junk as far as 65-tonners are concerned. It wastes tonnage on a huge Combat Targeting Computer. It doesn't have nearly enough armor. It has twice as much ammo as it needs. It has piddly guns for its size. And it's dirt cheap in terms of Battle Value... so I bring it in ladder matches despite how much I know it sucks for its tonnage.

If you want stock variants to be okay, you can do that. In order to do this, the game's matchmaker needs to include not just how good the player is, but how good the mech is. If you bring a good mech you should get put up against better opponents, better mechs, or both. Preferably, the matchmaker should look at how good a player is with that specific mech and track their stats such that it no longer pretends that I'm just as effective in my ECM-less Commando as I am in my Atlas D-DC.

---

The devs here insist on trying to reinvent the wheel. Diverging from tabletop is just fine, but for God's sake it would help if they actually had a chat with a Battletech developer so that they understand what all the things are for.

The developers are running face first into problems that have already been solved, with existing solutions offered on silver platter.

[BoydofZINJ]

I agree the ELO or matchmaking system should also be judged based on the current mech and weaponload/equipment load on the 'mech that is being selected.

For example:

Player A has a base ELO of 300 (some imaginary number)

Light and medium players should probably get a bonus of 1.0 (so no change).

Heavy and Assault players should probably get a bonus of 1.1 (a minor increase).

Then upgrades:
Having Endo Steel should increase the base ELO by 1.1 (a minor increase)

Having ferro fibrous armor should barely increase the base ELO by 1.05 (Endo steel is better and on most mechs ferro fibrous armor should not be used).

Having double heat sinks should increase the base ELO by 1.2 (Double Heat sinks are very powerful, IMHO) If the person does not have double Heat Sinks then its a 1.0

ECM should also increase the base ELO by 1.2 (ECMs are powerful). If the person does not have a ECM then its a 1.0

Lastly, I believe the trial mechs should lower the ELO by 0.8 (People in Trial mechs should have a lower ELO - most trial mechs are... @()$#*() ) If the person does not have a trial mech then its a 1.0


Then add a fixed amount by the number of games the player has won or lost in the last 20 matches...

For example, if Player A has had bad matches and lost 14 out of 20 matches then his or her ELO should be changed to +8 (14-6 = 8 - this is wins - losses)

Finally, the game should try to make sure each side has nerly equal assaults, lights, and ECM mechs. Let us face it are games fun when you drop 5 heavies and 3 assaults with no ECM against 8 lights and 5 of them have ECM? The lights will either win very fast by capping or die horribly. My experience shows that vastly superior ECM coverage is overpowered. On the flipside if one side has 2 lights, 2 mediums, 2 heavies, and 2 assaults will it beat a team with 3 lights and 5 assaults? Sure the true lance can win - but the extra light on the three side should overpower the 2 lights on the other side and same for the assaults... so then they overpower the rest. Of course, this is from my point of view. I PUG, play in 8 mans, and 4 mans... so I have seen all sorts of goofy battles.


Now let us think about that 300 ELO player... he is piloting aRaven 3L with endosteel, ferro fibrous armor, double heat sinks, and ECM - he is having a bad day and has lost 18 matches out of 20 (he won 2). As a result his ELO would be modified as...

( ( (Base ELO)*(mechsize)*(endosteel upgrade)*(ferro fibrous)*(heat sinks)*(ECM upgrade)*(TrialMech) ) + (win-loss ratio) ) =
( ( (300) * (1.0) * (1.1) * (1.05) * (1.2) * (1.2) * (1) ) + ( 2-18) ) = 482.96 modified ELO


Now let us look at Player B, he has a higher base ELO of 400 and wants to pilot a Hunchback (not a trial mech). Obviously, this mech has no ECM and is a medium plus it has Endo Steel and no double heat sinks and this player has been winning 12 games out of 20


( ( (Base ELO)*(mechsize)*(endosteel upgrade)*(ferro fibrous)*(heat sinks)*(ECM upgrade)*(TrialMech) ) + (win-loss ratio) ) =
( ( (400) * (1.0) * (1.0) * (1.05) * (1.0) * (1.0) * (1) ) + ( 12-8) ) = 424 modified ELO.


The Raven 3L has a lower base ELO but ranks a much higher modified ELO because that mech he has currently has more upgrades and ECM. One versus one a Hunchback versus a Raven 3L; likewise, ECM helps the team than not having ECM. One versus One, a Hunchback vs a Raven 3L with ECM is a hardfight and this reflect that! Likewise, picking the right upgrades will help increase your survival versus picking the wrong upgrades (Endo steel versus ferro fibrous armor).

I just threw numbers out there, but imagine if the current mwo matchmaking system also compensates based on current mech selection?!

[Agent 0 Fortune]

MustrumRidcully, on 23 March 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

Player retention is an important topic for PGI. They observe that some of their target audience drop out early, or so Bryan Eckman said in the 3rd person perspective.

So, what are the reasons for this

The game isn't fun for solo players, and almost every player starts out solo. I am experienced player and I hate playing Lone Wolf (solo). 90% of my games are completely pug stomps one way or the other, over in 4 minutes or less, and it seems like the majority of the time I am on the losing end. And if I am getting frustrated after sinking this much time, effort, and money into this game (and have access to the best mechs, equipment, and modules). I imagine that new players wont give it a second look.

[Firesteel]

This game is trying so hard to be like Chromehounds. For those of you who don't know what that is, it was the only mech sim available on the 360 for years. It had all the features that we have been asking for for months now.

Chromehounds was not an easy game by any stretch of the imagination (it was developed by the company that made Dark Souls) and had a general lack of tutorials about the user interface, like all FromSoftware games.

The biggest difference, and why that game was so endearing to it's miniscule fan base, was the community. I never remember any trash talking outside of joking around and everyone was willing to help newbies out. This was aided by the fact that there was in game chat all the time.

If we get integrated VOIP that is OBVIOUS and gets people to use it. Everyone on Chromehounds used a mic, and that was part of why the game was successful. The lack of a unified voice chat system is really killing the new player community from my perspective since there are no where near the discussions about builds and strategy anywhere in the game (I'm not counting the forums since very few actually come here) compared to Chromehounds.