215 replies to this topic

[FallingAce]

Ask yourself :
Where did all these players go?
How do you get them back?



Bonus question:
How long were the wait times with 1 bucket?

Edited by FallingAce, 09 September 2016 - 09:51 AM.

[AnTi90d]

That's a lot of pie..

..and a good point.

The derping One Bukkit Solution is going to make the CvsIS population imbalance quite obvious with wait times.

Isn't this something that the developers should know/remember?

[Count Zero74]

Who said anything about a One Bukkit Solution?

8 contested Planets per attack phase in a Tug-of-war system (as requested by players in the round table) that makes 4 bukkits if my math is right.

Edited by Count Zero74, 09 September 2016 - 10:11 AM.

[AnTi90d]

Four Clan planets vs four Inner Sphere planets, fought over in one tug-of-war bukkit.. winner takes all four of their opponent's planets.

[Revis Volek]

AnTi90d, on 09 September 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

Four Clan planets vs four Inner Sphere planets, fought over in one tug-of-war bukkit.. winner takes all four of their opponent's planets.

yes, and you dont pick the planet you queue for apparently, just jump into the bukkit with both feet and get tossed into a queue randomly from what i hear.

[FallingAce]

AnTi90d, on 09 September 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

That's a lot of pie..

..and a good point.

The derping One Bukkit Solution is going to make the CvsIS population imbalance quite obvious with wait times.

Isn't this something that the developers should know/remember?

Let's do the math
51 zones times 24 players =1224
14 attackers times 12 players =168
38 defenders times 12 players = 456
Total 1848 queued
Add in those that aren't queued or people that got tired of waiting and logged out

Let's call it 2,000 people.

Divide that by 10 = 200 players per faction (13 teams per faction)

Niche game? Small population? Not valid excuses.
Even at 1/4 this participation level, 4 teams per faction dropping at one time is a viable faction warfare.

[Count Zero74]

[AnTi90d]

Count Zero74, on 09 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

..Superman needs a Photoshopped lolrus head.

I was going to slap some lolrus bukkit pics together, but I need to go do the dishes..

Edited by AnTi90d, 09 September 2016 - 10:52 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

FallingAce, on 09 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Ask yourself :
Where did all these players go?
How do you get them back?



Bonus question:
How long were the wait times with 1 bucket?

Few day later 80% of them quit after fighting clan v IS over and over haha

[Count Zero74]

AnTi90d, on 09 September 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

..Superman needs a Photoshopped lolrus head.

I was going to slap some lolrus bukkit pics together, but I need to go do the dishes..

[meteorol]

FallingAce, on 09 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Ask yourself :
Where did all these players go?
How do you get them back?



Bonus question:
How long were the wait times with 1 bucket?

The vast majority of them never played CW on a regular basis. The event lured them to CW, and they left the very day it was over.

CW is done. PGI doesn't want, or isn't able to fix its core issue: Bad gameplay, horrid, utterly bad maps. They can slap as many bandaids on it as they want, but CW lost the biggest part of its playerbase simply because its core is bad. CW really started bleeding out like 2 weeks after its initial release, when the glitter was gone and people realized the core gameplay is actually sh*t.

Edited by meteorol, 09 September 2016 - 11:02 AM.

[MischiefSC]

meteorol, on 09 September 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

The vast majority of them never played CW on a regular basis. The event lured them to CW, and they left the very day it was over.

CW is done. PGI doesn't want, or isn't able to fix its core issue: Bad gameplay, horrid, utterly bad maps. They can slap as many bandaids on it as they want, but CW lost the biggest part of its playerbase simply because its core is bad. CW really started bleeding out like 2 weeks after its initial release, when the glitter was gone and people realized the core gameplay is actually sh*t.

Also lack of purpose. Where was the logistics? Where was hiring mercs for objectives? Where was strategic planet value?

All the things that provide the reason for engagement and being invested in who wins or loses.

Then you've got map/mode issues but as the "QP maps with respawns" shoes there's easier solutions to that.

The real issues, delivering on the meat of what CW was promised, that's why it failed.

I sell you a steak and potatoes dinner but provide you an uncooked potato, a box of cold butter and a coupon for 10% off your next order from Omaha Steaks plus a side of corn why am I surprised when you complain and don't come back?

Sure some people just wanted the side of corn and like baking their own potato and just re-gift the coupon. Good on them, to each their own. That still doesn't mean I actually delivered what I said I would.

Moot though. This is what they're willing and able to do, given a few years.

[Belkor]

I certainly hope they will give this questionable idea more thought before they waste more development time....

[Red Shrike]

FallingAce, on 09 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

How long were the wait times with 1 bucket?

The reason I left was never the wait times, and a wait time of mere seconds would not bring me back either.

[M A N T I S]

Bud Crue, on 08 September 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

I once wrote a post hypothesizing in a joking (sort of) way that the reason PGI has never bothered to include lore in the game or tried to incorporate more of a feeling of BT immersion into the CW mode was all part of a grand plan for PGI to stop paying for their licenses to the Mechwarrior IP and Battletech. After that pod cast I think it isn't such a joke anymore.

As it stands it would take very little to transition this game from "MechWarrior Online A BattleTech Game" to something like "Russ Bullock's Super Robot Shoot em up! A PGI Game." Make that transition fully and it would likely save PGI a bundle. So why not do it? That pod cast should have made clear to even the whitest of White Knights that BT and its cute little IS map and faction based lore is not a real big deal to PGI. PGI has made clear that this is to be a esport too, BT is baggage in an esport environment. So I am really am starting to think that is the goal here.

Here's the thing: the only aspect of BT that this game has are the names of the mechs (the current designs are the artistic creations of Alex and thus PGI) and the faction names and descriptions. We are on the verge of dumping the factions...or at least any reason to have the factions. So, just change the names from Davion and Liao to Player Group 1 and Player Group 2, etc. and what's really the impact on the game? Nothing. That leaves the mech names. Change Warhammer to ThunderArms, or something equally stupid; and finally take "BattleTech" off of the title logo and BT is gone not just in spirit but in fact. Once that is done no more need for a license to Topps for the "lore", which, lets be honest, is already absent from the game.

Furthermore I can see how mucking with the game play mechanisms (-cough- Energy Draw -cough-) and further emphasizing generic arena play, could provide an argument that the license to Microsoft for access to the Mechwarrior IP is also unnecessary. After all would the average consumer find anything in common between this game and previous Mechwarrior titles? Those titles had immersive environments, PvE, single player campaigns, etc. This game doesn't. Add all that to the aforementioned changed names of the mechs (I mean robots) and factions (I mean player buckets) and this game is an entirely different critter from being a MechWarrior game.

TLDR: So take heart, if I am right, this is all part of PGI's grand plan to avoid paying licensing fees. Alas, the only reason a lot of us play this game is because of those licenses or at least what they provide to the game.

They aren't planning to drop the BattleTech brand to save licensing costs. Let's get real here. Branding and brand association is what brings in new platers and retain old ones. It legitimizes and brings recognition to the product. Well worth the licensing costs, and they know it.

[Bud Crue]

M A N T I S, on 01 November 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

They aren't planning to drop the BattleTech brand to save licensing costs. Let's get real here. Branding and brand association is what brings in new platers and retain old ones. It legitimizes and brings recognition to the product. Well worth the licensing costs, and they know it.

Why not? I've read here and elsewhere that PGI paid something like 1.2 mil for the BT license and a bit more than that for MW. Anyone who was drawn to this game because of it's association with BT is either here already or was here and left or is just waiting for HBS's Battletech Game. Since PGI does not take advantage of the BT brand for creating an immersive game what value does it have for them? There is no economic value for them at this point particularly in light of what Russ has proposed to do with faction play. It isn't a draw to new players, it isn't keeping old players and PGI isn't interested in utilizing its lore or written content, so why pay for it?

Certainly Mechwarrior is more of a stretch, but even that would be doable. Though I admit MS is a bit more litigious so this would be riskier. But here too what value does the Mechwarrior name have at this point? People who wanted to play because this is a Mechwarrior affiliated title either already play or did so and left. New, younger players are not coming this late in the game because of the name. So, lose the mech names, argue the mech designs are a derivative work (they are), be really safe and rename the weapons too and call it Russ Bullock's Super Robot Smack Down, and call it good. Since the upcoming changes to faction play will eliminate any further need of the rest of the associated BT and MW content, with these changes the cord is cut to the background IP. Game play would not change, you would notice no difference, not would potential new players; and it would save PGI a couple million bucks. Besides, they've already made it clear that they don't want a MeachWarrior game, they want en esport. May a well do it, and save some cash along the way.




Spoiler: Both this response and the original comment you cited above were intended as pure snark. Do I really need to say that?

[M A N T I S]

Bud Crue, on 01 November 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

Spoiler: Both this response and the original comment you cited above were intended as pure snark. Do I really need to say that?

Apparently, yes.

[Bud Crue]

M A N T I S, on 01 November 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

Apparently, yes.

Sorry.
No I don't actually believe that they could get away with modifying the game to avoid the need for those licenses.
My theme of 'PGI may as well get rid of its association/license to the BT and MW IP' was intended as a snarky critique of PGI's failure to include much BT lore/flavor in the existing game, as well as their essential abandonment of it (by proxy) if/when they change CW in the manner that has been proposed by Russ. I'll try to be more blatant with my criticism in the future.

Edited by Bud Crue, 01 November 2016 - 09:32 AM.

[stocky0904]

Oh wow, i surely need a tinfoil hat! Now!

[TheLuc]

As long the game will stay an pvp arena shooter only, nothing will fix FP, most that are gone is for the fact that MWO is not a Mechwarrior game.