116 replies to this topic

[GenghisJr]

Agree mostly with the OP, i thought handing out a few more mechbays with perhaps a locked mech to encourage skilling up of a particular chassis would be a way to encourage people. I think the pug queue should be the priority for game play as thats where the new people come from

[Dredger]

Deathlike, on 02 August 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

Lore isn't an overwhelming reason for things... it's just an added cool factor for people that care.

But that's my entire point! If we estimate, there is at least 1/4 of the gamer population that does care. The Explorers that need the game's environment and timeline fleshed out, otherwise it's just another stale shoot-em-up. That's a pretty good chunk of gamers.

If you open up the game's options enough and let players actions actually affect things the way they want, Socializers will start creating their own content and their clans will follow. They just need the freedom. Sure, more content never hurts, but sometimes players are better at creating their own universe than having one dictated to them.

[Bud Crue]

Mystere, on 02 August 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

If they're so afraid of taking risks, then they should have never talked about Community Warfare in the first place and should have just shut up. As such, I think the founders have every right to constantly roast them over a hot burning fire.

I'm no founder, but I think everyone has that right. From my perspective: I only came to the game after hearing that CW had finally become a reality, and then gladly threw gobs of $ at PGI. Then phase 3 happened (among other things) and my days of joy and foolish white knighting came crashing down. So roast away founders, roast away.

[Tarogato]

I like the thought and perspective you put into this. A lot more than most people, and genuinely insightful.

But you failed at the one real things that most people fail at: suggesting fake solutions with no substance like "figure out Faction Play". How? How do you fix it? lol

And I agree with a lot of what you say, but not all of it. Three mechbays definitely not enough. Try ... five or maybe six. Maybe as part of the Achievements system (which needs a major overhaul, mind you) in places where they can earn them relatively early on. But I can't get behind 10v10 solaris instead of quickplay. It's basically the same thing (except for FFA), so I think quickplay should stay the way it is and Solaris should be a weekly rotation of FFA, 1v1, 4v4 (maybe 5v5 would be better, if my experience with Scouting gamemode is anything to go by), and 8v8 ranked teams.

I've never heard of Bartle Taxonomy before, but how you describe the four components... MWO appeals perfectly to all four for me. Perfectly. But the problem is... I am a little more resourceful and ambitious than most people. Delving into stats and leaderboards and such... there is a certain lack of ease of use. You have to manage a lot on your own and it's just way beyond the patience of most people. PGI needs to consolidate and improve stats, and add additional functionality (such as how did I do last week compared to this week?). Same with the lore and whatnot. PGI should incorporate Sarna into MWO somehow - so that if you want to learn about something in game, it will open up the page in Sarna for you and you don't have to go hunting it down yourself (as most people playing the game won't even know Sarna exists or have half an idea of what Battletech is all about).

Edited by Tarogato, 02 August 2016 - 04:27 PM.

[Dredger]

GenghisJr, on 02 August 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

i thought handing out a few more mechbays with perhaps a locked mech to encourage skilling up of a particular chassis would be a way to encourage people.

That is a great idea! It's not a handout, but it's attainable. Awesome.

[Cy Mitchell]

Deathlike, on 02 August 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

I don't think that's a great solution... not that you can't do it that way, but more of the same isn't exactly going to keep things magically more interesting.

That'll happen on its own - like Phase 1. The problem was that the interest in Phase 2 and 3 decreased due to lack of variety. These things will naturally occur as the mode stays interesting... but it's better if alliances can be made official.

I am not so sure about that. Quick play is fun. Or at least more fun than FP. That is why people play there. The only people who complain about the wait times that Russ is citing as the reason for reducing buckets is the people that already play FP. The people that left FP to play QP just enjoy the variety of maps and modes more than the oneness of FP.

I will speak from my own perspective because that is the only one I truly know. I will not play FP in its present state. I will not play FP with reduced buckets. I will play FP if it is the same as QP with the excepting of the matches meaning something or counting towards obtaining some ultimate goal. I will play FP if it is better and more interesting than QP. I will play FP if it is a combination of all the things that are available in QP and in FP. For me the scope of FP is simply too narrow and too repetitive. Add in some QP modes to the planetary conquest, some logistics and a touch of lore that makes the taking of planets mean something in the grand scheme of things and you got me. I will be there.

Fail in that and I will stay in QP where I will be 70% satisfied with the game.

[Dredger]

Tarogato, on 02 August 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

But I can't get behind 10v10 solaris instead of quickplay. It's basically the same thing (except for FFA).

WAIT! No, that's a misunderstanding. It wouldn't be 10 vs 10. I was suggesting no more than 10 players MAX. Free-for-All and King-of-the-Hill would have no teams. CTF and Team Deathmatch would be 5 vs 5.

At least, that's how I imagined it.

[LordNothing]

i dont know why people think that bucket reduction will help population. fewer buckets only lets you make more efficient use of the players we have. it by itself cannot fix the problem, but thats no reason not to do it. idk what pgi was thinking when they made so many buckets in the first place. its as if pgi possess an absurdly large amount unhealthy optimism that totally blinds them to the fact that things they design might completely backfire. a real engineer considers failure modes and creates systems to mitigate those.

that said a lot of these mile long tldr posts are trying to design a whole new game and we all know that pgi doesnt like broad, far reaching plans. they like to get the most result out of the least effort. who writes one of those and thinks anyone is going to actually do it. if they do buckets, tug of war, and solve pug funnel. they might stop bleeding out players. but if they want to bring in new players the only answer is content. a lot of content. a new game mode, and maps to go with it. there is no easy way out.

Edited by LordNothing, 02 August 2016 - 04:29 PM.

[Dredger]

Rampage, on 02 August 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

I will play FP if it is the same as QP with the excepting of the matches meaning something or counting towards obtaining some ultimate goal. I will play FP if it is better and more interesting than QP. I will play FP if it is a combination of all the things that are available in QP and in FP.

Add in some QP modes to the planetary conquest, some logistics and a touch of lore that makes the taking of planets mean something in the grand scheme of things and you got me. I will be there.

Bingo. You are saying exactly what I am, but better.

[Tarogato]

Dredger, on 02 August 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

WAIT! No, that's a misunderstanding. It wouldn't be 10 vs 10. I was suggesting no more than 10 players MAX. Free-for-All and King-of-the-Hill would have no teams. CTF and Team Deathmatch would be 5 vs 5.

At least, that's how I imagined it.

Ahhhh, right. But still... my vision is that 12v12 solo queue is still what it is, and Solaris rotates weekly or semi-weekly between different modes to appeal to all audiences, including something like a 5v5 and a 10vA Free for all.

But how boring would this game be if we all perfectly agreed on how things *should* be? =P

[Deathlike]

Rampage, on 02 August 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

I am not so sure about that. Quick play is fun. Or at least more fun than FP. That is why people play there. The only people who complain about the wait times that Russ is citing as the reason for reducing buckets is the people that already play FP. The people that left FP to play QP just enjoy the variety of maps and modes more than the oneness of FP.

I will speak from my own perspective because that is the only one I truly know. I will not play FP in its present state. I will not play FP with reduced buckets. I will play FP if it is the same as QP with the excepting of the matches meaning something or counting towards obtaining some ultimate goal. I will play FP if it is better and more interesting than QP. I will play FP if it is a combination of all the things that are available in QP and in FP. For me the scope of FP is simply too narrow and too repetitive. Add in some QP modes to the planetary conquest, some logistics and a touch of lore that makes the taking of planets mean something in the grand scheme of things and you got me. I will be there.

Fail in that and I will stay in QP where I will be 70% satisfied with the game.

QP is just "another mode" to me. FP is a commitment of my time for one mode (well technically two). Making QP matches into FP would just bore me further. Variety isn't just about "QP with respawns". That's the core issue.

[Dredger]

LordNothing, on 02 August 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

that said a lot of these mile long tldr posts are trying to design a whole new game.

Well, not really in this case. I'm simply advocating recycling Quick Play content into Faction Warfare to beef it up and flesh it out (more maps, varied missions, player-dictated alliances), and replacing Quick Play with a ranked Solaris Vii battle arena.

That way you don't have two identical game modes vying for the same attention.

Edited by Dredger, 02 August 2016 - 04:37 PM.

[oldradagast]

Well reasoned arguments, and just ignore the doltish replies from people who dislike posts more complicated than "everything suck!"

Sadly, at the point where things are in MWO, I don't see much of anything changing. There are so many relatively easy fixes for problems that could be implemented... and instead, we get more problems, like the Long Tom artillery, and so forth. At what point do folks just not get it?

I want to support this game, but I've got all the mechs I really need, with empty mech bays to spare. The gameplay is rather stagnant at this point, the meta is what it is (and is not really likely to change), so that leaves us with just doing the same thing over and over again. There's no much to explore anymore, socializing has faded away as many people go off to play other games, and beyond a certain level I've never cared about achievements in video games. So, that leaves us with killing stuff... which is fine, but it's not like MWO is the only game that provides that experience.

The game could be so much more than it is.

[adamts01]

That all makes sense, I like it. This game really only caters to the "killers". Of course we all like to shoot big stompy robots but the way in which I like to go about it rarely works. I used to like scouting around in my light, picking out a good target, planning my attack, then legging the poor *******, leaving him unable to keep up with his team so my wolves get him or I can come back and finish eating if I don't find another snack. It's like a game of chess. Now it's deathball or poking, and matches are usually well decided before my paced tactics have a chance to contribute. I've found my new home in Planetside 2, and after a week I've dropped more money on that game than the last 2 years of MWO. My current favorite is a fighter with scout radar and anti-infantry nose gun with thermal optics. I provide radar coverage for larger engagements and spend the rest of my time patrolling the front lines looking for flanking snipers or engineers laying tank mines. I scout out enemy armor convoys and spawn points for my team. I'm fast and can bug out instantly if an A2A fighter shows up. It's everything I wanted light mechs to be in MWO. I'm TR on the US West Coast if anyone wants to group up for some flying.

[Mister Blastman]

Dredger, on 02 August 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

Sadly, I wouldn't know where to begin. I am no author.

Well I am--the long winded novelist kind (for real). Honestly you could improve the amount of folks who read it if you try what I suggested. It seems like you have important ideas and are trying to be constructive, but they're buried and hard to find due to the mound of dirt that lies between them and your opening sentence.

[Dredger]

oldradagast, on 02 August 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

So, that leaves us with killing stuff... which is fine, but it's not like MWO is the only game that provides that experience.

And that is the catch. A game cannot survive with only Killers as the population. Why? Because while Killers don't like dying, they rarely provide the same reaction as Achievers, who absolutely loathe being killed. A game with only Killers left is doomed to die as there is nothing left but monotonous, soulless killing that provides no joy.

It works like this. Explorers contribute to the Killers experience by providing new ideas for combat, equipment combinations, and exploitation. Socializers provide the framework and structure that gives the Killers purpose. And Achievers are just plain old fun targets that get really mad when you interrupt their high-score attempt.

Edited by Dredger, 02 August 2016 - 04:54 PM.

[Jon McFuzzy]

Good analysis and good constructive ideas (except that the title needs to change).

The players' characteristics are probably dynamic and can be a combination of the four types, but we may have stronger tendency over one than the others.

What you have pointed out makes sense, as in marketing world, company definitely needs to understand their Target Market and Segmentation (i.e. players characteristics and grouping), how do they want to positioned their product (give appealing reasons why their customers should use their product/play the game), and the differentiating factor of the product they offer (uniqueness in comparison with competitors - if any).

On top of that, you also offer other marketing concepts such as co-creation (where customers are able to actively contribute to the end product) - customers/players can be a great source of innovation as well!

Furthermore, you'll know you have a very successful product when the customers/players are happily promote the game to other people. When they Don't, there will be a valid question for the product.

I bet PGI (especially their Marketing folks) understand all of these, simply because these are the theories that we've all learnt in school and they are proven recipe for success.

Now - to drive change, you'll need at least 3C - Customers, Company and Competitor. Not aware of any other mech-based game in the market, so the lack of competitor can be a barrier.

That leaves us only with the voice of the customers - this needs to be quantified and be turned into a strategic action plan. Figure out how can Customers make a "statement" that the company will notice and listen. We have unit leaders that can organize their members to fill up elaborated questionnaires, surveys, polls.

Just my two cents - feel free to ignore if it is a waste of your time

[Dredger]

Mister Blastman, on 02 August 2016 - 04:39 PM, said:

Honestly you could improve the amount of folks who read it if you try what I suggested.

I was always bad at writing essays... Would it work just as well if I removed the current TL;DR and put an actual one right where I start talking about what each type of gamer needs (the fixes)?

[Dredger]

Jon McFuzzy, on 02 August 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

Now - to drive change, you'll need at least 3C - Customers, Company and Competitor. Not aware of any other mech-based game in the market, so the lack of competitor can be a barrier.

That leaves us only with the voice of the customers - this needs to be quantified and be turned into a strategic action plan. Figure out how can Customers make a "statement" that the company will notice and listen. We have unit leaders that can organize their members to fill up elaborated questionnaires, surveys, polls.

Just my two cents - feel free to ignore if it is a waste of your time

I honestly think the framework presented from the Taxonomy is the unifying factor to all the different voices of discontent here on the forum. Not really sure how to go about what you're outlining but it sounds exciting.

Also, there may soon be a competator... maybe even as soon as 2017. Not FPS, but definitely same fictional universe.

Although quite a few people consider Hawken to be a competator. Heck, I have Hawken and so does my brother.

Edited by Dredger, 02 August 2016 - 05:24 PM.

[Koniving]

Idealsuspect, on 02 August 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Didnt read all but plz man.. go play COD and bye.

Revis Volek, on 02 August 2016 - 02:03 PM, said:

No one has time to make it through your insane wall of text to find your m. knight shamalayn ending.


Sorry, hiding important info in a wall of useless text and under click bait titles is the definition of trolling and on some boards and forums would even warrant moderation.

Video form of what Dredger was trying to get across:

It'll let you slip past about 70% of that wall of text.

Without ruining your enjoyment of the great things that were trying to be said.