587 replies to this topic

[Riptor]

You have no numbers either so you cant disproof him.

Whats your point again?

[Drunk Canuck]

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Aaaaand this right here is a load of hogwash.

So the only time you could use ASSAULT mechs was not to 'ASSAULT planets but rather DEFEND them. huh.... should have called them DEFENDER mechs then.

Fact is that most IS warefare was not waged with light mechs. It was a healthy mix of all classes and due to economic reasons the medium class was the most numerous.

Thing is light mechs are complete **** against static defenses. You cant assault a military complex with a lance of light mechs and hope that they wont be shot to pieces by all kinds of static defenses.

A system like that also is not fun in this day and age.. people want to play on their own terms. I dont want an artificial barrier keeping me from content and dictating that i spent time on a part of the game that i dont enjoy.

That system might have been fun for the most hardcore of the hardcore but theres a reason that game was canceled. Heck it even had original armor values... mechs died so fast that loading up a match might have taken longer then actually playing it.

Actually, a lot of the early BattleTech novels prior to the Blood of Kerensky trilogy rarely had any mentions of Assault class Mech's. Aside from a few mentions of the Battlemaster and Victor in a few different scenes, there was rarely an appearance by an Assault Mech. There are a couple of mentions of others prior to the Clan Invasion but the majority of Mech's seen in the books early on were Lights, Mediums and Heavies.

[Joseph Mallan]

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

You have no numbers either so you cant disproof him.

Whats your point again?

Did you see me saying the game is or isn't dead/dying in any thread? As such I want numbers proving his claim the game is dying. Without it he has not made his point.

[Training Instructor]

Drunk Canuck, on 19 November 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Actually, a lot of the early BattleTech novels prior to the Blood of Kerensky trilogy rarely had any mentions of Assault class Mech's. Aside from a few mentions of the Battlemaster and Victor in a few different scenes, there was rarely an appearance by an Assault Mech. There are a couple of mentions of others prior to the Clan Invasion but the majority of Mech's seen in the books early on were Lights, Mediums and Heavies.

It's a good point. Almost all of the early novels were lights and mediums, and when a heavy mech like a marauder entered a battle, it inspired dread in our intrepid protagonists!

[PPO Kuro]

I stopped playing with my group. Now we play War Thunder. More fun (well most of the time, 37mm are bloody annoying ), and you can at least look behind you!

I also stopped commending this game months ago. In the closed beta I thought the game was good. That has changed. I'm not particularly happy with the way this game plays now. Ghostheat, 3PV, hitboxes to name but a few. Thinking shooter my arse!

[Pyrrho]

Mystere, on 18 November 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Don't forget the usual QQ suspects.

I vote to portmanteau this into the "QQusual Suspects"

[Dimento Graven]

What this game needs, what I can't recall seeing in very many other games of this genre (maybe TF2 has an aspect of this) is player created content.

We want depth, we want more, why can't there be a means of player created content?

Why couldn't players create 'mech chassis? Crimany, make a tool accessible and usable by the players, we'd have every damn 'mech chassis from every published TRO of the last 30 years in under a month.

Why couldn't players create maps? One of the coolest things about a lot of games are the hundreds of maps available.

That's just TWO aspects that'd make this game "feel" like it had more depth and help keep this game going for years while PGI worked out UI2.0 and CW.

[RetroActive]

26+ Pages and 13,000+ views on this topic. Yes, this game is completely dead.

[Akulakhan]

RetroActive, on 19 November 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

26+ Pages and 13,000+ views on this topic. Yes, this game is completely dead.

Mostly by people who play significantly less than they used to or not at all.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 19 November 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

What this game needs, what I can't recall seeing in very many other games of this genre (maybe TF2 has an aspect of this) is player created content.

We want depth, we want more, why can't there be a means of player created content?

Why couldn't players create 'mech chassis? Crimany, make a tool accessible and usable by the players, we'd have every damn 'mech chassis from every published TRO of the last 30 years in under a month.

Why couldn't players create maps? One of the coolest things about a lot of games are the hundreds of maps available.

That's just TWO aspects that'd make this game "feel" like it had more depth and help keep this game going for years while PGI worked out UI2.0 and CW.

TL:DR We want the game, not the teaser anymore.

This did not come off as the snarky agreement I intended it to be when I wrote it!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 November 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 November 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

TL:DR We want the game, not the teaser anymore.

TL:DR

[Tolkien]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 November 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

You started a thread with this exact post. No Numbers, no proof.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

You have no numbers either so you cant disproof him.

Whats your point again?

All we can do is use the number of players they told us they had on average during open beta
(calculations here http://mwomercs.com/...75#entry2717775 answer ~1623 players on average in matches).

If we want to go further we can use the forum population as a proxy of in game population - during open beta I remember seeing ~2500 forumites logged in during primetime. If 2500 forumites corresponds to 1623 players in a match, then the currently logged in 1391 players would be about 900 players in game. This is an assumption plain and simple that the population of the forum and the game are 1:1 correlated. I have no reason to doubt they are highly correlated but I don't know if highly correlated means 0.5 or 0.999.

As a point of reference some other "popular" multiplayer games have the current populations on steam:
Borderlands 2: 6303
Dota 2: 483,580
Counter Strike Source: 23,219
Counter strike global offensive: 36,218
Team fortress 2: 44088
Torchlight 2: 1701

So as you can see, MWO is not dead, but it is also not tearing up the charts.

edit: Fun factoid - League of Legends broke 5 million concurrent players back in March. I'm not sure if it's gone up or down since then.

Edited by Tolkien, 19 November 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tolkien, on 19 November 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

All we can do is use the number of players they told us they had on average during open beta
(calculations here http://mwomercs.com/...75#entry2717775 answer ~1623 players on average in matches).

If we want to go further we can use the forum population as a proxy of in game population - during open beta I remember seeing ~2500 forumites logged in during primetime. If 2500 forumites corresponds to 1623 players in a match, then the currently logged in 1391 players would be about 900 players in game. This is an assumption plain and simple that the population of the forum and the game are 1:1 correlated. I have no reason to doubt they are highly correlated but I don't know if highly correlated means 0.5 or 0.999.

As a point of reference some other "popular" multiplayer games have the current populations on steam:
Borderlands 2: 6303
Dota 2: 483,580
Counter Strike Source: 23,219
Counter strike global offensive: 36,218
Team fortress 2: 44088
Torchlight 2: 1701

So as you can see, MWO is not dead, but it is also not tearing up the charts.

edit: Fun factoid - League of Legends broke 5 million concurrent players back in March. I'm not sure if it's gone up or down since then.

A far cry better than the OP. Thank You.

[Ghogiel]

Akulakhan, on 19 November 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Mostly by people who play significantly less than they used to or not at all.

I have 10000 alt accounts and I have been logging in all morning to boost the view count.

[Kotzi]

Yeah, guess a F2P doesn't need that much players. Oh well back to MW4 again.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kotzi, on 19 November 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Yeah, guess a F2P doesn't need that much players. Oh well back to MW4 again.

A free to play game doesn't need a lot of non paying customers to survive. Paying customers keep games alive.

[Tombstoner]

Akulakhan, on 18 November 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Is it weird to anyone else that all the white knights showed up in this thread at the exact same time? like page 4 or so.

Anyhow, wow, yeah. I took a month and a half break or so, and I get the itch for giant robots, only to be hit with six-minute wait times in some cases, and a game that still looks incredibly rough around the edges. Not to mention my friends list is dead, clanis scattered to the winds and there's about eight people actively playing on Comstar NA not counting the QQ kiddies.

And I thought UI 2.0 was four weeks after release? I started my mech-cation at launch and this same old homestar runner flash menu is still passing as an UI. Anyway, Planetside 2 has a sweet update, and we apparently have space dogfights next month in SC (although, beware the promises from one who wields CryEngine and attempts multiplayer) so all is not lost, I guess.

Unless you're really into MWO, anyway.

No its not weird. that's whats left of the player base. post a negative thread and they swarm like white blood cells to the defense.

State the games dieing and they ask for numbers... knowing full well that PGI has and will never release such knowledge.

long que times and pug stomps are qualitative first person experiences that are not representative of community health....

The concept of churn is where new players replace the old at a rate that keep the population stable.
with a stable population ques times would also be stable.
thus as the population drops ques times get longer and as the population grows que times will shorten.
Que time have been historically getting longer for me, thus the game is slowly dieing.

But that's just a qualitative assessment and that cant be representative of the game...right?

well have you also notice that the heat and anger on theses forums have basically evaporated in my opinion. why cause people who post are quitting.

[KinLuu]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 November 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

A free to play game doesn't need a lot of non paying customers to survive. Paying customers keep games alive.

Its not like they retain all their paying customers.

[spectralthundr]

Tolkien, on 19 November 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

All we can do is use the number of players they told us they had on average during open beta
(calculations here http://mwomercs.com/...75#entry2717775 answer ~1623 players on average in matches).

If we want to go further we can use the forum population as a proxy of in game population - during open beta I remember seeing ~2500 forumites logged in during primetime. If 2500 forumites corresponds to 1623 players in a match, then the currently logged in 1391 players would be about 900 players in game. This is an assumption plain and simple that the population of the forum and the game are 1:1 correlated. I have no reason to doubt they are highly correlated but I don't know if highly correlated means 0.5 or 0.999.

As a point of reference some other "popular" multiplayer games have the current populations on steam:
Borderlands 2: 6303
Dota 2: 483,580
Counter Strike Source: 23,219
Counter strike global offensive: 36,218
Team fortress 2: 44088
Torchlight 2: 1701

So as you can see, MWO is not dead, but it is also not tearing up the charts.

edit: Fun factoid - League of Legends broke 5 million concurrent players back in March. I'm not sure if it's gone up or down since then.

Fun fact, Battletech and Mechwarrior in general have always been an extremely niche title. You're never going to pull League of Legend numbers in a battletech game. Just isn't going to happen, CW or no CW. Even if every feature people wanted in was working and balanced to perfection. The fanbase for this IP doesn't have those kinds of numbers.

I'd be very interested in seeing sales numbers of the previous Mechwarrior titles, I'd imagine part of the reason MS went the "let's sit on the IP for years route" like they did is directly related to the fact that a Mechwarrior game is never going to push 5+ million in boxes purchased.

[Almond Brown]

Tolkien, on 18 November 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Ding ding ding, give the man a gold star. I'm an Engineer by training and profession and a performance like this one would be a guaranteed pink slip.

How come folks always complain about the WK'ers and never do the same for these Drama Queen types?

If PGI were Engineering a much required Water Treatment Plant, then yes, heads might roll. They are developing a f'ing digital PC game ffs. Get your head out of your self serving arse and move the **** on already.

When SC does miss. Everyone over there be sure and hold them to the same high standards eh. Only seems fair...

P.S. If you have actually engineered anything of substance and NEVER had delays and un-forseen issues, then you sir should be made the CEO of some major Engineering conglomerate since you would be the ONLY one on the planet to be able to say so.