197 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

The line of thought involving Steam players saving this game was misplaced idealism.

The average user burns through F2P games.

Welcome to F2P games.

The new player turnover in MWO is likely the same as the new player turnover in other F2P titles. I do it, my friends do it, everyone does it. For every F2P game I actually put money towards vs the ones I uninstall after within an hour of logging in the first time is about one in twelve.

Various reasons why I uninstall so fast:
-poor UI
-poor gameplay
-poor community
-long grind
-constant "pay now" adverts

What's likely crippling the Steam userbase and why they're uninstalling to never come back:
-poor UI
-poor community
-long grind

I bolded long grind in particular. I have three alts. I never play on them because I'd need to play on them for WEEKS to get anywhere in particular compared to the alternative games, where it's mere days.

[Accused]

There are several reasons, all the above sort of scenario.

You have to make the game accessable so new players don't get slaughtered right out the gate. A personalized pilot with his own skill sets, an in-depth tutorial followed by a single player campaign which leads into solo que then CW. From there they should find lots of rewards waiting for them when they get there.

Going to stop there actually. There really are lots of reasons to not stick around lol.

[El Bandito]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 24 April 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

What's likely crippling the Steam userbase and why they're uninstalling to never come back:
-poor UI
-poor community
-long grind

I bolded long grind in particular. I have three alts. I never play on them because I'd need to play on them for WEEKS to get anywhere in particular compared to the alternative games, where it's mere days.

1. The UI leaves things to be desired but it is not that bad.

2. MWO Community is leagues above other popular F2P game community. I'm shocked that a Founder actually says such things.

3. The grind is there, yes. And I did point that out in multiple threads. For experienced players, the grind is just fine, but for newbies, it is an issue. Especially since some newbies are unlucky enough to be catapulted into T3, after a few lucky games due to the PSR system.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 April 2016 - 08:23 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Accused, on 24 April 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

There are several reasons, all the above sort of scenario.

You have to make the game accessable so new players don't get slaughtered right out the gate. A personalized pilot with his own skill sets, an in-depth tutorial followed by a single player campaign which leads into solo que then CW. From there they should find lots of rewards waiting for them when they get there.

Going to stop there actually. There really are lots of reasons to not stick around lol.

Yep I think the tutorial is mediocre at best also. I also think its a prototype and is why I havnt been complaining about it. I am almost sure it would have its own map in a completed state as well as being faction specific.

There is a game called MechWarrior Online and the introduction to this game is really really bad. At the moment.

Edited by Johnny Z, 24 April 2016 - 08:06 PM.

[Khobai]

I agree time to kill is still a problem. IMO the best stopgap solution is to make quickplay 8v8 instead instead of 12v12. That would improve TTK dramatically. Only CW should be 12v12.

As a long term goal, the game also needs to implement stronger role warfare. We need info/sensor warfare and we need command/support to play a bigger role in the game. There should be more to winning than just doing straightup damage. And every weight class needs to bring something crucial to the table instead of heavies being outright better than everything.

Theres definitely a demand on steam for a shooter game that has depth to it. But right now this game is still barely more than call of duty with mechs. It still doesnt feel like battletech or a thinking man's shooter.

Edited by Khobai, 24 April 2016 - 08:42 PM.

[Wibbledtodeath]

2 main reasons for player attrition (steam and otherwise):

- Learning curve (not much you can do re this without dumbing the game down- the UI is much improved now, some basic training etc. maybe starting with a modifiable mech would help, or eliminating ghost heat which baffles the mind). But its a niche game- you will lose some.

- Lack of content. EA proved with Battlefront that it is not pretty that retains (or loses) players, its content.
If PGI concentrated on getting 1 game mode out a month (along with its 1 mech a month) they may sell more and retain players. Grind would not seem so onerous then also. Its frustrating, because I am not talking big super fancy UI intensive- need lots more assets -game modes (although they are nice to have occasionally to add to the mix). Anything different will do. 8v8, 4v4 12v10, - BAM things are different. Tonnage restriction: BAM things are different. Random dropzones: BAM things are different. Dropdeck availability/limited respawn: BAM things are different. ITS NOT THAT HARD. x that by number of maps and other easily tuneable metrics and you get heaps of variety (seriously: player count options x base gamemode/objective x deck size x maps x spawn locations etc adds up to serious variety with little coding required). Instead, PGI seem to dither around trying to work out systems to limit options. Ghost drops are a classic example of this rigid game design thinking- can having a 6v6 "spoils of war" game mode to give the people who waited 10 mins for a game SOMETHING to fight against really have been that much harder than coding the utterly pointless and insulting ghost drops we get now? Not likely. can even use the same game mode and map.

Get enough game modes, then you can string them into campaigns/CW etc. But you need variety in the base game modes- cause that's what we will be doing 99% of the time. And bring back legacy map assets for private games FFS- work is already done, community wants it. make it happen.

You have a great base game PGI- it really is much better balanced than so many much simpler shooters. Just give us content dam it!

/end rant.

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 24 April 2016 - 08:40 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

MadcatX, on 24 April 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

Like any game, PvP experience may vary. So far the majority of my DS3 PvP I've seen are f'ing annoying cheeze builds that hit faster then your poise can effectively take until you die.

Hehe poise. You're using a shield...

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 23 April 2016 - 11:21 PM, said:

Yes and the Battle of Tukayyid is something that in real life would NEVER ******* HAPPEN. Honestly Clan bidding and **** like that is the most unrealistic military strategy put to paper. Seriously... if you have the tech to conquer an enemy... IN REAL LIFE YOU'D JUST LAY WAIST TO THEM.

Also in Community warfare what happens when they drop on top of each other? The ones being dropped always die. Even with the stupid dropships.

Also this takes place in the future. I am sure accuracy has improved seeing as how they now have neural technology that can give a battlemech the pilot's sense of balance.

Repeat after me. "Real life logic does not translate into Battletech, or MechWarrior fiction. It's 80's scifi logic Real Life Logic Does Not Translate into Battletech or MechWarrior Fiction. It's 80's Scifi Logic."

Just keep repeating that to yourself till you figure it out. Yes, people in battletech's future are stupid... BECAUSE the entire point is that these mech jocks are basically knight's with Ego's that put the top EPEEN chasers in this game to shame.

Also, no, Battletech technology is not better than what we currently have, targeting computers are **** because of constant war and battle and destruction destroying the manufacturing capacity of the Inner Sphere to the point they're only keeping Battlemechs running with Ducttape and Bailing Wire.

Then you look at the clanners and they're all inbred, scientifically generated clones that work on a system of "Might Makes right... BUT you've totally got to follow proper rules." It's why their tech is better, but their tactics are crap, because their entire society is based on curbing collateral damage as much as they can.

Again... stop trying to apply "Real World" logic to 80's Scifi stompy bots... it's just going to be a bad time.

[LoveWisdom]

what this game needs is an ingame community chat (which every online game has but for some reason MWO doesn't) so new players can ask for advice without having to do it during matches or visiting the forum.

I mean, how hard can it be to incorporate a chat into the game?

[TyphonCh]

LoveWisdom, on 24 April 2016 - 10:03 PM, said:

what this game needs is an ingame community chat (which every online game has but for some reason MWO doesn't) so new players can ask for advice without having to do it during matches or visiting the forum.

I mean, how hard can it be to incorporate a chat into the game?

From what I understand there was supposed to be 'Faction Hubs' so players in each faction can have a global chat, chat lobby's, and form groups
That would be awesome.

[Satan n stuff]

Boogie138, on 24 April 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

Citation for loss of steam players?

Honest question
No anecdotal BS please.

Looks stable to me.
http://steamspy.com/app/342200

[DovisKhan]

You're looking at this too hard


Steam games always havea huge spike on release and drop most of the playerbase within a year or sooner


You should expect to retain ~20-25% initial amount gained, it's evaluated at "very positive", meaning it met expectations of most who played it

Edited by DovisKhan, 25 April 2016 - 12:33 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

It's very simple the average steam player doesn't want a difficult game.

Found a game on a subject matter I really liked this weekend, saw it was on steam, and down loaded it, its a great looking game and it's just what I've wanted, however with the way my game time is these days I simply haven't got hours and hours to learn to play it, and you need hours just to get the basic's right let alone combat, and with only combat games to 'learn' in, there is zero chance I can devote time to it.
Ergo I'm not going to be playing it, which is a shame

[Dino Might]

Mister Blastman, on 24 April 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

It isn't.

To come close it must live up to standards this high:



F4 has endured almost two decades and continues to get better and better. When you say best, you must properly acknowledge the real best so you know how high the bar is to climb. Anything else is hyperbole.

Blast, I've probably asked you before, but do you play any DCS? I'm always looking to hook up another flight night with people who are interested in that sim. I don't own Falcon BMS - never played it - so I can't compare the two, but DCS is a free sandbox with the planes being what you buy for it - expensive, but a lot of the aircraft are extremely high quality flight and systems models. DCS comes free with the basic SU-25 model that you can play in multiplayer - pretty fun for SEAD missions. I got myself into it and picked up the A-10C, Mirage, and the FC3 pack that includes SU-27, F-15, and Mig29. There are sales a few times per year where the modules are up to 50% off. It's definitely worth a look if you like flight sims. I'm on it all the time, but without too many regulars I know who play it, I usually putt around with the A-10C trying to hit tanks or ships with Mk82s.

[jozkhan]

I would say the 'perfect' Free to Play game would be 'designed to be fun' so when the players are having fun they are happy to pay some money.

MWO is 'designed to take money' which if you pay up front before you get 'your fun' leaves a bad taste, or you really have to find your own fun and with this UI as it is now good luck with that.

Something was very wrong from the start when really hardcore Battletech and mechwarrior players took one look and noped right out. I know people who are huge pc gamers and huge battletech fans and they just will not touch MWO at all and this goes back to the 'good ole days' of open beta!

I mean I played since open beta and am one of those players who comes back every 4-6 months on a supposedly gameplay upgrade and well the UI is horrific now for Faction Warfare specifically. And I'm a veteran player, I can only imagine what it must be like for a nub. My friendslist is dead filled with people I know bought pack after pack - even the sunk cost fallacy isnt enough to bring them back anymore.

Between the horrific mystery UI and the queue times and sheer stagnation, then of course people wont come back.

[2fast2stompy]

Mister Blastman, on 24 April 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Sorry, it isn't hyperbole. It's truthful retelling of what actually happens. I know it hurts, but it will be okay. MWO isn't the golden pinnacle of perfection some here desperately imagine it to be.

Nice arguments, clearly I am emotionally shaken at your clever statements.

And yes, it is hyperbole. By definition.

[RussianWolf]

Took a brawler Mauler out last night. 2 AC20s and 2 SRM6s. We drew Canyon and got the north side.

Teams started trading long range over the center. I can't do anything there, so I move to the left flank and watch for a flank through the kappa corner. Sure enough, here comes a lance. They found out the hard way that I was set up for the up close and personal fight. I died to the 4th, but took the other 3 out and gave my team enough time to deal with the rest.

Edited by RussianWolf, 25 April 2016 - 05:57 AM.

[Damia Savon]

Aresye, on 23 April 2016 - 11:53 PM, said:

Then get yourself a team and brawl, because that's the only time brawling actually works.

The reason people sit back and poke isn't because the game is designed that way. Brawling is actually a more successful and used tactic in high end competitive play.

No, the reason people sit back and play mid-long range poking is because most players in this game have no idea how to work as a team.

Want a thinking man's shooter? Want intense, in your face brawling action like that video? Play comp.

Expecting 12 strangers to work as a team is just silly. I think people can work as a team but really just don't trust the other players.

[Lily from animove]

real reason: its for free, a lot test it when it hits steam, many leave it as it is with nearly every other f2p on steam.

[Mister Blastman]

Dino Might, on 25 April 2016 - 02:32 AM, said:

Blast, I've probably asked you before, but do you play any DCS? I'm always looking to hook up another flight night with people who are interested in that sim. I don't own Falcon BMS - never played it - so I can't compare the two, but DCS is a free sandbox with the planes being what you buy for it - expensive, but a lot of the aircraft are extremely high quality flight and systems models. DCS comes free with the basic SU-25 model that you can play in multiplayer - pretty fun for SEAD missions. I got myself into it and picked up the A-10C, Mirage, and the FC3 pack that includes SU-27, F-15, and Mig29. There are sales a few times per year where the modules are up to 50% off. It's definitely worth a look if you like flight sims. I'm on it all the time, but without too many regulars I know who play it, I usually putt around with the A-10C trying to hit tanks or ships with Mk82s.

I do--though not nearly as much as Falcon. I've got tons of hours seat-time in the virtual viper. The dynamic campaign is like nothing else in simming and the theater breathes as if it is alive. A typical session of Falcon involves connecting to a host who is running a campaign--be it another player or a 24/7 persistent campaign server (I believe we've had 30 - 60 players online simultaneously in persistent campaigns... you can join and leave whenever you wish and some folks hang around to play awacs/jstars).

Falcon is easy to get into--for ten dollars you can buy the Falcon collection at GoG and it comes with vanilla F4. From there you just install it, then download BMS 4.33 Update 1, install and you're off.

One time ten dollar purchase and it comes with multiple other aircraft such as the Viggen, Mirage, Tornado, A-10, Harrier, F-18C (I helped beta test that jet) and some other ones, each with their own virtual clickable cockpits, etc. and the viper flight model itself is the most advanced in any consumer sim (they got ahold of the real NASA sim or who knows what but it is incredible).

https://www.gog.com/...lcon_collection

There's nothing else like Falcon--it goes far beyond the jet, the entire theater is alive and ever changing. No two missions are ever the same and I can still say this after flying it for almost two decades. It isn't random--it is dynamically modeled with two factions warring, air, ground and sea units/bases/lines/logistics/supply are all modeled.

Okay, done selling Falcon.

As for DCS--I own the A10C and the two Black Shark modules as well as the SU-25 basic. DCS is great, I will fire it up just to fly around and enjoy the feel of the plane and the graphics are pretty nice, too. The sense of scale is what is most amazing in DCS, they've done a spectacular job with that. I've not flown much DCS online, however, and would love to try it sometime, though, with my writing/work schedule (final draft mode, six days a week 'til midnight), I don't have much time to commit to anything at the moment. When I do have some time I'd love to perhaps catch some flights with ya'll to see what it is all about.

I'm a huge sim nut, btw. I've been simming since 1987 and it started with Gunship, and since then have flown much everything there is out there.