227 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 12 March 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

This can be problematic if two people play the game in the same location (like husband and wife).

Just saying.

Yes, this camo makes my mech's rear look big.

then you just limit them to playing in the same faction

[Sandpit]

My suggestions for things like this? They come from seeing them effectively used to limit the kinds of exploits we're talking about in other games.

In other words there are a lot of examples of other games placing these things into their games to effectively stop these kinds of exploitation. So I can name these kinds of safeguards off in a matter of a few seconds but a multi-million dollar game developing company can't? Point being there's TONS of options that prevent these kinds of exploits that other games have used that DON'T require placing arbitrary limitations on things like group sizes to "fix" something...

[Lukoi Banacek]

Roadbeer, on 12 March 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

But this is the reason I should be kept from being able to group with more than 3 of my friends, or be prevented from earning rewards when I do?

It depends entirely on how the CW aspect of this game plays out.

In some games, gold farming actually does harm other players. It drives up prices in player-driven economies, although that's not likely here since we don't have one and don't seem to be getting one.

In some games it does allow organizations to earn rewards and more importantly competitive capabilities because they can earn faster...and in PvP this is problematic to the extreme.

However, all that being said...until CW comes out and we can see what shape it takes, I doubt either of these examples will hold true.

I've played enough games in the last 24 years where gold/exp farming does hurt other players and that's partly where the stigma comes from. If they set this up where it doesn't matter....then it won't matter, except to be a salve to people's egos who are upset with others getting more than than them in a world full of pixels. Entirely different issue really, lol.

[Mazikar]

All of this would go away with a more robust choice set before a match. Pick pug, mixed or form a group before a match.
We know that a big change to the game will pop with Factions... lets just hope it comes with more choices along with the missions!I can only guess mission drops are something they are looking at for the future, drops with limited tonnage and such. Mission matches could be something as simple as scout an area with a light mech while a defender attempts to prevent you from getting the data on a prime objective or as complicated as defending a dropship on a evacuation mission. More fun than our current Solaris "Kill or Die". Less time bickering more time having fun.

Edited by Lotharian, 12 March 2014 - 05:32 PM.

[Stonefalcon]

Kaldor, on 12 March 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

Pie is always good. A good cake is OK as well. But having a good cup of coffee to go with either is important.

Can you make a pie chart to reflect this?

Lets not even get into other baked goods such as cookies and brownies...

Ok I've pulled together the data and formulated a Pie chart, as shown below



As you can see it is far more important to drink coffee with cake rather than pie, mainly because pie is more often then not hot so you need a cool beverage to complement the hot pie.

I will need more information if you want to break down the cake category.

[Prezimonto]

Roadbeer, on 12 March 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

He said "Communities", these are the communities that sprout up around a game. Guilds, Clans, etc (Or to use the vernacular of this game, Houses, Clans and Merc Corps). Many of these have several hundred active members and are working towards a common "goal".

In these "communities", bonds are formed, "friends" are made and are an additional tie to the game, that in many cases, keeps people playing and paying long after they normally would have.

As someone who co-led a 100+ person community that spanned multiple games, I can tell you that communities strongly provide a sense of belonging. I've put thousands of hours into Day of Defeat and Day of Defeat: Source, not because they're the best games out there (and certainly not years after their release) but because the community I was a part of (and dozens of the members) are people I had formed friendships with and we were all playing together. That community is still around with about 20 people in our mumble, but split into many games, but it's been around 10 years... and we STILL go back and play those old games together.

I tried to get people playing this game, but it's near impossible to coordinate more than 4 people in this game, unless you've got 13+ with a few willing to wait a turn for a drop. This game's general policies push gaming communities away, and unless they try very hard to rectify this, they're going to die in a few years rather than the 10 they could have run too.

Edited by Prezimonto, 12 March 2014 - 07:24 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Roadbeer, on 12 March 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

That's backward thinking, grasping the low-hanging fruit, and apparently what PGI is mired in.

If you provide the 'end-game' content and bonuses to members of communities and encourage joining/playing in those communities, you retain PAYING customers and have them on the hook for the long haul.

Catering to the solo player in the hopes that they'll spend $10 here and there before they move on to the next FOTM game is a good way to run out of money, as you've cycled through your likely playerbase pretty quickly. It's player retention, not total players that keeps the lights on, and as has been shown with every multi-player game since...ever... that it's the communities who keep the game alive.

The funny thing is we're having this argument at the university I teach at. Administration only sees every years tuition money coming in so they push for lowering entrance score standards... because more students = more money.

Except that all that low hanging fruit has very little chance to succeed most if not nearly all will drop out after one or two semesters. So now you're up maybe an average of 3/4 of 1 year's tuition, but you've devalued your main currency, which is a quality education in the eyes of the population.

If instead you push for unique, high impact programs, and a more expensive but broader marketing scheme to draw better quality students you retain most of them for 4 to 5 years... so every high quality student you attract is worth around 6 suckers you who can't compete.

Stupid business models are stupid.

[Prezimonto]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

I fixed this sentence.

You absolutely must have the support of the masses....and keep their support, in order to stay in business. Ideally, you want to make a game that makes players, of all shapes and sizes, want to keep coming back to play your game. You can't do that if you make the game unfriendly toward all but the most diehard of fans.

The end goal is to create more diehard fans...not just play tiddlywinks with the existing fans.

It's very important to not think of all solo players as "fly-by" customers...they have the potential to be much more, but only if your game is worth it.

Mind you, this is coming from a solo player that's been here since CB and has spent an inordinate amount of money on this game.

Absolutely, one of the keys to running a long term game community is constant recruitment. My community dropped from ~100 active players to ~30 during the years I was busy with graduate school, because the people who took over after me wanted to be insular and actively pushed away new recruits.

The thing is, some percentage of solo players with join communities if they population of communities is healthy, happy, and supported. Solo players feed the communities and are necessary.

Without communities your solo players cycle faster, and consequently spend less overall.

[Davers]

Communities keep players together, and keep them playing longer. The longer a person plays the more likely they will spend money. Look at all the old NBT and 3025 crews. Some of them have been playing together since the AOL days. They all came back to play here, and many left because no effort was made to keep them, and in fact, restrictions were placed that hurt them.

LOL, I remember the huge arguments pre-Beta about who was going to 'lead' Davion. Those were arguments continued from 10 freakin years ago!

People want to play with their friends and with their units. That is what keeps people playing. COMMUNITY.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 12 March 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

Communities keep players together, and keep them playing longer. The longer a person plays the more likely they will spend money. Look at all the old NBT and 3025 crews. Some of them have been playing together since the AOL days. They all came back to play here, and many left because no effort was made to keep them, and in fact, restrictions were placed that hurt them.

LOL, I remember the huge arguments pre-Beta about who was going to 'lead' Davion. Those were arguments continued from 10 freakin years ago!

People want to play with their friends and with their units. That is what keeps people playing. COMMUNITY.

COMMUNITY warfare
keyword Community

[Nicholas Carlyle]

For reference you can never limit someone to one account in a F2P game, unless you require people to register with SSN's and such.

I can make myself look like I'm logging in from anywhere I please if I felt like I needed too, and I'm nothing amazing at that sort of stuff.

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 March 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

For reference you can never limit someone to one account in a F2P game, unless you require people to register with SSN's and such.

I can make myself look like I'm logging in from anywhere I please if I felt like I needed too, and I'm nothing amazing at that sort of stuff.

There's always going to be people who can game any system, the average person casual type player who just drop once in awhile isn't going to do that. The min/max ggclose type players are the ones most likely to do something like that and they're a "minimally viable" portion of the population

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 13 March 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

There's always going to be people who can game any system, the average person casual type player who just drop once in awhile isn't going to do that. The min/max ggclose type players are the ones most likely to do something like that and they're a "minimally viable" portion of the population

I have an Alt for every House except House Liao... I even have a Clanner! Cause just like on TT, I have days I wanna be a snake or a Davionista.

[RussianWolf]

Davers, on 11 March 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:

I don't want to put words (or numbers) in your mouth. When you say 'a good portion' of pugstomps, what does that mean? And if the premades are all stomping pugs, why isn't their Elo changing so they are not fighting each other?

MM uses elo to put together a match with a predicted outcome. elo is then adjusted only if the outcome isn't what it predicted.

So if it predicts the 4man side to be the winner, and they win. Nothing really changes.

Add to that the elo range that the MM uses to put matches together and it likely can still put the best 4man (high elo avg) against a new player (mid elo, since that is where everyone starts supposedly)

I still think its a futile exercise to try to provide a meaningful elo rating for an individual in a team only environment. But whaterver.

[RussianWolf]

Prezimonto, on 12 March 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Absolutely, one of the keys to running a long term game community is constant recruitment. My community dropped from ~100 active players to ~30 during the years I was busy with graduate school, because the people who took over after me wanted to be insular and actively pushed away new recruits.

The thing is, some percentage of solo players with join communities if they population of communities is healthy, happy, and supported. Solo players feed the communities and are necessary.

Without communities your solo players cycle faster, and consequently spend less overall.

I've heard a lot recently about how PGI has done things to discourage Teams (not allowing 5-11 groups, the tournament formats,etc.). As a solo player, I can tell you they have done next to nothing to encourage solo players either. The format of the match is team oriented by default.

I'm not against teams but there should be an area for solo play. Solaris VII if you want to call it that. There are players that would flock to that and could then be recruited into joining teams or faction. I consider it low hanging fruit that PGI opted to ignore.

If PGI were to set up a solo "free-for-all" mode right now, I bet within 6 months there would be actual tournaments with ranked players and the like. Its much easier to coordinate these things for individuals than it is for teams.

I tried 12 mans twice. I got bored waiting for people to get ready so we could launch. That may be fine for "competitive" players, but casual players just want to play and have fun.

[Roadbeer]

RussianWolf, on 13 March 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

I've heard a lot recently about how PGI has done things to discourage Teams (not allowing 5-11 groups, the tournament formats,etc.). As a solo player, I can tell you they have done next to nothing to encourage solo players either. The format of the match is team oriented by default.

I'm not against teams but there should be an area for solo play. Solaris VII if you want to call it that. There are players that would flock to that and could then be recruited into joining teams or faction. I consider it low hanging fruit that PGI opted to ignore.

If PGI were to set up a solo "free-for-all" mode right now, I bet within 6 months there would be actual tournaments with ranked players and the like. Its much easier to coordinate these things for individuals than it is for teams.

I tried 12 mans twice. I got bored waiting for people to get ready so we could launch. That may be fine for "competitive" players, but casual players just want to play and have fun.

It's not that they discourage groups, the completely prohibit it (between 5 and 11 players), other than that, +1

[RussianWolf]

Roadbeer, on 13 March 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

It's not that they discourage groups, the completely prohibit it (between 5 and 11 players), other than that, +1

I'm one that plays solo and would still be a "filler" in a team queue.

So I'm all for

Solo only queue
Team (2-12) + Solo queue

If I can't hack it, then that's my problem.

What I'd really like to see

A) Solo only (Trail/Stock Mechs only)
Solo only (Open Mech, "Free-for-All" Solaris VII)
C) Team (2-12) + Solo (Open Mechs)
D) Team (2-4) + Solo ("Lance on Lance" Solaris VII, 6 lance "Free-for-All")

They could expand them later if needed, but I think this is what we need to start.

"Ah, but the player base isn't large enough"

So you set the MM up to launch in a certain time with equal sized teams (it adds a players to each side as they proper numbers become available, A gets them added two at a time, one to each team, B can launch with any number, C gets a 5 man in the queue and adds when it has 5 for the other team, D any number of lances but complete lances.)

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 March 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

I have an Alt for every House except House Liao... I even have a Clanner! Cause just like on TT, I have days I wanna be a snake or a Davionista.

That creates problems for CW though. What's to stop a players from creating alt accounts for other houses and then just throwing matches to help their "home" faction in taking over planetary control? There's nothing in place that allows for a house ranking structure to approve players before joining a unit and participating in battles that will determine what factions control planets.

THIS is the type of exploit they SHOULD be looking to shore up instead of thinking not allowing groups of larger than 4 is somehow going to magically fix the MM, roflstomps, etc. This is the kind of thing that throws balance completely out the window as if 4 man groups really sway battles as much as they say they do, a few 4mans from say Kurita could easily make Marik accounts and within a few days cost us several planets by rushing a 4man in (especially since that would be the only premade on the team which since everyone thinks they decide the fate of battles so much means 4 of them rushing in and dying quickly or "accidentally" TKing a teammate or two before throwing themselves on the fire) and playing poorly on purpose.

These are the types of things that will throw CW matches out of "balance" not larger group sizes.

[wintersborn]

Honest question.

Without considering the number of players, since that is PGI/IGP's fault not a specific player bases.

What is wrong with at least two queues like new/solo and sync drop/any number of pre mades ?

Honestly what would it hurt?

[Roadbeer]

wintersborn, on 13 March 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Honest question.

Without considering the number of players, since that is PGI/IGP's fault not a specific player bases.

What is wrong with at least two queues like new/solo and sync drop/any number of pre mades ?

Honestly what would it hurt?

I've honestly never seen a problem with this.
If you had a new/solo queue and a 2-12 queue (you wouldn't need to sync if you were able to make a group of any size up to max), I think this is what many people have been asking for for a while, and would honestly IMO make everyone happy.
It would end the fear of the Evil Premade Boogeyman AND remove the derping for PUGZAPPER frustrations on both sides.
Win/win.
But there seems to be some 'exploitable' element to letting groups have their own queue that nobody has been able to explain, or even quantify.
/shrug