724 replies to this topic

[Lord de Seis]

Assiah, on 26 October 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

I don't think we disagree on the idea of how PT and the free to play model work, but there is a very clear disconnect we are having on what constitutes a long but doable grind vs a grind that takes far too long. As I said earlier in the thread, I understand that that is subjective and what seems like a reasonable grind to you might not seem like a reasonable grind to me. Currently I feel it is unreasonable, I also feel that increased payouts would actually help this game make more money, not less. Again a free/new player that can earn some mechs quickly will start to consider buying MC for mechbays and cockpit swag, with a slow grind they are more inclined to not consider the mechbays because it would take them too long to fill them.

I'm not advocating for the removal of the grind, I'm advocating for the devs to consider lessening the grind. If you disagree, that's fine, this is after all a subjective opinion based issue, and we are not all going to agree. I do thank you however for not disagreeing in a rude and disruptive manner.

Not a problem, I don't disagree with you entirely, I would love less of a grind as well I am just trying to promote a healthy discussion. I think the current rewards system is working very similar to the older one, which is the way it has been for a very long time. The way PGI probably looks at it is if ain't broke don't try to fix it, it has been working for the game so far and people are still playing.

It is worth trying to bring up at a town hall though, that's my suggestion. It seems to be the best way to bring topics forward.

[Mystere]

mania3c, on 27 October 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:

I understand..that there are people who are okey with earnings..but most people? are really not..

These "debates" (i.e. [1] lower vs. higher incomes, [2] less vs. more people happy about it) have gone on long enough. As such, I think now is the time to call people on their assertions.

For you specifically, please show definitive proof of your assertion highlighted above. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.

Edited by Mystere, 27 October 2014 - 07:21 AM.

[Assiah]

Lord de Seis, on 27 October 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

I think the current rewards system is working very similar to the older one, which is the way it has been for a very long time.

I would argue it hasn't been working for them, but that's like, just my opinion man. Really all we have is anecdotal evidence based on our own personal experiences and the experiences of our friends, its PGI that has the hard numbers on the population health of the game. I think that's whats hurting healthy discussion more than anything. But even so, I think most of us will agree that the pop of this game is much lower than it used to be.

[mania3c]

Mystere, on 27 October 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

These "debates" (i.e. [1] lower vs. higher incomes, [2] less vs. more people happy about it) have gone on long enough. As such, I think now is the time to call people on their assertions.

For you specifically, please show proof of your assertion highlighted above.

4 from 5 people stopped playing just because of grind ..I Know it's very isolated..and I don't have other statistics..but as I see when reading the forum..my experience is not that isolated...

and while I am not sure that numbers of players are going down..I know for sure that guilds are breaking because not enough players are playing anymore..so it's pretty clear sign .. also I had few opportunities to hang out with some fellow mechwarrios on teamspeak and their notion was pretty much same "most of their friends and new players are not sticking with the game..because if you really want be good in MWO, you really need some solid mechs which costs a lots of cbills..and griding cbills is just horrible"..so..this is my experience and my "proof" if you want..now go ahead and show it is not true

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Mystere, on 27 October 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

These "debates" (i.e. [1] lower vs. higher incomes, [2] less vs. more people happy about it) have gone on long enough. As such, I think now is the time to call people on their assertions.

For you specifically, please show definitive proof of your assertion highlighted above. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.

So what you are saying is that neither side should post on the topic anymore without citations?

Because the same could be said of the "Nah income is fine" crowd. We wouldn't want to have a double standard, here.

[Mystere]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 27 October 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

So what you are saying is that neither side should post on the topic anymore without citations?

Because the same could be said of the "Nah income is fine" crowd. We wouldn't want to have a double standard, here.

It's actually simple. Don't make your opinions sound like facts. Don't turn anecdotes into "proof".

And this goes for both sides, if that wasn't obvious enough.

And so if you are offering a fact or proof, then yes, citations are necessary, preferably sourced from PGI directly as only they have the real numbers (as far as incomes are concerned anyway).

Edited by Mystere, 27 October 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Mystere, on 27 October 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

It's actually simple. Don't make your opinions sound like facts. Don't turn anecdotes into "proof".

And this goes for both sides, if that wasn't obvious enough.

And so if you are offering a fact or "proof", then yes, citations are necessary.

Screenshots aren't good enough? Both sides have posted them.

I don't feel like we need any more proof that income has changed. The issue is that the 'floor' (the amount you get for bad play/a loss) is quite a bit lower than it was before the change. It is too low.

[Assiah]

Mystere, on 27 October 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

It's actually simple. Don't make your opinions sound like facts. Don't turn anecdotes into "proof".

And this goes for both sides, if that wasn't obvious enough.

And so if you are offering a fact or proof, then yes, citations are necessary, preferably sourced from PGI directly as only they have the real numbers (as far as incomes are concerned anyway).

I will admit, I'd love to see a survey sent around asking players, both former and current, how they feel about the rate of progressing in MWO. With a big enough sample size it could show some very clear patterns that those of us in favor of pay out increases believe to be there. I sadly don't have that kind of time, but if someone else wants to I think it would help this discussion immensely.

[Mystere]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 27 October 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

Screenshots aren't good enough? Both sides have posted them.

I consider screenshots anecdotes, not definitive proof.

Alexander MacTaggart, on 27 October 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

I don't feel like we need any more proof that income has changed.

Huh? You're already stating the obvious considering it was an earnings change.

Alexander MacTaggart, on 27 October 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

The issue is that the 'floor' (the amount you get for bad play/a loss) is quite a bit lower than it was before the change. It is too low.

I am of the opinion (Did you see what I did there? ) that lowering the floor to account for poor "performance" or "doing stupid things" is a good move. The same holds for keeping John James Rambo's earnings lower to financially discourage his behavior.

I am also of the opinion ( ) that merely raising earning rates is not a good solution. I think the better solution is to increase the types of actions being rewarded to account for more legitimate play styles.

By doing these, I am trying to steer the ongoing "debates" to more legitimate questions such as what constitutes "performance" and "legitimate play styles", as well as diffrentiating between "being a hero" and "doing stupid things".


Given what I just said, I am now rewarding myself with a cookie. I need the sugar anyway.

Edited by Mystere, 27 October 2014 - 07:55 AM.

[SharpCookie]

Been with the game for 23 months now. The grind has only gotten worse as the years gone.

I remember when PGI said 12v12 would increase earnings even though they reduced award amounts across the board. Didn't happen. More players meant faster deaths with less time to perform actions to earn c-bills.

We are seeing a huge distribution of earnings with Rewards 2.0.1. I've played at least 50 matches since the patch and hotfix using medium mechs. Losses are 40k-80k.Wins are 80-200k. Total c-bill earnings per match could use a boost of 20-30% by adjusting existing values for certain actions and new rewards need to be added for alternative playstyles.

Below are two above average games. Payout is just too low for the contribution to the team and the win. I didn't play to farm the rewards. I played to win and that meant I was always with a group of at least 3-5 mechs and fired upon anything hostile.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Mystere, on 27 October 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

I am of the opinion (Did you see what I did there? ) that lowering the floor to account for poor "performance" or "doing stupid things" is a good move. The same holds for keeping John James Rambo's earnings lower to financially discourage his behavior.

If by 'financially discourage his behavior' you mean have him go play a different game, sure.

But do you really want to drive players away like that?

[Joseph Mallan]

mania3c, on 27 October 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:

what i see is me me me me..honestly..today..in good win game.. I can top 190k..in average? 140k ..in loss? well..it's under 100k almost always..many times under 60k..so really my average earning is 100k per game ..honestly...what c-ER medium laser costs?

I understand..that there are people who are okey with earnings..but most people? are really not..

I am Ok with earning whatever the game says I earned. I am earning more now than I have in the last 3 years. I made more money in a Loss last week than on any win I have had in the past, My average Winnings per Match has increased, All because I can earn more staying with my team, maneuvering around my enemy (in an Atlas with a stock engine), my Average loss wages has gone from 40-50k to 60-80k. Maybe the problem isn't the pay system, maybe its the players expectations.

I actually have a bit more than the average player here does for wanting this game to survive. See my family name is part of the Canon of this game's universe. The DEVs may make a living off of it, and if it goes under they can maybe get another job in the industry, but I want my family legacy to last a few more decades all the same.

[Joseph Mallan]

SharpCookie, on 27 October 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

Been with the game for 23 months now. The grind has only gotten worse as the years gone.

I remember when PGI said 12v12 would increase earnings even though they reduced award amounts across the board. Didn't happen. More players meant faster deaths with less time to perform actions to earn c-bills.

We are seeing a huge distribution of earnings with Rewards 2.0.1. I've played at least 50 matches since the patch and hotfix using medium mechs. Losses are 40k-80k.Wins are 80-200k. Total c-bill earnings per match could use a boost of 20-30% by adjusting existing values for certain actions and new rewards need to be added for alternative playstyles.

Below are two above average games. Payout is just too low for the contribution to the team and the win. I didn't play to farm the rewards. I played to win and that meant I was always with a group of at least 3-5 mechs and fired upon anything hostile.

Dude those are good paydays to me on average right now I bring in 85K per match. If you cannot play the game winning 125k+ you are playing the game wrong. Even buying Air arty every match you are turning a profit!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 October 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 October 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

I am Ok with earning whatever the game says I earned. I am earning more now than I have in the last 3 years. I made more money in a Loss last week than on any win I have had in the past, My average Winnings per Match has increased, All because I can earn more staying with my team, maneuvering around my enemy (in an Atlas with a stock engine), my Average loss wages has gone from 40-50k to 60-80k. Maybe the problem isn't the pay system, maybe its the players expectations.

I actually have a bit more than the average player here does for wanting this game to survive. See my family name is part of the Canon of this game's universe. The DEVs may make a living off of it, and if it goes under they can maybe get another job in the industry, but I want my family legacy to last a few more decades all the same.

Wow I thought that first paragraph couldn't be trumped. But you managed it.

[Assiah]

Mystere, on 27 October 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

I consider screenshots anecdotes, not definitive proof.




Huh? You're already stating the obvious considering it was an earnings change.





I am of the opinion (Did you see what I did there? ) that lowering the floor to account for poor "performance" or "doing stupid things" is a good move. The same holds for keeping John James Rambo's earnings lower to financially discourage his behavior.

I am also of the opinion ( ) that merely raising earning rates is not a good solution. I think the better solution is to increase the types of actions being rewarded to account for more legitimate play styles.

By doing these, I am trying to steer the ongoing "debates" to more legitimate questions such as what constitutes "performance" and "legitimate play styles", as well as diffrentiating between "being a hero" and "doing stupid things".


Given what I just said, I am now rewarding myself with a cookie. I need the sugar anyway.

Well if you are going to try to steer into that, you steer into the idea of punishing player behavior vs rewarding player behavior, which we talked about, at length, in this very thread. To reiterate a point, if you punish player behavior, especially if that behavior is not being great at the game, that player will consider if he should continue spending time with the game. If you want to make a better impact, you want to reward the good players for doing well while still letting the bad players make headway.

The major problem with punish based behavioral government systems is that they run on the idea of do this (or don't do this) or else, which works if the person who's behavior you want to modify has limited options, but when they have multiple options, including go elsewhere, they will likely choose the other option. Reward based behavioral government works much better for getting players in games to play a certain way, with punishment being held for the worse offenders (banning someone from the game). Now we can debate on if average and below average players are being punished with the current payouts if you want, but keep in mind you already hold the opinion that the system is built for that as is and its right in your own post.

Alexander MacTaggart, on 27 October 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Wow I thought that first paragraph couldn't be trumped. But you managed it.

We told ya bro, disconnected from reality.

Edited by Assiah, 27 October 2014 - 08:08 AM.

[Mystere]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 27 October 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

If by 'financially discourage his behavior' you mean have him go play a different game, sure.

But do you really want to drive players away like that?

The underlying idea is to reward what is considered "good" and discourage what is "bad".

As for John James Rambo specifically, if his wishes to continue his killing streaks (i.e. stat whoring) then he should be made aware that there is financial disincentive to his continued refusal to obey orders.

[hybrid black]

Scratx, on 26 October 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

I have a t-54. I could've had a t-62 by now... had I not taken a slight detour to go for the IS-3. And you know what?

Fully agreed. It's a bloody grind, and I can't even do it on the t-54 because that mech is just unprofitable to run. I have to go to the t-34-85 for my best return on time spent. t-44 also works but it's more expensive to run.

So, yes, WoT makes MWO's grind look tame.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean MWO's grind is good, either. It looked better back in the days where there were no XL engines and definitely no clan mechs all geared with XL. These days, most mechs seem to be geared with them. :/

I did not say it was good but he said its putting players off and i simply referenced a game with a worse grind and a huge player base

[Joseph Mallan]

mania3c, on 27 October 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

4 from 5 people stopped playing just because of grind ..I Know it's very isolated..and I don't have other statistics..but as I see when reading the forum..my experience is not that isolated...

and while I am not sure that numbers of players are going down..I know for sure that guilds are breaking because not enough players are playing anymore..so it's pretty clear sign .. also I had few opportunities to hang out with some fellow mechwarrios on teamspeak and their notion was pretty much same "most of their friends and new players are not sticking with the game..because if you really want be good in MWO, you really need some solid mechs which costs a lots of cbills..and griding cbills is just horrible"..so..this is my experience and my "proof" if you want..now go ahead and show it is not true

Most of Murphy's stopped playing cause 4 man max. Then still more quit cause you had to be 8 man to play as a team, then silly things like PGI reversing on statements of fact becoming "lies". Pop Tarts. PPC Meta, etc. Never once did I hear "I don't make enough money" as a reason.

[hybrid black]

RalphVargr, on 26 October 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

I left WOT and WoWP for just those reasons. The huge player base is due to certain cultural and economic factors.

This is an arcade game. It should be fun, or people will strop dropping time and money coins into the slot.

I do find it fun not the 15 min que times due elo because shifty players can't play better people and cry

[Joseph Mallan]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 27 October 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Wow I thought that first paragraph couldn't be trumped. But you managed it.

Don't feel bad, I have the same reaction to many of the posts I have been reading Alex.

hybrid black, on 27 October 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

I do find it fun not the 15 min que times due elo because shifty players can't play better people and cry

Dude, I have never taken 15 minutes to que. Don't exaggerate it doesn't help your position.