144 replies to this topic

[Grus]

Is it me or did the moderaters take a SERIOUS hammer to a lot of posts on this thread?

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Recently one of the mods responded about some game changes like: "To make this(there was an ingame tutorial discussion) change it will take amount of money equal to small mobile app".

At least pgi should stop being poor. And fire some people. Which names are not chris and paul this time

[Vellron2005]

Dimento Graven, on 22 August 2018 - 07:54 PM, said:

blah, blah, blah...

It's not a matter of bringing the "old" players back, it's a matter of having a continuous stream of NEW players coming in. Just like the original players not "ALL" of them will be permanent players, but a measurable portion of them WILL be.

Really, simplest answer:

ADVERTISE, YOU SILLY MOFOS

Seriously, in NA we were seeing prime time nation wide advertising of WoT, WoWS, WoAS, etc., and not a damned thing for MWO.

Ran into someone today, 2018/08/22, who would LOVE to play MWO, hadn't EVER heard of it after all this time.

WoM advertising will only take you so far and is only so reliable: ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE...

If it works for religion, it'll work for video games...

Finally somebody who gets it..

BTW; I've been saying that for years..

[Wil McCullough]

Vellron2005, on 23 August 2018 - 11:53 PM, said:

Finally somebody who gets it..

BTW; I've been saying that for years..

Advertising is only 1/3 of the puzzle for success. The other two are having a good product (to retain the new players that advertising brings in) and displaying interest in your own product that makes for good earned media (e.g. funding research into a prototype neuro helmet). Kinda like wargaming actually buying and refurbishing old tanks for wot publicity.

The neurohelmet tech isn't that farfetched btw. There's already physical children's games.on the market that focuses on issuing mental commands that move foam balls and toy cars. It's primitive but it's there.

[mad kat]

The Absoloute first thing they need to do is bin PSR. They then need to get their heads together and come up with a matchmaker that works.

A match that goes to the wire is now so rare that 8/10 games are stomps. This is likely 90% of reasons why players are quitting. Just spend half an hour going through the forums here and on Redit etc and you'll find topic after topic, post after post of why is MM so bad.....

Whether we end up with some battlefield value that limits mechs to a certain performance envelope for a match and combine that value with a players experience. Or we look at things like how accurate a player is, how long typically does he last in a match, how much damage they are capable of absorbing, what is their average mech weight, how much damage they do, percentage of time they're firing and from what range, how far they travel in a match, do they keep nascaring and an important one how often they overheat. These are all values that can be put through an algorithm to give a level of player skill. Not only that it can give the pilot an indication of where their strengths lie. Are they a good light pilot zipping all over the place backstabbing people or are they good assault pilots soaking up but also dishing out high damage.

Trouble is i wouldn't trust PGI with a barge pole to do this. They seem hell bent on demonstrating their incompetence this algorithm would more than likely be written by someone in the community who actually knows what they're doing.

Edited by mad kat, 24 August 2018 - 12:14 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

mad kat, on 24 August 2018 - 12:11 AM, said:

The Absoloute first thing they need to do is bin PSR. They then need to get their heads together and come up with a matchmaker that works.

A match that goes to the wire is now so rare that 8/10 games are stomps. This is likely 90% of reasons why players are quitting. Just spend half an hour going through the forums here and on Redit etc and you'll find topic after topic, post after post of why is MM so bad.....

Whether we end up with some battlefield value that limits mechs to a certain performance envelope for a match and combine that value with a players experience. Or we look at things like how accurate a player is, how long typically does he last in a match, how much damage they are capable of absorbing, what is their average mech weight, how much damage they do, percentage of time they're firing and from what range, how far they travel in a match, do they keep nascaring and an important one how often they overheat. These are all values that can be put through an algorithm to give a level of player skill. Not only that it can give the pilot an indication of where their strengths lie. Are they a good light pilot zipping all over the place backstabbing people or are they good assault pilots soaking up but also dishing out high damage.

Trouble is i wouldn't trust PGI with a barge pole to do this. They seem hell bent on demonstrating their incompetence this algorithm would more than likely be written by someone in the community who actually knows what they're doing.

Mismatched teams are only responsible for some of the stomps. Most competitive matches end in stomps too. Most stomps come from game mechanics, namely irreplaceable losses. Losing mechs lead to exponential snowballs. Stomps are the defacto result in this kind of environment.

I agree that the upward biased psr needs to be burned with fire but that wouldn't solve the issue of stompage.

[A Headless Chicken]

"Very least" has been their mantra for the past few years, so no, not getting players back.

[Asym]

mad kat, on 24 August 2018 - 12:11 AM, said:

The Absoloute first thing they need to do is bin PSR. They then need to get their heads together and come up with a matchmaker that works.

A match that goes to the wire is now so rare that 8/10 games are stomps. This is likely 90% of reasons why players are quitting. Just spend half an hour going through the forums here and on Redit etc and you'll find topic after topic, post after post of why is MM so bad.....

Whether we end up with some battlefield value that limits mechs to a certain performance envelope for a match and combine that value with a players experience. Or we look at things like how accurate a player is, how long typically does he last in a match, how much damage they are capable of absorbing, what is their average mech weight, how much damage they do, percentage of time they're firing and from what range, how far they travel in a match, do they keep nascaring and an important one how often they overheat. These are all values that can be put through an algorithm to give a level of player skill. Not only that it can give the pilot an indication of where their strengths lie. Are they a good light pilot zipping all over the place backstabbing people or are they good assault pilots soaking up but also dishing out high damage.

Trouble is i wouldn't trust PGI with a barge pole to do this. They seem hell bent on demonstrating their incompetence this algorithm would more than likely be written by someone in the community who actually knows what they're doing.

You are correct.....they can't create a MM that would work.............because the player population is an "us" versus "them" community: polarized into two camps that are just about opposites. How could you "balance" a drop when there are no "average players" anymore??? The entire middle of the game is missing..... The 66% of the random distribution left the game or because we have a "push-up" PSR, are now tier 1's because they refused to leave. New players and vets: not a mix to balance. The rest of us left or play one day a month at most and then, only for MC events.

The only way to "get me back" is to start over and create what the game was suppose to be from day 1; eliminate the skill tree and replace it with a system that can only add to 100% combat readiness; un-nerf/un-buff everything back to the BT combat effectiveness and start that process over with a customer driven panel for any changes; require PGI customer support to actually play the game and interact with the player base daily and report all suggestions, ideas and thoughts; and, get rid of teams greater than 4....... DO that, and maybe, I'd forgive and forget and return....... Otherwise, not a penny and no more that a visit every so often.....

[M T]

The gap between logging in and finally playing.

Namely the skill tree. I can't be f'n assed to go over skill trees every time i want to play a mech. I want to setup the mech fast and queue up and play.

This is what kept me from playing at all in the last year. I want to frag and kill, not screw around in overly 'complicated' UI's and menu's trying to get ready.

People just want to play, thats it. Stop this over-complicatio of systems.

Also the continuous stream of patches with nerfs, buffs, then nerfs, buffs, and again buffs then nerfs, is making people go completely nuts.

I was a fervent Light mech player, they nerfed lights, increased them to humongous sizes, nerfed the weapons on them, etc...

Bad choices. Every time they nerf and buff **** more people run away, because its a vicious cycle.

Since the MM doesn't work, stupid Tier system doesn't really work, (except perhaps filter out the complete noobs and new starters) just take both systems out completely and at least start from scratch.

Edited by M T, 24 August 2018 - 05:40 AM.

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 24 August 2018 - 12:01 AM, said:

Advertising is only 1/3 of the puzzle for success. The other two are having a good product (to retain the new players that advertising brings in) and displaying interest in your own product that makes for good earned media (e.g. funding research into a prototype neuro helmet). Kinda like wargaming actually buying and refurbishing old tanks for wot publicity.

The neurohelmet tech isn't that farfetched btw. There's already physical children's games.on the market that focuses on issuing mental commands that move foam balls and toy cars. It's primitive but it's there.

It's already here:

mad kat, on 24 August 2018 - 12:11 AM, said:

The Absoloute first thing they need to do is bin PSR. They then need to get their heads together and come up with a matchmaker that works.

A match that goes to the wire is now so rare that 8/10 games are stomps. This is likely 90% of reasons why players are quitting. Just spend half an hour going through the forums here and on Redit etc and you'll find topic after topic, post after post of why is MM so bad.....

Whether we end up with some battlefield value that limits mechs to a certain performance envelope for a match and combine that value with a players experience. Or we look at things like how accurate a player is, how long typically does he last in a match, how much damage they are capable of absorbing, what is their average mech weight, how much damage they do, percentage of time they're firing and from what range, how far they travel in a match, do they keep nascaring and an important one how often they overheat. These are all values that can be put through an algorithm to give a level of player skill. Not only that it can give the pilot an indication of where their strengths lie. Are they a good light pilot zipping all over the place backstabbing people or are they good assault pilots soaking up but also dishing out high damage.

Trouble is i wouldn't trust PGI with a barge pole to do this. They seem hell bent on demonstrating their incompetence this algorithm would more than likely be written by someone in the community who actually knows what they're doing.

I'd rather PGI just implemented random matches and spent their limited resources on something more important --- like putting more meat into this barely emaciated skeleton of a game.

[Mystere]

M T, on 24 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:

The gap between logging in and finally playing.

Namely the skill tree. I can't be f'n assed to go over skill trees every time i want to play a mech. I want to setup the mech fast and queue up and play.

Just ignore it. I do^(*), other than the consumables, of course.

(*) When I am able to convince myself to play, anyway.

[Dimento Graven]

I disagree very much with what a lot of you are saying about the content of this game, or the lack there of, or that the priority should be fixing the match maker (which is actually putting the cart before the horse).

This game is a tactical first person shooter, and as far as first person shooters go, it has in my opinion a ***-TON of content:

Dozens of maps
Multiple game modes
Hundreds of mech chasis
Dozens of weapons
Customizable configurations of weapons, engines, armor types, etc.

As far as a first person shooter goes, strictly on the basis of being a MMO first person shooter, this game stands up to pretty much any of them, Quake, TF2, COD, PUBG, etc.

The problem comes down to an overly thin player base, there's probably only about (and I am ABSOLUTELY GUESSING HERE) 40,000 to 50,000 people that play this game with any sort of regularity. All the other games we've mentioned have larger player bases, but the amount of content is actually no more (and in some cases, FAR LESS) than that of MWO.

No, the true cause of all our problems, lack of a viable match maker, unsatisfactory wait times in certain game modes, experiencing stomps to often, all that is because this game has such a small player base.

When it came out and there potentially hundreds of thousands playing at anyone time, EVEN BEFORE THE MATCH MAKER, WITH FEWER 'MECHS, LESS WEAPONS, LESS MAPS, LESS GAME MODES, we had a lot more variation in the gaming experience specifically because there were MORE active players.

As far as I can tell, this game is NOT in anyway shape or form being advertised. Crimany the last article I read on Mercenaries 5, didn't even MENTION MWO! I mean COME THE F ON, what an opportunity to drop in a single f'ing line that says, "And oh, by the way a lot of the Mercernaries 5's 'mechs are based on existing artwork/chassis currently in MWO, a Free-to-play game, where you have 12-v-12 quickplay matches, and 12-v-12 community warfare, or 4-v-4 scouting matches, and even 1-v-1 and 2-v-2 gladitorial matches. So you can get your big stompy robot fix TODAY, while you wait for the release in 2019!!!"

Without advertising you get no new customers, businesses thrive not only on 'return' customers, but also a constant influx of NEW customers.

Bottom line, before you can fix anything else you might imagine being broken with this game (which is actually FINE as is for an F2P MMO FPS) you HAVE to bring in a larger population of active gamers. That doesn't mean chasing after the "old" players, that means NEW "fresh" players.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 24 August 2018 - 08:13 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2018 - 08:10 AM, said:

No, the true cause of all our problems, lack of a viable match maker, unsatisfactory wait times in certain game modes, experiencing stomps to often, all that is because this game has such a small player base.

While I agree with your point regarding advertising, I can’t help but note that the NPE for this game is awful and has only gotten worse over time.

From the the lack of any sort of guidance to basic aspects of the game, to the horror of a GUI that is the skill tree, to the reality that just as soon as a new player gets thier mech the way they like PGI nerfs it or changes its attributes; MWO’s NPE seems designed to drive new and casual gamers away far more than other FPS that I have ever encountered or heard of. So even if PGI did advertise I fear that a lot of the folks heeding their enticements would come for a game or two and then leave bewildered and potentially pissed off. Then that word of mouth would spread.

So yeah, advertising would be good, but only if they dramatically changed the game to make it more inviting for the new players that such advertising would presumably attract.

In my opinion the player base keeps dropping (and new players coming in is at a near low) not because of a lack of advertising or because it is such a great “tactical first person shooter” but because PGI has failed to make it much more than that despite having all of the various features you point to. Rather than make the game play unique and team focused, then are constantly changing if not simply vanilifing all of those “hundreds of mechs” and “dozens of weapons” in a way that both the long term fans apparently dislike (the number of players leaving over time isn’t an illusion) and can’t be anything but frustrating for a new player.

[Dimento Graven]

Bud Crue, on 24 August 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

While I agree with your point regarding advertising, I can’t help but note that the NPE for this game is awful and has only gotten worse over time.

The NPE only "grew worse over time" because SO MUCH MORE has been added to the game over that same period.

Yeah, I agree it's a brutal learning curve, but that's because now we have quick play solo and group queues, more than two game modes in quick play (when it started we had, what, maybe 2 - I honestly can't remember if Assault was in early beta or not, that was a LONG f'ing time ago now) with the addition of Conquest, Domination, Escort, etc. etc.. Faction warfare with a dozen or so factions to choose from, and requires a 4 'mech drop deck and encompasses almost all the maps and most of the other game modes, or the 4-v-4 scout mode for faction play, which can affect the normal 12-v-12 faction warfare, then there's Solaris which actually plays much differently in some ways than either of the other two. Plus the new skill tree (which is, in some ways an improvement, but I admit there are changes I would LOVE to make), plus all the new 'mechs, plus the new weapons, some of which have new mechanics, and even the mechanics of old weapons (such as gauss, LRMs, and Streaks) are not intuitive), but all that is neither here nor there, a new player that comes in and is enthusiastic about learning the game WILL get help. I've seen the community do it, with in game VOIP offering new/inexperienced players to join in on their TS/Discord to discuss and learn the aspects they need help with.

The MWO gaming community is fantastic in that way.

Quote

From the the lack of any sort of guidance to basic aspects of the game, to the horror of a GUI that is the skill tree, to the reality that just as soon as a new player gets thier mech the way they like PGI nerfs it or changes its attributes; MWO’s NPE seems designed to drive new and casual gamers away far more than other FPS that I have ever encountered or heard of. So even if PGI did advertise I fear that a lot of the folks heeding their enticements would come for a game or two and then leave bewildered and potentially pissed off. Then that word of mouth would spread.

There are the in game tutorials that will help with the barest bones of MWO, but they are something in game that does help. As far as the complaints on the skill tree, I disagree with you on the scope of the problem there. It's ok as a first pass at adding a comprehensive skill tree, but, absolutely a few small changes need to be made to make it more viable, so that getting at some of the various enhancements are less like making the choice to cut off a foot so you can have more armor elsewhere, kind of thing...

WOM is unreliable in these cases. There needs to be ACTUAL advertising, period.

Quote

So yeah, advertising would be good, but only if they dramatically changed the game to make it more inviting for the new players that such advertising would presumably attract.

As I've said elsewhere, as a tactical MMO FPS this game stands up to pretty much any of 'em out there. It's not the best, it's not the worst, if anything it's at the bottom of the top tier of MMO FPS's in my experience and opinion.

Quote

In my opinion the player base keeps dropping (and new players coming in is at a near low) not because of a lack of advertising or because it is such a great “tactical first person shooter” but because PGI has failed to make it much more than that despite having all of the various features you point to. Rather than make the game play unique and team focused, then are constantly changing if not simply vanilifing all of those “hundreds of mechs” and “dozens of weapons” in a way that both the long term fans apparently dislike (the number of players leaving over time isn’t an illusion) and can’t be anything but frustrating for a new player.

The "vanillafying" you are referring to is actually being done by the players who quickly shift to anything that is the current "meta". I'm pretty sure PGI had already realized this, hence this years Worlds tournament being all about STOCK 'mech builds, no customizations, no duplicate chassis allowed.

It's VERY different playing a stock 'mech than it is playing one that's been customized for the meta.

So you can blame the player base for the vanilla flavored warfare you're experiencing, it's OUR fault, not PGI's. We did that, and the only way PGI could force us off it, is to nerf the bejeezus out of 'mech customization, which in my opinion would be a HORRIBLY BAD way to commit corporate suicide, as much of the way we play this game is about customizing our 'mechs.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 24 August 2018 - 08:58 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2018 - 08:55 AM, said:

So you can blame the player base for the vanilla flavored warfare you're experiencing, it's OUR fault, not PGI's. We did that, and the only way PGI could force us off it, is to nerf the bejeezus out of 'mech customization, which in my opinion would be a HORRIBLY BAD way to commit corporate suicide, as much of the way we play this game is about customizing our 'mechs.

Just can’t agree.

The game certainly has metas that players take advantage of. But that isn’t what PGI nerfs. Consider the recent 92 point alpha boogie man that PGI has fixated on. I’ve never encountered it in game. Ever. Never even read a weepy forum post about how that build is driving players away or destroying faction play or dominating Solaris, etc. Yet here we are on PTS 2.1 so that we can come up with a way for PGI to nerf most of the currently existing mechs in the game all to prevent this barely played scourge from existing. It’s the same thing they did with the UAC nerf to address the Kodiak-3 or adding GH to Gauss/PPC to address poptarting Night Gyrs. Was my UAC5 running Enforcer really “meta” too? I think not, yet it was nerfed. Was my 2PPC/1Gauss 0XP “meta”? I think not. But PGI trashed them both along with the supposed metas of their day. That isn’t the players fault, that is ALL on PGI.

Now put yourself in the position of the new player who just came in and was dumb enough to buy that Enforcer, or that 0xp. Maybe it’s your first mech. And now PGI nerfs it and tells you it is for “balance”. That new player is going to reasonably think: “WTF are you breaking my mech for if the Kodiak is unbalanced, my mech isn’t a Kodiak!!?” You just want to play with your new toy that now doesn’t play the way it did yesterday. Then, month after month they nerf something else for “balance,” and each time they tell you how “balance is the best its ever been,” only to keep screwing with EVERYTHING you buy. Result: the new player is forced to rebuild, reskill or buy something new and start over. But then it occurs to the new player that “hey they do this to everything, and they do it all the time. So why bother? I’ll go play some other FPS that doesn’t do this crap.”

That is the new player experience of MWO, and it isn’t the players making it happen. It is 100% PGI. It would be great if they chose to address OP outliers that drive the supposed meta that players take advantage of, but that is not what PGI does. They hit everything. Add that expoerience to the normal grind (and other issues raised above) and you have about the most unfriendly new player enviornment I can think of in a supposedly viable online game.

Edited by Bud Crue, 24 August 2018 - 10:09 AM.

[Kubernetes]

Grus, on 23 August 2018 - 09:36 PM, said:

Is it me or did the moderaters take a SERIOUS hammer to a lot of posts on this thread?

Murderated for wholly innocuous comments. Gg, PGI: surely people won't figure out the game is dying if you simply censor everyone on the forums! Brilliant!

[The Mysterious Fox]

QP is the only bucket that matters and its constantly being killed for the sake of FP

[Dimento Graven]

Bud Crue, on 24 August 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

Just can’t agree.

The game certainly has metas that players take advantage of. But that isn’t what PGI nerfs. Consider the recent 92 point alpha boogie man that PGI has fixated on. I’ve never encountered it in game. Ever. Never even read a weepy forum post about how that build is driving players away or destroying faction play or dominating Solaris, etc. Yet here we are on PTS 2.1 so that we can come up with a way for PGI to nerf most of the currently existing mechs in the game all to prevent this barely played scourge from existing. It’s the same thing they did with the UAC nerf to address the Kodiak-3 or adding GH to Gauss/PPC to address poptarting Night Gyrs. Was my UAC5 running Enforcer really “meta” too? I think not, yet it was nerfed. Was my 2PPC/1Gauss 0XP “meta”? I think not. But PGI trashed them both along with the supposed metas of their day. That isn’t the players fault, that is ALL on PGI.

Now put yourself in the position of the new player who just came in and was dumb enough to buy that Enforcer, or that 0xp. Maybe it’s your first mech. And now PGI nerfs it and tells you it is for “balance”. That new player is going to reasonably think: “WTF are you breaking my mech for if the Kodiak is unbalanced, my mech isn’t a Kodiak!!?” You just want to play with your new toy that now doesn’t play the way it did yesterday. Then, month after month they nerf something else for “balance,” and each time they tell you how “balance is the best its ever been,” only to keep screwing with EVERYTHING you buy. Result: the new player is forced to rebuild, reskill or buy something new and start over. But then it occurs to the new player that “hey they do this to everything, and they do it all the time. So why bother? I’ll go play some other FPS that doesn’t do this crap.”

They need to fixate on those outliers primarily because of the NPE. One of the key issues mentioned over and over when it comes to NPE is the TTK. A lot of people think that TTK is to low (though pretty much EVERY OTHER FPS I've played has TTK as low if not lower than MWO, but whatever, given the complication of learning this game, dying too quickly steepens the learning curve, so there is some logic to the argument) and those outlier builds that can punch through even assault armor in single shots need to be taken care of, immediately, when identified.

As does those things that can frustrate the new player such as over use of indirect fire weapons, where the newbie has no clue as to how he's being spotted or how to resolve the situation, or the over use of 6, 8, 10, 12 machine gun toting super fast, ultra small lights that can't be seen in certain 'mechs when they're mashed up against them, or can chew through leg armor faster than most other 'mechs can fire two alphas in defense.

This is a case of you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't worry over the bad NPE, then ignore the things that add pain to the NPE because they're your favorite mode of play.

Quote

That is the new player experience of MWO, and it isn’t the players making it happen. It is 100% PGI. It would be great if they chose to address OP outliers that drive the supposed meta that players take advantage of, but that is not what PGI does. They hit everything. Add that expoerience to the normal grind (and other issues raised above) and you have about the most unfriendly new player enviornment I can think of in a supposedly viable online game.

I'm sorry but balance happens and it has to happen, and it's players and how they game the system that causes PGI to react the way it does.

Ultimately it's how we play that determines what is getting nerfed and what isn't.

[Koniving]

A focus on content.
And no, I don't mean yet more cookie cutter mechs.

[Bud Crue]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

They need to fixate on those outliers primarily because of the NPE.
...
This is a case of you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't worry over the bad NPE, then ignore the things that add pain to the NPE because they're your favorite mode of play.

I'm sorry but balance happens and it has to happen, and it's players and how they game the system that causes PGI to react the way it does.

Ultimately it's how we play that determines what is getting nerfed and what isn't.

But that’s just it. Time after time they claim to focus on the outliers but they address the outliers by nerfing everything (see Kodiaks other than the 3) or in some occasions everything BUT the outlier (see 2016 Grasshopper 5P. Every Hopper nerfed multiple times that year...EXCEPT the then recognized “meta” 5P). If I thought they were actually acting in some way to address outliers I would agree, but the observable history is that they do NOT address outliers. They nerf everything in that name but that maintains the relative status quo; or the fail to properly identify the true outlier and ignore it.

I can’t think of much that frustrates me more than this aspect of the game, and so I can only imagine how it must feel to a new player with only a few mechs to fall back on when PGI nerfs what I play.

If PGI were nerfing based on how we play, then wouldn’t they be nerfing the very outlier you mention? Those ubiquitous in ever match nowadays “machine gun toting, super fast, ultra small lights”. Yet nowhere is there a dev crying about the horror of these “outliers”. Instead they want to heat cap everything because of an outlier no one plays. This is not balance. This is not increasing TTK. It is certainly not helping the NPE.