APB: Finally, I Can Be A PUNK!

[Shatter]

I will insert the typical "all of that should of been done before launch" speech

[Sky]

One of the root causes of shoddy driving is digital control. I'm not sure what the modeling issues beyond that are, because I couldn't get beyond using a keyboard to turn and accelerate. There is no real-world analog (hurk) for such silliness. Of course, then you have the issue of the gamepad being superior for driving and mouse superior for aiming, I don't see a way around that limitation, since GTA uses lock-on targeting. Either you get a console shooter or crappy driving.

Anyway, given the comments by players thus far, I'm bowing out of the thread, all interest in this game is long gone.

[Threash]

After about two hours of the beta event i stopped thinking there was anything wrong with the driving.

[Mrbloodworth]

After about two hours of the beta event i stopped thinking there was anything wrong with the driving.

I am fine with it to, but being a bit tighter can't hurt I suppose. The worst offenders are the little GEO compact cars, but I always figured that was a settings thing, not a system thing.

[WayAbvPar]

I will insert the typical "all of that should of been done before launch" speech

Considering all that was brought up months before release, I am inclined to agree with you.

[TripleDES]

One of the root causes of shoddy driving is digital control. I'm not sure what the modeling issues beyond that are, because I couldn't get beyond using a keyboard to turn and accelerate. There is no real-world analog (hurk) for such silliness.

Too bad you can't user define the vehicle controls. I'd like to assign my Logitech wheel to APB for shit and giggles. Not that I expect it to improve my driving, seeing how wonky the car physics are.

APB doth speak:

About time they do something against cheaters. It's slowly getting ridiculous.

[Kageru]

A statement of an intent to do something and actually doing something are pretty different things. And playing around with some mechanic where false positives can ban paying users is definitely something to do in beta. As is most of the rest of it really.

Still, their only salvation might be the billing model they've selected. Since there is a non subscription option people may be more likely to come back and try it out again.

[Azazel]

 

[TripleDES]

A statement of an intent to do something and actually doing something are pretty different things. And playing around with some mechanic where false positives can ban paying users is definitely something to do in beta. As is most of the rest of it really.

PB went nuts during beta, kept kicking pretty much anyone. It was disabled then and not re-enabled anymore. Maybe they've finally tracked down the issue.

[Mrbloodworth]

So, before we start talking about what the problems are with matchmaking and how we solve them, let''s talk about what it''s supposed to do. At its core, the purpose of the matchmaking system is to find groups of players of as close to equivalent skill as possible and send them to oppose each other. Simples. The system looks at the relative Threat level of each group or individual available to join a match, applies various modifiers such as whether it''s a single established group or a ''metagroup'' of disparate individuals, and then goes through a series of passes, first of all looking for a straight match, then beginning to include metagroups, and finally considering the same opposition as the previous match as a last resort. Eventually it comes up with what it considers the ''best fit'' for the mission-owning team and sends out Dispatch invites to all concerned to come and join the party. If it can''t find any matchup within the bounds of what is considered an acceptable match, it simply leaves the mission team unopposed and tries again 15 seconds later.

So what''s going wrong?
Simply put, not everybody who''s invited to the party decides to show up. In fact, we''re seeing a much higher decline rate for Dispatches and Calls for Backup than we expected. In a nutshell, this is how so many ''broken'' matches end up being made. That 1v4 match that you''re in was probably supposed to be 5v4 or maybe even 6v4, but everyone else declined and you were left all on your ownsome.

So why does it happen?
There seem to be two main reasons (although no doubt there are more). First, there are the stat chasers. These tend to be higher skill players and clanners who are chasing league wins and trying to protect their stats in those categories. This leads to a lot of cherry-picking of Dispatches as these players try to avoid matches against other highly skilled players or refuse Calls for Backup to avoid ending up with mission losses caused by the other players in the mission. Now not all league chasers want to play that way, but the fact that a few do means that everyone has to, to avoid being at a disadvantage. Next, we have the simple fear factor. Very often when Dispatch offers go out against a high threat group, the majority of players see the threat levels of the opposition and just chicken out, leaving those plucky souls who decide to give it a go all alone to face the music. And of course it then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - the guys who gave it a go last time only to be hammered because no-one else showed up are less likely to say yes next time, and so it goes on. Call for Backup also suffers in the same way - people see high threat opposition and know that whoever is in the mission is probably already getting thrashed, and decide to leave them to their fate. Now it doesn''t happen all the time, but it happens enough for it to make the player experience of matchmaking nothing like the one that the system was built to provide.

So what do we do about it?
Well, one school of thought is that we remove the human element altogether. When players enter the district, they''re ''Off Duty'' or ''unavailable'' or however you want to think about it. Once they''re done with checking mail or sorting their inventory, they hit a key and switch to ''On Duty''. From that point on, they are at the beck and call of their Organisation, and the matchmaking system decides who goes where and does what. Participation in individual missions is no longer a choice. Your Organisation is sending you to do a job, so get with the programme. After the mission, if you need to get more ammo or respawn your vehicle, just flip back to ''Off Duty'' and nobody will bother you until you''re ready to go again.

So what does that gain us?
Well, first of all, cherry-picking goes away. Noob-farming and artificially protecting win:loss ratios becomes a much more difficult proposition for stat-chasers, and all clans or league participants are in the same boat, so no-one is at a disadvantage. Leagues become more a true test of skill, since every player has to make the best of the situation that the system puts them in, rather than picking and choosing what they consider easier matches. Next, fear factor is no longer an issue, since everyone who needs to be part of the mission will be added to it. There''s always the possibility that people might just choose not to turn up even though they''re part of the mission, but side leaders have the option to kick non-participants and generate an automatic CFB to plug the gap. Overall it''s bound to be a better experience for all to get rid of badly mismatched missions. This approach also lets us see just how well (or not) the actual matchmaking algorithm is working and allows us to tweak it (and bugfix it) and see the results - the actual effectiveness of the existing system is currently being obfuscated by the factors I''ve mentioned above.

Along with this we''d need to make a few more changes. First, we would have to prevent players being added to matches in the final stage with only seconds to go (that''s a change we intend to make anyway), since no-one wants to be forced to join a mission where they have no chance to influence the outcome. Next, we would have to add a universal cooldown timer to make sure that players don''t end up being put into back-to-back missions without the chance to go ''Off Duty'' if they need to. To maximise the size of the matchmaking pool, we''re also currently experimenting with removing system-generated bounty missions, stopping criminal vs criminal matchmaking, and increasing the number of players per instance.

We''re also currently considering some fundamental changes to how Threat works in conjunction with matchmaking to ease new players in more gently and provide high threat players with a much more challenging experience. This would mean a whole different play experience for the teams at the top, with the system pushing back harder and harder as they try to break the bell curve to become the dominant force in the game. On the flip side, newbs who are really struggling would get a little extra help to prevent APB from being a really depressing experience.

So that''s our current thinking. There are other approaches we could take, but this seems like the one which best tackles the current problem. That''s not to say this is a done deal - that''s why we''re posting this ahead of time.

So give us your thoughts on what I''ve said here, ask any questions you have, mention any edge-cases that you think need considered, and we''ll do our best to think things through together with you to see if this is the right way to go.

Link to current feedback thread.

[Shatter]

Two words:  Open Beta

[tazelbain]

People just behave differently when they know their characters will wiped.

[Mrbloodworth]

Two words:  Open Beta

Would not have helped. It was adjusted before already.

[Margalis]

Before release they touted matchmaking as one of the standout features.

[UnSub]

As the feedback thread indicates, it needs a bit more thought. Players could flip from on- to off-duty quickly to avoid missions they don't want, or simply not show up, so there needs to be penalties / restrictions to avoid that kind of thing. Plus it appears that threat level and actual player ability still don't share that great of a positive correlation.

And yes, this is another case of players switching mindsets from beta ("who cares, the character is deleted anyway") to launch ("this is for realz, y0").

[Hoax]

Two words:  Open Beta

Would not have helped. It was adjusted before already.

  I think he might have been saying you paid $50 and are being asked to pay a sub on top for an open beta where core systems don't work for shit yet, really the telling part is the "oh you know when you get put into a mission that is already over? We meant to fix that a long time ago but thought you should pay for the game first". RTW continues to show just how bad at all of this they are.

[Kageru]

Beta also means you don't suffer when you get unexpected side effects from what seemed like a positive change. For example the current system gives people some freedom to avoid broken, unpopular missions and exploiting players. Make their participation automatic and mandatory (since it needs something like a "deserter" debuff) and the quality of the average game experience could easily drop.

[Shatter]

Two words:  Open Beta

Would not have helped. It was adjusted before already.

A well orchestrated OB should catch major game flaws and they should be fixed before they go live.  APB is another example of a game where OB clearly did not catch these issues or it did and they still launched anyhow *shrugs*.  These 2 to 3 week OB's we have seen lately just dont cut it

[Mrbloodworth]

Two words:  Open Beta

Would not have helped. It was adjusted before already.

A well orchestrated OB should catch major game flaws and they should be fixed before they go live.  APB is another example of a game where OB clearly did not catch these issues or it did and they still launched anyhow *shrugs*.  These 2 to 3 week OB's we have seen lately just dont cut it

Its a 100% PvP game, human element is a key factor. Its a bit different then your regular PvE games. I can't think of a single PvP game, especially in the shooter department, where if it had a match maker, it did not need adjustment once the real playerbase showed up. This happens to be a bit more unique, due the the fact its all real time, and things like missions can already be in progress. Its closer to the L4D director, than it is a pure pre-match match maker, but it uses other players not NPC's, its also extremely dynamic in nature.

Anyway, this is a case of things that would not have been seen in beta. Like others have said, things like leagues now "matter", in the open beta I don't think many cared about it due to the impending wipe.

I hope they can make it more reliable, I personally am not sure I enjoy the idea of not being able to choose the missions or dispatches I go on. Kind of on the fence about that. I had suggested they increase the amount of info given in mission offers, currently they only show the threat rating of the opposition.

Something like my 2 min mock up:

[Lantyssa]

You're just being an apologist.  Again.

They fucked up.  We already know they did.  Why continue jumping in front of the firing squad?  They're using N-TECs, so they'll get all of you anyways.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing games on this site. APB has a rather unique matching system. I don't see where I apologized about anything.

[Chinchilla]

I have to agree with Mrbloodworth.  I actually like your mockup you made as well.  It is way too hard to balance things like that during beta because I know for a fact during beta I was doing "Aw what the fuck why not" missions just to explore and experiment with the game (which is what beta is about).  But now that its live I am a little more picky and decline missions when during beta I accepted anything that popped up.

If you guys who are commenting aren't playing the game right now then you wouldn't know what we are talking about.  And I don't count just being a beta player as playing the entire game.  I've played countless betas, but everyone knows that the dynamic of EVERY game changes once its released.  Since the dynamic changes... the game also has to change to evolve w/ this new dynamic.

[Kageru]

I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing games on this site. APB has a rather unique matching system. I don't see where I apologized about anything.

I think we more discuss game mechanics as pro or negative zealotry is equally pointless? Such as the idea that doing balanced team building from a population of less than 80 people in the zone (in practice much less as most of those should be busy and zones are rarely going to be fully populated) when you have substantial differences in character power is an inherently flawed concept. It will always be inferior to a lobby based system which can draw re-inforcements from a much larger pool of people who have made themselves available. Especially when you consider that a decent number of people are going to be looking for group invites only.

I also find it hard to believe that the signs of this issue were invisible during the beta test. The idea the developers spent all of their time working on shiny so they could sell boxes and left worrying about gameplay to later on the other hand is easily believable.

[LK]

Joining a game in progress and being held accountable for everything that happened before you joined doesn't sit well with most people. See: Planetside, another game you love but can be hell on certain people.

[Lantyssa]

I also find it hard to believe that the signs of this issue were invisible during the beta test. The idea the developers spent all of their time working on shiny so they could sell boxes and left worrying about gameplay to later on the other hand is easily believable.

It wasn't invisible.

[Mrbloodworth]

I don't believe this topic is aimed at the power imbalances, just the numbers and threat level matching thats being affected by participation. The power imbalances I assume are going to be addressed by the combat changes (I hope).

I know personally that I have been rejecting more and more missions and types after launch than I did in open beta, just the other night our group rejected strings of bounty calls for the same group of players over and over again, some of us detest some mission types as well as are very leery of accepting back up calls, because we dont know what stage they are on. I have taken a few myself where the clock had about 2 min left, and could do nothing to affect the outcome.

So yes, player behavior changed, anyone playing can probably agree about that.

If you read the article, they have a number of ideas to try, including increasing the pool. I still very much enjoy the dynamic nature of the matchmaking system, and its a different beast in practice than lobby systems, it creates much more exciting encounters (Like I said I see it more akin to L4D director than pure match making), I rather enjoy it that way, so I hope they can figure out a decent solution. The noob (tier zones) should help a bit too.

Joining a game in progress and being held accountable for everything that happened before you joined doesn't sit well with most people. See: Planetside, another game you love but can be hell on certain people.

Absolutely. Though, you have a bit more freedom in that title as to who, when, where and what.

[Threash]

The bounty/escape missions just really suck.  I wish i had the option to turn them down as a criminal.  They last the longest of any mission and the rewards are incredibly low, not to mention they are the most tedious as they are usually just driving around for the full timer.  Also the penalties are retarded, i get penalized for jumping of ledges, for being SHOT AT, for lightly bumping the rail on the highway, but a head on crash does nothing.

[statisticalfool]

What about backup's and other mid-mission pull in using a teleport? It doesn't even need to be (too) immersion breaking: when you accept the mission, you fade out from where you are, and fade back in in your vehicle, coming in on a street pretty close by. (or on foot, or whatever)

I know, I know, sense of place and all that. But it's not like where you are actually matters: it's not like they can pull you away from some territory that you're holding down or something. So the requirement of: "you have to travel to the mission" at best is a timesink, and at worst, just a frustration/matchmaking confidence killer as you get placed into missions you can't affect.

Or they could add more reasons to care about where you are in the district, territory control, give a viable sense of a front in the war on crims. But that's kind of out of scope at this point.

[Mrbloodworth]

What about backup's and other mid-mission pull ins using a teleport?

They said they are already removing that possibility, regardless of the outcome of the match making changes.

First, we would have to prevent players being added to matches in the final stage with only seconds to go (that''s a change we intend to make anyway), since no-one wants to be forced to join a mission where they have no chance to influence the outcome.

No one really has an issue I think with mid mission pull in (missions have 3-7 stages where objective locations and game type change randomly), its the ones where you are at the finial stage thats an issue.

Territory control is supposedly coming in the next zone, where criminals (clans) fight over positions and enforcers are caught in the middle.

[WayAbvPar]

I will give RTW credit for one thing- they somehow made their game induce Stockholm Syndrome on many of its players. Bully for them, I guess.

[LK]

Not hard when you can customize your avatar to that degree. I became very attached to my blue-haired petite punk Asian gang banger.

[HaemishM]

I will give RTW credit for one thing- they somehow made their game induce Stockholm Syndrome on many of its players. Bully for them, I guess.

MMOG'ers are the battered wives of the video games industry.

[Threash]

I will give RTW credit for one thing- they somehow made their game induce Stockholm Syndrome on many of its players. Bully for them, I guess.

Is it that hard to believe the game even with all its flaws is actually fun as hell?  I mean even the lowest scoring reviews have said that.

[Mrbloodworth]

The most common criticisms we see regarding vehicle handling are that vehicles are too unresponsive (laggy) and that they tend to slide around more than a lot of people are comfortable with.

So let me just clarify a couple of points. First off, there is definitely a learning curve to the vehicle handling in the game. Driving in APB is a skill, and something which people definitely get better at with practice. In many ways, that's not a bad thing, since it gives players who get good at driving a role to fulfil in groups as wheelmen and getaway drivers. That said, we don't want that to mean that a large proportion of the players have a bad experience driving around in APB. Everybody needs to be able to get from A to B in one piece.

The other thing to remember is that with APB being an online game, latency is always going to be an issue. If we tighten up the handling too much, people with bad latency problems will find themselves turning 90 degrees every time they touch a key because by the time the keypress and release make the trip to the server and back, the wheels have slammed all the way to the lock position.

So, all that having been said, we've already spent a considerable amount of time working on a revamp of vehicle handling which makes the majority of vehicles in the game much more responsive accelerating, braking and steering. Vehicles are largely more stable now too, as well as more maneuverable. A few of the vehicles we've left a little more challenging (but rewarding) for players who like the current system and enjoy handbrake cornerning and powersliding, but there's now enough of a choice to hopefully let everyone find something that suits their style. The weights of several vehicles have been increased to make them behave much more in line with how they look (most notably the Pioneer). In our internal tests we've had an overwhelmingly positive response to the changes, and our hope is to roll these out to PTW shortly to get your feedback too.

Linky.

[Shatter]

I will give RTW credit for one thing- they somehow made their game induce Stockholm Syndrome on many of its players. Bully for them, I guess.

Is it that hard to believe the game even with all its flaws is actually fun as hell?  I mean even the lowest scoring reviews have said that.

STO was also fun for abour 2 weeks, but as you know that doesnt mean shit.  The question is always about retention...will APB retain subs after 1 month?  3 months?  I know a lot of people dont care and are happy with a $50 game purchase and getting 2 weeks of enterainment out of it...I personally consider that a failure if its an "MMO".  I believe everyone here who says they are having fun are having fun, but how many of these people will pay a monthly sub?