39 replies to this topic

[D A T A]

think in "effort from pgi" way.

less effort, easier to obtain

[Spheroid]

This is highly presumptous, a vast majority of F2P games have severe grinds. Are all these games wrong? Are the highly successful Gaijan/Wargaming models incorrect?

I can only assume PGI consulted with outside experts at least twice during this game's lifespan. Once during initial setup and later during the skill tree implementation.

Halving the grind may improve retention, but it also may reduce frequency of logon thus resulting in fewer people available to fight on average. It also may reduce income from decreased sales of premium time or GSP. Will increased retention offset reduced digital goods sales? As an outsider you simply are not in position to know these questions.

[Brauer]

Spheroid, on 18 April 2021 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is highly presumptous, a vast majority of F2P games have severe grinds. Are all these games wrong? Are the highly successful Gaijan/Wargaming models incorrect?

I can only assume PGI consulted with outside experts at least twice during this game's lifespan. Once during initial setup and later during the skill tree implementation.

Halving the grind may improve retention, but it also may reduce frequency of logon thus resulting in fewer people available to fight on average. It also may reduce income from decreased sales of premium time or GSP. Will increased retention offset reduced digital goods sales? As an outsider you simply are not in position to know these questions.

Earlier on when I was buying mechpacks more regularly I definitely sat some out because I couldn't skill mechs fast enough.

[D A T A]

Spheroid, on 18 April 2021 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is highly presumptous, a vast majority of F2P games have severe grinds. Are all these games wrong? Are the highly successful Gaijan/Wargaming models incorrect?

I can only assume PGI consulted with outside experts at least twice during this game's lifespan. Once during initial setup and later during the skill tree implementation.

Halving the grind may improve retention, but it also may reduce frequency of logon thus resulting in fewer people available to fight on average. It also may reduce income from decreased sales of premium time or GSP. Will increased retention offset reduced digital goods sales? As an outsider you simply are not in position to know these questions.

we have no players, we need new players.
new players look at this, then go play COD Warzone

[The6thMessenger]

D A T A, on 18 April 2021 - 11:36 AM, said:

think in "effort from pgi" way.

less effort, easier to obtain

Yeah well, kinda why my wallet stays close regardless of the April 20 patch.

I want to see hard work, not the cheap low-hanging-fruits that should have been implemented from the get go. It's like rewarding people for using the crosswalk as to not jaywalk, or picking up after their trash -- it's just basic decency.

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

Spheroid, on 18 April 2021 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is highly presumptous, a vast majority of F2P games have severe grinds. Are all these games wrong? Are the highly successful Gaijan/Wargaming models incorrect?

I can only assume PGI consulted with outside experts at least twice during this game's lifespan. Once during initial setup and later during the skill tree implementation.

Halving the grind may improve retention, but it also may reduce frequency of logon thus resulting in fewer people available to fight on average. It also may reduce income from decreased sales of premium time or GSP. Will increased retention offset reduced digital goods sales? As an outsider you simply are not in position to know these questions.

A lot of free to play games also recognize how important the New Player Experience is. Player retention is important, and as it stands currently, Cadets take way too long to be up and on equal combat levels.

Even if the proposed changes DATA is asking for is implemented, MWO already has long enough of a grind. With the vast amount of mechs available in the game, it would be more prudent to allow players who are purchasing mechs via mechpacks... to level up their mechs faster so they can finish them and purchase MORE mechpacks.

Fresh New Players, (real new players, not smurfs), have a huge learning curve already, with moving and aiming- let alone heat and targeting... and then they have to learn mech construction and pilot skills... Its a lot to take in!

MWO needs to retain any new players that may sign up, and it needs them desperately. Going into Maintenance mode already proved that. Forcing New Players to be at a disadvantage for too long will drive a lot of them away.

MWO needs to stream line the New Player Experience to increase revenue stream... More active players, more chances to monetize.

[Bud Crue]

The6thMessenger, on 18 April 2021 - 02:16 PM, said:

Yeah well, kinda why my wallet stays close regardless of the April 20 patch.

I want to see hard work, not the cheap low-hanging-fruits that should have been implemented from the get go. It's like rewarding people for using the crosswalk as to not jaywalk, or picking up after their trash -- it's just basic decency.

What kind of "hard work" are you thinking here?

From my perspective, this is a pretty old, pretty niche game that runs on an engine that most programmers have long since moved on from. Getting more than things like .xml changes, some hopeful map fixes/improvements (they hired a new person to work on maps), and most importantly letting the community guide the changes that they (PGI) are capable of making, is as good at it may get for this game.

As soon as it is clear that this patch will be made a reality, I for one will be happy to open my wallet again -bigly. For all its faults, I love this game and am happy to finally see a reason to once again support its development even if that development is admittedly of the "low-hanging fruit" variety when compared to what other less niche games might be capable of providing.

Edit:
Oh, and I second the call for cutting the costs for leveling a mech. Its an absurd grind especially from a an average mech pack perspective.

Edited by Bud Crue, 18 April 2021 - 02:38 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Bud Crue, on 18 April 2021 - 02:35 PM, said:

What kind of "hard work" are you thinking here?

From my perspective, this is a pretty old, pretty niche game that runs on an engine that most programmers have long since moved on from. Getting more than things like .xml changes, some hopeful map fixes/improvements (they hired a new person to work on maps), and most importantly letting the community guide the changes that they (PGI) are capable of making, is as good at it may get for this game.

Significant engine changes.

And you're right, engine is old and crusty. So maybe they should start with putting it in UE4 then?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 April 2021 - 03:04 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Spheroid, on 18 April 2021 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is highly presumptous, a vast majority of F2P games have severe grinds. Are all these games wrong? Are the highly successful Gaijan/Wargaming models incorrect?

I can only assume PGI consulted with outside experts at least twice during this game's lifespan. Once during initial setup and later during the skill tree implementation.

Halving the grind may improve retention, but it also may reduce frequency of logon thus resulting in fewer people available to fight on average. It also may reduce income from decreased sales of premium time or GSP. Will increased retention offset reduced digital goods sales? As an outsider you simply are not in position to know these questions.

by War Thunderor other FPS you becomes not total useless Vehicles or Guns in his Class, a Sherman is a Sherman and do its Role and you not must buy a new better Maincannon or Complete construct teh Vehicle new ,here the Trials Lore Scrapbuilds and must complete rebuilded.The Open Mechlab is the big Handycap for new players, against in MW.

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 18 April 2021 - 06:21 PM.

[The Lighthouse]

Reduced Skill Cost is lesser problem than the fact we have 270 skill nodes.


Compress skill nodes from 270 to 27 and we can talk about other things.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 18 April 2021 - 08:21 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Saved By The Bell, on 18 April 2021 - 08:53 AM, said:

"it can take 91 matches to skill a mech"

No.

Yes, actually.

It can take even longer than that. If you want to unlock more than 91 nodes it can take upwards of 120 matches.

All depends on your in-game performance and for new players, 1 node per match is certainly not what they achieve. It can take 3-4 matches per node.

[CFC Conky]

justcallme A S H, on 18 April 2021 - 08:46 PM, said:

....

All depends on your in-game performance and for new players, 1 node per match is certainly not what they achieve. It can take 3-4 matches per node.

I can personally vouch for that.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

[D A T A]

Spheroid, on 18 April 2021 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is highly presumptous, a vast majority of F2P games have severe grinds. Are all these games wrong? Are the highly successful Gaijan/Wargaming models incorrect?

I can only assume PGI consulted with outside experts at least twice during this game's lifespan. Once during initial setup and later during the skill tree implementation.

Halving the grind may improve retention, but it also may reduce frequency of logon thus resulting in fewer people available to fight on average. It also may reduce income from decreased sales of premium time or GSP. Will increased retention offset reduced digital goods sales? As an outsider you simply are not in position to know these questions.

Dude, meaningless trolling is not the way to go....because.....this insanity MUST be a trolling....like, call me when the majority of the population will have grinded all the 800 mechs in the game....wtf

Edited by D A T A, 19 April 2021 - 05:26 PM.

[FupDup]

D A T A, on 19 April 2021 - 05:25 PM, said:

Dude, meaningless trolling is not the way to go....because.....this insanity MUST be a trolling....like, call me when the majority of the population will have grinded all the 800 mechs in the game....wtf

I don't think he's a troll, seems more like a cynical business model kind of thing. There are basically two camps of opinion at play here:

Camp A: Grindy mechanics keep people playing the game more than they would otherwise (Spheroid's position).

Camp B: The better way to keep people playing is to make a better game that is inherently rewarding rather than using Skinner Box psychological manipulation.


I'm in the second camp.

[D A T A]

I thought he is a troll since it's blunt evident that model A almost killed the game.

ANYWAYS

PGI IS NOW AWARE of this idea and they are working on it to see if "high levels" of PGI agree.

[PocketYoda]

They could always make events where the goal is to give lots of skill points so new customers can level mechs.

[GARION26]

FupDup, on 19 April 2021 - 05:29 PM, said:

I don't think he's a troll, seems more like a cynical business model kind of thing. There are basically two camps of opinion at play here:

Camp A: Grindy mechanics keep people playing the game more than they would otherwise (Spheroid's position).

Camp B: The better way to keep people playing is to make a better game that is inherently rewarding rather than using Skinner Box psychological manipulation.


I'm in the second camp.

I think you are right there are different camps but I think the way you phrased it is probably not the right way to look at it from the standpoint of a free to play game.


Camp A: Grindy mechanics get people to impulse spend real dollars on packages (GSP bundles https://mwomercs.com/store/bundles) that allow them to bypass the grind and play a new mech competitively sooner.

Camp B: If people didn't have to grind to skill up mechs they'd buy more mechs using real dollars.

Camp C: People just want to be able to be fully competitive at this free to play game without spending actual real dollars.


There's nothing 'wrong' with any of the three camps, except in as much as I think camp C doesn't really give much reason for PGI to keep the servers on or invest any developer resources in the game.

Edited by GARION26, 20 April 2021 - 05:24 AM.

[Mech Walesa]

Heavy Money, on 18 April 2021 - 09:16 AM, said:

give some reward to people who play the same variant a lot.

I second that!
for example i have 432,910 xp on my FLEA just sitting there. cost to conver to GXP? 17,316 MC. <== OMEGA LUL
and that's just one mech...

[Fae Puka]

A reduced xp/CBill cost per node would be appreciated, but keep the number of nodes still at 91 equipped, for the newer player, skill trees become a huge resource sink, where as the old version just took time and xp leaving CBill to be used at improving the mech - a far better approach that was supplemented by the transferrable modules.

I still don't see the rationale of not allowing excess xp to be automatically transferred between identical chassis without having to pay silly money to convert it into gxp, perhaps this should be looked at as well?

Finally, trial mechs should accumulate some form of xp that can be used for when the player buys that mech, not until then. This would add an incentive for the new player to acclimatise themselves with a chassis and be better set to join in CW/FP being able to use a skilled mech AND be competent at using it; something that has always caused an issue in bringing undervalued/effective mechs to the CW scene.

[Aidan Crenshaw]

Heavy Money, on 18 April 2021 - 09:16 AM, said:

Reduce the mandatory grind to skill a mech up.
But give some reward to people who play the same variant a lot. Maybe something for unlocking every node? Unlocking every node on every non-MC variant of a chassis?

Seconded. An idea that just crossed my mind (biased by the appreciation for the new bolt-ons):
Why not make it (somehow) possible to buy (chassis-specific) bolt-ons with (chassis-specific) XP?

Edited by Aidan Crenshaw, 21 April 2021 - 02:06 AM.