247 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Pwnocchio, on 21 November 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Addendum: It also didn't seem grindy to me before I bought the Pheonix package.

My point of reference is the years I've played World of Tanks, which is much more grindy in some ways. For example, if you want to top tier tank in WoT you are going to be grinding for several months to get it. In the same time span I could trivially unlock the masters efficiency on any Assault Mech on MWO.

With the difference that you have a visual process in WoT.
You have multiple things that became better with each battle:
your crew
your tank
your silver money
Only made it until level 7 - only played for 2-3 months. But afaik - the time you grind your XP is equally the time you need to grind the silver money. But at least I stoped grinding - and spend more time in the Hetzer.

With every battle you see a progress. In MWO were MechLab is free you can buy everything from the start - and the XP give you only a slight advantage (althoug the Elite Bonus is most a good boost for each Mech)

Although i always had the luxery never to start in MWO with a Mech that has to be bought with C-Bills first.
And I'm pretty sure the income during closed beta was really hard for new players - not to mention that there would be a reset with the start of open beta - and I have recruited several players from WoT - and non of them is playing MWO anymore - because since the very beginning of MWO - new player experience was one of the worst.

BTW: OP its called Newbs not Noobs

[Diego Angelus]

Pwnocchio, on 21 November 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Addendum: It also didn't seem grindy to me before I bought the Pheonix package.

My point of reference is the years I've played World of Tanks, which is much more grindy in some ways. For example, if you want to top tier tank in WoT you are going to be grinding for several months to get it. In the same time span I could trivially unlock the masters efficiency on any Assault Mech on MWO.

I know I played WoT too got to a leo 2 then left even played it for free so I know what grind is But I don't think this game should be anything like WoT thought alone makes me sick. I hoped this game to be more like League of legends where everyone can enjoy and bring friends. But its sad to think that even WoT allows people to play for free while MWO doesn't and that kills players that try this game. Only reason I pay for this game is because i love mechwarrior games but what about people that never heard for BT or MW ?

[Pwnocchio]

Karl Streiger, on 21 November 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

...and I have recruited several players from WoT - and non of them is playing MWO anymore - because since the very beginning of MWO - new player experience was one of the worst.

I suspect that the problem with this has more to do with the quality of game play and less with the grind.

WoT's has amazing game play with thick team oriented features. Even playing Tier 1 tanks can be a lot of fun because you are playing against other comperably weak tanks.

There really was only one tier that felt like suffering for most tank lines (tier 4). Other than that you might have to grind through a bad tank here or there but the game was very well designed from newb to pro.

The problem with MWO is the lack of content. The games start feeling more repetitive much faster than in WoT. There is no Community Warfare to transition into. It makes the grind feel more grindy, not because of C-bills but because of redundancy (IMO)

[Pwnocchio]

Diego Angelus, on 21 November 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I know I played WoT too got to a leo 2 then left even played it for free so I know what grind is But I don't think this game should be anything like WoT thought alone makes me sick. I hoped this game to be more like League of legends where everyone can enjoy and bring friends. But its sad to think that even WoT allows people to play for free while MWO doesn't and that kills players that try this game. Only reason I pay for this game is because i love mechwarrior games but what about people that never heard for BT or MW ?

Well, no you don't want to clone WoT but there are design elements in WoT that have allowed it to become impossibly successful for a very long time (with no end in sight).

Those are the things you want to take a good look at. Those are the things that will make the game great regardless if you are driving Mechs or Tanks or Clown Cars. Those are the things that will make people want to not just scrub along playing for free but will want to make them pay cash for a premium account.

People aren't going to pay for premium simply to make the game easier. They are going to pay for premium because they spend their waking hours either playing the game or wishing they were playing the game because the game play is so good.

MWO isn't there yet.

[DaZur]

Karl Streiger, on 21 November 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

BTW: OP its called Newbs not Noobs

Tomatoes... Tomatoes.

Noobs reminds me of boobs and I like boobs.

[Diego Angelus]

Pwnocchio, on 21 November 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Well, no you don't want to clone WoT but there are design elements in WoT that have allowed it to become impossibly successful for a very long time (with no end in sight).

Those are the things you want to take a good look at. Those are the things that will make the game great regardless if you are driving Mechs or Tanks or Clown Cars. Those are the things that will make people want to not just scrub along playing for free but will want to make them pay cash for a premium account.

People aren't going to pay for premium simply to make the game easier. They are going to pay for premium because they spend their waking hours either playing the game or wishing they were playing the game because the game play is so good.

MWO isn't there yet.

I agree WoT did some things that I agree with and its obvious that game is success. Reason I played wot is to have fun with friends that played it seriously and it was fun but If I wanted to bring them to MWO they would have to pay to even get feel for a game. In early stages of WoT wasn't any different then MWO is now, but wot offered same game experience for all players and that is main problem of MWO currently. What they copied bad was garage slots because that can work in WoT because its tier based you can use one slot to progress to T10 and use other to grind and you had few slots for all nations but MWO is not tier based you want to own mechs like champions in League of legends right ? and 4 mech bays is just not enough especially when you need three of each variant to master one mech. Do you think league of legends would be what it is today if they had 4 houses for champions and you had to buy more to continue playing.

damn I rambled a lot

[Sandpit]

Pwnocchio, on 21 November 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

WoT's has amazing game play with thick team oriented features. Even playing Tier 1 tanks can be a lot of fun because you are playing against other comperably weak tanks.

Until you wind up on a team where you're the only tier 1 tank and everyone else on your team (and the enemy team) is a tier 3 or better. Their random MM is no better.

[M0rpHeu5]

Fixing this is simple, keeps things as they are now but change the need of 3 mechs to master a mech.
The grind has killed a big part of the fan for me and turned playing MWO from an enjoyable experience into a habit.

[Denolven]

Pwnocchio, on 21 November 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

There really was only one tier that felt like suffering for most tank lines (tier 4).

Only because the totally op KV-1S onehits everything, which they thankfully removed recently. For years it was the only tank that onehits half of all opponents it meets, and two-hits itself (artillery is the other exception, but that is ok). Nobody likes being oneshot, it's a gameplay killer.

Sandpit, on 21 November 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Until you wind up on a team where you're the only tier 1 tank and everyone else on your team (and the enemy team) is a tier 3 or better. Their random MM is no better.

That could never happen, unless you play in a platoon that has a higher tier tank. Tier 1 could only be matched with tier 1 and 2 since the very first days.

Spoiler

The matchmaking in WoT works fine, because they explicitly match tanks only, not player skill. Even if you really are a tier 1 tank and everyone else is tier 3+, the opponent team total battleweight is still the same as your teams battleweight. No matter what you are in, it is always compensated. Which 95% of the community never got to understand and instead flamed or even teamkilled me when I brought a tier 1 to a tier 7 battle, totally ignoring the fact that I still would have been one of the top 5 guys, because I knew exactly what I was doing, while they didn't even bother to learn about the matchmaking.

Anyway, back to topic. The lack of possibilities for newbies to get startet really hurts the game. I actually bought each of my two friends who kept playing a hero mech corresponding to their abilities, because I knew I was going to lose them too. And both of them have tier 10 tanks in WoT, so they are not of the faint kind.

For both newbies and casual players (and double for newbie casual players) the price curve is extremely steep. I have never seen any other game like that. Other games mostly want you to play them, so they feed you when you are a newbie and get serious when you progress (read: when you are hooked), while MWO makes you feel like **** from the very beginning, so people quit early.
That has little to do with the recent nerfs though - it was very bad already before.

Edited by Denolven, 21 November 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Pwnocchio]

Sandpit, on 21 November 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Until you wind up on a team where you're the only tier 1 tank and everyone else on your team (and the enemy team) is a tier 3 or better. Their random MM is no better.

Their MM is actually pretty well tuned. If you are in a T1 tank and find yourself against T4 tanks it's because you platooned with someone playing a tank higher than T2.

They've had years to develop their MM, however.

You don't see at 15:0 battles in WoT pubbies like you do in MWO.

[Diego Angelus]

Pwnocchio, on 21 November 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

Their MM is actually pretty well tuned. If you are in a T1 tank and find yourself against T4 tanks it's because you platooned with someone playing a tank higher than T2.

They've had years to develop their MM, however.

You don't see at 15:0 battles in WoT pubbies like you do in MWO.

Fighting tanks two tiers higher is not balanced , you can't compare wot to mwo different games and if you don't see 15:0 it doesn't MWO its worse just different and you can notice that matches in wot are longer then matches in MWO.

[Bhael Fire]

I still think it was horrible mistake to nerf the earnings. Even with 12 v 12, my earnings are less than they were before. The extra players did not "balance" it out.

I just hope they allow us to buy c-bills with MC eventually (like most other F2P games). The grind for c-bills is too extreme.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 21 November 2013 - 01:34 PM.

[XElf]

It is not only the newbies that suffer, the normal free players suffers really hard.

I have stopped playing because all the PUG games i play end with a steam rolling of the enemies or of my team, the result is almost no c-bills, and i need the C-bills for everything, buy 1 mech i don't like and i loose 50% of the C-bills..
Playing 100's of games of steamrolling get's boring really fast, having only 1 mech to play with doesn't help...

The game is just not wort playing..

Well, i am sure PGI is so used to loosing players that one more doesn't matter..
I will be looking forward to the next Mechwarrior game in about 8 - 10 year.. lol..

Bye..

[Sandpit]

Ok so I'm lying?

I have dropped in multiple games in WoT and had teammates in tier 3 and up tanks while i was in a tier 1. That means for every tier 3 or above teammate I have, I'm also facing off against tier 3 and above enemy tanks. That's exactly how their MM works. I randomly hit launch and if I get teamed up with teammates that have higher tier tanks, I'll be facing off against higher tier tanks on the other side.

[Justin Leroux]

Bhael Fire, on 21 November 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

I still think it was horrible mistake to nerf the earnings. Even with 12 v 12, my earnings are less than they were before. The extra players did not "balance" it out.

I just hope they allow us to buy c-bills with MC eventually (like most other F2P games). The grind for c-bills is too extreme.

Or they could change the way premium-time-purchases and activation work. I can only play once in a while due to my family and job. So my only option for premium time is the 1-day-package, which sums up the costs fairly well. Why am i not allowed to purchase 30 days to get a discount but then activate only 1 day at a time? They won't lose _that_ much money plus the money they get they get it in a higher amount and in advance, not only a few dollars every other week. Or they do it like BFBC2 (iirc), where you get an "away-bonus" if you were inactive for some time. Just to make logging in and play again a bit more rewarding. Now, with my job taking a whole lot of my time and the decision who gets my attention after work, my family or a game where i can't make real process if i play only 1 or 2 hours, it's quite obvious who wins. Just make playing (and paying) more rewarding and not only "ok, you paid for 30 days of premium but if your baby is ill and needs attention it's not our fault, you'll lose all the benefits you paid for if you do not play". Why should i pay for that? And people like me should be the target demographic where there is more spare money than spare time.

[Praehotec8]

Sephlock, on 20 November 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

@ TC: The upcoming artemis changes are a pretty clear move towards nickel and diming us even more, so don't expect relief on this front.

Honestly, although I really don't like it, I've seen enough posts from nerve-dead people who can keep grinding for months and months, who have ABSURD amounts of money, to realize that the amount of c-bills some of us have could potentially be problematic in the future (if nothing else, they're set to use powerful consumables as much as they want for months on end).

Therefore I'd suggest a compromise: Something like an extended Cadet Bonus.... or what amounts to mechwarrior subsidies that would boost their income until they reach some arbitrary milestone(s), to keep the noobs from leaving.

I think the artemis change isn't so bad. It requires an upfront purchase of launchers, but once you have enough in reserve, adding artemis to new mechs ought to be cheaper.

Overall, I think F2P games are all very costly for anyone who truly wants to get involved in them, because they are designed to get people to pay multiple times for content. I'm of the camp that misses paying $50 for a game, and maybe $35 for an expansion, and getting ALL the content. F2P, DLC, etc, all are ways to milk consumers...and it works.

That being said, I think DaZur has the right idea. Anyone truly interested in the game SHOULD put some money down. Buying one hero mech helps the grind. The grind here isn't fast, but it feels on par to me with other shooting games, and less than MMOs I've played. Really, what else do you do in COD and BF than play the same handful of maps and shoot each other over and over while you take hours to rank up and unlock new items? Yet Millions play those constantly. I think everyone wishes we made more per match than now, but is that driving new players away? I don't think that's the biggest reason.

[Sandpit]

Justin Leroux, on 21 November 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Or they could change the way premium-time-purchases and activation work. I can only play once in a while due to my family and job. So my only option for premium time is the 1-day-package, which sums up the costs fairly well. Why am i not allowed to purchase 30 days to get a discount but then activate only 1 day at a time? They won't lose _that_ much money plus the money they get they get it in a higher amount and in advance, not only a few dollars every other week. Or they do it like BFBC2 (iirc), where you get an "away-bonus" if you were inactive for some time. Just to make logging in and play again a bit more rewarding. Now, with my job taking a whole lot of my time and the decision who gets my attention after work, my family or a game where i can't make real process if i play only 1 or 2 hours, it's quite obvious who wins. Just make playing (and paying) more rewarding and not only "ok, you paid for 30 days of premium but if your baby is ill and needs attention it's not our fault, you'll lose all the benefits you paid for if you do not play". Why should i pay for that? And people like me should be the target demographic where there is more spare money than spare time.

you just psoted almost the exact same thing in another thread that was actually about premium time..........
http://mwomercs.com/...83#entry2936483

that's why it doesn't work like that

Praehotec8, on 21 November 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Really, what else do you do in COD and BF than play the same handful of maps and shoot each other over and over while you take hours to rank up and unlock new items? Yet Millions play those constantly. I think everyone wishes we made more per match than now, but is that driving new players away? I don't think that's the biggest reason.

Which is why I want THIS game to be different. I enjoy CoD and BF for what they are. They're both shooters. They're both completely different games.

I understand what your'e saying and agree with some of it, but this part of your post is exactly why I'm posting here and nt on the BF or CoD forums

[malibu43]

Praehotec8, on 21 November 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

... The grind here isn't fast, but it feels on par to me with other shooting games, and less than MMOs I've played. Really, what else do you do in COD and BF than play the same handful of maps and shoot each other over and over while you take hours to rank up and unlock new items? Yet Millions play those constantly. I think everyone wishes we made more per match than now, but is that driving new players away? I don't think that's the biggest reason.

The difference for me is that the grind in those other games was just a side show - the gameplay itself was why I played (granted I haven't played any of those in a a couple of years).

The problem for MWO for me is that the grind is bad, and I've grown tired of the gameplay as well (boring game modes, long matches, long walks and quick deaths, cap wins, etc...). Bad grind + boring gameplay = less reason/desire to play.

[Pwnocchio]

Diego Angelus, on 21 November 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Fighting tanks two tiers higher is not balanced ,

...it is fair if there are tanks two tiers higher on your team, which there are.

I'm not trying to bag on the MWO system, since it's just past launch, but wargaming has had many years since their launch to tweak and improve their match maker.

Quote

you can't compare wot to mwo different games and if you don't see 15:0 it doesn't MWO its worse just different and you can notice that matches in wot are longer then matches in MWO.

WoT matches are longer than MWO matches in general, but they are also much more dynamic due to divergent spotting mechanics and tactical information implementations.

You can, however, make a lot of comparisons between the two based on what they share in common.

They are both team-based war games of the FPS variety.

They are both within the 'free to play' + 'micro-transaction' domain.

You can also compare the grind. WoT probably has a much higher retention rate for players enduring the grind even though the grind in WoT takes longer.

Edited by Pwnocchio, 21 November 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[Pwnocchio]

Sandpit, on 21 November 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Ok so I'm lying?

I have dropped in multiple games in WoT and had teammates in tier 3 and up tanks while i was in a tier 1. That means for every tier 3 or above teammate I have, I'm also facing off against tier 3 and above enemy tanks. That's exactly how their MM works. I randomly hit launch and if I get teamed up with teammates that have higher tier tanks, I'll be facing off against higher tier tanks on the other side.

What tank were you in?

Were you platooning with others? (If yes, what tank were they in?)

The way MM works in WoTs is you get put into a match based on the highest tier* tank in your platoon. If you are solo, then you will be pitted against tanks that are +/- 2 tiers of your tank*.

*If you are playing a scout tank, then you get tiered into higher level battles.

The MM has a complex algorithm that tries to ensure that Team A and Team B have a sum of tank power that is roughly equivalent. It 'allegedly' does NOT take into consideration win-rate of the players.

So if you are in a Tier 1 tank and you ever see an enemy tank that is higher than T3 it's because you don't understand the platooning rules. When you form a platoon you need to always try and make sure you and your platoon mates use the same tier of tank.

There are people that try to troll by rolling a T1 tank with two T10 buddies which basically screws their entire 15 man team out of a tank.

If you want a link to spread sheets that clearly define how the tank tiering works I can get you links.

malibu43, on 21 November 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

The difference for me is that the grind in those other games was just a side show - the gameplay itself was why I played (granted I haven't played any of those in a a couple of years).

THAT is the key. If the grind doesn't feel like a grind, it doesn't matter that it's a grind.