42 replies to this topic

[QuantumButler]

the real stupid thing is not letting you look around the map in training grounds.

[Nesutizale]

I can understand the "Servers cost money" argument. Still with the small player base that plays 1v1 I could imagne that they would still fit on the current servers but since we don't have any numbers....

From a "marketing" point of view I would still make it more accessible to the general public.
Give new people an easy starting point. One on one, then the proceed to the QP team matches and finaly they can do factionplay...or not. Whatever

As for Solaris....if I wanted, as a company, to see if people are interested in this new mode, maybe I could open one map for free to see if its worth to poor in all the extra time/money and work to create a new mode and maps.

Then IF Solaris is worth creating, a free map could serve as a entry point for people who want to try out the new mode.
Everything extra can be Primetime exclusive.
For example a leaderbord, the option to participate in or create tournaments.

Ahhh I am still dreaming of a full Solaris mode where you have your own Mech stable to manage. A complete seperate part from QP and FW. Kinda like a new account. With its own tournaments, leaderbords, its own lobby where people can leave requests for fights for everyone to see and other stuff. I think you get the idea
I could see me paying for that with premium time.

[Nesutizale]

Quote

but i have no problem with pgi restricting players to a number of duals you can play per day. i think maybe 5 is a good number. if you want to play more than 5 duals a day fine then buy a block of premium time or maybe 5 mc per game. you could also sell arena passes. but i would expect this to come with a lobby so duelers can queue up and not have to seek eachother out. pgi could even turn a profit.

The idea of a fixed number of free games is also a good compromise. I would even support an "Arena pass" or small MC fee for using the Arena.
A much more importend thing you mentioned is a Lobby for duelesrs. Thats definitly something this mode need.

[MadcatX]

The Lobsters, on 27 December 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

There is not enough premium only content in this game imo. There is plenty for the play4free bus w@nkers to do, subsidised by the paying players I might add.
I'd make forum access a premium feature. That's another way of saying make whining and feeling entitled a premium privilege.

The most important content to this game, to any MP game, are said "play4free bus w@nkers". Sure they may not contribute financially, but they do keep the queue times down for several game modes if anything. I'm not saying they're entitled to anything but I don't think they should get stuck behind a solid paywall. I'm thinking the 5 duals a day is a good compromise, it creates a limitation but not an outright paywall.

[The Lobsters]

The 1v1 could be much better implemented, with some good suggestions in this thread. Premium time is very underdeveloped by PGI. It just sits there as an afterthought, which is a shame as it could really drive new content, better fund mwo and build a stronger contract with the company and the players.

I do appreciate that the playin4free guys bring content and as a shameless socialist believe in the good provision of the basics. I do think though, that paying a 'subscription' shows my belief and support of the game, and PGI can afford me access to less profitable game modes. Just buying a mechpack gets you the mechs forever and helps fund new designs. Premium time shows support.

I sounded a bit snobby in my earlier post, but my thoughts come more from a place of creating sustainability. Giving everything away for free isn't sustainable.

Also, disclaimer. I work in the creative industries so anytime I hear people asking for more free stuff because they love the first bit of free stuff I gave them is a bit of a red rag trigger.

Good art and design is a full time job. People got to get paid.

[QuantumButler]

The Lobsters, on 27 December 2016 - 06:16 AM, said:

The 1v1 could be much better implemented, with some good suggestions in this thread. Premium time is very underdeveloped by PGI. It just sits there as an afterthought, which is a shame as it could really drive new content, better fund mwo and build a stronger contract with the company and the players.

I do appreciate that the playin4free guys bring content and as a shameless socialist believe in the good provision of the basics. I do think though, that paying a 'subscription' shows my belief and support of the game, and PGI can afford me access to less profitable game modes. Just buying a mechpack gets you the mechs forever and helps fund new designs. Premium time shows support.

I sounded a bit snobby in my earlier post, but my thoughts come more from a place of creating sustainability. Giving everything away for free isn't sustainable.

Also, disclaimer. I work in the creative industries so anytime I hear people asking for more free stuff because they love the first bit of free stuff I gave them is a bit of a red rag trigger.

Good art and design is a full time job. People got to get paid.

Socialism is the future, death to capitalist pigdogs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Because Russ loves the smell of butthurt in the morning......

[Nesutizale]

Quote

Also, disclaimer. I work in the creative industries so anytime I hear people asking for more free stuff because they love the first bit of free stuff I gave them is a bit of a red rag trigger.

Good art and design is a full time job. People got to get paid.

I agree with you that people need to be paid. On the other hand there needs to be a balance between what you charge and what people get.

1v1 with two times premium time needed isn't very balanced to my (limited) point of view.
Sure I can't tell what servers cost so just comparing what I get from premium time playing QP its more valuable to play QP then 1v1. So reducing 1v1 to one person with prime time would be more balanced. Still QP would be worth more but still better.

Edited by Nesutizale, 27 December 2016 - 09:20 AM.

[Nik Reaper]

Or, like mentioned before , give us 12 mini-arenas within one map for 12 1v1s happening concurrently , isolated one from another and that's it...
It's would be one server that might not be full all the time and several at times... so at most it would be 1 server not used to maximum efficiency at any time.. such a waste of money right?....

If that would be such a reduction in income for them, than I would much rather invest in tickets to use the arena than premium time that ticks even when I'm not around..

Edited by Nik Reaper, 27 December 2016 - 10:09 AM.

[The Lobsters]

I'm not sure 'balanced' is a good way to describe it from our point of view. After all, it's the economic cost effectiveness that is the primary arbiter for PGI. 1v1 is a 1200% drop in server population, and 1v1 may already be hard to justify economically with only two premium players. Hard to speculate from our side of the curtain.

Making it so two premium players together can host a lobby would be a better solution, and would help create more events and pick-up tourneys, but I guess PGI have to balance that with making more players desire premium time. making it easier for players to find other 1v1 guys would help it too.

But really, I still don't have a problem with 1v1 being a paywall game mode. There is still plenty of f2p game to play, and if you really like a game, and find yourself playing a lot and enjoying the community, then stick your hand in your pocket!

Making it so event or mastery pack premium time activates automatically needs to change. I reckon if guys can, say, save it until they get a good 1v1 offer would drive premium sales. Whereas now, if you get it but can't use it to your play schedule, it kinda makes it worthless and undervalued. That 1 day premium you can win becomes a banked day of 1v1's when you know some of your pals are logged on that day. You may have so much fun that you fork out for some more premium.

[SmithMPBT]

Paywalls fine for a game mode that effects nothing. What would be really great is a Quick Play button for 1v1 mode in Steiner Colliseum.

[Ratpoison]

Nik Reaper, on 27 December 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

Or, like mentioned before , give us 12 mini-arenas within one map for 12 1v1s happening concurrently , isolated one from another and that's it...
It's would be one server that might not be full all the time and several at times... so at most it would be 1 server not used to maximum efficiency at any time.. such a waste of money right?....

If that would be such a reduction in income for them, than I would much rather invest in tickets to use the arena than premium time that ticks even when I'm not around..

Doesn't work with how the game loads people in, nor private matches, nor the matchmaker. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create the systems and map to support such a thing. The money saved by running half full servers instead of mostly full servers is nothing at that point, so yes it is a gigantic waste of money.

[Ratpoison]

SmithMPBT, on 27 December 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

Paywalls fine for a game mode that effects nothing. What would be really great is a Quick Play button for 1v1 mode in Steiner Colliseum.

They wont do that since it would drain players from the 12v12 matchmaker, which is already struggling to find enough players to make games fair.

If the team sizes were reverted back to 8v8 then maybe, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Quxudica]

Nesutizale, on 26 December 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

Why is the Steiner 1v1 map behind a paywall? I played it with a friend lately and its fun and I like it but its not worth buying premium time to play it, at least in my opinion.

So what you guys think? Should it remain nessessary to have two people with prime time to play the map or should it be a free map?
(Note: Not a Quickplay map just a private match map without the premium time need)

Also on a side note...you can't start the game with two people, one in each team because you don't have a "full team"?
Why is it still asking for 2x12 people if its a 1v1 map.

Because PGI.

[Nik Reaper]

Ratpoison, on 27 December 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

Doesn't work with how the game loads people in, nor private matches, nor the matchmaker. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create the systems and map to support such a thing. The money saved by running half full servers instead of mostly full servers is nothing at that point, so yes it is a gigantic waste of money.

Hard to say really, the map is there ( a bit of optimization and a lot of copy/paste ) , there would be no matchmaking , it would be a new UI element where you invite/challenge a person to a match , and we know that the game can spawn players and spectators in to a started match so while yes there would be work to be done unless they make some really convoluted thing out of it, it shouldn't go for too many dev hours to make a prototype.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 29 December 2016 - 11:24 AM.

[Lanancuras]

The Lobsters, on 27 December 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

There is not enough premium only content in this game imo. There is plenty for the play4free bus w@nkers to do, subsidised by the paying players I might add.
I'd make forum access a premium feature. That's another way of saying make whining and feeling entitled a premium privilege.

Okay so because I use my money on mechs rather than premium time I should have no right to to access the forums? Even using your own twisted logic this concept is flawed as hell.

[Mawai]

Nesutizale, on 26 December 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

Why is the Steiner 1v1 map behind a paywall? I played it with a friend lately and its fun and I like it but its not worth buying premium time to play it, at least in my opinion.

So what you guys think? Should it remain nessessary to have two people with prime time to play the map or should it be a free map?
(Note: Not a Quickplay map just a private match map without the premium time need)

Also on a side note...you can't start the game with two people, one in each team because you don't have a "full team"?
Why is it still asking for 2x12 people if its a 1v1 map.

It has nothing to do with the map. It has to do with server utilization. It costs almost as much server resources to run a complete game instance for 2 players as it does for 24 players. PGI can't afford to pay upfront for free players to run thousands of matches with just 2 players. So to try to recoup some of the costs associated with smaller matches utilizing just as much server resources as full 24 player matches, they require that at least some of the players involved on each team have a premium time subscription.

It seems totally fair and reasonable to me. Players have to pay for more exclusive content in many free to play games. In MWO, that requirement applies to custom and private matches.

If you really like the 1v1 content that much then buy some premium time or ask PGI to implement a per match MC purchase fee for custom matches so that they can directly recoup the costs associated with running it. (They probably have not done this already because of the support issues associated with disconnects and folks asking for reimbursement ... what do you do if one side figures it is losing and intentionally disconnects ... do you reimburse them the match fee? Tough luck if you disconnect? The premium time requirement simply avoids all of these customer service headaches).

Edited by Mawai, 29 December 2016 - 11:34 AM.

[DAYLEET]

StaggerCheck, on 26 December 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

PGI will say they are a smaller company and need you to pay for the server space.

PGI says many things. But wait, they ARE right, we ARE paying for the servers. So why do we put up with sub standard, halfassed solution like that?

It's not like theres queues of people playing, its not like people still believe bandwidth and server rents are costly(its not 2001 people). The whole game holds with paywall, too bad paywalls dont also hold a player base around. Its a good thing this game has so many people waiting in line to play it that we can afford to turn most at them door. right?

[Felbombling]

Yup. I think this was a huge misstep on PGIs part. I think it makes much more sense to give players a playground where they can enjoy the game, get engrossed by it and generate a desire to buy something. The paywall for private battles seems like a poor business decision.

[Mawai]

StaggerCheck, on 29 December 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Yup. I think this was a huge misstep on PGIs part. I think it makes much more sense to give players a playground where they can enjoy the game, get engrossed by it and generate a desire to buy something. The paywall for private battles seems like a poor business decision.

Assuming that PGI pays the same amount for a match running 24 players as they do for 2 players (PGI does not own its servers ... it rents them as far as I know) then why does it make sense to let a couple of players get 12 times more value for the same ZERO investment in the game?

Its not as if the server time, bandwidth and everything else required to support a multiplayer online game is actually free ...

In addition, the ability to form private matches of arbitrary size is not usually the first experience of anyone with MWO ... most players download the game and drop into multiplayer quickplay or the tutorials. The only ones using the private lobbies are the more experienced players who have been around a while and made some friends.

So ... to be honest ... what I mostly hear when reading this thread is a bunch of folks whining about access to premium game services (the ability to form private matches) without even the most modest payment associated with having one person on each side with premium time.

Finally, most players who "get engrossed by it" are those who enjoy the quickplay game mode and the mechs ... not the ones looking for private game modes. If PGI would like to know where to spend their effort it would be in making the quick play mode as fun and compelling as possible to the random new player (which is hopefully where the new skill system will help - assuming they do a good job) ... with routes into faction play, private matches, team play, competitive play and other styles of game play as a continuing draw.

In my opinion, that is where PGI doesn't have a good track record ... they just haven't been able to enhance quickplay to be more compelling ... it is still pretty much the same experience it was in closed beta.