1 4 5 6 7 8 Previous Next 71 Replies Latest reply on Dec 6, 2012 7:21 AM by 8_x Go to original post RSS
      • Test #1
        60. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

        Harv72 wrote:


        If they offered up a Mercenary list for every game mode, many would only have 50 or so active lobbies at a time, with players spread out across the globe, and in some it would be impossible to even find a game.


        They can have Mercenary playlists for Domination, Hardpoint, TDM and KC.  It would actually make sense given that there's more of a focus on skilled based matchmaking.  A well organised party of 6 will usually beat a bunch of 6 randoms.  So if 3arc wish to stamp out noob stomping by pubstars that litter Youtube then may be this will help further.

        Last Edited: Dec 5, 2012 1:29 AM
        • Test #1
          61. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

          Fair points

          Last Edited: Dec 5, 2012 6:24 AM
          • Test #1
            62. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

            That is a iw game and 3arc seldom does what iw does in their games. they are both different companies with different view of what is fair or balanced or the right way to do things.


            so do not expect a iw method to be used in a 3arc game. It does not often happen.


            And as Meatball said it did not always end the game. If the other team rejoined before the forefit timer was up the match did continue. I was in several that went that very direction. Other team left, 1 random joined before the time was up, and the match continued for the rest of the game time.

            Last Edited: Dec 5, 2012 6:49 AM
            • Test #1
              63. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

              Your idea has one flaw the way the stats are handled in this game. this game stores the match stats on the host. When the host leaves by menu it transfers those stats to the new host during the migration. When the host pulls the plug, no stats are transfered. So there is nothing for the stat server to go off of to determine which team was the winning team or not when the match was ended.


              The game does not use a live stat updating system and the majority of the game stats are uploaded at the end of the match during the final kill cam. Which is why dashing allows for stat padding and stat protection.


              So until the stat updating system is ever re done where it updates the stats ever minute there would be no real way for the game to determine fairly who the win or loss should go to. So in the end it just gives everyone a loss because it considers everyone has left the game since the final stats were not reported.


              the one problem of using a constant live stat update system is the extra lag that it would add to the game and it would be a fair amount, enough that the host that are chosen now that barely can host would not be able to function properly and the game would lag even more.


              A very serious problem in this game is match making, and in that the main problem is not lag compensation but host selection. I have only a dsl connection, 3dn, .5-.75up. My connection is the bare minimum the game can really run on. Yet I will get host for 6v6 lobbies very often in my area. Because of my random ul and how it changes on the hour because of my isp using bandwidth throttling to try and combat torrent users. it makes my connection very unstable. Yet the game will often give me host and it never should im my view.


              As long as the game continues to chose bad hosts there will be wtf lag moments, as long as there are wtf lag moments there will be rage quitters, as long as there are rage quitters there will be open spaces in lobbies that need to be refilled to keep the game somewhat balanced or fair.


              so really until the host selection process is every really fixed, the game itself can not ever really be fixed by any means to where it would work as some people think it should. As long as there is lag and desync problems the game will have issues. and the one thing that neither 3arc nor IW has been able to figure out in the past 4 years is how to do host selection properly.


              and because of how the infrastructure of the web is changing day to day, there is no way they really can control all the variables and make it any where near perfect. So players will always rage quit, and lobbies will have to be refilled.


              when really at the moment one team or the other goes down by more than 2 members it should just end the match in a draw at that point. Neither team gets a win or a loss. And the reason for the draw is even if a game is where one team is 20 kills ahead it still can be turned over if the other team works hard enough to do so and there is more than 1 minute left. I have seen it done numerous times; but only when the lobby was full on both sides. If either side was down by any players it was not possible.

              Last Edited: Dec 5, 2012 7:12 AM
              • Test #1
                64. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

                It was awesome how MW3 just forfeited games in face off matches.


                I think that type of setup could work for BOPS2 with a little tweaking.


                What do you guys think?

                Last Edited: Dec 5, 2012 7:15 AM
                • Test #1
                  65. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

                  Thats a iw game feature and probably will not ever be seen in 3arc games. For they generally try to keep certain features seperate from each game, so they play differently.

                  Last Edited: Dec 5, 2012 7:33 AM
                  • Test #1
                    66. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

                    Most of us agree that something needs to be done about this issue.


                    Who's got ideas?

                    Last Edited: Dec 5, 2012 6:19 PM
                    • Test #1
                      67. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.



                      I was not aware of the information you provided so I thank you for it. That does kind of put a downer on my ideas .


                      When the host migration trigger is attampting to reconnect to a new host can the developers just not add a trigger to store the details into a temp db for tracking if the game crashes out and then use this table to dictate the winners or give it a draw (winners example would be HQ winning 175 - 25 with 1 min left, draw would be TDM 40 - 20 with 4 minutes left)?


                      I still think its a bit unfair and open to abuse therefore my other idea of a 15 minute timeout for leaving a game without it finishing is still a viable idea to reduce the amount of 'Rage Quitters'? If i did dashboard or Rage quit on games it would certainly stop me from dropping out of games mid way if I had to wait before I could play again.


                      Regards Apocalypse

                      Last Edited: Dec 6, 2012 2:52 AM
                      • Test #1
                        68. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

                        Your counter would work possibily. The problem is where that temp db would be located. Since the stat server does not reconnect to the end of the match as far as I know. So it would have to pick someone and place it there. But with a  dash, it has no time to do that since all of the stats are with the host.


                        the only other possible way it it would have to poll all the clients and compare what ever possible stats they have and then recompile those stats in to one package that would then be transfered to the host and used from that point on. I am not really sure if the xbox has the possible needed strength to do all of that, choose a new host, and get the match going within the short time it does. Host migration time would have to be increased possible to give it more time for that action.


                        Unfortunately bans do not reduce the number of people that would rage quit, they just reduce their presence for the time of the ban. A rage quitter will not stop doing what they are doing because of a time ban. Infact it would drive them to rage quit again because of how they felt unjustly punished. Not everyone would be deterred. The only people it would slow are the ocassional dashboard, rage quitters. the ones that do it the moment they dont like how a match is going would not be dettered at all by such a punishment.


                        No time ban will ever reduce the chance of it happening, just reduce the playerbase by taht person for the time of the ban. Quit bans do not make people stop doing it. it is just a placebo affect because you see them less in a match; yet as soon as the ban is up the will be back and do it agian.


                        So really not a fix for the problem, the game needs a constant stat update system where it updates stats ever 1 minute; but that would increase the load on the bandwidth of the host and strain on it while processing all game information that during the upload it would make the game lag out severely.


                        These current gen consoles do not really have the needed cpu power to do all of that at the same time.

                        Last Edited: Dec 6, 2012 6:01 AM
                        • Test #1
                          69. Re: Treyarch, stop dropping players onto a badly losing team in ongoing matches.

                          Looking at it from your perspective I agree, it would be more of a placebo as you stated.


                          Your idea makes sense and I understand your points on computing power required to deal with the idea you put forward. What about having specific regions that can be selected based on average bandwidth availability, for example when you fire up multiplayer on your console it will do a 'speed test' to dictate your region and if you pass the bandwidth requirements it will put you into the region that has controllable stat updates as you suggest.


                          This of course means that players with a lower connection speed will be disadvantaged to this feature however like many other players on this game I pay a higher fee to my broadband provider to get my 60mb fibreoptic line for my house so why shouldn't I get to enjoy this feature?


                          This will also reduce 'lag compensation' as well as the host and peers will have near to the same bandwidth. It does kind of segregate the player base but will allow for more secure stats, games and smoother play.

                          Last Edited: Dec 6, 2012 7:09 AM
                          1 4 5 6 7 8 Previous Next