Originally posted by Corndog
Studies have shown, and as has been the case here, the long term players of an MMO are generally users with social investments. Friends, guilds, teams are typically what make people stay around. Most of the well known solo team heroes have moved on at this point, and the people left are the people that network and work together. If the impetus to recruit other players' superstars into your team is diminished by limiting the number of stars, then those players are less likely to network and less likely to become those long term players with social investment.
What is interesting, to me, is the strategic implications and overall "feel" of superstars on a team. A whole team of stars, for example, would basically remove the strategic option of where you place your stars, and would just "feel" silly that every player on your team is a superstar. I do feel like a third of your team being superstars is teetering on the edge of being too much, both from a strategic and feel perspective.
But regardless, pointing to number of superstars on a team being the reason new users get crushed is just the old hat argument of attaching "helps new users" to whatever your current pet peeve is. We could remove superstars from the game completely and new users would still get crushed by 100 points a game.
What doesn't seem to be getting grasped is that this is a small and decreasing user base. There are less and less people to network with. I also think there is a stick your head in the sand happening regarding the use of multi accounts to give the appearance of networking. And the lack of teams is getting crisis level bad. This emphasis on "networking is good" is causing a consolation of teams rather than an expansion. If the owners are adopting a force users into networking or die off situation then what other steps are being taken to increase team ownership?
Studies have shown, and as has been the case here, the long term players of an MMO are generally users with social investments. Friends, guilds, teams are typically what make people stay around. Most of the well known solo team heroes have moved on at this point, and the people left are the people that network and work together. If the impetus to recruit other players' superstars into your team is diminished by limiting the number of stars, then those players are less likely to network and less likely to become those long term players with social investment.
What is interesting, to me, is the strategic implications and overall "feel" of superstars on a team. A whole team of stars, for example, would basically remove the strategic option of where you place your stars, and would just "feel" silly that every player on your team is a superstar. I do feel like a third of your team being superstars is teetering on the edge of being too much, both from a strategic and feel perspective.
But regardless, pointing to number of superstars on a team being the reason new users get crushed is just the old hat argument of attaching "helps new users" to whatever your current pet peeve is. We could remove superstars from the game completely and new users would still get crushed by 100 points a game.
What doesn't seem to be getting grasped is that this is a small and decreasing user base. There are less and less people to network with. I also think there is a stick your head in the sand happening regarding the use of multi accounts to give the appearance of networking. And the lack of teams is getting crisis level bad. This emphasis on "networking is good" is causing a consolation of teams rather than an expansion. If the owners are adopting a force users into networking or die off situation then what other steps are being taken to increase team ownership?
It deserve more. 
