0
[-Ms- Round Table Discussion- #10] W/xavier, Sader, Fbj And Special Guest (The Mwo Community...you)
Started by Sader325, Apr 23 2016 05:27 AM
13 replies to this topic
#1
-
-
- 1,181 posts
Member
Posted 23 April 2016 - 05:27 AM
Last nights round table.
Watch as Sader, Xavier and FBJ talk about our experience with Phase 3 and discuss how we feel about the recent changes.
#2
-
-
- Little Helper
- 3,854 posts
Member
Posted 23 April 2016 - 06:23 AM
tl; dr: Skillcrows suck.
On a serious note, shame that PGI don't watch this videos.
On a serious note, shame that PGI don't watch this videos.
Edited by kapusta11, 23 April 2016 - 07:21 AM.
#4
-
-
- 670 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 23 April 2016 - 06:12 PM
Okay, a few things....
#1, Only one attack planet per phase...
Well, we are going to take it, so don't hire MS if you ever want to get your own faction unit's tags on any of those planets. We will take every one if we choose to - maybe not during off peak time. Xavier is right about this - when one planet reaches 100%, a second planet on the same front needs to open up - but perhaps each faction member could vote on the top four factions to attack, allowing for more than one attack lane as well.
Currently, we start on that solo planet by 7 or 8 pm E.S.T. and we own it by 10:30, then I run off to watch movies or something - I used to play on through after ceasefire, while we attacked several planets. Now, there is little point to that. With all of the new ghost drops - my personal participation is way down this week as it is.
Right now, the numbers may not support multiple attack lanes - simultaneously - but lets assume, in a brighter future, perhaps with some added motivational incentives, we can get those participation numbers growing again. A population heavy faction can indeed populate multiple simultaneous attack lanes. Spread those planet tags around a little eh? No point in adding rewards for taking planets if your unit is never actually going to see any of those rewards, because it never actually takes any planets. Some of these planet oriented rewards need to go to players who were simply there at the time, that they made a contribution alone is worthy of greater recognition.
#2, Where was I? Oh yeah, Merc Ranks - half the prizes of a Faction? WTF PGI?
No faction loyalty for merc units, have any of you EVER read a battletech novel? Besides all of that, there are multiple players who have already achieved rank 20 in certain factions. I assure you, that in a few months time, there will be players who have achieved rank 10 in Mercenary Reputation. So then what? You have to leave your unit? Sorry PGI, this isn't going to work. Unit loyalty and the social relations therein are the main feature of this whole game. These people are akin to extended family... one does not just abandon such without serious emotional consequences. You really need to redo this.
#3 Stop attacking the units..
I assure you, the units do far more match organizing, player training and information providing than anything you have done or even can do. Units are the very glue that hold the game together. Solo players are the grease that allow the unit machinery to turn.
You want to become big? For real? Let me tell you, from someone who has already been there, better for you to change your attitude about the units and the superstar players. Every major sport or game has units and /or superstar players leading the way. They are to be glorified as an example of what the common player can one day, maybe, become. Every empire has it's heroes. It is very the dream that you sell here. Action and adventure, leading to victory, glory, and celebrity status, is the essence of the product - keep stepping on your elite players and their units and you are destroying your own company.
The glory is for them, the prizes are for them. That really costs you what exactly? On the large scale as we approach the limit just about nothing? But what do you get? How about future employment, and maybe that real magical substance - Profit? Isn't that the real ultimate prize? We all want to be rock stars - but owner of the record company is also a very fine place to be.
You know, if you have employees in the firm who think the elite players and units are bad for your game, you should probably let those people go, just as soon as you can. It is an attitude that is anti-achievement, anti-winning, anti-success, where as proactive builders of a greater future is what you really need. Those players who do it better than the rest are the very trailblazers of what is possible.
#4, Not really touched on in this broadcast, but I am sure it has been discussed before. How about actually listening to the leaders of the game?
We've tried the listening to the whole player base thing - but I do think you need to listen much more to your best and brightest, your most experienced players, the ones who are the most dedicated to the future of this game. Like the guys who put together these broadcasts. I do, and it has paid off huge dividends for me. Perhaps you should do the same.
Work with them much more closely and they will most likely help you build the game you need to survive. You have such an enormous talent pool at your fingertips - and it cost you next to nothing - harness this talent and bring the full power of the internet to your table.
I think they care so much more than you realize, or you wouldn't treat them with such obvious contempt. It is because you do this, your actions speak so loudly in this regard, as you deliberately and repeatedly alienate your most important player base, it truly makes it very difficult to have faith in the future of this enterprise. A true, heavy lifting, emotional burden. I am not the only one who feels this way, nor am I the most outspoken about it. Yet, your greatest players respond with passive aggressiveness, and they stop playing. They don't tell you, and they certainly don't post, they just leave... and their wonderful contributions go with them, to somebody else's game.
#5, My apologies, in advance, if I have overstepped any boundaries here.
I have spent a lot of time in this game over the last 19 months, and have been especially critical lately on several topics - believe me, I am trying to pull these punches, and I am walking as softly as I can. I care about the game, probably too much if I've let a patch update affect me in such a manner. If I didn't care, I probably wouldn't bother to say anything at all.
Sometimes when walking through a minefield, if you want to make some progress, you have to take some risk.
#1, Only one attack planet per phase...
Well, we are going to take it, so don't hire MS if you ever want to get your own faction unit's tags on any of those planets. We will take every one if we choose to - maybe not during off peak time. Xavier is right about this - when one planet reaches 100%, a second planet on the same front needs to open up - but perhaps each faction member could vote on the top four factions to attack, allowing for more than one attack lane as well.
Currently, we start on that solo planet by 7 or 8 pm E.S.T. and we own it by 10:30, then I run off to watch movies or something - I used to play on through after ceasefire, while we attacked several planets. Now, there is little point to that. With all of the new ghost drops - my personal participation is way down this week as it is.
Right now, the numbers may not support multiple attack lanes - simultaneously - but lets assume, in a brighter future, perhaps with some added motivational incentives, we can get those participation numbers growing again. A population heavy faction can indeed populate multiple simultaneous attack lanes. Spread those planet tags around a little eh? No point in adding rewards for taking planets if your unit is never actually going to see any of those rewards, because it never actually takes any planets. Some of these planet oriented rewards need to go to players who were simply there at the time, that they made a contribution alone is worthy of greater recognition.
#2, Where was I? Oh yeah, Merc Ranks - half the prizes of a Faction? WTF PGI?
No faction loyalty for merc units, have any of you EVER read a battletech novel? Besides all of that, there are multiple players who have already achieved rank 20 in certain factions. I assure you, that in a few months time, there will be players who have achieved rank 10 in Mercenary Reputation. So then what? You have to leave your unit? Sorry PGI, this isn't going to work. Unit loyalty and the social relations therein are the main feature of this whole game. These people are akin to extended family... one does not just abandon such without serious emotional consequences. You really need to redo this.
#3 Stop attacking the units..
I assure you, the units do far more match organizing, player training and information providing than anything you have done or even can do. Units are the very glue that hold the game together. Solo players are the grease that allow the unit machinery to turn.
You want to become big? For real? Let me tell you, from someone who has already been there, better for you to change your attitude about the units and the superstar players. Every major sport or game has units and /or superstar players leading the way. They are to be glorified as an example of what the common player can one day, maybe, become. Every empire has it's heroes. It is very the dream that you sell here. Action and adventure, leading to victory, glory, and celebrity status, is the essence of the product - keep stepping on your elite players and their units and you are destroying your own company.
The glory is for them, the prizes are for them. That really costs you what exactly? On the large scale as we approach the limit just about nothing? But what do you get? How about future employment, and maybe that real magical substance - Profit? Isn't that the real ultimate prize? We all want to be rock stars - but owner of the record company is also a very fine place to be.
You know, if you have employees in the firm who think the elite players and units are bad for your game, you should probably let those people go, just as soon as you can. It is an attitude that is anti-achievement, anti-winning, anti-success, where as proactive builders of a greater future is what you really need. Those players who do it better than the rest are the very trailblazers of what is possible.
#4, Not really touched on in this broadcast, but I am sure it has been discussed before. How about actually listening to the leaders of the game?
We've tried the listening to the whole player base thing - but I do think you need to listen much more to your best and brightest, your most experienced players, the ones who are the most dedicated to the future of this game. Like the guys who put together these broadcasts. I do, and it has paid off huge dividends for me. Perhaps you should do the same.
Work with them much more closely and they will most likely help you build the game you need to survive. You have such an enormous talent pool at your fingertips - and it cost you next to nothing - harness this talent and bring the full power of the internet to your table.
I think they care so much more than you realize, or you wouldn't treat them with such obvious contempt. It is because you do this, your actions speak so loudly in this regard, as you deliberately and repeatedly alienate your most important player base, it truly makes it very difficult to have faith in the future of this enterprise. A true, heavy lifting, emotional burden. I am not the only one who feels this way, nor am I the most outspoken about it. Yet, your greatest players respond with passive aggressiveness, and they stop playing. They don't tell you, and they certainly don't post, they just leave... and their wonderful contributions go with them, to somebody else's game.
#5, My apologies, in advance, if I have overstepped any boundaries here.
I have spent a lot of time in this game over the last 19 months, and have been especially critical lately on several topics - believe me, I am trying to pull these punches, and I am walking as softly as I can. I care about the game, probably too much if I've let a patch update affect me in such a manner. If I didn't care, I probably wouldn't bother to say anything at all.
Sometimes when walking through a minefield, if you want to make some progress, you have to take some risk.
#5
-
-
- The Benefactor
- 16,697 posts
Member
Posted 23 April 2016 - 06:49 PM
People are going to hate big units because humans inherently hate and fear llarge groups, organizations and such that they don't belong to. Never gonna change. They lose to pugs, ah it happens. They lose to a 12man and it's something mean the 12man did to them on purpose. It's persecution.
Problem with listening to the best and brightest is that bads are bad because the skills that make you good they don't have. Often that's things like logic, reasoning, flexibility, adaptation. So they're going to hate against good ideas by the best and brightest because doing good and winning is like persecuting them for 'doing their own thing' or the oh so popular 'doing it the right way' like somehow bad builds or poor tactical choices are morally superior.
The world is full of people who are not just stupid but aggressively stupid - they actively resist anything that would make them not stupid. MWOs population is no different.
Big groups are big because they're good at getting, training and involving players. They create an environment people want to play on. They have their own thing. Groups like 228 are more competitive, MS more inclusive, SWOL more casual and they attract their own segments of the population. That's a very good thing because social groups connect players to other people and information and stuff that keeps them playing longer.
What we need is a system where Joe Blow in a unit of 5 who plays FW a lot and helps MS flip/tag a world gets just as much reward as Crustydog does. This way Joe can stay with his unit of 5 friends he's had since high school and won't leave but has every motivation to pug with MS, support and coordinate with them.
You share the value of success and you give everyone a dog in the race. If only the biggest units really benefit in FW smaller units have no motivation so big units have nobody to play.
All group sizes and compositions have their place. You can't control that, just throttle players ability to play with their friends how they want. That's bad. Instead focus on motivation for people to engage and cooperate for a common, shared benefit.
Problem with listening to the best and brightest is that bads are bad because the skills that make you good they don't have. Often that's things like logic, reasoning, flexibility, adaptation. So they're going to hate against good ideas by the best and brightest because doing good and winning is like persecuting them for 'doing their own thing' or the oh so popular 'doing it the right way' like somehow bad builds or poor tactical choices are morally superior.
The world is full of people who are not just stupid but aggressively stupid - they actively resist anything that would make them not stupid. MWOs population is no different.
Big groups are big because they're good at getting, training and involving players. They create an environment people want to play on. They have their own thing. Groups like 228 are more competitive, MS more inclusive, SWOL more casual and they attract their own segments of the population. That's a very good thing because social groups connect players to other people and information and stuff that keeps them playing longer.
What we need is a system where Joe Blow in a unit of 5 who plays FW a lot and helps MS flip/tag a world gets just as much reward as Crustydog does. This way Joe can stay with his unit of 5 friends he's had since high school and won't leave but has every motivation to pug with MS, support and coordinate with them.
You share the value of success and you give everyone a dog in the race. If only the biggest units really benefit in FW smaller units have no motivation so big units have nobody to play.
All group sizes and compositions have their place. You can't control that, just throttle players ability to play with their friends how they want. That's bad. Instead focus on motivation for people to engage and cooperate for a common, shared benefit.
#6
-
-
- 1,505 posts
Member
Posted 23 April 2016 - 06:57 PM
MCs from planet should be 100-150 per planet, not 5...
#7
-
-
- 1,181 posts
Member
Posted 23 April 2016 - 09:01 PM
crustydog, on 23 April 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:
Okay, a few things....
#1, Only one attack planet per phase...
Well, we are going to take it, so don't hire MS if you ever want to get your own faction unit's tags on any of those planets. We will take every one if we choose to - maybe not during off peak time. Xavier is right about this - when one planet reaches 100%, a second planet on the same front needs to open up - but perhaps each faction member could vote on the top four factions to attack, allowing for more than one attack lane as well.
Currently, we start on that solo planet by 7 or 8 pm E.S.T. and we own it by 10:30, then I run off to watch movies or something - I used to play on through after ceasefire, while we attacked several planets. Now, there is little point to that. With all of the new ghost drops - my personal participation is way down this week as it is.
Right now, the numbers may not support multiple attack lanes - simultaneously - but lets assume, in a brighter future, perhaps with some added motivational incentives, we can get those participation numbers growing again. A population heavy faction can indeed populate multiple simultaneous attack lanes. Spread those planet tags around a little eh? No point in adding rewards for taking planets if your unit is never actually going to see any of those rewards, because it never actually takes any planets. Some of these planet oriented rewards need to go to players who were simply there at the time, that they made a contribution alone is worthy of greater recognition.
#2, Where was I? Oh yeah, Merc Ranks - half the prizes of a Faction? WTF PGI?
No faction loyalty for merc units, have any of you EVER read a battletech novel? Besides all of that, there are multiple players who have already achieved rank 20 in certain factions. I assure you, that in a few months time, there will be players who have achieved rank 10 in Mercenary Reputation. So then what? You have to leave your unit? Sorry PGI, this isn't going to work. Unit loyalty and the social relations therein are the main feature of this whole game. These people are akin to extended family... one does not just abandon such without serious emotional consequences. You really need to redo this.
#3 Stop attacking the units..
I assure you, the units do far more match organizing, player training and information providing than anything you have done or even can do. Units are the very glue that hold the game together. Solo players are the grease that allow the unit machinery to turn.
You want to become big? For real? Let me tell you, from someone who has already been there, better for you to change your attitude about the units and the superstar players. Every major sport or game has units and /or superstar players leading the way. They are to be glorified as an example of what the common player can one day, maybe, become. Every empire has it's heroes. It is very the dream that you sell here. Action and adventure, leading to victory, glory, and celebrity status, is the essence of the product - keep stepping on your elite players and their units and you are destroying your own company.
The glory is for them, the prizes are for them. That really costs you what exactly? On the large scale as we approach the limit just about nothing? But what do you get? How about future employment, and maybe that real magical substance - Profit? Isn't that the real ultimate prize? We all want to be rock stars - but owner of the record company is also a very fine place to be.
You know, if you have employees in the firm who think the elite players and units are bad for your game, you should probably let those people go, just as soon as you can. It is an attitude that is anti-achievement, anti-winning, anti-success, where as proactive builders of a greater future is what you really need. Those players who do it better than the rest are the very trailblazers of what is possible.
#4, Not really touched on in this broadcast, but I am sure it has been discussed before. How about actually listening to the leaders of the game?
We've tried the listening to the whole player base thing - but I do think you need to listen much more to your best and brightest, your most experienced players, the ones who are the most dedicated to the future of this game. Like the guys who put together these broadcasts. I do, and it has paid off huge dividends for me. Perhaps you should do the same.
Work with them much more closely and they will most likely help you build the game you need to survive. You have such an enormous talent pool at your fingertips - and it cost you next to nothing - harness this talent and bring the full power of the internet to your table.
I think they care so much more than you realize, or you wouldn't treat them with such obvious contempt. It is because you do this, your actions speak so loudly in this regard, as you deliberately and repeatedly alienate your most important player base, it truly makes it very difficult to have faith in the future of this enterprise. A true, heavy lifting, emotional burden. I am not the only one who feels this way, nor am I the most outspoken about it. Yet, your greatest players respond with passive aggressiveness, and they stop playing. They don't tell you, and they certainly don't post, they just leave... and their wonderful contributions go with them, to somebody else's game.
#5, My apologies, in advance, if I have overstepped any boundaries here.
I have spent a lot of time in this game over the last 19 months, and have been especially critical lately on several topics - believe me, I am trying to pull these punches, and I am walking as softly as I can. I care about the game, probably too much if I've let a patch update affect me in such a manner. If I didn't care, I probably wouldn't bother to say anything at all.
Sometimes when walking through a minefield, if you want to make some progress, you have to take some risk.
#1, Only one attack planet per phase...
Well, we are going to take it, so don't hire MS if you ever want to get your own faction unit's tags on any of those planets. We will take every one if we choose to - maybe not during off peak time. Xavier is right about this - when one planet reaches 100%, a second planet on the same front needs to open up - but perhaps each faction member could vote on the top four factions to attack, allowing for more than one attack lane as well.
Currently, we start on that solo planet by 7 or 8 pm E.S.T. and we own it by 10:30, then I run off to watch movies or something - I used to play on through after ceasefire, while we attacked several planets. Now, there is little point to that. With all of the new ghost drops - my personal participation is way down this week as it is.
Right now, the numbers may not support multiple attack lanes - simultaneously - but lets assume, in a brighter future, perhaps with some added motivational incentives, we can get those participation numbers growing again. A population heavy faction can indeed populate multiple simultaneous attack lanes. Spread those planet tags around a little eh? No point in adding rewards for taking planets if your unit is never actually going to see any of those rewards, because it never actually takes any planets. Some of these planet oriented rewards need to go to players who were simply there at the time, that they made a contribution alone is worthy of greater recognition.
#2, Where was I? Oh yeah, Merc Ranks - half the prizes of a Faction? WTF PGI?
No faction loyalty for merc units, have any of you EVER read a battletech novel? Besides all of that, there are multiple players who have already achieved rank 20 in certain factions. I assure you, that in a few months time, there will be players who have achieved rank 10 in Mercenary Reputation. So then what? You have to leave your unit? Sorry PGI, this isn't going to work. Unit loyalty and the social relations therein are the main feature of this whole game. These people are akin to extended family... one does not just abandon such without serious emotional consequences. You really need to redo this.
#3 Stop attacking the units..
I assure you, the units do far more match organizing, player training and information providing than anything you have done or even can do. Units are the very glue that hold the game together. Solo players are the grease that allow the unit machinery to turn.
You want to become big? For real? Let me tell you, from someone who has already been there, better for you to change your attitude about the units and the superstar players. Every major sport or game has units and /or superstar players leading the way. They are to be glorified as an example of what the common player can one day, maybe, become. Every empire has it's heroes. It is very the dream that you sell here. Action and adventure, leading to victory, glory, and celebrity status, is the essence of the product - keep stepping on your elite players and their units and you are destroying your own company.
The glory is for them, the prizes are for them. That really costs you what exactly? On the large scale as we approach the limit just about nothing? But what do you get? How about future employment, and maybe that real magical substance - Profit? Isn't that the real ultimate prize? We all want to be rock stars - but owner of the record company is also a very fine place to be.
You know, if you have employees in the firm who think the elite players and units are bad for your game, you should probably let those people go, just as soon as you can. It is an attitude that is anti-achievement, anti-winning, anti-success, where as proactive builders of a greater future is what you really need. Those players who do it better than the rest are the very trailblazers of what is possible.
#4, Not really touched on in this broadcast, but I am sure it has been discussed before. How about actually listening to the leaders of the game?
We've tried the listening to the whole player base thing - but I do think you need to listen much more to your best and brightest, your most experienced players, the ones who are the most dedicated to the future of this game. Like the guys who put together these broadcasts. I do, and it has paid off huge dividends for me. Perhaps you should do the same.
Work with them much more closely and they will most likely help you build the game you need to survive. You have such an enormous talent pool at your fingertips - and it cost you next to nothing - harness this talent and bring the full power of the internet to your table.
I think they care so much more than you realize, or you wouldn't treat them with such obvious contempt. It is because you do this, your actions speak so loudly in this regard, as you deliberately and repeatedly alienate your most important player base, it truly makes it very difficult to have faith in the future of this enterprise. A true, heavy lifting, emotional burden. I am not the only one who feels this way, nor am I the most outspoken about it. Yet, your greatest players respond with passive aggressiveness, and they stop playing. They don't tell you, and they certainly don't post, they just leave... and their wonderful contributions go with them, to somebody else's game.
#5, My apologies, in advance, if I have overstepped any boundaries here.
I have spent a lot of time in this game over the last 19 months, and have been especially critical lately on several topics - believe me, I am trying to pull these punches, and I am walking as softly as I can. I care about the game, probably too much if I've let a patch update affect me in such a manner. If I didn't care, I probably wouldn't bother to say anything at all.
Sometimes when walking through a minefield, if you want to make some progress, you have to take some risk.
#8
-
-
- The Benefactor
- 16,697 posts
Member
Posted 24 April 2016 - 03:02 AM
Going to add another thing about superstars and big units -
They are why big games are big. They are a multi-million dollar advertising process running for free. They literally exist as hundreds, ideally even thousands of players with a self-made and often well honed system for onboarding and helping invest players into the game.
People didn't say 'I want to be good at basketball'.
They said 'I want to be like Mike'.
Anyone who would be 'driven off' by good players and teams would be driven off by any competition. Some people don't like competition - that's okay, but the game is based on it. Competition isn't for everyone but this game is competition based. If you punish everyone who succeeds either individually or as a unit why is anyone going to want to excel? Are we hoping that MW:O is going to self populate with equal sized teams of people who are hoping to be exactly average? Really?
Part of it is bad design. The current FW system functionally puts the interests of units AGAINST the interest of solos and small groups. Only big units can get tags (where the money is) and drive invasions, solos and small groups can only find excellence in individual match scores. It's a fundamental failing. If the game rewarded solos and small units for working with big units to the same goal these problems would largely go away and be replaced with a more universal incentive to play.
Units are currently rewarded best by avoiding hard fights and churning easy matches. They are rewarded for quantity over quality. It gives no motivation beyond that to play and punishes them for trying to include other players. Indeed it punishes them for just having new or casual players dropping on the same front.
This runs exactly contrary to the drives that motivate competitive players. They want an audience, they want to teach, they want to be challenged.
Solos and small groups have 0 reward for flipping worlds or coordinating with big units. Their only reward is individual match score and their only interaction with bigger units is generally direct competition, which they will usually lose. They have no development path - no way to improve their situation except abandoning their friends, leaving what they currently enjoy in the game to join big units and do to others what they did not like having done to them.
This runs exactly against the motivation of solos and small units who want to steadily improve, feel rewarded for their efforts and have something new to work for. They do not want to feel like their main enemy is someone they can never beat without becoming.
So FW is broken and additional content won't fix it.
You need rewards to scale with your opponent relative to yourself - this rewards not just hard fights but a great unit in an 8man with 4 pugs vs a 12man would pay better than the same match 12v12. Every solo who helps flip a planet is rewarded when it flips so cooperation with units gets his biggest payout. Small units are rewarded commensurate to their effort so if they lift 2 tons and the big unit lifts 12 tons they still get a 2 ton reward instead of the current reward of nothing. Indeed; by working with the big unit they can earn bigger rewards than they can alone.
Without that FW is pretty well ******. Either everyone needs to join big units, we need to write solo players off completely and churn new content fast enough to keep people entertained or we need to reward big units and great players commensurate to their success and effort and share that reward scale down to small units and solos.
They are why big games are big. They are a multi-million dollar advertising process running for free. They literally exist as hundreds, ideally even thousands of players with a self-made and often well honed system for onboarding and helping invest players into the game.
People didn't say 'I want to be good at basketball'.
They said 'I want to be like Mike'.
Anyone who would be 'driven off' by good players and teams would be driven off by any competition. Some people don't like competition - that's okay, but the game is based on it. Competition isn't for everyone but this game is competition based. If you punish everyone who succeeds either individually or as a unit why is anyone going to want to excel? Are we hoping that MW:O is going to self populate with equal sized teams of people who are hoping to be exactly average? Really?
Part of it is bad design. The current FW system functionally puts the interests of units AGAINST the interest of solos and small groups. Only big units can get tags (where the money is) and drive invasions, solos and small groups can only find excellence in individual match scores. It's a fundamental failing. If the game rewarded solos and small units for working with big units to the same goal these problems would largely go away and be replaced with a more universal incentive to play.
Units are currently rewarded best by avoiding hard fights and churning easy matches. They are rewarded for quantity over quality. It gives no motivation beyond that to play and punishes them for trying to include other players. Indeed it punishes them for just having new or casual players dropping on the same front.
This runs exactly contrary to the drives that motivate competitive players. They want an audience, they want to teach, they want to be challenged.
Solos and small groups have 0 reward for flipping worlds or coordinating with big units. Their only reward is individual match score and their only interaction with bigger units is generally direct competition, which they will usually lose. They have no development path - no way to improve their situation except abandoning their friends, leaving what they currently enjoy in the game to join big units and do to others what they did not like having done to them.
This runs exactly against the motivation of solos and small units who want to steadily improve, feel rewarded for their efforts and have something new to work for. They do not want to feel like their main enemy is someone they can never beat without becoming.
So FW is broken and additional content won't fix it.
You need rewards to scale with your opponent relative to yourself - this rewards not just hard fights but a great unit in an 8man with 4 pugs vs a 12man would pay better than the same match 12v12. Every solo who helps flip a planet is rewarded when it flips so cooperation with units gets his biggest payout. Small units are rewarded commensurate to their effort so if they lift 2 tons and the big unit lifts 12 tons they still get a 2 ton reward instead of the current reward of nothing. Indeed; by working with the big unit they can earn bigger rewards than they can alone.
Without that FW is pretty well ******. Either everyone needs to join big units, we need to write solo players off completely and churn new content fast enough to keep people entertained or we need to reward big units and great players commensurate to their success and effort and share that reward scale down to small units and solos.
#10
-
-
- 2,980 posts
Member
- LocationVancouver, BC
Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:54 PM
Just want to suggest, Sader... instead of inviting another commander of a top ranked team, as you have already done multiple times... seek out a solo player that might have just started Faction Warfare this patch and get their thoughts. Why have they waited this long? Do these changes work for them? Anything they would change after a week of experience? You could probably get a new perspective as to the motivations of a lone wolf and figure out some underlying issues at the same time.
#11
-
-
- The Sureshot
- 387 posts
Member
Posted 24 April 2016 - 07:43 PM
On steering players to Units: when I started looking into getting better at FW, the faction that appealed to me the most was the FRR because they had that thread for a unified drop deck. It made sense to me, and I was for it. The issue is not every faction has a Mech the Dane or a MischifSC(donno who he is really but he posts a lot) to rally people to the FACTION and give them advice, builds, dropdecks, TRAINING.
Also, yes, we were able to defend a Steiner planet against Jade Falcon. We went over there looking for a fight because the wolves seemed to only want to scout.
Also, yes, we were able to defend a Steiner planet against Jade Falcon. We went over there looking for a fight because the wolves seemed to only want to scout.
Edited by Starbomber109, 24 April 2016 - 07:44 PM.
#12
-
-
- Rage
- 239 posts
Member
- LocationBethlehem, PA
Posted 24 April 2016 - 11:08 PM
http://bit.ly/1VHJh3o - 4v4 Scouting Deck
http://bit.ly/22x07G3 - IS CW Drop Deck List
http://bit.ly/1VH46uf - Clan Drop Deck
http://bit.ly/1Vm0KOz - MS Settings Guide
http://bit.ly/1Pa3XeA - kin3ticX Guide to MWO
http://bit.ly/22x07G3 - IS CW Drop Deck List
http://bit.ly/1VH46uf - Clan Drop Deck
http://bit.ly/1Vm0KOz - MS Settings Guide
http://bit.ly/1Pa3XeA - kin3ticX Guide to MWO
#13
-
-
- Stone Cold
- 117 posts
Member
- LocationSydney, Australia
Posted 25 April 2016 - 04:06 AM
Hi,
Watched some of the vid but 1 1/2 hrs. is a little too long. It was however quite interesting. There are certainly a lot of thoughts bubbling around my head..
As a preamble I will state that I used to be in guilds, corporations etc. (depending on the game). I raided, I paid my dues but as I got older and discovered commitments outside gaming, I found that being a part-time player and being in a guild server neither party and so when I decided to play MWO I made the decision to not join a clan.
To my mind, CW3 is a culmination of bad game mechanics, poor communication, a lack of understanding of the IP and human nature. What we have frustrates everyone and is acceptable to no-one.
The IP is niche. It was never going to attract the number of players as Eve or WarThunder so to my mind it was always imperative to not split queues.. but they did. First into 2 game modes, then into 3 servers and now solo group with CW. Prime time US/Europe might support this but not other times / servers. As a solo player, I have pledged loyalty to Clan Wolf and haven't seen a single person online (Oceania servers). The logical solution is to remove the quick play option. Have everything within CW. A solo queue with missions, the success/failure of which has a tiny effect on the campaign and large scale warfare. You have to give the maximum number of options to the maximum numbers of players. This doesn't.
So where do you start with the poor game mechanics.. No repair & resupply, no collisions, no faction uniqueness, minimal game modes, minimal mech development (mastery). All of these are vitally important if you are to have viable inclusive CW. The problem is that the community needs to drive this. Rather than puerile bitching, the merc units need to engage with PGI constructively and PGI needs to listen.
Communication is the bane of PGI.. I was not a founder but started to play the moment it was possible - over 3 years now. I feel that the community is not listened to. The PGI forums need to be the main source of communication not staff members twitter, not webcasts and PGI needs to realise the this game is not just about merc units and they should reach out to casual players. The Merc units also need to understand that if they want to have a viable game, they have to communicate on behalf of the silent majority. What struck me more than anything listening to the video was just how whiny, smug and self absorbed people sounded. It was about me me me which leads to the last point - human nature
To make an analogy, the Merc Units are a microcosm of 21st century capitalism - as small enterprises competing the system works but as they scale up, as they reach cartel & monopoly size, the lack of competition and the ability to manipulate damages the whole system. This is the problem that all MMO's have - look at Eve, look at Merc Star here. The result is either the community self regulates or rules/conditions are introduced to the detriment of all. At the moment, the Merc Units are unwilling to self regulate and CW3 is in part a response to this. For me the reward system is one of the most obvious consequences. Offering MC to hold systems is a terrible idea.. it's denying PGI revenue. Solo players get next to nothing so much so that when combined with the long waits, it just not worth playing. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend time fighting for a system only to see the merc unit players get all the benefits..
I've got other thoughts floating around but it's been a long day at work... Hopefully others can pick up the theme for a sensible discussion
W
"Nil mortifi sine lucre"
Watched some of the vid but 1 1/2 hrs. is a little too long. It was however quite interesting. There are certainly a lot of thoughts bubbling around my head..
As a preamble I will state that I used to be in guilds, corporations etc. (depending on the game). I raided, I paid my dues but as I got older and discovered commitments outside gaming, I found that being a part-time player and being in a guild server neither party and so when I decided to play MWO I made the decision to not join a clan.
To my mind, CW3 is a culmination of bad game mechanics, poor communication, a lack of understanding of the IP and human nature. What we have frustrates everyone and is acceptable to no-one.
The IP is niche. It was never going to attract the number of players as Eve or WarThunder so to my mind it was always imperative to not split queues.. but they did. First into 2 game modes, then into 3 servers and now solo group with CW. Prime time US/Europe might support this but not other times / servers. As a solo player, I have pledged loyalty to Clan Wolf and haven't seen a single person online (Oceania servers). The logical solution is to remove the quick play option. Have everything within CW. A solo queue with missions, the success/failure of which has a tiny effect on the campaign and large scale warfare. You have to give the maximum number of options to the maximum numbers of players. This doesn't.
So where do you start with the poor game mechanics.. No repair & resupply, no collisions, no faction uniqueness, minimal game modes, minimal mech development (mastery). All of these are vitally important if you are to have viable inclusive CW. The problem is that the community needs to drive this. Rather than puerile bitching, the merc units need to engage with PGI constructively and PGI needs to listen.
Communication is the bane of PGI.. I was not a founder but started to play the moment it was possible - over 3 years now. I feel that the community is not listened to. The PGI forums need to be the main source of communication not staff members twitter, not webcasts and PGI needs to realise the this game is not just about merc units and they should reach out to casual players. The Merc units also need to understand that if they want to have a viable game, they have to communicate on behalf of the silent majority. What struck me more than anything listening to the video was just how whiny, smug and self absorbed people sounded. It was about me me me which leads to the last point - human nature
To make an analogy, the Merc Units are a microcosm of 21st century capitalism - as small enterprises competing the system works but as they scale up, as they reach cartel & monopoly size, the lack of competition and the ability to manipulate damages the whole system. This is the problem that all MMO's have - look at Eve, look at Merc Star here. The result is either the community self regulates or rules/conditions are introduced to the detriment of all. At the moment, the Merc Units are unwilling to self regulate and CW3 is in part a response to this. For me the reward system is one of the most obvious consequences. Offering MC to hold systems is a terrible idea.. it's denying PGI revenue. Solo players get next to nothing so much so that when combined with the long waits, it just not worth playing. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend time fighting for a system only to see the merc unit players get all the benefits..
I've got other thoughts floating around but it's been a long day at work... Hopefully others can pick up the theme for a sensible discussion
W
"Nil mortifi sine lucre"
Edited by Batch1972, 25 April 2016 - 04:08 AM.
#14
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 1,331 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 25 April 2016 - 05:25 AM
In as much as this will piss off merc units... I think only loyalist units should hold planets. Increase the merc lp points to compensate.
It doesnt male sence that someone whos loyalty is bought can hold any planets.
It doesnt male sence that someone whos loyalty is bought can hold any planets.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
