Jump to content
Urnodaisy

No Server Browser. No Community. No Sales!

Recommended Posts

Even as a somewhat casual player these days who can only log on after a day of work, I would still like a server browser as I like to do a bit of searching for a good server and have a list of Starred or Favorite servers. I sometimes play on servers where I am greeted when I log in. Thats an experience that cannot be replaced by any amount of matchmaking fixes. 

Edited by Butta On Tha Pancakes
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"High skill" servers is the next problem. Currently teams are often un-balanced and if you have a bunch of people effectively communicating with each other they will have a major advantage from the random people which have average to good skills. You'll have one team dominating the entire server I can promise you that. 

 

I do understand wanting to play with people you know maybe to get a better feeling in game. 

 

My thought was to implement something like TeamSpeak into the game. Not the standard cheap in game voice over IP but a proper decent voice channel browser. Unfortunately this is not very realistic due to the lack of control for people saying nasty things etc. More problems then it would solve. 

 

A server browser is an existing concept but this discussion I think needs an entirely new concept to tackle the problems and take note of the advantages mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maddinii said:

a bunch of people effectively communicating with each other they will have a major advantage from the random people which have average to good skills.

Ain't that the ultimate goal of teaming up?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it'll be nice if you are on the winning team but everybody else is going to complain. 

It's arguably an advantage that the enemy team does not have even tho they could have it. 

Do you want to wait for your friends every time you feel like playing just to not get absolutely destroyed? Sometimes you just want to join the game and have a nice battle 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CapybaraPaul said:

Ain't that the ultimate goal of teaming up?
 

Yep. If you aren't working together you aren't going to win. Yeah that's kind of the end goal. Stomping on a "team" thats full of lone wolfs is very satisfying indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, maddinii said:

Yeah it'll be nice if you are on the winning team but everybody else is going to complain. 

It's arguably an advantage that the enemy team does not have even tho they could have it. 

Do you want to wait for your friends every time you feel like playing just to not get absolutely destroyed? Sometimes you just want to join the game and have a nice battle 

So what do you suggest? 
To disable the option to play as a party? Preposterous.
To balance game such way that playing a team ain't rewarding? Equally preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CapybaraPaul said:

So what do you suggest? 
To disable the option to play as a party? Preposterous.
To balance game such way that playing a team ain't rewarding? Equally preposterous.

 

This was about pros and cons of server browser, so i`m not sure where you got that from. I never said anything about disabling that or over-balancing the game. 

Playing as a party is one thing, but playing as a large group of people another. There is a massive difference from having a team and having an army. 

 

As for the second thing, that gets a bit closer to it so the answer is yes. Rewarding a group of players because they have a major advantage is just wrong. Players should be rewarded on skill and knowledge. I`m particularly thinking about Moscow map smal bravo 2. A room with 3 doors. People that work in a team with good communication will have each door guarded and can easily capture or defend that point. It is extremely difficult to get players you don`t know to all look in different direction. For me it is common sense to guard all doors but apparently this does not apply to everybody. Not rewarding the team for being effective and good is the wrong approach, they do deserve a reward but this however is a small team. Now read twice first: They do deserve a reward. With 5 people it`s great and balancing the teams will be more easy, since you could just put a few skilled players in the opposing team.  


Now imagine you have 15 players like that. 15 players effectively working as a team thrown in a match against a bunch of randoms. I totally get that this will be fun for the winning team, but it won`t be for casual players and will make them think to join a team. Some even might join a team and they`ll do it them selfs up to a point where no match is fair anymore. I can`t see the benefits in this, sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it will become a surprise for you, but a single skilled squad with voice will rape out any team of randoms in any game like BF|WW3.
And yes. If you have good communication YOU WILL dominate your enemy. And that the point of good communication. 
What you are suggesting is killing teamplay. 

6 minutes ago, maddinii said:

People that work in a team with good communication will have each door guarded and can easily capture or defend that point.

Exactly! And this is what called GOOD GAME DESIGN.  You play together - you win. You don't play together - you lose.
Oh, and have you ever seen 15 teamed up players in such game? Neither did I.
And there is no technical opportunity to create such big parties in WW3 I assume. 

8 minutes ago, maddinii said:

For me it is common sense

For me, its common sense when good communicating average squad outperforms better-skilled solo players. It is how it supposed to be. It is what is called a good game design.

So if 5 people squad dominates entire server lets kill squads and team play at all.
And if 5 people domination server is ok to you (if you think that giving 5 random skilled enemies to other team will change something you are wrong), then why 15 is an issue?
I can't see any logic in your posts, sorry;)
ÐаÑÑинки по запÑоÑÑ dunno

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, maddinii said:

Now imagine you have 15 players like that. 15 players effectively working as a team thrown in a match against a bunch of randoms. I totally get that this will be fun for the winning team, but it won`t be for casual players and will make them think to join a team. Some even might join a team and they`ll do it them selfs up to a point where no match is fair anymore. I can`t see the benefits in this, sorry. 

bUt tHiNk AbOuT thE CaSuAl PlAYers!

The number of great franchises ruined because of that one phrase. Oh God

If you want a lollygagging shoot shoot shoot pew pew pew with no teamwork go populate TDM servers. This is actually why we need to separate the player base with dedicated servers. I for sure don't want players complaining that my team is working together too hard ?. NOPE we gotta dumb the whole game down so casuals are happy! Because that's worked so well for AAA titles. 

Edited by Butta On Tha Pancakes
expanding post
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly people have different opinions, but if you want to criticize me then don`t just pick out what suits your purpose. You have to read and understand the text as whole. I did say, that team play should be rewarded. 

And yes, there is no technical opportunity for 15 players in a team and that`s my point. Giving the game a server browser you will provide exactly that opportunity. 

 

I had to google "AAA titles" to actually understand what you meant and i`m pretty sure i still didn`t get it sorry. You mean major titles have failed because they cared about their casual players? I highly doubt that. 

 

 

You like the Idea, i don`t. You posted your thoughts i posted mine. Now you are trying what exactly? What`s the point of all that. 

 

That god for my dogs.. Have a nice day, i`m out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big issue is that people would not chose a empty server to start a match and will try to join a server with people in it that could be anywhere in time to completion of that match causing the same issues. You would need to be able to show the time left in the match along with tickets for each side.

People are not going to all choose to join the same empty server at the same time. That is impracticable there needs to be a starting lobby that matchmaking puts people into so the games get started.

Having a server browser would keep a lot of problems and stop a fix to most of the issues. Plus we dont have the player base right now to have enough matches ending for player turn over to refill the next match. The issue will continue to exist.

Seeing what F51 does with sever browser could be good but most of the time it's meh in games. Server browser wont fix the game which every one is hoping for. You need people to be placed there by a system.

 

I do like the love for Tryharding and Hardcore players which are compliments but some people take offense to some one trying hard especially on the discord. I hope we get a game that is made mainly for Hardcore players instead of casuals finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Server browser would be very nice (ideally the way BF4 had it with "loadout" options :D please). From time to time I'm hitting an empty server and nobody joins, have to bail-out. I've never managed to play a 64 player game so we could have those maps "topped up" nicely and join the largest battles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the development team is using data targeted at newer gamers. Everything else about WW3 screams "old time FPS players/mil sim players" to me. I thought the game was always supposed to appeal to old school BF players, not newer CoD/BF1 and V players.

I'm 26, not sure if that counts as newer, but I've been gaming for about 15 years and I vastly prefer a server browser to matchmaking.

Edited by DoctorMcBatman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 1:13 PM, VBK-Anarchie said:

There will be everything in a way that WW3 imagines
But everything still needs to be done,it's still an EA game
leave them time

+1 for server browser and lobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so to make everything clear with this situation: we're all for a server browser in WW3, this is not the case of us not being able to do it, far from - it's already done in a bare-bones fashion just for testing purposes, but it has to be done right, not just slapped together and 'there ya go, happy?'.

The problem we have is with matchmaking needing players using it. Once we're happy with how it works, we can take a look at making a good server browser, with suggested gamemodes and maps, rewards for playing certain combinations (so we don't have dead gamemodes) and a looot of other cool stuff.

But before we do thi, remember: ranked is not in, matching by skill is not in, clan system is not in, modding is not in, community servers are not in - and it all is a big system that needs balancing and time, just like the game itself, it all needs to be included in the matchmaking.

We know it's not ideal and we're constantly evaluating our plans, so we do what's best for the game - in the long run.

Now, if it takes longer than we think to get the matchmaking in order, we can deploy a simple server browser in a matter of days, so it's not a closed topic at all, but for now we're planning on making it easier to play together and in bigger groups, like joining on people already playing and maybe bigger lobbies, we also had an idea of making lobbies for versus TDM, kind of a rudimentary clan war scenario - but that takes time and we need to fix bugs and optimize first - it'll be worth the wait, you'll see :)

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ragir said:

OK, so to make everything clear with this situation: we're all for a server browser in WW3, this is not the case of us not being able to do it, far from - it's already done in a bare-bones fashion just for testing purposes, but it has to be done right, not just slapped together and 'there ya go, happy?'.

The problem we have is with matchmaking needing players using it. Once we're happy with how it works, we can take a look at making a good server browser, with suggested gamemodes and maps, rewards for playing certain combinations (so we don't have dead gamemodes) and a looot of other cool stuff.

But before we do thi, remember: ranked is not in, matching by skill is not in, clan system is not in, modding is not in, community servers are not in - and it all is a big system that needs balancing and time, just like the game itself, it all needs to be included in the matchmaking.

We know it's not ideal and we're constantly evaluating our plans, so we do what's best for the game - in the long run.

Now, if it takes longer than we think to get the matchmaking in order, we can deploy a simple server browser in a matter of days, so it's not a closed topic at all, but for now we're planning on making it easier to play together and in bigger groups, like joining on people already playing and maybe bigger lobbies, we also had an idea of making lobbies for versus TDM, kind of a rudimentary clan war scenario - but that takes time and we need to fix bugs and optimize first - it'll be worth the wait, you'll see :)

Whenever Ragir comes into a thread its kind of like a divine presence speaking to humans on earth. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DoctorMcBatman said:

I'm surprised the development team is using data targeted at newer gamers. Everything else about WW3 screams "old time FPS players/mil sim players" to me. I thought the game was always supposed to appeal to old school BF players, not newer CoD/BF1 and V players.

I'm 26, not sure if that counts as newer, but I've been gaming for about 15 years and I vastly prefer a server browser to matchmaking.

I agree with you,I'm the same age as you and have been in gaming since i was 8, and i support what you said.But devs have a lot of thing to work on first before they add server browser.Many players still can't play this game properly,as a matter of fact,i'm only able to play team deathmatch,there's also optimization, providing more servers and more stable servers etc. I'm 200% sure that devs will add server browser in time but priority should be those problems i mentioned above,many people abandoned the game because of that. Once those issues get fixed,more players will come back to WW3 (in that time I also hope WW3 with server browser) :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RagirI know its bothersome to ask and I know it would take a few days as the team said, I know the developer team is super super super stressed as youve said in other threads. But last night I was matchmaking, game after game after game only getting empty servers. Both on NA and EU, Both Team Deathmatch and Warzone. After about maybe a half hour of going through these empty servers I finally got a lobby of warzone with 20 people. The match however only lasted 10 minutes and the way matchmaking works currently we were unable to keep the lobby together and when the match ends we are all fragmented across empty servers. The search continued for another playable lobby for about 20 more minutes and I just threw in the towel and went to bed. 

I tried again this morning when the player count is much higher, and its still an issue. It seams dead, but I know its the matchmaking, not the playercount. 

At this point I don't care about latency, I am just asking for a playable round. I know you are working your assess off to bring us a proper matchmaking experience and I have faith that it will come eventually, but this is just killing my ability to enjoy the game. I spend at least double if not more than double the time searching for a lobby to shoot people in, than actually shooting people in lobbies. 

I know you guys are working on hundreds of bug fixes and are up to your eyeballs in work but even a barebones server browser is wanted. I just want to get into a lobby. No matter the lag, it doesnt matter to me. Just a playable lobby. And it just takes too much work and time to find one for me to enjoy the experience. Not to mention the current length of matches, deems the Steam serverbrowser inadequate, as the time it takes to boot up the game is more often than not, longer than the match length. 

I know the game is not dead. I know its just a result of the matchmaking system that hasn't matured yet. But at this point i'm just tired of booting up the game with this experience. And I am someone who loves what you have created and have played almost daily since launch. I have over 80 hours in the game so far but I am just having trouble dealing with the frustration.  

Best of luck. 

Edited by Butta On Tha Pancakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2018 at 5:31 PM, weedtime said:

Server browser, also need to be connected with servers hosted by the community (still to be considered) and work together with modding tools and many other features.

 

Do you want allow  modding this game? Very bad news for me. I hate PvP games with mods :( It will be dead game for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer a standardized game that you know across the board every one is on the same playing field. I'm not toatally against mods but in a multiplayer game it is very off putting. I like every one being on the same page so you can have the base line standard to judge off of. Similar to one of the reasons I hate community servers that deviate to please a small crowd like that wants a part of the game changed that could totally break the game for for everyone else. pulling them away from the rest of the game.

there's a reasons everything isn't a toggle option in games.

 

match making has issue which are not solvable by server selection right now.

it's the biggest issue right now is mm and that are working on that first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I tried to get a match today and servers are empty it's hard to get into any kind of game, TDM is better but it's a mode that is bad in my opinion, over the 14 days player numbers are dropping like crazy 10-30% day to day. 

10 of my friends have bought WW3 and none of them is playing, for several reasons but we can't even play together as there is no browser, but few more days and even browser won't help with those number of players and how fast it's dropping. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're working on ways to improve our matchmaking, but as you can see it needs work - this is why we're postponing adding a server browser. We're also working on an autobalancer and a way to stay in game after match ends, so once you have people to play with, you can stay and keep playing. We hope it'll help a bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it will help right now with 100-200 players in the game (so it doesn't mean that all of them are actually playing - as they could be just in the game or having fun with equipment) it's impossible to get into full matches with 3 maps and 2 game modes. I can only play in those kind of hours and for last few days it's a nightmare and I can't have full matches. And I've been playing this game since launch and there is hardly anyone to play with. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are  there private servers in ww3 game if not developers can you add them pleasee I'm begging it would make this game perfect and I would buy it and it would make a lot of money please add private servers if there are None as of yet  this game would be perfect ! If you added them! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...