92 replies to this topic

[capnjosh]

We don't want this:

Someone joins, selects a non-populated region, then hits "Play".  Then waits.  And waits.  Then quits and uninstalls, wondering if the universe and Hawken hates them.

 

 

I propose we merge server regions in some way, but I'm not convinced on exactly how yet.  In general, it's a question of just renaming the regions and then indicating where in that region each gameserver is located.  These are based on various posts I've read while lurking in forums:

 

 

 

1. The super-consolidation option:

- One single region for the entirely of planet earth.  Each gameserver in the list includes the city or country in which is it located, e.g. one region called "Hawken" with servers named "na-west-coast", "na-central", "na-east", "brazil", "sydney", "frankfurt", etc.

 

 

2. The significant consolidation option:

- Regions of "Western Hemisphere", "Europe", and "Asia".  Gameservers indicate city/country where they are physically located.

 

 

3. The somewhat consolidation option:

- Regions of "North America", "South America", "Asia", and "Europe".  Gameserver indicate city/country where they are physically located.

 

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on the above 3 options?

 

 

-capnjosh

[crockrocket]

As long as there's still a way to tell where individual servers are, I'm not picky! I think this is a great idea

[Sylhiri]

1. The super-consolidation option:

- One single region for the entirely of planet earth.  Each gameserver in the list includes the city or country in which is it located, e.g. one region called "Hawken" with servers named "na-west-coast", "na-central", "na-east", "brazil", "sydney", "frankfurt", etc.

 

-capnjosh

 

Might actually make the game seem "bigger". As long as it has all the sorting options then why not.

Edited by Sylhiri, 30 March 2015 - 04:58 PM.

[Silverfire]

Option 2 or 3.  But it must be made absolutely crystal clear that one can change regions to where they live.  So many people connect to the wrong regions and get awful ping and think the game is poorly made.  I'm not particularly partial to any, but I do like option 2 or 3 because it gives me more filters right off the bat, instead of having to toggle them myself.  Option 1 would feel cluttered and unorganized.  If option 1 would be implemented, comprehensive filters need to be added to narrow down region, available/disabled servers, empty servers, etc.

 

 

Regardless of which option is implemented,

1. Make it obvious and clear that one can change regions to where they live (if it's Option 2 or 3)

2. Make it obvious and clear for each server within the regions where it's located (for all options)

3. Make it obvious and clear what the skill ratings for the servers are.  The current 3 star system is very confusing.  Many new players hop into a 1 star server, thinking it's "easy" when in reality it's an awful server for them to join.  They should be joining 3 star servers but they don't because they think it's a harder server.

Edited by Silverfire, 30 March 2015 - 05:11 PM.

[Odra]

"1" shows promise to make a good impression for newcomers, rather than dealing with a desolate landscape. (Not to mention the already harrowing Russian Roulette" of being tossed into a match with a few seconds to go)

 

As the others have said, leave/improve the options to sort and differentiate.

 

EDIT: Silverfire just reminded me how awful the STAR system is.

Edited by Odra, 30 March 2015 - 05:03 PM.

[ArchMech]

first off server browser/play button UI changes sound like a wonderful idea, you have no idea how many people can't find the server browser because of play button layout, i should've brought this up earlier, hit me please.

 

im not directly opposed to any of those options, but there are other angles involved like hawkens network issues which is by far my biggest peeve with hawken's regional aspect.

[Pure_Amazing]

Ideally, it would be nice for the matchmaker to work its way up the chain. Starting with the region you are in, doesn't find anything, expands the search range and so on until it reaches the entire globe.

 

But of course, I'm not sure what your limits are when it comes to resources and development, I would imagine my idea would take more time to implement.

 

My opinion on the 3 options provided, No. 1. I think a list that contains all servers wouldn't be such a bad idea (Since you can sort by ping and what not) and as long as the matchmaker puts you in the lowest ping server and its populated (While taking MMR into account of course) I think its done its job.

[Col_Havoc]

just a question, how might this affect latency/ping?

[eth0]

two, unless one is economic

Edited by eth0, 30 March 2015 - 08:00 PM.

[Jerv]

I would have to know how many players there are in different regions before I gave a solid answer, but I think that there aren't enough US players to justify three regions.

 

However, I think that we need to consider language barriers. While not too bad in North America (most Canadians and many Mexicans speak English, even if it's a second language for them, making a North America server feasible) it is a bit rough when you can't talk to half your team. The easiest solution for that that I can think of is to add "preferred language(s)" to to the settings both server-side and client-side. That way, no matter how much you consolidate, the MM will put you in a match where chat is actually useful.

[GMKGoat]

I'm leaning towards option 3, having come from a long history of playing online games that lumped North American and South American regions together. It's not pretty.

 

(Not to mention the already harrowing Russian Roulette" of being tossed into a match with a few seconds to go)

This would be better solved by simply disabling join in progress during the last few minutes of a game. I'm kind of surprised they don't do that by default.

[Darktim300]

Honestly I would just like matches so any consolidation would probably work out for the best. I'm leaning towards the second option.

Edited by Darktim300, 30 March 2015 - 05:14 PM.

[phed]

Number 1, all the way.

With ping listed and the abilty to sort servers by ping.

And make the autoconnect take ping into account in its algorithm.

Please please please

As a west coast player, I always find myself on the use region looking for 14xx servers to join, and see alot of others doing the same.

I have good friends here from all over the world, let's end the segregation and tear down the imaginary walls that separate us.

It will both promote community unity and fill under utilized servers.

Edited by phed, 30 March 2015 - 05:19 PM.

[Silverfire]

My biggest qualm about Option 1 or 2 is the confusion factor.  Players, unfortunately, do act quite stupid at times.  Making it either obvious and clear to what they're connecting to is the issue, especially if NA and SA get lumped together.  The ping difference for me from connecting US East and South America is going from 16 ping to 220 ping.  Separating it out in server browser distinctly guarantees that players won't connect to the wrong server.

[DM30]

Options 1 or 2 would be fine in my opinion, but I would like for there to still be a way to filter by region if you want to.

 

Question: Does matchmaking take latency into account? Does the server fitness shown in the browser? If not then that's something I think should be addressed in this situation. I might even go so far as to say to hold off merging regions in the browser until this functionality is in place.

[Intrepidor]

I feel fairly naive reading the question and answers. Maybe it is because I only queue when in a party but honestly I find the server browser the only way to go when looking for a match; quite often I am looking for a specific map. I would rather see a server browser with more info regarding a particular server you are looking at i.e. numbers of players, time left, ext. I do see potential issues with this as many may not want to join a game half over, but isn't that their prerogative? Just my 2�

[Silverfire]

I feel fairly naive reading the question and answers. Maybe it is because I only queue when in a party but honestly I find the server browser the only way to go when looking for a match; quite often I am looking for a specific map. I would rather see a server browser with more info regarding a particular server you are looking at i.e. numbers of players, time left, ext. I do see potential issues with this as many may not want to join a game half over, but isn't that their prerogative? Just my 2�

 

You can check that info externally here: http://hawken.herokuapp.com/

[CochoNut]

just a question, how might this affect latency/ping?

wanna asking same like this , still playing in east since sg server dead.

holy 300~400ms , hardly hit anything

[ThatDamnedBoedy]

You can hide the regions as long as players can set ping preferences.

 

I don't want to play on a server with 200ms pings.

 

Let us set that and I don't care about regions.

[ThatDamnedBoedy]

The server browser also needs an update to show time left in match/score/base HP so I don't join a pointless match.

[Amidatelion]

Option 3, absolutely.

 

Just look at NA - the majority of people play on East, because that's where the SLIGHT majority of people are. It's easy for Central to connect, but West starts getting pings up around 120 - the point at which high-level, pin-point accurate shooting becomes impossible. Merging NA into one and then having the city in the server description gives more visible options to everyone.

 

So long as we get an even distribution of private servers though, I'm ok with any other option, but 3 seems to be the best to me.

[fallguyalpha]

NUMBER 3

 

What you're asking...Would this be permanate or flexible based on player growth?

 

Wherever you host from (server melting pot), that geo-area will have a ping advantage (unless you adjust for it, but then that would screw up everyone's game play wouldn't it?).

 

In my experience (since Alpha stage, hence my callsign)), I get better play at score in lower ping areas. West coast in 2013, I used to get a ping of 5-10. Now the best I get on West is 45, in battle it jumps to 60. East, best I can get is around 100 ping. They consolidated central servers to "East" at one point last year. I can get ping of 70 on some of them.

 

So, if you did option 3, and we had to play servers only available in Boston, or Maine, you would lose players over time because it would take the fun out of it if we skip around and die all the time.

 

That's my two HC cents worth.

 

-fallguyalpha

[LRod]

Option 3.  I think it would be the easiest for new players to figure out and stratifies the servers in the most logical fashion.

[LinearFox]

I feel that option 3 would be best In my honest opinion, I do not have a hard time looking for servers since I always use herokuapp (really helpful) to find servers. In USE, I play in servers that starts with 14xx because I get around 200-220 ping. The other servers i get 260 above. In USW i get around 180 and that's totally fine by me since I've been playing with 180-200+ ping since the first day I started playing.

[LaurenEmily]

Whatever is the most convenient, and please include the option to see your ping of each server before you enter.

This would make my life so much better.

[Amidatelion]

I feel that option 3 would be best In my honest opinion, I do not have a hard time looking for servers since I always use herokuapp (really helpful) to find servers. In USE, I play in servers that starts with 14xx because I get around 200-220 ping. The other servers i get 260 above. In USW i get around 180 and that's totally fine by me since I've been playing with 180-200+ ping since the first day I started playing.

 

Goddamn. What a champ. And this kid regularly wrecks me with a Raider. 

 

What a goddamn champ.

[LaurenEmily]

I feel that option 3 would be best In my honest opinion, I do not have a hard time looking for servers since I always use herokuapp (really helpful) to find servers. In USE, I play in servers that starts with 14xx because I get around 200-220 ping. The other servers i get 260 above. In USW i get around 180 and that's totally fine by me since I've been playing with 180-200+ ping since the first day I started playing.

Have you tried europe servers ? not sure if the timezone differences are convenient for you (the europe servers are not active 24/7),

but you could get better ping there.

Playing with over 200 is hell though, if you can reach even moderate success like that you really are a hero.

[LinearFox]

Have you tried europe servers ? not sure if the timezone differences are convenient for you (the europe servers are not active 24/7),

but you could get better ping there.

Playing with over 200 is hell though, if you can reach even moderate success like that you really are a hero.

 I've tried playing eu but I get 300, I can't play that well with that ping unfortunetaly. :<  o/ Cheers!

Edited by LinearFox, 30 March 2015 - 06:02 PM.

[LinearFox]

Goddamn. What a champ. And this kid regularly wrecks me with a Raider. 

 

What a goddamn champ.

Thanks :) Cheers!

[Kmaleon73]

Please name of THS, and many older players who played years before his holiday, please take a server for the zone SOUTH AMERICA, for our friends who migrated back and have a better gaming experience I ask of wholeheartedly, do not know how I've waited a note so in different forums and never gave thanks captain for just think that there are more players in this area

[Shadeness]

* Matchmaking should always join a server if one has players. You could probably achieve this by ignoring the Region query parameter in the matchmaking request.

* List all servers in the server browser. Ignore the Region query parameter in the gameServerListings request.

* Do not "unlock" the server browser, it should be available from the get go to a new user. I kind of wish the client would ping all the game servers from the server browser, but that's also long term since it's a client side UI change.

The game is basically already using #2. So I'll pick #1 since I'm getting the feeling editing the api server logic isn't an option yet.

Edited by Shadeness, 30 March 2015 - 06:14 PM.

[Nachoeslach]

I go for option 2, would interezante bring together all the players in America on one side, and there we distributed servers both US and Latin America 

[nokari]

#1 or #2, with at least these two options:

 

- Sort by Server name alphabetically (a-z, z-a)

 

- Sort by Ping (ascending/descending)

 

I think the most important thing we are missing is an indication of ping. As long as I can see my related ping to a server is under 100, I don't care at all where the server is actually located.

[HorseHeadProphet]

as long as we can somehow sort servers by ping and gametype, any option should be fine. Show more information like game time remaining. Make it so we can right click on the server name and see what players are in the server, add to favorites, maybe get other details about server location.

[VisionCloud]

Ideally, it would be nice for the matchmaker to work its way up the chain. Starting with the region you are in, doesn't find anything, expands the search range and so on until it reaches the entire globe.

 

Love this idea. I would like to at least try to hook up with people in my region before I end up getting placed in a USE server. I think the problem has been for the west at least that there are plenty of us that play from the west, but it has just become expected that we all go play in the east so the west servers are always empty. Would love a way for it to try and put me with some westerners and then move to the east if I can't get anyone.

[Hellzilla]

The best answer is probably different across the world. #2 would be best for me, I don't need to see servers outside of North America in the list of games I'm choosing from.

 

I don't use the matchmaker, because the quality and balance in games I can find manually in the server list is typically much better. As a player in North America I have been using the US East servers for a while now because those have become the most populated in the US, while the Western servers have become the most empty and ignored. Right now, under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to centralize the region for North America. We also get a lot of fun players from Central and South America on these servers (ja ja ja, bueno juegos), and just about anywhere else.

 

More options in the server browser would be nice. View ping, sort by ping. I look for the best quality of populated games in order of my preferences: Siege, Missile Assault, TDM. I've always wanted an option to view only certain game modes and/or maps in the server browser. And being able to join a game that's almost complete isn't great.

 

Sometimes it would be helpful for me to exclude certain maps. I'm never interested in playing Bunker; and a Siege on Last Eco has crashed on me before, so I don't bother. P.S., We need another Siege map.

Edited by Hellzilla, 30 March 2015 - 07:49 PM.

[Velz]

Ping is the main thing. Servers: eu, cis, cn, sea, east na, west na, soth america. Smth like that...

[Debabrata]

I think option 2 would be good.

[VisionCloud]

 

I don't use the matchmaker, because the quality and balance in games I can find manually in the server list is typically much better. As a player in North America I have been using the US East servers for a while now because those have become the most populated in the US, while the Western servers have become the most empty and ignored. Right now, under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to centralize the region for North America. 

I like the idea of combining and centralizing the NA servers. I am in the West and always end up playing in the East for the above stated reason. Playing in the east, I can get between 40 and 80 ping in most games. If the servers were centralized, I think most players in NA would get decent ping times.

[Nov8tr]

How about they connect to their region and select game of their choice? If after 30 seconds or so if there are no matches or even no players then it auto-connects them  to the nearest region (to help keep ping/latency down. The would sort of be a universal "world-wide server". It could give them a message as to what is happening (so they aren't left in the dark as to why they are being switched) and give them the option to "accept" or "deny". It would allow more players from different areas to play and may even eventually advocate play in their region. Plus later when their individuals regions do fill up it will no longer have to switch them anywhere. I worry about "one world" because of ping/latency problems that some complain about. I've seen players now with pings well over 400. I am not trying to start a fight, just making suggestions. This is my 2 old pennies worth. Your mileage may vary.

 

*EDIT* Hey didn't there use to be a "connect to any server" option? I may be wrong. Maybe I'm thinking of another game, but???

Edited by Nov8tr, 30 March 2015 - 08:13 PM.