PDA

View Full Version : 5 vs 5 is that it? Dedicated servers?



VAPOR33
02-11-2015, 09:11 PM
Are you planning on expanding the player slot size to beyond 5 v 5 or is that it?

Also will we be allowed to rent / host our own servers?

RLC_SeMP
02-13-2015, 05:06 PM
Ask your questions on reddit if you hope to get an answer. https://www.reddit.com/r/rainbow6

Ubi-Genevieve
02-16-2015, 08:49 PM
We do read the forums and subreddit, however sometimes there are things that cannot yet be addressed. As soon as we can communicate on more, both platforms will be kept in the loop - so just stay tuned.

Sorry I can't give you more insight right now!

RedKnight5
02-17-2015, 06:29 PM
It's only my opinion here... but from the limited information from UbiSoft on RB6 Siege so far... knowing that Siege could come to market this Summer or Fall, if not delayed again... Siege could be still in major flux, as to just what RB6 Siege will be in it's final form.

I'm sure the reddit forums are hot with suggestions... as are the Official RB6 Siege forums here (or soon will be) and that has UbiSoft taking a further critical eye on Siege and just how to reap in the most profits possible... to keep it's majority of Hard Core RB6 fans happy... but also to bring in and entice the largest majority of today's new Next-Gen console and PC players in to buy RB6 Siege. A huge job for a game publisher today. One multi-million dollar major mistake in today's game market... can kill a game's future forever. If UbiSoft needs more time to take RB6 Siege, to a level needed to compete against it's companies competition this year and next.... do it! If UbiSoft releases a weak and half-put-together RB6 game, that fails to dazzle today's game players... then say good buy to Rainbow 6 forever.

I'm pretty sure the Official Forum Mods here... are passing along our comments and suggestions to UbiSoft. I'm sure UbiSoft itself... has been here reading these Forums also. If UbiSoft chooses to "only" read it's reddit posts... they will miss their target, to make RB6 Siege successful.

UbiSoft is juggling a lot of balls in today's game market... and RB6 Siege is only one small ball... in UbiSoft's possible successes and failures. Lets hope they get it right!

Ubi-MoshiMoshi
02-17-2015, 06:38 PM
We read and gather feedback from many sources. I personally check these forums on a daily basis and am gathering your feedback.

RedKnight5
02-20-2015, 06:45 PM
We read and gather feedback from many sources. I personally check these forums on a daily basis and am gathering your feedback.

Then you are a valued Forum Community Manager of UbiSoft games. I hope all the other UbiSoft mods follow your lead. Most of us here... don't have time to also follow Twitter, reddit, Facebook or any chat texting system. That's why we are here on your official UbiSoft RB6 user forums.

Well Done! Thank you!

Ubi-MoshiMoshi
02-21-2015, 10:53 AM
Well Done! Thank you!

You're welcome

Cortexian
02-23-2015, 10:56 PM
Still no date yet, only thing we have so far are rumors and complete guesses.

COBAS_Corbulo
03-13-2015, 11:50 AM
It is essential to have dedicated servers. Please is one of the features that make the difference!!!

Spartan0536
03-13-2015, 01:38 PM
I believe 5v5 is a great close competitive number that would be excellent in some tournaments for small tactical team games. However I also believe a 10v10 would be great as well. In many real world scenarios as accurately depicted in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six book (which is an excellent read BTW) there usually stands 2, 5 man teams to assault multiple points of entry to cause misdirection and confusion among barricaded combatants, this helps the "hostage rescue force" to bring order to chaos. From the videos I have watched on R6 Siege which only seem to contain the multi-level residential structure I would be willing to state that the game could support a 10v10 at max, any more would just clutter up maps like that, and even 10v10 could be pushing the limits of level design.

S1ingSh0t
03-13-2015, 06:03 PM
I guess it depends on how the maps are designed. The map I saw in the demos doesn't really look that big and 10vs10 might actually be too much.

RBD_MCRob
03-14-2015, 06:30 PM
Well as we have seen through the years from rouge spear,ghost recon and into the rainbow 6 series the one thing they all have in common is maps/environments created allow from a comfortable 4v4 to 10v10. Now this doesn't mean this is how it should be or even work best for that matter as ive always found that i enjoyed the 6v6 matches more then anything quite honestly. It creates more suspense and the use of more tactics from your team then have so many more threat angels having more and more players involved in a match and makes watching more enjoyable and suspenseful to the viewer. The fact is i can see this title being huge on twitch from a viewer stand point watching a nail biting match between 2 really good clans competing.

I dont know though if the need for private servers is really there anymore and also allows ubisoft the ability to keep more of a watchful eye on the people bringing cheats into the game being under there roof. What i would have though are servers allocated just for clan matching though, this will be the biggest part of this games longevity and clans want to know there getting the best possible performance from the server in there match. The other reason is because if a clan rents a private server that happens to be the closest possible one to the majority of its members it creates a new issue. When doing clan matches on your server its going to give your clan, all be it a small one but an advantage over say a west coast clan. Now that may sound silly but knowing there system is selecting the best positioned server for a match putting all the players as close as possible to the server is the best solution.

Just My 2 Cents
Lokiey

BotToone
03-20-2015, 10:00 PM
As a disclaimer, I've never played a Rainbow Six title since I've typically played f2p games and MMORPGs on PC in my gaming life. From my experience, 5v5 is a sweet spot for me when it comes to tactical gameplay. Big enough that you can utilize tactics, but not too big that it feels like mindless chaos. I prefer 3v3s overall, but from what I've seen with Rainbow Six Siege, 5v5 looks like the perfect size.

Cortexian
03-20-2015, 11:45 PM
3v3 and 5v5 is nice when there's true tactical / strategic gameplay going on. Look at MOBA games, there's a reason they stick to that size and no larger for the most part. As HashtagTune said, it gets hectic any larger than that. If the maps are designed to the right size in Siege, which I'd say that they are from what I've seen so far, it can be pretty hectic already. Especially when people are blowing out walls all around you and breaching through windows!

TwilightChrono
03-21-2015, 05:12 AM
3v3 and 5v5 is nice when there's true tactical / strategic gameplay going on. Look at MOBA games, there's a reason they stick to that size and no larger for the most part. As HashtagTune said, it gets hectic any larger than that. If the maps are designed to the right size in Siege, which I'd say that they are from what I've seen so far, it can be pretty hectic already. Especially when people are blowing out walls all around you and breaching through windows!

I agree. 3v3 and 5v5 are numbers I can get behind the most. As someone who has been a CS 1.5, Source and Global Offensive player for years, this is something I am very familiar with and matches aren't ever the same.

My only concern is that the game could be potentially ruined by people who just leave the match when they get frustrated. So my question would be are the AI's that will take over the leaving players smart? Will we be able to take over the bots? Or are you just going to allow people to jump into the match when someone leaves?

I don't like the idea of joining a match already in progress unless it is JUST to spectate. It ruins the flow of the game in my opinion.

Will there be a punishment system in place for people who are consistently leaving matches in order to discourage such behavior? This is probably my most important question.

Cortexian
03-21-2015, 06:25 AM
Will there be a punishment system in place for people who are consistently leaving matches in order to discourage such behavior? This is probably my most important question.
Historically, in other games, Ubisoft hasn't implemented punishments for people leaving games. Instead they typically offer incentives to stay in games. Get extra experience or items in game for staying in 5 matches in a row or something similar. The reasons for this boil down to casual players having commitments to life, and punishing a player because the pizza guy came by or the phone rang with an important call isn't entirely fair.

I'm not sure there are bots in Siege, but it would be nice if a bot took over for players who drop. A bot is better than nothing at least...

TwilightChrono
03-21-2015, 06:45 AM
Historically, in other games, Ubisoft hasn't implemented punishments for people leaving games. Instead they typically offer incentives to stay in games. Get extra experience or items in game for staying in 5 matches in a row or something similar. The reasons for this boil down to casual players having commitments to life, and punishing a player because the pizza guy came by or the phone rang with an important call isn't entirely fair.

I'm not sure there are bots in Siege, but it would be nice if a bot took over for players who drop. A bot is better than nothing at least...

I realize that what I am about to say my offend some people but I need to compare.

HoN has a system in place that if you have too many disconnects (and the system in place can tell if you rage quit or just lost connection to the internet) it gives you a punishment for rage quitting. If your Disconnect percentage is too high you can't join ranked games until you lower it.

So, if the same type of system can be implemented in Siege I think that would be a good thing.

Or, Siege can do what Counter Strike does. Has a Casual mode, and a competitive mode. When you choose Comp mode, it warns you that you are signing up for a match that could take at least 60 minutes and that if you can't stay for the full 60 minutes you will be penalized. In CS-GO this is done by starting you at a 1 hour Competitive mode ban, then it escalates on repeat offenses all the way up to a 1 week ban. It goes, 1 hour, 24 hours, 72 hours and 1 week. Not saying it should be the same way in Siege but something similar.

Now, I'm not one to point fingers, but If you ordered Pizza, then perhaps you should que up for a casual match where you can jump in and out with no penalty. You shouldn't que up for a comp match knowing you are going to have to step away from the computer in just a few short minutes. I do realize things CAN come up that is beyond yoru control and will force you to leave the match. Which is also why a time limit is normally imposed for those who DC. Such as a 5 minute timer. If it runs down and you don't return you cannot rejoin and are given a penalty.

I do think that a system of this sort should be taken under advisement because a lot of the time it IS the casuals that kill the game for me. Granted, I have my own team that I que with in CS and HoN but when I want to play solo it's these kinds of people who really don't care about the match like I do that ultimately force me to stop playing.

At the very least, Siege should have a Casual Mode for people who don't want to be competitive (I'm talking like e-sports competitive), and a Competitive mode for people who want to be serious. Granted, I know this won't be implemented just because 1 person has asked for it, but I think it is definitely something that should be taken under advisement.

Cortexian
03-21-2015, 06:10 PM
IMO it's only relevant if they implement some kind of competitive ladder mode like you mentioned. If all the games are semi-casual unless organized in the traditional fashion beforehand, I can't see this being implemented to positive effect.

Just my opinion.

BotToone
03-23-2015, 08:55 AM
I realize that what I am about to say my offend some people but I need to compare.

HoN has a system in place that if you have too many disconnects (and the system in place can tell if you rage quit or just lost connection to the internet) it gives you a punishment for rage quitting. If your Disconnect percentage is too high you can't join ranked games until you lower it.

So, if the same type of system can be implemented in Siege I think that would be a good thing.

Or, Siege can do what Counter Strike does. Has a Casual mode, and a competitive mode. When you choose Comp mode, it warns you that you are signing up for a match that could take at least 60 minutes and that if you can't stay for the full 60 minutes you will be penalized. In CS-GO this is done by starting you at a 1 hour Competitive mode ban, then it escalates on repeat offenses all the way up to a 1 week ban. It goes, 1 hour, 24 hours, 72 hours and 1 week. Not saying it should be the same way in Siege but something similar.

Now, I'm not one to point fingers, but If you ordered Pizza, then perhaps you should que up for a casual match where you can jump in and out with no penalty. You shouldn't que up for a comp match knowing you are going to have to step away from the computer in just a few short minutes. I do realize things CAN come up that is beyond yoru control and will force you to leave the match. Which is also why a time limit is normally imposed for those who DC. Such as a 5 minute timer. If it runs down and you don't return you cannot rejoin and are given a penalty.

I do think that a system of this sort should be taken under advisement because a lot of the time it IS the casuals that kill the game for me. Granted, I have my own team that I que with in CS and HoN but when I want to play solo it's these kinds of people who really don't care about the match like I do that ultimately force me to stop playing.

At the very least, Siege should have a Casual Mode for people who don't want to be competitive (I'm talking like e-sports competitive), and a Competitive mode for people who want to be serious. Granted, I know this won't be implemented just because 1 person has asked for it, but I think it is definitely something that should be taken under advisement.
I definitely agree outside of the whole 'if you afk x minutes you can't rejoin'. Never really understood the logic in that, if I had to brb longer than expected or something comes up, but I can return, why deny me the ability and cause further frustration for my team? Again, I'd like to see the CS:GO system implemented and a casual/competitive mode since I find that to be the normal.