What decided it made better sense to consistently match new players with MMR 2500+ ? Why not tell either "Sorry, there're no matches available for your range." Joined a 0-39 and learned the one player had been playing for 8 months. The other, hilariously a Scout with a very high MMR. Scout "LOLOL go uninstall" the other guy "Not the game for me, nobody plays." ... if I wasn't used to seeing this, my jaw would have dropped.
I can't figure out the rationale. Is it to drive away any new playerbase? That's the best I can conclude based on the limited information I have, which is none.
~ Less and less a fan each day.
Nez
No sport remains.
#1
Posted 17 August 2016 - 12:49 PM
- Jelooboi, SNAAAAAKE and Stormwalker42 like this
#2
Posted 18 August 2016 - 09:56 AM
You are matched with high MMR players because there's not a large enough population to segregate players via MMR. You still gain and lose MMR based on your play skill, but in terms of separating players, we're kind of stuck as is unless the population improves.
This is not an intentional ploy by developers or players rather, to purposely drive away players. We all want to see the game succeed, even if some people, both high and low MMR, are total asses about it. The game currently does not have the players to sustain MMR segregated matches though.
- Draigun, coldform, crockrocket and 5 others like this
#3
Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:29 AM
Not me, btw.
Today I had a 2400 player call me a smurf. Raged all over his team and quit. Bad sportsmanship.
What made it memorable: He called me a smurf. I was in this account.
- DeeRax likes this
Did I say Call Me Ishmael?
You should call me Luna.
#4
Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:50 AM
I agree that sometimes it is unavoidable, but ONLY sometimes. On the US servers in the evenings we have multiple (3-5 maybe?) TDM matches going on at any given time. In almost every one of those matches is AT LEAST 2 players of MMR 2200 +. The other night I saw the highest MMR range I've seen yet, 1300-2600 (I'm still below 1700). You can guess how that match went, and what the new players were saying. Even more common are the new players who say nothing and just drop out. Who knows if those players ever play again? (Besides Reloaded)
I only mention this because it seems to me that there are definitely enough elite players in the evenings (at least 10) to have 1 designated "Advanced/Elite" server, with a "warning" that this server is intended to be used by advanced players with all internals available. Make it so that lower players can join it if they choose the server despite the warning, but that a simple pressing of "Play" won't take players there. You MUST choose that server.
This wouldn't stop smurfing, and it wouldn't stop high MMR vets from deliberately choosing the lower matches. But it would at least remove the excuse from Vets, at peak play times, that they have no way to exclusively play against other players of their skill level. At crucial times like this I feel player retention is key, and a few (A FEW) of these elite vets clearly (by their comments and behavior) care nothing about driving away new players.
- Pumapaw likes this
#5
Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:56 AM
- Draigun, coldform, Meraple and 6 others like this
What's the big fuzzy bunnyng deal? Lots of amazing people have committed suicide, and they turned out alright.
#6
Posted 18 August 2016 - 11:07 AM
On a related note, I've been observing on the winning teams what level the winning team is comprised of, for about 2 weeks now. Have you guys seen a lot of new players in the game? I don't know how to tell what level the losing team is, but I look at the "badges" of the winners on the podium. In most of my matches all 6 winners are level 30, or frequently 5 out of 6 are level 30. Is this what you guys have been seeing as well?
If so I think this is a problem, especially when you factor in that many of the sub-30 players out there are smurf or alt accounts. What percentage of players in TDM matches today are truly new? 5%?
#7
Posted 18 August 2016 - 11:55 AM
Most of the matches I've played in the last 3 weeks have been about a 33/33/33 split.
33% Actual veteran players.
33% Actual newbies.
33% Smurfs (observed as players averaging level 12 that were on the top of the podium in a match with an srd of 1000-2300)
And, yeah, I really did see that SRD level from Scrimbot multiple times lately.
- Charcoal likes this
To be serious for a moment this is just a joke
#8
Posted 18 August 2016 - 12:01 PM
#9
Posted 18 August 2016 - 02:54 PM
The feature of being put in a skirmish server until you can properly matched would be great. Seems that could be pretty easily implemented. Matches of 1200-2500 mmr or similar spread should not be allowed to happen unless the newer players agree and is a huge part of the player retention issue. Especially now at the lowest player base ever . New players have no training at all, thrown to the wolves in servers with mmr spreads like that, then they quit. Why is anyone surprised about the player retention issue?
At least some servers below some point (maybe around1600) should not available to higher ranked players to give new players some cushion. It applies equally to the consoles and the player base numbers dropping reflect it.
The developers should engage the new players, offer some protection via baby servers, and more, a lot more info and training from within the game. I know a some here have really wanted to help new pilots but basic training and more mech knowledge really has to come from within the game for new pilots to last long enough to get to the forums.
- Charcoal likes this
#10
Posted 18 August 2016 - 03:25 PM
I'm not surprised about the player retention. I'm surprised people are still using any single one of the things contributing to lower player retention as a reason to why there is a player retention problem at all.
As if fixing this one issue is going to miraculously breathe new life and an endless stream of new players in!
That would be a kicker, wouldn't it? If the problem all along was higher level players being able to join matches where the other players are outmatched.
Wait, didn't hawken already have pretty significant and ever increasing player retention issues even before matchmaker was changed to allow higher level players into any open match?
Something tells me this problem is a lot bigger than this one thing. If only retention was cited in threads by folks that didn't have some sort of bias and ideas for "fixes" that seem to specifically target aspects of the game a player is biased towards.
Like "hitscan and sustain is chasing players away!' Or my personal favorite, "this game needs lag compensation to be successful!"
- comic_sans, TheButtSatisfier and Shade__ like this
#11
Posted 18 August 2016 - 03:26 PM
The feature of being put in a skirmish server until you can properly matched would be great. Seems that could be pretty easily implemented. Matches of 1200-2500 mmr or similar spread should not be allowed to happen unless the newer players agree and is a huge part of the player retention issue. Especially now at the lowest player base ever . New players have no training at all, thrown to the wolves in servers with mmr spreads like that, then they quit. Why is anyone surprised about the player retention issue?
At least some servers below some point (maybe around1600) should not available to higher ranked players to give new players some cushion. It applies equally to the consoles and the player base numbers dropping reflect it.
The developers should engage the new players, offer some protection via baby servers, and more, a lot more info and training from within the game. I know a some here have really wanted to help new pilots but basic training and more mech knowledge really has to come from within the game for new pilots to last long enough to get to the forums.
I agree with your suggestions in theory, but we don't have the population needed to implement them right now.
- TheButtSatisfier likes this

Salvage: An Idea to Stop Leavers
#12
Posted 19 August 2016 - 07:05 AM
I agree with your suggestions in theory, but we don't have the population needed to implement them right now.
Excluding the suggestions, the mention of a lack of population needed in order for anything to be implemented to me sounds like sidestepping the issue. I don't think a population stands a chance to grow in it's current cyclic trouble. How could it grow if a new player feels like he's someone else's entertainment and not even enjoying the game -- you can still enjoy the game if you lose, but spending more time dead than alive ... yeah no ...
Something needs to break this cycle.
- Pumapaw likes this
#13
Posted 19 August 2016 - 02:50 PM
Wait, didn't hawken already have pretty significant and ever increasing player retention issues even before matchmaker was changed to allow higher level players into any open match?
Player retention is a multi faceted issue with the server quality problem being at the top. However for as long as I have played this game there has never been any low level servers where new players had protection to learn. It used to take longer for the window to open up and allow high mmr in lower servers. I am pretty sure 1250-2850 mmr spread has always occurred at times. The highest mmr players were stomping me from the start and although I would rather get thrown to the wolves, most casual gamers would not. Not when they are very first being introduced to a game so different and unique like this one is. Everyone who has tried to introduce other fps players to hawken must understand what I am try to say. Hawken is just not new player friendly imo and correcting that should have been a priority. It should have been addressed before the console launches.
I give credit to whoever, amid maybe, tried setting up saturday new pilot classes. Other than that if you don't put some extra efforts in looking for info via forums and utubes, learning hawken in depth, is too complicated and time consuming for the average person to endure without help. Training needs to be in game and jammed down their throats. Every mech should have its own training or "mission" to complete before use. Although smurfs will always haunt f2p, it should be easy to tell just by how someone plays 1 game and bump that smurf up to general population and have low servers for the actual new pilots to get enough seat time to learn. So they dont quit as fast.
I am sure I get a good laugh every time I express I think the better players should act as ambassadors to the game as far as newer players are concerned.
I personally would rather wait a while for one good match than play 5 crappy ones. However waiting 30 seconds for the next game is such a huge problem with most.
Perhaps all moot at this point.
- Charcoal likes this
#14
Posted 19 August 2016 - 03:04 PM
I give credit to whoever, amid maybe, tried setting up saturday new pilot classes. Other than that if you don't put some extra efforts in looking for info via forums and utubes, learning hawken in depth, is too complicated and time consuming for the average person to endure without help. Training needs to be in game and jammed down their throats. Every mech should have its own training or "mission" to complete before use.
I think a lot of really cool community initiatives, like the community Siege tutorial or new pilot classes, would get so much more exposure if Reloaded put them as tiles on the in-game landing page.
I'm looking at that area right now and there's nothing.
- DieselCat, talon70, Brother3J and 1 other like this
#15
Posted 19 August 2016 - 08:14 PM
I haven't read the thread, because alcohol, but I'd like to chime in that I straight up enjoy being a good sport in my alt accounts. I like hanging out in a server for a couple hours sitting when there's an imbalance, giving tips, apologizing for stupid stomps, letting people know when I see them doing something real nice, and generally making Hawken enjoyable for the people in game.
I've said it for a real long time, there's a way to use alt/smurf accounts to the benefit of the game. Just be a good sport. Don't kill people who are clearly afk or if you're dominating them real hard, type out what your opponent did wrong when it's obvious, give encouragement to the players in the server, and fricken say GG. Not super duper hard. Hawken has been my go to because it has a community that I love. I'm of the opinion that that experience should be shared.
(Also newer players seriously appreciate you letting them in on the NewRecruit code.)
As to the origin of this thread, I think it's fair to say that it's more engaging to play against someone than no one, even if that player is much, much better.
Edited by ticklemyiguana, 19 August 2016 - 10:09 PM.
- crockrocket, JeffMagnum, DieselCat and 2 others like this
#16
Posted 19 August 2016 - 09:51 PM
I think the biggest problem right now is sportsmanship. A lot of the people have become rotten.
What the Heca-
#17
Posted 19 August 2016 - 10:11 PM
Edited by ticklemyiguana, 20 August 2016 - 06:07 AM.
#18
Posted 20 August 2016 - 08:13 AM
If they don't allow higher MMR players to join something, then the more pathetic ones make smurfs, which break balance even worse.What decided it made better sense to consistently match new players with MMR 2500+ ? Why not tell either "Sorry, there're no matches available for your range." Joined a 0-39 and learned the one player had been playing for 8 months. The other, hilariously a Scout with a very high MMR. Scout "LOLOL go uninstall" the other guy "Not the game for me, nobody plays." ... if I wasn't used to seeing this, my jaw would have dropped.
I can't figure out the rationale. Is it to drive away any new playerbase? That's the best I can conclude based on the limited information I have, which is none.
~ Less and less a fan each day.
Nez
Low population is why matchmaking is bad. There's nothing better they can do.
Edited by CoshCaust, 20 August 2016 - 02:16 PM.
#19
Posted 20 August 2016 - 08:46 AM
If they don't allow higher MMR players to join something, then the more pathetic ones make Smurfs, which break balance even worse.
Low population is why matchmaking is bad. There's nothing better they can do.
They could try having the match maker pull in players from a wide range of MMRs so that each team has a mix consisting of low, med and high MMR. Grouping all of your low MMR players together in a server and then dropping one or two really high MMR players into that mix brings the old "Fox in the hen house" idiom(?) to mind.
- CounterlogicMan likes this
#20
Posted 20 August 2016 - 10:04 AM
They could try having the match maker pull in players from a wide range of MMRs so that each team has a mix consisting of low, med and high MMR. Grouping all of your low MMR players together in a server and then dropping one or two really high MMR players into that mix brings the old "Fox in the hen house" idiom(?) to mind.
This is generally how it works now, the games just flat out don't fill up or people leave before it can take full effect (usually 1-2 matches with everyone staying in the server). The biggest culprit is games starting uneven resulting in it staying uneven the entire time and into the following matches. I guarantee that if all matches started 6v6 the overall balance of games across skill levels would be more balanced.
The thing I have been preaching for a while that I think would bring this one step closer to reality is to fill empty spots with tdm bots.
- Flifang, JackVandal and harmless_kittens like this
Axe-Attack Check us out! Stream I stream spasmodically.
TPG Hawken Admin.
TPG 3 has concluded! If you are interested in participating in TPG Season 4 gather a group and form a team or try and join an existing team! Stay tuned to the forums for updates on the details of TPG Season 4.
#21
Posted 20 August 2016 - 12:38 PM
An option to get more players of all MMR ranges playing might be to give servers the ability to designate matches as a 2v2..3v3 etc. That way it would allow fewer players to start a match and maybe give more people of similar MMR's to get into matches at a quicker rate regardless of MMR levels.
Not a perfect idea by any means, but with such a low population level that causes many issues to get balanced play, it could be a bandaid solution atm.
- dorobo and talon70 like this
#22
Posted 20 August 2016 - 11:45 PM
An option to get more players of all MMR ranges playing might be to give servers the ability to designate matches as a 2v2..3v3 etc. That way it would allow fewer players to start a match and maybe give more people of similar MMR's to get into matches at a quicker rate regardless of MMR levels.
Not a perfect idea by any means, but with such a low population level that causes many issues to get balanced play, it could be a bandaid solution atm.
Well, possibly. What I was thinking of was simply having the match maker work in such a way that you always have a range of high to low MMR players when possible (not necessarily for starting matches early). The 6 slot team sizes wouldn't be helping (individual gamer performance w/ such small teams can have a huge impact on the outcome a given match as opposed to larger teams), but the attempts to homogenize the MMR makeup of a server hurts individual gamer's progression in the game, makes using smurf accounts to obliterate entire servers a thing (same for high MMR players getting MM-panic'ed into a low MMR server), and only serves to segregate gamers based on MMR/skill when it works.
Honestly, it's probably too late in the game to have any MM tweaks do anything meaningful, the player base is frankly too small. Player count numbers have been bad / abysmal since 2014, but if Reloaded manages to turn things around, maybe.. it might help.. who knows.
All things staying the same, I'm half expecting the consoles to see a similar player exodus that's plagued the PC version of Hawken. A few content updates here and there will keep some interested, but if you have a good number of console gamers reach that "elite" status, there is that risk that they'll start running off the casual players in pub games. Improved frame rates / server performance or not.
Edited by ATX22, 20 August 2016 - 11:48 PM.
#23
Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:04 AM
Honestly, it's probably too late in the game to have any MM tweaks do anything meaningful, the player base is frankly too small. Player count numbers have been bad / abysmal since 2014, but if Reloaded manages to turn things around, maybe.. it might help.. who knows.
Numbers were better during the silence....

Salvage: An Idea to Stop Leavers
#24
Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:18 PM
Numbers were better during the silence....
Yes, but were still in a state of decline since the STEAM launch back in early 2014. There was a small short-lived surge back when people found out that Reloaded was taking over, but I think that's about the only other time the player count has peaked above 1k.
#25
Posted 23 August 2016 - 02:02 PM
Making some servers a 2v2 or a 3v3 sounds promising. An even match, regardless of whether it's a 1v1 or a 6v6; is so much nicer than being a man down. An imbalance in player number gives the team with more numbers both a defensive buffer against a roll, and a better change to get a roll on the enemy team going. More people means more momentum period.
Maybe if servers that were even but not full could lock into an even whatever-v-whatever match after a time has passed when nobody else has joined? Then maybe map boundaries and spawn locations could be tweaked to make a 3v3 seem much less like The Most Dangerous Game mixed with Hide and Seek.
Then maybe tweak individual mech stat values like health on things like 2v2s and 3v3s to reduce how easy a single coordinated attack could decide the engagement. In small engagements, assuming the map would be smaller; escape might not be possible with three or so enemies chasing you down.
Maybe call 1v1 matches duel matches and treat it like a duel where both players have to ready up to participate. Maybe make every map have a "duel" arena that's different.
Call 3v3s "skirmish" matches and treat it as such like I talked about above.
Give the party system the ability to set up special matches like this and maybe link together with other parties to have a party v party match. Co-op bot destruction has a voting system with different "mutators" so I don't see why a reasonable amount of functionality could be given to organized groups of players.
#26
Posted 23 August 2016 - 04:45 PM
Making some servers a 2v2 or a 3v3 sounds promising. An even match, regardless of whether it's a 1v1 or a 6v6; is so much nicer than being a man down. An imbalance in player number gives the team with more numbers both a defensive buffer against a roll, and a better change to get a roll on the enemy team going. More people means more momentum period.
Maybe if servers that were even but not full could lock into an even whatever-v-whatever match after a time has passed when nobody else has joined? Then maybe map boundaries and spawn locations could be tweaked to make a 3v3 seem much less like The Most Dangerous Game mixed with Hide and Seek.
Then maybe tweak individual mech stat values like health on things like 2v2s and 3v3s to reduce how easy a single coordinated attack could decide the engagement. In small engagements, assuming the map would be smaller; escape might not be possible with three or so enemies chasing you down.
Maybe call 1v1 matches duel matches and treat it like a duel where both players have to ready up to participate. Maybe make every map have a "duel" arena that's different.
Call 3v3s "skirmish" matches and treat it as such like I talked about above.
Give the party system the ability to set up special matches like this and maybe link together with other parties to have a party v party match. Co-op bot destruction has a voting system with different "mutators" so I don't see why a reasonable amount of functionality could be given to organized groups of players.
They could always add a lock-out timer to servers (say past the 1/3 or 1/2 server progression mark) to keep from dropping people into servers where the round is seconds away from ending, to avoid throwing the balance in a game that's already in progress even further off, or to let people who are happy to play on a server where it's 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3 (maybe have this as vote-able option at the ready screen) without having to worry about people constantly cycle in and out of the server.
#27
Posted 25 August 2016 - 01:36 PM
They could always add a lock-out timer to servers (say past the 1/3 or 1/2 server progression mark) to keep from dropping people into servers where the round is seconds away from ending, to avoid throwing the balance in a game that's already in progress even further off, or to let people who are happy to play on a server where it's 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3 (maybe have this as vote-able option at the ready screen) without having to worry about people constantly cycle in and out of the server.
I meant to say that with my proposal the servers would be "locked" from having people join until the game ends or people leave. Having bots replace people who leave is a must in my opinion as well.
If the game didn't take so long between loads and syncing I would suggest a "quick match" function where players queue'd up and were put in a team based sudden death that ends when all players of one team have been eliminated. The players would then be booted out and could then re-queue, allowing for recycling of players. This match type would be quick, cycling players often.
#28
Posted 25 August 2016 - 02:38 PM
Having bots replace people who leave is a must in my opinion as well.
Have you ever played with 2100+ mmr bots, mate?
This would make a living hell out of any high ranked match, since then bot aim is like aimbot ![]()
On AWOL from Hawken until -deadline undisclosed-.
If you happen to play Mechwarrior Online and would like to hook up, you are welcome to find me there. Cheers.
#29
Posted 25 August 2016 - 03:01 PM
Have you ever played with 2100+ mmr bots, mate?
Yes. It was fun.

Ridding the world of evil, one Berzerker at a time.
#30
Posted 25 August 2016 - 03:19 PM
Have you ever played with 2100+ mmr bots, mate?
This would make a living hell out of any high ranked match, since then bot aim is like aimbot
I'm 100% certain the bots would feed in a high ranked match with their current AI.
2700MMR bots remind me of aimbotters with good dodge reaction times, but no understanding of the game at all.
Those kind of people fail against high ranked players for a reason.
Edited by Meraple, 25 August 2016 - 03:27 PM.
- LaurenEmily likes this
#31
Posted 26 August 2016 - 05:33 PM
Have you ever played with 2100+ mmr bots, mate?
This would make a living hell out of any high ranked match, since then bot aim is like aimbot
Have you ever played against 2100+ bots with those insane co-op bot destruction mutators on? As far as I've seen their biggest AI flaw is a lack of strategic placing, and very bad path making decisions.
Put on the speed demon mutator and see how quickly both of those issues are neutralized when even a brawler becomes as fast, if not faster than a scout. A-classes become walking jumpscares for christ's sake.
Still fun enough with the mutators that I honestly have no idea why more people don't play it.
#32
Posted 26 August 2016 - 05:54 PM
I meant to say that with my proposal the servers would be "locked" from having people join until the game ends or people leave. Having bots replace people who leave is a must in my opinion as well.
If the game didn't take so long between loads and syncing I would suggest a "quick match" function where players queue'd up and were put in a team based sudden death that ends when all players of one team have been eliminated. The players would then be booted out and could then re-queue, allowing for recycling of players. This match type would be quick, cycling players often.
Sure, that's what I was getting from your post, I was thinking more along the lines of when and how it would be determined to lock-out new players on a given server. Having bots replace people that leave could both help and hurt; in PvP games, there are people who just don't want to play against bots. I just don't know how many (if any) are part of the Hawken community nor do I know if they'd disconnect if they saw bots dropping into the server.
Sync'ing issues aside, a quick-match mode would be nice, but could also run the risk of further fragmenting the player base which is already divided among multiple other game modes, PvP/PvE mode types, and now between the multiple platforms PC/PlayStation/Xbox. Maybe Reloaded could add in something along the lines like a warm-up phase to each of the game mode where players that ready up before the server fills can romp about instead of waiting until the match actually starts / lock-out kicks in.
#33
Posted 26 August 2016 - 05:54 PM
Maybe that's the solution. Boss bots as teammates.
- Ukabix likes this
#34
Posted 26 August 2016 - 06:26 PM
Sure, that's what I was getting from your post, I was thinking more along the lines of when and how it would be determined to lock-out new players on a given server. Having bots replace people that leave could both help and hurt; in PvP games, there are people who just don't want to play against bots. I just don't know how many (if any) are part of the Hawken community nor do I know if they'd disconnect if they saw bots dropping into the server.
Sync'ing issues aside, a quick-match mode would be nice, but could also run the risk of further fragmenting the player base which is already divided among multiple other game modes, PvP/PvE mode types, and now between the multiple platforms PC/PlayStation/Xbox. Maybe Reloaded could add in something along the lines like a warm-up phase to each of the game mode where players that ready up before the server fills can romp about instead of waiting until the match actually starts / lock-out kicks in.
My initial thought for when the match would lock players from joining was once a certain amount of time has passed in the pre-match ready-up stage. When at least half of the players have checked ready, a timer counts down to when MM locks joiners out, and if the game is uneven a bot is added. After the bot is added, the computer decides teams and engagement zone size assuming that part of my idea is implemented.
For the quick match idea, the only way I could see that not causing the issues you brought up with it is if/when player population increases to a point where the option won't work to fragment players who have a preferred game type. I do like that warm up phase idea though. Maybe a multi-player DM style map exploration mode where people can just screw around.
#35
Posted 27 August 2016 - 04:27 AM
Maybe that's the solution. Boss bots as teammates.
That sounds very good - spawned bot type dependand on server mmr.
Edited by Ukabix, 27 August 2016 - 04:27 AM.
On AWOL from Hawken until -deadline undisclosed-.
If you happen to play Mechwarrior Online and would like to hook up, you are welcome to find me there. Cheers.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sign In
Create Account


Back to top











