Suggestions for easing New players into Factions

[Aleonymous]

A "free" pwr 6 team resolves the lack of games, but will only make the "noob" factor worse.

I think you're right there, Slimpy. However, given a large-player and a "working" matchmaker (i.e. incentives to queue most players in the same "bucket"), everyone would find opponents closer to their power-level, so...

To mitigate this I'm sure there will be tactical learning in the single player which can be applied to the multiplayer, so players experienced with the single player might benefit greatly from the free power 6 team idea.

Indeed. A longer vs-AI training season would help limit the "noob-factor" at the entry power-level.

[Tirean]

ONCE AI is implemented into factions you can force new players to do a small "tournament"

What I would suggest is 3 games they must win, they earn renown and characters for winning.

Each game they will be given instructions into playing (all of this is after tournament btw) and will point out weaknesses of the enemy team. For example: The enemy team stats make them vulnerable to early strength attacks due to the lack of armour. Or, The enemy has high armour on his units, maybe focusing on early armour breaking would give us an advantage.

Little things like this could be a great help to newer players and isn't too handholdy.

[KamikazeDurrrp]

How about we change the tournament system or make it so you have to reach a certain (ladder) rank or play a certain number of games before you're allowed to play the tournament? I mean why do we even need to start tournaments right away? Give everyone a week or two to learn the game and then do the quota of games that people have to reach before they can join tournaments. And why not have tournaments at different tiers? This sort of relies on the ladder to be tiered, but this would make so weaker players aren't playing the stronger ones. Idunno, this stuff seams pretty obvious. Also making it so you have to reach a certain (ladder) rank or number of games prevents smurfing so that a person can't deliberately start a newer account to play weaker players. I've always suggested making it so players can have r6 at the start but if we're so worried about "noob factor" then the quota idea should work fine, so that people can learn and build a r6 team and so that not everybody is just automatically allowed to play a tournament.

Edit: I've been reading more about the thread and people seem to be missing the point about what makes TBS combat truly fun (at least for me). If we really want to get people interested in the game we have to explain to people why they want to play this game over every other game out there. Plus why do people think AI is going to fix a lot of the problems? Playing against AI isn't really fun when you're restricted to your one cool unit and 5 lame ones. I know people have suggested sandbox, and I think that would probably be best. I think what would be ideal is a sandbox mode where people could use any unit they wanted, vs any number of AI they wanted in any scenario. That way it would be useful in single AND multiplayer but alas, that's probably not feasible with what we have. Also, all this stuff like "MORE RENOWN FOR TWO DAYS" etc. doesn't work if I don't really like playing the game. We're already at a disadvantage here not being a team game that you can play with your friends. I don't want to say "kiddie gloves" but I don't really know what's a good way to get people interested in that aspect. I can say though we need a lot more "tutorials" in the game that's for sure. We need an encyclopedia that not only explains what the unit does, but also how to use it etc. That may not seem like much, but does a lot to avoid confusion and frustration, especially when combined with sandbox mode.

[roder]

Well considering the influx of new players, anyone got more ideas

Also KD, these suggestions were made based on the dozens of newbie players I've encountered. these aren't simply minor complaints. AI is the #1 most common complaint, along with "where is story/singleplayer mode" and "are there any people playing". People want AI to learn the game before they get pummeled by human players, its more of a learning/tutorial experience. Another issue made by new players is that there are no people playing at low levels, no one goes back to p1 or p0 ever again, so they literally need another new players to join the game at the exact same time or they need someone willing to get a r0 team together to play them. AI provides games to everyone, regardless of timezone and people do not have to wait at all to get an actual game if there arent any other new players. Like I know you think AI is a trivial pursuit in theory, but in reality it is a valued feature that real people are asking for.

How about we change the tournament system or make it so you have to reach a certain (ladder) rank or play a certain number of games before you're allowed to play the tournament? I mean why do we even need to start tournaments right away? Give everyone a week or two to learn the game and then do the quota of games that people have to reach before they can join tournaments. And why not have tournaments at different tiers? This sort of relies on the ladder to be tiered, but this would make so weaker players aren't playing the stronger ones. Idunno, this stuff seams pretty obvious. Also making it so you have to reach a certain (ladder) rank or number of games prevents smurfing so that a person can't deliberately start a newer account to play weaker players. I've always suggested making it so players can have r6 at the start but if we're so worried about "noob factor" then the quota idea should work fine, so that people can learn and build a r6 team and so that not everybody is just automatically allowed to play a tournament.

As for your tournament suggestion, it doesn't make sense at all. I dont think anyone read it, thats why no one pointed it out lol The tournaments are held at p12, people reaching that level have plenty of experience already, so why would they need a quota of games or experience barrier to enter. There are no "noobies" at p12. Tiered tournaments are not obvious, they're bad. A city-wide tournament is supposed to figure out who is the best in Strand, not who is the best out of the weaker players. there is 1 announcement banner of the winner, they shouldnt share their glory with a separate banner of the winner of some 1000> bracket winner lol Also if there were, for example, 3 different tournaments: 1300+, 1100-1299, 1000> ELO tournaments, that also promotes smurfing and losing on purpose to lower your ELO. It also segregates the tournament population, which is already lacking. i dont know, you say some ideas don't make sense, but then you fail to see the major faults in your own lol

[raven2134]

Just to clarify, noobies enter p12 when people buy renown to promote and don't actually earn the promotions through playing.

[Aleonymous]

I kinda agree with KD's suggestion about dividing the tournament, whether it's by (a) Elo, (b) team-power or (c) [ranked] matches played. I know it divides the playerbase, so I am conveniently assuming a "large enough" playerbase here. Throwing everybody in the same basket isn't good for anyone, neither the noobs nor the vets.

I don't claim to know the best solution to this issue, because I don't know any other online PvP community/game But, I do know this: It's most rewarding when you compete against your peers, and I think that KD's suggestion moves in this direction.

[roder]

True, if you want to compete against your peers though, thats what ranked matches are for. You face people near your ELO, thats what ranked matchmaking does, so you face enough people and settle into your regular ELO, then you don't get matched as easily with too strong/weaker opponent.

Tiered tournaments shouldn't be used to match with people of equal skill like a ranked matchmaking system, which is what the ranked system is already in place for.
Also there really should be only 1 champion of Strand. that is really what the tournament is for, find out who is the best player at the current time. I think that is really the most rewarding experience, facing the best to become the best. You can only become better by facing better players, thats my own experience at least.

think of the problems that will happen. Imagine a tier 1 (being highest ELO) tournament and tier 2 tournament. champion of tier 2 is the best of that skill group. then he increases his ranked ELO and moves to tier 1 next week, where he is at the bottom of the group lol. How does that make sense. and why would he ever want to increase his ELO, he'll try to lower it to stay champion of an easier skill group. just my 2 cents on the issues that will come with a tiered ranking system like that

[Aleonymous]

Why would he ever want to increase his ELO, he'll try to lower it to stay champion of an easier skill group.

I guess that is an issue relating to gamer mentality/psychology. I'm sure like being "strongest of the weak" while others like belonging to the strong, no matter the cost. Giving enough incentives could settle this; some ideas:

1. Achievements (apart from best-ever Elo) like "Player X has remained in the Gold/Silver/Bronze-Tier for Y weeks"
2. Vanity, e.g. fancier color-variations or banner-customization
3. Locking Elo & Team-power ==> Using higher-rank abilities would only be allowed in the top Tiers
4. New features ==> Items can be used in the higher Tiers

In overall, I think that the Tourney (i.e. the competitive play) should be tailored to the size and dispersion (localization, casual-vs-competitive) of the playerbase. So, lets see what figures can we get, and them speculate on that. I'm guessing a ~50/200 average/peak is a little on the bright side, for a steady-state condition.

[roder]

Yes, I guess that is a fair assessment see how the tournament scene goes, and we'll see from there. I am sure that a lot of people have the same sentiments as Aleo and KD :P but i still stand by my opinion of 1 tournament and 1 champion of strand

[KamikazeDurrrp]

I'm rather confused with the knee-jerk animosity that roder had in responding to my post. I never suggested tiered tournaments in the first place, what I suggested was making the current tournament system more restrictive. Let's be honest, is our tournament system that great anyway? I wouldn't even call it a tournament as opposed to a reckless king of the hill free for all that usually rewards the most opportunistic as opposed to the most deserving players. What I simply expressed was the sentiment that if we're going to use such a system, don't we want the most serious players to play in such tournaments? As opposed to...just anybody? We don't have to make the requirements ridiculous either, why not, let's say, 20-30 matches played before you're even allowed to join a tournament? Is that really too hard to ask of new players? Sure it doesn't always bring the best players, but at least we get the most dedicated ones. The way I see it, the current system needs a lot of work and I don't see how being angry at one person who thought he suggested something reasonable is going to improve it. Everyone else in the thread had complained about weaker players in the tournament pool, and I was just reacting to that, saying, if we're going to have weaker players in the pool, don't we at least want them to have an idea what's going on? whether it's by playing more games, getting better ranking, etc. that seems to better than just hoping that somehow incentivising people to play more will make them better as opposed to actually ensuring that the people that join tournaments are dedicated to playing the tournaments competitively as opposed to people that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[roder]

I'm rather confused with the knee-jerk animosity that roder had in responding to my post. I never suggested tiered tournaments in the first place,

And why not have tournaments at different tiers? This sort of relies on the ladder to be tiered, but this would make so weaker players aren't playing the stronger ones

maybe i misunderstood you. but "tournaments at different tiers" means tiered tournaments. Also, why do you call me out for pointing out problems with your ideas, when you just did the same for my post lol I was just replying to it. I don't understand the double standard.

what I suggested was making the current tournament system more restrictive. Let's be honest, is our tournament system that great anyway? I wouldn't even call it a tournament as opposed to a reckless king of the hill free for all that usually rewards the most opportunistic as opposed to the most deserving players. What I simply expressed was the sentiment that if we're going to use such a system, don't we want the most serious players to play in such tournaments? As opposed to...just anybody? We don't have to make the requirements ridiculous either, why not, let's say, 20-30 matches played before you're even allowed to join a tournament? Is that really too hard to ask of new players? Sure it doesn't always bring the best players, but at least we get the most dedicated ones. The way I see it, the current system needs a lot of work and I don't see how being angry at one person who thought he suggested something reasonable is going to improve it. Everyone else in the thread had complained about weaker players in the tournament pool, and I was just reacting to that, saying, if we're going to have weaker players in the pool, don't we at least want them to have an idea what's going on? whether it's by playing more games, getting better ranking, etc. that seems to better than just hoping that somehow incentivising people to play more will make them better as opposed to actually ensuring that the people that join tournaments are dedicated to playing the tournaments competitively as opposed to people that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

im not sure if you read my response, but tournaments are at p12. it takes 15 kills on each unit and enough renown to upgrade each unit to rank 2 (20 for rank 1, 80 for rank 2), im sure by then they will have had enough experience in battles to play in tournament (600 renown for upgrades, thats at least 50 battles if you average 12 renown/battle, keep in mind losses and if you want to buy new r0 units for your p12 team, also keep in mind many play with a r3 units + r1 units, r3 upgrade is 160 renown each). the only exception are people that buy 2 starter packs from store, but how often does that exception occur in factions? now I am all for better tournament play, but at the moment the only "endgame" factions has is tournaments, and should we really restrict people that have gotten all the way to p12? what else do they have other than tournaments atm. i wouldn't say that the champion is the not the most deserving player, who else did you have in mind. lol RPGamer is pretty much the best active player atm and he won some even when vets still played