Jump to content

Low Cost Game Update Suggestions


88 replies to this topic

#1 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 08:55 AM

Please find listed here some low cost updates that change the game and why they should be prioritized.

#1) Quick Play PSR/Match Maker update
Why: Using monthly data, it is easy to see that people with <0.7 WLR and >1.3 WLR quit the game at 2-3x the rate of people near 1 WLR. This is because if the game is too frustrating or too easy, people quit. A new PSR/MM should push everyone to as close to 1 WLR as possible to cut attrition rates in half, and this should be done before costlier content additions to bring in new players to better retain them. (Yes this is possible https://mwomercs.com...psr-comparison/)

#2) Faction Play Team-Skill-Aware Tonnage-based Rewards
Why: There is no MM for Faction Play, and the same attrition rate problem applies to it. However it's not possible to create even teams, so the solution is to make the stronger team willingly give up tonnage to make the match more even. Based on the relative skill of the teams, base reward on a recommended drop deck tonnage. The weaker team gets full tonnage, the strong team gets a lower number. If you take more than that tonnage, your rewards for c-bills, and LP get severely reduced. (If you take less than the recommend tonnage, you get a bonus. Optional - allow naming of drop decks)

#3) Solaris queue and MM update
Why: The reason Solaris failed is match making. You should not put two pilots together because there are two people in queue, as this means one top pilot sitting in a division queue will clear everyone else out over time with frustrating matches. Having a good time matters more than wait time. The easy way to solve this is to combine the 7 divisions into 1, and use a simple formula to give everyone close matches and ~1 WLR + or - 0.3 (67% of pop in 1 WLR + or - 0.1). Don't launch matches for pilots too separate in skill. Also add a dom circle in the middle with cover that activates after 1 min to stop corner camping.

I recommend implementing player atttrition QoL changes in particular before considering expensive new content, otherwise any new blood brought into the game will churn away in a heartbeat. The effect of attrition compounds over time, no one can time travel but if we could, cutting attrition rates in half on the release of these features would increase the pop 5 fold today with 0 art asset changes - a ridiculously good price-performance deal.


#4) Re-tune locked cryengine settings for modern graphics cards.
Why: Some settings remove invisible walls and terrain pop-in when tested in MWO testing grounds. These settings however are locked from player change in real matches. Rather than unlocking settings, which would give people with better systems an advantage, the default settings should be updated to improve the graphics for all players and also decrease invisible walls and terrain pop-in, which are annoying.

#5) XML shake-up (quirk, agility, weapon stats)
I won't itemize what I think should be done here, there are many ideas floating outside anyways. However I am not suggesting a balancing update but a complete shake-up because drastic changes can make the game feel fresh. Comparably, a few % tweaks here and there wouldn't. Flip the board upside down. After all it is just an XML change and low cost. (Sample change: make PPC speed 3-4000m/s but have a charge-up time of .5-1 second and cannot be held like gauss. Completely different weapon system right? I'm not pushing this particular change, I'm just showing that if all weapons were changed to this degree, the game will feel completely new)

#6) Update mech agility with physics
I detailed the method here (https://mwomercs.com...l-life-physics/) the benefit is mainly for better mech balance and also allows players to identify agility intuitively. For some sample problems, the timber has low slung weapons and moves like a top heavy mech. The blackjack and summoner are high mounted yet are the most agile in their class. Not high priority perhaps, but QoL in how mechs handle versus how they look.

Edited by Nightbird, 16 October 2020 - 11:05 AM.


#2 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 11,686 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 11:48 AM

problem with getting people to chip in is they dont want to buy expensive things for a game that could be pulled at any moment. however lower cost items, like in the $2-10 price range might me an easier pill to swallow. people put that much into vending machines for things that only last an hour. they would have to be store exclusives and not mc items, or have an exclusive period like mech packs did. such items may be one of these:

new mech variants (xml only).
new premium omnipods.
new weapon variants (xml only, no retrofits. thats why it took so long to get a weapons pack out of them last time).
additional equipment (gyros, actuators and sensors for example, this stuff is already implemented as fixed equipment, like tacticon).

then there is the appealing to the vanity of your audience. like allowing custom dekkles and skins. full mods are out of the question but bitmaps are a lot easier to manage. you submit artwork, its qualified by pgi (must follow code of conduct and not contain any copyrighted stuff), and added to the next patch. can be either exclusive to you or your unit, or can be available to everyone. the former would be more expensive, but the latter would be cheaper and other players could pay to use it (each time someone bought it the artist could pick up a few mc, which helps encourage quality). these might be a little more expensive as you have to be able to pay for the work of qualifying and adding to the game.

buff the trash tier mechs to at least minimally viable product, or price to move. people dont want to pay for mech packs that suck.

mech bay packs. sold at a rate lower than their sale mc value, exclusively in the store. mechbays currently cost about a $1.67 at the lowest mc rate. the sale rate would be $0.83. so sell them in a pack of 20 for $10 (or 50 cents a bay). lots of players have tons of cbills (i have a bit over half a billion) and would like to use them. perhaps also do same deal with drop decks.

mapdev supporter packs. people who want more maps can buy these. when enough has sold pgi makes a new map. might include items that give you extra votes on the voting screen. might also allow you to vote on map themes when maps are being created. im not sure if there are enough players for this to work, and they would have to find ways to cut costs even if there were.

Edited by LordNothing, 11 October 2020 - 11:50 AM.


#3 dario03

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 12:37 PM

-Huge decrease in MC cost for regular mechs. The mechs don't give any benefit over buying them for cbills and there are tons to buy. Make them much cheaper to encourage impulse buying. Getting a new player to spend a couple of bucks makes them more likely to spend again and keep playing because now they have some investment of money.
-Release IIC mechs using the IS models of currently available mechs for a lower price. Would you buy an Urbie IIC base pack if it was the IS model or slightly changed for $10? I'm sure a lot of people would.
-New variants of existing mechs again at a low price.

All things that would require little work but could bring in a decent amount of money because its better value.

#4 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 6,587 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 11 October 2020 - 04:59 PM

Reduce drop count, have option of 4v4 and 8v8s.

Doing so might increase the quality of combat, while also make games more frequent and the game seemingly more alive.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 October 2020 - 05:01 PM.


#5 RRAMIREZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 147 posts
  • LocationIn the Blob

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:23 AM

View PostNightbird, on 11 October 2020 - 08:55 AM, said:

Please find listed here some low cost updates that change the game and why they should be prioritized.

#1) Quick Play PSR/Match Maker update
Why: Using monthly data, it is easy to see that people with <0.7 WLR and >1.3 WLR quit the game at 2-3x the rate of people near 1 WLR. This is because if the game is too frustrating or too easy, people quit. A new PSR/MM should push everyone to as close to 1 WLR as possible to cut attrition rates in half, and this should be done before costlier content additions to bring in new players to better retain them. (Yes this is possible https://mwomercs.com...psr-comparison/)

At least a debrief from PSR Team on the implemented change must happen.
We didn't have the Tier pop charts officially updated and IIRC, after a 3 month period, there should have been some kind of wrap up, feedback, analisys.
This cost 0$
This reinforce "we do what we said" (and trust seams core to me for people to "re-invest" in the game)


ps:

View PostPaul Inouye, on 15 July 2020 - 02:11 PM, said:

[...]
The following is the current numbers as of July 15/2020:
[...]
As mentioned, we'll continue to monitor and adjust as needed. At the end of 3 months, we'll take a hard look at all numbers involved and discuss with you the next steps.

-Paul

So the debrief is a due.

#6 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 08:40 AM

Posted Image

#7 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 5,410 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 12 October 2020 - 08:46 AM

I am vehemently opposed to upping the WLR component of the ELO system.

All that will do is make matches worse. With top players getting pushed down into "regular" matches.

Re-tuning graphics, and a Solaris update might be interesting.

#8 Willard Phule

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,741 posts
  • LocationThe Omega Company compound on Outreach

Posted 12 October 2020 - 08:52 AM

Here's one.....how about allowing the solos to "opt in" for playing with groups? If you check "no," then you won't be included in any matchmaking that involves premade groups.

Sure, if enough solos opt in for this, the group players won't have any PUG filler and will most likely have to wait three times longer for a match, but at least they'll still be allowed to group up. At least the solo matches will be quick to put together.

#9 Antares102

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,300 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 08:54 AM

Personal hero mech

Declare ONE mech your personal hero mech which will provide one additional quirk e.g. +10% range, -10% heat generation, ... OR instead maybe allow a few more skill tree points beyond the 91 limit e.g. limit of 100.
The downside is that the mech is LOCKED in its configuration and cannot be changed any longer, not even one armor point.
If you want to change something or select a different mech you have to sell the current personal hero mech first for normal amount of C-Bills and declare another mech your personal hero.

It would add one more dimension for min-maxing and would not be pay2win because everybody can do it.
At the same time it would work as a C-Bill or even MC sink.

Another dimension of min-maxing at least would bring me back to try new stuff, even if the core game isn't changed.

Edited by Antares102, 12 October 2020 - 08:54 AM.


#10 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 08:54 AM

View PostBelorion, on 12 October 2020 - 08:46 AM, said:

I am vehemently opposed to upping the WLR component of the ELO system.

All that will do is make matches worse. With top players getting pushed down into "regular" matches.

Re-tuning graphics, and a Solaris update might be interesting.


The simulations showed the opposite, 3x closer and more fair matches than today. Feel free to take a look at the link. This is backed up by math, not gut feeling.

Edited by Nightbird, 12 October 2020 - 09:02 AM.


#11 Rock Roller

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hitman
  • The Hitman
  • 304 posts
  • LocationPacific North West USA

Posted 12 October 2020 - 11:17 AM

I was thinking about this quite a bit myself. I see that some of us are defiantly thinking in the same lane. Setting realistic but still desirable goals sound like that most promising place to start.

Things that I thought that could be done that should be an incentive to me to spend money.

1: Weapon systems. Not large releases of groups but a specific weapon or system? So many from cannon are not in the game. If you added one on the same release, sales strategy as mech releases with a lower price. I know I would buy. Follow the same later release for F2P. This would add variety and new build options.

2: Custom skins or variant parts skins. For instance: Variant weapon/ Head/ Arm Skins.

3: New map general release, even some touched up faction play only maps would go some way to adding variety and address one of the most frequent community "Asks".

4: No kidding....More Mech Packs or Single release Mechs. Not every month but maybe every three. Truthfully some of us would still support more frequent but some wont. Maybe even look at some mechs that could be put together by scaling up or down a current mech and adjusting its tonnage and stats. An example of this is that a reskinned Phoenix Hawk could be a Wasp/ Stinger/ Valkyrie/ Crusader starting point. This could save development time and money while adding mechs that add new toys.

5: Balance tweaks. Specifically not large adjustments. A few that I have heard passionately talked about would be nice places to start.
A: Maybe like adding 10-20% of the speed back for larger mechs. Not going full bore but adding back some of the lost performance.
B: Some reduction in the heat loss for losing a side torso?
C: Just a personal suggestion. Add +2/+3/+5/+7 structure for standard engines? The different brackets represent the bonus per weight class. This would add to their durability and make them more desirable.
D: Heck put a list together and ask for ideas. Some are bound to be workable and attractive.

Anyway I have always loved this game and played it daily on...5 different accounts. All of them I have sank a ton of money into and I still would. Each of my accounts were done not as twink accounts. Each of my accounts have different mechs/builds/friends in some cases. 1 is just so I can play with no one knowing me and wanting to group when I just want to play with no interruptions. 2 Months ago I just didn't log on anymore and have missed it. Albion Online became my current home but I do miss MWO.

#12 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 5,410 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 12 October 2020 - 11:19 AM

View PostNightbird, on 12 October 2020 - 08:54 AM, said:


The simulations showed the opposite, 3x closer and more fair matches than today. Feel free to take a look at the link. This is backed up by math, not gut feeling.


Your simulations are useless, correlation does not mean what you think in those simulations.

#13 Panzer Puppy

    Rookie

  • 3 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 11:25 AM

I would love to see a new game engine and maps. But I would support with money any new content that adds variety.

#14 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 11:28 AM

View PostBelorion, on 12 October 2020 - 11:19 AM, said:

Your simulations are useless, correlation does not mean what you think in those simulations.


I guess the cancer medication, heart valve implants, vaccines, brain stents, and all sorts of other analysis I worked on over my career are all useless then... terrible news.

#15 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 11,686 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 12:10 PM

seems to me every time there is a change to the matchmaker (or anything major for that matter, examples like the year of faction play and the previous round of tweaks, hell all of them really) the community goes through the same phases.

there is the outrage phase, where people get angry and even go as far as leaving the game.
then there is the terrible phase, where people play badly in an effort to adjust to the new system.
then comes the settle down phase, where people have learn to live with it, game quality goes up as a result.
then the vocal minority phase, where demands that it be changed persist.
then the scorched earth phase, where pgi actually changes it, starting the whole cycle anew.

#16 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 12:24 PM

View PostLordNothing, on 12 October 2020 - 12:10 PM, said:

seems to me every time there is a change to the matchmaker (or anything major for that matter, examples like the year of faction play and the previous round of tweaks, hell all of them really) the community goes through the same phases.

there is the outrage phase, where people get angry and even go as far as leaving the game.
then there is the terrible phase, where people play badly in an effort to adjust to the new system.
then comes the settle down phase, where people have learn to live with it, game quality goes up as a result.
then the vocal minority phase, where demands that it be changed persist.
then the scorched earth phase, where pgi actually changes it, starting the whole cycle anew.


I see it as,
1) the hope phase - more people log in to give new improved MM a try
2) the disappointment phase - people realize the new MM sucks and quits again
3) the blame phase - people find reasons why the update failed
4) the acceptance phase - people accept the reduced population that results from the disappointment
5) the hope phase - another idea is proposed that is intended to fix the errors of the past

Edited by Nightbird, 12 October 2020 - 12:24 PM.


#17 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 11,686 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 12:50 PM

View PostNightbird, on 12 October 2020 - 12:24 PM, said:


I see it as,
1) the hope phase - more people log in to give new improved MM a try
2) the disappointment phase - people realize the new MM sucks and quits again
3) the blame phase - people find reasons why the update failed
4) the acceptance phase - people accept the reduced population that results from the disappointment
5) the hope phase - another idea is proposed that is intended to fix the errors of the past


its the same sequence offset by one. more or less. i can understand giving it an optimistic spin, but the graphs on jarls seem to indicate otherwise (and while ignoring the covid induced population spike). i think the best thing is to stop the cycle on phase 3 (4 on yours) and work on maintaining what we got.

Edited by LordNothing, 12 October 2020 - 12:51 PM.


#18 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 12:54 PM

View PostLordNothing, on 12 October 2020 - 12:50 PM, said:


its the same sequence offset by one. more or less. i can understand giving it an optimistic spin, but the graphs on jarls seem to indicate otherwise (and while ignoring the covid induced population spike). i think the best thing is to stop the cycle on phase 3 (4 on yours) and work on maintaining what we got.


I understand where you come from but keep in mind what we have is a steadily declining population. The shake-ups do breath more time into the lifespan of the game.

#19 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 11,686 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:05 PM

View PostNightbird, on 12 October 2020 - 12:54 PM, said:

I understand where you come from but keep in mind what we have is a steadily declining population. The shake-ups do breath more time into the lifespan of the game.


still i think we need to give the mm a rest, for awhile anyway. if thats all i have to look forward too then color me meh.

#20 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:11 PM

View PostLordNothing, on 12 October 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

still i think we need to give the mm a rest, for awhile anyway. if thats all i have to look forward too then color me meh.


A working MM reduces the red ink of monthly population from -10%, -10%, -10%, -10%, to -5%, -5%, -5%, etc.

When you have a new content release give the pop a +25% bump for one month, it changes it from -10%, +15%, -10%, -10%, net -15% over 4 months to -5%, +20%, -5%, -5%. net +5% over 4 months. Over the course of years, you grow your pop instead of losing it. But meh it is.

Let's do something else less productive.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users