Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: dragonmere on January 08, 2014, 04:10:50 pm
-
Many of the changes introduced in the last few months (ie: extreme close range combat nerfs, sniper mechanics buff, lobby overhaul, and especially MUSE's general stance on 'stacking') were geared explicitly to increase player retention.
Given that the decline of concurrent log-ins after the winter sale seems generally consistent with previous sales (http://steamcharts.com/app/209080#1y), coupled with the fact that you lost a small hand full of very devoted players (myself included):
Do you consider your November and December patches to be an overall success?
-
I'm not sure about Muse, but I've really enjoyed the last few patches. There's always work left to do, but the range stratification work really made the game more interesting and varied. Both brawling and sniping are at better places now than they've been for ages. Ship swap is a freakin godsend, though the algorithm for doing so could be better. I haven't really noticed any vets leaving, at least not any I care about. I recommend logging in and giving it another chance with a more open mindset.
-
there are more people online playing during eu times than before.
close combat is still viable?
-
Gat mortar is stronger than it ever was.
-
The largest problem is still a steep learning curve, and general gameplay quirks, not any of the changes (most of which I like). Small irks are making new players quit, as well as not understanding from the very beginning that Guns is a VERY team and communication oriented game. We have all seen the "ready up!" guys that have everything wrong in their ships or loadouts who ragequit after getting stomped. One of my good friends (and a great coder) quit after only a few matches because he kept getting stuck on stairs and other geometry, which still irks me as well.
Player falloff seems slower, so I would say the patches were a success.
I personally like the changes, as I have seen a lot of various ships being used with a lot of new gun configurations.
-
The largest problem is still a steep learning curve, and general gameplay quirks, not any of the changes (most of which I like). Small irks are making new players quit, as well as not understanding from the very beginning that Guns is a VERY team and communication oriented game. We have all seen the "ready up!" guys that have everything wrong in their ships or loadouts who ragequit after getting stomped. One of my good friends (and a great coder) quit after only a few matches because he kept getting stuck on stairs and other geometry, which still irks me as well.
Player falloff seems slower, so I would say the patches were a success.
I personally like the changes, as I have seen a lot of various ships being used with a lot of new gun configurations.
That's actually a very good point. Player movement still feels clunky. I've practiced with it a LOT, so I have little workarounds that don't always work. Notable culprits are the spire's central ladder (easy to get stuck when jumping down) and the mobula's stairs are too 'sticky'. Also, getting stuck on the goldfish's central drum is while trying to repair the hull is pretty common. It's probably a lot worse for people not used to it.
-
One of my good friends (and a great coder) quit after only a few matches because he kept getting stuck on stairs and other geometry, which still irks me as well.
That's actually a very good point. Player movement still feels clunky.
Yep. I agree. There are places where you always have to jump, like when getting upper deck in a junker. I don't know about coding, but is it possible to add some kind of automatic movement in such places? Things like climbing a common edge (junker) or a foolproof stairs animation. The game is not about parkour but teamwork and airship madness. If Muse can solve the first one new players could enjoy better the other two.
About the ready up guys and the lonewolves who don't get the teamwork bit, I'd make mandatory to play the tutorials before joining your first match so everyone have a basic understanding of all the mechanics. A lot of impatient players log in, click quick join before even knowing about tutorials, shout "Ready up fags" a couple of times, get stomped, shout a bit more swears to the other players (noobs, fags and idiot team are usual choices) who usually are other novices who get very discouraged to keep playing (In my first match I got so insulted for bouncing our ship from mountain to mountain that I just keep playing because I LOVE steampunk, but I didn't take the helm again in a long time) and ragequit playing in frustration.
I also think it is essential to have a fourth tutorial about Crewsmanship: Quick orders and commands (It was hard for me to figure out how to use V, appoint a target with B etc...), teamwork, class roles and the importance of stick to them (I've seen a lot of lv1 engineers empty clips and clips harmlessly into the clouds while everything is on fire and the gunner is frantically trying to repair stuff with his hammer).
I also think a gunner should be able to take the guns from any other class as it happens with AIs, the pilot to take the helm, and the engineer hits should have preference over the other classes in cooldown terms ("please, stop hitting the hull with that pipe and go shooting stuff, I really need to repair it with the mallet and yout cooldown doesnt let me to do so... Does he even hear me?"). At least in novice matches.
-
Gat mortar is stronger than it ever was.
I agree the quickest kill in the game.
-
Glad people are enjoying the patches and have varied opinions on close range combat. But that's not the point here.
There was a good deal of general aversion to most aspects of the more recent the patches. I could pull up plenty of form posts if needed. Generally speaking, every time, Muse's rational behind the need for a combat rebalance, 'scramble' feature, spawn system, etc. was that it was absolutely needed to secure new players. We have these systems now, they've been in place, and there is essentially no change in new player adoption. And to pretend that noone left the game is downright silly. Every time there is a major patch, some veterans leave. This has always been the case with Muse's extreme 'rebalancing' tactics; some people aren't going to like it, enough so to leave.
So the question remains; as a developer, does Muse think their patches are successful? Did they hit their mark? Do they care that they put-off some of their more supportive customers? Is the community progressing in the way that they want? Is this the way they intend to do business, or did they make slight errors over the last few months?
Since this community is so awesome and the developers are so involved, I'm sure they should be able to actually directly answer this question.
-
Im also fairly certain they have an email for that. feedback@musegames.com
No offence, but they aren't going to answer every forum post. Every email is more realistic.
-
Zill just because he is saying this is a question to Muse, doesn't mean Muse is the audience of this thread.
-
Zill just because he is saying this is a question to Muse, doesn't mean Muse is the audience of this thread.
Glad people are enjoying the patches and have varied opinions on close range combat. But that's not the point here.
Not sure how you read that line, but it reads to me that he want's a Muse response, not the community's. Emailing them would surely get him a response faster.
-
He is a CA so clearly he knows to email Muse "questions" like this. Maybe my work as a campaign organizer has me jaded but this just seems like rabble rousing and not legitimate questioning.
-
He is a CA so clearly he knows to email Muse "questions" like this. Maybe my work as a campaign organizer has me jaded but this just seems like rabble rousing and not legitimate questioning.
For once, we actually agree on something. Smells very much like a "Come out Muse and tell everyone how everything you've done has been terrible and wrong... oh what's that, the community has said that most of it has worked out? WELL YOU'RE NOT THE NOW DEVS ARE YOU?!"
We've seen people in the game come and go for various reasons. After every sale and major video you'll have people leave the game because that's what most gamers do, they'll play something for a while and then move onto the next shiny thing. We've had veterans leave for various reasons, be it a patch or personal stuff or just because they want to, and while I'm sure we wish it wasn't so, it's also not like Muse is going to reverse everything they've done because a few left the game for it.
-
And to pretend that noone left the game is downright silly. Every time there is a major patch, some veterans leave. This has always been the case with Muse's extreme 'rebalancing' tactics; some people aren't going to like it, enough so to leave.
...Exactly as happens in any other game. When any kind of change happens, some people doesn't like it and leave. This happens in GoI, in LoL, in WoW, in Minecraft and actually every game subject to patches.
I'm afraid GoI is a niche game. When you talk someone about Battlefield saying "You are a soldier and go around capturing points and killing people" it usually seduces the average gamer, as it's a kind of experience we are used to watch on TV, films and the media, and it soaks the youth imagination (the main public of videogames). When you talk about GoI to a friend saying "You are a crewsman on a postapocalyptic steampunk world, flying a kinda zeppelin airship and shooting other airships down" he'll probably ask you "What's a steam - punk?". Flying an airship is not an usual daydream nor a recess game. However there's been nearly two years and the game still has a solid base of loyal players which slowly increases and, given that Muse is still working on it and developing new resources and patches, producing enought income to keep the company afloat and pay the developer's salary.
So yes, the game has huge rises (sales) and drops (people leave to the next shiny thing, as Imagine said), but taking into account the limited target market it has, I think it is working pretty well.
-
yea dragonmere is the top rated negative comment on steam, just read it.
the obvious reasoning behind this thread would be to rile up players.
well he got us talking. BUt everytime I feel like there is something wrong with the game I write muse a detailed email with lots of pros and cons. And then I´m just happy it isnt january 2013 anymore where the game was totally favouring longrange galleons. Galleons everywhere :p
to elaborate dragonmeres question of matchmaking. Im pretty sure muse is still looking into this issue, and I´m pretty sure that you wouldnt make this thread without knowing this to begin with.
-
You're entirely missing my point. A few months ago, the issue of player retention suddenly became ridiculously high priority to the Muse team. Despite having nearly nothing to back up their claims, they blamed a good deal of the problem on 'stacked' teams. The same Steamcharts page that I posted was used as the only evidence, showing how quickly numbers drop after a sale ends.
A number of patched elements including brawling/sniping nerfs/buffs, 'scrambled' lobbies, and spawn system overhaul were forced on us to general apprehension from the community. These changes were said to explicitly be made in order to make the game more appealing to new players, and in turn, boost retention. Despite the vast majority of their concerns not being met, and accepting some rather strange compromises (non scrambled matches at the end of the list, and active area battle zone spawn points or whatever), the community seemingly dropped their complaints and has accepted the patches.
Now, here we are, at the end of the winter sale, and there is no change whatsoever in player retention, as far as I can see. The numbers are dropping, just as they have in the past, to a very slightly higher average than before the sale.
So, what now? If the issue was so important that it warranted the extreme and sudden changes, why is it no longer at the forefront? Where's the blog post akin to their infamous scrambled eggs post that details what the plan is now? Or is it suddenly a non-issue again? Does Muse view their changes as successful, and the issue as resolved? I sure don't see it that way.
That's the point. I'm glad you all eventually came to accept the patches, but that has nothing to do with changes to the game to positively influence player retention. And yes, I posted this rather than just send an email because I am attempting to start dialogue. Becoming entirely complacent just because the development team is extremely friendly and personable is not good for the community or the future of the game.
-
So yes, the game has huge rises (sales) and drops (people leave to the next shiny thing, as Imagine said), but taking into account the limited target market it has, I think it is working pretty well.
This game is still going strong and I am very proud to be a part of its crazy journey through time and space. There are always going to be quandaries, it's unavoidable in any game - but the dedication that I see in members of the community and the developers is wonderful.
If you e-mail feedback@musegames.com you get through to top developers like Keyvias, MetaFive and Bubbles. That's like Bill Gates giving you Windows tech support!
Not to mention the ever-growing network of committed CAs that are emerging. This game is strong and it's going to withstand whatever's thrown at it.
I'm also really looking forward to Adventure Mode!
-
I wouldn't look at just two months of patches but most of last year. Muse has been catering to a certain crowd since 1.2. This is a fast paced CoD world now. You aren't going to attract them with team play, and you aren't going to attract them with flying slugs in the air. They appear to want to bring more of them in but change after change has been done to nerf ships, nerf guns, and appease a minority few who want to fly the Goodyear blimp with machine guns.
Its the damn realist crowd. Constantly pressuring for more realism in a game that is very far from it. Somethings too fast...Muse nerfs it to uselessness. Something shoots too well...Muse nerfs it to uselessness. Then we get a routine of about 2-6 months waiting for it to be patched back.
Arcade style games always sell better and have higher retention than simulation. PVP should lean more towards this. COOP and AM should lean more towards simulation.
You can't go very far catering to two crowds which are on vast opposing ends of the gameplay. Eventually you have to pick one or the other and if you pick the wrong one, you'll have players like dragonmere who just have enough and quit. Or players like me who become only more outspoken and hated by certain members/CAs in the community because we aren't going to just roll over and take it in the rear. Heck I probably would have quit if not for the VN. Working on the stories based on Muse's world has actually been a good distraction from all issues in GOIO I don't agree with.
If your going to make a competitive, action oriented PVP game, then do it. But you'll be perpetually tweaking and fixing it unless you resolve to cater to your target audience. If your going to make a great single player experience then tweaking doesn't matter as much. AI or bots aren't going to be mad if the player is too OPed.
-
I wouldn't look at just two months of patches but most of last year. Muse has been catering to a certain crowd since 1.2. This is a fast paced CoD world now. You aren't going to attract them with team play, and you aren't going to attract them with flying slugs in the air. They appear to want to bring more of them in but change after change has been done to nerf ships, nerf guns, and appease a minority few who want to fly the Goodyear blimp with machine guns.
Its the damn realist crowd. Constantly pressuring for more realism in a game that is very far from it. Somethings too fast...Muse nerfs it to uselessness. Something shoots too well...Muse nerfs it to uselessness. Then we get a routine of about 2-6 months waiting for it to be patched back.
Arcade style games always sell better and have higher retention than simulation. PVP should lean more towards this. COOP and AM should lean more towards simulation.
You can't go very far catering to two crowds which are on vast opposing ends of the gameplay. Eventually you have to pick one or the other and if you pick the wrong one, you'll have players like dragonmere who just have enough and quit. Or players like me who become only more outspoken and hated by certain members/CAs in the community because we aren't going to just roll over and take it in the rear. Heck I probably would have quit if not for the VN. Working on the stories based on Muse's world has actually been a good distraction from all issues in GOIO I don't agree with.
If your going to make a competitive, action oriented PVP game, then do it. But you'll be perpetually tweaking and fixing it unless you resolve to cater to your target audience. If your going to make a great single player experience then tweaking doesn't matter as much. AI or bots aren't going to be mad if the player is too OPed.
Dont know if muse was angry but the Hades and Flame damage got pretty OP.
-
I think player retention has always been of ridiculously high priority for Muse. They are always trying out new things to accomplish this. The 9 stacks of fire instead of 1 to disable a gun was pretty game changing for me, as was the ship mass implementation. I stuck through it and adjusted my strategies because there was no other game that scratched my Coop game itch quite like GOIO. It is defiantly not the same game I bought over a year ago, and to be honest I preferred the premass change game play more.
Maybe one day a better game will come along and I will abandon this community for the other one. When that day comes I hope to drag as many of you with me as possible. You are all splendid folk.
-
I just did an experiment, which pretty much personally validates what I have said before. I took off my headset, joined a random match where my captain readied up without saying a word, and played a KotH. No one on the ship said a single thing in voice, and there was just once request in chat by the top engie to switch guns with the gunner to get to the balloon faster. We took heavy damage and almost lost the point several times, got a lot of kills, and had a generally active match. It should have been exciting and nail-biting. However, with the complete lack of 'human' element, it was actually almost boring. The other crew might as well have been AI.
Guns is a team and strategy-building game, pure and simple. It is more like a sport game than a shooter, or perhaps even a group-based RPG. Ages are spent getting your team just right before you even start the game. If you jump into a football game with just whatever random players, you will likely lose and have a bad experience. If you are playing with some friends, however, you can have a lot of fun even with all last-string players on the worst fields.
This is what is happening with GOIO, and why people come and go so fast. It does not matter what balancing is done if people are getting the wrong impression of what type of game it is and playing it solo.
Guns is a great game, which I have enjoyed through its changes. It is not Muse's fault at all that most people do not quite understand exactly what it is. If you were to make an identical game using giant robots and slap the Mechwarrior label on it, you would have similarly confused players, and a high cycle rate.
It is the unique play that we love that is our largest handicap in player retention. The only thing that can be done about that would be different advertizing, stronger emphasis on team communication, and more fluid tutorials. Even then, most players may just not like this type of gameplay.
-
It should have been exciting and nail-biting. However, with the complete lack of 'human' element, it was actually almost boring. The other crew might as well have been AI.
Guns is a team and strategy-building game, pure and simple. It is more like a sport game than a shooter, or perhaps even a group-based RPG. Ages are spent getting your team just right before you even start the game.
It does not matter what balancing is done if people are getting the wrong impression of what type of game it is and playing it solo.
Guns is a great game, which I have enjoyed through its changes. It is not Muse's fault at all that most people do not quite understand exactly what it is.
These points are beautiful and must be stressed - therefore I am repeating them as a summary.
-
Maybe one day a better game will come along and I will abandon this community for the other one. When that day comes I hope to drag as many of you with me as possible. You are all splendid folk.
My money is on star citizen. It's basically adventure mode in space, except with more boarding and a generally higher budget.
-
My money is on star citizen. It's basically adventure mode in space, except with more boarding and a generally higher budget.
You think you have FPS issues in GOIO lol. That uses Cryegine4 on a MMO scale. I know it's a beter optimised engine, but it's still the engine that is used by Ryse:Son of Rome witch was designed to showcase harware/graphical capabilities of XBOXOne. Rysse is much less ambitius and smaler scale game than Star Citizen. Yeah I don't trust Star Citizen to run smoothly on midrange gaming rigs. Oh sure it will probably be a great game, but I'm not overly interested in something I might not be able to play when it comes out.
Even if I can play Star Citizen, I won't leave this game as long as I have people to play this game with.
-
Even if I can play Star Citizen, I won't leave this game as long as I have people to play this game with.
Likewise! I wouldn't dream of leaving this game for another. Makes it sound far too objectified; this game and its community are something far more than something you can just abandon. They are colourful, quirky, charming. This game has given me so many wonderful memories and has let me 'meet' so many interesting and beautiful people with whom I see eye to eye - all of whom I would never of had the pleasure of interacting with if this game were not in my Steam Library.
Be faithful, old chaps, this game has got a lot more to offer us. This year, if not all other years, will be of particular note. I can't wait to see what happens to this game over the coming year. Adventure mode and everything that comes with it is going to give us a whole new experience, all coloured and built off the foundations of the fantastic game we know and love today.
I can't wait to still be a part of this community when that happens.
-
I looked at star citizen's kickstarter page and they didn't even list Sky Whales as a stretch goal.
-
Close enough? https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13087-System-Unlock-Nemo
-
I looked at star citizen's kickstarter page and they didn't even list Sky Whales as a stretch goal.
Lets drag them in court!
-
I'm a little late to the party, but here goes.
Players are important for any game, and developers always want to keep retention high. Having that not be on high on their to-do list is a quick way to get to failure town.
The big issues stated by the OP weren't actually brought up by Muse themselves, but by the players.
Team scramble, choosing the spawns, weapon and ship balances, etc were all issues players brought up and discussed well before Muse addressed them.
---------------------
That's not to say all the players wanted it, but you'll never get all the players to agree on anything. Depending on what circles you spend your time in, you'll get a different 'general impression' upon what players want. Muse decides to listen to everyone and evaluate their ideas and suggestions. They don't focus on just the hardcore players, or only think about the casual gamers. They look at what support players give ideas, as well as the negative reactions to those ideas.
The spawn system for example was something that was brought up quite some time ago, but was pretty low on their to-do list. Balance tends to be near the top, because that's what makes the game fun and exciting. Speaking of balance, the 'nerfs' to close range weapons was probably well called for. The latest updates weren't really all that detrimental. I think the gatling actually received more of a buff despite the range reduction. So while a lot of the guns were adjusted, they're all still viable.
http://www.cracked.com/video_18537_the-7-deadly-sins-online-gaming.html
That video sums up a lot of gaming sins. In particular, #7 Pride brings up what occurred prior to the balance adjustments. Players would find a ship/gun combo that worked alarmingly well, and just stick with it. It's not playing unfair, but that particular build would be so effective, that the only way to beat it in most instances was using the same build as them, only doing it better. This is what would lead certain clans to timing distance and counting bullets on these builds to minimize kill times. Currently a larger variety of builds are viable, making the game more interesting.
(http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu266/thbrown07/GoIO_SteamChart.png)
Skipping on down to player retention again, you can just view the current steam charts. Being the person that brought these up in the first place while talking about player retention, the first thing I notice is that the rate of player loss has decreased quite a bit compared to most of the player influxes. It's still too soon to see how it will ultimately play out, but you also have to take into account the conditions of the influx. Schools were out for break, the game was on sale, and fans of the youtubers saw them playing it. Now schools are back in session, the game is no longer on sale, and the youtubers aren't focusing on this game. The player count was guaranteed to decrease, but we have yet to see if it bottoms out to the original norms, or if it'll stay a tad higher (or maybe even bounce up a bit).