Replace The "Quick Play" option with a Call of Duty style lobby system?

(PixelTwitch) #1

I am going to try and keep this one quick and simple.

My current opinion on the Quick Play feature in Dirty Bomb is not all that positive. I select a mode, map and team size that I would like to play, click on the find game button and cross my fingers. The majority of the time I will find myself being placed in a match with unbalanced teams with no friends seconds away from losing. When this is not the case, I often find myself being placed into a game half way through its timer with 2 other players on the server when I selected 7vs7. After the round is over you then need to pray and hope that most the players don’t simply leave the server to quit the game or open cases. When this happens you find yourself back on the server browser or Quick Play section about to start it all over again.

While a lot of people seem to dislike the lack of game options available in the Call of Duty series. I feel it is still the most effective way of getting people into a server at the start of a match and being able to play a full game. This would also allow you to party up and play with friends in a less stressful environment and allow Splash Damage to better manage team balance overall. Once server rentals become a option you would restrict the server browser from showing public lobby system games and show just those that are run by the community, teams and a few official servers. This would remove the clutter from the server browser and make finding a game much easier here too. By making it easier for friends to play together in a more laid back casual setting, there is a good chance we would see an increase in Match Making traffic also. After playing a match with the Lobby System you would be thrown back into the searching section where you can change your Mercs and ready for your next match, hopefully with both teams full, with your friends and fairly balanced.

The player base is big enough to handle such a system well. The issue right now is the amount of effort and luck you need to put into getting a well balanced game from the start to the finish of a map in either mode. We have already seen the relative failure when it comes to level 10+ servers and a more automated system would do a much better job at separating players based on skill. In turn this would likely keep lower skilled players playing the game longer allowing them to increase their skill and hopefully help maintain a much high CCU in future.

Honestly, I see hardly any reason why this is not already the case. The current Quick Play system does not work and is unlikely to ever do so. Simply lock public play to 7vs7 you get to choose to vote between to maps and it keeps parties of people together.

What do you guys think???

(ispellcorrectly) #2

It’s a great idea! In my opinion this is what the game needs. Party lobbies definitely need to be implemented, though from looking at the current system, parties are not implemented to try and keep the game evenly matched out, which as you said “does not work” purely because of the fact people can move over!

I have noticed people leaving because of a team playing together straight after another game, where as the COD matchmaking, doesn’t show what teams will be until the timer runs out(or close too) which makes a game mostly each time. But for this to work successfully, it has to have parties, or people won’t be able to play the game for the purpose it was made… team play.

Kudos Pixel!

(mccrorie) #3

I don’t really know what to say about a new system, but the last time I used Quick Play it put me in an empty server. That’s not what I had in mind when I wanted to get into a match quickly.

(ispellcorrectly) #4

Haha, that’s just funny, usually I despise trolls, but gg game! :stuck_out_tongue:

(Protekt1) #5

Quick play works fine. I use it 100% of the time since they added the choice to choose what size match you want to join. It is far from broken like you suggest and you are in fact suggesting it be ****.

I also hate the suggestion that it throws you back to searching between every match. 10/10 would gif again.

(poiuasd) #6

My only gripe with the current quick play is the time that it takes to test server latencies, it’s too long for my taste and it started happening only after the Phantom patch.

(PixelTwitch) #7

[QUOTE=Protekt1;534283]

Quick play works fine. I use it 100% of the time since they added the choice to choose what size match you want to join. It is far from broken like you suggest and you are in fact suggesting it be ****.

I also hate the suggestion that it throws you back to searching between every match. 10/10 would gif again.[/QUOTE]

I am suggesting it is ****

Would like to try and figure out why its working well for you…
Maybe it is because I normally play on the EU quite times (12am -> 6am) so the population is lower. Also the system always attempts to put me in the already under populated level 10+ servers and I normally only search for White Chapel + Trainyard. It is not uncommon for me to have to search 3-4 times before getting in a decent game. Biggest issue I have so far is getting placed in games that are just about to end (and why I have selected a map I want to play, it can be very frustrating) or it will place me on an almost empty server when I ask for 7vs7. This would not be as big of an issue if when it went back to lobby it started sticking new people into the lobby but it does not. The frequency of people leaving post game is much greater than I would normally expect. Quite often I can join a 16 man server and then watch the lobby die once the round is over, down to just 3 or 4 people. This often leads to the opening sections of a new map being poorly balanced and empty. leading to that feeling of unfairness and always entering mid match with little expectation of playing the same server after the round ends.

Personally I hate the quick play option (and server browser) currently. I want to just have a high percentage of full rounds with full teams with friends and as balanced as possible. I don’t believe that the current Quick Play system supplies this.

(Protekt1) #8

How long is too long? Quick play is very fast for me. It hardly is noticeable tbh.

(MoonOnAStick) #9

Does it not work? I occasionally get dropped into empty servers but my experience has generally been very positive. It prioritises level 10+ servers and my friends can join from the front/quick-join pages (or directly through Steam).

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;534287]Maybe it is because I normally play on the EU quite times (12am -> 6am) so the population is lower. Also the system always attempts to put me in the already under populated level 10+ servers and I normally only search for White Chapel + Trainyard.[/QUOTE]This sounds like useful feedback. Asking for 7v7 on only two maps when server populations are low. Perhaps the level 10 or ping requirements could be loosened.

As far as lobbies dying, I completely agree. When the servers are all anonymous there’s no incentive/guarantee that the next match will be better. Server rentals please.

(poiuasd) #10

Maybe it’s just me then but since the last patch the latency test phase alone takes 5-10 seconds every time. It was much faster earlier.

#11

Quick play has failed to work for me, the past 4 weeks or more:

  • It fails to find a server and then tell me to use server browser
  • or it put me in an empty server.

Its broken and it is still missing feature to quick play with friends.

Server browser is not responding fast enough, and is not haveing accurate information most of the time, meaning servers dont have the number if player it says it has, resulting in joining empty servers, full servers, or servers with 2 people. Its takes several tries, and frustration to find any decent server. At this point, ignore any settings, I’ll just join whatever, just to play.

Also, DB isnt keeping its new players AFAIK. Check the blue line. Same amount of playing players, even though it doubled in player accounts.


Source: https://steamdb.info/app/333930/graphs/

(Protekt1) #12

No, it sounds like you had a bad experience and presume it would work better on a system that gives the player less options. Somehow, someway, forcing the player into 7v7 when they might have zero interest in 7v7 is not ****. Might wanna rethink your evaluation deeply.

(ispellcorrectly) #13

I think the current selection system is great. (6v6, 7v7 etc.)

Changing the actual lobby could be a way forward.

(PixelTwitch) #14

Well the current system will quite happily stick you in a 6vs6 with 3 people in the server when you asked for a 8vs8.
When you get on and think you could really do with some white chapel you connect with 20 seconds left of the map and are then unable to play it after returning to the lobby. There are problems and more than player count or even map my main problem is even getting into a decent server in the first place. Let’s be clear I have clocked up over 1000 hours in Dirty Bomb since it went over to Steam so there is a chance that just because I play so much more than the average player I am also noticing the issues I have with a system much much more.

Regardless of how you look at it though, no one can deny the huge problem with servers emptying out after each match or joining on a losing team seconds before the end of a map. These problems get worse the more options a player has (makes it far more fragmented) so simply having it with less options but working well a much higher percentage of the time is personally what I want to push for here…

(ispellcorrectly) #15

This is mainly for the cases people receive, take the notification off and we might see an increase in people actually staying in lobby. Exited every lobby to see ‘if’ they got a case will get boring for a lot of people when they realise there is non!