05-25-2011 11:49 PM
People are always going to cheat. If they are really ready to dedicate all that time into getting points instead of just enjoying the game then good luck to them.
I don't see the point in being a general with no skills?
I'm not saying that I condone what they do, when I say that just because, you do "not" see their point of view does not mean that to them it's worth any less. All that matters to peoples such as them is achieving a single goal. After that everything is lack of a better word "gravy". Again. I'm not defending such actions or players. They just have a different of things and what may or may "not" be improtant to them. However, that doesn't necessarily make their actions any less wrong. Especially "if" it does compromise the enviroment or a players ability to play and/or enjoy the game.
You are correct though in that people will always cheat. Not all, but again the "few" bad apples whom ruin it all for us. Sadly this is just another time tested thing. It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone.
05-26-2011 01:28 AM
Some very good replies in this thread, I have to admit I missed the possibility that they are implementing MM on ranked servers because of stat padders. I have to say, if that is their reasoning, then that is a pretty lackluster and lazy way to deal with those players. As mentioned already MM does not stop padders, most of us probably saw the worst of that in MW2 which was 100% MM. It got the the point where it seemed 50% of the rooms were stat padding matches. Bottom line is MM doesn't stop them from padding. Server moderation, banning and reporting tools can greatly reduce the problem with padders, and I believe Black Ops has proven this. Although I haven't played that game in a long time, but I do know near the time I stopped playing they were really cracking down on padders and banning accounts.
It would be nice to know what LB's thoughts are on this subject, because it seems to me they are adding MM to make the game "better" (in their eyes) which reminds me of GG and KZ3, as they really believed MM was the best way to go.
I played Warhawk when it was much simpler than it is now. There were two different types of rooms, ranked rooms (blue) and unranked user created rooms (white). It has been a while, but I do not remember there ever being a serious problem with padders when the game was setup like that, perhaps with the addition of UCRR's, padding increased exponentially. Which might have prompted them to make MM a requirement for ranked games.
If they refuse to add UCRR's then at the very least they should bring back the basic roots of Warhawk. Server lists with ranked rooms that have the standard rules, and unranked user created rooms. Going with MM is about the worst possible thing they could do, mainly because they have NO experience with MM, just like GG had no experience with MM in KZ3. Why is no experience a bad thing? Well because once the game goes final and launches, they spend the next 6 months fixing the MM to make it work properly, all the while players suffer while we deal with the subpar and broken MM servers. Essentially, we are their MM guinea pigs.
Just like with GG and KZ3, it seems these developers don't play any other games but their own, so they are blind to what people really want. It's as if they are not really gamers at all, but rather designers just trying to finish a project they are obsessed about. In other words, these developers all seem to have a severe case of tunnel vision.
It is a pretty good guarantee that Starhawks MM will be flawed and will cause many people plenty of distress. It is early enough in the games development that if we let them know NOW that MM is a mistake, they can still change it. And I hope people realize this soon before it's too late.
05-26-2011 05:29 AM
It is my understanding that the very same thing you have mentioned is happeneing right now, with SOCOM 4.
SOCOM II was the first multi-player game I ever played, and I was addicted to it, so to see it fall so far into irrelevance is a little frustrating. But, you're right. They ditched the traditional (and functional) lobby system seen in every other SOCOM, and instead, in an effort to keep rank and stats "legitimate" went with a quickmatch system. And, exactly as you have predicted, it doesn't work.
There was supposed to be a "party system," included in the game, so you could play with your friends if you wanted, but after 4 years of development, that didn't make it into the final release, for some reason, and instead was supposed to be patched in around late April, early May. What's today's date??
There really is nothing I care less about than a person who spends their time in a game artificially inflating their rank. It doesn't affect me at all... until, that is, developers start taking away features from the game in some ridiculous attempt to stop them. It never works and it just makes the game worse.
p.s. If I remember correctly, in Warhawk, there were the Blue official rooms, and the White User created room, which could be ranked if the settings followed a set of certain specific criteria (match length, team switching, etc...) It's been awhile, so i could be remembering that wrong.
05-26-2011 09:19 AM
Pretty much hit the nail on the head, TK42OnE.
Also for anyone interested in seeing the article and blog post with "video" here is the link. I'd post up a picture, but ever since I upgraded my window Interent browswer to the latest and ninth version I cannot seem to post pictures here on the forums? Not sure why, or how that translates into being unable to post pictures, but alas. I cannot. Here is the link though.
The video is really informative, but Dylan, aslo responds on "sever listing" and matching making down in the article too. Where he expresses that "cheating" and a want to control or stem that "cheating" is why we will not be having UCRRs and why matchmaking has taken more of a precedence in StarHawk.
05-26-2011 04:00 PM
Yes, people will stack sides, and create rooms to find exploits and flag toss, but here's a little bit of wisdom from someone I think has a bit of authority on the matter...
"... While there are compelling arguements for both Pro and Con perspectives, we have ultimately decided that removing individual player freedoms, to help protect against stat-padding was, ultimately, the wrong thing to do." Dylan Jobe
There are more effective ways to legitimize the rank and stat systems than limiting the players access to the game.
I have never bothered to post on these forums before, but this thread has inspired me.
Server list, please, with a big fat quick join button for the noobs and transitory creatures we use for fodder starting next year. Community is obvously key to the more evolved mp gaming experience.
06-01-2011 08:23 AM
Choosing your own game from a server list is very necessary for Warhawk & Starhawk. Like it was said above, without hundreds of thousands of users on at all times, it won't work. We'll be stuck in foreign servers all the time. Hell, I can't avoid lag on CoD and they have the most players playing of any game.
The ability to see the server type, server name and your ping to the server was huge. I also firmly believe that it was key to creating the community we have. We played in the same servers and eventually everyone got to know everyone (for the most part). With match making it won't be the same. The only time matchmaking should be involved in Starhawk is for large parties, so that they can be paired with other large parties, to avoid whole clans vs all randoms.
Also, if I see a friend or 2 or 10 playing in CTF Lg2 (for example), I can see the server on the list and join them. With matchmaking, I won't be able to do that. I'll have to get everyone to quit / backout and create a party. Very inconvenient. It will also create a lot of lopsided games as parties will back out mid-game to pick up other friends, leaving one team short players.
06-04-2011 11:48 AM
.. the Warhawk/Starhawk devs have always been very good about listening to the fans, so hopefully if the matchmaking turns out to be a mistake, they will have a way of allowing us to browse the servers. My own preference is to choose a server myself (especially if I am expecting friends to join me, I"ll often choose an official server with lots of spaces available). The ideal situation of course would be to buff up the "quick match" matchmaking option... but allow for server browsing for anyone who wants it (like Warhawk did).
06-04-2011 06:39 PM
Agreed, Buckets. More often then not server selcting has proven to be superior. Infact in most cases for console gaming online it's one of the biggest deciding factors in my purchasing of a game or not. It's a shame that developers are pushing more towards a simplified and simple Call of Duty "matchmaking" approach. Whether those reasons are for marketing, simplicity, or attempting to thwarting boosters, and cheaters alike. I feel while both are necessary that without server slecting it's only getting worse, and causing many more problems then it is fixing.
06-06-2011 07:13 AM
Totally agree, bucket45.
Lobbies work because they're simple and they give the players choice. Something that even the best matchmaking systems struggle to do.
And, the point about Matchmaking struggling unless their is a critical amount of players is also well made.