We should not let...

[Adept]

QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 21 2010, 02:03 PM) Compared to the days when there was no rank at all, yes we get balanced games now. Not perfect, but better than they were by a long way.

What he said.

As for improving the system further, adding command rank into the calculations would be good.

So a fairly experienced player but newbie commander like me would add rank(14) and command rank(2) for the team total if for some reason I end up in the command seat. Somebody epic like spidey would add (21) + (17). A small tweak, but it would at least have a nodding acknowledgement towards the key role of the commander in winning and losing games.

[Duckwarrior]

1. Focus equally on retention & recruitment.

2. AS may be the best system we have had. I care not what the statistics say, it is broken. I use Pico as my example for this. He says it is because he anti stacks a lot (which he undoubtedly does). AS is supposed to take this into account. Clearly is doesn't when one of the very best, most versatile & useful players in the game is rank 11 (which he was the last time I saw him in game) and some of the tosspots who are close to the top of the table where they are.

3. If we are keeping AS (which inevtiably we will) then limit server sizes so that people can play with people of the same rank or the next level up/down. IE: Novice/Intermediate, Intermediate/Vet, Vet only, Open server. This has the effect of allowing less experienced commanders to gain experience without listening to the utter @#(! that most "vets" subject them to. As well as keeping newbies from becoming cannon fodder to the, well you know who they are. I don't care what you think about this, I've heard all of the arguments about getting better by playing with the best, yes, if you are vaguely in the same league. If you are just starting out, then nothing will turn off 80% of the people trying the game for the first time more quickly than repeated whorefests. IMO AS may not be perfect, but broad strokes it seems to be reasonably accurate. If intermediates win or lose enough of both, they will pretty soon stop being intermediates.

People don't want to play with those 100 levels better than them. You have to be ready to learn the tactics and tricks and skills from those at the top of the tree. It has to be done in stages while enjoying the game. A huge mishmashed server does nothing but flatter the egos of long time players while demoralising most of the newbies.

[RedLion]

Maybe you are right Duck, maybe learning needs to be done in stages, but I can tell you that I would have stopped playing long long long ago if I was restricted to play Novice only games.

Game separation by ranks only serves one purpose in my eye: allowing the vets to avoid having to deal with the new folks.

[Koln]

QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Jul 21 2010, 01:27 PM) A huge mishmashed server does nothing but flatter the egos of long time players while demoralising most of the newbies.

I fully agree with that.

[notjarvis]

QUOTE (Adept @ Jul 21 2010, 12:13 PM) What he said.

As for improving the system further, adding command rank into the calculations would be good.

So a fairly experienced player but newbie commander like me would add rank(14) and command rank(2) for the team total if for some reason I end up in the command seat. Somebody epic like spidey would add (21) + (17). A small tweak, but it would at least have a nodding acknowledgement towards the key role of the commander in winning and losing games.

Yup. The way AS is represented in-game could use a spruce up.

How's about - If you are given command the number against your name should be either Just the Commander rank rather than your pilot rank, or take adepts suggestion from above.


As for splitting the servers. It's an interesting point. But current numbers in-game may not support it (even at prime time on some days in the summer), and outside Prime-time it would be pointless.

I'd like to see a few newbie server games going if we can at prime-time (supported by @Allegs and @Help of course). I think new players learn more in such games, and get discouraged less. Then, once we can get a newbie game going regularly we can explore a middle ranking one too.

The sad thing is, a new player will only see one server going with players on at his first login. And on that server he will get owned, without ever understanding why.

[jbansk]

1. Create a turret training mission. Nothing thrills a noob more than a turret. There's your hook! Once a noob realizes what a turret does, he'll wet himself everytime he hears "I need turret gunners now".

2. Rank them up quicker. Scale the ranking system such that they get rid of that (0) MUCH sooner. I can't remember how many times I've heard a noob ask when will his rank increase. They must feel like they're advancing even if they aren't. Give them a flippin badge or something that gives them some sense of accomplishment.

3. Get to know them on a more personal level. Say their name on the chat, they love to see that they are someone among the crowd. Being a fellow pilot, they must be made to feel like they can pull up a seat at the bar and share a frosty mug with the best of players. Intimidation will chase them off everytime so take extra steps to avoid bashing their ability until they're a little more hardened.

4. Boast about the good things they do on the main where they can see it. Yeah, you gotta stroke them. If they feel like their contribution meant something, they'll be there giving it that much more, the next time.

[SpkWill]

None of the suggestions in this thread really have anything to do with newbie retention they are just each individuals idea of what would "improve" allegiance. This game will never be popular because it's complex and difficult, while all popular games are heading in the opposite direction. It won't die either simply because it's unique and you won't play anything else like it.

[Duckwarrior]

Do nothing then Sheffster, just accept the numbers and keep on truckin'.

[Romeo_]

People pay ZERO to play this game. That makes it very easy to walk away. How many F2P's have you tried and stopped playing right away? How many games that you had to pay for did you stop playing right away?

Bad attitudes can make it easier to leave the game, after having paid $0 for the game to begin with its easy to walk away when being harrassed or overly victimized.

If you purposely shorten games i will personally find you and kick the ever-lovin @#(! outta you. There is enough down time between games now, which is also a contributing factor for someone who is used to less time between games.

Easiest way to find out is to put a survey in the uninstaller or kick out an email upon them uninstalling, if thats possible? You will find out fast why they are leaving. I wouldn't be surprised if the game was still considered too difficult by many. too rude to for many, and even too free for some.....the reasons folks leave could be endless.

For the record....I advertise this game in every other game i play and have played, ever since I started playing this game. I also warn them of the learning curve, which I love.

[notjarvis]

QUOTE (Romeo_ @ Jul 21 2010, 03:02 PM) If you purposely shorten games i will personally find you and kick the ever-lovin @#(! outta you. There is enough down time between games now, which is also a contributing factor for someone who is used to less time between games.

My point there was - the reason many people quote for the long time between games is because games are so long people need to recover afterwards.

I wasn't however saying that we should reduce games, I was saying we should return the length of games to what they were, as I felt that (at least it appears to me) that the length of games was increasing year on year.

IMO the majority of even-ish fun games should last 30 minutes to an hour or so. But I find far too many recently last 2-3 hours which is just untenable for a PUG game on a regular basis for a lot of people.

I agree with everything else you say Romeo .