Chalupa Batman
Member
Yes it did, in 1.08, and yes you can, by pressing right on the Dpad to get to Global ranks. The number is on the top right in blue. There's 115k in TDM and 117k in Ranked.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Uncharted 4: A Thief's End Multiplayer |OT| Swinging To Victory
- Thread starter BaraSailey
- Start date
Yes it did, in 1.08, and yes you can, by pressing right on the Dpad to get to Global ranks. The number is on the top right in blue. There's 115k in TDM and 117k in Ranked.
Stallion Dan
Member
So this new 'balancing for solo players' from the latest patch actually means if you're a good player, you get put with the worst of the worst and are expected to carry them, as this is balanced vs a team of average players.
Good+(shitx4) = Average x5.
I can not find a single balanced match, usually there are a few inbetween the shitfests, but my teammates have taken a huge drop in ability.
Good+(shitx4) = Average x5.
I can not find a single balanced match, usually there are a few inbetween the shitfests, but my teammates have taken a huge drop in ability.
That's how it felt to me, yeah. I feel more penalized than ever before for not playing in a party.
Pretty much, every game feels like a chore and if I don't perform extremely well there is absolutely no chance to win the match....
Chronospherics
Member
Oh, you mean the start of season 2? Yeah, then it was reset, but then ranked and tdm don't represent the same period, as regular tdm was reset in the last few days. And I see, I guess it was the server lagging as that number would appear for me in ranked TDM, but not in unranked TDM.
I think the only significant statistic there representing the player population now is the 115k in in unranked though. As ranked represents a unknown proportion of the user base, however I feel that at least most active users will be likely to have played at least one TDM game.
electroflame
Member
Seriously, it's pretty terrible. I had 2 teammates today in Command that had ~500 points. I ended up just shy of 5,000, and the second place teammate was 1,700.
For reference, the other team didn't have a player score as high as I did, but they were all right around 2,500 to 3,500. So, yeah, they ended up winning by about 75 points -- not because they were anything special, but just because they were consistent.
Definitely not a fan of this new algorithm.
TimeEffect
Member
Jesus
Just make ranked party only and make normal TDM for no parties. Ranked is just a b.s mode
Make the season rewards something attainable regardless of the mode
Just make ranked party only and make normal TDM for no parties. Ranked is just a b.s mode
Make the season rewards something attainable regardless of the mode
Negotiator
Member
I'm trying to finish some Trials in Crushing (1-bar warrior simulation) and it feels really bad... sometimes NPCs manage to shoot me behind walls. I have a suspicion that 15 Hz is hardcoded everywhere, even when no network traffic is involved. WTF ND?
ps: Path of Indra on Crushing seems impossible to finish. I thought they said they were going to nerf it with a patch or something.
Is it a sneaky way to force us buy Uncharted Points?
ps: Path of Indra on Crushing seems impossible to finish. I thought they said they were going to nerf it with a patch or something.
I noticed that too.
Is it a sneaky way to force us buy Uncharted Points?
#1 defender
Member
Fuck, i thought it was just me. Normally i get a 450 relic challenge after switching them out once or twice, if not right from the start. Today i got desperate and tried changing a 320 challenge 4-5 times and pissed away 200 or 250 relics that way (sunken costs fallacy, surely i'll get it if i change one more time?!), only to stop at another challenge worth 320. Hopefully it's false alarm, but if they really did this, they can get bent!
I've gotten a 450 about two days ago. I forgot what it was.
#1 defender
Member
I hope it was just a fluke. Bad enough we have to "buy" new challenges, when it's so tedious to earn relics by other means, removing the highest earning challenges would only add insult to injury.
Negotiator
Member
Nah, you should be selfish and ask ND to remove the white plug of doom*. Other games work fine, yada yada.
* http://feedback.naughtydog.com/foru...te-plug-appears-continually-unplugged-from-mu
170 votes... the majority MUST be right. Always.
Chalupa Batman
Member
1.08 came out about three weeks ago, and the TDM leaderboard reset came out four days ago. The TDM number is up to 129k so the player pool is actually increasing, not decreasing. This is unscientific of course because not everyone plays ranked. Either way it proves tapantaola wrong.
This is actually a very reasonable idea!
My current challenges are two 450s (11 downs with RPG, 30 downs with HS39) and a 320 (10 Mine downs). All challenges issued after the latest patch. There's no conspiracy.
As for the Path Trial on Crushing, I can't even beat it on Hard lol, so yeah, Crushing ain't happening any time soon. I have all other Trials completed on Crushing.
Best part about this is if you were in ranked you would lose 3x points. Joy!
Negotiator
Member
LOL. Show me an online player count and then you can say that.
Even if there are 10k online players at any given time, that's ~2.5k players per playlist (probably more in TDM and less in objective modes) and those players are dispersed all over the globe. It's nothing to brag about.
Maybe F2P could help, but then people would cry about their $60 "investment" being "devalued". It's impossible to please everyone.
#1 defender
Member
Fair enough, i'm a bit cranky at the game recently and pretty tired, so i jumped to conclusions. I actually had some 450 ones myself in the last few days, but i misread the post and thought something might have been changed with the most recent live update. Add to that the fact that i've always gotten at least one 450 challenge after 3 swaps at the most and you've got a conspiracy brew going. Hopefully it was just bad luck.
Btw, what's your PSN id? A while ago you mentioned having played with W0Wbaggr and me, but i can't figure out who you are.
It feels like that for me too.
Stallion Dan
Member
I got one yesterday.
"Skill based", aka, if you're a good player, you get extra shite teammates to balance you out. Don't expect the same for the enemy team though.
Yeah, it seems that I can only win when I really go try hard mode.
There are those games where I like to go for challenges and try out other weapons and cant play as well, so I almost always end up losing those.
I love playing games where I have 2 players on my team who have died 10 times each and only get 2 downs and 1 kill. Such balance.
I haven't played in a while, but my second game after the patch hit I had two players who went 0|0 -8 and 1|2 -12
between them
1 Down
2 KOs
Took half of our team's lives.
How do players this bad even get onto ranked?
Chalupa Batman
Member
130k people have played online in the last four days. That's a fact. If you believe that a majority of those players, or even greater than 10%, only played one match, or less than an hour then quit, then that's on you. I've just proven that at least 130k are playing almost 2.5 months after launch. That's the only number we have. Everything else is speculation. Show me how many people were playing TLoU 2.5 months after launch. My guess is a smaller number for two reasons:
1. Uncharted is an established MP franchise while TLoU was not
2. TLoU was such a heavy story that it wiped a lot of people out emotionally and they were unable to play MP, or sometimes any other games, for a period of time after playing the story. I know this to be true because it happened to me and a half-dozen friends as well. That's why it took me 1.5 years to finally return to the game after I beat it. I got GTA V a few months later and couldn't play more than an hour--the tone, setting, everything felt cheap compared to TLoU. There's also threads/posts on GAF of people talking about the same experience I went through.
Bottom line is I am providing real-time, relevant data while you are speculating and guessing.
Matchmaking has gone to absolute shit. I am getting destroyed in games now playing solo. I'm talking 40-15, 40-20 on a routine basis. I used to average 12/12 & 5 or less deaths but now I'm pulling 8/8 & usually 7 deaths.
Negotiator
Member
Real-time data? You must be joking...
The only real time data is the online player count, which doesn't exist for some reason.
I can make 10 PSN accounts, play for 2-3 hours on each one and get recorded on the leaderboards. Still doesn't prove anything.
Regarding the matchmaking, blame people who keep asking for "balance" (KDR/skill-based).
The majority doesn't get it. Matchmaking should be 100% ping-based (nothing else should matter). Team balancing should be random. KDR-based just doesn't work. I hope you guys learned your lesson, but I wouldn't hold my breath. ND needs to stop listening to casuals who are not going to keep playing for a long time. They've ruined all previous ND MP games. It's a shame that history repeats itself.
ps: I won't even comment on the "emotional" unscientific BS that "prevented" a lot of people from playing the MP. And then you say that I'm speculating and guessing. LMAO
If I wanted to speculate, I'd say that most people didn't even know what "Factions" meant. It took ND a long time to change it to something more relevant (Multiplayer).
Also: https://twitter.com/drewthaler/status/494251742716915713
So much for "Uncharted MP is more popular than TLOU MP", even though UC3 had the F2P boost advantage. You asked for scientific data, there you have it.
The graph shows real time online player count, not unscientific leaderboard guesstimations (I don't mind educated guesses, but I prefer real time data). Maybe Drew Thaler could post a new graph that shows the UC4 online player count compared to TLOU/UC3 if someone nags him about it.
The only real time data is the online player count, which doesn't exist for some reason.
I can make 10 PSN accounts, play for 2-3 hours on each one and get recorded on the leaderboards. Still doesn't prove anything.
Regarding the matchmaking, blame people who keep asking for "balance" (KDR/skill-based).
The majority doesn't get it. Matchmaking should be 100% ping-based (nothing else should matter). Team balancing should be random. KDR-based just doesn't work. I hope you guys learned your lesson, but I wouldn't hold my breath. ND needs to stop listening to casuals who are not going to keep playing for a long time. They've ruined all previous ND MP games. It's a shame that history repeats itself.
ps: I won't even comment on the "emotional" unscientific BS that "prevented" a lot of people from playing the MP. And then you say that I'm speculating and guessing. LMAO
If I wanted to speculate, I'd say that most people didn't even know what "Factions" meant. It took ND a long time to change it to something more relevant (Multiplayer).
Also: https://twitter.com/drewthaler/status/494251742716915713
So much for "Uncharted MP is more popular than TLOU MP", even though UC3 had the F2P boost advantage. You asked for scientific data, there you have it.
The graph shows real time online player count, not unscientific leaderboard guesstimations (I don't mind educated guesses, but I prefer real time data). Maybe Drew Thaler could post a new graph that shows the UC4 online player count compared to TLOU/UC3 if someone nags him about it.
DaciaJC
Gold Member
Is this just for Ranked or for all modes?
As someone who always prefers using a server browser instead of automated matchmaking to find a lobby/server with the lowest latency, I agree with this. But isn't this what ND already does? I was under the impression that the MM algorithm (ideally) pulls a number of players with good connections to one another and then assigns them to one team or another based on KDR or skill rating so that the averages are roughly equal.
Negotiator
Member
It's not 100% ping-based. Maybe it's 70% ping-based (yeah, I'm guessing again, punish me), I don't know. There are multiple factors with unknown weight and we don't know how it works exactly. It's not like ND posted the source code in public...
In the last few days I play Plunder solo and I don't see a lot of lag. I see parties sometimes, but I'm fine with that, even when I lose (doesn't happen all the time and you can always make new friends, as long as you don't look like a sore loser who refuses to git gud).
Ranked and TDM are god awful though. I'm getting matched with BRA and KSA players. Plunder doesn't have these players for some strange reason, so I'll stick to that.
Regarding the server/lobby browser, they're not going to add it, because it would make boosting easier. That's why you don't earn XP/relics/trophies in customs (except in Co-op). Splitting the pool also makes it easier for boosters (there are instructions in the pstrophies.org forums where people exploited the Vanilla/DLC map toggle in UC2/UC3 to match against each other). The more playlists/sub-pools we have, the easier you make it for boosters. Fact.
Devs can say whatever they want. I still remember a (former) ND dev arguing with me and insisting that TLOU matchmaking was still ping-based, even though a few days later they pushed a Live Update to sort it out... go figure.
No source code in public = we can assume whatever we want based on our observations. Blame ND for its secrecy fetish, not the players who want to know the truth (not directed at you @Rewrite).
Chronospherics
Member
While I made the original post suggesting that the game does in fact have a sizable player count, I did not mean to suggest that because of this playerbase, that means that splitting the playlists into solo and party based queues is a good idea. At the moment the game does have an underlying orientation to place parties against parties, and solo queuers against solo queuers, the majority of my ranked games when with a full party, have been against another full party. People saying that the system 'worked well' in TLOU, must have been playing a different game to me. While the lone wolf playlist in TLOU worked perfectly well if that was all that you played, the binary system made the game incredibly punishing if you played with party sizes smaller than 5.
Significantly, if you played with a party of 4 the matchmaking would be dependent on finding a lone solo queuer in the 'party' playlist. In many cases this lead to excessive matchmaking times, or unresolved imbalances between the number of players on each team. Meanwhile, if you were playing in smaller parties, such as parties of two, the binary system, which treated all parties as equal, would regularly throw party compositions such as two parties of two, plus one solo queuer against a fully party of 5 players.
The matchmaking as a whole between the segmented playlists was invariably worse than it is in UC4, as each of the two segregated playlists was split between two pools. Therefore the games connection filtering systems had less options when trying to group players with similar connection qualities between one another. Sometimes this lead to lag, but most often it just lead to extremely long matchmaking times. Matchmaking quality was as a whole, considerably worse than it was in Uncharted 4 . If you were a solo queuer, the lone wolf playlist worked fine, but if you were a team, unless you found another team of five, the matchmaking would take an incredible amount of time to fill the lobby.
The largest issue is that even a party playlist is dependent on solo querers, unless it enforces that all parties are full parties (like Rocket League does). Otherwise, whom do you think is going to fill the empty slots in matches where there are parties of two, or four?
The only system that can work here are either a) a split system where the 'party' playlist demands that a full party is present before beginning a match, or b) an adaptive system where the game attempts to appropriately filter players into evenly matched games, with party composition as one of a number of considerations. At the moment we have the latter, where the matchmaking is trying to fit parties against parties, and solo's against solo's, but there are other factors it considers too, like connection quality and skill. So inevitably, you are not always going to get a match that's perfect on all fronts - for instance I would rather the game place me into a lobby with a good connection, but against a party, than a match that placed me into a game of solo queuers where I didn't have a good connection. Filling the empty slots is also a necessity of the current system, so you're going to be thrown against parties as a solo queuer quite often when that occurs, but your team is also likely to be a party themselves, so it's not exactly unfair.
I think it's also true that for many people the issues also relate to a external locus of control - where certain people like to externalize their issues to something beyond their control, or beyond the control of their associated team mates. Players often see an opposing team that are performing slightly better, coordinating a little better as a team, and then it's automatically assumed that they're a complete party of 5, because it's easier to place responsibility for your loses on matchmaking, your team mates, or the opposition, than it is on you and your team as a collective. In many instances I have joined a random group of players who ended up being co-operative, following one another around as a team, and I imagine to the other team, it would have looked like we were a pre-made party.
For the most part however, the matches I get when I solo queue, are the easiest I've ever had. Matches where one team of uncooperative rabble faces off against another team of uncooperative rabble. I often lose this games even when finishing with scores like 20-1, but at the same time one has to accept that their influence on a team is only 20%, so I understand when losses occur as my team as a collective, was not as good as the opposition. That's the inevitable consequence of not hand selecting your team mates. That's for unranked however, as for ranked, of course, if you solo queue you will get matched against parties. Because most people that want to perform well are going to intentionally form a group of coordinating players to do so, therefore it's quite likely that some form of party outweighs the solo queue population in this playlist.
However, that doesn't mean that splitting ranked between parties and solo's is a good option. As I say, that would mean that all parties would need to go into a match with a fully stocked team, otherwise the singular empty slots would not be filled. At the same time, it would most likely see a return of the extreme matchmaking times that featured in TLOU. Instead, I would suggest that if you want to be competitive in a team based game, you either accept the fact that you only influence a fraction of performance outcome of your individual team and therefore, will inevitably lose frequently against better performing teams, or you make an effort to control that variance by intentionally grouping and cooperating with like-minded team mates.
In the end, it is a team game, so you shouldn't come across as shocked that your team of uncoordinated randoms are losing a larger proportion of games than coordinated teams, whether that's the result of those team being pre-made or otherwise. If it were easy to simply solo queue and obtain master rank then what would be the point in the party playlist where the level of play would be inevitably higher? Either way, I do think it's likely that we will see any changes in the party or solo restrictions, and I think some people asking for those changes neglect some practical considerations. It's my opinion that if you feel that the game is miss-matching you into too many unbalanced games then you should be calling for better filtering of the matchmaking algorithms, and not a binary segregation of parties, and solo players.
If you have been suffering with ranked solo queue and are confident in your abilities on the game, then I'd be happy to team up and help anyone progress with their ranking.
Significantly, if you played with a party of 4 the matchmaking would be dependent on finding a lone solo queuer in the 'party' playlist. In many cases this lead to excessive matchmaking times, or unresolved imbalances between the number of players on each team. Meanwhile, if you were playing in smaller parties, such as parties of two, the binary system, which treated all parties as equal, would regularly throw party compositions such as two parties of two, plus one solo queuer against a fully party of 5 players.
The matchmaking as a whole between the segmented playlists was invariably worse than it is in UC4, as each of the two segregated playlists was split between two pools. Therefore the games connection filtering systems had less options when trying to group players with similar connection qualities between one another. Sometimes this lead to lag, but most often it just lead to extremely long matchmaking times. Matchmaking quality was as a whole, considerably worse than it was in Uncharted 4 . If you were a solo queuer, the lone wolf playlist worked fine, but if you were a team, unless you found another team of five, the matchmaking would take an incredible amount of time to fill the lobby.
The largest issue is that even a party playlist is dependent on solo querers, unless it enforces that all parties are full parties (like Rocket League does). Otherwise, whom do you think is going to fill the empty slots in matches where there are parties of two, or four?
The only system that can work here are either a) a split system where the 'party' playlist demands that a full party is present before beginning a match, or b) an adaptive system where the game attempts to appropriately filter players into evenly matched games, with party composition as one of a number of considerations. At the moment we have the latter, where the matchmaking is trying to fit parties against parties, and solo's against solo's, but there are other factors it considers too, like connection quality and skill. So inevitably, you are not always going to get a match that's perfect on all fronts - for instance I would rather the game place me into a lobby with a good connection, but against a party, than a match that placed me into a game of solo queuers where I didn't have a good connection. Filling the empty slots is also a necessity of the current system, so you're going to be thrown against parties as a solo queuer quite often when that occurs, but your team is also likely to be a party themselves, so it's not exactly unfair.
I think it's also true that for many people the issues also relate to a external locus of control - where certain people like to externalize their issues to something beyond their control, or beyond the control of their associated team mates. Players often see an opposing team that are performing slightly better, coordinating a little better as a team, and then it's automatically assumed that they're a complete party of 5, because it's easier to place responsibility for your loses on matchmaking, your team mates, or the opposition, than it is on you and your team as a collective. In many instances I have joined a random group of players who ended up being co-operative, following one another around as a team, and I imagine to the other team, it would have looked like we were a pre-made party.
For the most part however, the matches I get when I solo queue, are the easiest I've ever had. Matches where one team of uncooperative rabble faces off against another team of uncooperative rabble. I often lose this games even when finishing with scores like 20-1, but at the same time one has to accept that their influence on a team is only 20%, so I understand when losses occur as my team as a collective, was not as good as the opposition. That's the inevitable consequence of not hand selecting your team mates. That's for unranked however, as for ranked, of course, if you solo queue you will get matched against parties. Because most people that want to perform well are going to intentionally form a group of coordinating players to do so, therefore it's quite likely that some form of party outweighs the solo queue population in this playlist.
However, that doesn't mean that splitting ranked between parties and solo's is a good option. As I say, that would mean that all parties would need to go into a match with a fully stocked team, otherwise the singular empty slots would not be filled. At the same time, it would most likely see a return of the extreme matchmaking times that featured in TLOU. Instead, I would suggest that if you want to be competitive in a team based game, you either accept the fact that you only influence a fraction of performance outcome of your individual team and therefore, will inevitably lose frequently against better performing teams, or you make an effort to control that variance by intentionally grouping and cooperating with like-minded team mates.
In the end, it is a team game, so you shouldn't come across as shocked that your team of uncoordinated randoms are losing a larger proportion of games than coordinated teams, whether that's the result of those team being pre-made or otherwise. If it were easy to simply solo queue and obtain master rank then what would be the point in the party playlist where the level of play would be inevitably higher? Either way, I do think it's likely that we will see any changes in the party or solo restrictions, and I think some people asking for those changes neglect some practical considerations. It's my opinion that if you feel that the game is miss-matching you into too many unbalanced games then you should be calling for better filtering of the matchmaking algorithms, and not a binary segregation of parties, and solo players.
If you have been suffering with ranked solo queue and are confident in your abilities on the game, then I'd be happy to team up and help anyone progress with their ranking.
TimeEffect
Member
Does any other game have a currency limit like ND does?
Been this way since Uncharted tbh. I would say it was worse back then when I was a rank IX or something and everyone else was lower double digits like 20-30 vs. Double roman numerals and XXX's.
TimeEffect
Member
I don't remember lou matchmaking taking long at all. Im talking just a few months back. At least on PS4
I think LoU got it right by not having ranked. Ranked makes matchmaking even harder
I really think they need to trash ranked and give us a no parties TDM at least
Ideally the playlists should be:
Solo TDM
Competitive TDM (parties allowed)
Command
Plunder
Team Objective
Can someone just tell me what the appeal of ranked is? Besides playing the ranking system? I dont believe at all that it makes games more competitive. Ive played lots of competitive matches outside ranked
I just dont think it fits uncharted
I think LoU got it right by not having ranked. Ranked makes matchmaking even harder
I really think they need to trash ranked and give us a no parties TDM at least
Ideally the playlists should be:
Solo TDM
Competitive TDM (parties allowed)
Command
Plunder
Team Objective
Can someone just tell me what the appeal of ranked is? Besides playing the ranking system? I dont believe at all that it makes games more competitive. Ive played lots of competitive matches outside ranked
I just dont think it fits uncharted
RyanardoDaVinci
Member
This game is the garbagiest garbage that was ever garbaged.
All the new stuff doesn't even make me want to play anymore. Nerfing scores so leveling takes for-fucking-ever, me + 4 schmucks vs party of tryhards, bullshit spawns, bullshit bots, bullshit magic, bullshit down/revive, lol-inducing relic earnings and costs, pallet-swap "new" skins, same map re-skinned 9 times...
I think I'll just complete the daily challenge and turn it off.
Hope they don't fuck up co-op too much.
All the new stuff doesn't even make me want to play anymore. Nerfing scores so leveling takes for-fucking-ever, me + 4 schmucks vs party of tryhards, bullshit spawns, bullshit bots, bullshit magic, bullshit down/revive, lol-inducing relic earnings and costs, pallet-swap "new" skins, same map re-skinned 9 times...
I think I'll just complete the daily challenge and turn it off.
Hope they don't fuck up co-op too much.
Chronospherics
Member
I guess some mobile games and such probably do, not sure.
Games like Overwatch and Battleborn don't but it's not at all easy to unlock all of the base content, and in Battleborn's case, there's always more to spend your currency on in an effort to get better rolls on your gear and whatnot. In UC4 the core content ran out and they were worried people would stack so many relics that they would not need to play the game anymore to unlock all of the upcoming content.
I think the cap makes less sense with this update though, since people aren't likely to run out of things to unlock when they cost 3,000 each. But at the same time, aside from glitching on the app for infinite relics, not a lot of people are likely to hit the cap.
TimeEffect
Member
Fuck off with tdm spawning
I swear to god that enemies spawn within line of sight
Just shot a guy and I swear his teammate spawned right near him, literally 1 second away from line of sight of me
I feel like spawns are hot garbage and need to seriously be addressed.
I swear to god that enemies spawn within line of sight
Just shot a guy and I swear his teammate spawned right near him, literally 1 second away from line of sight of me
I feel like spawns are hot garbage and need to seriously be addressed.
Negotiator
Member
Team Objective should replace Command. No need to have both modes.
@Chronospherics
You've nailed it. I wish more people thought of the practical consequences...
Chronospherics
Member
I don't generally have any issue with spawns on this game but there are places you can position your team so that you can see the enemy team spawning.
Scottland has this issue very evident in Command, as it spawns people outdoors at the lower portions of the map. If you occupy both cliffsides then it does not provide the enemy team with any opportunity to spawn without being seen as they spawn.
Still pretty difficult to abuse it though. If it were Call of Duty then it would be more of a problem but the higher time to kill her means that the spawning player has chance to react before being killed. Wave spawning also helps.
They should fix it though, they need to pull the spawn back a little to the construction building (with scaffolding and stuff), instead of the outside...
PackAPunchedMick
Member
I cannot fucking believe sony cheaped out on dedicated servers in their biggest title yet, the latency this game has is some last, last gen shit. Goddamn it.
Getting shot in cover or 4 feet around a corner is fuckin infuriating.
Getting shot in cover or 4 feet around a corner is fuckin infuriating.
Chronospherics
Member
That's more of an issue of tickrate, not latency. If it had dedicated servers it could still have a 15 tick rate and you would experience the same thing.
For now, since dedicated servers and a higher tick rate are presumably out of the question, the best bet would be just to increase the tick rate to 30, similar to what Call of Duty players experience.
RyanardoDaVinci
Member
Spawns are terrible and make flanking pretty much useless.
Flank, kill one guy, kill another, get shot in the back by the first guy you killed because he spawned 30ft from where he died. Happens multiple times, every match.
I've also been in a shootout with a single person only to have their teammate spawn within 20ft of them, completely visible to me, so I know he didn't just run in from somewhere.
TimeEffect
Member
I think Command is too solid of a mode to put into team objective
A standars game of turf war/domination would be what I expect in Team Objective
I feel like TDM spawns are way too funneled, for lack of a better word. I think the fact that you can see enemy players as you spawn makes it obvious.
TimeEffect
Member
Yeah this is easily provable when you spawn near teammates and see the enemy outline so close by. I feel as if the map design is too simple for it to be fixed
Compare this to some UC2 maps, like Plaza, that had some very safe spawns around the perimeter
Yet people were still able to camp those spawns and manipulate where someone could spawn as a result. It's funny you made mention to Plaza because it was one of the most broken maps for it as a result and you could literally get shot at on spawn.
Spawns have always been an issue, it's not something new to the franchise with this instalment.
Negotiator
Member
15 Hz is definitely last-gen. Still waiting for ND to chime in...
http://feedback.naughtydog.com/foru...97-getting-shot-around-walls-and-behind-cover
TimeEffect
Member
Maybe so, but maps like Plaza could have improved spawns judging by the map design being more complicated
In UC4, I cant see how most maps can improve since so much of it is either flat, or lacks any real zones that feel reasonably away from immediate enemy contact
TimeEffect
Member
Can we do something here? It feels inexcusable and insulting
Negotiator
Member
Maybe if it gets 100+ votes, like the white plug one...
Popular YouTubers (TW, RG etc.) could also make relevant videos to raise awareness.
Chalupa Batman
Member
130k in four days works a lot better than your pure speculation. If you believe that any significant portion of those numbers are people making 10 PSN accounts and playing for 2-3 hours, never to touch the game again, once again, that's on you. Most reasonable people wouldn't make that argument. Also, the same could apply to TLoU's "numbers" that you showed in the tweet. And since we don't have any numbers, UC3 being pretty close to PS3 TLoU at 4:00 on the chart doesn't help your case. That's a 2.5-year-old F2P game keeping pace with a 13-month-old game. Worse, a remastered version on launch day beat out a year-old game that sold to a 2.5x higher install base. That doesn't bode well for TLoU being more popular than Uncharted.
As for the emotional comment, I literally said it was a guess and provided my personal anecdotal experience. Not sure what the issue is there as that's as valid as anything you've been posting. No actual numbers until your last post, which doesn't help your point at all as I've just proven.
Define good connection? As long as we're not talking noticeable lag/white plug, which I haven't experienced too much of, then I, as a 90% solo player, would strongly prefer to be matched against other solo players.
As for the external factors syndrome, you're not wrong, but I can tell you that before the most recent update this was not a problem. My win % was 70% and I play solo 90% of the time. My stats were 12/12/5 (and this was with bugged stats so they were probably better). I only noticed this last night, and I was doing Mine challenges and using a Para-only loadout, which is not how I normally play, so that may have caused my frustration. We'll see how it goes today with my normal routine. But from the games I played yesterday it was a noticeably worse experience for me. If you are still finishing 20-1 with the new update, that's fine, but I was a bit humbled yesterday so we'll see how it goes today.
The part I bolded and the section that follows is interesting to me. Skipping around a bit, but I have had significantly more success ranking up in Ranked by playing solo than I did while playing in a full party. Mostly because when I'm in a full party I'm usually paired with other good teammates so my personal stats suffer and I'm less effective overall. But as a solo player I am usually in first, rarely second, and I find that even if we lose I have more fun playing, if that makes sense, because it feels like I'm contributing more.
As for the bolded part, I believe that parties should only be able to play against parties. There's such a huge advantage playing in a party that it doesn't matter if you go 20-1 solo because your teammates usually can't assist you enough to make a difference. That's why TLoU's split worked so well for me; it eliminated the worry that I'll be matched against a full party and made the game entirely skill-dependent. It's a lot more fun that way. I have no idea what percentage of people in MP games go in solo versus with parties (whether 2, 3, 4, or 5), but all things considered, a team with parties will have the advantage in any given match. Usually it's not close.