29 replies to this topic

[Nightfirebolt]

I've already suggested this in a few places, but I've decided to make it a thread.

 

Now that we're into June, I'm looking at the steamcharts and realizing that the new players we recently acquired aren't being easily retained. And I don't think that the new player experience is going to be fixed by endlessly tweaking the matchmaker.

 

We need dedicated servers for new players so they can get their feet wet with the game so they don't feel frustrated. Theoretically, the match win/loss ratio for these pilots would be 50%, much better than the 25% we have now.

 

It's an easy(ish) fix to a big problem. Other games do this; I don't see why Hawken can't.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Nightfirebolt, 06 June 2015 - 02:03 PM.

[HepTagoN]

Great idea. But need filter out damn smurf accounts. Since there are plenty of them, its very high probability that newbies would leave game since it's full of hackers (as they would think). Actually now it might be happening as well... So eh, wahtever, make such servers, but getting rid of smurf accs would be apriciated too.

 

"It's an easy(ish) fix to a big problem."

 

But u cant say that would solve problem, Hawken might be impopular because of skill it require, perhaps? I mean, we dont know for sure what's reason.

[IareDave]

Smurfs aren't nearly as big of an issue as people think. But new player experience is, specifically their ability to get into more in-game content quicker and creating more balanced matchmaking with mid match balance adjustments will help a ton at keeping new players interested.

Many games have a "new player" matchmaking and imo this should be a thing until they hit a set MMR or # of games played.

[Dawn_of_Ash]

Smurfs aren't nearly as big of an issue as people think.

 

I disagree with you on this point, Dave. In the secluded place of Australia, I know around four smurfers - all of them good players and friends of mine - and I can see how much this smurfing affects the game. I also can see how alright matchmaker is when you remove these smurfers and put people on their mains. Low-tier severs in my short time back in Australia are far more balanced than the two topics of new players being in unbalanced servers which I've seen on here - and that includes Siege as well. Since the problem seems to be in the mainstream places of the US (and possibly the EU - I don't know too much about them), I think the answer to this problem is quite obvious. So yeah, maybe it's only for AU, but smurfers unbalance matchmaking big time. And then people complain about the matchmaker.

 

I do agree with your second point if the smurfs stop. If they don't, this would just unbalance games even more.

[IareDave]

I speak for US, and while there are some smurfers most aren't good enough as players to skew the balance to make a difference. And the big issue here isn't even that there are smurfers, it's that the balance/matchmaking has and continues to be an extremely basic system. There needs to be mid-match balance, if a high tier player, smurfer or not is dominating the lobby, they need to be switched to the opposing side.

[Nightfirebolt]

One thing I feel I should point out: We have a smurfing problem because we have a low player base.

 

If the playerbase expanded, we'd have more matches and more people to fight against, at all skill levels. The problem of being locked out of servers would be lessened for most people, and smurfing wouldn't be as necessary.

 

The trick is, in order to expand the player base, we need to keep those new players onboard in first place.

Edited by Nightfirebolt, 06 June 2015 - 07:21 PM.

[WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW]

One thing I feel I should point out: We have a smurfing problem because we have a low player base.

 

If the playerbase expanded, we'd have more matches and more people to fight against, at all skill levels. The problem of being locked out of servers would be lessened for most people, and smurfing wouldn't be as necessary.

 

The trick is, in order to expand the player base, we need to keep those new players onboard in first place.

 

* Fine print: Smurfing is a detriment to player retention and a significant one at that if even 25% of all new players in a match decide that the game is not for them due to it.

[crockrocket]

I disagree with you on this point, Dave. In the secluded place of Australia, I know around four smurfers 

Low population makes regions other than USE an interesting case though. Not saying it isn't an issue that shouldn't be dealt with, just saying that it theoretically has a separate solution.

Edited by (TDM)crockrocket, 07 June 2015 - 12:11 AM.

[CrimsonKaim]

Two cents:

 

1. We still have the Hawken we had pre-fall. That means that Hawken as it is now, will not make it on its own, something has to change. I compare this like having a disease. Hawken has a disease and if it is not treated, Hawken will die (once again). No matter if new devs hit or not, the disease has to be killed before it is ready to roll out. Ofcourse new players will not stay, because nothing has changed until now, we still have the Hawken that lead to 'the fall' and we need updates, new content, gamepaly and balance changes, etc. 

 

2. I asked my friends I showed Hawken. As I said in one thread months ago, the main problem they have is that Hawken is too repetetive. It is always TeamDeathmatch, it has no objectives, etc. (game mode too easy, no depth), they get stomped by Elite players (that's still an issue, one friend just told me that when we played together that he is stomped like every game) and that the Assault is too boring, they want to have alternatives. Experienced players (coming from other games) said, they want to have atleast one mech of each class (no, not A, B, C ... more like Front Liner, Assassin, Support, Sniper, etc.) so they don't have to grind out of this easy-to-play and boring Assault.

 

 

Now you are 2 cents richer :]

[Grollourdo]

I like the idea but yeah we should get the mm fixed first...

[Miscellaneous]

Smurfs aren't nearly as big of an issue as people think. But new player experience is, specifically their ability to get into more in-game content quicker and creating more balanced matchmaking with mid match balance adjustments will help a ton at keeping new players interested.

Many games have a "new player" matchmaking and imo this should be a thing until they hit a set MMR or # of games played.

 

Dirty Bomb does this - and does it well. They have dedicated servers for those who are level 5 and under - great for learning the ropes.

 

IMO, should be done with HAWKEN, but use maybe MMR combined with hours played instead of level.

[BaronSaturday]

Also, a proper ladder seperate from the pub list. This would keep comp players (mostly) off the pubs. It would also help keep people playing against similarly ranked players. We need more people though. Kind of a catch 22.

[talons1337]

Great idea. But need filter out damn smurf accounts. Since there are plenty of them, its very high probability that newbies would leave game since it's full of hackers (as they would think). Actually now it might be happening as well... So eh, wahtever, make such servers, but getting rid of smurf accs would be apriciated too.

The clear solution to that is a Starcraft II style system(*): You can choose whether you want to play on the newcomer servers for up to 50 games, or you can choose to skip and get into the real servers. Newcomer servers could have tweaked settings to be more "new player friendly". Nothing major, just small things. Official MMR would not rise or fall in practice games, but HC and EXP would be earned as normal, and a "fake" MMR would be calculated just for the purposes of finding out who's better - this can be used in a case where if a new player is doing really well and their "fake" MMR rises above X, they will get removed from the newcomer matches.

 

From my experiences, most people have smurf accounts only because their MMR is too high to actually join games. Not too many people have smurfs to just go and wipe out as many matches as possible.

 

(*) In 2010, I don't know how it's now because I used my practice runs long ago, when you had a new account in SCII, you would be given the option to enter "practice lobbies" where it was all new players playing. You had 50 matches before you got put into real games.

Edited by talons1337, 07 June 2015 - 02:50 PM.

[Hek_naw]

2. I asked my friends I showed Hawken. As I said in one thread months ago, the main problem they have is that Hawken is too repetetive. It is always TeamDeathmatch, it has no objectives, etc. (game mode too easy, no depth)

 

Repetitiveness is intrinsic to the game, isn't it? I mean, it's not something you can address. Not without changing the game entirely or adding game modes that expand the game in a completely different direction (like say a single player campaign).

 

If Hawken is too repetitive for you, it only means the game is not meant to stick with you, like any other shooter out there. It means you're a gamer that has different tastes in gaming, just that.

Edited by Hek_naw, 07 June 2015 - 08:38 PM.

[CrimsonKaim]

Repetitiveness is intrinsic to the game, isn't it? I mean, it's not something you can address. Not without changing the game entirely or adding game modes that expand the game in a completely different direction (like say a single player campaign).

If Hawken is too repetitive for you, it only means the game is not meant to stick with you, like any other shooter out there. It means you're a gamer that has different tastes in gaming, just that.

Apparently many others have a similar taste to mine. Otherwise people would stay in Hawken.

[HHJFTRU]

I've already suggested this in a few places, but I've decided to make it a thread.

 

Now that we're into June, I'm looking at the steamcharts and realizing that the new players we recently acquired aren't being easily retained. And I don't think that the new player experience is going to be fixed by endlessly tweaking the matchmaker.

 

We need dedicated servers for new players so they can get their feet wet with the game so they don't feel frustrated. Theoretically, the match win/loss ratio for these pilots would be 50%, much better than the 25% we have now.

 

It's an easy(ish) fix to a big problem. Other games do this; I don't see why Hawken can't.

 

Thoughts?

This alone would have a huge impact.

My suggestion is max. pilot lvl 15 and max MMR of 1500. Plus much faster MMR adjustment for the first couple of pilot levels in order to let players that are too good  compared to the other beginners (or are smurfing) go from the bootcamp-servers real fast.

Edited by HHJFTRU, 11 June 2015 - 12:04 AM.

[CrimsonKaim]

This alone would have a huge impact.
My suggestion is max. pilot lvl 15 and max MMR of 1500. Plus much faster MMR adjustment for the first couple of pilot levels in order to let players that are too good compared to the other beginners (or are smurfing) go from the bootcamp-servers real fast.

Please explain the max 1500 mmr... the difference is damn huge from 1500 to 2500 now.

[HHJFTRU]

Please explain the max 1500 mmr... the difference is damn huge from 1500 to 2500 now.

I mean the servers dedicated to new players would allow users to join if their MMR is below 1501 and their pilot lvl is below 16.

[M4st0d0n]

I speak for US, and while there are some smurfers most aren't good enough as players to skew the balance to make a difference. And the big issue here isn't even that there are smurfers, it's that the balance/matchmaking has and continues to be an extremely basic system. There needs to be mid-match balance, if a high tier player, smurfer or not is dominating the lobby, they need to be switched to the opposing side.

 

No. Switching in game is a bad system. Siege or MA, even TDM. You'll just get twice the stomp in the same match. Smurfes are a real problem. They can be easily identified and their MMR can be manually adjusted while MM is worked on. We just need more than three people for a dev team.

[M4st0d0n]

Also, a proper ladder seperate from the pub list. This would keep comp players (mostly) off the pubs. It would also help keep people playing against similarly ranked players. We need more people though. Kind of a catch 22.

 

This. Restricted to lvl 30. No MMR restictions for ranked games, just the ladder. Incentives to play the main account, not the smurf.

[IareDave]

No. Switching in game is a bad system. Siege or MA, even TDM. You'll just get twice the stomp in the same match. Smurfes are a real problem. They can be easily identified and their MMR can be manually adjusted while MM is worked on. We just need more than three people for a dev team.

You clearly don't understand how balance works. Smurfs are a problem, and they're also a rare occurrence.

How many times have you started a match with an uneven number of players and then the balance stacks 3 good players against 4 so-so. Wait a minute, two, now it's a proper 4v4. Doesn't take a genius to figure how out how that will turn out.

Another example. I join a 1800 lobby and join the winning side because they are a missing a player and that's how the balance functions. Once again, I'll let you figure out how that'll turn out.

Tl;dr Mid-match balance is needed. Period

[ticklemyiguana]

You clearly don't understand how balance works. Smurfs are a problem, and they're also a rare occurrence.
How many times have you started a match with an uneven number of players and then the balance stacks 3 good players against 4 so-so. Wait a minute, two, now it's a proper 4v4. Doesn't take a genius to figure how out how that will turn out.
Another example. I join a 1800 lobby and join the winning side because they are a missing a player and that's how the balance functions. Once again, I'll let you figure out how that'll turn out.
Tl;dr Mid-match balance is needed. Period

Perhaps a "scramble teams" vote option that just rebalances the match in terms of its current players?

This way if you're forcing anyone to switch, there's still consensus.

Edited by ticklemyiguana, 11 June 2015 - 12:36 PM.

[IareDave]

Perhaps a "scramble teams" vote option that just rebalances the match in terms of its current players?

This way if you're forcing anyone to switch, there's still consensus.

Yeah, there's many ways the devs can go about it depending on how in-depth they want to get involved with improving MM. Honestly, I'd rather the balance be mandatory just as it is when if no one preses f8 to switch sides and it automatically places the best player over to the other side and then you can disable this feature in private matches.

[M4st0d0n]

You clearly don't understand how balance works. Smurfs are a problem, and they're also a rare occurrence.

How many times have you started a match with an uneven number of players and then the balance stacks 3 good players against 4 so-so. Wait a minute, two, now it's a proper 4v4. Doesn't take a genius to figure how out how that will turn out.

Another example. I join a 1800 lobby and join the winning side because they are a missing a player and that's how the balance functions. Once again, I'll let you figure out how that'll turn out.

Tl;dr Mid-match balance is needed. Period

 

So, just to be clear before assuming I dont understand balance, you're totally off topic. You wont prevent new users being matched with vets or smurfes by force-switching people mid game. It's stupid. Just thinking about an overextended one hour long siege pub game where people are switched mid games makes me vomit. Your exemples are very sad. They wont be fixed with a mid game switch. Leavers should go to fuzzy bunny tier and you should stop joining 1800 loobies. If smurfes are so rare it should be easy to manually ban them or send them to 2500+MMR tier.

 

Yet an option to vote to scramble teams would be appreciated. It's a bit last year TF2 but the more options the better. Please make a new thread about it.

[IareDave]

So, just to be clear before assuming I dont understand balance, you're totally off topic. You wont prevent new users being matched with vets or smurfes by force-switching people mid game. It's stupid. Just thinking about an overextended one hour long siege pub game where people are switched mid games makes me vomit. Your exemples are very sad. They wont be fixed with a mid game switch. Leavers should go to fuzzy bunny tier and you should stop joining 1800 loobies. If smurfes are so rare it should be easy to manually ban them or send them to 2500+MMR tier.

Yet an option to vote to scramble teams would be appreciated. It's a bit last year TF2 but the more options the better. Please make a new thread about it.

I'm not off topic. Try again. I'm simply offering a suggestion (one that Josh has acknowledged) and that's that mid game balance is needed in order to make balanced matches not just for low lobby's but the game as a whole. Why? Well if you took the time to get the carrot out of your ass and actually read my examples (do u even play the game bruh).

And please, don't even bring up the "well u shouldn't be in that tier" argument. I've heard it countless times before, and it's dumb. If that's the highest lobby available, are you really going to tell me not to play? Moving on.

I'm not suggestion that the game constantly be balanced every time a team is winning. I'm suggesting that the balancing should occur when it's blatantly obvious that one team is destroying the opposing side because of smurf, uneven numbers etc. hell, you could even throw in a AI bit or two if the lobby isn't even just to help the losing side.

Regardless, my point still stands - mid match balance is needed and you have failed to provide any example to prove me otherwise.

[Hek_naw]

In TDM, when a stomping team has taken enough lead, rescrambling teams mid-game will not really reduce the score gap per se. If things balance properly, then the score difference will remain the same until the match ends. The unfair situation isn't solved, is it? The server might as well decide the match is over, end it and start over (producing a now fair match).

 

I wonder: Isn't it simpler to prevent people to join a server if that will produce "odd" vs. "even" teams, while at the same time only allow queueing players to join in pairs? The matchmaker can tally up and decide which joiner each team gets. This doesn't guarantee complete balance, but it should even out when many players join.

 

This way, teams are always as even as the matchmaker can produce (as longs as no one quits). Disbalance would come from players quitting, not players joining.

[M4st0d0n]

I'm not off topic. Try again. I'm simply offering a suggestion (one that Josh has acknowledged) and that's that mid game balance is needed in order to make balanced matches not just for low lobby's but the game as a whole. Why? Well if you took the time to get the carrot out of your ass and actually read my examples (do u even play the game bruh).

And please, don't even bring up the "well u shouldn't be in that tier" argument. I've heard it countless times before, and it's dumb. If that's the highest lobby available, are you really going to tell me not to play? Moving on.

I'm not suggestion that the game constantly be balanced every time a team is winning. I'm suggesting that the balancing should occur when it's blatantly obvious that one team is destroying the opposing side because of smurf, uneven numbers etc. hell, you could even throw in a AI bit or two if the lobby isn't even just to help the losing side.

Regardless, my point still stands - mid match balance is needed and you have failed to provide any example to prove me otherwise.

 

Oh nevermind, it seems to be your reading skills. Siege. As in objective based mode. One hour long. Twice the stomp. But hey after all, it's just the new user experience. As long as they get fooled to 50% win rate, like some brownian motion. They will surely find it interesting if smurfes are switched mid game, that will fix all, promote strategy, enforce the team. Just throw them bots too. Sure will help.

[IareDave]

Oh nevermind, it seems to be your reading skills. Siege. As in objective based mode. One hour long. Twice the stomp. But hey after all, it's just the new user experience. As long as they get fooled to 50% win rate, like some brownian motion. They will surely find it interesting if smurfes are switched mid game, that will fix all, promote strategy, enforce the team. Just throw them bots too. Sure will help.

Typically when someone disagrees with your point one would think you'd prove your own personal examples and experiences as to why you feel your 'way' is right and the others incorrect. Snarky lil' sarcastic responses and a total lack of understanding of what the other person is saying is not how you successfully persuade someone.

But nice try, gayboi

[Nightfirebolt]

Looks like my thread has been thoroughly derailed.

 

Can we get a lock on this, please?

[Grollourdo]

Meh... We need a bit more players for this....