79 replies to this topic

[ZealotTheFallen]

The population IMO is now at the lowest since start of game. No chart will change it that. Open your eyes PGI has refused to actually fix the game problems to put our money into another project. This has happened twice, that I know of, while I have been playing. And the other projects failed.

[Andi Nagasia]

ZealotTheFallen, on 12 August 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

The population IMO is now at the lowest since start of game. No chart will change it that. Open your eyes PGI has refused to actually fix the game problems to put our money into another project. This has happened twice, that I know of, while I have been playing. And the other projects failed.

i cant believe this,
the reason?

MWO seems to be more than Self Sustaining,
they are currently working and Funding the Production of MW5:Mercs on their Own,
if they were losing players and so funding they wouldnt be able to fund a side Project as MW5,
-
also Pricing, if they were losing players and unable to sustain MWO they would have to increase Pricing,
but, the First Solo Mech Pack was the UM and was sold for $20(Standard Pack) or $40(Collectors addition)
the Newest Solo Mech Pack is the Thanatos is being sold for $20(Standard Pack) or $40(Collectors addition)
so their Pricing hasnt changed ether,

the MWO player base seems to be at the very least Stagnant,
that said it would really help the game if it had double or even triple the playerbase,

[MW Waldorf Statler]

-Bring after 5 Years Quality in the Game
-Good looking Animations and Ingame models(the ingame Models to many to different to Alex great Art ...seeing Direwolf)
-straight line forconncentrate energy and Manpower for Content of MWO and quality Gameplay,not for further Projects (seeing Transverse Debacle) in Hope ..let crash the old MWO ,and we hope new Guys come to MW5 thats never heard from all Debacles...

[Khobai]

Quote

MWO seems to be more than Self Sustaining,

how? it only has one stream of revenue... mechpacks

and people have said they dont want to buy mechpacks anymore until we get real content like new maps

[yuujiroassistant]

MWO needs more players to saturate the player tiers in quick play, and more players in general for faction play. A large portion of why matchmaker sucks is because it doesn't have many players to pull from.

Of course, this also implies a rework of the tiering process, which does not represent player skill at the moment.

[The Lighthouse]

Andi Nagasia, on 12 August 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

i cant believe this,
the reason?

MWO seems to be more than Self Sustaining,
they are currently working and Funding the Production of MW5:Mercs on their Own,
if they were losing players and so funding they wouldnt be able to fund a side Project as MW5,
-
also Pricing, if they were losing players and unable to sustain MWO they would have to increase Pricing,
but, the First Solo Mech Pack was the UM and was sold for $20(Standard Pack) or $40(Collectors addition)
the Newest Solo Mech Pack is the Thanatos is being sold for $20(Standard Pack) or $40(Collectors addition)
so their Pricing hasnt changed ether,

the MWO player base seems to be at the very least Stagnant,
that said it would really help the game if it had double or even triple the playerbase,

You can't just assume like this. PGI always can fund MW5:Merc even if MWO does not generate money. The company can always bring investors and bank loans for development.... if they have stuff that 'cycles' money. Not necessarily generate money, but as an 'asset'.

Actually, the incentive of doing MW5:Mercs is greater if MWO is not doing well. The logic of most corporations is that they'd want to explore 'additional' ideas when their main financial resource is drying away.

MWO definitely failed to gain momentum, and as Steam stat indicates, new tech actually failed to re-gain players. After that initial playerbase jump, we actually have less players compared to pre-civil war tech. It's really a damning graph if I were a PGI employee.

There are several objective signs that MWO is keep losing players and heading into slow but very certain decline:


1) Steam stat graph has been downward since MWO was available in steam, and never really recovered. New tech failed to gain any new players despite hardcore pushing with favorites such as Uziel and Mad Cat IIC. And Uziel has enormous nostalgia attached, and it still failed to gain any new players.


2) After Escalation mechpack, PGI gave up on multiple-mechs pack. No, you are delusional and naive if you truly believe Russ and Paul decided this based on that laughable twitter poll. They saw the numbers, and the numbers were probably not pretty and no longer sustainable unlike previous years. Russ asked on this to twitter to see if they were going to get any possible backlash from reverting to one-mech-one-month.


3) The continuous degradation of matchmaking due to the fact that now T1 players are matched to T4 players. Before the last year, T1 players would matched with T2. This strongly indicates that the number of the players who play this game has been shrunk.


4) The fact that this ridiculous PSR, which essentially puts all players into T1, actually works to a certain degree. I mean, if Dota 2 was using same system, everyone would have been 8000 MMR by now.

In order to this nonsense PSR system to be semi-functional, the number of T1 players has to be keep declining so there won't be situation where there are way too many T1 players to break the system.

And this does not happen. Going into opposite direction, we have too few T1 players so now we are matched with T4 players, which should not happen under current MWO PSR system, unless the game is bleeding these T1 players.

And yes, of course this is what's happening on MWO. This game has so weak player retention that people get eventually tired of this game and stops playing it after they reach T1.



Thus, the PGI's decision to make MW5 is rational. MWO is not doing well, so they need new source of revenue.

What's NOT rational is PGI believes that they can make MW5 that would sell well. If you put yourself in your own bubble for too long, you become incapable of escaping the bubble you created.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 13 August 2017 - 02:27 AM.

[ScrubLord1]

Wouldn't call it healthy. If it were, QP matchmaking wouldn't be so ineffective, FP wouldn't have 30 minute long search times, PTS wouldn't have to resort to a 4v4 which is hardly a good test environment for upcoming changes. Its a steady playerbase, but definitely not a healthy one.

[Hit the Deck]

ScrubLord1, on 13 August 2017 - 02:47 AM, said:

Wouldn't call it healthy. If it were, QP matchmaking wouldn't be so ineffective, FP wouldn't have 30 minute long search times, PTS wouldn't have to resort to a 4v4 which is hardly a good test environment for upcoming changes. Its a steady playerbase, but definitely not a healthy one.

I'm calling it healthy based on the seemingly tens of thousands of players.

It looks like a decent number to me. Why? No idea, just my gut feeling.

[Methanoid]

Andi Nagasia, on 12 August 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

they are currently working and Funding the Production of MW5:Mercs on their Own,

but who the hell would buy it? esp us lot that know pgi cant even sort mwo out, you would hve to be a complete blind fool to just throw your money at MW5 knowing it will end up exactly the same.

[Tarogato]

Hit the Deck, on 13 August 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

I'm calling it healthy based on the seemingly tens of thousands of players.

It looks like a decent number to me. Why? No idea, just my gut feeling.

Maybe tens of thousands of players, but if you think about it... if the stats show there's 1700 players per day, and we know that approximately 30% of players don't use Steam, then we can figure that there's about 170-210 players online at any given time, assuming each player sticks around on average for two hours per day.

[The Lighthouse]

Tarogato, on 13 August 2017 - 04:52 AM, said:

Maybe tens of thousands of players, but if you think about it... if the stats show there's 1700 players per day, and we know that approximately 30% of players don't use Steam, then we can figure that there's about 170-210 players online at any given time, assuming each player sticks around on average for two hours per day.

What?

Wait, so 70% of players use steam, not the other way around?



......



My F***ing God.




Spending money on this game is like literally burning the cash at this point.



I seriously thought it was like only 30% of players using steam client. This game is definitely going nowhere unless some serious changes happen.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 13 August 2017 - 05:19 AM.

[The Lighthouse]

I mean seriously, is this game breaking even at this point?

I was thinking "Meh, whether I hate PGI or not, they make money and whales life-support this game." But now I am deeply concerned regarding the lawsuit against Harmony Gold. Does PGI actually have enough warchest for long court battles?

[HollowBassman]

Methanoid, on 13 August 2017 - 03:33 AM, said:

but who the hell would buy it? esp us lot that know pgi cant even sort mwo out, you would hve to be a complete blind fool to just throw your money at MW5 knowing it will end up exactly the same.

I'm definitely going to buy it. MWO's biggest problem is and always has been trying to please two incompatible player bases. MW5 is single player and won't have that problem.

[Tarogato]

The Lighthouse, on 13 August 2017 - 05:19 AM, said:

What?

Wait, so 70% of players use steam, not the other way around?

......

My F***ing God.

Spending money on this game is like literally burning the cash at this point.

I seriously thought it was like only 30% of players using steam client. This game is definitely going nowhere unless some serious changes happen.

We can check tomorrow as well. Hopefully I remember. If I checked today, we would be one day short and the numbers will be slightly inaccurate. But for the helI of it, let's check it out:


Today, quickplay leaderboard running for 13 days: 23,244 players with ≥ 10 matches played. From historical data, I know that approximately 36% of players per month only play 9 matches or fewer and thus don't make it onto the leaderboard. So really while our quickplay leaderboard now shows 23,244 players over 13 days, we can infer that it represents ~36,589 players.


Today, steamdb number of players in the past 14 days: 21,524 (± 4,012)


So Steam's 21524 players would be 59% of MWO's ~36589 players. Again, this is an inaccurate measurement, the true measurement shouldn't be done until tomorrow, when the steam data and QP leaderboard data coincide. Also, the measurement is more dubious than ever because we have to *guess* how many players exist below the 10-match mark, as it is not displayed publicly anymore. Also, if there are players that only play CW and don't play a lick of QP matches at all, they aren't counted by MWOs leaderboard, but they are counted on the steam numbers. So it's a all a mess. But if you were curious how to do it... that's how.

Edited by Tarogato, 13 August 2017 - 05:52 AM.

[The Lighthouse]

HollowBassman, on 13 August 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

I'm definitely going to buy it. MWO's biggest problem is and always has been trying to please two incompatible player bases. MW5 is single player and won't have that problem.

That's one hell of crazy assumptions. Even before clans were released, horrid ideas such as ghost heat and all of these gauss charge nonsense were added. Many horrid changes such as minimap, mech scaling, heat draw and skill trees are not really related to IS vs Clan balance.

MW5, unfortunately, will be horrid game with such game designers who introduced these horrid game design choices. There is no other way to go around it unless PGI completely out-sources the game development.

[The Lighthouse]

Tarogato, on 13 August 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

We can check tomorrow as well. Hopefully I remember. If I checked today, we would be one day short and the numbers will be slightly inaccurate. But for the helI of it, let's check it out:


Today, quickplay leaderboard running for 13 days: 23,244 players with ≥ 10 matches played. From historical data, I know that approximately 36% of players per month only play 9 matches or fewer and thus don't make it onto the leaderboard. So really while our quickplay leaderboard now shows 23,244 players over 13 days, we can infer that it represents ~36,589 players.


Today, steamdb number of players in the past 14 days: 21,524 (± 4,012)


So Steam's 21524 players would be 59% of MWO's ~36589 players. Again, this is an inaccurate measurement, the true measurement shouldn't be done until tomorrow, when the steam data and QP leaderboard data coincide. Also, the measurement is more dubious than ever because we have to *guess* how many players exist below the 10-match mark, as it is not displayed publicly anymore. Also, if there are players that only play CW and don't play a lick of QP matches at all, they aren't counted by MWOs leaderboard, but they are counted on the steam numbers. So it's a all a mess. But if you were curious how to do it... that's how.

I mean, even if Steam's users are 60% of total users, not 70%, MWO has less population than old games like Killing Floor 2.

God, super niche games like Subnautica actually has more active players than this game!!! Anyone saying this game has a healthy player base is literally fooling oneself.

[HollowBassman]

The Lighthouse, on 13 August 2017 - 05:52 AM, said:

That's one hell of crazy assumptions. Even before clans were released, horrid ideas such as ghost heat and all of these gauss charge nonsense were added. Many horrid changes such as minimap, mech scaling, heat draw and skill trees are not really related to IS vs Clan balance.

MW5, unfortunately, will be horrid game with such game designers who introduced these horrid game design choices. There is no other way to go around it unless PGI completely out-sources the game development.

In this game we have players that want to min/max every single system, abuse every game mechanic, and boat whatever is the most broken/powerful weapon on the best available mech, going up against players that just want to have fun and pilot their favorite mech from tabletop/books/past video games/etc.
All of those things you mention, except maybe the minimap, were attempts at balancing the game in a way that these two incompatible player bases could coexist.

In a single player game there will not be two incompatible player bases; just you against a computer.

[Asym]

Hi Crew !

Ah, I'm relatively new to MWO but I kinda work in a field that studies these types of issues so.............. Many of you are spot on in that without "validated" data; duh, you're simply guessing.

PGI can't "release" real numbers.................especially, if they are really low...... (pesky investors and such.......)

Now, a potential answer or solution to retention; in situations where you have multiple and conflicting assumptions, follow Occam's Razor's logic of "selecting the simpliest assumption....." To solve this conflict, PGI needs to de-evolve the battlespace back to where it started, before the concept of "balance" started. Make the battlespace an "un-nerf'd" environment. Revert all mech classes back to where they started.....

WHY? Because the game itself is stagnant, counter-intuitive and flat out an impossbile grind to new players; nothing to "capture them." With the limiters off and weapons systems, mobility and agility returned, several of the neutered mech classes would re-emerge, the gameplay would be far more of a dangerous environment and stupidity would be weeded out with lethality..... gamplay would be a lot faster and teamwork, would re-emerge because teams would be the only way to survive....

Scrap the skill tree system and there'd be no mastering of mechs. What you bought is a first class combatant; the miro-sales would be the smaller "nice to have" items; MASC, ECM, Stealth, AMS, Radar Dep, etc.......

No voting for maps; what comes up is what you play. When you enter the que, you select class by weight and then, from within that weight, you pick a mech. Random drop points on the map..... You could end up anywhere and sometimes, really close to the bad guys or the objectives......Could you survive?

[Methanoid]

HollowBassman, on 13 August 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

I'm definitely going to buy it. MWO's biggest problem is and always has been trying to please two incompatible player bases. MW5 is single player and won't have that problem.

*shrug* to each their own, these days any game that appears that doesnt have multiplayer (when it should or has previously) in any decent way i dont even bother with.

[KHETTI]

It's a bit cloudy, but the sky doesn't appear to be falling!