RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel General Discussion



Message

axell5 -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/12/2013 1:21:15)

ah yes ty for reminding me.[:D]



edwardvulture -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/14/2013 0:50:04)

Seriously though, there must be more players that think removing loses would increase the amount of players.



GearzHeadz -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/14/2013 1:25:35)

It would make the game a little less stressful to some, but to the more competitive players, it'd just be annoying.



Altador987 -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/14/2013 17:06:17)

@edward i didn't really think anyone payed that much attention to actual number of losses that it affected whether they wanted to play the game



edwardvulture -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/14/2013 17:11:17)

personally, the win ratios on my characters are good to great but when you enter a battle, be it one on one or two on two, how often do you see a player with more loses than wins? For me, one out of ten players that I fight at the level cap have more loses than wins. So is having loses counted permanently a factor of why people quits the game, I think so.



Altador987 -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/14/2013 18:38:20)

my cy has way more losses than wins due to switching without varium from a mage, but it hasn't really bothered me nor does it mean much, i think people quit simply because they might lose more than they win but not because that factor is recorded



edwardvulture -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/14/2013 22:08:54)

^ But it would not bother them as much or at all if they weren't recorded. People could use all the fun builds that may hot necessarily win but give them pleasure.



GearzHeadz -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/14/2013 22:14:30)

Reread Altador's post, it isn't the record of losing that bothers the majority of people, its just losing in general.



Remorse -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 1:42:23)

^ It's also a lot to do with the type of loss as well.


In my opinion, I prefer to lose to a wacky creative build then to win against a boring broken balance abusing copy build.

Which then brings it back to balance, if they fix balance then they fix a major issue with people disliking loses.



Just because it isn't recorded doesn't mean losing to builds that take advanatge of poorly tested balance changes over and over again even through trying your hardest to use every single counter your class has possible, isn't infuriating.

That right their is why people quit, not necessarily because they record that loss.



edwardvulture -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 1:42:38)

but if you took that away then they wouldn't be bothered by it as much



Remorse -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 1:44:25)

^ Or if you fix balance it wouldn't bother people as much.

Why remove a major incentive to play to merely apply a secondary band-aid solution to broken balance.



GearzHeadz -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 1:47:41)

Edward you are missing all of the discussion entirely because you are so focused on repeating yourself.



edwardvulture -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 2:12:19)

because i'm making the same point lol, I usually don't repeat myself.

What if we put a poll in-game from Rabble Froth.

"Would there be more players if loses don't show on your battle record?"
^re-word that into more player-friendly and grammatically correct terms.

Then we would know for sure from the players



Drianx -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 3:44:25)

I think one of the main reasons why people quit is because they can't stand losing and amassing losses.

With NPC wins removal developers actually forced people to either embrace the 'no wins without losses' concept, or simply move on.

Therefore yes, I guess removing losses not only will keep people around, but make people keep their favorite class and build regardless the win ratios.



Drianx -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 4:41:43)

quote:

But the way I see it is this is like admitting defeat, like saying we will never fix the balance and enjoyment of the game so we might as well make its effects obsolete.

Actually no, by removing losses they will release the pressure to fix balance as a top priority. It is not a good thing to have poor balance, but having alternatives is.

However I disagree with the poll too.



Remorse -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 5:39:07)

^ Ignoring the varium gap, Beta had WAY more usable variety hands down.

Just look at some of the old beta videos on youtube.


Also I can guarantee that copy builds will still dominate the battle field, just because you don't have loses doesn't mean people won't wanna win.

@ Drianx, the pressure should remain HIGH AND FULL it is the only thing ruining this game.

They can keep on releasing content etc and it will do nothing to improve the players base if the core game in broken.



Drianx -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 5:41:29)

quote:

@ Drianx, the pressure should remain HIGH AND FULL it is the only thing ruining this game.

Wrong, the lack of players is ruining the game.



Remorse -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 5:43:18)

^ Aaannnnd arguably the main source of lack of players is broken balance... it's all interlinked you can't say balance is not the fault..



Drianx -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 5:47:50)

Balance is a fact, not an incentive.

Not all players are skilled. And a poorly skilled player needs a reason to keep playing as well.

There were times when people with 92% win rations were complaining that other classes were OPed because they were getting 97% win ratios.

You can never restrict people's lust for winning, not even by achieving perfect balance.

But bringing new incentives to play is actually the key to increasing player base.



Remorse -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 6:07:03)

^ Perhaps, but I no for a fact a lot of people have quit because of the games changes into effortless creative- less game mechanics.



Drianx -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 7:16:07)

I have quit as well, but I have been observing the game quite closely ever since, and I can say that incentives matter more than balance. Of course, it is just my debatable opinion.



MrBones -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 7:25:09)

I am more on part with DRIANX opinion.

Every single player wants to win at least 85 % of their fights. This is impossible and no balance changes will ever make it so.
Now in a 'perfect' balance scenario, between two skilled players, how would the winner be determine ? Luck ? Who wants to have 'coin toss' battles ?

I believe that not only the losses but the wins should also disappear, at least to other players. So we would be able to see our own wins/losses and others would only see our rank.
This might not only bring back players, but keep the newer players from being fed up with the constant losses early in the game.

I also agree that without the losing / winning, players would try more builds and actually play FOR FUN. The players who uses the build you guys are complaining about actually hate the build!
Talk to them in game and they will admit right away that the build is boring. (I was one of them)

Balance is one thing to be acknowledged but we have to look at changes from stats points also. The recent changes with hp & energy is good. I was always a strong supporter of stats being more relevant.
What I mean in short is this: If you spam one or 2 stats, it means you have huge gaps with your others stats. This needs to be affecting the player who choose that strategy MORE.
EX: casters with 17 support should never start and receive critical hits almost every blow. The same goes for all huge stats gaps.

No matter the math I have seen people do here to explain the luck factor, the general feeling players have in game is that there is TOO MUCH OF IT. I think that everybody will agree with that affirmation.
Now what does that say ?


The game will never be perfect. Balance is NOT the only problem.


DBag




Remorse -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 7:52:35)

quote:

You can never restrict people's lust for winning, not even by achieving perfect balance.


This is true, but when a lot of variety was actually viable and could compete it was a lot more fun, I remember when almost every weird build would could think of could work but with obvious counters which can be taken into account with superior strategy.


Sometimes I mix the terms balance and game mechanics together to mean the same thing but I will say this, even if balance was perfect now it would still be bad because the mechanics are broken.
Some of these variety constricting bots and cores have ruined the battle mechanics and for me this is probably the main reason I now dislike the game.
Since build are now easy to use and less focused around superior strategy and more on luck.

Luck always had an influence but now without strategy it is the superior deciding factor whether it be only whoever starts.




MrBones -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 9:17:07)

^^
What is confusing about the game is the different state of mind between the developers and the players.

From the dev's point of view, I think they are trying to make the game has easy and accessible as possible. After all, games are for kids and Artix network caters to them first. Adult gamers are not in their scope.
The result is the game leaning more and more towards focus builds, put 45 pts. on everything and let the luck take care of the rest. This is a quick fix and a step towards making the game more accessible.

To illustrate what I am saying, just make an alt and jump into Central Station. Most if not all new players are completely lost. They don't know what to do, have no clue about the war, don't know how to battle correctly etc..
Many stays in Central Station because they don't know how to get out of it. A quick look in the war in game page shows that Central is ALWAYS the busiest region. New players are stuck in it.

I am sure they had focus groups in their main office for the game. What came up is that the game is hard to learn, have many complicated features and little to no explanations in game for them.
You may laugh at this because you have grown with the game, been slowly introduced to new features and have time to adjust. Put yourself in the shoes of a new player. This IS a hard game.

Now for the older players like myself (I'm 35 years old and yes wow it's shocking I am old bla bla), we would like a chess game feeling. I would like the game to be even more complicated and have each of my moves being a battle changer.
Do the kids want the same thing ?
Is that where the developers are taking the game ? I don't believe so.

Bottom line is, this is business. When they sit down at the weekly meeting, it's about money. Nothing's wrong that btw. But they have to go with the majority.
The majority of players are kids, between 6 to 15 years old I'd say. That's their bread and butter. They want to dress up, flash the new art they bough, chat around and maybe battle a bit. Complete opposites.

It is all a matter of opinions, as DrainX stated previously.



Ranloth -> RE: Would we have more players if we omit loses? (12/15/2013 9:27:55)

^ Amen.

Although, I'll try to expand on one point of yours. ED, before being purchased by AE, was designed for older players - teenagers and adults -, in other words, mature audience. After they were bought by AE, they had to cater for younger players (as you've mentioned) as well, thus making it a bit more simplistic, but not completely ditching the older audience.
An example could be removal of passives - builds were much easier to create with them, and non-EP cores, which were all easy to use. Now, you have to think a little bit more thus making it a bit more strategical - something that older target audience would like, but not the younger.

So, they still try to cater for the more mature audience, but their main one is kids, mostly 6-15, as you've mentioned. Older players can still play, but they will not be catered for as much as the younger players. If that makes sense.

Apart from that, the above post is pretty much spot on.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.09375