61 replies to this topic

[jay35]

It is said that time spent trying to prevent users from doing something within your product that improves their user experience is counter-intuitive. It is better to invest that time in understanding why the users are doing it and providing a solution that solves the core problem that is leading users to take the rogue behavior we don't want them to take.

Here's an example of where that might come into play: We know some players are modifying certain files so they don't have to drop on certain maps. We also experience a significant amount of disconnects, in particular on certain maps.

Initial Reaction: Figure out a way to stop players from doing it.

Better Response: Understand why they don't want to play those maps and figure out a solution that will either stoke their interest in playing those maps again, or provide them an approved way to avoid having to play maps they don't want to play.

There are many options we could investigate, but simply trying to prevent them from modifying those files without providing a solution to their problem, means, if nothing else, we don't understand or don't care why they are doing it in the first place, so we aren't actually addressing the problem, we're attempting to mask a symptom. It is also poor for public relations because the developer is seen as heavy-handed and uncaring.

If the "hackers" don't simply come up with another workaround that leads to an ongoing string of whack-a-mole hacks-and-fixes, then they will simply resort to disconnecting rather than play a map they really do not want to play or you may simply lose their business entirely.

So that "solution" doesn't solve anything and in fact results in continued negative experiences for all players, whether those who are being served maps they do not want, or those who are interested in playing those maps but are stuck with teammates who have disconnected, thus imbalancing the teams, or less potential players to compete against overall.

Possible solutions that might be (and potentially have been) considered but probably won't work:

Spoiler

Provide a way for users to select the map, as is the case with other multiplayer games, whether by exposing the servers to a browser that allows players to join them ad hoc, or by allowing users to group up with the match host selecting the map to play on and that info being sent to the server, which in turn loads that map and creates the match according to the host's selected settings. That would work, but only if the matchmaker is significantly altered or deprecated, because the matchmaker needs to pull from as large a pool of players as possible in order to fill up matches and if we leave it to players to set up matches, there is legitimate concern about balance and fairness between teams. That said, exposing what mechs people are taking could help counter that, and we could go on and on discussing problems and solutions, many of which have been worked through in the past 15+ years of PC FPS games quite successfully using such models for multiplayer gaming, but it's a huge change in direction for the system as designed today. So, assuming we are stuck with the matchmaker schema, this option is no good.

Another option would be to provide a way for players to vote on the next map, but that doesn't solve the first map loaded upon the start of a match if it's only voting on the next map that will come up after the current one, and it doesn't guarantee all the players will get what they want so there's still a good chance some will still disconnect if the vote isn't satisfactory. So that's not a truly effective solution either.

But in polling the disaffected players as to why they edit files or disconnect at match start, if it turns out to be primarily an issue of match duration, or map frequency, we have a couple solutions that are more viable:

Spoiler

Of course the first thing is to return all maps to an even weighting in the server randomization so people are dropping in any map back to back, let alone Tourmaline. But we expect that adjustment to occur soon anyway, now that the new maps are not so new and most of us are getting burnt out on them. But on its own, weighting doesn't completely solve the problem.

In conjunction with weighting, we could also provide a map size filter so players can select whether they want to avoid Large maps or play All maps. This keeps the playerbase split to a minimum (one split into two pools, "No Large" and "All").

This would be considered a good use of a playerbase split if it solves an active problem with a minimum of splits, just like adding a new game mode since that provides more content for all users while only adding one new split to the playerbase. In this case, we're improving the experience for all players, whether disconnectors/hackers or those who want to play full matches without disconnects. This as opposed to, say, adding a 3rd Person View, which creates a minimum of a six-way split into the playerbase (3PV only, 1PV only, 1PV okay with playing against 3PV, and all three of those multiplied by the current number of distinct game types (2 at present) and doesn't provide anything for the majority of the playerbase. So a total of 6 pools for the matchmaker at a minimum, if that's calculated correctly) and most players gain nothing except a reduction in their pool numbers, where as a fix for people disconnecting or skipping maps, such that everyone loading into a map wants to be there, improves everyone's in-game experience.

Another alternative, i..e, the recommended solution, and one which is a relatively simple and immediate fix alongside balanced weighting of the maps, would be to balance the map match rewards based on how long matches take on average for each map. Using the existing rewards scale as the minimum standard, any map that takes more than the average time to play per match, should have its awards increased proportionally, both for winners and losers, in order to provide an incentive for all players to play regardless of which map comes up. If matches on Alpine Peaks and Tourmaline Desert paid out equally as well based on the time investment required to play matches on them, that could significantly reduce the quits. Currently, Tourmaline seems to run roughly 50% longer matches than the previous maps other than Alpine, and Alpine runs roughly 25% longer matches than those other previous maps.

(tl;dr) While it is not a complete solution, and ideally players could be able to filter out Large maps entirely (as described above), providing a balanced reward scale is a relatively simple fix to test to see if it significantly improves things and incentivizes more/most players to play every match rather than disconnect or hack a file.

Implementing this improvement alongside balancing the weighting of the maps, while removing the current file hack as well, would provide a much smoother reaction from the community, demonstrate good will and interest on the part of the developer, and reduce the incentive for players to find new loopholes or disconnect at match start.

Just a thought.

I'm not the type to mess with files, but will freely admit there have been a few times I've disconnected at map load because Tourmaline came up for the umpteenth time in a row and generally there were others disconnected so the match was already busted. I hate that. I don't want to disconnect. It's simply bad design to put players in a situation where that is the most appealing thing for them to do.

----------
Discussion from page 2 that should help clarify some things:

Mancu, on 02 April 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

The incentive should be to play, period.

And that's precisely what the recommendation provides. Good, glad we could agree on that. Make the maps worth playing.

Quote

It doesn't matter if one map takes 30 seconds longer than another. This isn't spreadsheet warrior online. You play to play, not to make the highest income in the shortest amount of time.

Not so fast. That's a red herring. It's not about making the highest income in the shortest amount of time. It's about making the same average income regardless of which maps you end up on. Meaning, if you invest one hour of your time into the game, assuming the same number of wins and losses during that time, your income over that period of time should be the same regardless of which maps you played on. What is being proposed is increasing BALANCE in an aspect of the game that is not currently balanced. What you're arguing against is a strawman of imbalance that is not what is being proposed.

Quote

Finally, quitting for any reason is unacceptable. Quitters are being selfish when they disconnect and screw the remaining players on their team. Every disconnect is a giant middle finger to the guys that dropped on the same team.

Precisely how I feel. I've suffered through enough imbalanced matches due to quitters, hence why I'm proposing something I think might alleviate that without ANY downside to trying it out. There is NO downside to balancing map payout by average match time. If it has the impact of reducing disconnects, it is a success.

Edited by jay35, 02 April 2013 - 07:06 AM.

[Josef Nader]

The problem with giving players control of which maps they play on is that maps will instantly become dominated by super-focused builds minmaxed for the current environment. There will be zero room for balanced mechs. Everything will be created to completely dominate in the environment of the player's choosing, and that leads to very stale, very boring gameplay.

[Aim64C]

There are three reasons I have ever disconnected.

1) Cat stepped on the switch to the power bar (has happened twice).

2) Game 'froze' or 'crashed' (2-3 times - maybe 4).

3) Internet wigged out and failed (2, maybe 3 times).

It doesn't matter what map is up.

Part of the problem with choosing what map you drop on is an artifact of the early stages of the game (and I really hope that the coming community warfare content addresses this) - namely, that you can optimize your build for a specific map and play only that map with that build.

And that's the problem.

As for the players who are modifying their files - they are a minority. And, honestly, people who are willing to circumvent such a minor game concept have no business being in the game, to begin with.

Nor should people who disconnect because they are tired of the map.

If people are going to disconnect over this little headache in the game, or seek modifications/hacks to their system files... that will be their response to anything else they begin to feel is a similar inconvenience to them. The new thermal vision doesn't meet their fancy - so they DC on maps that 'require it' or modify their files to display pink mechs with giant red arrows over the top of them (or whatever).

If I get tired of the map drops in MWO - I go watch a few episodes of Detective Conan (talk about groundhog day) or go inflict varying degrees of injury to myself until I feel I have been properly penalized for any incompetencies displayed during the last few drops. Assuming I can still move the mouse and push the keys, I may return.

[jay35]

Josef Nader, on 01 April 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

The problem with giving players control of which maps they play on is that maps will instantly become dominated by super-focused builds minmaxed for the current environment. There will be zero room for balanced mechs. Everything will be created to completely dominate in the environment of the player's choosing, and that leads to very stale, very boring gameplay.

That's why the solutions that are most likely to work best don't actually allow specific control of individual map selection, they focus on improving the experience such that file hacking or disconnecting become less appealing than playing the match.

Aim64C, on 01 April 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

There are three reasons I have ever disconnected. [snip]

That's fine that you can't relate. Many can relate, else this wouldn't be a known issue. No one's asked for you to sympathize. It's just discussing about how a developer goes about addressing what is clearly a significant issue, which you know is the case if you've played the game in the last couple weeks and experienced the frequent shorted teams and disconnects.

Edited by jay35, 02 April 2013 - 04:46 AM.

[warner2]

Josef Nader, on 01 April 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

The problem with giving players control of which maps they play on is that maps will instantly become dominated by super-focused builds minmaxed for the current environment. There will be zero room for balanced mechs. Everything will be created to completely dominate in the environment of the player's choosing, and that leads to very stale, very boring gameplay.

I see your point of view, but what could be more stale than using these so called "balanced" mechs all of the time? What's the point of different maps (hot, cold, low gravity, high gravity, good visibility, poor visibility, large, small, with cover, without cover) if we all just use the same "balanced" mechs on them? Are not able to take advantage of each maps characteristics? Have one average, jack-of-all-trades chassis to suit all maps?

Anyway, the last Q&A suggests there will be some move towards this:

Quote

Treckin: Would you consider please allowing mech selection AFTER map selection?
A: Yes, with pre-lobby system. However you will most likely be bound to a weight class. ie) 55 ton `Mechs only for the specific drop.

That probably excludes the PUG queue but I think that's OK.

Edited by warner2, 02 April 2013 - 04:48 AM.

[Mercules]

jay35, on 02 April 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

That's why the solutions that are most likely to work best don't actually allow specific control of individual map selection, they focus on improving the experience such that file hacking or disconnecting become less appealing than playing the match.

Except for some this will never be true until they can control every aspect of their "experience". Let's face it, there is a subgroup of gamer who is not having fun unless they are winning. Okay, winning doesn't even begin to describe it... they do not have fun unless they are overwhelmingly winning.

Before I get jumped on I am not saying this is the reason most people do it. There are, however, those that have decided how they want to play the game and that is the only way they are going to do it. They refuse to adapt because playing the game their way allows them to shine and playing it as everyone else would will stifle their "winning".

Perfect example would be people who only run 6x6SRM CPLT-A4s and have filtered out larger maps. Their style of play that they enjoy is a super focused mech that only works at close range and needs lots of cover to get in close and bomb people. They dislike ranged mechs, complain when people use long ranged weapons like PPCs and LRMs, and whine when they hit maps like Alpine more than once an hour.

You are never going to make someone like that "have a better experience" on Alpine. So maybe we make it so they never have to drop on Alpine, but now they have a super focused mech with no downfalls on the maps they play because they have taken out any map that might make them engage at 500+ meters. Maybe that is exactly what the player wants(and I've seen it suggested) but it is not the vision for the game.

--------------------------------------------------

Now, I agree that the developers need to consider that and work towards that end, but I also believe they need to shut down things that let players play the game beyond the way intended. PGI in our example is making changes to Night Vision and Thermal in an attempt to make some of these maps more playable.

They are also working on CW which may lead to changes in the way we drop as well as 12 vrs 12 which could mean that a specialized mech still has a purpose even on maps it doesn't fair as well on even if it is simply guarding a flank or support.

Until those changes go into place though, they need to lock down things that allow players to gain an unfair advantage over others which certain map exploits really are. The rest of us build to drop on a wide range of maps and some simply remove the ones their specialize mech doesn't shine in. Even if you made playing in other areas less onerous they would still do it simply to get the One-Up on the other players.

[warner2]

By the way, good post OP. You're absolutely right, there is an underlying problem to solve.

It reminds me of this post I saw a while ago where barriers on a university campus were being put up to try and stop people walking across the grass (the real problem to solve being, why are people walking across the grass in the first place?):

http://www.peterme.c...ves/000073.html

Kind of relevant. Sorta.

[Esplodin]

jay35, on 02 April 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

That's why the solutions that are most likely to work best don't actually allow specific control of individual map selection, they focus on improving the experience such that file hacking or disconnecting become less appealing than playing the match.

I agree with this thinking, but it is flawed in this instance. There is no way to make Alpine more appealing to someone who wants to only play a short range brawler with huge Alpha and tiny engine. There is no way to make a night map more appealing to someone who hates night vision - blue warrior or otherwise. There is no way to make a desert map compatible with a high heat mech build.

The flaws that would need fixing are the exact features that make those maps unique and challenging. Lets face it, some people don't deal well with challenge which is the real problem. Dynamic and adaptable thinking is usually crushed out of most people by the 3rd grade. Heck, I'd be happy if they could fix the maps so I don't get stuck in geometry just about every game.

And pro-tip: Saying "fix it" doesn't really help matters. "I have this idea to fix X" works much better. There is even a forum sub-topic for that.

[Roadbeer]

I have nothing to mock here. Looks legit.

Good post OP

I give this thread...

THE ROADBEER STAMP OF APPROVAL

[jay35]

Esplodin, on 02 April 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

I agree with this thinking, but it is flawed in this instance. There is no way to make Alpine more appealing to someone who wants to only play a short range brawler with huge Alpha and tiny engine. There is no way to make a night map more appealing to someone who hates night vision - blue warrior or otherwise. There is no way to make a desert map compatible with a high heat mech build.

The flaws that would need fixing are the exact features that make those maps unique and challenging. Lets face it, some people don't deal well with challenge which is the real problem. Dynamic and adaptable thinking is usually crushed out of most people by the 3rd grade. Heck, I'd be happy if they could fix the maps so I don't get stuck in geometry just about every game.

That all assumes you know precisely why people are disconnecting or removing files. I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that the times I've disconnected from Tourmaline were because it came up multiple times in a row. Also, when you're grinding an Atlas, which is dirt slow for all of its really effective builds, you really get tired of the long walk to the front line. That's not a min-max problem, that's just a fact of life for the Atlas chassis. Probably the Stalker as well, but I don't own any of those.

[Odanan]

I have an idea for fixing River City Night: remove it from the game.

PS: I never disconnected from the game, even if I hate RCN. I just rage quit the game after playing that map.

Edited by Odanan, 02 April 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Esplodin]

jay35, on 02 April 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that the times I've disconnected from Tourmaline were because it came up multiple times in a row. Also, when you're grinding an Atlas, which is dirt slow for all of its really effective builds, you really get tired of the long walk to the front line. That's not a min-max problem, that's just a fact of life for the Atlas chassis. Probably the Stalker as well, but I don't own any of those.

Sorry, but that is one of the built in downsides of driving an assault, just like tissue armor is the downside of a Spider. Its a choice to drive a heavy weapons platform. Don't expect to land it on favorable terrain all the time and build your load out for it. And you are min-maxing in those "really effective" builds. You want painful grind? Master a SDR-5K. Then talk to me about pain.

As a side note, you are a jerk for disconnecting for any reason other than game bugs or a dropped connection and I have half a mind to report you for doing so. How fun do you think it was for your team because the map was too big for your standard 100 engine? Stop being entitled and learn the chassis - the bad and the good.

Edited by Esplodin, 02 April 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Jungle Rhino]

If people want to bring splatcats they need to suck it up and clench buttock when Alpine catches up with them. Simple as that. Nothing I like more than shooting ears off a splat in Alpine, it's like therapy for all those River City Night matches.

[Mercules]

warner2, on 02 April 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

I see your point of view, but what could be more stale than using these so called "balanced" mechs all of the time? What's the point of different maps (hot, cold, low gravity, high gravity, good visibility, poor visibility, large, small, with cover, without cover) if we all just use the same "balanced" mechs on them? Are not able to take advantage of each maps characteristics? Have one average, jack-of-all-trades chassis to suit all maps?

You don't have to use a jack-of-all-trades mech but you do have to keep in mind that conditions might not always be ideal for your mech. My friend used a mostly brawler Atlas last night, his founders one. It was very potent up close and in your face... but at the suggestion of another friend he retained the LRM20. Now most people would advise dropping it in favor of an SRM6.

Keeping it meant that when his brawler hit Alpine, Tourmaline, and even on smaller maps he had something to contribute to the fight until he was in close. In some cases we were able to keep the enemy team off a ridge while he closed and his LRM20 contributed to that. Then once he was in position the rest of us would advance to match him. There were other times it was useful to finish off a fleeing mech that might have otherwise gotten out of range of his main weapons.

[Adridos]

So those damn AC/20 boat teams can easily get rid of the only thing that can defet them... Alpine Peaks?

No.

[l4Dl]

jay35, on 01 April 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Example: We know some players are modifying certain files so they don't have to drop on certain maps.
Initial Reaction: Figure out a way to stop them from doing it.

A complete lack of care/attention on PGi's part here.
Making a game and leaving everything open in a .pak file is just amature. A little encryption protects the hard work a dev team makes, and, prevents people messing with the files, very supprised its been ignored.

Anyone could use the models/scripts and basically make their own version of this game. The only thing missing is the server-side code which shouldnt be too much work.

[jay35]

Esplodin, on 02 April 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

Sorry, but that is one of the built in downsides of driving an assault, just like tissue armor is the downside of a Spider. Its a choice to drive a heavy weapons platform. Don't expect to land it on favorable terrain all the time.

But that's just it: I've never quit due to a lack of "favorable terrain", only due to the game repetitively placing me on the largest map match after match after match with no incentive to play it, which is a problem that can be easily solved. I'm not the target case here and if you are addressing me in such a manner, you're missing the point of the post.

Perhaps that's my fault for not making the proposed solution clear enough. What I think would help immensely in all cases, would be to balance the rewards by the average length of time the map takes to play across the community. We know Alpine tends to take roughly 25% longer and Tourmaline takes roughly 50% longer, than the rest of the maps. Thus, starting with the current rewards level, increase the reward scaling on those two maps accordingly, so the extra time invested in playing matches on those maps is not wasted. Incentivize people to play all of the maps by balancing their payouts by the time invested in the average match on them. That makes the grind more acceptable and should alleviate a significant portion of the disconnecting disaffected players. Just a guess, but one that would be fairly easy to implement to test with no real downside.

Edited by jay35, 02 April 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[Mancu]

PUG matches are random by design. If you want to pick the terrain you fight on then wait until CW comes out and only attack those types of maps.

[jay35]

Adridos, on 02 April 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

So those damn AC/20 boat teams can easily get rid of the only thing that can defet them... Alpine Peaks?

No.

Another post evidencing that I've failed to make clear my actual proposal. I've updated the topic post to expose the proposed solution (it was within one of the spoilered sections) and bolded it. Hopefully that helps clarify a bit.

Mancu, on 02 April 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

PUG matches are random by design. If you want to pick the terrain you fight on then wait until CW comes out and only attack those types of maps.

Same for you. Missed the point. Probably my fault, though.

[Shumabot]

Get rid of the games two worst maps, River City Night and Alpine and suddenly people aren't forcing disconnects to avoid playing on them. Both are abysmal, unbalanced, and fail completely to interact with the games objectives. Night has an excuse that it's just really dark, but honestly, Alpine is beyond saving. It is the worst map I have ever seen, it's designed terribly for gameplay, for interaction with objectives, and it just looks awful.

Given that it took them a year to make river city night playable (assuming the vision mode changes do that at all) and alpine is brand new implies that they're not going to be addressing these issues anytime soon.

Edited by Shumabot, 02 April 2013 - 05:48 AM.