We should not let...

[EdDaalleg]

QUOTE (cashto @ Jul 20 2010, 05:13 PM) How do you suppose we gather this data?

"Hi, we see you played for a week and then disappeared for the next three months. Mind telling us why?"

QUOTE (SpkWill @ Jul 21 2010, 07:48 AM) 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.

QUOTE (Jimen @ Jul 21 2010, 01:46 PM) SHUT UP ABOUT BALANCE. The reason we keep losing noobs is because they can't just jump right in and play

My current work load precludes reading all this stuff, sorry. From my perusing and my own thoughts earlier here are my comments.

I actually joined 3 years ago when there were a ton of ppl and the number of players seems to have decreased (clearly I am the problem!?)
I tried earlier to produce data on newbie playership and retention but the records aren't detailed enough to do what I want.
There are literally only two factors in the community size: people coming and people going (sometimes the obvious needs to be stated ).
We should be collecting detailed information on those two factors and how to manipulate each.

My suggestions on collecting the info:Record each new, unique (ie not a hider or 0-hider) person's join date, games played, hours played, games won/lost per month. "Edmond, you dumbass! We already do this!" you say. Yes, sort of, but only the final record is retained and I can't get someone's win/loss record for March in June without trolling the leaderboard and that method is known to be inaccurate. (Unless I'm totally wrong and this @#(! is stored somewhere and no one has told me in my month's of asking).Can we survey people in-game during the in-between time? I know this is a code-change. I think the information would be very useful.
My suggestions on changing inputs/outputs.Holy @#(!, Jimen is right! Newbies don't give a @#(! who the comms are, what the factions are, or what the settings are. They just want to play. It shouldn't take 5-30 minutes to start a new game so quit bitching about some bullcrap setting so you can try your esoteric IC-SF-rush strat. This is specifically why I start an FF DM when the comms won't grow up --15 minutes later, after you're finished measuring your dicks, everyone is still online to play.yrnik's idea is good. I might even say modify it so that no matter what team a newb picks he automatically, and instantly, goes to the team with the higher rank.Engage the newbs on TS and Mumble -- It worked 3 years ago and it will work now. Can we include TS/Mumble in the installation? Or link to it or something?Play. We're like cockroaches. We congregate. (I say this hypocritically since I know I won't be able to play any time soon!).Somehow prevent newbs from using the VCs. The number one reason I despise any individual noob is because of the VCs (and I assume it affects most other people's opinions of them) and they only serve to get newbs in trouble. This may cut down on the newb bashing. I had a more complicated idea for this years ago. I would now suggest simply not including any VCs in the installation and we can assume newbs that are smart enough to find and install them are also smart enough to use them wisely.

EDIT: Eat lead, bitches!

[HSharp]

@girly

newbie servers suck because it's newbs teaching newbs, its only good for figuring out your controls. Look at other games which are similar to Allegiance, quite a lot don't have newbie servers, you just jump right into the action.

Ideally a newbie will have at least done the training first and some of our "competitors" don't even have that option. The best way is to join the main as soon as you have everything figured out, if there is some way so the training missions use your keymap settings without having to press esc+g+c (makes it look messy to put that as an notice on the training missions) then newbies can train away happily.

the.ynik xeretov xynth et al are on the right track with getting newbies into game more quickly so they aren't left waiting ages just to play, we need newbies getting into games more quickly and quicker game turn around times instead of the 10min noat chatting.

If it's possible what would be a nice option is having an autobalance pool where players who want to join the game go in and then every minute they are autobalanced onto teams.

[OTDT_Hunter]

Yes, because those newbie server games worked so well back then. If you want the newbies to learn more and enjoy there time more in the game. Get them to join Mumble instead of being alone in a game just trying to read the chat.

What I was trying to say is those newbies doing those capship games seem more like a FPS then what alleg really is. Then when they join a real game expecting that FPS and realize how hard the game really is with little help intially. "I have to read a @#(! load just to understand the basics of the game. screw that im off.

[Hellsyng]

QUOTE (HSharp @ Jul 21 2010, 05:43 PM) @girly
Ideally a newbie will have at least done the training first and some of our "competitors" don't even have that option. The best way is to join the main as soon as you have everything figured out, if there is some way so the training missions use your keymap settings without having to press esc+g+c (makes it look messy to put that as an notice on the training missions) then newbies can train away happily.

Newbie servers are what this is for, but if we make a training mission that shows a newbie how to reconfigure his controls and tells him the most vital then they could probably join the main instead.

[HSharp]

QUOTE (HSharp @ Jul 21 2010, 11:43 PM) @girly

newbie servers suck because it's newbs teaching newbs, its only good for figuring out your controls.

QUOTE (Hellsyng @ Jul 22 2010, 12:06 AM) Newbie servers are what this is for, but if we make a training mission that shows a newbie how to reconfigure his controls and tells him the most vital then they could probably join the main instead.

Thank you for cutting my post in your quote and stating what I already stated in the bit that you cut out.

[Hellsyng]

QUOTE (HSharp @ Jul 21 2010, 06:10 PM) Thank you for cutting my post in your quote and stating what I already stated in the bit that you cut out.

I was trying to make a tl;dr version. No offence intended queenie

[Makida]

It's not about learning, for eff's sake, it's about enjoying the game. It doesn't matter one bit how well newbies learn to play if they *leave*. Get them to stay first, *then* get them to see that learning the details of how to play is worth it.

And I disagree that newbies get the impression it's a FPS. Newbies love playing around with tech and bases and building things, etc. Newbies don't keep asking to command because they think the most important part of allegiance is FPS.

"I have to read a @#(! load just to understand the basics of the game. screw that im off" is exactly the problem with trying to teach newbs too much all at once when they've just started playing. Letting them have their stupid newbie server games first will reduce this problem, not make it worse. Instead they'll be thinking "hey, this is pretty fun, but I wonder if there's more to it? I like this game, perhaps I shall more learn about it!"

Again, it's a thread about how to get more people to play, and everyone is jumping in with "hmm, how do we best teach the newbs? Maybe mumble will make the newbs learn faster? Aren't newbie servers bad cuz it's newbs teaching newbs? All they can learn there is the controls!" These are the wrong questions to ask. Stop focusing on making newbs good players in the shortest time possible, and start focusing on letting them have fun and enjoy the game. Telling them that they have to go to Allegiance School to learn how the Serious Business of our game works before they can have any real fun isn't a good strategy for this. The newbie server is a perfect way to let new players have fun first, and get them hooked on the game, eventually craving for more.

[Gandalf2]

QUOTE (SaiSoma @ Jul 21 2010, 08:16 PM) This could be cool. When you reach X number of drone kills you get a medal or something.

While generally against achievements - as long as we set the bar sufficiently low I think they could be cool for newbies, to hook them in. Once they'd done them all, if they are good long-term prospects they will stay to play the real game (rathe than the "achievement game") with us. They would have to be so anyone who has played for 3 months or so will have them all anyway, so it doesn't distort gameplay behaviour from vets.

eg
Play 10 games
Win 10 games
Play 100 games
Win 100 games
Get 5 kills in 1 game
get a prox kill
drop 50 probes
Vote "y" in a mutiny or resign vote
Be podded 250 times
Get 10 drone kills
Get 10 base kills

Perhaps these would only be for games that count for ranking purposes. Some of these also encourage good, useful behaviour too, eg probing, learning how to prox.

Some of these would require a code change - but some would just require the stats that are already on the leader-board.

[ryjamsan]

QUOTE (Adept @ Jul 21 2010, 07:01 AM) a) Act grown up. We know your e-peen is huge and engorged. Focusing on making fun of those less well endowed may give you a kick but it will also drive some away from the game... and we need the numbers.

b) Help spread the world. There are more gamers than ever, and there is no real competitor for Allegiance. Problem is hardly anybody knows about it.

c) Be extra nice to newbies. If a game isn't happening because of unbalanced teams take one for Allegiance and fly on the side you usually wouldn't so the game will start. New players will not have experienced Allegiance yet, so they'll not wait 15 min in the lobby waiting for a game to start, no matter how much they'd love the game if they actually got to experience it.

***

I basically agree with Fedman. We need to do more.

+1

[SaiSoma]

I like and endorse these "achievements" and the limits set therein.

QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Jul 21 2010, 06:47 PM) While generally against achievements - as long as we set the bar sufficiently low I think they could be cool for newbies, to hook them in. Once they'd done them all, if they are good long-term prospects they will stay to play the real game (rathe than the "achievement game") with us. They would have to be so anyone who has played for 3 months or so will have them all anyway, so it doesn't distort gameplay behaviour from vets.

eg
Play 10 games
Win 10 games
Play 100 games
Win 100 games
Get 5 kills in 1 game
get a prox kill
drop 50 probes
Vote "y" in a mutiny or resign vote
Be podded 250 times
Get 10 drone kills
Get 10 base kills

Perhaps these would only be for games that count for ranking purposes. Some of these also encourage good, useful behaviour too, eg probing, learning how to prox.

Some of these would require a code change - but some would just require the stats that are already on the leader-board.