Lobby demands reach new heights!
9 Oct 2013, 03:08 AM
#21
Posts: 401
One of the reasons why it's not in the game is that CoH2 uses steam's networking and matchmaking services as part of Steamworks. However, Valve can be pretty flaky about certain things. They'll really only implement features that go into DOTA2. Since DOTA2 doesn't have old style lobbies meant that Relic would have to write their own and host those servers, which means more time and money spent on something that has a much a negative as a positive effect on the community.
9 Oct 2013, 11:14 AM
#22
Posts: 829
Don't know if you weren't reading, but the reason why people didn't use automatch were many. One of which was that lobbies existed and people tended to be directed to them. The concept of automatching was actually somewhat new and untried since console multiplayer wasn't as big a thing.
Another problem with CoH1 automatch was that the system fractured player pools many times over. First there was the split between Allies and Axis, then you would choose between 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 which were all separate pools of players.
CoH2 fixes most of that by letting players choose checkboxes for multiple modes, maximizing the number of players in each pool.
Bottom line is, you don't actually know how many people actually were happy with lobbies. What you have is anecdotal, and while many did have a positive experience, the vast majority did not. I'd wager real money that most people either don't care, or found lobbies appalling.
A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how vocal. A few facebook posts doesn't equal a majority, or "going to new levels."
I did read what you wrote, but I am not sure if you realize that you are talking on behalf of huge community. Your theories and assumptions may not be correct, its only your opinion.
As far as majority and 'vocal minority' I don't have the data nor knowledge to say who is majority or minority. I know that most people who bought COH2 play exclusively skirmishes and campaign (trumping everyone else combined by huge margin) I know this because of info given by Relic (Noun)
I also know that there is a large number of players who don't want to play COH2 because of lack of Public custom games. (from hundreds and hundreds of threads on official COH page and even more so on Steam)
I also know that I have 3 friends (not game friends) who bought the game but wont play, for that reason. You won't find their opinion anywhere because they are not stalking forums like you and I.
There is also large proportion of players I used to play COH with, that don't want to cross over from COH....
Your points about Lobby misuse, are fair and correct in part. But you are completely oblivious or deliberately discounting many good and positive things that Lobby system provided and, I say again, I had a lot of fun and made a lot of game friends.
I raised my opinion with Relic/Noun and its up to them to decide what is best for the longevity of the game.
I know that I will get bored with 1v1 and team matches with randoms even faster. (Already barely tolerating it) But hey, common good should prevail. Even if it means disappointment for me.
9 Oct 2013, 12:36 PM
#23
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedIgnoring his own logical fails and misrepresenting opponents position
1) The majority of vocal posters express a desire for a lobby.
2) The minority of vocal posters express a lack of desire for a lobby.
3) You claimed those expressing a desire for a lobby to be a "vocal minority", when in fact in terms of the vocal population, they are a MAJORITY, and YOU are the minority.
4a) If we posit that there are three conditions.
A) Wants lobby. B) Does not want lobby. C) Doesnt care.
4b) If we posit that the vocal minority is representative, proportionally, of the larger non-vocal majority.
4c) We can conclude that the vocal majority endorses a lobby, and that that vocal majority also represents the majority of the non-vocal community.
5) Arguing that lobbies are somehow a flaw that detracts from a game and should therefore be deliberately excluded, is fucking retarded and hilarious.
9 Oct 2013, 12:53 PM
#24
Posts: 401
Responses to BabaRoga:
Well, here's the thing. I do think there should be some way to get in games that is lobby-like, but definitely not like the old disjointed lobby system. If not solution can be found, I'd much rather there be no lobby system than something that doesn't work as well as possible.
The friend invite and custom games system is a way to bridge that gap. You just have to get used to having more people in your friends list, to help keep things organized, you can tag them as CoH2. The problem for some, not you, but some toxic people is that it'll be hard for them to make those friends.
Another method is to use Steam Groups, create a generic group and use group chat. Then you can create parties to go into custom matches from within that chat.
However, I still believe that all players should be directed to automatch first and foremost.
And figuring out how to allow some kind of lobby, while still making sure as many people use automatch as possible, and aren't idling on the server getting into trouble or being toxic, and instead are contributing to that positive lobby experience. Well, that's the toughest part of multiplayer game design.
It's a bigger problem that just adding in lobbies, even if Steam/Valve had support for it this very moment, it would still be an issue that would prevent or delay its inclusion.
The biggest online multiplayer games out there spend a lot of time and resources doing that very thing. League of Legends literally has psychologists on the payroll coming up with schemes to promote more positive play, including both positive for good behavior and negative reinforcement for bad behavior.
And it costs money and time to get such systems in place, CoH2 may not be big enough to warrant that effort.
Nullist: Sorry, what's that? Can't hear your arguments over the sound of all that hot air escaping from your head.
Well, here's the thing. I do think there should be some way to get in games that is lobby-like, but definitely not like the old disjointed lobby system. If not solution can be found, I'd much rather there be no lobby system than something that doesn't work as well as possible.
The friend invite and custom games system is a way to bridge that gap. You just have to get used to having more people in your friends list, to help keep things organized, you can tag them as CoH2. The problem for some, not you, but some toxic people is that it'll be hard for them to make those friends.
Another method is to use Steam Groups, create a generic group and use group chat. Then you can create parties to go into custom matches from within that chat.
However, I still believe that all players should be directed to automatch first and foremost.
And figuring out how to allow some kind of lobby, while still making sure as many people use automatch as possible, and aren't idling on the server getting into trouble or being toxic, and instead are contributing to that positive lobby experience. Well, that's the toughest part of multiplayer game design.
It's a bigger problem that just adding in lobbies, even if Steam/Valve had support for it this very moment, it would still be an issue that would prevent or delay its inclusion.
The biggest online multiplayer games out there spend a lot of time and resources doing that very thing. League of Legends literally has psychologists on the payroll coming up with schemes to promote more positive play, including both positive for good behavior and negative reinforcement for bad behavior.
And it costs money and time to get such systems in place, CoH2 may not be big enough to warrant that effort.
Nullist: Sorry, what's that? Can't hear your arguments over the sound of all that hot air escaping from your head.
9 Oct 2013, 12:59 PM
#25
Posts: 89
What I don't get is why the social part of gaming has been left in the shadows as of late?
The most popular online games that I played, Diablo 1 and 2, Starcraft 1, warcraft 3, Company of Heroes 1 and a plethora of MMO's had excellent ways to communicate with others, both ingame and on the forums.
They had ladder systems, customizable chatrooms, map editors and also a super easy way to share those maps etc.
Where do you think DotA came from? From the map editor. That map has now been remade into standalone games that earn millions of dollars a year.
Nowadays, games are shipped completely stripped of one of the most important things about online gaming; Ladders to compete with and chatrooms where you can talk with people who enjoy doing the same thing you do.
I like COH2 but to ship it without any chatrooms or ladders is just weak. Extremely weak.
Diablo 3 is another weak example that comes to mind. No ladder and super weak social tools. What were they thinking?
The most popular online games that I played, Diablo 1 and 2, Starcraft 1, warcraft 3, Company of Heroes 1 and a plethora of MMO's had excellent ways to communicate with others, both ingame and on the forums.
They had ladder systems, customizable chatrooms, map editors and also a super easy way to share those maps etc.
Where do you think DotA came from? From the map editor. That map has now been remade into standalone games that earn millions of dollars a year.
Nowadays, games are shipped completely stripped of one of the most important things about online gaming; Ladders to compete with and chatrooms where you can talk with people who enjoy doing the same thing you do.
I like COH2 but to ship it without any chatrooms or ladders is just weak. Extremely weak.
Diablo 3 is another weak example that comes to mind. No ladder and super weak social tools. What were they thinking?
9 Oct 2013, 14:59 PM
#26
Posts: 879
Yes, it seems to be a general Internet trend to decrease the chances of actually meeting new people online and encouraging people to stay in their small communities and hang with the friends they have. I remember when Facebook had a great photo-tagging app called SocialMe, I loved that app, I met a lot of cool people, including a French guy I went to visit in Canada, and got a couple of dates.
I suppose the technocrats of our new brave Internet society think lobbies and applications that promote random encounters are more trouble than they're worth.
If it hadn't been for the lobbies, and meeting people in them, I would never have stayed with the game or increased my skill level.
And I am one of the few who seems to enjoy all game modes. 4v4 is chaotic and fun as hell, but I also do competitive 1v1 and 2v2. I just fail to see how it was ever a good decision to take features away. COH never had a problem with the community being separated into pub and competitive players, and 2v2 ranked (non-AT) was a great bridge between the two worlds. And there is such a thing as competitive 4v4, when both teams have high enough skill levels. I had one of the few teams that even did the 4v4 AT when it was available.
I suppose the technocrats of our new brave Internet society think lobbies and applications that promote random encounters are more trouble than they're worth.
If it hadn't been for the lobbies, and meeting people in them, I would never have stayed with the game or increased my skill level.
And I am one of the few who seems to enjoy all game modes. 4v4 is chaotic and fun as hell, but I also do competitive 1v1 and 2v2. I just fail to see how it was ever a good decision to take features away. COH never had a problem with the community being separated into pub and competitive players, and 2v2 ranked (non-AT) was a great bridge between the two worlds. And there is such a thing as competitive 4v4, when both teams have high enough skill levels. I had one of the few teams that even did the 4v4 AT when it was available.
9 Oct 2013, 16:01 PM
#27
Posts: 954
I'm just surprised a RTS game from year of 2013 launched without lobby....
First off all. Tripwire so gud, 10 ammo for a whole dead squad ? + sight.
Vehicle capture point can win games, blitzkrieg save a tank. Fair Deal i think
9 Oct 2013, 16:02 PM
#28
Posts: 86
i would like to see the lobbies from coho again. it made finding some matches like annihilation actually possible on a daily basis, but maybe i am a minority?
9 Oct 2013, 21:14 PM
#29
Posts: 247
Im having a hard time understandig some of these arguments. Some guys dont want lobbies, because to many people were playing in the lobbies, so the segment playing automatch had a hard time finding oponents?
If most people preffered custom games, how would it be a good idea to force them over to an, in theire(our) oppinion, inferior alternative, basicly chasing off a huge part of the potential player base?
If most people preffered custom games, how would it be a good idea to force them over to an, in theire(our) oppinion, inferior alternative, basicly chasing off a huge part of the potential player base?
9 Oct 2013, 21:18 PM
#30
Posts: 247
We certainly know that a vocal segment of the fanbase would like to see classic lobbies back.
Good to hear. Im certain you knew during development and shortly after the release as well, so I would have appreciated if you had been honest about this all the way. When a lot of forum users, and even one of your most profiled mods, claimed that lobbies were going to be in the game eventually, I would expect you to clarify. Even if it might have costed you sales.
10 Oct 2013, 05:30 AM
#31
Posts: 829
Responses to BabaRoga:
The friend invite and custom games system is a way to bridge that gap. You just have to get used to having more people in your friends list, to help keep things organized, you can tag them as CoH2. The problem for some, not you, but some toxic people is that it'll be hard for them to make those friends.
Another method is to use Steam Groups, create a generic group and use group chat. Then you can create parties to go into custom matches from within that chat.
I don't have to get used to anything, Either I enjoy the game or I don't. Its just a game, I will survive. I don't think I am toxic, but I don't want to go through so much effort to play a game.
It's a bigger problem that just adding in lobbies, even if Steam/Valve had support for it this very moment, it would still be an issue that would prevent or delay its inclusion.
There is no problem there, as far as I am aware. Problem is that Relic took an easy way out from dealing with problem you described :
The biggest online multiplayer games out there spend a lot of time and resources doing that very thing. League of Legends literally has psychologists on the payroll coming up with schemes to promote more positive play, including both positive for good behavior and negative reinforcement for bad behavior.
And it costs money and time to get such systems in place, CoH2 may not be big enough to warrant that effort.
Bottom line is, I bought the game for my own enjoyment not someone elses. If I cannot enjoy the game in convinient way and not feel like I am at work and do logistics and planning, thats where the argument ends for me.
10 Oct 2013, 06:17 AM
#32
1 
Posts: 44 | Subs: 1
Wait... I'm reading this and it sounds like the lobby system is not going to be implemented? That must be wrong... I remember when I pre-ordered and it was a feature. I remember the beta when it wasn't there. Then came launch and still no lobby. Relic said it was because of some "third party" right? ...and they were waiting on them. So when is the lobby system coming?
Wasnt that the leaderboard?
And why not create a Steam Group named "CoH2-custom games" until we actually get a lobby?
10 Oct 2013, 10:38 AM
#33
Posts: 336
Aren't the most vocal, influential community members primarily competitive players who, like myself, are not thrilled about a lobby with the likes of Itchaikovsky, Theenglishcommando etc.?
There Used To Be Great Nullist Quotes Here.
10 Oct 2013, 13:14 PM
#34
Posts: 45
I like CoH 2 mode selection, so you can chose to play any of selected modes (1vs1 to 4vs4) without being confined to only one at a time.
Only thing I would wish for the match lobby is ability to choose "random" faction, so it will choose me faction for which I get best match, it would allow shorter matching time as well
.
Also random faction settings encourage to play both factions.
In CoH i often didn't know what faction choose today so I select random and let game to surprise me
Only thing I would wish for the match lobby is ability to choose "random" faction, so it will choose me faction for which I get best match, it would allow shorter matching time as well
.Also random faction settings encourage to play both factions.
In CoH i often didn't know what faction choose today so I select random and let game to surprise me
10 Oct 2013, 16:48 PM
#35
Posts: 83
I'm starting to think this game is better without lobbies. By having both auto match and lobbies you are splitting the community. This means that fewer and fewer people will play automatch because it will take longer to find a game. Eventually automatch will die and you will only be left with lobbies.
Lobbies and leaderboards don't really go well together either. But I don't care so much about leaderboards either.
I do like getting good matches though, which auto match is the best at since it tries to match up players of similar skill.
Lobbies and leaderboards don't really go well together either. But I don't care so much about leaderboards either.
I do like getting good matches though, which auto match is the best at since it tries to match up players of similar skill.
10 Oct 2013, 16:56 PM
#36
4 Posts: 813 | Subs: 1
And why not create a Steam Group named "CoH2-custom games" until we actually get a lobby?
Most likely the best idea for a quickfix in thread
10 Oct 2013, 17:07 PM
#37
Posts: 247
I'm starting to think this game is better without lobbies. By having both auto match and lobbies you are splitting the community. This means that fewer and fewer people will play automatch because it will take longer to find a game. Eventually automatch will die and you will only be left with lobbies.
If thats the case, and people would preffer playing custom games, whats the problem? If you couldnt find oponents in automatch because most people were playing custom games, Id say that it was a great decition to reintroduce the most favoured gametype, wouldnt you?
Secondly, if you try to force people who dont like automatch and VP to play that way, a lot will just quit the game, wich people apparently are doing. Dont you guys understand that forcing a huge part of the playerbase away will hurt you as well?
10 Oct 2013, 18:27 PM
#38
Posts: 83
If thats the case, and people would preffer playing custom games, whats the problem? If you couldnt find oponents in automatch because most people were playing custom games, Id say that it was a great decition to reintroduce the most favoured gametype, wouldnt you?
Secondly, if you try to force people who dont like automatch and VP to play that way, a lot will just quit the game, wich people apparently are doing. Dont you guys understand that forcing a huge part of the playerbase away will hurt you as well?
That is really the question isn't it? Of the total playerbase (not just the vocal ones), what is the preference? Either way there clearly is a split.
I know they had that ingame survey. Hopefully that helps them figure it out.
But in the end, as I stated, it is my opinion that the game is better with auto match vs lobbies.
However, I don't think it would be bad to have a meeting place for people to form custom games. A simple custom game chat room would probably suffice. That would keep people who really want custom games focused in there and everyone else can do the one click automatch.
10 Oct 2013, 18:39 PM
#39
Posts: 247
That is really the question isn't it? Of the total playerbase (not just the vocal ones), what is the preference? Either way there clearly is a split.
I know they had that ingame survey. Hopefully that helps them figure it out.
But in the end, as I stated, it is my opinion that the game is better with auto match vs lobbies.
However, I don't think it would be bad to have a meeting place for people to form custom games. A simple custom game chat room would probably suffice. That would keep people who really want custom games focused in there and everyone else can do the one click automatch.
It really is. However I se a lot of posts where people dont want lobbies, because then they would have problem finding people to automatch with. I think that is, at least, and indication.
In the "hardcore" segment, automatch and VP players are abviously the majority, but in the total potential playerbase I think that segment would find themselves a vast minority, as I rarely see the regulair RTS player cherring for VP games. It isnt excatly a gamemode that people wish for when a new game is announced.
The survey sadly, if I remember correctly, didnt ask about public lobbies, but wether or not more options in custo games was needed. So im not holding my breath. It seams obvious to me that more players would play the game if they were allowed to play the mode and map they wanted, but then again im not a developer or marketer.
I dont think vCOH would have ever been able to maintain such a playerbase for such a long time, without public lobbies, and I dont see COH2 repeating the success of the original, the way things are now.
17 Oct 2013, 11:43 AM
#40
Posts: 1042
If you want annihilation, why not just chuck in an option in automatch to take either a VP or annihilation game. I'd be fine with either really.
2 users are browsing this thread:
2 guests
Livestreams
 |
|
|
21 | ||
 |
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
188 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.839223.790+2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.922406.694+1
- 9.1122623.643+3
- 10.265138.658+2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
10
Download
1245