FORUM

[reto.bacon]

Please give us your thoughts on the new lobby system.

Best regards
Reto.Bacon

[dondergod]

Introduction:

Having already played some games with the lobby system.
We have seen a few problems with it. Mostly how easy it is to exploit the system.

It currently works like this:
- You need minimum 1vs1 to start a battle
- The battle auto-starts when 10vs10
- The battle starts under 10vs10 when everyone accepts battle

It gives the exploits:
- People will not enter a certain battle when it's really important.
For example, allies attack berlin, axis don't join the battle, it will never start and allies can never win the war.
-People will not press 'accept battle' because they either don't know they have to, or it's again important city, see previous point.

We came to the conclusion we needed a system that could solve the following problems:
- Side balance
- Mission balance
- Solo-capping
- Side not joining a mission on purpose
- Players blocking missions by joining a lobby but not pressing "attack" or similar
- Waiting time

The current system only works for 4/6 problems, but not for point 4 and point 5. Meaning we need some changes.

We have had a few small idea's how we could fix it,
- timers, but that would mean you can still have unbalanced battles, they just start a few minutes later
- Big lobby for everyone, but people want to chose which battles they fight, so won't work either.
- No lobby system, but when you fight 1/5 the 1 player gets more credits, the 5 get less. Sounds good, but with 40 allies online and 10 axis, those 40 allies want to fight, even it gives them less credits.
- Connected lobby system, the amount of players of all battles active need to be equal, rather then per battle. However, you can still have unbalanced missions and solocaps.

After a lot of discussions, we came to a plan to mix the connected lobby system and the imbalance credits system.
Not everyone agrees with it, but with crace build now also in normal servers, it's time to share the idea's with you guys, and maybe you guys have much better idea's.

Suggested new lobby system

How does it work?
- The total amount of players in all ongoing battles is the same.
- 1 player imbalanced is allowed.
- Per battle, you need a minimum of 2 players to start (2vs0, 1vs1, 0vs2)
- When a battle is imbalanced, you earn less/more credits.

explanation part 1:
-extended lobby system part explained

Let's say you have city A,B,C,D,E and F.

In battles A you have 3 allies, 2 axis
battle B you have 4 allies, 4 axis
battle C you have 10 allies, 8 axis
battle D you have 12 allies, 11 axis
battle E you have 14 allies, 6 axis

Means 43 allies vs 31 axis
Meaning you have 12 allies more then axis.
1 player imbalance is allowed.

This means:
battle F you have 2 allies, 13 axis.
total: 45 allies, 44 axis

Let's say the allies have 6 more guys waiting for a battle.
They are on a list on how they joined.

If I joined first I'm the first 1 to get into a battle when another axis player joins the lobby as well.

Now, let's say battle C ends.
That will all of a sudden mean, that there are 2 allies less in battle then there are axis.
Meaning that the first 2 allied player in the lobby system now join their battle.

explanation part 2:
-credits system explained

In battles A you have 3 allies, 2 axis
battle B you have 4 allies, 4 axis
battle C you have 10 allies, 8 axis
battle D you have 12 allies, 11 axis
battle E you have 14 allies, 6 axis
battle F you have 2 allies, 13 axis
battle G you have 2 allies, 0 axis
battle H you have 1 allies, 2 axis

Let's say all these players make 1000 credits in their battles.
With the imbalance credits system they get (per player):

Battle A
Allies: 667 each
Axis: 1500 each

Battle B
Allies: 1000
Axis: 1000

Battle C
Allies: 800 credits
Axis: 1250 credits

Battle D
Allies: 917 credits
Axis: 1091 credits

Battle E
Allies: 429 credits
Axis: 2333 credits

Battle F
Allies: 6500 credits
Axis: 154 credits

battle G
Allies: 10 credits (1%)
Axis: -

Battle H
Allies: 2000 credits
Axis: 500 credits


example 1 :

I'm using:
Allied:
Dondergod
Terxyn
Morn
Fishymaster
ZERO
Uruzsix
Aetherblade
Wildcatnate

Axis:
Killerspring
Knifur
Jumana
Fontan
Chlodovech
ScHrAnZDiNgEnS (logs in later)


Step 1: New war started. We start moving our units.
3 battles open

Step 2:
In lobby A the following players enter:
(AL)Dondergod
(AL)Terxyn
(AX)Killerspring

In lobby B the following players enter:
(AL) Morn
(AL) Fishymaster
(AX) Jumana
(AX) Knifur
(AX) Fontan

In Lobby C the following players enter:
(AL) ZERO
(AL) Uruzsix
(AL) Aetherblade
(AX) Chlodovech

Meaning, that in Lobby A you have:
2 allied, 1 axis
In Lobby B:
2 allied, 3 axis
In Lobby C:
2 allied, 1 axis.
In total:
7 allied, 5 axis

1 imbalance is allowed, so 6 allies may join. But the allies have 7 in the lobby's. Aetherblade, was the last player to join the battle, and will be put into a waiting list. All the other players in the lobby's, now enter the battle.
So, players fighting:
6 allied, 5 axis, 1 allied in lobby

step 3:
Wildcatnate, had already seen the battles were full, and decided to join an single player mission.

step 4:
Battle A ended.
All 3 players earn 1000 credits.
BUT, Dondergod and Terxyn were fighting 2:1, meaning their resources get halfed.
They both receive 500 credits.
Killerspring, was fighting 1:2, meaning his resources get doubles.
He recieves 2000 credits.

step 5:
The battles now know:
4 axis, 4 allies

Battles are balanced, but with 1 imbalance allowed, the first one in the list in the lobby system for the allies may join the battle.
Aetherblade joins into battle C.

step 6:
Dondergod and Terxyn decide to join another battle, they place themselves for battle B.

step 7:
Killerspring opens up another battle, and joins battle D himself.
ScHrAnZDiNgEnS logged in and joins battle D as well
Dondergod and Terxyn now join into battle B.

Meaning you now have the battles:

In battle B the following players fight:
(AL) Morn
(AL) Fishymaster
(AL) Dondergod
(AX) Jumana
(AX) Knifur
(AX) Fontan
(AL) terxyn

In battle C the following players fight:
(AL) ZERO
(AL) Aetherblade
(AX) Chlodovech

and in battle D the following players fight:
(AX) Killerspring
(AX) ScHrAnZDiNgEnS

meaning again in total:
7 allies fighting, 6 axis fighting, 1 allied in solomission.

example 2:



The 1st number in each battle is the allied players in the battles.
The +1 numbers, mean there are people waiting in the lobby
The last number is the axis player in battle.
The cred. percentage means how many credits the allied soldiers in those battle get.


Conclusions


- side balance:
Both sides are balanced, with +1 guy.

- Mission Balance:
With the credits system in place, players will look more careful what battles to join.
So you will get more balanced missions.

-Solo capping: Not completely, but it won't happen very often.
The minimum of 2 players per battle, will result in the fact that the other side has to react. If they let it come to 2vs0, it's their own fault.

-Side not joining a mission on purpose.
Only way to stop the other side from joining, is not join any battles at all. This won't happen.

-Player blocking missions by joining but not press 'attack' check (button can be removed with this system)
See point above

-Waiting time
With single player/coöp missions in place, players will always be able to join certain missions.

[Zeke]

The main problem of matchmaking in the game is ... do not have ...

The matchmaking is done by the player's decisions as a general in the game map. This gives some errors like:

Battle A: 8 vs 2 - Defense airport.
DEFEAT
Reason: We only had a detachment of BF 109, armed with blunt knives.

This gives some frustration… sometimes rolls, sometimes give an imbalance in your advantage. Then, as before the number is an imbalance ... that taking into account that comes from a decision of a player, them we accept it.

Otherwise this “accepted imbalance”, can not be compounded by the impartial decision of the player to decide which battle to participate. Unfortunately, the game forces you at the beginning of the war to select the side (Allies or Axis). It would be better to develop your character by soldier classes (without nationality) then assign “Allies or Axis” side at each battle. But maybe this isn’t a great problem in the future went we have a large quantity of playes.

The main problem is that the lobby system is subject to the willingness of the player. It’s a human quality: “Nobody likes to lose”, thus having an open matchmaking trend will always seek the balance in your advantage.

It is not uncommon to see the following:

Battle A: 1 vs 0
Battle B: 2 vs 8
Battle C: 2 vs 0
Battle D: 3 vs 0
Battle E: 2 vs 0

One side search the “easy cap”, second side the “Dampfwalze”

A matchmaking system mandatory battles in chronological order would be better.

Battle A: 10 vs 8
Battle B: 0 vs 0
Battle C: 0 vs 0
Battle D: 0 vs 0
Battle E: 0 vs 0

I would give a bonus credit to participants in numerical inferiority (why not, take it for the other side players).



PS: By the way, just for information. I select my battles in this order of values:

1 - PIN
2 - Strategic Importance of the battle or number of participants

[Gerhacht]

I like the credit bonus system for the outnumbered side in a battle as suggested by dondergod. Late joiners in a battle should not reduce the benefit of players that fight outnumbered before that. Guess thats a problem to be solved not that easy.
If a battle not started because players dont join the autoresolve should start within shorter time (e.g. 1-3min) after 1st player from either side joined. Furthermore, the outcome of that autosolved should be done in a short time of max 1min. If no player joined within 5 min the battle will be autosolved. (min to be discussed but should not be to long)

[LeibS_Solmai]

This new built has made everything worse:

1. This "you can only join in one battle and if your browser crash you have only one minute to get back" rule is really funny together with the 66% crash chance in every battle (just give less money for only spawning and more for doing something and cancel this rule).
2. this lobbysystem which needs 20 players on the server doesnt work with the the player count of max.30 players online at the moment ( I would prefer a game start with already 3v3).
3.You can hold a city forever if you go into the Lobby and dont press start (I would say the best for this is a Lobby time limit of 10 minutes, afterwards the battle starts no matter how many players are in).

And this credit bonus system wouldn´t work, too. I would hate it if I fought 20 minutes with a 4 man team against 7 enemys, and then one minute befor it ends, 6 friendly players join and I get nearly no money.

[jumana]

And this credit bonus system wouldn´t work, too. I would hate it if I fought 20 minutes with a 4 man team against 7 enemys, and then one minute befor it ends, 6 friendly players join and I get nearly no money.

How often did it happen to you that 6 players joined in the last minute of battle? To me it didn't happen that often - it's more common that some players leave the battle towards the end as far as I've seen. Anyway even if such a thing happened once it would not mean that you get "nearly no" money - if you get now 1000 credits you would get in a 4:7 situation 1750 and in a 7:4 situation still 571 - sure there is a difference but it's not the end of the world. And Reto could even consider to calculate the average player number (weighted against time) instead of the number of players finishing the mission to be even more exact with the payments.

[cRo4Ti4]

Will love see the actuall Lobby working vith allot players , cant , decide how it would work when a key "giveway" day will be done . we have to think on allot players online ready and hot to play a mission !!

the blocked Player thing / dont know how it works

the accept thing , needs a timer/ or when 70 % of players per side is ready ( acepted) game must start ( doesnt matter how much players are online per side)


hmm, letz test it first vith a Server stress test ( fast one in 1or2 days ? ) mail to all Veterans ?


(maybe a server stress test vithout new keys , then if it works , lets test how it ends when new Players Join ( dont know about the system) vith new beta keys )

ps. the auto battle doesnt work good seems .

Pps. C,mon comrades dont look only , give here your feedback, what has most nerv you , will you see something changed, or any idea comes up during reading other posts?

Trow in some ( few) words into the mind about. Use youre Time to write down ,what you feel. Doesnt matter how much harsh it is .

But still keep in mind , its able to be changed / fixed/ backrolled, needs maybe a liddle Time so keep pacience. ( dont forget its summer whole)

[killerspring]

find dondergod solution complicated

firtst i want to say i like the lay-out of the lobby system

second i heard it don't know it is so but you can't start a mision when their are no 1 player of every side and i find this bad

if you can controle your side players and say that map nobody joins and nobody join that battle the battle never start and will be auto resolved and that take a lot of time

when you do a blitzkrieg or something like that fast attack is important


rest of the topic go allot about team ballancing
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2432
i would take supply based methode from that topic from 2 players or with a percentage

1 person don't matter and will start the game

this will balance the games

now this is what i would do

you got 2 kind of games right now the ai generated and the real campaign missions

their are always 3 campaign missions allowed and 1 AI

then you look at the lowest amount of players on one side take 100axis 50 allies

50/10=5 (i took 10 because it is a easy number but that number need to tweak along with max players in 1 game can be)

then [b]5 campaign missions max[/b] can play

AI missions you just can choose in lobby if you want axis and allied and maybe a auto-balance system to just keep it fun (these games do 0.75 * credits and xp so you gain less then the campaign missions

and you just get a wait list for campaign battles

so if their are max 5 campaign battles and their are 7
when 1 campaign battles is won you still can join 5 campaign battles but now their are 6 etc


or something like that forcing people to play all battles and still able to choose some

this will reduce the overpop = win and softcap

it isn't a perfect system but what i have seen read so far i haven't found the "perfect" system yet

[cRo4Ti4]

Hmmm, ive miss more ideas / feedback here ... C,mon Comrades trow in something. Maybe were able create a mix out of it !

What ive miss liddle is that you cant alert anymore enemy , by start a battle ( vithout enemy) . So they are under pressure to join a mission (to defend) .

Too iam not sure if it will help , to lock at owners to own at too , so if you get atacked you have to react ! (as first on) ? by not be able join other war . ( bevore you help your own at, or retreat from frontline) .

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reto.Hal9k]

Hi, thanks for all the feedback so far!

The current lobby system introduced with Crace is not the final, but a first step towards the final layout. I'll explain a bit about the next iteration that we are currently working on (planned for the Eisenhower build).

Instead of having a fixed set of slots per faction (currently 12), the slots will reflect the assault teams participating in the battle and they will be specialized ie. requiring a specific character class. In order to take a tank driver slot you'll need a tank crew character.

The default character will also be removed, so you can't change role during a battle. We might later allow players to change character during battle, but that will not be part of the next iteration.

If you leave a match, the character instead of the player will be locked, allowing you to join the same or other battles using a different character.

We are still planning to also have a 'big' lobby, where players are auto assigned to missions, and at the same time allow core players to pick their own fights. This should help with some of the problems mentioned above. With a big lobby players can no longer block the start of certain missions, and it will ensure minimum waiting time and balanced games.

Hal9k

[dondergod]

People can still block, if 1 real player joins, and doesn't press the start button, it's blocked.

Also, not sure if it's wise to let the big lobby system unblock battles. It just all gets completely random that way.
Destroys the tactical part of the game if you let random events decide.

[Gaurav251]

Hi, thanks for all the feedback so far!

The current lobby system introduced with Crace is not the final, but a first step towards the final layout. I'll explain a bit about the next iteration that we are currently working on (planned for the Eisenhower build).

Instead of having a fixed set of slots per faction (currently 12), the slots will reflect the assault teams participating in the battle and they will be specialized ie. requiring a specific character class. In order to take a tank driver slot you'll need a tank crew character.

The default character will also be removed, so you can't change role during a battle. We might later allow players to change character during battle, but that will not be part of the next iteration.

If you leave a match, the character instead of the player will be locked, allowing you to join the same or other battles using a different character.

We are still planning to also have a 'big' lobby, where players are auto assigned to missions, and at the same time allow core players to pick their own fights. This should help with some of the problems mentioned above. With a big lobby players can no longer block the start of certain missions, and it will ensure minimum waiting time and balanced games.

Hal9k

Can we also have the choice of using one of our multiple characters (of the same class type) in one slot?

Say I want to be a SMG infantry, instead the game only allows me to choose my one riflemen character with the m1 garand and not the one with the SMG since there is no option to choose from, can we have the ability to switch through multiple characters of the same type while in game? as this is a big problem for me because every game I go into It never allows me to pick my SMG infantry class for units like mechanized/standard infantry.

[dondergod]

I always start a battle with infantry, but sometimes halfway the mission, we need a tank.
Kinda useless if you can't change at such a point.

[Tombabmo]

I don't feel comfortable with any kind of locking system, even if you make it so that only 1 character is locked in battle, it would push the game more towards P2W, ppl who have dozens of characters aren't bothered by locking at all and jump from battle to battle when poor players with 1 char are stuck in that one battle.

At least remove the stupid 1 minute BAN limit and allow players to enter that 1 battle they're locked into whenever they like as long as it's going. Simply stupid to take away ability to join any battle when that original battle can last up to 2 hours (or more). What can locked&banned player do then, quit HnG (and perhaps never come back).

Also being stuck with 1 character during the whole battle doesn't feel right, because it will decrease the ability to respond to different situations.

All in all it feels like you are taking away our freedom and making HnG some kind of frustrating prison game?

[Mako]

Hi, thanks for all the feedback so far!

The current lobby system introduced with Crace is not the final, but a first step towards the final layout. I'll explain a bit about the next iteration that we are currently working on (planned for the Eisenhower build).

Instead of having a fixed set of slots per faction (currently 12), the slots will reflect the assault teams participating in the battle and they will be specialized ie. requiring a specific character class. In order to take a tank driver slot you'll need a tank crew character.

The default character will also be removed, so you can't change role during a battle. We might later allow players to change character during battle, but that will not be part of the next iteration.

If you leave a match, the character instead of the player will be locked, allowing you to join the same or other battles using a different character.

We are still planning to also have a 'big' lobby, where players are auto assigned to missions, and at the same time allow core players to pick their own fights. This should help with some of the problems mentioned above. With a big lobby players can no longer block the start of certain missions, and it will ensure minimum waiting time and balanced games.

Hal9k

ummm, yikes. Such overlaying battle joining and management dynamics such as the ones listed above seem entirely unnecessary and open more doors for issues both within the playerbase and basic game function in general. - K.I.S.S. please

[Mako]

Look, after spending a little more time in game....this current lobby system isn't going to fly. There is no way in hell that I would send out keys right now. It can be exploited to the moon so easily, it can easily frustrate and discourage players. Ex. There is a game reviewer on this morning, I was communicating with him on how the game worked, but getting him into a battle was beyond frustrating. We joined several where someone wouldn't ready up so the fight never started. It's just silly. Drop the auto start down to 25% or something until the additional features are tested on the stable server.

I get why you made it, I see the pluses, I understand what your trying to address, but the minuses are too great right now to just let this thing ride until the next build. I really don't even want to play, its just downright annoying to join in and see someone not ready up on either side so every player must wait or leave and join a different battle. One AFK player can lock down a town. Even if we do have the numbers to autostart at full, why would anyone join a battle where the town is surrounded? If you dont then all those AT's are stuck unless the owner retreats. Only the nubs are going to ignore the present situation and value of each battle.

Like I said, trim the auto start down to 25% or less for the time being. I'm out until its changed, this isn't a personal boycott or anything of that manner, I just don't find it enjoyable to log in and deal with this new 'feature'. It's a shame, I wanted to rah rah all of my clan members about the latest build, but then we get this show stopper.

[jumana]

Thanks Hal9k for giving us some insight into what is planned, but I have to say that I'm not quite happy with what I read.

Like Tombabmo said above I see no reason to rectrict players so strictly in their choice of what they want to play with. When suddendly a tank AT is thrown into the battle by some general, players need the freedom to respond to that and spawn different types of characters - locking them to their decision they made upon facing a pure infantry battle would serve no purpose. Removing the default char's ability to play any class is fine, but I want freedom of choice on with which of my characters I will spawn in next (if the AT situation alowws for that class).

And finally I have to say that the whole locking issue is completely overrated in my opinion - sure, currently some players are complaining being locked because of the frequent game crashes and disconnects; but once the game runs stable it would not be an issue at all.

There are much more important things that the lobby has to do: Establish a side- and mission balance that makes the game fun to play even if the number of players online is different. For me this is the primary task of the lobby system and one of the most important things that have to be acomplished in the game development. The lobby was intruduced 4 months ago here in forums as a solution to achieve some nice balance in the game, now as it's finnaly implemented we see that it is far from serving that purpose. Neither side balance nor mission balance is even being adressed by the lobby system, the only positive effect is that solo missions are disabled (enabling a permanent lock of missions by simply not joining a battle on the other hand - which literally is a complete gamestopper).

Now wehen talking about 2 builds further (Eisenhower) - and for sure some months of development - the whole balance issues suddenly seem to have become a sidenode that should be somehow magically solved by some overall lobby system. I think it coulnd't be more far off the the point.

Yes, this thread is looking a bit confused - which kind of represents my current state of mind when I think about the lobby. My fears are that once again thousands of prospctive paying customers will be sent off into frustration after a few days of trying the game, just because the battles are permanently imbalaced and the gameloop is not complete (which most of them might not even notice because they will turn away from the game before having even tried out the RTS part of it).

<tl;dr>
Again I get the impression that priorities are set completely wrong and that real issues are not getting adressed (Balance, Supply System, Command System, Clan support, Usability...) while minor adjustments get the full attention (locking your characters in this case).

PS:
This was made while I was writing my post:

Like I said, trim the auto start down to 25% or less for the time being.

A simple auto-accept timer would server that purpose as well - and would work for even less player numbers.

[cRo4Ti4]

Hi, thanks for all the feedback so far!

The current lobby system introduced with Crace is not the final, but a first step towards the final layout. I'll explain a bit about the next iteration that we are currently working on (planned for the Eisenhower build).

Instead of having a fixed set of slots per faction (currently 12), the slots will reflect the assault teams participating in the battle and they will be specialized ie. requiring a specific character class. In order to take a tank driver slot you'll need a tank crew character.

The default character will also be removed, so you can't change role during a battle. We might later allow players to change character during battle, but that will not be part of the next iteration.

If you leave a match, the character instead of the player will be locked, allowing you to join the same or other battles using a different character.

We are still planning to also have a 'big' lobby, where players are auto assigned to missions, and at the same time allow core players to pick their own fights. This should help with some of the problems mentioned above. With a big lobby players can no longer block the start of certain missions, and it will ensure minimum waiting time and balanced games.

Hal9k

Thx for that info

Anny idea how loong you will need you show us eisehower build ?

Sound interesting the "big lobby" will need a try .

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Gerhacht]

Feedback after 1 Day played:
The lobby system does prevent single player (ninja) caps.
The battles that take place are better populated as it was before Crace (but unfortunely most - for me more than 90% - crashed before ended)

= Good and useful content in Crace but very few battles and lot waiting time

Suggestions to improve
Calculate the number of battles that could be joined at a time by the number of active players of the underpopped side:
Active players should be players with at least 1 key/input in 5 min otherwise he will be flagged afk and dont count in the calculation. So counting the players in side chat that are not afk and devide that by e.g. 8 will result the number of open battles. For free choice the minimal number of open battles should be two. E.g. 14 non afk players on the underpopped side channel = 14/8 = 1 plus 1 minimum = 2 battles open. 21 players = 21/8 = 2 ===> 2+1 = 3 battles open.

As for the overpopped side: number of non-afk players in side chat / 12. same mechanism as above described. The higher result of calculation from underpopped and overpopped side equals the number of open battles.

Battles were opened in order of their starting time and are worked through the list. Battles that are not populated by that mechanism within e.g. 45min will be autosolved instantly.

Since the players are limited in their choice of battles, no lower limit to start required (heroes will join one of the 2 open battles in order to play). So 1vs0 is the result of non-afk-players in side chat that are not joining. Their fail their punishment. And please remove that training battles.

[jumana]

Please be aware that the current build has a bug in the lobby system that disables the auto-resolve mechanism once someone joins the lobby for that mission - and never enables it again, even if all leave the lobby again. This is a main contributor to having so many open missions. Once the bug is removed the missions will autoresolve again which will result in a different picture. So when making suggestions keep that in mind please.

Edit: According to Devs this problem is fixed now.