136 replies to this topic

[Jakob Knight]

Papaspud, on 10 October 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

I can't believe people are still crying about 3PV.... jesus, it's not a big deal, it stinks and nobody uses it because it stinks. WHO CARES?????

So what that things didn't work out exactly as they thought they would, the game is improving slowly but surely, and that is what is important.

This is outside the scope of this thread, which is about an article on communications between game designers and their communities, and how both sides can fail to understand the other in their conduct. The issue of 3PV only came up in relation to part of the article cited that indicated that player misunderstanding could lead to charges of lying by the company, and my comment that it didn't, in fact, go into the situation where the developers had actually lied to/deceived their community about their product.

The relative merits and flaws of 3PV within the game are pretty much another conversation altogether, and not really important to this topic, as the issue is communication, veracity, and how both sides can do things that seem perfectly right to their viewpoint and be completely the wrong thing to do.

[MustrumRidcully]

Heffay, on 10 October 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

[/size]

Why do you have to use a negative example? If 3PV is good for the game, shouldn't your example be more along the lines of:

Before release: "Our next model will need 25% more fuel than the previous model."
On release: "Our next model will need 50% less fuel than the previous model."
Forum ragers: "WRAA!! YOU PROMISED THAT THE NEW MODEL WAS GOING TO BE LESS EFFICIENT! LIARS!"

Because the "concerned" people didn't want 3PV. People don't want their car to use even more fuel, either.

At best I could try to give you a neutral example:
"Our next model of our sports car will introduce automatic transmissions. We know many sports car fans prefer manual, so we will still offer manual transmissions."
"Our new model has automatic transmission. It won't have manual transmissions."
"After customer feedback, we have decided that the participants of the Sport Cars World Championship will get a manual transmission versions of our new model."

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 October 2013 - 07:27 AM.

[RG Notch]

I still think the funniest part is that they couldn't split the queues because they don't have enough players to support 2 modes now and adding more queues would just exacerbate waiting times and awful match ups. That's what should be worrying. They can barely split their player base between 2 modes and splitting it further would make things worse.
All the spin over lies or whether 3PV adds any advantages pales in comparison to the fact they don't have enough players to split any further. Launch certainly hasn't drawn in tons and the massively meh reviews aren't going to make this game a huge success.

[DirePhoenix]

RG Notch, on 10 October 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I still think the funniest part is that they couldn't split the queues because they don't have enough players to support 2 modes now and adding more queues would just exacerbate waiting times and awful match ups. That's what should be worrying. They can barely split their player base between 2 modes and splitting it further would make things worse.
All the spin over lies or whether 3PV adds any advantages pales in comparison to the fact they don't have enough players to split any further. Launch certainly hasn't drawn in tons and the massively meh reviews aren't going to make this game a huge success.

The playerbase is already going to be heavily split across necessary divisions: Factions (6 of them, more when clans show up), Elo ratings (for "skill" balance), 12-man premades (cooperation is OP). They don't need to be split any more than that.

Say if you're FRR going against Kurita, not only would you need to have 11 other FRR guys that are going against Kurita (rather than say, Steiner) that share your preference for 1PV/3PV, but then you need to find a group of 12 Kuritans going against FRR (at the same time you're trying to find a match) that are in your team's Elo bracket AND also match the 1PV/3PV preference of your team. By making separate queues, you're cutting down your pool of available teammates and opponents, when they've already been cut down a lot, for a lot better reasons than 3PV drones.

[Sandpit]

RG Notch, on 10 October 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I still think the funniest part is that they couldn't split the queues because they don't have enough players to support 2 modes now and adding more queues would just exacerbate waiting times and awful match ups. That's what should be worrying. They can barely split their player base between 2 modes and splitting it further would make things worse.
All the spin over lies or whether 3PV adds any advantages pales in comparison to the fact they don't have enough players to split any further. Launch certainly hasn't drawn in tons and the massively meh reviews aren't going to make this game a huge success.

I tend to agree although you don't have numbers to prove and support it. It doesn't seem like the community is growing. It feels very stagnant. You can scream vocal minority, silent majority, players don't visit forums because they enjoy the game, etc. but the bottom line is that any gaming community that is growing at a good pace has an influx of players and ideas on the forums generally speaking.
Even if it WAS true for the minority and majorities there would still be new players becoming more active in the community. Those that do post as new players generally get blasted by other members for not being a new player and have their thoughts, ideas, and critiques dismissed and then get attacked on a personal level.

[QuackAttack]

Heffay, on 03 October 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

That article is fantastic. It's what everyone knows is true, but I'm sure some individuals think will read it and think "It doesn't apply in this case though, because I are speshul!"

I like the part about how complicated projects can take a lot of time. You see a lot of whining about how hard can it be to put a lobby. People who say things like that have probably never had to run a project more complicated than changing the oil in their car.

Depends on your car. My 1976 Ford F-150, easier then a 2 bit..... ya know My '07 Audi A4, the lobby just might be easier.

[RG Notch]

Sandpit, on 10 October 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

I tend to agree although you don't have numbers to prove and support it. It doesn't seem like the community is growing. It feels very stagnant. You can scream vocal minority, silent majority, players don't visit forums because they enjoy the game, etc. but the bottom line is that any gaming community that is growing at a good pace has an influx of players and ideas on the forums generally speaking.
Even if it WAS true for the minority and majorities there would still be new players becoming more active in the community. Those that do post as new players generally get blasted by other members for not being a new player and have their thoughts, ideas, and critiques dismissed and then get attacked on a personal level.

You know who does have the numbers and never shares them? or shares bizarre ones (like claiming 3PV improved retention 1 week after intro) or meaningless ones (registered accounts instead of concurrent players)... the one who decided not to split the queues.
So I don't have the numbers because the people who have the numbers never share them. What does that tell you? People with good numbers can't wait to share them, pretty sure everyone knows 10 million people played WoW at one point. So when someone hides the numbers and only shares irrelevant ones it's fair to conclude the numbers are bad.
PGI can prove me wrong anytime, they can add the player counter back, they can brag about how many ( not highest ever actual amount) concurrent players they have.
Even all the reviews complained of awful new player experience and poor replay value. PGI makes vague promises of improved new player experience, but that's just their position at this time. Once they used that line, I don't listen to what they say I pay attention to what they do.

[Heffay]

DirePhoenix, on 10 October 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

The playerbase is already going to be heavily split across necessary divisions: Factions (6 of them, more when clans show up), Elo ratings (for "skill" balance), 12-man premades (cooperation is OP). They don't need to be split any more than that.

Say if you're FRR going against Kurita, not only would you need to have 11 other FRR guys that are going against Kurita (rather than say, Steiner) that share your preference for 1PV/3PV, but then you need to find a group of 12 Kuritans going against FRR (at the same time you're trying to find a match) that are in your team's Elo bracket AND also match the 1PV/3PV preference of your team. By making separate queues, you're cutting down your pool of available teammates and opponents, when they've already been cut down a lot, for a lot better reasons than 3PV drones.

They said they will fill in missing house pilots with lone wolves. So if there is only 1 FRR pilot online in an Elo bracket, he'll have a lot of lone wolf company

[Sandpit]

RG Notch, on 10 October 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

You know who does have the numbers and never shares them? or shares bizarre ones (like claiming 3PV improved retention 1 week after intro) or meaningless ones (registered accounts instead of concurrent players)... the one who decided not to split the queues.
So I don't have the numbers because the people who have the numbers never share them. What does that tell you? People with good numbers can't wait to share them, pretty sure everyone knows 10 million people played WoW at one point. So when someone hides the numbers and only shares irrelevant ones it's fair to conclude the numbers are bad.
PGI can prove me wrong anytime, they can add the player counter back, they can brag about how many ( not highest ever actual amount) concurrent players they have.
Even all the reviews complained of awful new player experience and poor replay value. PGI makes vague promises of improved new player experience, but that's just their position at this time. Once they used that line, I don't listen to what they say I pay attention to what they do.

Oh I agree with you for the most part. I also have my suspicions that the player base isn't really growing much but isn't having a mass exodus at this point either. I think we are more stagnant than anything which is not good for long-term viability. As of right now I just don't think they are at a good sustainability level.

[Jakob Knight]

Heffay, on 10 October 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

They said they will fill in missing house pilots with lone wolves. So if there is only 1 FRR pilot online in an Elo bracket, he'll have a lot of lone wolf company

The real question is if they are in a catch-22 situation.

If they add in CW, they split the community 6+ ways, which will result in a situation that will make the whole 3PV split issue pale in comparison (and call into question why they could split 6 ways but not 2) in the short term, with only a hope this would generate more players in the future (much will depend on if they continue to mangle community relations and implementation of features).

If they do not add in CW, then the playerbase remains static, and the players who are in the single pool from which all battles are drawn slowly ablate away (through apathy over yet another failure to deliver promised features and weariness of pointless battles) until there are too few players to continue to keep the servers open. In the short term, the numbers of players are stable, but they fall off as time goes on.

So, it seems either the Devs must split the queue (which they have said was detrimental to the game and not worth doing), or leave the game to stagnate. Either way, the queues are going to get smaller and wait times are going to increase, so they are in the position of having their entire reason for not splitting the queues in the first place and avoiding a huge loss of confidence nullified.

[Heffay]

Community warfare doesn't split the queue at all. Everyone is in the same queue.

[Jakob Knight]

Heffay, on 10 October 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Community warfare doesn't split the queue at all. Everyone is in the same queue.

Not correct. Every person who aligns with a Faction will not be in the queue for any battle not involving that faction (you will not see a House Davion player fighting for either side in a battle between House Kurita and House Marik), which splits them from the queues for those two Factions, and which splits all of those from those who are queued for non-aligned games (PUGs) and, later, those who will be queued as part of the Clans. So, we are looking at more and more split queues and fragmentation of the playerbase into more and more subchannels, far more than just six.

In light of this, refusal to offer a simple two split queues seems pointless, since the playerbase -will- be set into seperate queues and in far more seperation. It is unavoidable if CW is to be put into place.

[Heffay]

Jakob Knight, on 10 October 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Not correct. Every person who aligns with a Faction will not be in the queue for any battle not involving that faction (you will not see a House Davion player fighting for either side in a battle between House Kurita and House Marik), which splits them from the queues for those two Factions, and which splits all of those from those who are queued for non-aligned games (PUGs) and, later, those who will be queued as part of the Clans. So, we are looking at more and more split queues and fragmentation of the playerbase into more and more subchannels, far more than just six.

In light of this, refusal to offer a simple two split queues seems pointless, since the playerbase -will- be set into seperate queues and in far more seperation. It is unavoidable if CW is to be put into place.

Wrong. Every person in the queue aligned in the queue will also be in the same queue as all the members of their house, and opposed to every single other faction out there. You should read about it and try to comprehend, so we can have an intelligent discussion about it.

This is't a 6 way split. Not even close. It's a deliberate obfuscation on your part. It's a lie.

[MustrumRidcully]

Jakob Knight, on 10 October 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Not correct. Every person who aligns with a Faction will not be in the queue for any battle not involving that faction (you will not see a House Davion player fighting for either side in a battle between House Kurita and House Marik), which splits them from the queues for those two Factions, and which splits all of those from those who are queued for non-aligned games (PUGs) and, later, those who will be queued as part of the Clans. So, we are looking at more and more split queues and fragmentation of the playerbase into more and more subchannels, far more than just six.

In light of this, refusal to offer a simple two split queues seems pointless, since the playerbase -will- be set into seperate queues and in far more seperation. It is unavoidable if CW is to be put into place.

Unless, of course, they end up ignoring all that because match-making would fail or take too long. Which would probably kill any immersion of CW, but worse than no immersion is not being able to play.

[Thanatos676]

Man, that article is too true.

Devs cannot be at your beck and call for every teeny tiny problem you have, they have more important stuff to do. The whole "gritch and moan" group needs to get their heads out of their you-know-what and just have fun.

[Sandpit]

Jakob Knight, on 10 October 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Not correct. Every person who aligns with a Faction will not be in the queue for any battle not involving that faction (you will not see a House Davion player fighting for either side in a battle between House Kurita and House Marik), which splits them from the queues for those two Factions, and which splits all of those from those who are queued for non-aligned games (PUGs) and, later, those who will be queued as part of the Clans. So, we are looking at more and more split queues and fragmentation of the playerbase into more and more subchannels, far more than just six.

In light of this, refusal to offer a simple two split queues seems pointless, since the playerbase -will- be set into seperate queues and in far more seperation. It is unavoidable if CW is to be put into place.

Heffay, on 10 October 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Wrong. Every person in the queue aligned in the queue will also be in the same queue as all the members of their house, and opposed to every single other faction out there. You should read about it and try to comprehend, so we can have an intelligent discussion about it.

This is't a 6 way split. Not even close. It's a deliberate obfuscation on your part. It's a lie.

You're both right. Kuritans will only queue with other Kuritans but that doesn't mean you have to be a part of a specific unit within Kurita to drop with other Kuritans.
Example:

Player A belongs to House Kurita Loyal Battalion
Player B belongs to House Kurita Royal Battalion

These two players would be in queue together to drop for Kurita against all other factions.

The separation will be involved though. It's unavoidable. if I am looking to drop on Planet A against faction B then Faction C attacks my faction's planet F, what happens? Do I cease my attack and defend? Do I drop lone wolf style in a pug and attack or defend? This is where it can get confusing I think. MPBT had a decent system that sorted all of this out but we have no idea (that i've seen anyhow) on how PGI will handle this

[Heffay]

Sandpit, on 10 October 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

You're both right. Kuritans will only queue with other Kuritans

That part isn't true either. Kuritans will also queue with lone wolves.

And PuG drops won't have any of the CW stuff behind it. The planet/map will be irrelevant; you're just a company of Steiners (and lone wolves) who happen to be assaulting a facility defended by ... oh, say Davions.

Even allies had skirmishes against each other.

At the end of the day, it's still one big queue for the PuGs. You just won't see any of your faction on the other side.

[Cimarb]

Heffay, on 10 October 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

That part isn't true either. Kuritans will also queue with lone wolves.

And PuG drops won't have any of the CW stuff behind it. The planet/map will be irrelevant; you're just a company of Steiners (and lone wolves) who happen to be assaulting a facility defended by ... oh, say Davions.

Even allies had skirmishes against each other.

At the end of the day, it's still one big queue for the PuGs. You just won't see any of your faction on the other side.

While I generally agree, they haven't actually announced how faction life or lone wolf life will work, so I wouldn't get too worried about it, yet. I assume they will have a bit more CW involvement even for lone wolves than what Heffay said, but he is right otherwise.

[Heffay]

Cimarb, on 10 October 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

While I generally agree, they haven't actually announced how faction life or lone wolf life will work, so I wouldn't get too worried about it, yet. I assume they will have a bit more CW involvement even for lone wolves than what Heffay said, but he is right otherwise.

They will have their own end-game content, but it will be different than House Loyalty or Merc unit loyalty (which they really should name Reputation or something like that).

I could see a Notoriety path for them. Lone wolves generally didn't do so well in canon, but if you play long enough achieving some sort of fame would be appropriate.

[Jakob Knight]

Heffay, on 10 October 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

That part isn't true either. Kuritans will also queue with lone wolves.

And PuG drops won't have any of the CW stuff behind it. The planet/map will be irrelevant; you're just a company of Steiners (and lone wolves) who happen to be assaulting a facility defended by ... oh, say Davions.

Even allies had skirmishes against each other.

At the end of the day, it's still one big queue for the PuGs. You just won't see any of your faction on the other side.

But still, a Kurita player will -not- be in the queue for a Marik unit attacking a planet held by a Steiner unit. Nor would that Kurita player be in the queue for a PUG match. That is, by definition, a three-way split queue by itself. In addition, no Factional player will be part of any battle that will aid one of the other factions, so that further drops the queues down to only those involving their own Faction.

That, of course, does not even go into the addition of the Clans, but that is a fragmentation farther down to road (even if it has been made as inevitable as CW by the words of the Devs on the matter).

The only way CW could not result in separate queues is if there were no differentiation of battles by faction, which is what we have now. As I said, this is the second option, but it leads to stagnation. While it is possible to simply have everyone's scores count individually towards whatever faction they have declared for, this would be in conflict with the description and spirit of CW as outlined.

Thus, I maintain that CW, by definition, involves split queues. You may disagree, but you will have to be more comprehensive in your explanation of how you can have a working CW without division of players within the game.