Post by dinnerplain on Dec 7, 2017 4:48:46 GMT -5
It took me a while to work out what was going on with the "Low Priority Queue" but now that I know what's going on, I'm a bit shocked.
Unless, that is, Pixonic are trying to discourage anyone that doesn't pay to play from playing War Robots. But that in itself might be the start of a death spiral for the game.
The "tanking" problem that is the root cause of player doing this remains unresolved. People want to play "close matches" that they can last in. Penalising people that "tank" by putting them in teams that they won't last long will result in people becoming less enamoured with the game. This leads to a feedback loop where they become more likely to simply leave War Robots. If enough people leave War Robots then it stands to reason that there will be fewer people available at any point in time to be in a team and therefore either more battles with robots that are not evenly balanced or longer wait times.
But the really strange thing is that Pixonic have been doing more and more work on making the game unbalanced. The new robots that have very fast and quick move times just cannot be competed with by the older robots. What's the point in playing in a game or battle when you can't compete? The same with the new weapons. If Pixonic think that people will "buy their way" out of inequality then they really aren't applying themselves. This problem has been building up for the last 6 months or so.
To give you an idea of how "bad" it is now getting, in a "Beacon Rush" game I was put in yesterday, it was 6 robots (my side) vs 1 robot. The missing 5 robots didn't even show up to quit.
Of course maybe this is the future that Pixonic sees for War Robots: one where there are fewer players but with a higher proportion that pay to fight.
But there's something else too.
Now that it is possible to see the blue/red bars at the top showing "beacon influence", a player is able to do their own math and think "Do I have a reasonable chance of winning from this point if I continue to play?"
Whilst they have exposed the status of who's winning, it also lets people make informed decisions about if they want to continue playing. Similarly with robots left. e.g. 3 on my team vs 6 on the other, their beacon measure is ~80%, ours is ~40% = game is over. (no point hanging around to the end.)
I can't count how many times I have made this decision call and I wouldn't blame any of my opponents that do either. It might make some game ends boring and some might call it "unsportsman like" but if you know when you've been beaten, why not raise the white flag? (i.e. bow out of the competition.)
To use the above point, if it is "3 of us" and "6 of them", it is also not going to be a very fun experience. "Oh! Challenge, can you take more of them out to even it out?" Yeah, I don't think so. 2 to 1 ratio. Not a good use of my time trying to continue that fight when the outcome is effectively already known. Insisting that I continue to fight in a fight that I know I'm going to lose does not resemble very good intelligence on the part of those holding the fight.
My time is limited, my battery is limited. I want to use both to have a good time. Spending time hanging out in battles I won't win (for whatever reason) or won't enjoy (for whatever reason) is not something I want to do. And I suspect the same is true for many others. If Pixonic think people will want to hang around fighting battles that they know they will lose then I would encourage them to think a bit harder about the situation. And right now, that's what Pixonic want people to do.
But right now, the size of the LPQ is a good measure for Pixonic to see how badly they've messed the game up. A LPQ that had nobody in it would mean nobody is dissatisfied with the game whereas if Pixonic find ~20%+ in the LPQ then it should be obvious that there is a real problem to solve.
I'd encourage Pixonic to look for better ways to monetize their app in a manner that doens't annoy/infuriate the players.
Unless, that is, Pixonic are trying to discourage anyone that doesn't pay to play from playing War Robots. But that in itself might be the start of a death spiral for the game.
The "tanking" problem that is the root cause of player doing this remains unresolved. People want to play "close matches" that they can last in. Penalising people that "tank" by putting them in teams that they won't last long will result in people becoming less enamoured with the game. This leads to a feedback loop where they become more likely to simply leave War Robots. If enough people leave War Robots then it stands to reason that there will be fewer people available at any point in time to be in a team and therefore either more battles with robots that are not evenly balanced or longer wait times.
But the really strange thing is that Pixonic have been doing more and more work on making the game unbalanced. The new robots that have very fast and quick move times just cannot be competed with by the older robots. What's the point in playing in a game or battle when you can't compete? The same with the new weapons. If Pixonic think that people will "buy their way" out of inequality then they really aren't applying themselves. This problem has been building up for the last 6 months or so.
To give you an idea of how "bad" it is now getting, in a "Beacon Rush" game I was put in yesterday, it was 6 robots (my side) vs 1 robot. The missing 5 robots didn't even show up to quit.
Of course maybe this is the future that Pixonic sees for War Robots: one where there are fewer players but with a higher proportion that pay to fight.
But there's something else too.
Now that it is possible to see the blue/red bars at the top showing "beacon influence", a player is able to do their own math and think "Do I have a reasonable chance of winning from this point if I continue to play?"
Whilst they have exposed the status of who's winning, it also lets people make informed decisions about if they want to continue playing. Similarly with robots left. e.g. 3 on my team vs 6 on the other, their beacon measure is ~80%, ours is ~40% = game is over. (no point hanging around to the end.)
I can't count how many times I have made this decision call and I wouldn't blame any of my opponents that do either. It might make some game ends boring and some might call it "unsportsman like" but if you know when you've been beaten, why not raise the white flag? (i.e. bow out of the competition.)
To use the above point, if it is "3 of us" and "6 of them", it is also not going to be a very fun experience. "Oh! Challenge, can you take more of them out to even it out?" Yeah, I don't think so. 2 to 1 ratio. Not a good use of my time trying to continue that fight when the outcome is effectively already known. Insisting that I continue to fight in a fight that I know I'm going to lose does not resemble very good intelligence on the part of those holding the fight.
My time is limited, my battery is limited. I want to use both to have a good time. Spending time hanging out in battles I won't win (for whatever reason) or won't enjoy (for whatever reason) is not something I want to do. And I suspect the same is true for many others. If Pixonic think people will want to hang around fighting battles that they know they will lose then I would encourage them to think a bit harder about the situation. And right now, that's what Pixonic want people to do.
But right now, the size of the LPQ is a good measure for Pixonic to see how badly they've messed the game up. A LPQ that had nobody in it would mean nobody is dissatisfied with the game whereas if Pixonic find ~20%+ in the LPQ then it should be obvious that there is a real problem to solve.
I'd encourage Pixonic to look for better ways to monetize their app in a manner that doens't annoy/infuriate the players.