Dummie this down
This whole conversation is over my head. it took a while for me to deduce that devs is short for developers, and I had to Google "nerfing".
I am a comsumer. i LOVED GR when it came out more than 10 years ago. I played it online and on disk on my PC. I dont know what all the technical issues are, but as a non-computer-saavy player I have opinions of how it could be better.
Playing against people who blow me away through walls is bad.
Hitting a target with a sniper rifle, only to have them shoot back and kill me is bad.
taking 40 second to spawn is bad.
selling all my weapons and spending everything for a machine gun with uncontrollable recoil is bad
shooting a guy with at sheild on his back 7 times, only to have him one shot kill me is bad...
the opposite of good.
My opinion is that the game should have less video-game style/non-realistic fantasy technology like oracles, and be more like a real gunfight.
i shouldnt have to play aginst a level 35 dude with a crazy deadly gun, or have a guy walk up behind me without hearing, only to be point blank shot in the head.
I have writen 10 lines about what isnt right about the new game, but the developers can see that I spent a ton of time playing it...so it is Good.
I got my **** handed to me in most rounds, but the maps, play and tactics are really fun. If the official version os GR is better than the Beta Test, I am going to love it.
Thanks for the opportunity to participate in testing this very well-executed masterpiece.
"a gamer saying something to the dev" is traditionally known as feedback.
Originally Posted by nabokovfan87
Originally Posted by briangelc
We're glad you have joined us thus far and look forward to seeing you in the next phase!!
Hey there. Thank you very much for taking the time to outline your suggestions in those posts. If closed beta testing isn't for you, that's totally understandable and we hope you'll give it another shot when it is officially released. I'm not sure how much closed beta testing you've done in the past or if other experiences have been different, but we just hope you understand that this is a work in progress - you are playing an unfinished product for the purpose of finding and reporting bugs as well as giving us feedback on what you'd like to see for the game in the future. We really do appreciate the time you've taken to help us test so far.
Just to clarify one thing: you mentioned matchmaking as something you could have fixed in a week. Understand that we have tweaked matchmaking the way you described. The challenge in closed beta is to balance it so that the teams will be well-matched without it taking so long to create a match that players give up. During closed beta there is a limited number of players invited to participate. If only 100 players are online and a smaller percentage of those are actually searching for a match at a given time, there are only so many combinations of those players matchmaking can put together without waiting too long. So it really is an issue of the small player base that comes with the territory in a closed beta. Matches take a bit longer than we'd like and they aren't as balanced as we'd like. We'll keep working on it, but there will likely be some frustration until we go into open beta or otherwise start testing with a larger pool of players. That being said, we welcome feedback and constructive criticism about matchmaking and everything else. We need to know what's working for you and what isn't. I just wouldn't assume that the developers are sitting around apathetic and refusing to fix things. I promise that isn't the case. There just may be more to it than you are aware of. Hope that helps clarify that, at least.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We're sorry that the current iteration of the game didn't meet your expectations, and we will keep working to make it better.
The difference between feedback and saying something, is that feedback is specific, while this is in general about the game itself, not something in the game to be revised. This is about the beta, the game, the name, the development, etc... not about having better matchmaking or improving the balance. If you say "a gamer saying something to the dev is feedback" then what is the point of having forums at all, this is the place where gamers and devs should be interacting, thus... everything would be "feedback". Make sense?
Originally Posted by UbiSusie
Originally Posted by UbiDarla
I understand what a beta is, I have tested probably 20 or so games, and about 10 of them FPS/TPS games. As mentioned, I have made small game projects myself, understand the specifics of making a game, and understand what is possible. My anger and frustration isn't simply about people saying "it's a beta", but more-so in the fact that little to ZERO has been said between the developers and the gamers until this past week or the week prior. I would feel much better about development if the developers themselves were available for live chats, did interviews with fans, talked in the forums, answered questions, and more specifically responded to them in the forums. Even something as simple as "thanks for the feedback, I will bring this to the rest of the team" goes a VERY long way towards making me and others who are frustrated feel like their opinions and thoughts are being heard. It has been a very long silence for multiple threads with around 50 pages of posts, not getting a response from a dev until now.
As far as matchmaking, I understand, and know specifically when it was updating. There have been at least 2 revisions this time around that specifically changed the drastics of how matchmaking was performed. Chemzero brought up and stated how the matchmaking occurred currently in one of the previous threads and I stated how it should be updated or revised to better reflect a good experience... nothing was ever said in response.
For instance, right now it is possible to have teams with all recon vs. teams of a majority of another class. Everything is pretty much based on matching levels. It would be best to have class limits, at the very least, to gather 16 players, and then split them based on classes, and then levels once they are in each respective class.
16 players try to join a match.
1. Fireteams are seperated, Meaning, if there is one fireteam, they are placed on a team, if two, then one on either side, etc. The matchmaking takes note of the classes and levels for use in later steps.
2. The remaining players are sorted by class
3. The team without a fireteam, the classes required to match the fireteam are added, if possible, at the same level. The matchmaking uses data from #2 to match up class/level from the pools available
4. Remaining players are again, sorted and a count is provided for each number of class. Half of each class is placed on either side, with possibility of remaining or uneven numbers staying in the pool.
5. A heirarchy is created to fill the remaining spots with remaining players, for instance, once side is given an assault class while the other is given a sniper/recon class player. The heirarchy would give values to each class, and fill holes based on the team with the lowest level getting the highest value player. So, a specialists would have a value of 3, let's say... 3 * level or + level would give some sort of overall "value" to a player, then they would fill the holes with the values of the remaining players.
Of course that is a very rough idea that I just came up with, you would need to make note if there is an instance where it isn't possible to match based on class, or where two classes can be deemed equivalent, perhaps a higher level assault is equal to a specialists of a lower level, something like that. Again, the best thing is to sort by class FIRST, place teams, and then fill in the remaining teams.
Levels are not as important as having balanced classes. As we all know, teamwork and strategy is the superior factor for this game, the better you work, the better you play, the better you score, the better the experience, the better the game.
I want to say again, my issue isn't that this wasn't done, I COMPLETELY understand timetables, and as mentioned some of this could have been done prior, perhaps added within a weeks timeframe, but it wasn't. The issue I have is that ZERO contact was made between the devs and the players for a very long time. It is disheartening to be in a place where you have such a passion for a title, and there are some major issues, but no one is there even listening. Whether someone is there or isn't, is a different question, but when no one is responding, the perspective is that no one cares/is listening.
Ah, ok, that makes a lot more sense. I understand the frustration of feeling like you are putting so much effort into providing helpful feedback for no reason. For whatever it's worth, not only do the developers read the forums, the Community Manager and GMs are constantly putting together reports filled with feedback from the community to make sure they see it - it is actually a big part of our job. The way things generally work around here is that the GMs and CM are in direct contact with the players and developers. The developers read the forums and occasionally respond, but for the most part we make sure the needs of the community are being communicated to developers and we also try to update the community whenever there's definitive information to share (we try not to give out information until something is confirmed and we know we'll be able to follow through). The developers don't always have a lot of free time for that stuff. If we haven't done a good enough job of letting you guys know that we're listening, then that's our bad. Personally, I read the threads with suggestions and share them with developers, but I don't normally respond to them. I like to allow discussion to take place so that multiple people can weigh in and we get a better idea of how the community as a whole feels about something. So I can tell you first hand that we're listening, and we can try to do a better job of making that clear. Thanks again for caring about our game and sharing your perspective.