315 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

xDeityx, on 13 June 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

You can't definitively determine the population but you can get a feel for how many players are in your Elo range. And you can kind of get a feel for how big of a range is in your game by how long it takes the matchmaker to make a match. The longer it takes, the wider your Elo range is going to be. You can also tell how big the skill disparity is between players by spectating. In the same game I've seen a herpderp pilot who couldnt' drive or shoot and a pro who was snapping shots off at CTs with his arm weapons while using the CTRL key to aim and protect his CT at the same time.

You can also compare how many times you see the same faces now to how many times you saw the same faces a month or so ago. Highly unscientific, but it still can give you a feel for the population.

Also it's a bit telling that PGI used to display the number of players logged into the game in the bottom right corner of the client but now hides that data and refuses to answer questions about population other than with obvious lies. I remember Bryan Ekman claiming that there were "thousands" of games ongoing concurrently. Here's the quote from the Reddit AMA:





I find the "thousands" number very hard to believe because the minimum number that meets the definition of "thousands" is either 2,000 or 1,001 depending how pedantic you want to be. That would mean that there are either 32,000 players logged on at once (2,000 games x 16 players in each game), or 16,000 concurrent players if the number is just barely over 1,000, and I doubt we are even coming close to half of that. Maybe TOTAL players but not CONCURRENT players as Ekman is claiming. What also leads me to believe that quote is just PR lies is that he claims he "doesn't have the numbers handy." It's a Reddit thread, not a live interview, he could easily look them up before replying. He also says he'll do a stats post soon (that was over a month ago)...did I miss it?

we were promised stats all the way back in closed beta for number on and such. Never have seen them.

[Prophetic]

Screech, on 14 June 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

I think that the only way to get people to play 8 man at this point is to promise them that they won't have to play against 8 mans speaks volumes.

You are missing the point entirely.

If no one queues up for eight mans then you are effectively eliminating large groups of people. Groups do not want to run PPC and Gauss just to be competitive every freeking drop. That is what eight mans are. ELO is turning into this anyway. I would like to try different builds or mechs but if you face the same people over and over then you just can't.
Something is wrong with that.

It is not about face rolling pugs. The pug QQ and face rolls continue. Some individuals are crying for four mans to be eliminated.

MWO has to make a decision and run with it.
Base the game around group mechanics and force them to achieve multiple objectives on maps or cater to the casual rambo solo COD crowd and just let them blow something up.
You don't really need maps for this. Just give them a narrow cave to meet up in the middle and blow stuff up. Quick bloody matches that u can repeat and have zero tactics or team play involved.

As for group queues, it is very simple.
Anyone who is solo or in a group of 2 gets their own queue.
Any group of 3 or more gets into the group queue.
Problem solved. Variety for everyone and Zero blame that can be laid on premades messing up pug matches.

[Diablobo]

Until they bring back collisions, balance ECM better, and make missiles more viable without boating, I am not going to buy another premium package. I know several fellow players who refuse to spend another penny until one or more of those things are addressed.

After having played with premium for about 6 months, I can say that the game is a horrible grind without it. I probably will be playing less and less every day.

[Diablobo]

Also, I find it very discouraging that the devs decided to remove the counter showing how many players are online. They could at least put up phony numbers if the real ones are too low. Bad idea for them to remove it.

[Writer]

it's painful to have warned the community and PGI since December that this scenario was going to occur if PGI didn't make changes.

We were mocked, and ignored.

[xDeityx]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

we were promised stats all the way back in closed beta for number on and such. Never have seen them.

Be careful with the word promise, it sounds a lot like torch and pitchfork hyperbole unless you can quote a PGI staff saying, "I promise..."

I'm all for holding PGI accountable for what they say and calling them out on their BS but putting words in their mouth undermines our own position. Apologies if I'm wrong and they literally promised.

[Bishop Steiner]

xDeityx, on 14 June 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Be careful with the word promise, it sounds a lot like torch and pitchfork hyperbole unless you can quote a PGI staff saying, "I promise..."

I'm all for holding PGI accountable for what they say and calling them out on their BS but putting words in their mouth undermines our own position. Apologies if I'm wrong and they literally promised.

let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. One doesn't have to say "I promise" to make one. PGI (be it Paul or Bryan, don't remember anymore) said they WOULD publish that info "in a few weeks". This was toward the end of Closed Beta.

Since they locked and erased 90% of the CB forums, no, I cannot give you a quote. Yet virtually any Forum Regular from CB should remember it.

[Nation Uprise]

I remember it. They said something about being happy with the numbers they have and they'd do a write-up about it. Their wording is what made it so memorable, "We're happy with the numbers we have." Which is another way of saying that you got the small piece of the pie, but trying to justify that its the best piece. Meanwhile, notice how any other game that has a large community isn't afraid to boast about it. Not here, though. I wonder why...

Edited by Nation Uprise, 14 June 2013 - 08:43 PM.

[tenderloving]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. One doesn't have to say "I promise" to make one. PGI (be it Paul or Bryan, don't remember anymore) said they WOULD publish that info "in a few weeks". This was toward the end of Closed Beta.

Since they locked and erased 90% of the CB forums, no, I cannot give you a quote. Yet virtually any Forum Regular from CB should remember it.

I remember it. I remember being excited that we would be able to pour through all sorts of data to help find imbalances and improve the game.

I was so young and foolish.

Do they still release heat maps? I think those had # of deaths for a given time period. You could probably deduce the number of players from those.

Edited by tenderloving, 14 June 2013 - 08:31 PM.

[Corbon Zackery]

PanchoTortilla, on 14 June 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

That ain't so great if true.

Because remember in Closed Beta there were routinely 3500-4000 players at any time, even with all the bugs, disconnects, trollmandos, speedy hunchbacks, straight vertical LRM rain that fell on your head, etc...

We had issues with that posted number a lot of us feel they were creating bots to max test the server. There was to much CT coring and long range head shots to believe those numbers were not fudged a bit by computer generated mechs.

[Felbombling]

Rhenis, on 14 June 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

it's painful to have warned the community and PGI since December that this scenario was going to occur if PGI didn't make changes.

We were mocked, and ignored.

I remember some people saying crap like, "I'm a computer programmer/game designer/graphic artist... relax... this game is at least a year away from Open Beta. You guys are freaking out over nothing... this is just testing... blah blah blah."

Edited by StaggerCheck, 14 June 2013 - 08:52 PM.

[Threat Doc]

keith, on 14 June 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

from ask the devs, yet its in ever other online game. pgi is a sad gaming company.

You make widgets, keith, let's say. You're the best widget maker, and you are the focal point of your company, a very profitable company because of you. Someone comes in from outside and explains, "you can do this better, and that better, and you can be more profitable, but what YOU do is utter crap!" Other people, within and out of your company begin to look at you, and your skills, differently. How do you feel about the widgets you've been making, to your mind, very efficiently, with high productivity, now?

Look, I have some issues with the way things have been done, too and, although I've not played since last September -this is NOT PGIs fault, this is the selfishness of a few others that killed AU, and my desire to play almost anything BattleTech-, I still believe this game has a lot of love that's gone into it, has a lot of potential for the future, if the developers will actually listen, and I think your assessment, which is pretty damned cold, frankly, is wrong.

This thread, and the one for Sarah, and one other I'm involved in, have become too involved, so I have to shut them down; I have other things to do, like college, hehe.

[jakucha]

Zylo, on 14 June 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Game forum activity really tells very little about the in game activity or total active population.

A very healthy game might still have a low online user count on the forums because there are more players enjoying the game while a game that is in trouble might have a rather high online user forum count due to players complaining about problems.

The other side of it might be a healthy game that has a high forum population due to new players trying to learn about the game before they start playing.

The number of users on a forum at any given time is a very poor indicator of in-game activity.

Exactly, which is why I said it's a vague indicator. Still, it gives an idea.

[shadN]

1. MWO has a great game engine. It has a sophisticated heat and damage system. The look and feel of the mechs is awesome.
2. Game balance is a serious problem, because piloting assaults has no drawbacks.
3. The game modes are dumb right now. I just cant say it any way nicer.

2. and 3. are annoying me so bad right now that 1. cant motivate me anymore. I practically quit my favorite game of the last 6 months. So have my friends.

[Writer]

Kay Wolf, on 14 June 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

You make widgets, keith, let's say. You're the best widget maker, and you are the focal point of your company, a very profitable company because of you. Someone comes in from outside and explains, "you can do this better, and that better, and you can be more profitable, but what YOU do is utter crap!" Other people, within and out of your company begin to look at you, and your skills, differently. How do you feel about the widgets you've been making, to your mind, very efficiently, with high productivity, now?

Look, I have some issues with the way things have been done, too and, although I've not played since last September -this is NOT PGIs fault, this is the selfishness of a few others that killed AU, and my desire to play almost anything BattleTech-, I still believe this game has a lot of love that's gone into it, has a lot of potential for the future, if the developers will actually listen, and I think your assessment, which is pretty damned cold, frankly, is wrong.

This thread, and the one for Sarah, and one other I'm involved in, have become too involved, so I have to shut them down; I have other things to do, like college, hehe.

You're assuming that anyone at PGI is the best widget maker. A bunch of folk trying to make a AAA F2P game while grossly undermanned and grossly overambitious.

PGI failed to present themselves right from the start. Had they come out and acted like a small game company they would have gotten much more leeway. Had they acted self-deprecating, acknowledged their mistakes, been open about the development process, discussed aspects of their design doc in mini-articles like Chris Roberts has, shown us what was their immediate focus, and been upfront with the community about shifts in the deadlines in plain language instead of terse PR statements we would have just accepted it for what it was. Instead we have a small company trying to pretend its a big one, with secret plans they can't reveal to us for our own good. Battletech is niche as ****, and instead of embracing the community for its strengths and working to please them they're squeezing it for money while trying to attract a wider audience.

While we sit in fractal hell for a couple of months dying from overpowered PPC's and poptarts they said wouldn't be in the game from the start, they were busy going behind our backs and back on their word to develop a third person camera and a game mode that will split the population in twain. At this point no one who has payed attention really expects CW to be anything well done because everything they promised to do when gathering funding either hasn't materialized, or has been implemented in the most half-assed fashion possible. Ability/ mech/ pilot trees are two-dimensional and don't represent what they promised, we've played capture the blue square for months with no hint of alternate gametypes in sight, and all the range and nuance they lead people on with hasn't appeared.

Game balance is only just getting looked at while fans have been crying for miniscule decimal changes in the spreadsheet values for months. Remember when PGI told us that Machine Guns were performing as intended?

Edited by Rhenis, 15 June 2013 - 02:03 AM.

[Zylo]

jakucha, on 14 June 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Exactly, which is why I said it's a vague indicator. Still, it gives an idea.

It's not accurate at all.

WoT has no problem showing off it's player numbers in game. War Thunder doesn't have any issues with a player counter either. MWO ran better back in the days when the player counter was active but when numbers started to drop below 4k online at peak times during closed beta it was removed.

If the numbers in MWO were healthy, PGI would have no problems showing them off. Instead we have these constant promotions trying to increase player numbers in game with offers of free cockpit items.

[El Bandito]

That reminds me, I need to check if my 50 Cal has arrived or not.

[Sephlock]

I can only pray that they make these a regular thing, and start offering credits or MC (let me dream).

[Skunk Wolf]

Sephlock, on 15 June 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

I can only pray that they make these a regular thing, and start offering credits or MC (let me dream).

If they do, they are going to run out of assets very quickly.

There just isn't anything to this game as it stands now.

This feels like the multiplayer component of a single player experience tacked on. Which it is.

I want Co-Op comp stomp operations, and other missions than "stand in the square(s)."

There has been nothing that even demonstrates that this is even possible.

[Sephlock]

Skunk Wolf, on 15 June 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

If they do, they are going to run out of assets very quickly.

There just isn't anything to this game as it stands now.

This feels like the multiplayer component of a single player experience tacked on. Which it is.

I want Co-Op comp stomp operations, and other missions than "stand in the square(s)."

There has been nothing that even demonstrates that this is even possible.

Agreed.