Decline in quality of PvP

[WhoIsThis]

Parth and Will have made similar threads dealing with both PvE and PvP and what needs to be focused on. All we can do is wait for the next update and see if the hundreds of suggestions threads will be listened to.

Most likely, they will not.

On an unrelated note, Crimson, I do want to say once again that I do apologize for the thread in the past - I did not at the time anticipate that you would feel so strongly about the matter. No offense was intended in it.





It's difficult to imagine that much will happen in the next update and beyond besides a few incremental changes. AL is the star product right now and PL is well, a thing of the past with a slowly declining playerbase.

[Sryyoulose]

Honestly, we asked for elite quests with boss runs, we got it. We asked for rare desirable drops (Dragon). We got it. Honestly I do believe STS does listen to the pve suggestions... Pvp on the other hand :/

[WhoIsThis]

Honestly, we asked for elite quests with boss runs, we got it. We asked for rare desirable drops (Dragon). We got it. Honestly I do believe STS does listen to the pve suggestions... Pvp on the other hand :/

The answer is that itemization was not done with balance considerations in mind. For example the traditional roles of the 3 classes (and the new roles of the new classes), that has been well, thrown out the window. This has had impacts on both PvP and PvE.

[CrimsonTider]

I'm good brother. Live and learn.

And I am leaning toward "lost hope" side of the fence as well, but I am clinging to that last bit of hope. Maybe, BIG maybe, the reason for the long delay in cap raise is they ARE working to iron out all of these issues. We shall see.

[WhoIsThis]

The thing is, they do not see an incentive to do this apart from the endless feedback that we've given. It's one of those things that will in the long run, could generate a bigger player base, but in the short run, will not see an appreciable effect.

[Wendellism]

The thing is, they do not see an incentive to do this apart from the endless feedback that we've given. It's one of those things that will in the long run, could generate a bigger player base, but in the short run, will not see an appreciable effect.

I believe many avid PvPers like myself are looking forward to the day where The Next cap of PL would bring balance. True, PL is being ignored due to AL, but I doubt that STS would ignore their founding game. Unless, of course their profit mentality is akin to Zynga or Gameloft today.

[Wendellism]

Also, in relevance to the 2 new classes, when it comes to PvP in endgame, honestly I personally think those new classes are jokes. It's almost like a stitched up class done hastily, although Foxes are capable of being op themselves with the correct equipments

[Noi`ya]

reddit had an ama from a ex zynga employee recently, his take was pretty interesting

[XghostzX]

Also, in relevance to the 2 new classes, when it comes to PvP in endgame, honestly I personally think those new classes are jokes. It's almost like a stitched up class done hastily, although Foxes are capable of being op themselves with the correct equipments

Same with Rhino in CTF.

[Jig]

If they do something next cap that fixes pvp.. Everyone have a party

[Sryyoulose]

Ill have a giveaway give some nub top notch gear and tell him to pvp.

[WhoIsThis]

reddit had an ama from a ex zynga employee recently, his take was pretty interesting

They seem to have imploded. Truth be told, it's a good thing for gamers. Zynga imo has reaped what is sowed. I suspect that the latest round of layoffs and office closures are just the start. That and the company was as usual overhyped. Pretty much their business model was to make inferior copies of other people's games, put them onto Facebook and monetize them. Unsurprisingly such a model has not been sustainable. Apparently their goal now is to try to make money off online gambling.

Anyways, they estimated that 5% of gamers would pay up for their games - which is typical in this industry. I would not be surprised if only 5% of people (or less) that ever installed an STS game ended up becoming paying customers. This is typical in a micro transaction-type game, most users end up uninstalling.

Check this out:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bl...ast-level-10_1

This was WoW, near its peak. An if even the most powerful game in the MMO business has such a poor retention rate, well, less well known games are even worse off.


STS is no different - and it seems to be something that they're working on:
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/...re.asp?c=47232

In looking back at our previous games, the two things we really wanted to improve upon were our player-acquisition funnel and our 7-day retention curve.

[Wendellism]

They seem to have imploded. Truth be told, it's a good thing for gamers. Zynga imo has reaped what is sowed. I suspect that the latest round of layoffs and office closures are just the start. That and the company was as usual overhyped. Pretty much their business model was to make inferior copies of other people's games, put them onto Facebook and monetize them. Unsurprisingly such a model has not been sustainable. Apparently their goal now is to try to make money off online gambling.

Anyways, they estimated that 5% of gamers would pay up for their games - which is typical in this industry. I would not be surprised if only 5% of people (or less) that ever installed an STS game ended up becoming paying customers. This is typical in a micro transaction-type game, most users end up uninstalling.

Check this out:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bl...ast-level-10_1

This was WoW, near its peak. An if even the most powerful game in the MMO business has such a poor retention rate, well, less well known games are even worse off.


STS is no different - and it seems to be something that they're working on:
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/...re.asp?c=47232

In other words, are they going to ditch Arcane Legends and create a new Legends title? Because after reading this article, I can't help but think about what exactly Gary was implying.

Please, could you enlighten me regarding this issue?

[WhoIsThis]

In other words, are they going to ditch Arcane Legends and create a new Legends title? Because after reading this article, I can't help but think about what exactly Gary was implying.

Please, could you enlighten me regarding this issue?

Precisely.

You will notice that right now, PL does not command the developer support, the attention that it once did. Certainly there are updates, but it's not the overwhelming priority for STS that it once was. The same thing will happen to AL at some point. When that happens, a new "Legends" game will supplant it. What does this mean for PL? Well, the time between updates, new content releases, level cap releases, and the volume/quality of new content will decline, apart from perhaps making the game compatible with newer phones and the occasional bug fix.

At some point, I imagine that the ST engine itself will show its age - because competitors will have a better product. I do not know how much knowledge you have of the computer gaming industry, but creating a new engine will at that point occur - an expensive undertaking that will take several years (I would not be surprised if at this very moment STS is working on a new engine to replace the ST engine) and likely several million dollars. Even today, lets face it, mobile graphics are where consoles were a few years ago in terms of processing power. And there are games out there that have graphics that are already putting the ST engine to shame. Now that in and of itself is not a huge problem, it's ok to be somewhat behind, but not years behind if you get what I am saying. WoW for example is the dominant MMO, despite the fact that it's graphics and physics are several years behind. Yet the Blizzard incrementally improves it in their flagship product. I think STS will find itself in a similar situation. Newer MMO titles by competing studios come out - and they have newer engines. Well STS will have 2 options - improve their engine incrementally and hope that the graphics don't detract too much (a strategy which worked well for WoW), or to create a new engine.

But the mobile MMO industry is still younger and I think graphics is a part (along with good game play and a good community), is more important. There does seem to be a perception that mobile needs to "close the gap" with console. Of course, it will never be fully closed. Physical limits put an upper limit of course on the processing power. The other problem is that to reach the widest possible audience, games have to have low enough system requirements to be played on low or at least midrange phones. A while back I discussed this with an indie. Anyways, he argued midrange was the minimum since not everyone buys the flagship phones. He argues that targeting low end phones is a "waste of time" since the monetization is so low (sub 1%) - income is an important deciding factor for what phone you get. You'll notice a common trend when developers compare Android and iOS - the monetization rate on iOS is universally better. That said, in terms of raw revenue, Android wins because well, there are simply way more Android devices out there.


What does this mean for STS' games? In my threads, I always pushed for STS to be more like Blizzard in that regard and to make PL it's WoW product.

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/show...-for-this-year

The reason why is because the WoW (and EVE) model works - it's been proven to work on the PC. It is a method for stable long term revenues. Over time the game would grow organically. New tiers would have to be released regularly. Word of mouth would spread. That was my original belief and in my opinion, it is still the most likely best way to monetize. At that point STS could try several things, such as offering "elixir packs", "vanity packs", or some form of optional subscription that would grant various perks. Remember that this post was back in 2011 - and back then PL had a (in comparison to now) very vibrant PvE and PvP community. It also meant engaging with the PvP community more, something that has been neglected for the past 2 years. The reason why is because although hardcore players only make up a small percentage of the playerbase (<1%), we have a disproportionate influence. Plus we're some of the few customers who are able (and willing) to spend hundreds of dollars and invest hundreds if not thousands of hours in both the game and the forums. Hardcore players, although they are only a small percentage of the base lay the foundation. On top, there would be a hardcore base of players that spend 30+ hours per week on the games/forums, hundreds (in USD) per year in platinum (and/or subscription fees), and flanked by a massive community of people with varying time commitments, goals, and how they played the game.

STS rejected our recommendations entirely. Instead they've moved towards a sort of "slash and burn" type of model. Make a new game every couple of years (PL, SL which was based on the failed PC game Blackstar, DL, and AL), support for perhaps 1-2 years an then leave it dry, releasing a new game. This is a dangerous time to be doing that in my opinion. The mobile landscape is still young. I think that in the next few years, there is a good chance that a single player will become dominant - it will be a mobile equal to WoW. That game, whatever it turns out to be will dominate the mobile landscape in the way WoW has. To me, PL came at a critical time - it will either end up being the Everquest, Camelot of mobile MMOs, or it will be the WoW. That's why I advocated for decisions that would maximize the probability that PL would become the WoW of mobile MMO gaming. The type of business model that STS has embraced I think makes it that much harder for STS to become the Blizzard of MMO gaming. The reason? There isn't a sort of halo. Blizzard in that regard does not make multiple games per genre - Starcraft for RTS, Diable for RPGs, and WoW for MMORPGs for example. A high quality product is only released every couple of years. WoW by far gets the focus at Blizzard and gets the lion's share of development/support.

Another company that I would like to identify that I consider exceptional is Valve, which has generally released outstanding games, has a very impressive culture that I think others (including those outside the game industry) should emulate. Valve has also been known for "Valve time". They do not set deadlines. This is an acknowledgement that well, it's hard to predict how long a project will take - there are inevitably unforeseen circumstances.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/10...ook_LowRes.pdf

When you think of Blizzard and MMOs, well you think of World of Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo. These are different genres - notice that they only have a handful of halo products. They can say to the world - this is our product, what we think MMO gaming should be, and allocate the lion's share of their developer resources to that (which in this case is WoW). Another example - look at the PC industry. Compare the product lines of say, Apple, to the massive product lines of the Windows PC makers. Apple pretty much has a handful of Macbook and iMac products - it's a simplified line that enables them to focus all of their resources on a small handful of key product lines. I may not agree with all of Apple's decisions, but the results speak for themselves. To me, focusing on a core product, making that product the best is although most certainly not a guarantee, the best way to ensure that you have the most chances to succeed.





Edit:
Depending on the demand (particularly by the oldies), as I hinted earlier, I may put together a single large thread the way I used to on the subject.

[Wendellism]

You are correct in every point. This is considered a pay to win model, a trend which most games I have seen in the app store, and honestly in my opinion, I don't quite like the way games that are truly capable to be made. Now I'm currently talking via Droid and my phone often crashes thus, I wasn't able to reply using long paragraphs.

However, I am aware of Blizzard and Valve as great companies that update their games on a timely basis or so. In fact, I went to play WoW myself and I find the world and atmosphere there far more beautiful than that of PL. Though, since I'm in my army service, I couldn't get to play WoW every day, so that's why I'm on PL.

Thank you WhoIsThis for replying in an honest but realistic opinion. You sir, have obtained my respect.

[WhoIsThis]

Pay to Win "works" in a way because well, it's human nature. We do not for example consider that the "it's only a few dollars for shiny vanity item x" adds up pretty quickly. Plus there is also the human desire to "win" to come out on top. Pay to win means for many players that they can replace skill and time commitment with money. This can be a good thing (especially for people who have busy lives), but also it means well, that the best players are not so much dictated by skill as much as they are by player a willingness to pay.

Realistically there seem to be 4 ways to fund games:

1. A straight up price (ex: I pay $60 for this game - I get to play for life)
2. Subscriptions (per month or yearly)
3. Microtransactions (usually ends up in a pay to win model)
4. Advertisements (although $/customer is limited so unless you have a huge base there really isn't much you can do)

To be honest, I think that 1 and 2 tend to build up the best player base. It provides a barrier for entry so only committed people want it (which usually means a better community), plus it usually means that there's more money made to developer which in turn means better content for the players. Most games usually try for a combination of the few. 3 is also getting common in PC gaming and consoles - known widely as "DLC".

The other issue at hand I suppose is that development costs for good games has gone up over the years. On one hand, things like Steam, the Google Play store, the Appstore are a leveling field for Indie developers to catch up to so called AAA studios, on the other hand, gamers do want better and better graphics, AI etc, all of which costs a lot to develop.

[dudetus]

Pay to Win "works" in a way because well, it's human nature. We do not for example consider that the "it's only a few dollars for shiny vanity item x" adds up pretty quickly. Plus there is also the human desire to "win" to come out on top. Pay to win means for many players that they can replace skill and time commitment with money. This can be a good thing (especially for people who have busy lives), but also it means well, that the best players are not so much dictated by skill as much as they are by player a willingness to pay.

Realistically there seem to be 4 ways to fund games:

1. A straight up price (ex: I pay $60 for this game - I get to play for life)
2. Subscriptions (per month or yearly)
3. Microtransactions (usually ends up in a pay to win model)
4. Advertisements (although $/customer is limited so unless you have a huge base there really isn't much you can do)

To be honest, I think that 1 and 2 tend to build up the best player base. It provides a barrier for entry so only committed people want it (which usually means a better community), plus it usually means that there's more money made to developer which in turn means better content for the players. Most games usually try for a combination of the few. 3 is also getting common in PC gaming and consoles - known widely as "DLC".

The other issue at hand I suppose is that development costs for good games has gone up over the years. On one hand, things like Steam, the Google Play store, the Appstore are a leveling field for Indie developers to catch up to so called AAA studios, on the other hand, gamers do want better and better graphics, AI etc, all of which costs a lot to develop.

In my opinion, SWtOR has currently extremely user friendly way to fund the game. Basically it's currently a hybrid between 2 and 3 and free to play. Game itself is currently free to play, but as a subscriber there are convenience advantages such as easier travelling, unlimited PvP warzones and Flashpoints/Operations. And the "platinum store" varies from cool vanities to slight advantages but they all are sellable via "CS" and the gear advantages can be crafted or looted. The difference is completely convenience and minor look. As a free to play player u have slight restrictions but for a casual player, they aren't anything to overcome while p2p players can still play the game in a more of hardcore way. Everyone can play the game how they wish and seemingly the playerbase exploded after going from solely number 2 to this hybrid.

And I can personally say that IMO in Steam (as I use it mostly) besides of the few top franchises (CoD, BF, CS, Elder Scrolls, etc.), Indie games rule the "top bought" lists. Even though the indie games lack in graphics and gameplay smootheness to the top developers, the ideas (especially for horror games) are tremendously good compared to top developers "all user friendly" storylines and ideas. Such mega hits as Amnesia or DayZ aren't even comparable to the big studios.

Of course, PC gaming and mobile gaming aren't comparable in most ways. But STS shouldn't ignore the downfall of as an example Zynga whose strategy is incredibly close and what happened to Zynga will surely happen to STS in a long run. Economics and customer behaviour are alike no matter what operating systems the games use. Focusing on the already done genres is the best way to go as a gaming studio, Blizzard as the main example. After the creation of DL, STS had fantasy, Scifi and horror MMOS. Instead of creating AL they should have focused on making PL and SL better alongside with DL. And from the article u posted it seems STS is now making another new game. What are the guarantees that even after the new game STS wouldn't make another and yet another game while leaving all the other previously released games almost completely ignored as it has now been? Currently mobile gaming has been alike with this type of system (as seen from the major mobile game developer, Gameloft) but from my POV, the mobile game company who starts treating their mobile games in the same way as Blizzard did their PC games, will become the Blizzard of mobile games.

I personally hoped that game studio to be STS, but by looking the current route they are heading, I think I'll place my bets on Blizzard if it decides to take a leap on mobile gaming.

[WhoIsThis]

In my opinion, SWtOR has currently extremely user friendly way to fund the game. Basically it's currently a hybrid between 2 and 3 and free to play. Game itself is currently free to play, but as a subscriber there are convenience advantages such as easier travelling, unlimited PvP warzones and Flashpoints/Operations. And the "platinum store" varies from cool vanities to slight advantages but they all are sellable via "CS" and the gear advantages can be crafted or looted. The difference is completely convenience and minor look. As a free to play player u have slight restrictions but for a casual player, they aren't anything to overcome while p2p players can still play the game in a more of hardcore way. Everyone can play the game how they wish and seemingly the playerbase exploded after going from solely number 2 to this hybrid.

It is important to keep in mind too why SWTOR is in it's current situation. They were pretty WoW with a space theme. They also ignored a large percentage of their playerbase. In terms of monetary success, SWTOR is a failure in that regard. Had they followed the advice of their fledgling player base, they might have profitably ended up with a decent MMO and someday a competitor to WoW. But yes, the new model seems to be doing better (at least it's not hemorrhaging subscribers).

I suppose it's probably due to the past, but I personally do not trust EA - they've had too many shallow games, too many games with restrictive DRM, and ruined to many franchises - between that and a ton of goodwill lost, if a game says "EA" on it, more often that not, I will pass it up simply for the fact that it has EA. These days, there have been too many bad experiences. I feel though like my actions are vindicated by the results. For example, I loved Simcity 4; I still play it at times. But when Simcity 5 came out, I refused to buy it. My decision turned out to be very prescient, the game had unstable servers, caused solely by their decision to make an "always online" portion of thegame.

And I can personally say that IMO in Steam (as I use it mostly) besides of the few top franchises (CoD, BF, CS, Elder Scrolls, etc.), Indie games rule the "top bought" lists. Even though the indie games lack in graphics and gameplay smootheness to the top developers, the ideas (especially for horror games) are tremendously good compared to top developers "all user friendly" storylines and ideas. Such mega hits as Amnesia or DayZ aren't even comparable to the big studios.

Big studios chase after money. They may at times provide innovation in terms of graphics power (although even then, often new engines are developed independently now) - just look at CoD, which uses the same id Tech 3 engine (although it has seen some modifications) as Quake III. By 2013 standards though, it's outdated. Crysis is an example of a game that did try to push the graphics boundary. The game had shallow gameplay, but I do applaud their willingness to push the envelope.

In terms of innovative gameplay - well, it almost always tend to come from indie studios these days. I personally find myself buying mainly from indies as well, although there are some AAA games I still play, most notably Shogun 2. I buy games for depth of game play, the mod community, and the overall attitude of the developer.

Of course, PC gaming and mobile gaming aren't comparable in most ways. But STS shouldn't ignore the downfall of as an example Zynga whose strategy is incredibly close and what happened to Zynga will surely happen to STS in a long run. Economics and customer behaviour are alike no matter what operating systems the games use. Focusing on the already done genres is the best way to go as a gaming studio, Blizzard as the main example. After the creation of DL, STS had fantasy, Scifi and horror MMOS. Instead of creating AL they should have focused on making PL and SL better alongside with DL. And from the article u posted it seems STS is now making another new game. What are the guarantees that even after the new game STS wouldn't make another and yet another game while leaving all the other previously released games almost completely ignored as it has now been? Currently mobile gaming has been alike with this type of system (as seen from the major mobile game developer, Gameloft) but from my POV, the mobile game company who starts treating their mobile games in the same way as Blizzard did their PC games, will become the Blizzard of mobile games.

I personally hoped that game studio to be STS, but by looking the current route they are heading, I think I'll place my bets on Blizzard if it decides to take a leap on mobile gaming.

I think they're more comparable than you think they are. The playerbase is at times, more casual, but at the same time, as you have noted, the elements that make up a successful game or not are very similar.

I do believe that PL did push - they tried something that had not been done before, putting a game with enough depth to be a light PC MMO on a phone. Yes Gameloft and Zynga are definitely warning signs. I'll be blunt - I do not think that there is as much money in "social" or "mobile" gaming as people think. People used to talk about how the market would be several times the size (in revenues) of the PC market. When the first games hit the iPhone and Android, they were being sold in the range of $1-$5. The amount of sales for games priced more like at PC price points has been low and the number of people willing to pay up for the micropayments - I cannot imagine that it will be more than the PC and likely substantially less.

What it means though is that any company that wants to capitalize on mobile gaming had best do it's best for its community. Notice how quickly the top PvP community emptied out - right now PL is a PvP desert for hardcore players. Contrast this with games like WoW where people have played on for years. There are sites to help on "WoW addiction". That in and of itself is a testament to what they have created - a game so good that people need help when quitting! What does it mean? It means that mistakes could be much more costly than in the PC market and the consequences felt much sooner. Realistically, I cannot imagine PL having the kind of in depth theorycrafting and PvP community that it had between 2010 to 2012.

[Jig]

Oh god what is this! So many wordssss letters! Huge paragraphs ! Who's the Author.. Whoisthis! And Dudetus

[MightyMicah]

@WhoisThis Just keep talking, bro. I feel like I'm in a dark tunnel and you're slowly lighting it up brighter than the sun.