26 replies to this topic

[Soy]

BOILERPLATE - This is a long post. If you don't like long posts watch this video instead.

One of the main contentions I maintain with this game is that it appears as though the playerbase is going to be perpetually stratified.

By this I mean I get the impression that the majority of MWO players are not actual video gamers. Is this a bad thing or good thing? No, not really.

Let me explain...

If you asked me to make large blanket statements to cover all of the different bases within this community, here is what I would come up with -

1] BT/MW fans. They are interested in any game, book, widget, whatever that features BT/MW. Even if it is pure garbage they will get it and read/play/whatever it. This group naturally contains a lot of gamers. But are they actual video gamers? Hmm, I doubt most are... to explain this a bit further, just consider the demographics of most BT/MW fans. Consider the size of this group. Consider their age. Consider their purchasing power. Consider their gaming habits - time spent playing per week, time spent playing per session, who they play with, how they play, etc. Lot of nichers in this category. How does this game appeal to them and why?

2] hardcore video gamers make up probably, I dunno, 20-25% of this games community? Some of these are bro gamer types who clearly jumped ship from CoD or something similar. Others are big MMORPG types [I bet they'll love CW/clan/faction stuff] who are interested in the lore side of things while they play, but it's not native to them and they are eagerly awaiting CW to really get balls deep in this game/IP. There are also the griefers and groups who are here only for the purpose of crapping all over every other player and PGI in general. Don't really see these types publically because they don't want to draw that sort of attention, but they are out there. Gamers. How does this game measure up to other competitive games? Does it retain replayability without CW?

3] casual gamers. I don't see a lot of these in my neck of the woods, but they are out in force. You see them on the forums. You see them in game. Sometimes they come on TS and don't use Push-To-Talk and mouth breathe on the mic and when you spectate you notice they don't do stuff like click on targets to bring them up on HUD or to FF correctly. These guys are great cuz they are interested in playing the game, have money to burn if they are having fun, lighten up the atmosphere, and generally just derp around for fun. These guys keep things in perspective. Fringe players. How does it appeal to them and why?

Now having established that one of the things I have a problem with as a player and member of this community is developing strong ties with anyone outside of the 2nd group. I find it difficult to connect with a casual gamer as a player... I mean, in a social context we can shoot the breeze and derp around in matches all day/night, that's cool, whatever... but this guy, bless him, if it comes down to winning or losing by that guys aim, it's gonna be a loss. I guess the one reason I enjoy playing with casuals from time to time in basically every game is they help temper your attitude and keep things in a realistic perspective. Casuals bring you down to Terra, so to speak.

But... regarding the first group, wow. It's difficult to discuss anything from a game design standpoint with these types because in their eyes a similar but more canonical system was already in place in book X page 213. I like playing with these guys when I have questions about lore or concerns about how lore might be utilized from a design point in the future... but discussing actual design points and whether or not these design mechanics should work based on balance or on the basis of lore I have a hard time not hitting these purists in the face with a PPC. This is a game, a game should be balanced as a game not to give dap to lore.

So a lot of times I find myself sifting through players from the 2nd group essentially, and looking for flags that they may be extreme powergamers, or griefers, or trolls, etc... and if they aren't, if they just happen to be some guy who likes stomping in mechs and isn't obsessed with tabletop or only plays 2 hours a week randomly, then they make it on my 'short list'.

I've played basically 4000 matches in this game, with around 1500 being 4[/3/2] mans from pugmades in Comstar TS, around 1500 in pugs, and the last 1000 a veritable cornicopia of afks/black screens/yellow screens/atari bugs/memory leaks/mech testing/PC benchmarking/crappy variant base guard XP grinding/boring 8 mans. And this 'short list' of people? It's not very long. Not very long at all.

So all I'm saying is that after all this time, what I've learned is, there are basically only a handful of players that I have a lot in common with when I play this game. Which is interesting, because in over 15 years of online gaming in a disturbing pace, I've rarely encountered such an enjoyable game with such a stratified playerbase - at this point. It is so early. It's beta and I already see the stratification. Forum topics show it. Is it because MW has become an extreme niche over the years and I am just now realizing it after a long stompy robot hiatus? Is it because I have changed as a gamer, my attitude and maturation or lack thereof a sort of watershed against web 2.0 style gamers proliferating since the big online gaming avalanche of the late 2000s? Is it an undesired elitist lens over my eyes that I'm not even aware of? Am I just a complete antisocial **********.

These thoughts swirl in my mind as I've jumped head first into the deep end of MWO and to be honest, I'm a little disappointed. Then again I temper all of this with the notion that I've purposely tried to keep as little obligation to others in the community at this point because it is, indeed, a beta. None of it matters yet, no CW...

So I guess what I'm getting at with this post is... how do you see the playerbase?

How do you see yourself fitting in? How do you see others around you fitting in? What about friends you are trying to get into the game, or maybe already 'got' - how do you see them fitting in?

What are your thoughts on PGI in this context? What type of community do you think they seek, a rich and casual and large one? A niche but enthusiastic fanboy crowd? A mixture of both? A large jugular strike on CoD types in a big market penetration push?

How do you see this community developing over time? The makeup of it?

I know it might sound hyperbolic to say this playerbase is stratified, especially this early on - but I can't help but look at this game as the unique and pragmatically beautiful snowflake it is. Even though I might not understand the angle of a TT purist, or maybe I don't 'connect' with casuals on the level, or maybe I have an epeen [hard not to when you play video games seriously, cmon look at ourselves], but I try really hard to look at this game from a birds eye perspective as someone with personal experience with game design and I say to myself - wow this game attracted a more diverse playerbase than I initially thought, because my initial thoughts were all about the IP. I find it really intriguing how this game can appeal to outsiders or MW virgins and I wish I had more understanding on the initial impression an outsider would get walking into this game because I think it would help to shed light on things I don't understand, like being a casual noob, or being a TT noob, or even the opposite - a casual or TT pro.

I'm sure this is rambling and incoherent enough at this point so I'll just kindly ****; your turn...

I'd just like to hear your thoughts on these questions and any tangent, even slightly related, is welcome. Thanks for reading.

Edited by Soy, 27 December 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[Lee Ving]

Slightly related - that level of reading deserves at tl;dr for everyone that's going to knee jerk react about their stratification into one of your aforementioned (and I'd say largely accurate) groups.

More thoughts when I don't have to herd cats at my temp job.

[Cerlin]

Random, long, I like it.

The community does have these as major trends. However I do think the casual and gamer elements are the biggest elements.

Before I address your group questions Ill place myself within them. I started battletech mechwarrior as a MW2 gamer. I eventually got into the books, and some of the TT. But I am still firmly in the gamer (not sure how hardcore category.) There are people who whine about non canon builds and Minmaxing, and I am not one of these people. I love to play well, and win. I want to play with other competent people as well. For the record I love CoD, random FPS, and I have played all the old MW games as well. I am a competitive pvper and it is the major reason I play games.

For MW/BT fans: This game appeals to them for the fact that it is a MW game at all! which is amazing. The devs are also huge BT fans which I think helps with the spice.

For Hardcore gamers: this game is first and foremost Skill based first. If you are better, you will win with a suboptimal and lighter mech. I cant tell you how many times a worse player in an assualt missed me multiple times at point blank range. This skill based play will keep hardcore gamers part of it, as long as the devs continue and speed up the development cycle.

For Casual players: This is an interesting, FREE, big mech smashy experience that doesnt take too much twitch skill. It is much more appealing than a FPS or a Hawken in my opinion.

To the OP. I think that people dont have to love all the other types of gamers in the community. It is fine to find the set that matches you best.

I think if they keep developing the game, keep skill an important element, and keep working on counters to various strategies (NOT BALANCE) I think it will continue well.

For the record I have also bought MC after my founders, so I like this game.

[jshill78]

I read through your post, I ever re-read it. I'm still failing to find a question that you didn't already answer with the post.

How do we find the player-base? Varied, like all other games. Just like life. Different people play for different reasons and get different things out of the game.

Side note: if you're really concerned about someone's aim or tactics when you're spectating them... you may need to seek professional counseling. If you feel you are able to give advice on how someone can play better though you already died (and by inference, played worse) then you really do need help. This is most likely why you've had a hard time finding people you "fit in" with.

I consider myself part of your casual gamer group. I don't know and really don't care how my medium laser fits into the universe. I care that it does 5 damage if held on target for full duration. I care about battlefield tactics, performing my role, and trying to be the best [insert weight class] pilot performing [insert role] so that my team wins. If I do, score, if I don't... on to the next match.

Never played in groups. Never fired up comms. My friends list has one person that introduced me to the game. I'm not looking to have a conversation or get anything social out of the game. I just log in, stomp robot, shoot lasers/missle, gain some xp/cash to try out different builds and log off. Social is for forums.

[Xigunder Blue]

Like Cerlin I have also bought the Founders pack and about $100 worth of MC. I really wanted to try a bunch of mechs WITH meklab options. I am also old (67), retired (former game designer for TSR and Pacesetter Games) and played/ran BT TT from its original introduction. I fit (somewhat) into the OPs 1st category as a BT fanboi although I am continually surprised at the near fanatic obsession with canon by some players. I also fit (somewhat) into the second category. I love and have played video games for a long time but my only hardcore experience has been with PVE games. Did not care for PVP at all. Only the MW genre brought me to an FPS game. I was pleasantly surprised that I like it. The OP is VERY correct, however, that only the CW will keep me in it. I may well revert to casual play if it fails (opinion for me only) to allow sufficient immersion.

As for skill, well, at my age I cannot count on the hand/eye co-ordination for a good 'twitch' player. But I really want to be able to contribute in a positive way to my team, either PUG or Premade. So the 'skill' level required will be an important factor for me. Objectively, highly skilled 'twitch' players (manoever and targeting) will enjoy the ride but lesser 'skilled' players will eventually get tired of losing and move on to some other game. Being cannon fodder gets boring after a while. PGI needs the money to keep operating for longevity (investors require it). I only hope that PGI CW has a strong immersion factor for us as well as the intense combat for hardcore. The fact that instant one-shot kills is very rare and combat usually takes longer than games with FPS insta-death is a great idea for many of us as well. Expand the non-combat portion of the game (like using crafting in other games) for the many players like myself and we would be able to remain in game for a long time. I love the MechLab, it is fun and I pray for it to be expanded (and improved) as a playable sub-game.

OOOPs! Now I am tl;dr. Good post OP!

[Soy]

jshill... regarding how you treat other players... an obvious point you've missed but I feel obliged to explain it to you - if you're playing with a casual and enjoying the social aspect and the casual player clearly is having fun playing the way they do, theres a fine line between backseat gaming and just being rude to someone by explaining every little thing they do wrong. You play it by ear, if you get the impression that a casual wants some tips or is looking to be a better pilot, then you start mentioning things here or there. If you get the impression that they are just derping around and couldn't be happier, why would you start bugging them about how to play. It's a social grace, you'd be aware of it if you actually played this game with other people. If you read this post as "all I care about is the win everyone else is a noob, mmmmderp" that's literally nowhere near what I was getting at. I was saying you can begin to read basic stereotypes into different kinds of players and project their performance at times based around that. the question i was pushing was whether or not that stereotyping and projecting changes the way you socialize with players, do you avoid 'bad' players or 'casuals', etc. Perhaps let this sink in a bit.

I don't have a hard time fitting in with this game, I have a hard time seeing where a lot of others do once CW hits. I try and go out of my way to help noobs or others feel welcome when I play with them, it usually goes pretty well. I play a lot of the social aspects of this game off the cuff, if someone is a nice guy I'll respond with an olive branch whether friend or foe, if they are standoffish I'll respond in kind. Will CW make or break it for a lot of casuals? Will it be done "wrong" in the eyes of TT/purists? Who knows what the reactions will be from different segments of the community. I don't know, I'm speculating a little, but I give no hard predictions, everything is still up in the air. I'm just trying to watch and comment a bit on the social trends, and wondering what everyone else has seen so far regarding the trends as well.

PS - Xigunder Blue, thanks for your thoughtful post. It gives me some things to think about, I appreciate your interesting perspective and approach to this game and you bring a great angle to gaming.

Edited by Soy, 27 December 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[superteds]

man that video owned

[jshill78]

I don't even know what you mean by CW. I assume you mean Clan Wars, which I gather is some RP portion of the BT/MW universe. How is that supposed to impact gameplay? I assume we'll get "Clan" mechs and weapons. I've no idea. Seems like it'll still be the same game. Log in, loadout your chosen mech the way you like it, launch battle, and try to win.

The factions that I see in the game to date are only represented by a banner you can hang in your cockpit. Maybe that means something to the BT/MW fanboys, not to me. It's still X weapon does X damage. My stompy robot tries to kill your stompy robot.

[Lee Ving]

That's some hot **** on bunny action you added in there, kudos!

Anyway, back to the point:

There is a certain level of explicit irony in saying the playerbase is perpetually stratified, and then proposing those stratifications. At least you acknowledge the possibility of hyperbole?

I may be an exemplar to your divisions but I don't know. Pigeon hole me if you want, here's my take:

1. Battletech Tryhards - I've never read a Stackpole, though I do own a copy of the TT and too many cards from the CCG. I've played Crescent Hawks, MW1-3 and a little 4, MC1&2, etc. Been through a lot of these games, enjoyed them each for my own reasons (mostly giant stompy stompy I guess).
2. Hardcore Gamers - I play a lot of vidya to forget about the horrors of 9-5. I built the box I game on. I built the box before that, and the box before that. Maybe that just throws me into the aforementioned BT niche, with a special side of gamer?

"it's not native to them and they are eagerly awaiting CW to really get balls deep in this game/IP"

Or they're being lost to other communities / games that are less acerbic and far more developed [polished, anyway].

"dunno, 20-25% of this games community?"

Nor can you know with any degree of accuracy, as PGI isn't terribly forthcoming with the declining health of its lovespawn.

3. "Sometimes they come on TS and don't use Push-To-Talk and mouth breathe on the mic and when you spectate you notice they don't do stuff like click on targets to bring them up on HUD or to FF correctly."

This sounds like noobs, not casuals. I'd say if you can make it past such easily trained behaviors, and still play, casual fits. Before that point we're just talking about people out for a test drive.

---------------
All that said, these are definite questions that should be getting asked at PGI board / developers meetings. They're of critical importance to maintaining a profitable model that will please as many as possible. I'd say that's the caveat though, PGI is a business that needs to make money, and there is no way to make everyone happy. Someone's going to lose out on this, and with some luck, its not a single category out of your dichotomy, but some amicable combination thereof.

I don't have much faith, or much vested in the game. I like it plenty well enough to waste tons of my time on it as it is. I think you've also got decent player skills, and the reservations necessary to make some interesting suggestions. Cheers, its going to be a long strange trip to CW.

Edited by Nadia Winson, 27 December 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Soy]

jshill -

Community Warfare...

Raises immersion, places arbitrary goals for some of the Bartle types of gamers to reach for...

...gives epeenery a sense of persistence, which by itself is an incentive for players to vie for 'top dog' status...

...this is all basically explained in Command Chair posts and lengthy forum discussions, etc...

[Noesis]

Lots of generalisations and assumptions in the first few paragraphs was enough for me to tune out and realise that someone wanted to define people and place them in to nice little boxes for his convenience in an effort to control a game to make it how he alone wants it to be.

It's no wonder you are intolerant of others and unable to accept an alternative viewpoint. But whatever makes the world less scary for you.

You haven't really made a point in the process other than people are different, it's more like a therapy session and guess what your 5 mins is up and you owe me a lot of c-bills for the ramble and your no further forward than before, but hope you feel better.

Suggest taking the point you really wanted to talk about, "balance" and try to define it better with some meaningful content. Then make a constructive post with objective content discussing those details. At least then it will be something we can all discuss other than the heart felt blog or wall of personal opinions where if we disagree we feel like we might be invalidating someone else's experience of and desires for MWO? (Which of course isn't very helpful is it )

[Wired]

After seeing the OP's posts in another thread, the OP is exactly what is wrong with this community.

[Soy]

Noesis, on 27 December 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Lots of generalisations and assumptions in the first few paragraphs was enough for me to tune out and realise that someone wanted to define people and place them in to nice little boxes for his convenience in an effort to control a game to make it how he alone wants it to be.

It's no wonder you are intolerant of others and unable to accept an alternative viewpoint. But whatever makes the world less scary for you.

You haven't really made a point in the process other than people are different, it's more like a therapy session and guess what your 5 mins is up and you owe me a lot of c-bills for the ramble and your no further forward than before, but hope you feel better.

Suggest taking the point you really wanted to talk about, "balance" and try to define it better with some meaningful content. Then make a constructive post with objective content discussing those details. At least then it will be something we can all discuss other than the heart felt blog or wall of personal opinions where if we disagree we feel like we might be invalidating someone else's experience of and desires for MWO? (Which of course isn't very helpful is it )

What? I'm just curious to pick peoples thoughts about how they see social trends in the game. I have no agenda. What is so intolerent about my post? I stated I play with all types but I find myself playing with some particular players moreso than others because we've developed a common bond and share similar preferences for playing MWO. What the **** does that have to do with tolerence? Not once did I dismiss a noob or a casual or a pro or a purist as anyone who I dislike playing with. I simply stated there are differences in opinion that can crop up that may impact my ability to develop a strong gaming relationship with that person, or they enjoy playing the game in a way incompatible with me.

Why do you come into this thread and try and put me into a position where I have to defend my own words against people who aren't even reading them.

Wired, on 27 December 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

After seeing the OP's posts in another thread, the OP is exactly what is wrong with this community.

Yeah I'm exactly what is wrong with this game, someone who spends a lot of time playing it, has spent money on it, goes out of there way to help new players, tries to post constructive discussions on the forums, and does not complain about buffing this or nerfing that.

Nobody forced you to come into this thread and take a **** on it. For that, I say **** you. But if you want to try and come into the thread and post a thoughtful opinion about the subject, then by all means, please do so.

Edited by Soy, 27 December 2012 - 01:09 PM.

[Carnivoris]

I personally don't feel like I fit in with any of these groups. If anything, I'm a mix of all of them and, yeah, you're right. I really want MWO to fit in with the BT TT lore and rules... to the point at which it can. The lore is no problem. You can always make lore fit. However, mech mechanics are not going to be directly liftable from TT. It just doesn't work that way and you're going to have to accept that you're going to lose something in translation from a TT game to a video game.

There's no way around that. Get over it. The TT numbers just aren't always going to work for MWO. Fact. Get used to it.

As I've said a couple times in other threads today, we NEED in-game tutorial missions for new players. The video stuff they've given us is all fine and good but it's not good enough. People need tactile, interactive instruction to learn. There are 3 major points that new players consistently have trouble with, I think: torso twist, dual targeting reticles, and jump jets.

I very rarely even see jump jets used anymore. Maybe that's just a function of the way gameplay is evolving in the playerbase but I don't think so. I just think it's a bunch of new people that don't know how to use their tools properly.

Whenever I die, I can almost guarantee you there's at least one person on my team just flailing about hopelessly either trying to figure out torso twist (I still don't understand why anyone has problems with that but I've been playing video games for 25+ years) or shooting WILDLY off-target because they don't understand the difference between the O target and the + target. For those that don't know, the O reticle is your arm-mounted weapons and the + target is your torso-mounted weapons.

I think there's room for all 3 classes of players you mentioned. However, until there's better training in the game, the casual players will be at a disadvantage because they're just not as skilled with video games as more committed gamers. The super-ultra-hardcore TT nerds just need to get over it.

[Soy]

Carn are you saying that there is a level of compromise at the mechanical level and eventually at the aesthetical/fluff level that TT purists just need to accept at some point?

If so, I agree with that. But the same can be said for the hardcore gamers, and the casuals, right? Regarding different concepts that they must compromise on, right?

[SlXSlXSlX]

Soy I like the grouping but even your groups have groups. I know its hard to categorize diverse peoples. I see alot of the community here as purists, maybe im wrong. But I feel this purist notion is mixed with the 4 man exploiting. Its a blurry line, and surely not that easy to explain. Those are my impressions, and even if inaccurate, come from my own subjective experience thus far. Furthermore I am afraid that type of overall impression may lend to the idea that the community, as a whole, wont expand. To me a larger community means more patches more staff more content.... the profits in a smart company to some extent are reinvested in the product. I assume, the same could hold true here. More people means more money, and mm's work better with more people as well.

[Soy]

SlXSlXSlX, on 27 December 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Soy I like the grouping but even your groups have groups. I know its hard to categorize diverse peoples. I see alot of the community here as purists, maybe im wrong. But I feel this purist notion is mixed with the 4 man exploiting. Its a blurry line, and surely not that easy to explain. Those are my impressions, and even if inaccurate, come from my own subjective experience thus far. Furthermore I am afraid that type of overall impression may lend to the idea that the community, as a whole, wont expand. To me a larger community means more patches more staff more content.... the profits in a smart company to some extent are reinvested in the product. I assume, the same could hold true here. More people means more money, and mm's work better with more people as well.

Of course, of course...

...I explicitly stated it was hyperbole and a general blanket statement, but yes there are of course segments within segments etc...

You really see the majority of this community as BT purists? Interesting. You said it's a blurry line, I'm all ears.

Also, why are you afraid the community won't expand? Not to sound semantical but usage of "won't" is different than "can't". Why do you feel that way? Because of the PGI side of things? Because of niche market base limitations? A crapstorm combo, or what?

Edited by Soy, 27 December 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[Willie Sauerland]

I've read every post and I'm having a hard time understanding why this discussion even matters. I mean, what do we know?

People are different? Check...
Because people are different, there will be tensions and issues? Check...
That people who view things differently will disagree on the best course of action for this game? Check...

I'm really not sure what this "discussion" is supposed to bring to this game or this community....

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 27 December 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[Soy]

This post is not about a problem and a solution, it's about opinions of observed social trends that individuals see within the community themselves and by combining all of these different experiences, perhaps find some insight into exactly who we are and where we might be headed.

Is it so wrong to have an philosophical discussion about ourselves? We like to judge each other a lot and draw lines in the sand that quantify who is boss and who is a nonfactor on these same forums, what is so wrong with an existential discussion of a different flavor for once? No agenda here, no epeen, I'm not out to offend anyone, it's just my experiences and possibly your experiences... and we are talking about them.

Edited by Soy, 27 December 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Lee Ving]

Willie Sauerland, on 27 December 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

I've read every post and I'm having a hard time understanding why this discussion even matters. I mean, what do we know?

People are different? Check...
Because people are different, there will be tensions and issues? Check...
That people who view things differently will disagree on the best course of action for this game? Check...

I'm really not sure what this "discussion" is supposed to bring to this game or this community....

What is any "discussion" supposed to bring to a game or community?

At least this is somewhat civil compared to all the QQ about nerf this, buff that.