Jump to content

3/3/3/3 Will Be Easy To Abuse.

Balance

795 replies to this topic

#361 Navy Sixes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationHeading west

Posted 07 April 2014 - 11:38 PM

View PostCraig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

He is not wrong with his amended view, knowing the system better does facilitate gaming the system... The more you know, the more you can manipulate.


Something to keep in mind the next time someone says "PGI needs to communicate with the community." When they do, they're just being duped.



I see this sort of thing all the time. People wrap themselves in this mantle of righteous outrage at this weapon or that not doing what it used to because players like themselves abused the hell out of it and now just want their pwn-toy back. Players who go on and on about how no military would ever field a weapon as unreliable as the UAC -when in fact history has proven otherwise- because they are "spreadsheet warriors" who hate that they can't plug an RNG-based weapon into their dps calculations. Players who stomped around in 6 PPC Stalkers absolutely trolling the game until PGI had to do something, and now stomp around the forums complaining about ghost heat.

It does seem like PGI really can't win, and I chalk most of the qq around here (including the OP... love ya Roadbeer, but complaining that you can't drop a 9-man premade in against a bunch of solo PUGs is kind of lame.) up to shameless self-interest at the expense of everyone else's good time and overall game balance. Put another way, it's always someone who doesn't know how to play and doesn't want to learn, or it's someone who knows how to take advantage of a broken system and doesn't want it fixed.

That said, some of the things Koniving and others have shown regarding what the game might have become but never will are really depressing. It seems like PGI has really missed the boat on the franchise. MWO seems like it could have been something different in the world of online gaming, but it seems like too many small-minds weighed in and turned it into "more of what's worked in the past," so with every patch the game moves farther away from being a quality sci-fi simulation and more like just another fps. I feel bad for founders who gave a lot of money for big promises, but that's game development in the kickstarter era. Game developers make most of their profits before they've actually done any work, then put out shoddy product just to keep from getting sued for all of the money they've already blown.

View PostCraig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

My suggestion is if you like the game, play it.


I do like the game for what it is, but then I came in after the big promises of closed beta, so I haven't been "lied to." It just seems like it could be so much more, and I don't understand some of the decisions that have been made. A bummer, but what can you do?

#362 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 12:20 AM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 07 April 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Founders did make them money, but you guys were about a year's funding if not less. Try not to have an elitist attitude, game like this need to start somewhere and they needed funds to start. This game has been in dev for years after the founders program and the overlords and pheonix packs. As a matter of fact,founders dont keep this game running. There is a income and a expenditure; It takes millions to dev a game.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, for those who cry that, will always find something to dislike in the game. Not only that but you talk trust and broken promises but what about what they did do? that they are still here trying to make a game for us. Yea they want to make money but i'm sure they are passionate about what they do. It's not good to live in the past, makes you look bitter for petty reasons.


Founders program started less than two years ago so I'm not sure about what "years in dev" you are talking about. Every time I hear people saying it takes millions to develop a game I ask them a simple thing ... where are these millions going? It might take millions to build a good game, but MWO is anything but good at this point. I don't see any improvements to the game for over a year. Where money goes is a big question. I'll also tell you that they spend money people pay for MWO on their other projects, that do have their own founders programs.

My original mentioning of founders was nothing to do with elitism. It was about one and only one thing. They promised me one game, I payed for it and then they delivered a completely opposite of what they promised. Thats called scam, and it is not some "petty reasons".

If they were passionate about what they do, they'd fixed the game long ago, or at least shown some effort doing it. They do not. The 3/3/3/3 this topic is about is a bright example ... cheap, lazy, inefficient bandaid to some MM issues that most likely will break more than it'll fix.

#363 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 01:48 AM

View PostNikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Our hope is that this system will also address the issue of sync-dropping


If you'd addressed the issue of not being able to play with friends and your unit then you wouldn't have had an issue of sync-dropping in the first place.

#364 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:02 AM

View PostKoniving, on 07 April 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

What happened is the "Free to play community."

As stated by Bryan (paraphrased) at some point: Most of our users are low-end specs.
Thus optimizations have been geared toward them over and over and over and over again.


I used to be barely able to run on low settings in CB on NVidia 8800GTX, now I'm barely able to run on low settings on NVidia 660Ti. Not sure what optimizations we are talking about ... maybe if I plug the 8800 back I'll be able to play on high settings?

#365 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:05 AM

View PostTycho von Gagern, on 07 April 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

That said, some of the things Koniving and others have shown regarding what the game might have become but never will are really depressing. It seems like PGI has really missed the boat on the franchise. MWO seems like it could have been something different in the world of online gaming, but it seems like too many small-minds weighed in and turned it into "more of what's worked in the past," so with every patch the game moves farther away from being a quality sci-fi simulation and more like just another fps. I feel bad for founders who gave a lot of money for big promises, but that's game development in the kickstarter era. Game developers make most of their profits before they've actually done any work, then put out shoddy product just to keep from getting sued for all of the money they've already blown.


Liked for this. Also, I think Roadbear would like any size drop-groups against any size drop groups with a separate 'pug-life' solo drop queue that doesn't ever put in 'premades'.
In general, my chiming in on page 6 is what many of us really wanted with what was said at the Launch party (look up on youtube "community warfare reveal MWO").
But this 3/3/3/3 thing, if truly implemented in all games as implied, will really suck the life and strategy right out of that and truly make anything less than 35 tons, 55 tons, 75 tons, and 100 tons worthless or viewed as intentionally weakening your team in the merc warfare and faction warfare sections of CW.

#366 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:08 AM

View PostPhoenixFire55, on 08 April 2014 - 02:02 AM, said:

I used to be barely able to run on low settings in CB on NVidia 8800GTX, now I'm barely able to run on low settings on NVidia 660Ti. Not sure what optimizations we are talking about ... maybe if I plug the 8800 back I'll be able to play on high settings?


That's what PGI calls them. Truth be told your card isn't having any trouble with the game at all. The 660TI should blow it out of the park.
Your trouble is with the processor. Duo core? Quad core? What's your RAM? Got to remember PGI has yet to make the game actually run much of anything off of the video card.
My graphics is inferior to yours and I'm running very high just fine and able to record vids for youtube.

Lordred's using a 3 gig 680Ti classified or whatever it is. It does this:

View PostLordred, on 15 April 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

I went from the game controlling the AA (lack there of) and AF to forcing the drivers to control them completely, I also set the Occlusion to use the values from another game (Skyrim) when I had the AA forced really high under MSAA, CSAA, or SSAA the game would create all sorts of weird artifacts, massive performance issues and the like. Settling on FXAA (and only low amounts) at least afforded me slightly crisper images in game, and only slightly reduced the Aliasing problems this game has.

Posted Image

On with the show.

Image dump 5
Random people version (was dropping solo)
Spoiler


I know there are plenty of people who just look at the pretty pictures and go on their merry way, but I would love for some feedback, hear what people would like to see.

~Red

Point is he's taking control of the graphics away from the game and giving it to the video card to force the game to render graphics that it cannot render on its own.

At one point, with MWO's DX11 being restored, it was barely using 20% of his graphics card and all focused on processor drain before he reworked that with driver control settings.

Edited by Koniving, 08 April 2014 - 02:20 AM.


#367 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:12 AM

View PostAsmudius Heng, on 07 April 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

My prediction is that this is effectivly still a beta (we knew that) and they will continue to gradually make it more viable until it is at a point they can release it on steam to cash in on masses of new players - but they know they cannot do that now because the new player experience is so dire.


Yeah. Thats why they abandoned the 3050 timeline ... they'll pick it up ... in 3050.

#368 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:16 AM

View PostKoniving, on 08 April 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:

That's what PGI calls them. Truth be told your card isn't having any trouble with the game at all. The 660TI should blow it out of the park.
Your trouble is with the processor. Duo core? Quad core? What's your RAM? Got to remember PGI has yet to make the game actually run much of anything off of the video card.
My graphics is inferior to yours and I'm running very high just fine and able to record vids for youtube.


i7-3770 @ 3.40 GHz, 4GB RAM (3.5 on WinXP).
Used to run on WinXP but installed Win7 to fix the crashes they introduced in 12v12 patch.

#369 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:27 AM

View PostKoniving, on 08 April 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:

Point is he's taking control of the graphics away from the game and giving it to the video card to force the game to render graphics that it cannot render on its own.


Yeah, I might actually need to tinker with that when I get the time and will to do so. 2017 I suppose when CW comes out.

#370 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:28 AM

View PostPhoenixFire55, on 08 April 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

i7-3770 @ 3.40 GHz, 4GB RAM (3.5 on WinXP).
Used to run on WinXP but installed Win7 to fix the crashes they introduced in 12v12 patch.


Your processor is kinda-sorta on par with mine.

But from what I'm reading on specs, like my own card you basically don't have enough ram to properly run your graphics card. You need 6 gigs minimum. 8 preferably.

I'm running 16 myself - when I first got this computer I had 4 gigs of ram and as soon as I started trying to play Battlefield 3 online I'd do okay for a bit and suddenly get disconnected as I didn't have enough ram to run the internet, the graphics at ultra, and actually play the game at the same time. If I stayed offline and played single player I was fine. (By comparison, my old computer which had 8 gigs of RAM could play the game just fine on medium graphics so I quickly put two and two together. Tested with switching out the ram sticks and damn it worked just fine on the new computer) So I got more ram (something I was planning on doing anyway). Without having tried anything else, all my problems there went away.

Shoved 16 gigs into my computer and that was that. Only cost me 50 dollars on new egg. Make sure to match up your ram though.

#371 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:35 AM

View PostKoniving, on 08 April 2014 - 02:28 AM, said:

But from what I'm reading on specs, like my own card you basically don't have enough ram to properly run your graphics card. You need 6 gigs minimum. 8 preferably.


I am using WinXP for any and all purposes but one ... MWO. So no point for me to upgrade RAM, it'll always be 3.5GB. Crysis games (same engine) run flawlessly on high settings on WinXP.

#372 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:37 AM

View PostPhoenixFire55, on 08 April 2014 - 02:35 AM, said:

I am using WinXP for any and all purposes but one ... MWO. So no point for me to upgrade RAM, it'll always be 3.5GB. Crysis games (same engine) run flawlessly on high settings on WinXP.


What about multiplayer?
Also remember Crysis properly uses the video card's on board ram. MWO does not and Windows 7 also uses more ram. Being stubborn is at your own peril.

#373 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:46 AM

View PostKoniving, on 08 April 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

What about multiplayer?
Also remember Crysis properly uses the video card's on board ram. MWO does not and Windows 7 also uses more ram. Being stubborn is at your own peril.


Dunno, never tryed.
When every other game has no trouble producing 70+ FPS and one particular does ... think I'll be stubborn on that one.

#374 Chemie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,491 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 08 April 2014 - 03:05 AM

I don't know any premades that want to pug stomp. Everyone here posting for teams is saying give us a "open queue" and a "pug only queue". There are lots of pugs who will drop in the open queue if they know there will be even teams on each side. Force teams to 2,4,6,8,10 to allow for easier matching. Pugs hates premades because the MM would put 2 4-mans on one side and none on the other. No one liked that.

#375 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 08 April 2014 - 03:38 AM

View PostChemie, on 08 April 2014 - 03:05 AM, said:

I don't know any premades that want to pug stomp. Everyone here posting for teams is saying give us a "open queue" and a "pug only queue". There are lots of pugs who will drop in the open queue if they know there will be even teams on each side. Force teams to 2,4,6,8,10 to allow for easier matching. Pugs hates premades because the MM would put 2 4-mans on one side and none on the other. No one liked that.


I have seen posts on forums where people openly embrace and celebrate PUG stomping so I guess its different strokes for different folks. I have seen comments in "all chat" in game as well. ("Suck it PUG's" is one that I cherish from 2 Kurita lances in a 12- 1 stomp)

I still don't get it though. I mean even if Roadbeers hyperthetical team composition did all get into a match together, they know they will at worst be facing a 4 man team and 8 solos. They have artificially created an advantage for themselves, whether they enoy it or its some other reason, they will still have an artifical advantage.

All that does it screw up the game experience of the other side because they are now playing with a disadvantage. And yet apparently the team with the advantage is OK with that, else why do it?

And so the circle keeps spinning around.

Whenever PGI do something, and the side impacted by the change wants to find a way around it. MM, Teams, LRM's, ECM, Artillery, Pop Tarts, it doesn't matter what the subject is.

We should just have one 50 ton type of bot armed with 2 Medium Lasers and a set speed, with a piece of flat terrain with no cover and play one on one duels. Then no one can complain (but I will bet some find something to complain about anyway :P) .

#376 Magna Canus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 715 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 08 April 2014 - 03:53 AM

View PostCraig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

My point is, there are many factors that impact the stats and while your anecdotal evidence is entirely relevant to you, it's not the bigger picture. IMO, your personal experience which you shared with me seperately would be a major positive to your point and strengthen your argument.

Hey Craig,
you and I often stand on opposite sides of the argument. I actually liked your post, it was well worded and cordial (for the most part).

As to sample pool numbers; since we have no official stats one way or the other any conjecture in either way is mainly that, conjecture. Trusting what the official communications say, especially after our objective measurement tool called player count was removed, in light of the consistency track record PGI currently holds, is a bit utopian IMHO. I am not saying that nothing they say can be trusted, but they have managed to downgrade themselves from "trust until proven untrustworthy" to "seeing is believing". So if you decide that you can't entirely trust what is being published for whatever reasons, the only remain source you have left is what you and others have experienced first hand (e.g. "anecdotal"). Reality is in the numbers and even I can attest to the fact that many in my and other units I work closely with have left for the reasons Roadbeer has stated. so I can at least trust in the factual numbers I know to be true through personal observation. Couple this with one of the many the laws of human nature, that in a given test population a specific situation will provoke on average (bell-curve) a specific response (e.g. groups reduced to 4, people leave), I have no reason to doubt that what I have personally witnessed in some units is happening in others.

Now, how many new players we get or not and how many of those stay for more than 25 games (and thus can be counted towards any current drop pool calculations) is also pure conjecture since again we have no stats on this, just an "official statement" to the contrary. Again, human nature is such that if a business is loosing ground, those responsible will not say as much because of the usual fear is that the rest of the rats will jump ship as well (CYA 101). So the only way to really settle this is to either have factual numbers gathered in a predefined time frame with enough complimentary information (e.g. games played, last logged in, etc.) to make the information objectively useful, or to rely on first hand "anecdotal" information. Since we don't have the former we are forced to rely on the latter.

Going back to the statement that was made; 84% were solo drops and 16% were group drops and that the stats were drawn from "the life of the game" (does this also included CB?). We still do not have the perspective here as to how many were people that jumped in, did 25 drops and then left because they did not like the game or could not handle it. Nor do we have numbers on people that used to play in a unit but can't anymore because their unit has lost too many players to be able to field teams consistently. Using the same numbers you did (accepting that these are purely fictitious numbers as you stated) you have 100k team-players and 900k new F2P players (10% team-players, 90% F2P). For 100k team-players to get 16% of the drop pool numbers vs. the 84% 900k F2P, Each team-players has to drop roughly 6 times for every 1 that a F2P player does. So yes, more drops are done as a solo, but the team-players on average drops more often (in this example). This is really why without any true context the numbers PGI states are worth less than used toilet paper. Yes, they are numbers that were pulled up from some system, but without context they can be viewed 100 different ways and mean just about anything.

Another assumption you made (again not harping for confrontation so skip if necessary) was that founders are not buying new mechs etc at the same ratio a true F2P player is (my interpretation, feel free to contradict/correct).

I contend that assumption on the basis that a Founder or other BT fan is more willing to spend money on mechs because of their love of the IP (case in point the Urbanmech, people pettioned for it and practically offered their first born). A player who has no background with the IP will base their decision to spend money without this "positive bias". Combine this with a steep learning curve for the game, let alone people who logged in expecting Titanfall/etc. and left immediately afterwards because MWO was not it, those new F2P players are markedly less likely to spend $$ on MWO. A Founder and other BT fans are more emotionally invested in the IP and thus more likely to spend $$ on MWO, especially since no new BT title has turned up in years, especially since "hope for the future" is an emotion that leads one to do things your intellect would not have you do otherwise.

Moral of the story;
1) Anecdotal data (first hand experience) is greater than "proven less than trustworthy statements and stats".
2) Statistical data has no value when not released with sufficient information on parameters and complimentary info.
3) Emotionally investment promotes financial investment. Casual interest reaps sporadic financial investment which is heavily based on the "wow factor" (how much does MWO have for the random F2Player?).

2 closing questions form me:
1) How much trust are you placing in the data that PGI has published, in particular the 84/16% numbers, but also in numbers published by PGI in general?
2) Do you feel that the 84/16 represents the player base (more or less) consistently throughout the life of MWO or have you noticed any major fluctuations?

#377 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 08 April 2014 - 04:09 AM

View PostCraig Steele, on 08 April 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:


I have seen posts on forums where people openly embrace and celebrate PUG stomping so I guess its different strokes for different folks. I have seen comments in "all chat" in game as well. ("Suck it PUG's" is one that I cherish from 2 Kurita lances in a 12- 1 stomp)

I still don't get it though. I mean even if Roadbeers hyperthetical team composition did all get into a match together, they know they will at worst be facing a 4 man team and 8 solos. They have artificially created an advantage for themselves, whether they enoy it or its some other reason, they will still have an artifical advantage.

All that does it screw up the game experience of the other side because they are now playing with a disadvantage. And yet apparently the team with the advantage is OK with that, else why do it?

And so the circle keeps spinning around.

Whenever PGI do something, and the side impacted by the change wants to find a way around it. MM, Teams, LRM's, ECM, Artillery, Pop Tarts, it doesn't matter what the subject is.

We should just have one 50 ton type of bot armed with 2 Medium Lasers and a set speed, with a piece of flat terrain with no cover and play one on one duels. Then no one can complain (but I will bet some find something to complain about anyway :P) .

The thing is Craig, it is a PvP game, and in PvP every advantage one can take to some is worth it. Those players who said, "Suck it PUGs" are just as bad a sport as the players whining cause a 4 man ate their baby.

I loaded the latest patch last night... Dang the game is looking good! :D

Started Mucking around in the lab... Got tapped by Goose and I figured... Good time to test my Battlemaster.
BATTLEMASTER 5 Matches 2Wins 3Losses 0.67 Batle Average 5 Kills 3 Deaths 1.67KDR 578 Paultry total damage

We didn't win as much as I'd like, but I got good results for being as rusty as Ol' Mater :D

Elo was working pretty fairly, I got stomped, I did some stomping. I got killed and my PPC was dripping with enemy Coolant. Missiles flew, Bullets whistled and Lasers sizzled. I had only one complaint... What did I do to get posted on Terra Therma so many times! 7 Drops and 4 of them were on TT!!! Not completely random, but dang... How many times can both sides know not to go to the wagon wheel and still end up crowding the holes??? :ph34r:

I killed me a Spider, I headcapped an opponent... I died horribly! it was a good night all in all. I just don't see a need for 34!

Magna, Old age can grand incite. That being the case, I an say that I have enjoyed reading both yours and Craig's posts quite a lot. You don't have to agree with someone to enjoy their writing style (Take me and StJobe!) Friendly rivalries are the best rivalries!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 April 2014 - 04:15 AM.


#378 Magna Canus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 715 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 08 April 2014 - 04:17 AM

View PostTycho von Gagern, on 07 April 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

As for sync-drops, who cares? I've never been through it myself, but it seems like a lot more of a hassle than just finding five more bodies for an even 12. But maybe that's even harder, and sync-dropping is the way to go. All I know is that it makes me want to stick to the solo PUG arena, where I run what I want, drop in fast, and perform well. Teamwork may be OP, but you make grouping sound like such a chore that I wonder if its worth it.

Ah, yes, this last part; "grouping sound like such a chore that I wonder if its worth it". This is the reason why a lot of people have left.

#379 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 08 April 2014 - 05:47 AM

View PostMagnakanus, on 08 April 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Hey Craig,
you and I often stand on opposite sides of the argument. I actually liked your post, it was well worded and cordial (for the most part).

As to sample pool numbers; since we have no official stats one way or the other any conjecture in either way is mainly that, conjecture. Trusting what the official communications say, especially after our objective measurement tool called player count was removed, in light of the consistency track record PGI currently holds, is a bit utopian IMHO. I am not saying that nothing they say can be trusted, but they have managed to downgrade themselves from "trust until proven untrustworthy" to "seeing is believing". So if you decide that you can't entirely trust what is being published for whatever reasons, the only remain source you have left is what you and others have experienced first hand (e.g. "anecdotal"). Reality is in the numbers and even I can attest to the fact that many in my and other units I work closely with have left for the reasons Roadbeer has stated. so I can at least trust in the factual numbers I know to be true through personal observation. Couple this with one of the many the laws of human nature, that in a given test population a specific situation will provoke on average (bell-curve) a specific response (e.g. groups reduced to 4, people leave), I have no reason to doubt that what I have personally witnessed in some units is happening in others.

Now, how many new players we get or not and how many of those stay for more than 25 games (and thus can be counted towards any current drop pool calculations) is also pure conjecture since again we have no stats on this, just an "official statement" to the contrary. Again, human nature is such that if a business is loosing ground, those responsible will not say as much because of the usual fear is that the rest of the rats will jump ship as well (CYA 101). So the only way to really settle this is to either have factual numbers gathered in a predefined time frame with enough complimentary information (e.g. games played, last logged in, etc.) to make the information objectively useful, or to rely on first hand "anecdotal" information. Since we don't have the former we are forced to rely on the latter.

Going back to the statement that was made; 84% were solo drops and 16% were group drops and that the stats were drawn from "the life of the game" (does this also included CB?). We still do not have the perspective here as to how many were people that jumped in, did 25 drops and then left because they did not like the game or could not handle it. Nor do we have numbers on people that used to play in a unit but can't anymore because their unit has lost too many players to be able to field teams consistently. Using the same numbers you did (accepting that these are purely fictitious numbers as you stated) you have 100k team-players and 900k new F2P players (10% team-players, 90% F2P). For 100k team-players to get 16% of the drop pool numbers vs. the 84% 900k F2P, Each team-players has to drop roughly 6 times for every 1 that a F2P player does. So yes, more drops are done as a solo, but the team-players on average drops more often (in this example). This is really why without any true context the numbers PGI states are worth less than used toilet paper. Yes, they are numbers that were pulled up from some system, but without context they can be viewed 100 different ways and mean just about anything.

Another assumption you made (again not harping for confrontation so skip if necessary) was that founders are not buying new mechs etc at the same ratio a true F2P player is (my interpretation, feel free to contradict/correct).

I contend that assumption on the basis that a Founder or other BT fan is more willing to spend money on mechs because of their love of the IP (case in point the Urbanmech, people pettioned for it and practically offered their first born). A player who has no background with the IP will base their decision to spend money without this "positive bias". Combine this with a steep learning curve for the game, let alone people who logged in expecting Titanfall/etc. and left immediately afterwards because MWO was not it, those new F2P players are markedly less likely to spend $$ on MWO. A Founder and other BT fans are more emotionally invested in the IP and thus more likely to spend $$ on MWO, especially since no new BT title has turned up in years, especially since "hope for the future" is an emotion that leads one to do things your intellect would not have you do otherwise.

Moral of the story;
1) Anecdotal data (first hand experience) is greater than "proven less than trustworthy statements and stats".
2) Statistical data has no value when not released with sufficient information on parameters and complimentary info.
3) Emotionally investment promotes financial investment. Casual interest reaps sporadic financial investment which is heavily based on the "wow factor" (how much does MWO have for the random F2Player?).

2 closing questions form me:
1) How much trust are you placing in the data that PGI has published, in particular the 84/16% numbers, but also in numbers published by PGI in general?
2) Do you feel that the 84/16 represents the player base (more or less) consistently throughout the life of MWO or have you noticed any major fluctuations?


LOL, I thought everyone was one the other side to me? :P jk.

So firstly, the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence is while it is relevant to the owner, its not representative. So for example, an allegation is that the game is hemmaroging team players, I've seen it many times in forums and there are some teams that are down in numbers. The finger for this problem is firmly placed on PGI, and their inability to provide a team based game.

But thats just not always the case. Some teams die because they have rubbish leaders (We've all seen it several times) some die because they follow a charismatic member to another team. Some die because life gets in the way. Theres a multitude of reasons why it could be the case that players leave a guild. We can argue that PGI has an influence, but it's alarmist to say it's all PGI's fault.

Want a MW:O example, theres a thread over in Clan Wolf I chipped in on where a guy basically left a Guild and posted he was looking for another one. It looks like he never told his old guild why he was leaving, and so when they came across the thread they chipped in. Now details to one side, anecdotally that Guild Master saw a player had left, and if he hadn't shown up on the forums, he never would have known anything more than he left. It was not PGI's fault though, the guy was still looking for a new guild to play with.

My comparison of founders to a full F2P player was not to make an argument about the economic viability, but merely to demonstrate their is a different behaviour (in game activity) driving different demographics of the player base.

So to address your points.

1) Anecdotal data (first hand experience) is greater than "proven less than trustworthy statements and stats".
Yes, but anecdotal evidence is limited and care needs to be exercised when coming to conclusions and requesting amendments. In short, if you're relying on anecdotal evidence you need to spend a lot more time putting yourself (and asking questions of) on the other side to quantify your experiences.

2) Statistical data has no value when not released with sufficient information on parameters and complimentary info.
Yes, data for the sake of data is useless, but perhaps more importanly it also needs context and interpretation. The problem is the vast majority of people don't have that ability (it's actually a marketable skill, Investment firms pay big bucks for interprative abilities) and so simply releasing data creates more problems than it solves.

To use a military analogy, I can show you a radar screen which has three blips on it, now you have seconds to determine how many are threats inbound, how many are civilian traffic, when the threat (if any) becomes material and a real risk to us. You also need to mark those risks for engagement and communicate all you conclusions to the CO before the scenario changes. It's not enough to read the data or even to know which one / two / three are the possible threats. For the info to be useful you have to interpret it and make judgements. They train them RO's for a reason you see :ph34r:

3) Emotionally investment promotes financial investment. Casual interest reaps sporadic financial investment which is heavily based on the "wow factor" (how much does MWO have for the random F2Player?).
Sure, subject to volumes. If I spend $100 a year on MWO over 5 years it's $500-, if they get 200 people joining the game every year spending $10 each (assuming no cost per player) you're financially much better off. Whether they stay for 6 months or 12, as long as they pay their 10 dollars the financial aspect is covered. But yes, if you could get them ALL to stay longer and ALL spend more money, of course thats "better".

2 closing questions form me:
1) How much trust are you placing in the data that PGI has published, in particular the 84/16% numbers, but also in numbers published by PGI in general
Trust? Well I trust they believe the numbers are right and it has some basis. I don't think there made up and I don't think they are deliberatly misleading. The company is registered and has to meet certain regulatory requirements including ethics. It also commercial suicide to deceive markets and investors. There is always a risk of fraud, but the numbers involved in MW:O are very very large. I am comfortable strong due diligences have been done on the people and the company and they passed. I will caveat here and say this observation is a response to your question of Trust only.
2) Do you feel that the 84/16 represents the player base (more or less) consistently throughout the life of MWO or have you noticed any major fluctuations?
What PGI said is that it's the average over the life of the game. I strongly suspect that it is slanted that way, but probably not to the same degree as the headline numbers. If I was a guessing man I'd say its probably closer to 70% solo and 30% teams (personal opinion, no substantiation, see below).

I'll expand in anticipation of the flame war about to erupt.

Most MMO games cater to individual players and smaller teams. Look at the RPG ones the missions are mostly 4 / 5 man, Dota and games of that ilk are the same. This is (imo) cause its damn hard to co ordinate bigger teams as a physical presence. Big teams with long running missions are very few in popular titles. You just don't see 100 man raids being launched every 30 minutes in MMO games (not withstanding the hype).

Also, the factor I touched on above. There are more players in the game now than there were 12 months ago, and those players have different needs. They are not the dedicated BT Lore purists that want a canon experience. They will drive a different in game behaviour. Ergo, they're behaviour will dilute the "Team Play" stats that were once prevelant.

If you look through the threads you will see people acknowledging they are "plug and play" (my word) players. They want their 1 hour fix before dinner / gf comes over / go to the pub / <insert all other here>. They don't want the hassle or commitment of linking up with freinds on line, that will cramp their other timelines. The want to blow *proverbial* up and get on with it. In my world, thats about 90% of my freinds and I guarantee you, that demographic is woefully un represented in forums. This is the last place they are coming. They are solo dropping, or at best with their brother, SO, family member <insert close rl relation here>.

I'll never have the actual stats from PGI, but I my best guess factoring in those three things is that the majority of the player population is Solo or small groups, its the major demopgraphic in other games and its what I see in my own environment. How did I get to my guess, I doubled the official number, it's a practice that has served me pretty well over the years when I doubt stats.

I just cannot see that MW:O is going to be so different from any other MMO player population. For example, arguably the most well known and regarded fantasy universe is D&D, Forgotten Realms. Neverwinter rolled out a few months back. It has a solo game content of about 60 hours, and 5 player team content that will keep you 30 minutes to an hour and a 20+ (per side) game mode (which runs for about an hour+, not that I have ever actually played that mode) which I find is empty unless our Guild has organised a run against another Guild. It's just harder to keep teams larger than 2/3/4 together for any length of time.

Accordingly, I have to accept that I am in the minority (although as I said, I don't think its a 16% minority). I have 7 friends that I played TT BT with for many years and we are still in contact even though we have all split up. I would love nothing more for all of us to use MW:O to recreate some fond memories. but it doesn't. Neither did MW 2/3/4 so I continue to wait for that opportunity / title. We make the most out of MW:O when we can in drops of 3 or 4 and even that is hard to co ordinate so we'll have to see.

#380 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 08 April 2014 - 05:57 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:


The thing is Craig, it is a PvP game, and in PvP every advantage one can take to some is worth it. Those players who said, "Suck it PUGs" are just as bad a sport as the players whining cause a 4 man ate their baby.



Yeah, of course. I am not complaining about it, just saying it is what it is. :P

It's a MMO and I've been just as guilty of playing half cut and no where near my normal game as many have (I suspect). I am sure my team mates have lamented being stuck with that noob while I was standing still in a suddent fire fight while taking another drink form my glass.

I see stuff I don't get (for example, this one I just don't understand why you'd want to play a game over and over that offers a reduced challenge) but that doesn't mean the people involved don't have a reason. It just means I don't get it :ph34r:

I draw the line at intentional TK though, that's just plain malicious.

I tried the new patch the other day, was in my Cataphract. Tourmaline, throttle up, approaching centre. Saw the patch had reset my weapon groupings. Looked down to re set them, when I looked up realised I had not stopped throttle. Middle of field, 12 enemy mechs, massive crossfire.

Got back under cover with 32% health and red across the board.

Not a great contributor to my game Stats I can tell you. LOL





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users