Originally
posted by
BlackHole:
Drow - You're going to have people quit either way. Either cause they couldn't get rank 1, or cause they couldn't fight, or cause the game got boring, or because it was too easy, or because it was too hard.
In the 30 year history of Earth, you've had suiciders. Are you telling me that suiciding is why the vast majority of people quit? If not, then how can you blame the player retention problem on suiciding and suiciding alone?
Without the actual data, I don't think you can say suiciding will cause more of a player decline than the lack of combat. I think at best, all we can do is speculate.
That said - let me try to make my point another way.
Something earned is greater than something given freely. There's actually really interesting research on this topic with primates, where what the researchers found is that the primates would prefer to earn/work for their reinforcers, as opposed to being given them freely.
I view net worth similarly. I think that earning a high NW in an environment where people can try to deprive you of it, will be more rewarding and reinforcing than earning a high NW in a game that lacks interaction, conflict, and struggle.
Additionally, for all the people who aren't motivated by 'winning' with NW, the entire point of the game is the conflict. So by removing key aspects of conflict, you're removing key aspects of the game for 'the other side'.
Unless you can tell me this game should be made solely for people who want to net, I find it difficult to consider the argument that we should remove key aspects of the game that half of the player base relies upon and utilizes.
I completely understand that having your set 'ruined' by a suicider is no fun. But may I suggest an alternative way of thinking about that?
Maybe you should consider your set was ruined, but rather than you made mistakes in your playing method that led to you being vulnerable to suiciding, had a bad roll of the dice, and ultimately succumbed to one of the key game mechanics and elements that makes achieving a high NW challenging. But - you'll have next set to try again, and you can employ different methods in an attempt to navigate the gauntlet that is the 1A server.
Or - alternatively, I suppose ya'll could just continue to remove combat from the game. But I promise you, in the long run, that will make the game more boring, less challenging, less rewarding, and ultimately lead to even more player decline.
You want interaction, conflict, engagement, strife. Some of these suggestions do the exact opposite of that.
Except that realistically, there is NO defence against a suicider. It doesn't matter how high a defence you have, full defensive allies, Max weapons tech, a suicider can and will still wreck your set regardless.
And this is something that has always been an issue.
I'm totally down for combat in a combat game, but I also believe that that is based around clan leaders skill at diplomacy, between clans, not some random asshole deciding that terrorising someone who HAS managed to use diplomacy to keep themselves safe is funny.
Not everyone has the time to dedicate to this game, and play because of the community they play with, rather than the game itself.
I know I'll never finish top of the tables for example, because I don't have the time to dedicate to doing that.
But, I still play for the factor of beating my own past scores, and seeing how well I can do, and, at the same time, I act as part of the team who goes after targets. Suiciding on me isn't going to bother me. But I know that some of my players, getting suicided on in a game that they're not really here for, pushes them out.
You mentioned war players leaving because they can't get wars.
Fight each other then.
But, they don't REALLY want to do that, what they actually want, is to beat on a target that they know in all likelihood can't/won't win, so they can gloat about how good they are.
That's certainly not always the case, but as a general rule, it's pretty accurate.
