270 replies to this topic

[Grus]

Nightbird, on 30 November 2018 - 06:18 PM, said:

Don't worry, MW5 is coming out for the people who prefer solo play.

75% of current population..

Humble Dexter, on 30 November 2018 - 05:57 PM, said:

To fix the FP population, you just have to put groups in their own separate queue : Tenfold increase in solo queue FP population.

To put groups in their own separate queue, you have to fix the FP population...

To increase the FP population, I suggest banning groups from FP during Competitive play.

No..

[Nightbird]

Grus, on 01 December 2018 - 06:40 AM, said:

75% of current population..

If you look at the population for Battlech, despite being out for only 1 year, I'd say more like 25%.

That been said, we'll see if there's any hope left for MWO based on the announcements at mechcon.

[Grus]

Nightbird, on 01 December 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

If you look at the population for Battlech, despite being out for only 1 year, I'd say more like 25%.

That been said, we'll see if there's any hope left for MWO based on the announcements at mechcon.

"We are shutting down the servers effective 1/1/19.. but that WH2C you just bought, well we are gonna give you a code so you can have that and use it in our new MW5 game!! Good stuff right?" #sarcasm

The cynic in me is showing... im sorry.

[Johnathan Tanner]

Nightbird, on 01 December 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

That been said, we'll see if there's any hope left for MWO based on the announcements at mechcon.

[Nightbird]

[MischiefSC]

Nightbird, on 21 November 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

It's a niche game and advertising costs a certain amount per view. Let be generous, and say for every 100 viewers 1 installs the game. For every 4 that try MWO, 1 pays 20$ for a mech pack.

Do you know how much it costs to show an ad to 400 people to earn that 20$? 120$! You lose 100$. To break even, you need to convert a high percentage of new players into paying customers, and also retain customers for years and years. MWO today isn't worth that investment, it's better to get free publicity from the release of Battletech and MW5, and you can see from the pop count how quickly MWO bleed the pop boost from the Battletech release.

You don't get 25% buy-in. Most F2P have less than 5% who pay. In general 0.15% of your population provides 50% of your revenue. That's why most F2P games provide a measurable advantage for paying - the reality is that the free players are the content intended to be consumed by the paying customers. MWO doesn't have that mechanic but still has some whales, but yeah. It's why advertising just doesn't pay in F2P.

[MischiefSC]

Nightbird, on 01 December 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

If you look at the population for Battlech, despite being out for only 1 year, I'd say more like 25%.

That been said, we'll see if there's any hope left for MWO based on the announcements at mechcon.

No, Battletech still has 4-5x the population active on steam as MWO and that's assuming MWO has over 50% of its population using the launcher instead of Steam, which is unlikely.

Though it's fair to say a lot of MW5 players will be people who left MWO a while ago.

[Nightbird]

MischiefSC, on 06 December 2018 - 07:29 AM, said:

No, Battletech still has 4-5x the population active on steam as MWO and that's assuming MWO has over 50% of its population using the launcher instead of Steam, which is unlikely.

Though it's fair to say a lot of MW5 players will be people who left MWO a while ago.

I think when I was saying that I was comparing with the first couple of months of Steam data for MWO. Can't really compare to today, since timepoint in the life cycle is different.

[LordNothing]

i wrote this for the thread that just got locked in gd. but i pasted it here anyway. apparently pgi's pet moderators have no life that they have to lock threads that im currently replying to. ignore the first part, which was the only part relevant to the thread in which i intended to post it. without further ado:

in these sorts of situations i open gates. id rather get farmed and tked over staring at a screen for a half hour to play a game that already involves too much waiting, just to end up waiting another half hour to try again.

for fp to thrive as a game mode it has to be all inclusive. it becoming a defacto elites only club is part of why its so dead today. 12 should play 12s, and if there is no other 12 to fight against they should be split up into lances. if there is no 12 to play against because they all dogpiled whatever side was winning at the time thats their own fault. there are enough teams in fp to have 12 mans all day every day if they would balance the number of 12s across both sides. most pgi has to do is show where the 12s are and give them a reason to not dogpile. another solution to the dogpile problem is to put the dogpiled side into a civil war mode such that all those 12s have to fight 12s. call it a coup or a trial of grievance or something, that happens all the time in lore.

solos are going to be solos but you can stop rewarding selfish play. remove all qp scoring and only reward winning such that players are forced work together to win and dont ever give them the option to throw their own team under the bus to pad their stats. if they do this they should not get much score. they shouldnt be exempt from winning mc either for not being in a team. vicotry pay would incentivize working together to win as opposed to using your team as a meat shield for personal gain, since you only gain if you win.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 December 2018 - 12:04 PM.

[Nightbird]

LordNothing, on 06 December 2018 - 11:59 AM, said:

snip

I hear you LN, but aren't you potentially trading one vice for another? For example, if winning is all that matters, won't people all only gen rush or base cap rush etc? People already complain about PvsE, shooting targets that don't shoot back as they're only doing objectives is not very much fun.

Forcing groups of 12 to split also hurts rather than helps the community aspect of this game, but having a group of 12 face 12 solo pugs is also not good as it is today.

The idea presented here is a compromise in that it doesn't force you to play one way or another. If a strong team faces a weak team (of pugs), they're forced to ton down to 160 ton drop decks. If this strategy creates closer matches, doesn't that fix the problem without creating more problem? And if 160 tons is too much, if PGI is willing to lower the min tonnage, then lower it down to 80. You have 12 20 ton mechs. Wouldn't that be fun for both side?

[Spheroid]

The current levels of collusion are an entirely predictable response to the collapsing of all factions to a two sided conflict. There is no opportunity for competition absent the ability to fight your own tech base blood rivals. The removal of same tech base conflict means there no longer is a possibility to seek conflict elsewhere or desync. Complete faction switching freedom eliminates any possibility of geographic sanctuary.

Also the static universe devoid of planet capture means that the former e-peen trophies of planets and tags have replaced by the "game" of competitive matchscore or damage farming. That is a far more toxic sport and not compatible with the original design vision of player populated interstellar war simulator.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

I hear you LN, but aren't you potentially trading one vice for another? For example, if winning is all that matters, won't people all only gen rush or base cap rush etc? People already complain about PvsE, shooting targets that don't shoot back as they're only doing objectives is not very much fun.

Forcing groups of 12 to split also hurts rather than helps the community aspect of this game, but having a group of 12 face 12 solo pugs is also not good as it is today.

The idea presented here is a compromise in that it doesn't force you to play one way or another. If a strong team faces a weak team (of pugs), they're forced to ton down to 160 ton drop decks. If this strategy creates closer matches, doesn't that fix the problem without creating more problem? And if 160 tons is too much, if PGI is willing to lower the min tonnage, then lower it down to 80. You have 12 20 ton mechs. Wouldn't that be fun for both side?

nothing you cant fix by beefing up the turrets or adding hitpoints to objectives. most games where an objective win happens its because you put up a lethargic defence. how often do you see someone push a crippled mech when their firepower might be put to better use on another target. ive lost games because everyone dogpiled a stick and let the robots with weapons kill the gens. denying those kill points is the best thing you can do for making players function as a team.

[LordNothing]

Spheroid, on 06 December 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

The current levels of collusion are an entirely predictable response to the collapsing of all factions to a two sided conflict. There is no opportunity for competition absent the ability to fight your own tech base blood rivals. The removal of same tech base conflict means there no longer is a possibility to seek conflict elsewhere or desync. Complete faction switching freedom eliminates any possibility of geographic sanctuary.

Also the static universe devoid of planet capture means that the former e-peen trophies of planets and tags have replaced by the "game" of competitive matchscore or damage farming. That is a far more toxic sport and not compatible with the original design vision of player populated interstellar war simulator.

before bucketpocalypse i was pushing for a 4-faction system. the problem isnt just dogpiling to the winning side but also dogpiling to whatever tech base is perceived to be the most powerful at the time. under a four faction system if one tech base is currently superior and that causes dogpiling to that tech base you still have 2 factions that can fight eachother. you end up with more civil wars. underdog factions would provide extra bonuses, thus solos would flock to those to maximize rewards. however if winning is your game, forgoing bonuses in order to play your preferred tech base and faction.

needless to say however factions are configured i think everyone can agree that personal gain play needs to go. it shouldnt even be a factor. high skill players would need new trophies to offset the stats padding, but restoring planet cap would do that. if you somehow manage to sort teams in a way that maximizes 12v12 drops and minimizes 12vpugs, then the possibility of some kind of unit leveling features might come into play. jockeying for things like vote weighting, or letting units build a stronghold somewhere. trials of possession anyone? perhaps unit-owned mechs paid for with the unit coffers (that would really help units recruit new players who dont have huge mech inventories). lots of stuff you can do to provide needed trophies that dont go against victory.

of course then were getting into "too hard for pgi" territory.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 December 2018 - 01:16 PM.

[Nightbird]

Ummm, well you realize your 'no personal gain for performance' mechanic doesn't exist in modern games? I haven't heard of anything like it since what the soviet union attempted.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

Ummm, well you realize your 'no personal gain for performance' mechanic doesn't exist in modern games? I haven't heard of anything like it since what the soviet union attempted.

if by performance you mean winning games then technically you are still playing for personal gain. you just dont gain anything if you gimp your team to the point they cant win.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 December 2018 - 02:30 PM.

[Nightbird]

LordNothing, on 06 December 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

if by performance you mean winning games then technically you are still playing for personal gain. you just dont gain anything if you gimp your team to the point they cant win.

You're saying if you're the top performer on a losing team, you should get the same as the worst performer. And if you're the worst performer on a winning team, you should get as much as the top performer. Stalin approves LOL

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 02:32 PM.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 02:31 PM, said:

You're saying if you're the top performer on a losing team, you should get the same as the worst performer. And if you're the worst performer on a winning team, you should get as much as the top performer. Stalin approves LOL

you can take that attitude to quick play where it belongs, comrade.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 December 2018 - 02:34 PM.

[Nightbird]

LordNothing, on 06 December 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

you can take that attitude to quick play where it belongs, comrade.

call me a capitalist pig like you mean it

[Gully D]

LordNothing, on 06 December 2018 - 11:59 AM, said:

i wrote this for the thread that just got locked in gd. but i pasted it here anyway. apparently pgi's pet moderators have no life that they have to lock threads that im currently replying to. ignore the first part, which was the only part relevant to the thread in which i intended to post it. without further ado:

in these sorts of situations i open gates. id rather get farmed and tked over staring at a screen for a half hour to play a game that already involves too much waiting, just to end up waiting another half hour to try again.

for fp to thrive as a game mode it has to be all inclusive. it becoming a defacto elites only club is part of why its so dead today. 12 should play 12s, and if there is no other 12 to fight against they should be split up into lances. if there is no 12 to play against because they all dogpiled whatever side was winning at the time thats their own fault. there are enough teams in fp to have 12 mans all day every day if they would balance the number of 12s across both sides. most pgi has to do is show where the 12s are and give them a reason to not dogpile. another solution to the dogpile problem is to put the dogpiled side into a civil war mode such that all those 12s have to fight 12s. call it a coup or a trial of grievance or something, that happens all the time in lore.

solos are going to be solos but you can stop rewarding selfish play. remove all qp scoring and only reward winning such that players are forced work together to win and dont ever give them the option to throw their own team under the bus to pad their stats. if they do this they should not get much score. they shouldnt be exempt from winning mc either for not being in a team. vicotry pay would incentivize working together to win as opposed to using your team as a meat shield for personal gain, since you only gain if you win.

I understand with solo farmers. I would like to say if you LOSE (ie not win) a DEFENCE and you still have mechs left in the dropship i think you should not get rewards because:

1) unlikely to be up front
2) not sharing armor
3) sniping from the back
4) not moving with the group
5) not following calls

Just IMO
thoughts?

[Gully D]

Nightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

I hear you LN, but aren't you potentially trading one vice for another? For example, if winning is all that matters, won't people all only gen rush or base cap rush etc? People already complain about PvsE, shooting targets that don't shoot back as they're only doing objectives is not very much fun.

Forcing groups of 12 to split also hurts rather than helps the community aspect of this game, but having a group of 12 face 12 solo pugs is also not good as it is today.

The idea presented here is a compromise in that it doesn't force you to play one way or another. If a strong team faces a weak team (of pugs), they're forced to ton down to 160 ton drop decks. If this strategy creates closer matches, doesn't that fix the problem without creating more problem? And if 160 tons is too much, if PGI is willing to lower the min tonnage, then lower it down to 80. You have 12 20 ton mechs. Wouldn't that be fun for both side?

This may be super controversial, could winners of last game only drop 11? and then only 10?
IDK the mechanics, but maybe 12 shooting 11 is easier than variables of tonnage?

(i know this may be super hard to do, matc hmake, cue etc. but a thought)