Can we get a Revive?

245

Comments

  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    edited July 2016
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    AA5 (if one ever happens) must have matchmaking and competitive support from day 1.
    How long are you willing to wait for a match placement?

    In its simplest form (best case scenario),
    TWaiting = NModes * TMatch * NParticipants * NSkills / NOnline

    Assume a single 8v8 game mode, 20-minute matches, 16 players in a game, 800 online players, and only 5 skill buckets. That's already a two-minute wait time, without accounting for geography or ping, and forcing everybody into the matchmaking system, and not worrying about player groups, and ....

    Now let people choose between two modes (BDX/FLO, or VIP/Other, or hardcore/normal, or ...). Assume half of people would rather go to their favorite clan server instead of joining a ranked queue. Go to 10 skill buckets. That's a 16-minute wait to find a game.

    Now create two regions, US-East and US-West. (Let's pretend Europe gets their own zones and only players in the zones play in prime time.) Double the wait time.

    Matchmaking is controversial in Overwatch, for goodness' sake, which has a crazy-high number of players and the full force of Blizzard's development efforts.

    Read and really reflect on Game Director Jeff Kaplan's nice post on the topic.
    http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20745504371#post-3

    Matchmaking is ***really*** hard to get right in the eyes of the public, even for a major title with a huge number of players and infrastructure.
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    edited July 2016
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Here's what developers of AA need to understand.

    The most popular games on PC are highly competitive games. Dota 2, CS, Rocket League, Overwatch, StarCraft. These games were all designed with competition in mind. Gaming these days, especially on PC is about competitive play. Even if the vast majority of the people who play a game never touch a comp match, the competitive aspects give a game longevity and popularity.

    TheTots has given examples in the past of games designed entirely around competition that totally flopped. There were comp-centric FPSs that tried to build off of the DoTA/LoL model that never hit the radar. TF2 has huge longevity but its competitive scene never really developed beyond a very small niche. Rust still has high player numbers with no competitive aspects whatsoever. ArmA3 uses realism, not competition, as its primary draw. Games like Loadout added in a competitive matchmaking mode that saw no growth.

    Games with longevity and popularity give competition an opportunity to flourish. Competition doesn't auto-magically create longevity and popularity.

    Starcraft 2, by the way, hasn't really had the longevity/popularity that was expected of it given its predecessor's successes. Even Blizzard had a hard time replicating an earlier title's successes. It's not an easy business.
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 461Player
    Matchmaking is a down the road type of thing if you ask me. A much larger community than AAPG is required for that to be successful. There are parts of things that you can leave to third party developers and communities, assuming you are capable of providing the right API's. There are products or will be products developed that will sit as a "competitive shell" on top of existing games, given the right information.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    Look at insurgency, its just now introduced matchmaking which is in what they are calling the Alpha stage. I've been playing it quite a bit since its come out, the game on average holds 4x the player base of AA and even then it struggles to hold full servers.. and there are very few ranked servers to begin with.. ~4 NA servers.. I constantly see the same few people

    Goes to show just how popular a game has to before thinking of matchmaking.. it would be a complete waste of time for our Devs to start working on matchmaking in AA
    _____________________________
    #Support Comp Mode

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    I did NOT say positivity would save the game. I obviously can't type fast enough to stop the lot of you from tearing this game down and then blaming it on others.
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • GeekFuriousGeekFurious Posts: 8Player
    People spell doom & gloom for everything... whether earned, deserved, or not. And everything was always better back in the day... whether it was or not. I'm just glad I've gotten to an age where hyperbole doesn't rule my life.
  • [ENG]Uni-Sol[ENG]Uni-Sol Posts: 3,193Player
    edited July 2016
    I never understand why people with hundreds of hours playtime hate on the game so much.. makes no sense to me whatsoever. You don't play a game you don't like for hundreds of hours surely? and if you do, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

    I'm gonna be slightly biased because I do; and I can enjoy playing the game.. There are things we all don't like about it, heck the forum is full of ideas and suggestions, all with the intention to make the game better. Like was said elsewhere the devs have changed the game in all manner of different ways to support our ideas of what will make the game better and guess what? we still don't got a million players.. be them changes good or bad, the intention to make the game better has always been there, I don't think it's fair to beat them up too much like this, making games is HARD, making games that are successful is even harder in this day and age.
    Does anyone remember that once upon a time it was the game sound at fault? things like nobody could hear a guy sneaking up behind them or above/below them, a storm was brewed, it was a perceived 100% genuine reason given by many why the game was not good, why it had hardly any players.. so the devs took it onboard, went away and put in an entire new sound engine! turned out after all that change.. the people were still not happy, sounds were still not good enough.
    On Lean.. don't even think I'd need to tell anyone about that one.. we 'ALL' wanted it, it was all the rage at the time, meant to be the No.1 savior, with lean the game would be 100% better than without it.. the devs went away and fixed us up with a lean, now because they've fixed bugs found with it they are breaking the game? last time I heard.. bugfixing was a good thing and so was having the ability to lean.
    UMMs is a tricky one because not everyone sees it as an actual game update, let alone one that can make or break the game so it's kinda a moot point, but its another thing we asked for and we got it. Let me tell ya making that basic editor would have taken a LONG time, we all said having the ability to make maps ourselves would help the game did we not? has it?
    OH man, big post alert.. I could raffle off numerous other game changes that have happened for the supposed good of the game, VIP, shoothouses, sliding, hitmarkers, supported position, revives, UI, smokes, comp modes, weapon mechanics and additions, to name a few.. yet we still don't got a happy, content current playerbase or indeed a million players.. so maybe in truth, our ideas of what would/could/should make the game better were and have been in actual fact, wrong.. and we should have had more faith in the devs to steer a game THEY have made, in the right directions? and admit that any responsibility for "bad game" partly rests on our shoulders too, does anyone ever consider that?

    We all would love to log in to see 100,000+ active players, filling servers, having comps, making new exciting communities.. but I'd argue its too late for all that now. AAPG is what it is, like it or lump it, no game is perfect, nor can be when individual opinions are taken into account. I mean they could add this matchmaking malarkey.. remove supported, ditch BDX/FLO divide.. and a tonne of other popular requested changes etc.. we'd all then be happy.. all of a sudden? I don't think so, records of the past have learned me that much.

    I for one thank the devs for this game, all the changes they have made to the game to help make it better and enjoy playing it, I encourage others to enjoy it too.. but if not, why do you continue to aggravate, suffer and burden yourselves over something you don't like, nor seemingly will.. no matter what?
    If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.






  • ^MAROFEL.Arkeiro^^MAROFEL.Arkeiro^ Posts: 768Player
    Get a defibrillator and place it on the heart of aapg (inner hospital).

    Over 1.4k Golden Hawkeyes.
  • -=312th=-Atrophied-=312th=-Atrophied Posts: 67Player
    I actually love the fact that the game has a small player-base. You start to recognize names and make friends with people instead of killing complete strangers. As for the reason this game is really lacking? It's repetitive... there really isn't a whole lot of room for game-changing plays. Players only get enjoyment from running the same drills and fighting in the same hot zones for so long. Most of the popular maps are smaller, but not necessarily because they are better. Most of the larger maps are nice but they generally don't have anything to encourage the use of the full play space.

    I play in my own way, but honestly it gets old having to make the decision between potentially dying in the first minute or so of a round to get kills or camping a corner or a corridor hoping nobody comes around it pre-firing.

    AA:PG does have it's niche.. it just happens to be a small niche of players that appreciate it for what it is.

    I think a few simple additions to the game would make it appeal to a much broader audience:

    More variety of weapons.
    Maps that don't rely on "lanes" but also don't get heavy-handed with open fields.
    Continue with the bug fixes.
    Find a way to enforce the "no macros" decision - Simply stating that they aren't allowed doesn't mean anything to the people using them.

    The Dev's know that they are competing with several high-dollar titles but it isn't enough to just provide a shooter game.. there has to be something to draw players away from their go-to titles, even if it is just temporarily.
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    Quite simple actually why we play it.. because we have great memories playing the franchise.

    Many believe the glory days can be resurrected by taking the best from what we've had in the days of success. For the simple reason that the AA core player base is out there, they're just dissapointed in a game that chooses to hold hands for the new gamer rather than the core.

    Granted the Devs have made many changes in the past and may continue to do so... and it's not even the time it takes to make the changes, its the time it takes to realize what needs to be changed when it's been pointed out numerous of times.
    _____________________________
    #Support Comp Mode

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    One of the biggest things that makes or breaks a game are maps, I think this game got of to a bad start with paper maps.

    Although we've moved away from that, a lack of solid maps is still the main issue... and from what I see it will continue.

    I've been told to relax, and stop hating on projects that people spent many hrs on.. I'm sorry I can't because I see what it's doing to the game.
    We've pointed out many ways of making a successful map and it seems only Keebler out of all people payed attention.

    Now a handful of people are happy with just about any map.. good for you but that's not going to help us in the long run.
    _____________________________
    #Support Comp Mode

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,154Player
    edited July 2016
    I'm not going to deny that the Devs have made many positive changes. They have. However, there are plenty of things that need to be addressed that haven't even been considered (as far as we know) or touched.

    1. Maps, 80%+ of servers are on Inner Hospital... still.
    2. Medic system, better than it was originally, still hasn't been addressed even though we were promised a better system during closed beta and beyond.
    3. Supported system is super broken. No changes, no removal. Minor fix was to add a command line that disables it (I think)... or play UMMs that don't have them.
    4. Suppression + Aim Punch (we've discussed this at length).
    5. Still waiting on a way to make weapons more customizable (i.e. front attachment system). We got a whole new set of OpFor weapons before we got suppressors. In normal AA fashion there isn't a huge weapon list. However, having them all available in every map with every attachment makes it boring when you have very little in the way of customization.
    6. Lack of map specific loadouts
    7. BDX/FLO is still mind boggling
    8. VIP is the only non-map content update that we've had since October 2015.
    9. Weapons are too easy to master. Game relies almost exclusively on speed of crosshair to target. Players who aren't as quick aren't able to come close to competing with faster players.
    10. Game holds your hand too much

    BTW, I definitely don't have a ton of hours in the game. Since full release I only have 114 hours. I'm still PFC ranked. I've been here since closed beta, was even an internal beta for a short time. I've invested tons of time into the game, but I don't enjoy it nearly as much as I used to. I enjoy making maps (even if they aren't too good) more than playing the game. I play for an hour or so and then get bored. I know many others feel the same. I know that a very large percentage of people on my steam list hardly play the game anymore.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    1. Maps, 80%+ of servers are on Inner Hospital... still.
    CSGO: 66k out of 73k (90%+) servers are on de_dust2. Player map preference is WAY more of a factor here than good design ever can be.
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    2. Medic system, better than it was originally, still hasn't been addressed even though we were promised a better system during closed beta and beyond.
    It's been addressed, you just don't like the way it was addressed.
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    3. Supported system is super broken. No changes, no removal. Minor fix was to add a command line that disables it (I think)... or play UMMs that don't have them.
    Again, "super broken" is a big exaggeration.
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    7. BDX/FLO is still mind boggling
    The old-school system of putting 4 people on Bridge and hoping it fills up to 24 is really, really dated. I don't get why the idea of letting the map size adapt to the number of players present is so weird to you -- presumably because that's not how AA2 did it.
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    9. Weapons are too easy to master. Game relies almost exclusively on speed of crosshair to target. Players who aren't as quick aren't able to come close to competing with faster players.
    10. Game holds your hand too much
    The players that are slow to acquire are only going to get hit harder with a more-punishing recoil system. Your two statements here are very much at odds with one another.


    So, to be clear -- is it that the Devs are doing it wrong for these new reasons or for the previous reasons you gave that were shown to be incorrect from their premises?

    Do you seriously think the Devs haven't addressed, considered, or touched things like difficulty curve over the course of development?
  • ^MAROFEL.Arkeiro^^MAROFEL.Arkeiro^ Posts: 768Player
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    10. Game holds your hand too much

    Is that bad? ^^

    Over 1.4k Golden Hawkeyes.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,154Player
    edited July 2016
    Saccho wrote: »
    CSGO: 66k out of 73k (90%+) servers are on de_dust2. Player map preference is WAY more of a factor here than good design ever can be.
    I'm not sure how you even come up with such a list since I can't even refresh more than like 4K servers at a time. Either way, you need to look at populated servers, not total.
    Saccho wrote: »
    It's been addressed, you just don't like the way it was addressed.
    Wrong, the dev team promised a completely different system with training and a completely different way of going about healing. They stated it tons of times. It never happened with no explanation of whether it ever would.
    Saccho wrote: »
    Again, "super broken" is a big exaggeration.
    Zero recoil and the ability for players to shoot where they aren't looking = super broken in any game.
    Saccho wrote: »
    The old-school system of putting 4 people on Bridge and hoping it fills up to 24 is really, really dated. I don't get why the idea of letting the map size adapt to the number of players present is so weird to you -- presumably because that's not how AA2 did it.
    CoD, BF, Insurgency, CS, TF2, every other Source based game all allow for custom server sizes. Sure, certain server sizes are preferred over others , but they all allow for custom sizes. I'm not sure I've ever seen a game that restricts you to two server sizes. Not sure how you say it's a dated method or that "it's because AA2 did it that way." Some games may have smaller maps meant for less players in a server, but most don't force it. Also, with a smaller squad based game like this, there's no need. We're not running 32 or 64 man servers. Also, apparently the old UE2.5 engine was able to open and close parts of maps based on the amount of people in a server, can't UE3 do that? It'd surely be a better way of going about it.
    Saccho wrote: »
    The players that are slow to acquire are only going to get hit harder with a more-punishing recoil system. Your two statements here are very much at odds with one another.
    Not necessarily. A system that's hard to master won't completely rely on speed. It partly neutralizes it. You can go jump into a CS server and unless you know how to manage recoil and the very fact that you can't hit crap if you're moving full speed, it doesn't matter how fast you will aim. A system that allows for depth will allow players who aren't as quick to master the system over time which can make up for their lack of speed. At the highest levels, sure speed + mastery is important, but it's still a deeper system and at a basic level still allows for higher levels of success for players who invest time into the game.
    Saccho wrote: »
    Do you seriously think the Devs haven't addressed, considered, or touched things like difficulty curve over the course of development?
    Please enlighten me on where they have.

    So tell me, what would make this game more popular? And don't give me the bs answer that the game is perfect or already popular enough or that things outside of the developers control are what causes the game to be unpopular (and many of its long time players to play less or not at all). That's a ton of nonsense. I know in the past you've stated your unhappiness with the state of the game, but yet one day everything changed for whatever random reason. Still, I'd like to hear what your great ideas are (since you never give any).
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • -SD-DELTON-ACI--SD-DELTON-ACI- Posts: 1,471Player
    edited July 2016
    I think co-op mode may help especially with new players they join a server full with advanced players get killed 2-3 times and never come back.
    Make some maps with co-op mode give them a chance to learn the game.

    Ps.
    I am still on Mild warning when will this go =)
    gKQ6BB2.png
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I'm not sure how you even come up with such a list since I can't even refresh more than like 4K servers at a time. Either way, you need to look at populated servers, not total.
    If you can't even get the data, maybe you shouldn't be basing arguments on numbers. For currently-populated servers, AAPG is 46% Inner and CSGO ~44% de_dust2. You seem to be both exaggerating about Inner and ignoring that this isn't as big a problem as you suggest.

    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Wrong, the dev team promised a completely different system with training and a completely different way of going about healing. They stated it tons of times. It never happened with no explanation of whether it ever would.
    They said they were looking into it. Where's the Facebook medic announcement post? This attitude right here from you is why modern Devs are really reluctant to talk about what they're working on.

    I'll quote Jeff Kaplan from Blizzard here. http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20745285677#post-12
    Obviously, there is a lot more going on -- stuff I am forgetting to mention as well as some surprises. I can't stress this enough: some of this stuff might not happen. The reason developers usually don't give insight like this is because if something changes or doesn't happen, players get very angry at us. I would like to change that dynamic but we need to do that together. We'll share more information with you guys so long as you understand none of this is a promise and things do change throughout the course of development. So when we see a "HOW COME WE DIDN'T GET THE HIGHLY PROMISED RANDOM POSE OPTION" rage post 2 years from now, please feel free to quote this paragraph in the reply...
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Saccho wrote: »
    Again, "super broken" is a big exaggeration.
    Zero recoil and the ability for players to shoot where they aren't looking = super broken in any game.
    That's not the bug. The bug is the 3p mesh is rotated incorrectly. The player can still be shot just fine and can't shoot anywhere but where their 1p mesh is looking. It's also not zero recoil. It's also balanced through map design choices in terms of where to place supported positions. "I don't like it" doesn't equal "super broken".

    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    CoD, BF, Insurgency, CS, TF2, every other Source based game all allow for custom server sizes.
    So does AAPG. That you don't know how is nobody's fault but your own.
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Also, apparently the old UE2.5 engine was able to open and close parts of maps based on the amount of people in a server, can't UE3 do that? It'd surely be a better way of going about it.
    It's a very clunky approach. I don't want to check how many players joined or left each round to decide if somebody needs to cover routes ABC or XYZ. It's not at all a better system and it's far harder to balance a map for 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 players than to assume 5v5 or 10v10.

    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. A system that's hard to master won't completely rely on speed. It partly neutralizes it. You can go jump into a CS server and unless you know how to manage recoil and the very fact that you can't hit crap if you're moving full speed, it doesn't matter how fast you will aim. A system that allows for depth will allow players who aren't as quick to master the system over time which can make up for their lack of speed. At the highest levels, sure speed + mastery is important, but it's still a deeper system and at a basic level still allows for higher levels of success for players who invest time into the game.
    If you can't put the crosshair in the right spot, moving it off-target even faster only makes it harder. Saying "this other really complicated system is complicated" doesn't change that one bit. Adding systems on top doesn't change the underlying issues.
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Please enlighten me on where they have.
    In the fully closed development environment. Why would they release a difficulty curve they don't care for? In the original closed and open betas. Why do you think they rebalanced weapon parameters? It's rather insulting to say the Devs haven't ever thought "Hey guys, how hard do we want various parts of the game to be?" Seriously, come on. This isn't even a question.
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    So tell me, what would make this game more popular? And don't give me the bs answer that the game is perfect or already popular enough or that things outside of the developers control are what causes the game to be unpopular (and many of its long time players to play less or not at all). That's a ton of nonsense. I know in the past you've stated your unhappiness with the state of the game, but yet one day everything changed for whatever random reason. Still, I'd like to hear what your great ideas are (since you never give any).
    I think calling any game that doesn't reach AAA popularity a total fail is "bs", but that's your own problem. Same for the idea that players leaving or getting bored after hundreds of hours is unacceptable.

    I've posted suggestions in the past. Same for technical problem bug reports. All that's changed is challenging this pointless whinging and whining.

    What'd I like to see? Better ways to introduce new players. I regularly see games with [80%+ PVT] vs [80% SGT+]. Server options for new guys, or auto-balance for skill on match start, could help. I'd also like to see the tiny fluidity bugs addressed, but those are hard to track down. A lot of that may also come down to network latency issues that are the fault of ISPs, not developers. I'd also love to see systems to address the toxic players I constantly hear from -- the high-level guys trashing anyone and everyone.
  • -SD-DELTON-ACI--SD-DELTON-ACI- Posts: 1,471Player
    edited July 2016
    Please stop with all the quotes my eyes are old =)
    gKQ6BB2.png
  • [Prt_Dictator][Prt_Dictator] Posts: 275Player
    You guys can beat around the bush for all eternity but the number 1 problem with this game is that the gameplay is not good enough. The game has a lot of problems but none of that would matter if the core underneath was outstanding and it isn't.

    Anyone that has ever played an FPS before at a decent level will have a hard time getting into this game because its so mind-numbingly boring. If you know how to aim, and have decent reactions, there is nothing to learn here, you're already way above average. Its very arrogant to assume that every new player has zero desire to learn and just want things handed to them. Every mechanic that could've had a learning curve is random instead. That's pathetically dull.

    I truly and honestly don't see how can someone expect longevity in a system like this and I'm surprised that players dropping it like its on fire wasn't a sign clear enough that things were not right.
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    edited July 2016
    Servers for newbies was suggested many times its beyond me why such a simple implementation hasn't happened yet.. we all know this can save a larger % of new player from leaving, give them a place to learn.

    But isn't that the point here?.. obvious things being overlooked
    _____________________________
    #Support Comp Mode

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
Sign In or Register to comment.