136 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

Flitzomat, on 05 April 2017 - 02:41 AM, said:

That puts Season 9 at a massive 9% drop in players compared to Season 4.

Whoa guys, we got a crisis on our hands, better make some knee-jerk reactions, because that means the game is totally doomed!

Edited by Zergling, 05 April 2017 - 04:18 AM.

[Mech Croissant]

Flitzomat, on 05 April 2017 - 02:41 AM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5685505

Looks pretty stable to me, eh!

[PlayerUnknown]

are you forgetting how many of those players are alt account holders (>.>)

[Athom83]

JayRtech, on 05 April 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

are you forgetting how many of those players are alt account holders (>.>)

Are you forgetting that not everyone has 3+ accounts?

[Lootee]

lole-sports will save the day

[SmokedJag]

Mech Croissant, on 05 April 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

Bud Crue, you are right. If anything the skill tree debacle showed that listening to the whining community destroyes the game!

Scrapping something intended to help start-up players because people who have already spent the vast majority of the money they are ever going to spend don't want changes to their entrenched system is...bad. Like not understanding basic economics bad. Not that long-term loyal players should be actively mistreated but much of the skill tree howling that continued after the initial costs were scrapped had nothing to do with that.

As a newer account that *could* spend *new* non-sunk whale money on a game, this was really dispiriting. People whining about having to grind hundreds of millions of Cbills on 'Mechs they don't actively play to "return" to levels they don't actually need and/or have because no Mastered 'Mech is equivalent to a 91 point 'Mech = I have to grind hundreds of millions of Cbills to play Mastered Clan chassis because of the large benefits getting one variant to Elite provides. And I *know* I'm not going to play my extra grind 'Mechs because they are Omnipods that sure don't cost 17 million in aggregate.

Edited by SmokedJag, 05 April 2017 - 05:08 AM.

[Jehofi]

SmokedJag, on 05 April 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

Scrapping something intended to help start-up players because people who have already spent the vast majority of the money they are ever going to spend don't want changes to their entrenched system is...bad. Like not understanding basic economics bad. Not that long-term loyal players should be actively mistreated but much of the skill tree howling that continued after the initial costs were scrapped had nothing to do with that.

As a newer account that *could* spend *new* non-sunk whale money on a game, this was really dispiriting.

Isnt it beautiful how the human mind works, it gradually shifts your focus until you only remember the things as you would like to remember them.

Why would you want to drive away your longterm players in favor of your newer players when you easily can accommodate both? BTW the skill tree was better for newer players because it removed a significant entrance hurdle, but the overall grind increases for all players. MWO is already grindy enough i dont want to spend money on lessening the grind, i want to spend money on contend.

Dont get me wrong, the skill tree has to come, however:
- I dont think a strict tree form is good (i like the LOL "tree" better), the current does not allow for meaningful choice.
- Costs for nodes need to get down (or stay at the last claimed values ~30K per node)
- Respec needs to be free (half the fun i experimenting with you mech in the lab)
- That stupid click orgy has to go (less nodes, less granular bonuses)

I am certain i forgot some things but looking at the above list it is honestly not so complicated to do (except the first part maybe).

[Athom83]

Jehofi, on 05 April 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

- I dont think a strict tree form is good (i like the LOL "tree" better), the current does not allow for meaningful choice.

The whole point of the tree isn't to have a "meaningful" choice, just a choice in general. You're meant to get a majority of everything you want with only having to pick and chose between the "extras".

Jehofi, on 05 April 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

- Costs for nodes need to get down (or stay at the last claimed values ~30K per node)

At the last stated cost (of 45k), you could still fully "master" 30-35 mechs for the price of 6 in the current. And the new system boosted mechs further than current mastery.

Jehofi, on 05 April 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

- Respec needs to be free (half the fun i experimenting with you mech in the lab)

That is why most of the skills were adjusted to be general skills, so you don't have to mass respec whenever you change a loadout. At most, you would only swap out 10 nodes when you massively change a loadout. That is 4000 XP, which you should be able to get in 2-4 matches. And that's only if you have 0 XP in the bank, which is stupid. And you really shouldn't be messing around with specialized skills until you find a loadout that you like on a mech anyway.

Jehofi, on 05 April 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

- That stupid click orgy has to go (less nodes, less granular bonuses)

That assumes you always skill up all 91 nodes at the same time, which is a stupid assumption. After people fill out their mastered mechs from the change, all the other mechs from then on will be skilling up 5-10 clicks at a time every other match.

[Zergling]

JayRtech, on 05 April 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

are you forgetting how many of those players are alt account holders (>.>)

Likely very few are alts. I'd say less than 1 in 20.

[Bishop Steiner]

Paigan, on 05 April 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

So it's more like
Season 1: ~43K
vs
Season 9: ~34K

Links:
(select season 1!) https://mwomercs.com...age=2148&type=0
(select season 9!) https://mwomercs.com...age=1683&type=0
(they don't pass the selected season as a URL paramter, argh...)

If you consider only players with 100 or more matches ("really active"), it's
~17.5K vs. ~13.5K

(select season 1!) https://mwomercs.com...page=879&type=0
(select season 9!) https://mwomercs.com...page=678&type=0



As far as spending money is concerned:
I did spend a lot in the past and I would spend more.
But not in Mechs.
We have way more than enough Mechs already.
I would help crowd-fund new maps to then release them for free to all players.
I would pay MC for stored and publicly hosted replays of my matches.
I would pay MC for lore-campaign stuff (maintaining dropships or whatever)
Maybe I would even buy Solaris tickets for MC or however it would work.
But no more Mechs.

I have about 60 and that's already twice as much as I'll ever need.
No more Mechs.
Gameplay content.

No offense, but if you think most players would pay IRL money to crowd fund maps, you are being charmingly naive. Like it or not, Mechs are PGIs bread and Butter, and the people who work on them are not the ones working on things like maps and other assets. Yes, if PGI was no longer paying the salary of the "Mech Makers" that would free them up to hire Map Makers, in theory. But unless they can actually find a way to generate as much revenue from something else as from Mechs... the ship still sinks.

Conversely, if they keep running on the same hamster wheel they are on, short term they stay afloat, but still eventually succumb. They need to add other real micro-transaction revenues, like the features long asked for (cosmetics, etc) that will allow them to spend less time on mechs but still bring in similar revenue, or go hand in hand with mechs but increase revenues so they can hire more Map Makers and other content creators.

But everytime someone gets on the soapbox and shouts no more mechs... it generally shows about as much understanding about business costs as the average communist has. Big on idealism, utterly lacking in practicality.

[Paigan]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

No offense, but if you think most players would pay IRL money to crowd fund maps, you are being charmingly naive.
[...]

Who said "most"? I didn't.

I just said: I see no point in buying more Mechs, but I WOULD spend money on crowdfunding maps.
And I read from other people in here with the same attitude.

There is absolutely no need for "most" players to spend money on maps.
If those that say they have enough Mechs and would rather pay for other stuff could lower the price for PGI to make a new Map by $100K (or whatever), it would be way more lucrative for PGI to make a new Map.

Others might still want to buy new Mechs. Why not?
And then there are those that are locked in their primitive collector drives who MUST buy anything the shop offers, anyway.

No one said "most players have to crowdfund maps".

Sorry, Bishop, but again: selective perception.
You read what you want to read to twist statements and construct insults from them, not what I actually write.

Edited by Paigan, 05 April 2017 - 06:13 AM.

[Jehofi]

Athom83, on 05 April 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

The whole point of the tree isn't to have a "meaningful" choice, just a choice in general. You're meant to get a majority of everything you want with only having to pick and chose between the "extras".

Then there is no need for a tree in the first place. Just keep the old system and let us pick 1/2 of the extras.

In principle i agree with you basic no-brainer picks dont belong into the tree.

Athom83, on 05 April 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

At the last stated cost (of 45k), you could still fully "master" 30-35 mechs for the price of 6 in the current. And the new system boosted mechs further than current mastery.

Not by the xp cost and not by the cbill cost if you swap modules (what most players do just because it is Cbill efficient).

Also you dont get the same max. cooldown, it was all geared towards a higher TTK. Which is fine by me, what is not fine is increasing the grind to "master" a mech, even when the new "master" level is higher than the old. BTW not a nice move for new players making the old ones "much" better. Seriously mastering a new mech will be more of a pain than ever.

Athom83, on 05 April 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

That is why most of the skills were adjusted to be general skills, so you don't have to mass respec whenever you change a loadout. At most, you would only swap out 10 nodes when you massively change a loadout. That is 4000 XP, which you should be able to get in 2-4 matches. And that's only if you have 0 XP in the bank, which is stupid. And you really shouldn't be messing around with specialized skills until you find a loadout that you like on a mech anyway.

Are you telling me im not allowed to have fun in the mechlab? Am i not allowed to go from tanky to mobile? Change my support skills with my weapons (Sniper to Brawler)? Do i need to skill for a general setup and not specialize my skills to the current build?
And Hell, WHY do i need to play 2-4 games is i want to change my mech loadout?

No seriously if they think they need a sink or a grind increase just lower the earnings. A XP sink is a stupid idea in the first place, a cbill sink can be argued but is still bad practice as there is no economy in this games that lets trade with others. In short there is no inflation and thus no need for a sink, define a price (in hours) and adjust the mech costs and earnings.

Athom83, on 05 April 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

That assumes you always skill up all 91 nodes at the same time, which is a stupid assumption. After people fill out their mastered mechs from the change, all the other mechs from then on will be skilling up 5-10 clicks at a time every other match.

Until you respec. And i'd still like to have the same bonuses in 2-3 clicks than 5-10. There is ofc a certain lower bound for granularity but all in excess is just wasting time. Do i care for a 0.8% cooldown? No im interested in the full 5%, that is doable in 2-5 clicks depending on your granularity.
BTW is you distribute 91 click into sets of 5-10 you are still making that 91 clicks, still "wasting" the time and resources to make that 91 clicks.

And please put more effort into your arguments 50% of you post sound like you just want to antagonize me.

And to say it again, i want the skill tree, it is very easy to fix alot of the design problems the current implementation has.

[Bud Crue]

Mech Croissant, on 05 April 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

Bud Crue, you are right. If anything the skill tree debacle showed that listening to the whining community destroyes the game!

Maybe, but part of being competent at what you do is knowing when to listen to your customers and when not to. If PGI's reactions to community criticism is destroying the game then that is still on PGI.

As to the skills tree debacle, consider the criticisms that PGI and Russ via twitter have responded to. Cost, compensation and lost investment. That/those are all rear-facing issues being raised by whales. The folks that spend. Not much on the UI. A passing mention during their town hall about the "need" for gated nodes. Not one word on the abandonment of their past balance efforts via the nerfs (my repeated criticism). Everything that got the skill tree pulled -ACCORDING TO PGI- is all about making sure that those who have spend time and/or money on the game don't feel ripped off. You want to blame the community for that? OK. I think it was simply PGI looking after their own financial interests.

[C E Dwyer]

More ROTFLMAOAY

Five days into the month and there are less players yup, sure pat yourself on the back, come back in 25 days

Anjian, on 05 April 2017 - 02:49 AM, said:

The vast majority of players in MMOs leave the game eventually, which is why MMOs need a constant diet of new players to keep it alive. If the intake of new players fall below the rate of player churn, then you have a problem.

The stages of an MMO player in a game is perfectly said by a player in another forum.

"The Infatuation interested stage
The Obsessive compulsive stage
The Honeymoon stage
The Contentment stage
The Stagnation stage
The Ambivalent stage
The Bored Stage
The Slightly disgruntled stage
The Fully disgruntled stage
The Angry Stage
The Exit stage left stage"

You forgot

Come to the forums, and whine like a child, that can't have it's own way stage

[cazidin]

Flitzomat, on 05 April 2017 - 02:41 AM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5685505

If I'm reading that graph correctly, this game is stagnated with a small decline in population and a generally inactive playerbase beyond 50 matches?

[Lorcryst NySell]

/dinosaur mode on

People really complained about having to click 91 nodes once ? Really ? For realsies ?

Oh my Gourd, kids these days ...

In Asheron's Call (that closed a few months ago after 17 years, with the last three years being totally free to play), I had an alchemist/cook that could make "magic foods" ... making a single "Healing Pizza" was 14 clicks ... and I sold TENS OF THOUSANDS of those to my fellow players ... had an ICQ account and IRC channel set up just for orders.

That's what, a few millions of clicks ?

And I did all that BEFORE things like ACTools and Decal that automated most of the clicks (macros = YAY, carpal tunnel = BOO), every day, for months.

In Ultima Online, my most pleasant characters are crafters (blacksmith, carpenter, bowyer/fletcher, alchemist), that provide weapons, armors, ammo, potions, clothes, furniture and more for half the population of my server, and there ISN'T a way to macro crafting in that game ... at most, you can setup the UI of the game itself to make 99 of the same item in one batch.

AND NO ONE COMPLAINS ! We actually *LIKE* to play our click-intensive characters, because we feel that we make something worthwhile for the community.

Here ? You just have to click a dozen of times to setup your 'mech, and then twitch-click during a game, 15 mins at the max.
And now we have super-duper mouses and keyboards that can send a series of clicks with the push of a single button.

And "you young whippersnappers" STILL complain that it's too much ...

Get off my lawn, learn the very valuable lesson that Life Is Hard And You Need To Work and please get off your soggy soapbox !

/dinosaur mode off

[Dee Eight]

DovisKhan, on 05 April 2017 - 02:10 AM, said:

no reason to cry doom, steam user influx dropped, some stayed, some left, that was to be expected

The steam user influx and drop was over by the time the QP leaderboard seasons began. Except for a blip in August, the peak player # from steam and the average #s have been pretty consistent since June of last year and wouldn't account for the losses seen in the QP leaderboards.

http://steamcharts.com/app/342200

Edited by Dee Eight, 05 April 2017 - 07:31 AM.

[Lorcryst NySell]

To add to the Steam debate :

I originaly found this game via Steam, but since then I've only used the Steam client to purchase the Steam-exclusive packs, and I play on the stand-alone client.

Most of my friends that play this game do the same ... so Steam numbers mean squat, really.

[Dee Eight]

Cathy, on 05 April 2017 - 06:33 AM, said:

Five days into the month and there are less players yup, sure pat yourself on the back, come back in 25 days

Did you not read my actual original post? I specifically said "Last month season 9 ended". Nobody in this thread has mentioned the current season 10 month of april except you.

[Dee Eight]

McValium, on 05 April 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

@dee eight, the algorithm thats used to fill the leaderboards has been change multiple times.
these days 10 matches played qualified, in season 1 you only needed one match to qualify

They changed to the 10 matches minimum in the december 19 patch, but its still possible thru the magic of altering the page count, and sorting by # of matches, to see how many played at least 10 or more on the older seasons. Season 1 was 38,076. The 10 match minimum was supposedly to keep folks from gaming the leaderboards by always taking the top spots with a handful of amazing games, but it did also make it harder to get a true count of total players for a month.

Someone else mentioned alt accounts...ironically the very spot after the end of 10 matches of season 1 #38,077 and the first of the 9 matches belongs to a known alternate account of someone who holds at least three. The 9 match list ends at position 38,990. There's over a thousand at 8 matches after that ending at position 40,038. Another thousand plus ends the 7 matchers at 41,222. The sixes end at 42,611 and so on...

We can however still compare November's season 5 which ended on page 2760 at #55,205. In comparison, Season 1 ended on page 3489 at #69.799. So right there.... more than 14,000 players gone in 5 months, in a period where the steam log-ins were pretty consistent. Season 2 ended at #60,204. Season 3 ended at #55,944. Season 4 at #56,744.

Season 1 for those who have trouble counting backwards... was July... Phase 3 was April with the cursed original nuclear shell long tom so that's not the reason for the major drop in player #s from just July to August (and August was the steam population increase blip I mentioned above, jumping a couple hundred for the peak log-ins) of over nine thousand. July's patch introduced the caches and long awaited / asked for decals system and fixed the quad UAC/10 ghost heat bug as its major events. It also introduced the seasons system for the QP leaderboard.

Edited by Dee Eight, 05 April 2017 - 08:33 AM.