25 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Lukoi, on 27 July 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Poll #5 needs an option that says "I self identified as competitive" so people who do, do not have to give a bs answer to complete the poll.

Done.

[Wintersdark]

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly what I would have expected.

I'm curious as to what you were expecting, or wanting to find by this, DaZur?


I'm also fairly curious about what exactly you mean by casual, and competitive? I've read this as Casual: I primarily solo/small group drop and Competitive: I'm part of an organized unit. I ask, because the rest of the questions can be very leading depending on if you read it as I believe you meant it, or if you meant it in a different manner.

3rdworld, on 27 July 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Interesting.

More self described casuals have voted.

and Balance is the favorite for MWO longevity.

Did not see that coming.

Because, contrary to popular belief, "self described casual" does not in any way translate to "poor player" or "stupid".

[Marmon Rzohr]

To ensure MWO's longevity, i think we need to look to a combination of MMORPGs and other F2P games. Namely the two most prominent examples for each category: WoW and League of Legends.

- From World of Warcraft we can take that varied and constantly added environments add a lot to how a game feels and give it a much longer shelf-life. We can also take these things:
- Clear hard-to-earn rewards for players who invest time (and money) e.g. cockpit items unlocked after winning x games or getting to a set ELO bracket, special paint schemes that can be obtained only though playing and not purchasing
- Intertwining lore and gameplay is a winning combo. As is getting new players invested in lore. (Building a large, official wiki-type site where newcomers can find all the info they like, adding lore touches to the game client and game itself (such as loading screen snippets about the universe or info about the map the player is currently dropping in), map set-pieces that inspire interest or are connected to a famous faction, place etc., perhaps later a ranked ladder using only tech from a set time period etc.)

- From League of Legends we can take this:
- A FTP game based on PvP makes or breaks on it's competitive scene.
- Reward and draw the spotlight on the best teams and players. Hold official tournaments.
- Make a mode with bots for new players (maybe unnecessary)
- Allow people to see their ELO and clearly mark brackets to give goals to strive for. Also allow players to choose when dropping whether the match will "count" toward their ELO or not, but do not split ques and still match players according to ELO. This will allow people the option to level a new chassis without losing ELO and to try new builds, but will also allow them to have goals in playing the game, making them more interested in the meta and the game and more motivated.

[Ransack]

Do you select your mech based upon: Depends on the situation.

Normally whatever needs leveling



When deciding upon your weapon configuration what is your overarching logic:

Trying to do something that I haven't done on the other two models.



Do your mech selections and loadout better reflect:

They reflect nothing specific



Do you categorize yourself as:

Casually competitive.



If you selected "Casual" or other, on the following scale, select your personal perception of your commitment to achieving a win when you drop

I always want to win, but am not going to gnash my teeth or hold my breath if I don't.



Which is more important to longevity of MW:O IP?

both are equally valuable

[DaZur]

Wintersdark, on 28 July 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm curious as to what you were expecting, or wanting to find by this, DaZur?

I've forward the premise elsewhere that competitive players, the particular nuances requisite of the competitive environment and their overarching reasons for balance may actually, in part or whole, be contrary to the needs and want of the collective playerbase. This poll was an attempt to prove or disprove some of my premises... In short, It backfired on some and added weight to others. End result... Apparently I do not have an accurate pulse of the community.

Wintersdark, on 28 July 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm also fairly curious about what exactly you mean by casual, and competitive? I've read this as Casual: I primarily solo/small group drop and Competitive: I'm part of an organized unit. I ask, because the rest of the questions can be very leading depending on if you read it as I believe you meant it, or if you meant it in a different manner.

In general I qualify a "casual player" as a player that while is desirous of winning / being competitive, places greater emphasis on having fun, is more likely to field the "frankenmechs" and use weapons and weapon configurations that the competitive majority view as worthless. In short a casual player plays to have fun first win or lose...

A competitive player typically is associated with a unit or clan and approaches MW:O gameplay in a more serious manor. Their mech and weapon choices are reflective of what combination affords the most optimum weapon platform to be as competitive as their peers in a high-tier / Elo environment.

Wintersdark, on 28 July 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Because, contrary to popular belief, "self described casual" does not in any way translate to "poor player" or "stupid".

I agree with you 100 percent... Sadly, the larger majority of competitive players do not see it that way.

Edited by DaZur, 29 July 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[Wintersdark]

DaZur, on 29 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I've forward the premise elsewhere that competitive players, the particular nuances requisite of the competitive environment and their overarching reasons for balance may actually, in part or whole, be contrary to the needs and want of the collective playerbase. This poll was an attempt to prove or disprove some of my premises... In short, It backfired on some and added weight to others. End result... Apparently I do not have an accurate pulse of the community.

Yeah, I think most players understand that a well balanced game leads to a better game overall. Even if for no other reason than simply because a poorly balanced game has a much lesser chance of tabletop/canonical style builds being at all useable.

Quote

In general I qualify a "casual player" as a player that while is desirous of winning / being competitive, places greater emphasis on having fun, is more likely to field the "frankenmechs" and use weapons and weapon configurations that the competitive majority view as worthless. In short a casual player plays to have fun first win or lose...

It's one thing to play a "Fun" build, it's another to play a severely gimped build.

And there's a distinction that your traditional "competitive" players miss - there's a whole world of grey between "top tier" builds and "bad builds". Traditionally - and this isn't an MWO thing, but rather tends to be an "all online multiplayer games" thing - anything that isn't viewed as best is viewed as worthless, and that's a very problematic mindset.

Quote

I agree with you 100 percent... Sadly, the larger majority of competitive players do not see it that way.

I can't blame them, really. It's an easy trap to fall into. Take any 8 man group, or even a 4 man group, drop them against a group of random puggies and it's almost certainly going to be a massacre. Even if the puggies are more or less equally skilled pilots.

This isn't because the group is better, it's because they have teamwork. And that's not because they're smarter, or whatever else, it's simply the situation. It's far, far harder for the PUG to organize.

I spent a lot of time dropping with a variety of 8-man units, and one thing I found that surprised me was that on average the players individually were pretty much equal to the average players I meet in random PUG matches. This is not an insult - I meet lots of great players in random pug matches. Sure, you do get some players who are very skilled (just like you do in PUG matches) but ultimately the bell curve of skill is largely equal between the two groups.

Now, the average competitive player will probably have a more optimized build, but this also isn't necessarily because he's better at build optimization but rather that he just adopted a pre-built template build.

Competitive units simply allow the same random spread of people to organize and cover each others' personal weaknesses effectively; ultimately, MWO is a team game, and teamwork is vastly more important to victory than skill.

They are not, individually, better or worse players.



Edit: Sorry for the derailment, I'll shut up now

Edited by Wintersdark, 29 July 2013 - 05:43 PM.