33 replies to this topic

[Ketran]

At the current moment we know Hawken is going to be a free game for the PC. As far as we know there won't be a release for the consoles. This brings forth the question of how match-making will work. Because Hawken is not being released for a console, P2P is not needed. As fellow PC gamers you know the drawbacks and headaches P2P can cause. Many of you who played Space Marine will have been tearing at your hair as games were constantly being interrupted with connecting to new host. The P2P on that game was so bad the damages done to it's reputation were severe.

I do not want Hawken to meet the same fate; we are all eagerly anticipating this game and to have its brilliance tarnished by something as trivial as deciding what match-making to use, would bring groans from all over this community.

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about let me explain (if you already understand what P2P and dedicated servers are skip right on ahead). Peer to peer or P2P, is a type of match-making used mainly in console gaming. A host is selected from a list of candidates and that hosts Internet connection is used to host the game. The method of selection scans for the best Internet connection and uses that person. On a console this is simple, easy and effective.

A dedicated server is where a person sets up a server that is switched on 24/7 which people can join and leave as they please, they have continuous map changes and game mode changes according to the administrators desires. This is very effective on PC because it makes match-making easier and clan making easier.

Why is P2P ineffective on the PC_ Here's why, when a host is selected on the PC the criteria used is the person with the best Internet connection and best graphical settings. In theory this works well, however more often than not the idiot who is selected for host has his graphics cranked up to high when his computer can barely process it. The added strain of hosting everybody else's connections can be too much for the poor computer and thus we get unbelievable lag, constant disconnections from rage quitting players and the entire game is ruined. Hawken looks to be a graphics heavy game and I fear that if P2P is chosen as the designated match-making process all these grievances could occur.

Dedicated servers are superior on PC because the computer hosting the computer can be upgraded massively and can cope with lots of players with various systems.

You could of course have both like Team Fortress 2 does, one for finding a quick-match and the standard dedicated server.

So I'll bring this thread to a close and let you all discuss what's best for Hawken, it may have already been decided in which case I wasted all this time  :x  but meh.

[D20Face]

I want mods, so dedi is a must for me.

It's superior in other regards as well, but for any decent modding to happen it's absolutely essential.

[Ketran]

That's a nice name you have there.

And I agree plug-ins are only possible through the implementation of dedicated servers.

[Gruber]

I support dedicated servers too.

[Ketran]

Tell your friends! Get them to come here and plus one.

[chaoZ]

Hi everybody, I was wondering about one thing:
The Matchmaking System.

What are your opinions on how the matchmaking system should work_

I know we still don't have enough info. about the characteristics of the multiplayer (max. number of players in a match, number of gamemodes, maps per gamemode, friend-system, clan/guild system...) as to suggest many valid ideas in this aspect, but I would like you guys to name good matchmaking methods you know of, and any relevant personal ideas and suggestions of yours too.

A game many of us know is League of Legends ( which btw seems to be somewhat of an example of business model to Hawken). I'll try to make a brief:

This game has different matchmaking methods, depends on if you are going to play on your own/with 1 or more friends. You also get to choose between ranked games and unranked games.
There is a "skill-o-meter", named ELO. Each player has a different ELO value, which is the result of your wins/loses versus other players.
Defeat a player/team with higher ELO than yours/your team's --> your ELO rises and your opponent's decreases, the bigger the difference there was between your ELOs before, the more yours will raise/his decrease, thus making you play against tougher enemies next time.

This is, imho, a good system, or at least better than pure randomly assignated teammates and enemies when joining a game. It's not perfect, everybody knows that, and the LoL forums are filled with qq threads, but it's the most fair system there is out there if you ask me.


So, state your preferences here please, all opinions are welcome!

[Naraklok]

Hmm. Interesting.

[Ketran]

I already made a thread about this called 'Dedicated servers or P2P_'. I'm suprised you didn't see it, it's only 7 or 8 posts down.

[chaoZ]

didn't notice that ketran, sorry. mods move the thread if needed.

[lavalamp1138]

Merge-bump.

[RedVan]

I vote dedicated and no matchmaking.  Much better to just let users decide who they want to allow into their servers.  And let users decide where they want to play.

[Ketran]

An overwhelming amount of support for dedicated servers then, let's hope the dev team catch onto this thread.

[PiGPEN]

Suggesting robust map filtering options.
+include maps you want to play
-omit maps you dont want to play
~only show maps you've never played
And have an identifying image for each map.... i always have a hard time putting faces to names.

[D20Face]

I absolutely hate single match queues. They almost guarantee you'll never see the same people, and because of that people end up being MASSIVE cocks. I like playing a string of games with people. It gives you a chance to build friendships, rivalries, adapt to playstyles, and trash talk infinitely more than the single queue system.

Single match queues are for ranked ladders and that's it.

If I have to sit through matchmaking let me at least join a persistent lobby akin to MNC. They used a server browser but it'd totally work in a matchmaking queue.

Matchmaking aside, dedi servers are better.

[The_Silencer]

Arseface said:

I absolutely hate single match queues. They almost guarantee you'll never see the same people, and because of that people end up being MASSIVE cocks. I like playing a string of games with people. It gives you a chance to build friendships, rivalries, adapt to playstyles, and trash talk infinitely more than the single queue system.

Single match queues are for ranked ladders and that's it.

If I have to sit through matchmaking let me at least join a persistent lobby akin to MNC. They used a server browser but it'd totally work in a matchmaking queue.

Matchmaking aside, dedi servers are better.

Were you referring to this real building in Barcelona with that_.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images_q=tbn:ANd9GcTs_4F9FxDfSJKJIQ096rUP6rRWBtpFVvsGGXk4rrbngQEWzgw

Disclaimer: Answer to that after the following sponsored add or just ignore this post and continue, please, with this thread.

[Ketran]

All good supporting arguments folks, but bypassing the topic of the male phallus for now...

To whomever suggested map-filtering, that would be good for P2P, however we are striving to avoid that.

[D20Face]

Ketran said:

To whomever suggested map-filtering, that would be good for P2P, however we are striving to avoid that.

Viteskip works well for dedi and can achieve a similar result.

[The_Silencer]

Ketran, you're so serious... isn't bad throwing a joke upon a time.

Please, could you elaborate on map-filtering, according to your current opinion and/or vision_

[Killien]

Arseface said:

I want mods, so dedi is a must for me.

It's superior in other regards as well, but for any decent modding to happen it's absolutely essential.

I remember there were "mods" for MW2 or MW3, but more times than not they were of the trolling variety and acted a bit viral in that the settings not only persisted when the host was changed during a match, but would also persist until "infected" players either restarted the game or joined a match where they were not host

Ex:
PlayerA started match as Host. Has tweaked match rules
PlayerB becomes Host. Tweaked match rules persist.

After that you get one of the following
1. PlayerB starts new match and begins as Host. Tweaked rules persist and transfer
2. PlayerB joins new match but is not Host. Tweaked rules reset to default
3. PlayerB exits game and comes back later. Tweaked rules reset to default

At least I think that was how it worked


Anyway, what I'm trying to say is mods could work on P2P, just need some precautions to keep them from going viral

[BrainBox]

Dedicated servers, TF2 style. Meaning, a F2P game with totally independent dedicated servers, free to mod, and do as they please.