195 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

So the 100 or more, which is what you'd call active (10-100 isn't really, regular) - is 15,000. Those are people most likely to be buying mechs as well, the 100+ regular gamers.

So around 8-10% of the active community is currently involved with League.

Also less than I thought, so happy to be wrong there. It would be interesting to see the 200 game or more players, which is about 6,000 - If they are all on comp rosters (Tarogato? lol).

If so then the super active community has 20% representation in league/comp.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 02 April 2017 - 10:44 PM.

[brroleg]

Going for "competitive", while playerbase is very small and continue shrinking cause lack of new gameplay content? New maps, new game mods, new tech - this all needed yesterday and must have highest priority for the devs. Otherwise MWO is doomed.

Edited by brroleg, 03 April 2017 - 01:04 AM.

[Tarogato]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 April 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

A comp queue won't ever be that split, which is why the new ranked mode will be 8v8 only.

Sure it can be. One week is all 1v1, the next week is all 2v2, and the next week is all 8v8. And then maybe another week for Free-for-all. Each category (1v1, 2v2, 8v8, FFA) gets its own independent Elo's and stats. Would be cool.

Or maybe instead of per week, have it per day. Since weeks are 7-days long, it would rotate week after week, which category falls on which day.

I'd enjoy that. Mostly I just want a 1v1 queue. =3

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tarogato, on 03 April 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

Would be cool.

Maybe for some people, I wouldn't play it unless it is 8v8 matches because that's the only one I'm interested in. Whatever ranked mode is, it should stick with what is expected for the WC. Anything else should be kept to an Overwatch brawl-esque queue.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 April 2017 - 06:50 AM.

[Mystere]

Tarogato, on 03 April 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

Sure it can be. One week is all 1v1, the next week is all 2v2, and the next week is all 8v8. And then maybe another week for Free-for-all. Each category (1v1, 2v2, 8v8, FFA) gets its own independent Elo's and stats. Would be cool.

Or maybe instead of per week, have it per day. Since weeks are 7-days long, it would rotate week after week, which category falls on which day.

I'd enjoy that. Mostly I just want a 1v1 queue. =3

I see 1v1 and 2v2 fights as wasting server resources unless spectating and betting are allowed and the latter enables PGI to skim off at least 10% of c-bill winnings. It also is nowhere close to e-peen enhancing as a 24-way no-holds-barred last-warrior-standing winner-takes-all free-for-all.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 April 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

But going off of just player count is also misleading since that doesn't account for anything about activity, both are important to the health of a game. That said, Tarogato did the numbers on how big the player base is using the leaderboards here

So I was a little too generous and it's actually around 92% of the player base that do not care.

In any event an active monthly player base of 15,000 is not something to be excited about (e.g. I am seeing more than that on a daily basis in War Thunder). That's not a whole lot when the whole point of eSports from a business perspective is exposure, and by that I mean spectators.

I'd rather PGI spend more time and effort filling up the meat in this arguably still skeleton of a game in the hope of increasing population numbers which itself will have a directly proportional effect on "comp" interest -- and by that I mean spectator eyeballs.

And when the population numbers improve, then PGI can start developing a Solaris VII mode and keep all eSports activities there.

I want "A BattleTech Game" worthy of the moniker, dang it!

Edited by Mystere, 03 April 2017 - 07:37 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 03 April 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

In any event an active monthly player base of 15,000 is not something to be excited about (e.g. I am seeing more than that on a daily basis in War Thunder). That's not a whole lot when the whole point of eSports from a business perspective is exposure, and by that I mean spectators.

Which is why visibility on PGI's part was one of the topics discussed because many people simply don't know about things like MRBC. If PGI is serious about this, then they need to do a better job at getting exposure, which again, was one of the many problems with the first WC.

Mystere, on 03 April 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

I'd rather PGI spend more time and effort filling up the meat in this arguably still skeleton of a game in the hope of increasing population numbers which itself will have a directly proportional effect on "comp" interest -- and by that I mean spectator eyeballs.

There is several QoL fixes that could improve the skeleton that are great for comp and the general playerbase (like fixes to LoD issues on maps, fixing map hitboxes, fixing poorly designed maps, etc)

Mystere, on 03 April 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

I want "A BattleTech Game" worthy of the moniker, dang it!

Then you would have to accept an even lower player population than we do now.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 April 2017 - 07:40 AM.

[R Valentine]

Eh, given that even after 5 years the game still feels largely incomplete, I'm not sure gunning it for the competitive scene is such a great idea. It seems good for exposure in theory, but exposure to who exactly? People don't care about this game. MWO twitch streamers all have very low viewer counts. We only have one game mode(skirmish) and that gets old to watch after a while. Seems to me PGI needs to be working on actually finishing the game before they try to go full esports(which I'm pretty sure that ship sailed a long time ago. either you break out into the esports scene when your game is new or you never do). Doesn't help that PGI knows not what advertising is. They can't even be bothered to make decent videos on their own youtube account.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

We only have one game mode(skirmish) and that gets old to watch after a while.

Pretty sure there is only "one" real game mode for CS:GO comp and they get plenty of views just fine.

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

They can't even be bothered to make decent videos on their own youtube account.

Which is why a better spectator tool would be nice, so players or just fans of the game can create better videos like they already have been (This Is MWO drop 1 & 2 are still probably the best videos to entice people into this game).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 April 2017 - 07:53 AM.

[R Valentine]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

Pretty sure there is only "one" real game mode for CS:GO comp and they get plenty of views just fine.

And yet that game actually feels complete. MWO doesn't. And is that really what we want MWO to be? A bad CS:GO clone? Setting the bar low and then saying, "see! It's almost kinda like that one game but not really even though the games are almost completely different genres and this one is worse!" has never led to anything good, so why you keep recycling that tired argument is beyond me. Michael Phelps didn't get great by trying to win the special Olympics, so I don't know why we do.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

A bad CS:GO clone?

Quite the leap there. Just because they have a "singular" game mode doesn't automatically make it a wannabe CS:GO, quite the logical fallacy, so why you keep recycling that tired argument is beyond me.

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

Setting the bar low and then saying, "see! It's almost kinda like that one game but not really even though the games are almost completely different genres and this one is worse!"

They are similar in overall setup, they are both a No-Respawn FPS which means the purpose of the game mode is ultimately going to be the same. So stop complaining about the game modes like that is the mystical reason why we can't keep players because ultimately it isn't the reason.

[R Valentine]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

Quite the leap there. Just because they have a "singular" game mode doesn't automatically make it a wannabe CS:GO, quite the logical fallacy, so why you keep recycling that tired argument is beyond me.

No, but you seem satisfied with the similarities when all MWO does it take what CS:GO does and do it worse. I'd be much happier if they weren't similar at all. Mechwarrior games aren't supposed to resemble FPS.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

They are similar in overall setup, they are both a No-Respawn FPS which means the purpose of the game mode is ultimately going to be the same. So stop complaining about the game modes like that is the mystical reason why we can't keep players because ultimately it isn't the reason.

It's one of many reasons. Acting like it's not is foolhardy. The player base has been asking for more for years, yet every "new" game mode we get is just another fancy name for skirmish. Even FP is just skirmish only longer. Lack of viable game modes might not be the only reason we can't keep or get new players, but it's certainly one of them.

[Deathlike]

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

No, but you seem satisfied with the similarities when all MWO does it take what CS:GO does and do it worse. I'd be much happier if they weren't similar at all. Mechwarrior games aren't supposed to resemble FPS.

To be fair, MWO is vaguely resembling a tactical FPS in an arena shooter format.

CS:GO is a vastly different beast than MWO.

Quote

It's one of many reasons. Acting like it's not is foolhardy. The player base has been asking for more for years, yet every "new" game mode we get is just another fancy name for skirmish. Even FP is just skirmish only longer. Lack of viable game modes might not be the only reason we can't keep or get new players, but it's certainly one of them.

Part of the problem is respawns or specifically lack thereof (QP specifically, FP's version is functional to a degree but has poor gamemode tweaking). Unless you increase the value for doing the objective (which sounds like Lostech), killing the opfor is the most efficient way of achieving the objective.

[R Valentine]

Deathlike, on 03 April 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

To be fair, MWO is vaguely resembling a tactical FPS in an arena shooter format.

CS:GO is a vastly different beast than MWO.




Part of the problem is respawns or specifically lack thereof (QP specifically, FP's version is functional to a degree but has poor gamemode tweaking). Unless you increase the value for doing the objective (which sounds like Lostech), killing the opfor is the most efficient way of achieving the objective.

We all know what the solutions are, but no one wants to implement them. They'd all rather have skirmish everywhere than respawns. And the arguments against it are all the same. "It cheapens the game play!" MW4 had respawn options. Game play still felt great. "Makes matches too long!" If 15 minutes is too long, then the timer is too long to begin with. It shouldn't be 15 minutes, especially given that it never actually reaches the end even when games are dragged out. "I don't want this to be an FPS!" Laughable. The game already is, as proven by a just prior argument. There are other options than respawns, but again, everyone would rather skirmish everywhere than extend the TTK in this game. If it doesn't even take half of the given time to kill all enemies on the map then either TTK is way too short, the game timer is way too long, or both. Or add respawns.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Mechwarrior games aren't supposed to resemble FPS.

Since when? Pretty sure all the ones I've played have, whether they are more tactical and less twitchy than most FPS is irrelevant.

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

No, but you seem satisfied with the similarities when all MWO does it take what CS:GO does and do it worse.

It doesn't take anything from CS:GO, BUT the fact they are no-respawn arena-esque shooters (regardless of pacing) means game modes for both games SHOULD share the same purpose (to discourage camping by trying to force engagements).

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Lack of viable game modes might not be the only reason we can't keep or get new players, but it's certainly one of them.

Even if it is, it is stupidly low on the totem poll.

[Deathlike]

Kiran Yagami, on 03 April 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

We all know what the solutions are, but no one wants to implement them. They'd all rather have skirmish everywhere than respawns. And the arguments against it are all the same. "It cheapens the game play!" MW4 had respawn options. Game play still felt great. "Makes matches too long!" If 15 minutes is too long, then the timer is too long to begin with. It shouldn't be 15 minutes, especially given that it never actually reaches the end even when games are dragged out. "I don't want this to be an FPS!" Laughable. The game already is, as proven by a just prior argument. There are other options than respawns, but again, everyone would rather skirmish everywhere than extend the TTK in this game. If it doesn't even take half of the given time to kill all enemies on the map then either TTK is way too short, the game timer is way too long, or both. Or add respawns.

I'm pretty much in the pro-respawn camp, but for different reasons. The problem is that PGI isn't really good at tweaking those either (Assault using the same mechanic in CW is a bad idea™).

I would actually think that if the main/casual game was pro-respawn and the comp/serious game was no respawn, that would actually help with understanding the game.

It's a hard learning curve when you just drop only to be dead soon after and NOT learn what you did wrong. Respawns would give you a "crutch" but at least you'd develop a few basic skills w/o forcing you to wait for another drop to occur. Matches would have to be shorter though, but consume more time (like 10 to 15 minutes tops). Mind you, this doesn't change the fact that good players will still thrive under this system, but it also means that camping a strong position will be more prominent... which should also lend to people learning the strong spots on a map. These things some people never really learn though, but obvious things should become more obvious.

Still, inevitably for the casual player... all they will and should care about it about getting more C-bills as that is the only real way to progress for a bulk of the initial part of the game.

Edited by Deathlike, 03 April 2017 - 11:01 AM.